Hi... Again.
It's been reported that a little known of action as a lawsuit is currently being taken and AT&T are attempting to convince their way to having the ability to slow down Internet speeds in some circumstances.
This is an action (I believe) against the FTC and or including the FCC.
Whatever (I've just got the video reports) but Ajit Pai claimed prior to this day's vote that the FTC could act where the FCC would not after net Nutrality was revoked.
Well, this news here flies in the face of his not knowing of the AT&T action.
Thanks.
1
goes to show that the government doesn't listen to the people. what percentage of voters were actually in favor of this?
4
Strange, but I really feel like I'm under attack by my government. Another solid step by the republicans to make America look more like Somalia. Most other countries will now probably just bypass the US as they redirect internet traffic. We really must look like such idiots to the world. The big laugh is when the companies like Verizon say this won't change the internet user's experience. If it won't, then why change the rules?
7
I am totally disgusted. Of course I expect from a Trump appointee to side with capital against regular folk but Mr. Pai - a republican - was originally appointed by former president Obama as commissioner of the FCC in 2012 - at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader of the US Senate.
What kind of Democrat was president Obama? A pseudo Republican? Republican lite?
No wonder the Democratic party is in such a sorry state.
So Obama hired this man. Trump promoted him.
And there goes the Internet.
People must mobilize to fight this non-sense.
4
As always, the Democrats failed to make a loud, clear case against this move. Most red state Trump supporters have no clue what they are in for now. This was the Democrats' opportunity to reclaim the populism banner and further their appeal to the mass voting populace, and again, they failed miserably.
9
My thoughts and prayers to all Trump supporters whose Netflix subscription price quadruples as a result of this decision.
5
Hey, what ever happened to those binders full of people's dissent towards the repeal. I want to see all of those, because it seems like this is one of those few times where more than ninety percent of the american population all agree on an issue.
3
Do you know the political affiliation of the ISP, who is now in control of what you will be "granted" access to ?
"Granted" is the right word here.
Before the Oligarch Crony, Ajit Pai, robbed it from us, we had every right to a Free and Open internet.
Oligarch's, like Trump, will now hold a leash around your neck as you peck at the keyboard, never knowing what they have forbidden you to see or hear.
As time goes by......
Your children will actually believe they are free. Yet they will wear the blinders from an ISP Oligarch.
The coup d'etat from the Oligarch's, is almost complete.
Just look at them. Look at their faces. They would spit on you while you lay in the gutter, One of them, (Limbaugh), has actually played the record "Ain't Got No Home" on his radio broadcasts, as he mocked the homeless.
Will they succeed ? Take everything from our land for themselves ?
We are in real trouble here. Remember, "We The People" did not elect Trump. He lost by 3,000,000 ballots to Mrs. Clinton.
4
Elimination of Net Neutrality = Corporate Fascism
9
First off, let start by saying, I rarely ever comment on public websites; but I thought I would exercise my right to Net Neutrality, while I still have it.
I hope Carr is happy with his accomplishment next time he tries to go online to buy a pair of pants he likes and can't because his internet service provider has blocked the website hahaha!
This is just another example of our politicians taking away our freedom, to benefit huge cooperations, so they can in turn fill their own pockets. Politicians always claim they want to do what's best for The People yet actions like these prove otherwise. This is not anti-regulation, this is MAXIMUM REGULATION!
1
Another nail in the coffin of free speech and our Democracy.
3
Make America Great Again? For whom?
4
I wouldn't mind being able to pay real money to creators of real content by paying subscription fees to certain websites so I may not mind paying another fee for better or faster internet. If I pay more fees, can I have an option not to see as many ads? Because I still see stupid ads on this NYT app as well. Some people pay a lot of money for unlimited data on cellphone plans. If I don't have to see as many ads on the internet, I would love to have that even with some fees. Most websites are filled with too many ads that ruin the internet experience anyways. Everyone pays money for many stuff including TV channels. I have to pay to buy a book. Is free internet really free with so many ads?
2
Next up, the privatisation of the road network?
4
This is what you get when you live in a oligarchy. The pawns in the FCC listen to their controllers, not the public at large. Democracy? What democracy?
4
No one has that kind of money to paid for any sites that we wanna use people need the internet for education purposes. They just want that money for the wall the president wants build
1
Can someone please explain to me how, as Pai argues, net neutrality stifles innovation and competition? To me it seems the opposite is true.
With net neutrality, if a broadband company improves its prices or services, more consumers will flock to it. That's the working definition of encouraging innovation and competition.
Without net neutrality, broadbands can charge content providers for faster pipes, and only an idiot (or a Republican) can believe the they will pass on that extra money to consumers. It will go to execs and shareholders. Meanwhile smaller content providers will be at a huge competitive disadvantage. That's the working definition of stifling innovation and competition.
Someone - anyone - please tell me where this analysis is wrong.
3
Net Nutrality wasn’t about fairness, it was simply about control/regulation of content. Progressives are losing their mind because they won’t be able to indoctrinate everyone like they do with movies, TV, etc.
Progressives may have ruined the NFL, but Trump saved the Internet. MAGA!
2
Maybe we'll find ways to fight back:
Can we get together with closest neighbors & share the higher-speed connection via wifi hotspot & divvy up the bill...
3
I just got a notice from Netflix telling me that my monthly bill is going up by a dollar (10%). It seemed to come just after the news that the Republicans have tossed the internet to the wolves. Coincidence? or is Netflix readying itself to pay Comcast for faster through-put? As I recall we (taxpayers) paid for the internet...now it seems we are giving it away.
1
Here's a solution. Buy 51% of Verizon (market cap = $33 billion). If 17 million people buy $1000 worth of stock, they will own a majority stake. The shareholders can then demand that Verizon remains completely net neutral. This would be a powerful point of difference in the marketplace and people would leave Comcast, AT&T, etc., in droves. It would be a great investment.
2
Do it. I'll watch. What you are suggesting is that I should pay an up-front fee of $1,000 in order to keep something -- Net Neutrality, in this case -- something which, until the Republican scoundrels on the FCC ruled differently, was already mine.
I have read that there will be legal challenges to the FCC's decision. My own dear New Jersey, bluest of Blue States, may get involved.
2
"the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer people a wider variety of service options."
Failed to mention: "for an increased cost to the consumer"
4
Hopefully, Netflix, Amazon and other streaming services are working on a plan to launch their own internet service that will siphon millions of streaming millennial customers away from Comcast and other cable companies.
2
This is like TV folks. For the oldies like me, we actually remember not having to pay to watch NBC, ABC, etc. Lo and behold, you would just turn on your TV and something would appear! Now you have to pay in some way (Internet, cable, a Mohu Leaf) to get any access.
Competition? Who's kidding? Most areas of the US are dominated by 1 or at most 2 Internet providers. Anyone want to bet they're not going to lower rates much less expand coverage to rural or less serviced areas? It's like companies who tell you they need to raise their fees because their supplies' prices went up. However, when the supplies' prices go down, you'll never see a discount. Look forward to higher fees and less service.
8
"you would just turn on your TV and something would appear! "
Yeah. Horizontal scan lines, and visual static interference if any electrical gadget such as a vacuum cleaner, kitchen mixer or power tool was in use. Oh, but I could get up early Saturday morning and watch Froggy the Gremlin and his co-host Andy Devine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o18JyXvIQSw
The sky is falling! the sky is falling! If this does not work out in consumers best interest it can always be changed back. I favor a government that governs least.
4
Your little “tax cut” will never come close to covering the increased charges you are about to pay for internet service, let alone the increase on your health care premiums and the higher cost of your prescription drugs. And then...poof! your tax
cut goes away and your costs for
the internet, your health care and your medicines will be higher than ever. The promised
wage increases should they ever materialize won’t cover your increased costs either. The increase in the deficit that transfers our borrowed funds to the current lot of corporate tax cheats that hide profits in off shore tax havens using accounting loopholes that have not been closed should make every W-2 recipient really, really tired of all this corporate winning.
6
The commercialization of Internet access will accelerate hierarchization of the Net. The world's poor are the losers, the middle class will pay more, and Facebook, Google, and the Net giants, while officially supporting Net neutrality, will use their quasi-monopoly power to increase their domination, data collection, and profits. The public needs more transparency from corporate Net giants on their policies and algorithms, more regulation, and more control.
2
An evil and corrupt act has been perpetrated against the American democracy. We must throw out this present Republican Congress bent on Russian style despotism beginning with controlling the internet. Pro Nazi thugs run our government.
5
Net neutrality explained short and simple.
https://dalegopinions.com/2017/12/14/net-neutrality/
This is ridiculous I cant believe they let this go thru
2
Shame on Trump for giving up our protection to the internet!!!! It will cost us a lot of money in the future.
2
The F.C.C. Did not make this decision. Ajit Pai did.
5
This is one of the dumbest things i think because all americans should have equal rights for the internet. you spend alot of money on it any way so why slow it down to make them pay even more. This shouldnt be done because the amerians will all have slow internet and then the president and everyone else will have rocket fast like internet.
2
Just look at the numbers of people who are responding to this news, to just the Comments on this news.
Watch out Republicans. Your days are numbered.
2018. 2020. You lose.
2
let's be clear. I didn't nor did any of you vote for this!
3
Thus evil move by the FCC is designed to damage American freedom of speech. Our undemocratic corrupt congress is modeling themselves after Russia and other countries run by despots. The Republican Congress is a bunch of thugs.
4
Yea. What we all want is net bias and unfairness.
4
I hope this issue becomes a hammer for the democrats to win back seats in congress next year by drawing millenials et al to the polls!
3
"The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote."
Ajit Pai? Isn't he the nice man who calls occasionally to tell me my computer is malfunctioning and that he would be happy to help fix it over the phone?
1
Since 1:26AM we have had NO
Internet service. Comcast says they are working on it. They push back the time every time my landlord or I call to check.
Coincidence??? Somehow we doubt it.
3
I have mixed feelings - if 50% of internet capacity is used for watching mindless YouTube videos and Facebook, I say let the ISP's charge for it! On the other hand, these ISP's have near monopoly power and so should be regulated, at least to some extent. The solution is probably something different than what we currently have and what is coming.
How terrible...removing strangling government regulations and red tape from business. What are people thinking? How can folks perpetuate the Nanny State nonsense if we allow people to live free from government interference? This is an outrage...allowing people to think for themselves.
1
I generally have more conservative leanings, but I cannot by any means get on board with this repeal.
The big monopolies like Comcast, time Warner, and charter already take advantage of their customers. We are now seeing soft data caps with big fees for going over them. We are being charged for speed, then also being charged for actually using that speed.
I have a gigabit plan from Comcast and was forced to pay a flat $50 fee on top of the $149.99 i already pay for JUST internet. The problem is if i ised my $149.99 internet connection full out for about 2.5 hrs I would go over my cap and invite huge fees. This is corrupt!
These companies double dip and Nickle and dime us too death. If anything since they are trying to be more and more like a metered service they should be help to the same standards as them. I don't see a discount for using under the cap, but I go over 1 kb and I get fees.
Now let's talk about 3rd parties having the ability to buy priority pipes. This means it will have a negative impact on companies that cannot afford to buy in to this program.
Digital content is becoming the norm and will Grow. Killing net neutrality will actually set us back in our ability to use the web. We are already behind the other major countries in both broadband speed and price. This will only increase the gap. These companies want to make as much profit as possible, we just handed them more ability to do so.
I Wonder how much the FCC head made over this deal.
8
the Internet was successful before 2015 and the Internet will be successful after 2017.
The two years of net neutrality rules did nothing great nor nothing terrible
Please ! arguing that big telecom is somehow more evil than big tech is perhaps the most pointless agreement in a generation
4
You want innovation? Well right now when you turn on your TV and look at all those apps available from your Amazon firestick, or your Apple TV or your Roku among them are U-tube, Netflix, Amazon prime, etc. Some are free, some are by subscription, but all are free to use the internet the same way.
In the future, besides a subscription fee there will be a fee for the rate of delivery. It might be billed by your ISP, or they might suggest the app providers have different tiers of subscription, with higher cost for, say, 4k picture than for a 1080p picture. In fact, Netflix does this already. But now the ISPs will do it too.
A different “innovation” could be the ISP provides their ISP with bundles of apps, some bundles with faster speeds that cost more, either directly or by interrupting programs with ads. If content providers object, we have the same blackouts of programs seen on cable TV to straight-arm compliance of providers with contract provisions.
What won’t happen is having multiple ISP providers competing for the same customers with better service.
6
Pai has said that he thinks "market forces" will keep the internet open. Clearly, he has never had to deal with Comcast's "Customer Service".
We're market forces functional, my access speed wouldn't drop to the kbps domain when my neighors come home from work, and they wouldn't consistently "lose" confessions that billing for this item or that was unjustified. Hopefully what can be done can also be undone. Eventually.
6
It wasn't net neutrality- it was net fairness. Big companies with big money will be able to have their data stream in the fast lane. Small businesses with less money will be left in the 'slow lane' for data streaming...and let me ask...if you go to a website that takes forever to load, do you wait, or just move on? This is a big victory for big business and makes it harder for small businesses to compete. So much for defending small business owners.
4
The internet service is like water. Comcast wants to charge more so they will offer a choice of coffee, tea or lemonade - no water.
