FCC loses ruling :(




yes i am aware of all of what you described but on the surface it sounds so ridiculous to oppose. I would actually like to hear a logical argument for why net neutrality ‘shouldnt’ be a thing.

basically, i dont trust the news so i cannot tell if the general sentiment is genuine or not.


Why do you need a sentiment? Read the facts and make a decision


i have read a fair bit about it. again, on the surface i totally understand the uproar. i just feel like i must be missing something and i like to try and find the best counter-argument possible and weigh the stronger arguments for and against before chosing a position.

in this case, there doesnt seem to really be a strong case against net neutrality which is all the more reason why i am trying to seek it out.

same with the paris accord, for example, where on the surface it seemed silly to back out of it… then after reading it it made much more sense and backing out of it, in my opinion, was the better case.

but again, there is no cohesive argument to oppose net neutrality being discussed anywhere, but there must be one for it to have got to this point.

Is the end game here really just so that the telecoms can package the internet as they do cable TV by bundling web-sites into groups they can charge more for, or change the speeds etc. etc.?


I’ve been thinking about this and if I care enough to write in to a senator or someone, I don’t think I do.

Isn’t getting rid of net neutrality the basis of free/open commerce? Just because the internet has been freely accessible forever doesn’t mean that it’s supposed to be that way nor does it mean that’s best in the long run. People will vote with their feet if they don’t like the price/value.

An argument to that would be most people don’t have a choice of isp, I think we should fix that problem and let the market decide what’s things cost.

Or maybe I’ve misunderstood the few discussions and comments I’ve skimmed on nyspeed and reddit. ¯_(ツ)_/¯


Here’s an example of a mobile plan in Portugal where they don’t have to follow net neutrality. Pretty fucking awful. These are all add-ons in addition to the monthly service fee.


that’s fucked up.

i guess i’m just concerned that there appears to be only one side of the argument on this. the telecoms are not funding a counter-narrative or explaining themselves and their motivations.

a post-net-neutrality world would be veeery different and more expensive for all of us.

i dont think this applies to me but i am sure that if the US dismantled it and the telecomes made a lot more money that Canada would follow suit.

No wonder the FAANG boys are opposed to this.

This seemed to have been coming well before Trump though. I expect him to cave to the public-sentiment and swoop in to save the us all :slight_smile:


Oh really, @Joe ? They don’t have to follow net neutrality? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/policies/open-internet-net-neutrality Come on, you’re smarter than buying hivemind bullshit.

All of the Euro follows net neutrality laws. This is a net neutrality compliant plan. It zero-rates certain services so that it doesn’t go toward your bandwidth limits. All of those sites are accessible to you at all times, they just count toward your mobile data plan data usage.

That Portugal thing is annoying, sorry.

The only way to solve this problem is through legislation. Otherwise you’re going to see the FCC rules change every time we have a presidential party change. FCC rules are not the right place to implement regulations. I also STILL think that title 2 reclassification is a a bandaid way to fix a problem that’s caused by lack of competition.


You mean having the duly elected representatives craft a law that is then signed by the executive and reviewed by the judicial? Preposterous. It’s far better to have a political patronage dumping ground like the FCC handled it.


Because the argument isn’t for or against net neutrality; it’s over how net neutrality is achieved & maintained.

Clearly the idea net neutrality is a good thing. But it has been presented by most people as a black & white issue; do it this way and ONLY this way or it’s the end of the internet.

Keep in mind that those on the political left see the government as their infallible savior and the ultimate arbitrator of good and evil. So if you’re against something the government wants to do, or against a government solution to problem, you are also evil. Those on the political right acknowledge a problem (in this case more of a potential problem) but see solutions that might not involve a specific form of government intervention.

The left also is starting to view the internet as a public utility (like sending a letter though the mail) and those on political right hate that idea for many reasons. Giving the FCC Title II control over the web is seen by some as a step in that direction.

… the telecoms are not funding a counter-narrative

Telling isn’t it? Add Google, etc into the mix as well. The simple answer is if the internet becomes a public utility, then public (taxpayer) money will be given to them to build out their infrastructure, etc.

They’re keeping quite because they want that government cheddah!


Here are some other opinions below:

Ajit Pai is actually his best defender. I’ll post Pai’s whole response here because it’s behind a pay wall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fcc-can-save-the-open-internet-1511281099?shareToken=stfce76b60cd1b419a95b8598eff 24dd79&reflink=article_email_share

Now if you want to hear the far-right view of the FCC’s version of net neutrality, this is a quick video. Keep in mind it’s from 2015:

Note the internet didn’t end after 2015 either, lol.


If anyone wants to read some backstory on the entire Netflix/Comcast situation, you can read that here: https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

Spoiler Alert: Netflix did everything in their power to pay LESS for interconnection to ISPs, even though their traffic accounts for 30% of the entirety of Internet traffic. And remember, the onslaught of streaming services account for 70+% of all Internet traffic.


It’s trickle-down internet. give the ISPs control to charge whoever whatever they want, and I’m sure they’ll do the right thing by the consumer. if not, the consumer can pick a different ISP on the free market, right?

My sympathy for ISPs would be higher if they stopped trying to use regulation to block competition such as municipal ISPs etc.

they want it both ways, and the consumer loses each time


I think we can all agree that changing the FCC rules back & forth based on party in power is shitty.

But if we go through the legislature, consider the process. The ISP’s, Google’s, etc’s lobbyists are going to effectively write the legislation. Politicians themselves don’t know enough of the details and they’ll vote for whoever pressures or “pays” them the most.

So would that be better or worse for consumers?

… I also STILL think that title 2 reclassification is a a bandaid way to fix a problem that’s caused by lack of competition.

It could be argued that the current lack of competition exists because of government intervention and regulation to begin with… but I need to go to lunch, lol.


I’ll say if they start charging me for stupid shit I’ll just dump the service. For example if I ever have to pay for facebook… it’s gone.


oh don’t worry. your ISP will offer you a free alternative which they own. nothing anti-competitive there.

The other big problem is that ISP have been avoiding upgrading to make profits and build an anti-neutrality argument. Stuff like this also: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/you-have-been-charged-tho_b_6306360.html


I think we can all agree that there are many factors.

IMO, it’s more than likely that it just doesn’t pay well enough to put wires in the ground anymore. And by the time you finish rolling out the next big thing, the next bigger thing is right around the corner.

      • Updated - - -

Exactly what people don’t get.

Do you guys remember the outrage over whether or not Facebook would charge for access? Facebook will become a virtual ghost-town if ISPs charge extra for access. Same goes for any of the commodity web services out there.

And don’t forget, obfuscation techniques will also come into play. Can’t throttle or block a website that you can’t identify.


This is a really complex issue that most people crying about it have 0 understanding of


Exactly. And I really am not very knowledgable on these things myself, but I’m seeing GOBS of mis-information being spread around reddit and facebook.


The primary reason this is even an issue is because most ISPs are cable companies…People cancel cable subscriptions buy NetFlix/Hulu/etc who then consume all kinds of bandwidth because its not multicast like cable networks are.

Now ISPs are forced to cover all the infrastructure costs associated with that.

People keep talking about ISPs inserting ads and spying on customer data…Good luck with that every site that already isn’t over SSL will be in the next few years. Beyond that sites can be hosted in all kinds of places Amazon/Google/Cloudflare or various CDNs like Akamai which makes the proposition of ISPs blocking random sites nearly impossible.

It’s amazing the internet survived prior to 2015 when this suddenly became a political issue :lol: :lol:


Internet becomes a public utility -> ISPs get taxpayer money to grow infrastructure -> taxpayer money is a political issue.