The FCC just voted to repealed net neutrality. Internet providers can now speed up, slow down or block service for apps and websites. Well. That's great. (Sarcasm)
This is really just about greed; it is very sad the world revolves around money so much. — I highly recommend talking to your parents/guardians about the Congressional Review Act - it allows the repeal of a decision made within a federal agency, as long as it passes in 60 days afterward. https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Infuriating. I agree, Abbzy, and I'll try to do that. I hope in the end, it's repealed - Disgusting how these ISP's like Comcast control our Internet.
Agreed How did we even get to this point? Isn't it obvious that close to nobody wants Net Neutrality to go away?
So, I'm not really on The Sandlot anymore, but I think this needs to be said. The FCC just voted to repeal it, which we already knew would happen. Congress needs to vote on it before it can pass. Please please, contact your representatives. Or ask your parents too. You see see who is on which side here. https://www.battleforthenet.com/scoreboard/
I think Net Neutrality is great and im all for it but im going to point out that when net neutrality wasnt here a few years ago the world didnt end. Sandlot and everything else was still here. We are going to be fine either way is the point. Net neutrality was created in 2015 and sandlot was sure around before 2015.
You do have a point, and I was thinking the same thing. At times, I would think something like wait a minute, wasn't this put in place like 2 years ago? I'm still a bit nervous about it going away, though.
At the same time, the Internet was created like, what, 20 years ago? The concept of a...Whatever the opposite of net neutrality is, the ISP's-control-Internet-Usage-Basically thing that's currently happening, was probably foreign and not thought of. This time, the companies are most definitely going to manipulate and control our Internet. Sorry if this is weirdly worded/confusing.
The main problem people have with repealing Net Neutrality is that the big companies will be able to slow down, speed up, or charge extra for online services. For example, lets say you watch a lot of youtube and internet provider is Verizon. Theoretically, Verizon could make their own platform similar to youtube. They could then charge any amount they want for the new platform. They would also be able to SLOW DOWN youtube for their users to make it less functional and slower, basically forcing you to pay money to them if you want to use something similar to youtube effectively, and you'll still lose a lot of access to whatever content you were previously consuming.
One of the most important protections which is part of net neutrality was in place since 2010. More importantly, the FCC had a track record of consistently pursuing bad actors. They're almost certainly not going to be doing that now. For reference, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...EA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet. I think Rmicky understands what net neutrality is; reiterating that doesn't address his point in anyway. In my opinion, net neutrality is really a smaller part of a larger issue. We wouldn't need net neutrality if there were real competition in the field. Unfortunately, there isn't. 50 million americans have access to one or fewer providers of 25Mbps service - the FCC's definition of broadband. Many more have access to just two, and with the penchant telecos have for mergers right now, that may not be enough. This isn't a fluke, or due to inherent parts of the business. ISPs are the cause of this lack of competition. They lobby states and municipalities to prevent competition, and sue many small municipal ISPs. For reference: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021693332#page=1, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021693668#page=25, https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021712146.pdf#page=3. The way I see it, we're letting ISPs have their cake and eat it too. We let them lobby states, cities, and counties to ensure they have a monopoly, and we also let them lobby the feds into removing regulations. We don't need regulations like net neutrality if there's adequate competition, but we don't have adequate competition, because of ISPs. As long as many ISPs have regional monopolies, they must be regulated. Many of the opponents of net neutrality make free market arguments to support their position, and there isn't a free market, and that's the fault of the ISPs. Make sure to shut them down!
Hello guys! This comment is abou The rest of this comment has been removed by your ISP because you have not bought full comment view. Pay $50 to enable full comment view for 48 hours.
You: Cortona. Cortona: Yes? You: Start up Minecraft Some randomness: PLZ PAY $100 TO PLAY FOR 24 HOURS You: TRIGGERED
I'm just pointing out that if net neutrality was discontinued, it is doubtful that you would actually have to pay to see the rest of a message or start up Minecraft. Apart from the fact that Minecraft is an offline game (if I am understanding you correctly) and Realms and Multiplayer are the only parts (if even) would be affected by the act. It would most likely be like how you pay for a subscription or pay your bills. You pay for what you use not what you haven't yet used. However maybe you are right. It would not seem like a good solution though. This is assuming you are not joking when you are saying pay $10 to see the rest of this message.
I don't think it's likely that the ISPs will start directly charging the consumers a bunch of extra money (though they could because many have regional monopolies as SantaFe said.) A sudden increase in cost will be noticed and they risk disenfranchising their customer base. More likely, they would do more subtle, behind-the-scenes moves that they think we the people won't notice. Maybe, for example, they slow down or block streaming services like Netflix and Hulu (so people will want to go back to cable since many of the ISPs are cable companies.) Then they go to these streaming services and charge them to get their service in the "fast lane." The streaming service will then have to raise the subscription cost for their customers to offset their expenses. Then when the customers complain about the price increases, the ISPs can say, "Well we didn't raise your prices. That was the streaming service's decision. But hey, we can offer you fast, reliable cable with a special 12 month price!" Meanwhile, internet start ups and smaller companies that can't afford to pay to make themselves a priority get knocked out of the market without ever getting a chance. This may or may not happen, but it is one of several scenarios that I can envision as a possibility.
Comcast already did this! They had a long fight with netflix over additional fees to handle their traffic (when netflix was already paying for their traffic) and as a result comcast customers for months had difficulty accessing netflix services. They stop at nothing!