The chances that I will like Comcast's coffee is zero.
3
How can anybody say that the government is bought off by telecom companies when the other side is ready to buy at a higher price if it was possible. So, we have to assume that the decision was made based on merit after hearing both sides. The current administration thinks this is a better way to go forward while the previous administration thought otherwise. Election has consequences. So, let's wait and see how it affect the internet world.
2
"This won't affect consumers" just as abolishing the separation between savings and investment banking didn't destabilize finance and the abolition of checking of Southern voting laws by the Justice Department didn't result in purges of voter rolls. There is always some claim of an evolved society and well-meaning humanity to claim that rules aren't necessary, and then the public gets to watch the secretly intended consequences.
7
A disgusting thing the FCC has done. The majority of Americans should have been included in this decision designed by our Hitlerian government bent on controlling the internet the way Russia China and North Korea do. That way they can flood America that is the fake news they have been spewing on Fox News. Time long past to impeach our corrupt president. He is a bad man in league with the devil.
8
Yet another reason to emigrate to Europe:
"Internet activists today (30 August 2016) hailed EU regulators’ announcement of new rules to prevent telecoms companies from slowing down some internet traffic as a historic achievement.
The rules are a blueprint for how national watchdogs will enforce the EU net neutrality law that was passed last summer (i.e. 2015), and were greeted with dismay by large telecoms companies.
A group of campaigners gathered outside the European Commission before BEREC’s announcement. They held signs that said “Victory” and “EU listened”. BEREC is the group of EU regulators..."
http://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/internet-activists-hail-his...
6
All right all you dedicated hackers, geekers, gamers, pirates and circumventers of all things regulated, get to work. This is your golden opportunity in our darkening, new age. Suit up. Lead the way.
13
Thanks, that is what I have been trying to say. I look forward to the
underground Internet, yippee. I look forward to the thwarting of the
Richie Riches, I look forward to the Citizens, the true Americans'
the true patriots doing what is right and just for the people.
Oh how divine to dry up the elite's coffers, can that be done as well?
Let us throw out their tea!
3
This is horrible!
Ms. Kang (author of article), would you mind if I share this and a few quotes on a website I write on?
This is just stupid.
2
This is the usual Republican garbage. I worked for the FCC during the Reagan administration, when the FCC was completely caught up in deregulatory mania. "The market" would take care of everything. Well, it did. Big companies negotiated better service and volume discounts with the phone companies and their nascent computer/data processing-related subsidiaries. Small businesses and individual consumers spent a lot of time scratching their heads. That's what this is about too. How many individual consumers or small businesses can ever deal with a mobile services, Internet, phone service, or cable provider, and feel like they really know what they're being charged or why? Or when it's going to change or what to do about it if it does? Or how or where to get a live person to have a dialogue with when something gets screwed up? But I bet the people at Trump Inc. have their own personal servants at any of those companies.
9
We are gradually becoming a country of sharecroppers, with the robber barons running the company store. Americans, you potentially had everything going for you but you piddled it away with your willful ignorance.
16
Who needs Chinese government censors?
We gave corporate overlords.
9
Legal corporate censorship begins!! Burning books next!
8
Call your internet service provider and promise to cancel your plan of this goes through.
5
"It’s basic economics,” Mr. Pai said in a speech at the Newseum in April. “The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”
Yeah. Just like healthcare and quality higher education.
7
Another Republican heist. We will remember these thieves and liars come November 2018. The END of the Republican Party is at hand.
6
Welcome to the new oligarchy. We will let you know what to think.
7
This is what happens when people fail to vote!
DJT knows his time is short.
He is wreaking as much havoc as he can and turning over ever decision that has Obama's name on it whether it makes sense or not out of spite.
Resist $ Impeach !
7
It’s an assault on national security. It’s financial segregation. It’s how dictatorships manipulate the internet. It’s what the banking industry calls “walleting.” It’s thieving, a republican trait.
7
The FCC came to this ridiculous rollback of rules by believing millions of fake
cries to dismantle net neutrality.This is yet another swipe at free speech
based on bogus internet postings.Everyday our democracy is whittled down.How much longer do we put up with this??AND we have a president that has to have his daily briefings watered down so that he doesn't blow his top??Unfit…you betcha.
4
I tried to get this in before but it did not go through. Guess I will
have to be reading the NY Times at the library and pray that
libraries here can afford I guess the slow and cheap WIFI, guess
there will be long lines at the libraries too, waiting to get in, they
will have to have time limits, and then you know using your
laptop over public WIFI is always tricky, though of course the
hackers will want to get personal info from the fast lane people
who can afford it so that is one benefit. A Chinese actor friend
has been telling me about China and the suppression, he hates
it and is going to become a citizen here, what a cruel joke. So
we are the same as China and Russia now, the communists
must be so proud.
4
The two dissenting Commissioners:
Rosenworcel:
“I dissent from this rash decision to roll back net neutrality rules,” said Commissioner Rosenworcel. “I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point. And I dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision puts the Federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public.”
Clyburn:
"I dissent from this fiercely spun, legally lightweight, consumer-harming, corporate-enabling Destroying Internet Freedom Order,” said Commissioner Clyburn. “There is a basic fallacy underlying the majority’s actions and rhetoric today: the assumption of what is best for broadband providers is best for America. What saddens me is that the agency that is supposed to protect you is abandoning you. But what I am pleased to be able to say is the fight to save net neutrality does not end today. This agency does not have the final word. Thank goodness."
Whenever you guys are ready to start rioting in the streets let me know.
I've had my pitch fork at the ready since about 2003.
How in the world does a decision this huge rely on only 5 people to reflect the will of the people?
3 of whom worked directly for the companies they're supposed to regulate.
This isn't "government by the people, for the people"
This is a joke.
Complacency is the enemy of freedom.
This fight isn't over.
Bank on it.
19
This fits right in with why I am looking into dumping Verizon as my ISP. I have had Verizon FIOS for several years, probably more than a decade. I chose it primarily because I do not watch television, and therefore I strongly resent having to take cable television in order to get cable internet. I watch videos of MSNBC programs, especially Rachel Maddow, on the Internet, but I regard television in general as what Newton Minow once called a "vast wasteland."
Verizon markets its "FIOS" fiber-optics delivery as the fastest thing going. However, they soon started annoying me with suggestions that I might want to "upgrade" to their even faster version of FIOS. That, to my thinking, is not only evidence that they have been operating a two-tiered system, with first-class and second-class customers, since they switched to fiber optics. More damning, it seems to fit the definition of "Bait-And-Switch."
At this time I am thinking at looking more closely at Cable, which seems to be monopolized by Optimum where I live. If and when I actually act, I will also need to get a cell phone, so maybe I will go with a smart-phone as my sole Internet access. None of this, of course, will have any effect on this present disaster of an FCC policy change. For that, we will need to wait for a Democratic President. Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to be saying that they don't care if men don't vote for them.
1
Like the Chump/Republican tax scam, here's another disastrous example of making America great again--NOT!
4
You know me, I love reliving my lost youth. Back in the day I used to be able to wash a whole sink full of dishes waiting for the New York Times home page to load on my dial-up internet. AlI I had to do was unplug my landline, connect that cable to my giant beige desktop tower, and wait. Free associating here: Omg, I miss that blinking green display screen. Can we go back to that?
I want to go back. What else can Republicans dredge up? The caste system? How about foot-binding? Who doesn't love Pearl S. Buck?
We just have to get our minds right. We need to be positive and put out good vibes about all these issues. Republicans know best. Let's just say #yes,dear.
Can lawmakers bring back the electric slide, also? I'm all in. I can't wait. The beehive? Making an appointment at the hairdresser right now.
4
Just wondering, with the changes that could be coming - how much would it have cost me to click on the link in my email to read this article?
2
Republicans have no shame in proving again and again that the citizens of the US take a back seat to money. For shame. See you in 2018...NOT
5
Congress should overturn this assault on our right to free speech via the Internet! The 2018 Midterms can't arrive soon enough. Email, fax, call these elected representatives. They work for the American People; or else FIRE Them!!!!
5
Your Elf on the Shelf now reports directly to Comcast. So cut the cord. Go vintage leisure. Use your library. The doors aren’t chain-locked yet.
5
Everyone, I have some AOL discs I can sell.
Will be putting putting a classified ad in my newspaper and I can mail them.
1
Your new FCC rule: "Ain't my problem!" ISPs are now privateers. Raise the skull and crossbones. What should be a utility is now a commodity.
3
Putting aside how terrible this is a policy matter, Ajit Pai should be summarily removed from his position solely for being such an arrogant, flippant jerk throughout this whole process. One need only google the ridiculous videos he put up in defense of this regulation to get a sense of how little time or thought he was willing to give to what one must at least concede is a thorny legal and policy issue. The silver lining is that those videos may be Exhibit A in demonstrating to a federal judge that the rulemaking process here was capricious in the extreme. Once again, the Trump administration may be dumb enough to save us all from themselves.
3
I am not a hater, but I hate this administration. And lobbyists, and giant corporations who are effectively swallowing us, whole.
5
We the people of the United States of America decline to be dragged into a new century without the right for every citizen to have an equal voice on the internet. These terms of neutrality are untenable, they violate the rights of those with low income to afford and use services essential to our modern society. If forced to pay extra for services like Facebook for instance, the man who could not afford the services would be at a disadvantage to network. A student living off campus would be at a disadvantage having to compete with higher tier internet, or no internet depending on how much service goes up. Cell phones? Woops, gotta buy the higher tier plan for your new thousand dollar iPhone because now FCC just squeezed the bottom dollar lemon. We the people very respectfully offer this administration the middle finger for stepping on progress.
3
Pai used to work for Verizon. He still does.
5
The New York Times has a wonderful opportunity to tell us all how this affects their website. How much do they pay today? Have any of these companies told them that they will have to pay for preferred access? Please keep us up to date.
3
It’s already happening, AT&T raised my Directv bill about $45 a couple of months ago by eliminating a discount I’d received for many years and now announced they’re increasing it again $5 because of”the increased charges they’re getting from providers”.
Forget about talking to customer service, all they want to do is sell you more stuff to increase your bill and AT&T’s profits.
Back to the old AT&T when they owned and controlled all the little Bells.
3
Right. You must have forgotten your history...when long distance cost an arm and a leg. And no one owned a phone in America; everyone had to rent from Ma Bell....please.... deregulations while not perfect, is better than government sanctioned monopolies
1
How many years will it take us to undo the damage that this administration has done, and proposes to do, in one year? Hard to say which is worse, the rape of the environment, the proposed corporate tax cuts, the gutting of the health care system, the assault on education, myriad other Republican led crimes against our society, or this? It seems like all part of the same agenda: the total take-over of America by the top one-percenters.
5
If these tax cuts are made law and the public service programs which Republicans seek to deprive of tax payer's support are used to help offset the deficits that must result, then without the kind of growth which was characteristic of American from after the Civil War until just after the Vietnam War there will be no coming back. The effects will produce a country with wide disparities of wealth and very slow growth, indefinitely. Ample capital is essential for growth but it's just one essential factor and it's not sufficient to create the robust and sustained growth that is needed to avoid becoming an overall poor country in the global economy with some extremely rich entities.
It's an integral part of this administrations "class warfare".
3
Don't congressional republicans realize the public is energized and paying attention like never before? They must be getting promises of fat lobbying jobs or 'think' tank positions if they're out on their behinds come 2019. They worked up major legislation without bipartisan input and without public hearings with experts and interest groups across the political spectrum. It's an appalling way to govern.
Also, whether repealing net neutrality is the true cause, every time a consumer gets charged more or has a beef with their telecom they'll blame the current congress. And an angry electorate votes. #republicandeathwish2018. #thiswon'tstand.
2
I guess it's back to books, DVDs, and walks in the park.
3
THis is needless extra profit to Comcast & like. My experience with Comcast has been very negative-price gauging.
2
"In another, he dismissed criticism that by pushing the change, he was doing the bidding of companies like Verizon, his former employer."
Is there a question who runs these Uniteed States?
5
We've always hated toll roads. Capitalists thought it wise to promote the privatization of water supplies in S. America. People died of thirst and foul sanitation. So which provider will prioritize Breitbart, and which one RT?
2
To me there is some sort of poetic justice to all this, when one considers that it seems to be the same folks who helped put Orangeade in the White House, the Millennial Bernieites and the Deplorables, who seem to be screaming the loudest about the possibility of now having to pay for access to their favored websites-Like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Snap and the various Social and rant sites they use to roust and rail at one another.
Notice to all internet providers: If you take advantage of this idiotic change I will be moving my accounts to someone who doesn't.
2
Does anyone remember when we use to switch on the TV and didn't pay for anything? This is going to cost the American Consumer more money. If companies like netflix, amazon, hulu etc will have to pay more to get into the fast lane it's only natural the cost will be passed on to the consumer. This Administration sures looks out for the Coporations as the common people get shafted.
4
"If you like your internet provider, you'll get to keep it!".
Unfortunately, you'll also get to keep it if you don't like it.
Say a prayer for the free and open internet, it was wonderful while it lasted.
3
Ok, fine, if my comcast Bill is increased from the $150 a month it is now -I’ll spend more time at the library reading books.
4
I've watched video of Mr Pai and the simplest way to describe what he is saying is: Your actions do not match up with the words you are saying to describe them sir. In other words; I do not think those words mean what you seem to think they mean.
What he is doing is classic GOP/reaganesque "doublespeak". He is taking away competition and making it more difficult/expensive for people to use the internet while telling us the opposite. This doesn't even get to the subject of corporations like the Sinclair group being in charge of internet access preventing people from accessing information or subjects they do not approve of. Comcast also comes to mind.
Used to be our regulatory system was respected and feared the world over. Now we are a joke with less protection than a third world nation with a dictator.
2
This will not "help consumers". It will only help the rich business-owning elites and the oligarchs, who do not need any more help, but seem to be getting only that from Trump. Providers will charge exorbitant fees, block sites they don't agree with or have in-house competing sites, and the poor will have less access to information because they can't afford to pay in the new tiered system of internet access. It's all part of the GOP's plan to keep people stupid so they won't vote in their interests, and against the GOP. It's disgusting.
2
Is the internet free and neutral? Has it been free and neutral since 2015? Has it ever really been free and neutral?
I'm no fan of deregulation and the current administration disgusts me daily, but I saw a real problem with Obama-era regulation of the net, in that it didn't regulate ALL the players, only the legacy telecoms. The so-called disrupters, free-riding tech start-ups whose business models are built on using others' content without compensation or permission were given a pass to keep raking in obscene profits and concentrating the actual wealth of the internet in a tiny oligarchy. Meanwhile, they turned the net into a surveillance state for advertisers while jealously guarding their own trade secrets. That they are behind so many of the populist messages and online tools driving the anti-repeal campaign right now should be deeply concerning to anyone interested in true neutrality and free expression.
Absolutely, regulate the net, treat it as a public utility and introduce true neutrality to it, but not by half measures. When these current jokers are removed from office as they surely must be, I predict we will see the Googles and Facebooks and Netflixes thumping the net neutrality drum again, and their beat will be the same as it has always been... "Regulate those who would make us pay, but leave us alone. We serve the people."
1
There is an alternative tech available for most of us. The Broadband ISP's control the wired and cable pipelines, and the satellite services, but WiFi is another matter. Suppose some companies who already have massive $$$ interest in streaming and massive data centers decide that open access is a market entre'. If Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Netflix, and others realize they can increase their user base by competing with an offer of open access WiFi. They need to build towers, but can easily supply >60% of America in a few years. Think "free with Amazon Prime". Meanwhile, states and cities, and later local smaller governments likewise deploy WiFi across broad areas and require open web access.
This ruthless corporate power grab is dangerous, but it can be stopped by newer tech, which may be the unintended consequence of the FCC's toady ruling. " ... offer them a wider variety of service options" indeed!
7
Corporations do not compete. Corporations collude and corporations conspire.
I'm putting YOU in charge, thank you
1
Congratulations, Ajit Pai. Your boss, President Trump will find the resolution you and your two fellow Republican members of the F.C.C. adopted so heart-warming. The resolution, if implemented, would enable him to dismantle one more Obama legacy. The pro-big business Trump could not have asked for a more satisfying reward from his hand-picked F.C.C. chairman.
The question is: as chairman of an entity overseeing communications industries, don’t you also have an obligation to serve the interests of the public affected by them? In this age, internet is an important tool of communication. It was with a view to protecting the interests of the public that the Obama administration introduced in 2015 what came to be called the net neutrality rules. Those rules checked the unrestricted growth of internet providers, especially broadband providers and regulated the way they conducted business. Some broadband providers have grown into behemoths.
By repealing the net neutrality rules, Mr. Pai would be enabling those behemothto s expansion further. There would be no challenge to the their attempts to swallow small internet-providing companies. There would be no challenge to the fee the behemoths charge for their services either. Didn’t Mr. Pai have the commonsense to foresee these problems?
Thank God, there is a plethora of lawsuits being filed against his short-sighted, pro-big business resolution. It will be interesting to watch how he and his colleagues perform in court.
5
Ok, so as a commenter said, pay toll. Let's take a look at that: If I am to pay for what I use, then there should be full transparency, just like any other utility for which I pay. On my electric bill I can see how many units of energy I have used over the month, how much is charged per unit and how it all adds up to my total amount. Same for gas, same for water, same for a credit card. So in those instances, we can see how much we are using and decide to increase or decrease our usage accordingly based upon our budget. Are the ISP's going to provide the customer total transparency? Or are they going to charge me for a particular "bundle" for which I will have no idea how much of my money pays for anything? Does anyone think for one moment that the ISP's are going to provide full transparency as to their services for which the customer is paying?
3
It may seem counter intuitive but once again the rich are being subsidized by the poor and middle class. Think of it like the express lanes on the freeways.
The wealthy can afford to use the express lanes but if not for poor and middle class using the slow lanes there would be no roads for the fast lanes.
Similarly, the wealthy will pay the premium to have the higher speeds but without the poor and middle class who are paying for the backbone there would be no backbone for the higher speed lanes to travel on.
The fact is its not the poor and middle class being taken care of by the wealthy but the wealthy being subsidized by everyone else.
8
The oldest form of social organization is the strong preying on those too weak to resist, and that is what this repeal is all about. The rule of law deliberately constrains those with power to use it in the predator manner of the strong preying on the weak, and is freedom from such constraints that those who think that they are too big and powerful ever to be so weak as to become prey long to enjoy. Well now they can control the internet and the free communications between everyone which net neutrality assures, and to control what people do on the net so that they can take rent from a vast number of people. The drive of people in power to destroy democracy and the rule of law just shows how little that they actually bother to think things through. They must remain very rich and very powerful from now on, because recovering from loss of wealth or power is going to be very difficult without very powerful friends or patrons, now. Republicans have become so focused upon gaining and keeping power that they have unthinkingly taken a road that leads to authoritarianism and no liberty.
3
The current Administration does not understand the sources of American competitiveness, and their relationship to Federal policy. Repeal of net neutrality is a painful symptom of this problem.
The Internet exists because of Federally-funded science and technology.
Trillions in wealth have been created by Amazon, Google, Netflix and Facebook, all of which might have had stunted growth if the Internet had been dominated by ISPs unaccountable to the public.
Research supported by the NIH has saved millions of lives and created trillions more in wealth from pharmaceutical and medical technology ventures. Its funding is now threatened.
Our universities, the best in the world, attract the most brilliant scientists, engineers and inventors, not all of whom are born with inherited wealth or high-income parents. Trump Administration policies attack higher education in many ways: Getting rid of the SALT deduction will cut support for top public high schools, state universities and community colleges. Making student loan interest non-deductible will make it harder for students to finance their education. Taxing university endowments will cut scholarships and seed money for the research of newly-trained scientists.
Tax cuts for foreign shareholders of US corporations are more important for the Trump Administration than maintaining the true sources of American wealth and competitiveness. They value coal and oil more than human beings. They recklessly destroy social capital.
6
This will not be good for the consumer. As the Internet has evolved, it has eclipsed cable, so now we give the cable companies the right to make the internet into what they made cable? Exactly. As things have evolved and streaming has streamed, it would just be a matter of time before the cable companies changed their business model, but now, we have the government working on their behalf to rip off the consumer by making the same kind of deals they made with cable. These are not deals. They are rip offs. This will not increase competition. It will stifle it, completely.
6
I noticed considerable slowing in downloading speed beginning this morning. At this rate, I now have the impetus I need to make less use of the internet.
It's shameful that a handful of rich thugs are making life more difficult in the US.
5
This is glorious news for freedom!
It's always better to let the market, and not self-interested bureaucrats, determine the allocation of goods and services.
5
Classical economics considers monopolies and oligopolies a cause of market failure.
I.e., Comcast and AT&T ain't allocating any goods or services efficiently, Professor.
11
So how are we going to choose from competing cable companies when there is only one cable available in the region? Any suggestions on how the invisible hand of the market can be introduced here?
6
Is this a joke? A self interested bureaucrat was literally the one who repealed net neutrality... Look me in the eye and tell me that Agit Pai has no skin in the game here with Verizon. If "freedom" to you means being told what information you can and can't access for free, then, by all means, glorious news. It's clear that the (small percentage of) people who support the repeal simply don't understand the issue at hand.
1
It is all about making money, charging money, controlling speech - only what is allowable should get through, and protecting a cash cow.
The Internet was built with taxpayer funds. Also, it clearly falls within the intent of the common carrier designation. These days, there are lots of essential daily functions that cannot be done without an Internet connection. My bank just told me they were going to start sending me all correspondence by email. What if my email is down? Computers are not all tat reliable.What if I cannot afford the ridiculously high monthly charges? What if my service is terminated?
We are talking here about public infrastructure, but the ideologues choose to ignore the part about "the public".
I say, give them the boot, and good riddance.
3
Will ISPs use ready made Chinese technology to filter, slow, discriminate and block data?
Will the data being blocked or slowed down be software security patches and updates from the likes of Apple and Microsoft? How will they differentiate that data packet from a purchase of software downloaded from Amazon and a streaming music file or movie? Will they inadvertently slow or block a streaming file between a medical center and a remote doctor's office?
I can see how this extortion for access scheme cooked up by the Pai-trump FCC will wreck the Internet as we know it. The R&D that ISPs will invest in figuring out how to manipulate data streams could be used to increase access, speed, security and reliability.
How many online games will be lost to an adversary because your ISP decided to add a second to your reaction speed?
Once the ISPs report their profits to Wall Street, we will know how much they are gouging - contrary to their pleas of poverty.
4
If we had cable nutrality the way they want net nutrality then every cable provider would have to carry every channel and our monthly cable bills would be $700.
2
You have it backwards. The right way to do cable is to get the cable company out of the content business and let us subscribe to just the providers we want. I can choose whether to pay for ESPN or Fox Sports or neither. Meanwhile I pay the cable company a connection and a bandwidth fee. Unlike your model, my bill would plummet as I can get rid of the 200+ channels I don' want.
Atlantis? This doesn't apply to Atlantis dude.
Even more than an assault on an open and public internet, this is also an assault on the free press. The internet is a major part of what has become the 21st century printing press. Limiting access in any form is limiting free speech, and therefore unconstitutional. Therefore, shouldn't this absurd and offensive measure be immediately overturned and its perpetrators charged with unconstitutional activity?
Considering the uni-party politically-driven agenda sponsoring this ridiculous decision, as well as the tax scam (which also undermines healthcare for millions as a "side effect") and the trashing of public land for commercial purposes, plus so many more un-American proposals and legislation, haven't we, the majority of Americans, had enough? How do we rid ourselves of this unilateral scourge? And how soon can we begin?
4
Welcome to the Cable TV version of the internet.
1
This is what happens when you put someone who runs a business w/o any government or public service experience as President. Big business is about big business, profits; government is about "the people" and nonprofit, i.e. public service. Business is only concerned with money and the stats; government is about how policy affects those who live in this country. We, the people, better think long and hard about who we want representing us at all levels including the values of both parties because we have one side that is overly weighted about money, profits, and the success of a few determining the future of many, millions, in fact. This is not democracy.
6
How good would it be if cities and towns could fight back by 'eminent domain'ing' the internet providers telephone poles and cables on OUR sidewalks, streets, air space. - OR - Use local zoning or bylaws to stipulate conditions for using OUR streets, sidewalks and airspace
There were some excellent reasons regulations were installed on neutrality years ago. Maybe someone in office now should look them up.
2
pure and simple, getting the government out of the internet regulation business is a fabulous idea. The "new-neutrality" regs had absolutely nothing to do with fairness, only putting the government in the regulation business. The government is the problem and anything we can do to dismantle these type of regulation is wonderful.
Without the government we wouldn't even have the internet. And if you think that profit oriented businesses are a better friend for you than the government (for which you can at least vote), you should probably do a little more thinking. There are many things in life that you don't need until you need them, such as hospitals, and when you need them you are not in a position to negotiate, so it is in everybody's interest (yours, too) that the government should regulate so that you have what you need when you need it.
1
It seems to me that net neutrality is essential to freedom of information. I am already concerned that I can't say something negative about Facebook on Facebook. (Am I correct?) Will we now not be able to say something negative about (say) AT&T over the internet if they have the authority to affect my internet access?
1
“Net neutrality” is but a tech industry subsidy disguised in a simple, fair-minded sounding catchphrase. But in truth, it is far from neutral. The proponents are free riders like Netflix and its users who exploit boatloads of bandwidth but want someone else (the ATT's and users who don't binge stream video) to foot the bill.
3
Interested observer -- the proponents of net neutrality, as evidenced by these comments, are everyday users of the internet who appreciate the ability to browse the internet freely -- i.e., without artificial restrictions imposed by a government or telecom company.
The restrictions you are defending only hurt us, the consumers, to the benefit of a few telecom special interests who want to employ a cable TV model (i.e., 2 revenue streams) to the internet.
Yes, the FCC net neutrality rules were a government intervention/regulation, but one that was actually designed to enhance personal autonomy and consumer choice -- by which content providers compete based on their content, not on whether they can afford to pay Verizon a large kickback.
4
Apparently the Service Providers who are aching under the 'freeloading' practices of Netflix have been able to provide the bandwidth and still make enough money to engage in mergers and acquisitions and to buy themselves an FCC chair as well. Next, I presume we will leave it to the local electricity suppliers to decide how much electricity may enter people's houses and when and at what price.
1
Oh, don't be so negative. Corporations (oops, I mean people) won't "charge for higher quality service", they will "give customers more choices to save money." And don't worry, the increased profits from tax cuts, deregulation to allow drilling, etc. will be cheerfully handed down from the millionaire CEOs to the workers as more jobs and higher pay.
7
Not that it was ever in question, but Ajit is sure to have a nice job waiting for him after this gig. And the pay just got larger.
7
I bet he's gone in a week or two just like the lady FCC chair who ruled for Comcast, I think it was to let them buy NBC and after the ruling was assured to stand quit a week later to go work for Comcast. But of course there was nothing dishonest going on and to see impropriety as possible is just plain partisan.
1
It's time for Congress to step up. The FCC was always a weak answer. I'm betting they do considering reps know that a strangled Internet could make voters angry. And the popularity of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T is already deep in the dumps among consumers. No one wants to run for office publicly defending them.
5
No one would be so dumb as to defend this action of the FCC, but Republicans would defend them without campaigning on that issue. The fact is that no matter what they say, we have seen what Republicans do -- and we must keep that in mind when we vote. This was accomplished by a Republican billionaire working on behalf of his billionaire friends. He needs to be expelled from office as soon as possible. He has betrayed the citizens of the United States in so many ways.
3
I believe this action will cause a widespread repudiation of the GOP in 2018. The attack ads on this topic will be interesting to watch.
12
If you’re allowed to see those ads.
If anyone sees them.
...if they are allowed to get through the new chokepoints!
This is an attack on your freedom. Freedom of association, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. When a few can control the news you read, or products and services you buy, we're all poorer for it.
Consider the studies that show people won't visit a site if it loads slowly, and the power that confers to those who control your access to information.
5
Luckily law suits are already being filed. Expect plenty of them.
5
this is a blow for freedom from government regulation. The free market is perfectly capable of providing excellent internet service without governmental interference and silly regulation. afterall, the government is always the problem.
The republicans are busy packing your court system with young republican partisans with life time tenures. Remember your mcconnel blocked President Obama from appointing judges. Better bring in mandatory retirement.
1
To be completely honest, I'm still a bit confused on what exactly net nutrality is I couldn't tell if people were saying it was a good or bad thing but by this article it's a bad thing but still not clear on how this will effect me using my internet,
Most supporters of Net Neutrality only understand it at the bumper sticker level and have no concept of the likely consequences. Streaming traffic takes up 60%+ of internet capacity, as opposed to users that use it for browsing, shopping email etc. Conceptually they want to charge the same for user that drives a Prius on a road vs a 200 car freight train, since they both travel at the same speed, they should be charged the same price. Conflating speed with capacity/usage is the major flaw in NN. Traffic should be handled fairly but not equally, an equivalent of a 200 car freight train should pay more than a Prius for the use of the road. One of the conditions of the TimeWarner Comast merger the govt requested was not to introduce bandwidth caps. So in this case under net neut, an ISP cant manage the traffic and cant implement caps. So the bandwidth hogs which are a smaller percentage of users get subsidized by everone else.
1
“Net neutrality” is simply a tech industry subsidy disguised in a simple, fair-minded sounding catchphrase. The proponents are free riders like Netflix and its users who exploit boatloads of bandwidth but want someone else (the ATT's and users who don't binge stream video) to foot the bill.
1
Peter is not incorrect but that's not the whole story. The point is that without Net Neutrality, ISPs can slow down ("throttle") or speed up anyone they want for any reason. It doesn't have to affect how much we pay for access to Netflix or anything else. So Comcast (which owns NBC and all its cable channels) can allow websites offering its own content a fast lane while slowing down competitors. As the country's largest internet provider, Comcast could then put its competitors -- or someone trying to offer new content -- at a serious disadvantage. If you don't think this is fair or appropriate, you would support Net Neutrality. As Tom Wheeler put it when Net Neutrality was passed, “The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.” There has been a conflict (and a swinging pendulum) between the public interest and private profit since the earliest days of broadcasting in the US; getting rid of NN swings the pendulum sharply away from the public interest.
1
What’s next? Will Trump & CO allow the rich to own air rights and tax us on the amount we breathe?
4
I don't want a wider variety of service options I want cheap - no, make that free - internet access. This blow is yet another reason to get rid of Trump and henchmen asap. As if we needed another reason...
4
If you really do want cheap internet, you should be against net neutrality. It's the internet hogs and their content providers who are being subsidized by YOU.
1
For you youngsters who were too busy to look up from your screens to vote, this one is on you. And you’re going to feel it. Welcome to the world of the real.
5
Ajit Pai lies through his teeth. Every move he makes helps corporations consolidate power at the expense of consumers in terms of choice and price for media services.
He acts as if the poor ISP's are about to go under! Which is laughable, the cable and phone companies are raking in money hand over fist. But Ajit is making their slice of pie even bigger. Despicable.
6
Why is that the GOP is - on principle - so dead set against any kind of regulation when it just happens to make the disgustingly rich even richer; but somehow with net neutrality regulation is suddenly important - and the rich get richer yet again.
Corrupted hypocrites - all of them.
4
The speach given by Ajit Pai repealing net neutrality was full of vagary, weasel words, and ambiquity, and filled with deception and empty promises.
Ajit is a specious Trump puppet...all smiles and no substance.
The repeal of net neutrality serves only one purpose...to squash video streaming providers like netflix, chrome, and hulu...and that's exactly what's going to happen...diverting their profit into the telecom's pockets.
4
America should boycott the communication industry. Don't pay your bill. See how theses bullies like to be pushed around, Come on America wake up. Fight back.
2
about that "commercial" he is in... so embarrassing... has he no shame
1
Good news! This vote will bring about a backlash within Trump's 32% and as soon as the deplorables can't download a movie, he's gone.
1
As someone mentioned the younger people who didn't vote will feel the heel on the brakes. The 32% that did vote might not care.
Our protections are being eroded drip by drip just as the Russia probe is filling the swamp drip by drip.
This is the US of A...any chance for charging more and more for increments of "better" - you can bet US Corps, who basically have monopolies at this point - will jump on it.
This will be a disaster..nothing will not charged for, unless congress steps in and does the right thing. I wont hold my breath with this group...
3
This hands control of user’s internet experience to a very small cabal who place their financial interests well ahead of their customer’s wellbeing. Make no mistake, this is death by 1000 cuts, and the FCC Chair knows that. Innovation, a worn word now, will suffer; meaning the person with a fragile idea, but no demand. That person absent deep investor pockets will find a large an uphill battle to gestate their idea & will quit.
The Japanese fixed this over a decade ago, so did the S. Koreans. Both the Canadians and the Europeans are sticking to their strident views to keep their nets neutral, so let's compare as we move fwd movement of respective information societies.
Those who bring up points that the internet access providers must be compensated while others enjoy a free ride, know very little about: (a) economic fundamentals – if anything internet companies should pay the likes of Netflix and others because they increase demand for their services, and (b) network costing - communications networks can take on, say, twice the volume, but never translates to twice their costs – actually it is at a small fraction of the initial cost (most built, thus sunk, what is added is small percent).
I guess with this first point a Major League team, such as the Yankees should pay broadcast networks to carry their games. The real issue with providers is to find ways to keep excessive profit margins. In the end the vibrancy of ideas will take a hit – as mentioned death by 1000 cuts.
7
Say all the people that walk around with their phone in their hand ... all day ... everyday.
Why do just 3 people get to make this call that affects millions?
5
More importantly why is it the three people are so willfully acting against the facts and reason? Why would they ignore the very real problem of the millions of counterfeit emails in support of this very bad position? Why didn't they launch a probe of who was behind those emails with an eye to taking away licenses of the most likely culprits, the ISP's who benefit from this license to monopolize themselves?
The very notion that one could trust Comcast to "not change" their internet customers "experience" is laughable. Comcast is one of the most rapacious companies on the planet, siphoning money out of consumers' pockets in many cases where there is zero competition. This decision is all in favor of big corporations and all against ordinary internet users, small companies and startups.
8
I tried to get a copy of the " local agreement"and she practically had a conniption fit trying to invent a reason for why I could not come down an read it. To be fair I had lulled her into being relaxed because I was just interested in how the system worked. The ask was a surprise to her and as I write it occurs to me to suspect there is no agreement so much as there is a contribution being made in one or several places.
The FCC chairman’s agenda is to enrich his friends running the top corps. and destroying those who would be creating and innovating. Now they will have to work for the big communication cos. We consumers will be the biggest losers as is the case in every corporate/kleptocracy. Another case where good govt. regulations are removed to protect those who don’t need protection.
6
One more example of our government choosing Profiteers over People.
6
How would this promote innovation, if thousands of people will no longer have access to the internet, if they can't afford it? That would mean, less collaboration, less creativity and LESS INNOVATION!
3
It's the end of the world as we know it!
Or maybe not. The internet operated just fine without telephone monopoly style regulation for many years. What will benefit consumers most would be more competition, which this ruling will allow. Let us look back in five years and see how this ruling really affected the internet.
1
How can there be "more competition" when there is only incentive to monopolize?
If you did not know it a monopoly is by definition anti competitive and overpriced. Hence the illegal agreements by current providers to stay within certain territories so they can keep our prices high. We pay 3+ times what we should for cable TV when in every other developed nation they get better quality TV telephone and internet for 1/3 of what we pay for cable.
There is also the matter of corporations choosing what is right and proper for us to view.
2
Can’t wait to see the revenue tsunami that hits the ISPs then trickle down to their tens of thousands of employees in another act of corporate benevolence and thereafter, reducing monthly content rates for all consumers. So much winning is getting more expensive.
4
I think most people are missing the point. So what if we will pay more. The real problem is how ISPs will now be able to penalize competing services.
For instance, Comcast owns NBC Universal which co-owns Hulu, which is a competitor to Netflix. We know that Comcast has purposefully slowed down Netflix in 2014 to gain leverage in a negotiation. 2014 was before the net neutrality laws were put in place in 2015. Now these laws are gone. They’re free to cherry pick which “friendly services” get priority. We could literally be talking selective service delivery or even censorship. They “promise they won’t do it” but they’ve done it in the past.
And for those saying “competition will take care of it”, remember many places only have one broad band ISP. Where I live we only have Optimum, for instance.
15
Yes, this. I'm not excited about paying more, but I'm much more concerned about fewer choices for consumers, lower quality services, censorship, and ultimately, a less connected, less informed public in which most people don't even begin to understand the ways in which they are being manipulated and exploited.
6
Guess they want to make accessing the Internet a privilege for those who can afford it. All the costs will be passed down to the consumer. So a bigger portion of your money will be spent on fees for accessing the Internet. Perhaps there is a silver lining in all of this? The brick and mortar stores will survive because people will no longer want to buy items over the Internet. And, yes, I'm being sarcastic. Repealing the net neutrality will not help the economy.
3
On the contrary, if you do not stream entertainment (60-70% of the bandwidth) all the time on the provider or user ends, the costs should be lower. It benefits everybody else except for the hogs.
Between this pathetic puppet decision by the FCC and the 1.5 trillion tax dollar give away to the greedy 1% - our country is officially a corporatocracy aka plutocracy aka oligarchy - yet as the Alabama Senator Jones election upset shows, there is still a glimmer of hope that our Democracy can still work if apathetic voters simply get off their couches and vote! We must fight this horrible FCC decision corporate internet giveaway all the way to the Supreme Court - and I pray to God this evil tax bill is shot down in flames! God bless this mess!
10
It's started. Taking forever for me, a NYT daily subscriber for the last 25 years, to punch up online articles.
2
POTUS and his despicable cronies must go. We need to get everyone to the voting booth in 2018 and throw these bums out now before it's too late. The man at the top knows absolutely nothing about nothing and his string pulling puppet masters are doing irreparable harm to us all.
7
My name was stolen, using a 13 year old address to bump up their phony numbers. These people should be thrown in jail!
5
I would like to comment but I am going to watch a movie while I can still afford it.
4
That's exactly the point. I do not subscribe to Netflix but I am subsidizing your movie viewing by being forced to pay for higher bandwidth services.
Why is this story not THE STORY Where is the headline? Where are the questions about abuse of power and corruption among others?
5
Won’t mind buying an actual newspaper; kinda miss it.
5
There are still two or three newspapers that are actually worthy of the name. Let's see -- there are the New York Times, the Washington Post, and -- well, scratch "two or three," there are only two.
But at the news-stand price, I am reminded of a line in the Kurt Weill/Ira Gershwin musical "Lady In The Dark." The "Lady" in question receives a telegram from the "President of the United States," informing her that her portrait will be appearing on "the new three-cent stamp."
One can only hope that Congress---led by the Democrats if they have to do so---will call for a hearing and/or introduce legislation to reverse this decision.
I am a child of the 70s and 80s, where legal NGOs did not hesitate to file lawsuits over issues like this, with the hope of getting the Supreme Court to do the right thing when the other branches fail. Where are those NGOs now? University legal teams? I would certainly support that sort of action from the ACLU vs. its defense of Nazi/White Supremacists marching in Charlottesville.
2
Well, wasn't having liberty fun while it lasted?
I suppose MAGA truly is Make America Russia Again.
Drain the swap. You all wanted change etc...Well,you got it.
Now, watch as your freedoms slowly vanquish before your eyes because of ego, passiveness and inactiveness.
6
The swamp, illustrated.
8
the War on America continues B
4
The Internet. Launched by the Vice President of the United State Al Gore in 1993 as a way to share information throughout the planet. Murdered at age 24 on December 13, 2017 by a compromised second-tier corporate lawyer named "Aijit Pai"
8
Pai is a liar and absolutely needs to go.
9
He's persona non grata. The worst person in America.
1
>
Thanks Bernie supporters that did NOT vote for HRC. You really showed us with your Yosemite Sam logic.
May your student loans haunt you for the rest of your life. God knows, your voting decisions will haunt me the rest of my life, and probably have changed all humanity from bad to worse.
May your internet be slow, you deserve it.
A simple binary choice had to be made and to quote Robert Di Niro, “you blew it”.
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
4
I was a Bernie supporter in the primary as a matter of conscience. I was a Hillary voter in the general election as a matter of self-defense and advocated for that position to anyone who would listen. Not enough did. I tried. Let's not make the same mistakes in 2018 and 2020 - anointing a candidate and "forgetting" to vote, for example. Meanwhile, as we await the next election, let the lawsuits against this egregious decision (and the tax scam, and the environmental charades, and gerrymandering, etc.) begin now.
@CP
I have no problem with people that supported Bernie as long as they voted for HRC in the general
i really dont care tbh
If the telecom companies tell us that nothing will change, then why are they doing this?
This whole Republican Trump agenda is nothing but a free for all spree and greed. We are being trampled on and robbed in broad daylight.
9
Ajit Pai. From chief counsel for mergers and acquisitions at Verizon to Chairman of the FCC. Now the chief architect of deregulation of the Internet and net neutrality. But there's no conflict of interest there!
10
What do you think he will be doing once he leaves government work?
For my friends, everything; for the rest, the law.
1
Not sure how I feel about this. It takes the nytimes.com website almost 30 seconds to fully load on a 100mbps connection. Ads, videos, pictures. Some of the other bandwidth hogs are about the same. Maybe this will encourage just a modicum of restraint.
1
Do you need video ads running on all sites? You are right! It's the hogs that are yelling the loudest.
Hey remember what Enron did to the California energy market? Now we have invigorated the pirate ship to do it country wide on internet connectivity. Have fun!
6
Free-market competition--not stupid government regulations (or even ones that are seemingly not stupid)--is the best regulator. But of course there is no free market in communications, but that can be solved. Abolish the federal government,
As a high school student, this is the most idiotic rule repealed. There are so many benefits of using the Internet in the classroom and is in fact a frequently used tool. Paying for something that is a basic necessity (RESOURCES) should be free, and families and schools will be extremely angered for something that we shouldn’t have to pay for. The reason we are connected is because of the internet. I support Net Neutrality through and through, taking the internet away is taking books away from a library, and textbooks from a student, and joy from mankind.
7
If that is what you believe, you should look into it further and not be brainwashed by the deceiving catchphrase. Most of what you need to access to learn constitutes a small percentage of the traffic. Video streaming (60-70% of the traffic) is mostly entertainment. This is the traffic that slows down your access to learning resources. Streaming hogs bandwidth and crowd them out. So to increase bandwidth or speed, their providers and users want everybody else to subsidize them by paying more.
Thank you, Tomorrow's Voter!
Pai essentially admitted how well AT&T and Comcast endowed his pockets to influence his vote. He was the "right" guy for the job, which is why he was hired in the first place...
On behalf of the American people, thanks for showing your true colors - green!
2
I doubt that Pai did this on his own. I suspect that Trump's owners and donors demanded that it be done. The dismantling of the U.S. Government is well under way..........
Perhaps the more descriptive headline would be, "F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules for No Apparent Reason."
3
Ajit Pai is obviously a tool, at best. Calling him a puppet would elevate my true opinion of him. I would rather have H.R Haldeman running the FCC. Jeeez.
3
It's typical Trump. He is a vocal critic of Obama's measures, and wants to dismantle everything his predecessor had built up. He appointed a net neutrality opponent, Ajit Pai, to chair the FCC at the beginning of this year. Besides he thinks everything has a price and believes internet users were free-loaders.
3
They don't want to cancel Obama. They want to cancel the constitution.
The constitution does not mention capitalism or free markets, or corporations.
The constitution says that trade should be taxed and regulated by the states and federal government.
The Republican agenda is anti-constitutional.
Read your constitution, starting with the preamble, which says government should "provide for the general welfare."
4
"Major telecom companies like AT&T and Comcast, as well as two of the industry’s major trade groups, have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change."
Yet they fought tooth and nail for the changes that allow them to do so. Hmm. I guess I'll just continue to believe my innovative ISP's promises. The same one the FCC says created the Internet and all my conveniences.
4
Wait until ISPs come under political pressure to stop offering content that upsets politicians or customers in their areas. That's what this writ is intended to allow - all FOX, all the time.
6
It is becoming increasingly clear that a majority of Republicans oppose anything that is good for average middle class Americans. When will a majority of the middle class voters begin to reject the Republicans who ignore their needs and support only the wealthiest citizens? Republicans like Steve Schmidt, Max Boot, Richard Painter, Elise Jordan, Joe Scarborough, Jennifer Rubin, Dave Jolly, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Collins, and a few other thoughtful Republicans understand that all Americans deserve fair representation, which means that there must be compromise between the two parties. President Obama got it right over and over, but unfortunately Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan didn’t and don’t believe in compromise. McConnell and Ryan must go so that more fair-minded Republicans can represent all Americans!
5
"President Obama got it right over and over, but unfortunately Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan didn’t and don’t believe in compromise. McConnell and Ryan must go so that more fair-minded Republicans can represent all Americans!"
That may be asking too much, but I'd be happy for fair-minded Republicans to represent the other fair-minded Republicans who are moderate to conservative but not in cahoots with the extreme right wing. That would be a welcome start.
If a government official came up to Krogers and said "we're going to privatize the entire US road system. From now on, if you want your customers to have as easy road access to your stores as...say....Publix, then you got to pay the new owners an extra toll. Oh, and it looks like the owners are opening their own chain groceries stores whose customers don't have to pay any toll at all.
What would you call that....other than a complete shakedown?
5
The internet providers will choke down competition and favor those with the deep pockets to pay for customers. I will likely end all business on the internet because competition will be gone. Watch this and the tax bill tank the economy. However, the very wealthy and powerful will be able to kill competition and become even wealthier so the GOP has succeeded in further punishing the people. A goal that is also the desire of most Americans too. The masochism of the American people is obvious.
3
An appalling result for a nation whose founders understood the importance of public subsidies (postal rates) to encourage the wider circulation and exchange of newspapers. The internet service providers were treated as common carriers for years; the first reversal to disavow Title II regulation of ISPs under the Communications Act also occurred on a categorical ideological basis, with no factual support for the premise that effective competition governed that sector. The decision was viewed at the time as ludicrous by experienced FCC lawyers, but privately. The GOP does not actually believe in a market economy; it believes in massive redistribution of wealth from public revenues to the private exploiters who have invested in Congress. And the chairman, with his light-saber and other pathetic displays, is simply another tool of the ISPs. His performance to date makes 'regulatory capture' a wholly inadequate term: any capacity for the independent, critical judgment that we once expected from regulators, and Congressmen, balancing private factions against the general welfare, eroded or was abandoned as he focused on what would be necessary to win Trump's approval and a low-effort but high-paying job from one of the firms that will benefit. Beyond outrageous.
4
If you see a change to laws or regulations made by a trump appointee, you know its specific purpose is to harm the average American, undo Obama’s legacy, destroy the environment, comfort the rich, or most often, all of the above.
5
Hey, this new freedom for internet providers is great. Now they can offer new services. Fir example, they now can deliver content at various speeds. If you want the latest 4K content for your new high resolution TV, well it’s availble from Comcast’s special provider - Disney, but Netflix is available only at 1.5Mbit/s - sorry. Want U-tube 4K? Well sure but you have to move three blocks over, where Comcast isn’t the provider.
4
I wonder, has anyone here ever heard of a new and exciting concept called capitalism? It propelled an obscure empire bound country to the pinnacle of world power in less than 200 hundred years. I hear in conjunction with another unusual idea of a representative democratic republic, always under attack. It is a most formidable force for good and the economic benefit of all it's free choice people.
Who would have thought government slaveholder supporters would oppose it?
I don't see how anyone wants this change other than the ISPs themselves.
I want to be able to access whatever internet sites I want to on a level playing field. If I want to pay for better bandwith speeds across the board, OK fine, but I don't want to have to pay more to access one site vs. another (or indirectly bear that expense because the ISPs are charging tolls to popular sites).
The ISPs are largely natural monopoly cable providers--the textbook case for regulation. Everyone hates their cable provider. This decision is unpopular and I think will be reversed in a few years.
2
We can't wait. The damage will be done. The time to act is now. Contact your legislators and scream loudly enough to be heard. SUpport NGOs filing lawsuits. Speak in public forums. Write letters to other newspapers who think this scam is a good idea. Take some kind of action; let the people's voices be heard!
1
"I don't see how anyone wants this change other than the ISPs themselves."
To disprove your naive assumption, me, a consumer who rarely streams and hates the unsolicited video ads. I am forced to pay double for internet service, i.e., a subsidy, because of the freeloading bandwidth hogs. In other words, I am shouldering the disproportionately higher costs of sites that do not rely on streaming content, primarily entertainment not data rich resources that the internet was originally designed for.
If you are concerned about access, there are better ways to ensure it.
There are two hopes: one is competition, the other technology.
Even with only two providers in my area, there still is some competition between the two, and we simply switch from one to the other based on value. That’s inconvenient, but at least it’s doable - a choice some consumers don’t have.
Advances in technology, which sometimes seem to happen at warp speed, can take a little time - such as cellular networks changing the entire telephone industry. Hope for breakthroughs in satellite, fiber optic and as yet undeveloped innovations to help us.
This is pie in the sky, of course, but change happens. If you hate Google, you might feel differently if they can blow away the competition in your neighborhood with a better product at a lower price. The same may be true if companies such as Verizon and Sprint can make their tons of cables and routers available directly to you instead of through your current Internet provider.
I confess, however, that I really don’t know this business. Unfortunately, I doubt that the politcal flunkies at the FCC do either. Here’s two other approaches: believe in the future; in the meantime sue the pants off them.
1
Gee the largest consumers of internet bandwidth are crying about the change in rules. If 60% of the vehicles on the road were Amazon delivery trucks would we expect them to pay the same amount for infrastructure as everyone else? We already charge trucks more for using the road. We charge different tax rates for commercial vs residential. It makes no sense that companies profiting from using massive amounts of infrastructure pay the same amount as everyone else. Does that mean your Netflix membership might go up - sure. When you buy cable do you get HBO for free or do they charge you more for it.
1
Hat sounds like a good point but I think the point really is yes, Netflix will have to pay more... but get FASTER SERVICE. Any one else who wants to watch anything on a small start up or post from a non HUGE player will be slower. That will NOT spur innovation. It will stifle it. We will eventually only see those who are the big players.
The consumers of internet bandwith are us, the consumers.
If we want to browse google vs facebook vs wikipedia vs netflix, that is our choice and the great freedom that characterizes the internet itself. Today, content providers compete based on content, not whether they can afford to pay a large kickback to Comcast.
If the ISPs want to charge high bandwith consumers more, then fine. They already do that with data plans and bandwith caps. But what's the benefit to consumers to extracting ransom payments from popular websites?
This change is bad for consumers and good for Verizon and Comcast.
4
What's wrong with paying the same amount for the same service regardless of the size of the company? Why should streaming hogs be subsidized?
Comcast has been charging different rates for different grades of service for years. They have basic service which supports a certain download and upload speed, and a number of faster packages for more money. How is this different from net neutrality (or lack thereof)?
Do streaming companies like Netflix pay to upload content? When I stream a movie from Amazon or Netflix, do they pay at their end, and if so, who do they pay? AT&T, Comcast? Or do end users pay all the cost of bandwidth.
If end customers pay the cost of bandwidth, nothing has changed: the ISPs already charge different rates for different grades of service.
If the content providers pay for bandwidth, they should start their own ISP companies, with themselves as the major customers. Problem solved.
If Comcast or AT&T own the actual infrastructure, they should be broken up. Content providers should not control the pathways, any more than Ford or Chevy should own the roads.
I'd much rather get my bandwidth from a company that does not provide content, but where I live, there aren't any.
Finally, a bit of history. Cable TV was created by the FCC. In the '60s, they ruled that if you wanted to share access to a common antenna, you had to provide content. The more terminals that were connected, the more content you were obliged to create. To say that they don't have jurisdiction over the thing that they created is specious at best.
"Comcast has been charging different rates for different grades of service for years."
This is not the same thing. Your ISP can block a consumer's access entirely to Netflix or YouTube (etc) unless you pay for "access." Basically a double $$ dip on the consumer wallet. btw, I dont think you understand how internet infrastructure works. This is not just about internet speed: it is about access to what was once completely open and unfettered.
6
"do end users pay all the cost of bandwidth"? Yes, because their money is given to the corporations in the form of tax breaks to build those infrastructures. When the government ends corporate tax breaks and subsidies, and when corporations actually pay their taxes (totally not the case today), only then can corporations pretend they "paid" for the equipment and infrastrucutre they benefit from in order to offer services to make a profit from customers.
1
Except that's where you're completely wrong. Throttling the speed of the consumer is still wrong, just as it was wrong before the title ii reclassification (the only thing that actually got repealed) when Comcast lost two major crackdowns for BitTorrent and video streaming.
1
Good for users? I don't think so. Good for providers-excellent sources of additional income to be taken from consumers. I can see it now. This much for this much speed, and this much for this speed, etc.
2
Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options.
Variety of plans: Expensive with less choice than now or More expensive with less choice than now.
1
Republicans — not all, but many — simply can't stop making up excuses for under-regulating and under-taxing business, and for cutting taxes on the wealthy while pretending this will benefit everyone else. It won't. And clueless Trump, who can't comprehend policy or its details, makes fact-free assertions that are equally inane.
The most noncompetitive industry of all is internet providers (cable and carrier). Competition requires multiple choices, but these companies have made every effort to prevent true competition, and Republicans continually support them on ideological principle, not economic reality. Anyone who says there is little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is functionally too dumb to vote.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
4
Received a notice today that Netflix just raised their rates (again). I suppose that's just a coincidence. On the other hand, what better time for a broadband merchant to announce an increase than before the general public understands the impact of the F.C.C. ruling? Capitalism IS what capitalism DOES.
3
I can almost envision the intense lobbying that went on between Mr. Pai and the desperate cable/internet providers, currently watching themselves become the Blockbuster video of infrastructure (read: irrelevant). I'm sure they were "begging" for a new revenue stream (and would do almost anything for it.)
His next job? Verizon CEO?
1
dont tell me that america is a democracy when over 80% of the american population is against this, yet when 10 people vote to do it, they do it. Stop attacking our freedom.
11
This is what the Deplorables wanted, so for now, the rest of us have to live with it.
Are you a small business trunking to sell in a world economy dominated by global corporations?
Who do you think is going to be on the fast lane on the internet? You or them? How much can they afford to pay to put you out of business? How much can you afford to pay to keep access?
The new tax bill is slashing taxes for global corporations. Most business are not corporations. And most pass through businesses are not paying more than the new pass through rate.
The establishment congress is smashing though laws aimed at making global corporations more profitable at the expense of small business.
Stop supporting your biggest competitors, nastiest suppliers, and stingiest creditors.
4
I'm a simple man, with simple needs, and that is the internet
Can "We The People" REVERSE these abominations of laws when we clear the Cesspool containing Trump & the GOP !
Watching how Trump has dismantled decades of progress with the wave of a pen - and always - each day - taking away some previous "inalienable right and freedom of the people" - - -
Of course it is sickening - and the loss of Net Neutrality is just the next fair freedom to fall.
Removing Obama's Net Neutrality is akin to removing a large portion of our "Freedom of Speech" -
I just wonder - as I have never seen it done -
CAN WE REVERSE THE DAILY DAMAGE OF TRUMP ? ? ?
4
Familiarity breeds contempt. America has tendency to shoot its own foot despite the fact that it has a process in place to identify best possible solution. With Industrial Defense Complex, you have pharma mafia, Insurance mafia, and other factors that makes rich richer and poor poorer.
Now you are seeing birth of net mafia.
4
I wonder what my ISP will charge for a First Class or Second Class e-Stamp for sending e-Mails.
Where is Internet Version 2.0? One owned by the users. Version 1.0 has become essentially a monopoly for a few contrary to the design and spirit of the original network.
A network designed to survive nuclear Armageddon couldn't survive Capitalism gone amok.
4
The tax bill and the Net Neutrality ruling 2 lumps of coals in our Christmas stocking courtesy of the Republican Grinch....the Grinch was famous for being born with a heart two times too small, it seems the republicans have the same problem.
2
Mr Pai has sold us all to the internet corporations believing they will do the right thing if not constrained.
However it will mean parts of our country will continue to have no internet and contribute to the constraints on real information bring shared universally across the country.
How better to meet the Trumpian doctrine of not allowing us to know the extent of his narrow views on our country, which suit his purposes, and fail to inform about his many lies.
Mr Pai has sold his soul to Trump as have many in this administration.
I hope you will support the multiple law suits and throw yet another Trump flunky out on his lying ear.
This is a GOP effort to control Free Speech & Education! There is a sickening parallel between GOP voter suppression efforts and the FCC repeal of net neutrality!
2
Trump voters knew they were supporting a New York City con man. If they're surprised now to find out that this administration's only goal is to steal things from them, well, let them vote more carefully next time.
You will all see the bitter fruit of this right wing assault, unless of course you are a corporation. The GOP could NOT care less for the citizens of this nation. How anyone could support such an obviously enept and money-driven political party is beyond me.
2
Net Neutrality is simply one piece of the Trump Dismantling America project. The dismantling has increased in speed and there will soon be no U. S. A.
I am very glad to be very old right now..............
The Republican Party just burned the bridges to the the millennial and two generation's after them.
Between Trump and this your party is all but over on the national stage.
2
Call your internet service provider and tell them to stop this, or you will cancel your account.
If everyone did this, this thing would fine by midnight.
I wonder why this is not the main story of the day even though I see way more comments and general concern over this than with most issues.
3
hopefully the cost will go up for video game players and maybe my grandson will not be able to be online for 10 hours a day
2
No chance, video games will get cheaper and serious content, like The NY Times, will get more expensive and difficult to access.
If yesterday you asked everybody in America if there was anything fundamentally wrong with the internet, I believe 97 percent of the country would say: " It's just fine, leave it alone." This is America in the sad year 2017, what needs fixing is ignored by Trump and his merciless Pirates and the good is under attack.
2
I have already felt the effects of the repeal - Verrizon saw fit, to save a little money, to remove Bloomberg business channel from their offerings. Thank you, DJT.
Let us let both houses of Congress live with the slowest speeds....
So, instead of following the example of the rest of the world, and pursuing the ability to provide internet for all, these "tear it down" goons are going to eliminate it for people who cannot afford the new prices which are to come soon. Absolutely insane -- and absolutely tRump!
If Trump wants to deport immigrants, he can start with Pai.
This is an abomination that Congress has to set right. This doesn't expand innovation; it kills it. I believe that is the point.
1
Quandary for Republicans: how to blame the subsequent repercussions on Obama.
1
The FCC's change to the rules limits, and therefore violates, my first amendment right to read, hear or see a free flow of information. If a branch of the government charged the NY Times more for its delivery trucks to use the roads this would be a simple court case. I get my NY Times electronically. Someone please sue the FCC.
Isn't there anyone left in Washington with an iota of common sense or intelligence?
4
Just another bad decision by this president to go along with almost everyone he has made so far. If there is anyone out there who thinks that Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are not going to charge more or make up bundles that limit your content, well then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Sad.
1
As Trump says while dishing out the most outrageous claims, "Trust me" -- Ajit Pai and FCC Repub's are using the same playbook.
Just, a question: Has anyone looked into whether Ajit Pai has something to gain on a private level? "AT&T and Comcast, as well as two of the industry’s major trade groups, have promised consumers that their experiences online would not change." Seems like they have a lot of influence on how things panned out here. Just sayin...
Isn't the way this will roll out is not just that the consumer will pay more for viewing or consuming certain content but that the content providers will pay more to ISPs to carry their content?
If that is correct, how long before the ISPs start content discrimination based on viewpoint? In my opinion this administration certainly and the Republican controlled congress probably are exactly corrupt enough to use regulatory power to censor critical content. The profits they offer the Verizon's and AT&T's will certainly get them to go along. Look at the mergers being approved versus those being held up right now for examples.
The more that control of the internet is handed to corporations the less the First Amendment will prevail or even apply.
3
If it gets to the point where frustration enters due to slow speeds, instead of paying more, my choice would be to abandon the internet.
1
If we could trust the major providers not to be greedy, we wouldn't need the neutrality rules. But we can't. So we need the rules. Gone are the days when the internet was open and commercial free.
2
I always love the "free market"argument... Has the free market increased wages at the same rate as inflation? Or the same rate as CEO pay??
4
The great journalist A.J. Liebling famously said "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." It was naive to suppose that the internet would forever escape this basic principle.
1
A great deal of the research development and infrastructure was paid for by the people's tax money so who owns it?
2
the arguments for this don't even make sense: the online experience won't change but the carriers will invest more in their networks?
I am going to start pushing my town to create a town owned network.
2
"Several internet providers have made public pledges in recent months that they will not, block or throttle sites once the rules were repealed."
Say the same people who cannot get my bill right, and when I call to inquire direct me to a call center that gives me the runaround from the other side of the world.
5
Everyone needs to calm down. The internet was not regulated as a utility prior to 2015. Do you remember 2014? Was your internet working? To use the Communications Act of 1935 to regulate ISP's is a bit of a stretch. The free market will regulate itself. The internet was born and designed to be a non-regulated system. Let it be.
"Since its inception, Internet access in the U.S. has been guided by one basic principle: ISPs that provide the on-ramps to the Internet should not control what happens on the Internet.
Originally, this principle was built into the architecture of the Internet. In the mid-1990s, however, technology emerged that allowed ISPs to interfere with the applications, content, and services on their networks.
The FCC’s decades-long commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Entrepreneurs who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from ISPs in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at a low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work."
-Fortune Magazine (not exactly a radical left propaganda outfit)
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/11/22/net-neutra...
3
Welcome to the first step of the full corporatization of the American Government. Next to go would be private management of of the highway system as part of infrastructure renewal. Welcome to our new form of government, Capitalist Kleptocracy. Thank you Mr. Trump, it's just what Wall Street needs!
3
Can these companies like AT&T and Comcast decide what content is accessible? Could this lead to a controlled internet, like China has?
This decision seemed strange. Still trying to figure out the impetus. Must be $.
Another great day in America. Why do so many of us want to turn more and more power over our lives to the government? The internet did just fine prior to these restrictions, it will do fine after. I know that to the left the sky is always falling for some reason but please, let's not get so hysterical.
I can almost taste the freedom.
1
Giving the private sector more power seems better than giving the government the power to shape the whole industry. Just look at Obamacare and how all that worked out.
I just called Verizon to warn them that if net neutrality is ended I will cancel my Verizon service.
I pay them a lot of money every month and they are using it against my interests.
I suggest that everyone who is for net neutrality call your internet service provider and threaten to change your provider. If everyone did this, net neutrality would be permanent.
If Hillary had won, and kept our country great and moving into the future as had her predecessor, Trump et al would have mercilessly shred her every move, personally and politically. The damage now being done to our education system, our environment, our health care, our economic stability, our international standing, and now our free access to communication are so outrageous that I truly believe Trump is handing us the gift of his own defeat in 2020 as well as losing Congress in 2018. Democrats, Independents, non-voters... what more do you need to get involved in saving our democracy? Perhaps for some, Trump's unleashed evil was a necessary precursor to understanding the importance of who sits in our Oval Office.
3
Few people have access to more than one broadband provider. Without net neutrality that provider could, for example, "reshape American's online experiences" by not providing access to the New York Times or the Washington Post. Democracy functions only when there is a well informed public.
1
What a sad sad time it is for the United States. I was going to just post that but I saw a comment where someone said this won't affect consumers and the tax bill won't affect the middle class. What has happened to FACTS and INFORMATION. Eliminating net neutrality and passing this tax plan are both totally awful and disgusting and will absolutely hurt the middle class. . Increasing the applicable exclusion (as it is legally referred to) of the Estate Tax has ramifications far beyond the 2,400,000 (4,800,000) that people who inherit an estate worth over 11 (or 22 mil per couple) is going to save. It will change the way people assess the value of their estates, which will reduce the amount of capital gains tax and depreciation said people will pay moving forward. The decrease in tax (or deduction whichever it is) for pass through income is a boon to people who inherit wealth, and particularly to people like DONALD TRUMP, who, as a real estate investor (a bad one at that) most likely has a tremendous amount of pass through income. Comments denying the ramifications of this are ignorant and poorly informed. Too much Fox News
1
I believe that post you reference was sarcastic.
Net Neutrality has already been here for some time. I have been paying a premium for greater bandwidth to my cable company and my satellite TV provider. And even then, I only get half that. The reason, both companies say, is that I use WiFi to connect to my router. Once big companies became involved, the Internet has been and always be a scam-like shell game -- now you have it; now you don't. And our elected officials are no help because the Internet monsters such as Verizon, Google, Netflix, and all the big cable companies, contribute massively to every elected politician who can influence those companies bottom line. Just call it shareholder value. It is all a load of Malarkey. I recommend that everyone drop their ISP and start anew with a year-long major discount from a new ISP. When that is over, do it again. Then again and again.
Correction: "The repeal" of Net Neutrality.
Follow the money... That goes for every political action. Nuff said.
Another nail in the coffin of democracy and the relevancy of Washington as a reflector of the interests of "we the people".
2
I teach 10th grade history and 12th grade English at a rural public school. This is 100% all the kids are talking about. They're 100% against it. They're 100% angry.
I just wonder what percent will vote in 2018.
3
My grandson in ninth grade is extremely upset about this. He's been following the news like it's the World Series.
Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Republicans.
3
question
who were the members of the committee?
1
I wonder if Americans see what we see .... with the stroke of the pen this ruling makes billionaires wealthier and poor becomes poorer.
2
Ajit Pai, like Donald Trump, is a destroyer. He seems to glory in it like Trump. Pai's rollback will be a momentary blip before it is undone in the courts or by common sense legislation. Pai, will end up destroying his career and future prospects instead.
1
I would bet a years pay that Ajit will be working for a Telcom within the next twelve months.
4
He was a lawyer at Verizon before this current position.
1
I wish I could lie with a straight face like Ajit. He is applying Trickle down economics to the Internet. Companies have had opportunities for years to,"Offer more services to consumers," and have done nothing but provide mediocre service. They are incredibly subsidized by the government, and are never satiated. They won't offer more services. They will simply hold those services we currently use hostage. Criminal. Simply criminal.
3
So the average american will likely see about half of their "HUGE" tax break go to their internet service provider if they want to maintain the level of service they had before. I wonder how much stock the Trump family has in internet service providers and industries that will benefit. I wonder how much money the companies that will benefit have given Trump and his buddies in the way of campaign contributions. Everybody sing! - It's the most WONDERful time of the year!
1
I am really concerned about the dismantling of net neutrality.I do not want any internet provider to make it difficult to access my favorite sites. However, what I am concerned about is what the changes will mean to our health and to scientific research. Almost all hospitals have computerized their records and protocols. We access our files via the internet. Will our access now cost us more money than the already high fees we pay to connect? Scientists use the internet to connect to expensive scientific machines often located in other scientists laboratories. I remember using a modem connected to a slow telephone to analyze data from home on a NMR machine in a distant lab. It took forever. Will we go back to the bad old days? Most scientific journals are now online. Will we now have to pay the internet providers additional fees to be able to access them? In my old field there are several online ways to analyze data. The programs are on machines in Germany and Hungary and they need to access data banks in England in order to run. Will this all become more difficult. Will access to the world-wide-web disappear? Many of my old scientific papers are online at a networking site called Researchgate. I retired 10 years ago but I was amazed to find out that many people (at least 20/month) are downloading and reading my old papers. I have software that can be downloaded from a site run by the Nature publishing group, based in the UK. Will people still be able to get ready access?
1
You’ve provided lots to think about. Most of these examples aren’t going to attract huge numbers of users, so they will be seen as interfering with higher profit allocation of available bandwidth. Accordingly, they will be slow and/or expensive.
But it’ll be another world where large conglomerates are interested in the products of research like this when a few lobbyists can provide more profit more cheaply using the existing plant.
I am like you, concerned about the cost of accessing data rich resources. That was the original raison d'etre for the internet. And it is not expensive to deliver at all. Now it has been hijacked by freeloading video streaming (60-70% of traffic) media providers and users who want you and me to pay for their entertainment.
Hopefully this subsidy charade will end with the repeal of deceptively coined "net neutrality". It is only fair that one pays for what one gets.
Have people forgotten why the Net Neutrality rules were put in place? And no, it didn't "just happen" in 2015; the Obama administration was responding to several years' worth of consumer complaints.
Listening to Pai's and other Republican demagogues' doublespeak is mindboggling.
3
For me the interne is mostly a for fun thing. I feel it gets to costly or is slow and becomes more of an aggravation I will drop it.
Are you Amish?
1
Do any of those Republican commissioners work on the same internet I do? I mean the one that is slow, unreliable, and still expensive. I'm lucky to live in a small town where there is more than one provider. The problem is, they both stink. If this lack of net neutrality fixes that AND improves internet service AND doesn't cost more, then I guess it will be worth it. Somehow, I doubt that is going to happen,
1
Assume that you are not in the entertainment related industries. Those are the only ones that benefit from net neutrality.
As to "Somehow, I doubt that is going to happen," at least there is a chance of doing things differently.
As a democrat, I find it totally shocking how uneducated nearly everyone is on this who has posted. It seems that everyone has no clue that Verizon, Comcast, etc. spent literally tens of billions of dollar building out their networks, only to see companies like Netflix and Amazon exploit this 'highway' for free, snarling traffic and eating up the majority of bandwidth.,,. Why on earth should Netflix & Amazon not compensate the carriers' investment in the superhighway? Because it isn't fair? It has nothing to do with the end user, you and I. Pay Toll!!
27
The data on the internet goes from netflix,amazon, hulu, etc, to end users. End users usually have a monthly subscription charge-- which IS the toll you are talking about.
This just allows them to charge end users, since most users don't have more than one option of a network service provider AND companies AT THE SAME TIME.
Think of it like the postal system, either the sender or the receiver pays, but BOTH don't pay.
7
I think you confuse the ISP making big investment to attract customers because they want to have a better service because they use heavy content.
An ISP has to upgrade because their customers want to watch Netflix, and if the ISP do not upgrade, the customer will just go with the best ISP that pay for the upgrade. Simple as that. Don't need to blame the service and the customer in that way.
1
Wrong. Those big ISP companies spent money to get customers to subscribe to their service. Now that ISP's have the subscribers, and that most consumers in most locations have NO choices of other providers, they want to make more money by selling their own not-as-good content or charging for content they did not create. Most people do not have a problem with paying higher fees to get better internet speeds-- for the content that they want-- BUT not to have filtered or prioritized content.
Net Neutrality advocates are not "clueless," they are just familiar with the cable packages, and locked phones overloaded with providers own products.
The FCC made a bad decision. Efforts now have to be on Congress to put in legislation that ensures a non-package limited, non- speed limited, non-ISP prioritized rather than customer-prioritized internet.
2
In order to avoid conflict of interest, probably the best idea would be to separate those who provide internet services/content from those who provide internet access/infrastructures. Mercedes and GM are not constructing or maintaining highways, let alone constructing roads only their cars are allowed to drive on.
4
Here's something that is not talked about in articles like these -- except on IT websites:
The only way ISP's can charge more depending on how you use your internet is by tracking where you are going on the internet. This can be a simple as tracking when you go to 'Amazon' or 'Netflix' or YouTube (obviously). But the only way it can really work for the ISP's is if they track your traffic much more than which main websites you visit. The internet is not static in any sense so ISP's will need to track across the board everywhere you go. ISP's already do this of course but now they will more reason than ever legally to collect and store your internet use.
5
It actually is quite straightforward. Simply count video packets.
The tech industry is like Coke and Pepsi that want you to focus hydration and pleasure (speed in access) instead of counting calories (actual usage costs).
This comes along at just the right time for the cable companies. The existential threat to cable is consumers cutting the cord to get the content they really want by streaming. But, of course, we get our streaming capabilities from cable companies that provide internet service. As cable revenue declines, it will be very tempting for AT&T and Comcast to make up for that lost revenue by rejiggering their internet pricing schemes. Gutting net neutrality just gave them a blank check.
5
An election is coming soon. This can be undone IF WE vote only for socially conscious women and men who will make it happen. That means no republican/libertarian votes.
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will stop this wholesale robbery of OUR lives by The Con Don and his Robber Baron brethren. NOW is the time.
11
Isn't the FCC telling us how advantageous repealing net neutrality rules will be similar to Trump telling us how we'll all love his health care plan? Or Paul Ryan explaining how wonderful, the Tax Reform Bill will be?
As the majority of U.S. citizens have voiced their disapproval against all these changes, has it done one iota of good? Nope. We no longer have a representative government.
Time to wake up, we are the victims of a bloodless coup d'état, which is now in high gear. Apparently, there is not a thing we can do. Oh, by the way, for those who are resting their hopes on Bob Mueller, the ground is slowly but surely being planned for his firing. Don't think it will happen? Well who ever thought figurehead Trump would be president.
For those who think I'm being conspiratorial, please over me a better explanation which makes sense. Include all we've see over the past 2 years.
3
The easiest and most obvious answer is to get internet from someone who does not provide content. The market and the regulators would have to decide what a market rate is for access, but the decision wouldn't be complicated by the competing needs of content providers. California could even start a "public option" operated by the state, to compete with Comcast and AT&T.
Do companies like Netflix pay for access at their end? They stream out terabytes of content; is all payment at the consumer's end? If Netflix already pays to output its content, how would that change? Would Comcast charge them more because the rule changed?
2
“Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”
Now there is a statement beyond dispute. I recall the phone company had to be forced by government regulation to provide phone lines to rural areas. Today there are areas in the middle of Tucson without cable and Comcast is the only provider in those areas. In twenty years it has yet to provide service, and it never will happen.
In most parts of Tucson there is only one internet provider in a given area, and if you don’t like their rate structure, too bad. With this new freedom I’m sure they will undergo a complete personality change and begin to offer innovative new services. Like content packages with 200 channels of which 3 are actually useful.
3
Small communities have always highly discouraged open access to larger communities even if benefits are clear - as in lower mortality.
1
A long-time viewer of Netflix, I experienced a change in the quality of viewing last night: problems with sound and an unstable picture that ere not problems previously. Since, I don't believed in coincidence, I only expect wide-spread consequences for consumers going forward.
3
If a consumer spends lots of time streaming movies he / she should pay more to do so. It is unfair for light users of the internet to pay the same monthly rate as a heavy user.
Companies like Netflix and Google want unlimited consumption by their customers and having the ISP's ensure that by level pricing thus being able to offer a lower price across the board to them. There is now incentive for the ISP's to add more capacity and everyone will benefit by that. Net Neutrality should also be called the Netflix Relief concept. Now A.T. and T. will be on equal footing with Netflix and Google. And smaller content providers will be able to as they have along offer new services.
1
But that is not how it is going to work. ISP's will still charge the light user of internet the same as always or more because now legally they can -- and then charge heavy users more. Robert if you think your internet monthly will go down you are naive. There's nothing to support that notion.
8
The "net - net" of this is simply that consumers will pay more money, and the ISP's will make more money, plain and simple. This at a time when the disposable income of the average American is under attack from every angle, from the middle-class averse Republican tax bill, from cuts in Medicare, cuts in a variety of social support programs such as the WIC program. And when corporations, ie wealthy stock holders, are being benefited by reduced tax rates and less regulation. It's only a matter of time before those average Americans refuse to participate in this disaster.
2
ISPs have always been allowed to charge based on overall usage. That's not what's changing. ISPs will now be allowed to restrict bandwidth based on content type or, most concerning, source. Amazon Prime could broker an exclusive deal with Verizon to get faster speeds than Netflix, for example. Want Netflix but use Verizon? Better off with Comcast. For example.
Want to use a streaming service by a new startup because you like it better than the big, established service? You'll probably end up complaining about the slow speed of the startup, and you might even blame the startup... but in reality, it will be that the ISP has a deal with the larger corporation to throttle the little guys.
And of course it will be sold as a perk. "Extreme" plans will really just be unthrottled plans.
Net neutrality protected consumers, and it protected startups.
The thriving tech economy just became less thriving. Not good for ingenuity. Not good for the economy.
The only winners are the ISPs.
3
After these last 11 months, I have come to realize that there is nothing that the Trump Administration and the GOP will not do for the wealthy, big business, big finance and lobbyists. There is also nothing that Trump and company will not destroy for the benefit of the above-listed entities. The rest of us are just the pawns in the game that they are playing with our lives. Yesterday the internet and next week our tax system. 2018 brings the promise of the destruction of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and what's left of the ACA. Trump won't deal with the Russian interference issue, so the next elections are probably already compromised. The GOP and Trump are doing their best to discredit our media, the FBI, the DOJ and of course the Mueller investigation. I actually look forward to the 10 days Trump spends golfing and vacationing each month because he's not in DC destroying America. Elections have consequences--2016's results are proving disastrous on a daily basis.
11
I keep reading the Republican charge that these rules have only been in place since 2015. Not true. The ISP's had informally adhered to net neutrality since the mid 2000's. I wish those writing on this issue would include that proviso.
9
Repealing net neutrality means that customers might want to call their ISPs EVERY time they have a problem. The ISP's new 'technical enhancements' will be in the causal chain, and need due consideration during troubleshooting.
Call them every time.
12
Third world countries are embracing the internet as an essential pillar of economic growth. The GOP on the other hand, is constraining it.
17
When the public viewing audience was first told of how 'cable television' was going to be the next, best way to watch television, part of the sales pitch was that there would be no commercials to interrupt your viewing pleasure, that your cable fees would pay for what you would want to watch. And we saw how that turned out.
26
That's not true. Show me some proof that cable was to be commercial free. The fact is that it never was. That rumor got started long after the fact by anti-corporation leftists.
Here is an excerpt from an NYT article from 1981:
"Although cable television was never conceived of as television without commercial interruption, there has been a widespread impression - among the public, at least -that cable would be supported largely by viewers' monthly subscription fees."
This reminds me of the Digital TV transition & Public Safety Act from 2005. We all had to switch from analog to digital TV / boxes. Allegedly, those freed airwaves would benefit the public safety by allowing agencies to better communicate in emergencies. I believe that the unused spectrums were then auctioned off & a special Treasury fund was set up to allocate monies. This act basically forced the majority of Americans to buy cable / satellite services. This new act will allow the Dolans of the world to cash in even more.
12
Sooner or later, even as an absolute neophyte in these matters, I knew that Big Business would get hold of this new form of communication and "monetize" it to my personal detriment. When my devices began getting choked with advertising I could see that this net neutrality argument wasn't going to end well, even though it was my tax dollars which invented the internet itself.
It's the same old story. Money doesn't talk. It shouts. It screams in this country. So now, I guess all that's left to do is to wait for an "adjusted bill" to hit my mailbox, accompanied by a notice from my ISP of all the wonderful new "features" my service will now have. (Right!)
16
and new services that we don't want or don't understand which makes our life more complicated. Microsoft continually changes something, calls it something different and offers all these new tools, I don't need them and don't want them. I want basic good service with what I had had for 10 years.
why don't they think of us senior citizens that don't need all the bells and whistles.
1
In this day and age the internet is indispensable for education, delivery of healthcare (think medical records, billing, pharmacy), mass transit and other vital commerce. Its as important as a power-grid. Providers need to be regulated to prevent creation of a dispossessed underclass. I can't think of one industry where de-regulation has protected the consumer.
24
The raison d'etre for regulating phone companies in the past and Internet/cable companies in the future was/is the lack of choice for the end user. In other words, when the consumer has little or no choice but to pay whatever the company wants for their services if the consumer wants/needs to have those services, the company is going to exploit the customer who has no choice.
The repeal of net neutrality is putting the consumer back into the position where they can expect to pay more and have fewer choices for less service because the provider companies can tell the consumer: take it or leave it. And, if there is a competitor, it is a simple matter for them to quietly see to it that the price and offerings are indistinguishable.
Could such companies be subjected to anti-trust action by the government? Maybe. It depends on whether you believe a Trump Department Of Justice would pursue such action. By the time such action was pursued and completed, a lot of money would be out of your pocket and you may not have been able to see news or information programs that would have told you how you were being exploited.
The essence of the decision to me is: do you trust a few unregulated mega corporations to not make the most money from people and companies with little or no choice and to 'tell' those people and companies what they are doing? I don't.
17
Trump only takes anti trust action against companies that criticize him. He is against net neutrality or he wouldn't have put a former Verizon executive I charge of ending it.
The internet should be regarded, protected, and regulated as critical infrastructure. It is a vital set of resources for individuals, for businesses large and small, and for all other elements in our physical, intellectual, and information-based infrastructures. The free-market profit motive is great for many, many things, but critical infrastructure is not one of those things. The technology that undergirds so many crucial aspects of our very democracy and liberty should not be subject to the vicissitudes of markets and to the greed of a very few large corporations.
12
Yes the internet should be a public utility.
Every part of Japan has free internet, which operates at double the speed of our gated fiber optic lines, paid for with tax dollars.
Net neutrality was an artificial construct on a business model anyhow.
My gas station has three grades of fuel at different price points. Certainly fuel is as important as internet access for my business.
My post office has several grades of shipping speed and quality (from book rate to overnight). Certainly shipping is as important as internet access for my business.
Rather than bemoan the commercialization of internet access and content, start holding providers' feet to the fire. Verizon here in NY promises 3mbps for my basic package. Currently I only get 0.98mbps. That is bad for my business.
Corporations cannot be held accountable without regulation, or do you have time and money to waste on litigation? The Republican answer to everything is deregulation and let the free market decide, which is a joke as far as consumers here influencing corporations for better service. Haven't you noticed other countries have cheaper and faster interest service because of regulation?
7
No "Georgi," throttling internet speeds and unfettered access to websites on the internet is not remotely the same thing as buying three differently priced gasoline at your gas station.
The FCC Chair LOVES you for saying that that is the same sort of thing though.
5
This will let internet service providers cut off political content they disagree with.
This is not headline. This is world communications and democracy at stake.
1
It's disheartening to see the erosion of our democracy. It's really unbelievable that after all the public comment just a few years ago, clearly favoring neutrality, the appointment of one chair by a president propelled to office with the help of a foreign adversary can undo the will of the nation. Democracy is quite fragile.
20
This is not erosion of democracy - it is willful demolition of democracy.
Once the digital marketing bubble bursts, three of those companies show their intrinsic value of less than half and costumer demand plus better modelled start-ups will lead again.
At least now I know where my generous tax break will be going - to Comcast. I was going to use it to go out to a movie (by myself).
11
If they dumped bundling, they'd probably make it up in pay per view.
The venal Trump administration & its henchmen/women have no regard for the working & middle classes. While the wealthy & corporations reap healthy profits in the current operating environment, the rest us are seeing every policy/practice that allows social/economic upward mobility, maintaining our health & well being, & our natural & digital public spaces being destroyed by those who cannot see any merit in helping anyone other than themselves make progress. This is a huge disservice to 'we the people'. This is a perfect issue for bi-partisan legislation. We can only hope.....
9
Remember when free TV went over to pay TV? We consumers were fed the line that paying for this service would eliminate annoying advertisements that interrupted our favorite shows. Look how well that worked out.
18
With net neutrality in place, the US has produced the most successful Internet companies in the world. If it ain’t broke, the Republicans haven’t touched it yet...
16
Sorry, but our internet speed is abysmal (see http://www.speedtest.net/global-index) and access for many Americans is limited. Unless the government is willing to own and improve the infrastructure, the industry should be free to do so, and recoup the investment through fees. I’d prefer a la carte options for purchase of internet service.
1
Gary Durst, in Japan, the government provides internet to every corner of the country that runs at twice the speed of our fastest providers. Your are proving the point that having internet provided by global corporations for profit.
That is the administration,s signature: reverse anything that protects the public or the environment. Providers and corporations deserve government protection and impunity.
15
Pro-repeal Republicans argue that there are ample ways to enforce Sherman At. Clayton Act and other antitrust laws should the big telecom companies misuse their new found power (they will). All that argument means is anew wave of class action lawsuits. As experience shows, class action lawsuits are more a boon for attorneys with little meaningful benefit for the claimants. As well, these lawsuits take years to prosecute, giving the defendants plenty of time to gouge the public.
5
Surely the content providers have enough petty cash to adequately bribe at least one of the Republican commissioners. Or are those gentlemen honest in the sense that, having been bought, they stay bought?
8
Ajit Pai was clearly paid off in this deal. He has no clue what consumers want. No Mr. Pai, we do not want to pay extra to access certain websites like Netflix. No Mr. Pai we are not interested in further enriching very profitable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Altice, etc. What do we, the consumers want: high speed and stablility which most ISPs are continually improving under net neutrality. We want unfettered access to all websites unless they represent a threat to national security (e.g. ISIS websites). And we do not need a corporation to play censor in our lives. Many of us are having a hard time reconciling the mission of the FCC to regulate in the public interest vs. your actions as commissioner which seems to benefit large ISPs in this case and large station group like Sinclair in particular and Nexstar in terms of station ownership. In no way is that protecting WE THE PEOPLE, and as seen in recent elections, people are getting tired of this enrich the rich approach and making the appropriate electins.
17
If the affected businesses are smart, they will realize that this net neutrality repeal will be undone as soon as Trump* and the current crop of Republican donor-puppets are gone.
If the American electorate is smart (dare we hope), the dump of Trump* and minions is inevitable.
8
Perhaps our local municipalities can seize the cable lines by eminent domain.
12
Every president is an experiment in an American experience. American people are in a divided state and influenced by partisanship, media and lobbyists. Very few people think independently for themselves but ultimately since the country is roughly divided in two equal baskets, the independents get to tip the scales which is why what independent is most important. Unfortunately on this issue this independent has not thought sufficiently researched or thought about this issue and how it hurts or helps the country is a matter to be seen. Consumers can decide this issue, I don't own a smart phone and like to proudly say am not a phony person. If they like it they like it and this issue is most important to them then by all means vote accordingly if not keeo voicing your discontent and see if anyone else cares as much as you do.
1
I don't like how much power the telecoms have, but it's an absolutely terrible idea for government to regulate communications. Why should we put our trust in big momma government? The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything.... I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term.
According to the constitution, government is how democracy gets things done in our republic.
The market is one dollar one vote. Those with a billion dollars get a billion votes.
Democracy is supposed to be one person one vote.
Ever our constitution was signed, those with money have been trying to convince us that markets are democracy, because then they would have most of the votes.
Please stop believing them. You are giving away power the average person has fought 500 years to achieve, since the Magna Carta, and the age of revolution.
This comment represents a fundamental misunderstanding of government.
Try living without government involvement and you will experience what life is like in places like Haiti or Somalia.
Great point because timr after timr corporations have shown they have the public's best interest in mind! Naive.
Each working American understands their country clearly: work and then work more, frightened that a misstep will remove health insurance and everything else. If you manage to get a 1-2% raise it will be taken by increasing costs and there is 0 chance of doing anything but being a cog until the day you die. Capitalists have removed any semblance of pretense: workers are owned.
12
Have to say, on one hand the idea of the internet becoming less open makes me worried and a bit scared for the future.
On the other hand, I believe the internet (in it's current form) is largely responsible for the ongoing collapsing of civilized societal behaviors and cultural growth. Just saying, maybe making it a little more organized and controlled isn't so bad?
Time will tell, as there is always the fear of some big corporations developing "evil brain washing" content that will spread propaganda and attempt to control people's minds. But, perhaps that's an exaggerated idea born from being subjected to the likes of FOX news and other outrageous media garbage. Perhaps on the horizon... past the Trump doldrums, will be a more intelligent internet? Because I'll tell you what, people are raving about the current internet as if it's a perfected art form... and that it isn't.
1
It is the global billionaires that are funding the sites that push us apart. The Mercers fund Breitbart, for example.
Divide and conquer is the technique they use to keep us blaming each other as they loot our economy and buy our politicians.
Giving them control over internet traffic will make it easier for them to do all of these things, and squash any criticism.
Fox and Brietbart are exactly what we will get.
Why is it that when people complain about hate speech on the internet, a thousand (white male) voices cry out "freedom of speech!" But when freedom of speech might actually be limited by overturning net neutrality protection, all I hear is crickets?
9
Maybe because they know something you don't?
"David Cohen, wrote in a blog post this week. “Our internet service is not going to change.” Right! Comcast will still be an internet provider, that's the part that won't change...but it's going to end up costing more for delivering less.
8
Trump continues removing regulations that are meant to keep the society fair, despite all its obvious balance to the rich, and protecting everyone from the market’s nihilism. In part because of the racist motivation to destroy Obama’s legacy, in part to serve his own interests along with America’s plutocracy. People in America (the poor white people in Trump’s base) apparently forgot the 2008 crisis and it’s consequences. Now they are again acting against themselves and everyone, supporting a government that is making the world worse by the hour, recklessly and irresponsibly, and now making the internet less free and more expensive.
4
Net neutrality is industry propaganda meant to help providers gouge consumers. With net neutrality, if you want to have high speed streaming for movies and gaming, you need to have high speed internet for opening blogs and facebook chat. What happens is people end up paying a premium price for all internet. Some people might want to pay dirt cheap to get email and basic app data, which take up 95% of their internet use instead of paying a much higher blanket fee that is meant to appease streamers.
What people are afraid of is censorship of the internet, or restricting access to specific sites. But I really don't see why a provider would even want to do that. The more sites out there, the more satisfied their customers are. If a malicious party wanted to prevent someone from accessing a site, instead of trying to bribe a company to do something it doesn't want to do, they'd just pay someone to hack it. Computer systems are insanely insecure.
You can't imagine that Verizon would want to shut down sites that criticize Verizon, or its biggest shareholders, or laws made to make them richer at the consumer's or tax payer's expense, or support their workers in negotiations, or attack the idea of global corporations controlling world communications in general?
I can think of write a few sites that ISPs will want to shut down immediately.
The internet was designed to be completely open. This is a dagger in the heart of what the internet was designed to do.
No, I can’t because as long as there are antimonopoly laws there will be another internet provider giving access to those sites, so people will know they exist. It would damage Verizon vastly more if its consumer base found out it was manipulating their web content. These companies depend entirely on reputation, which is why they are so quick to fire come any scandal.
That is besides the fact that what you are describing is censorship. If people are afraid of censorship, then ban censorship of legal sites. Net neutrality is about enshiring current telecom practices of bundling services to force its margins up by forcing people to pay for services that they don’t need or use.
Well voters another example of voters getting what they voted for. You put. Trump and the republicans into office and into control and now you are getting what you deserve. It is far better to have a balance of power than all one sided. This is precisely what happens when one party is in control.
Voters never hold the people they vote for accountable. As a result the lobbyist control and not voters and citizens. Unfortunately this will continue to be the case so long as voters do not take an interest in their government.
5
Yes, I've come to the conclusion that the particular form of government is not nearly as important as the active involvement of all citizens in tracking what the government is doing and holding politicians accountable for what they do.
The greedy are always helping consumers part with their money. My Medicare Part D, Cable provider to name two.
8
This is an interesting and well thought out play by Republicans. Firstly, they line their pockets with dollars from major internet application companies, who will, in a few weeks, see their corporate tax rates drop by more than 40%. To boot, this tax reduction is sourced at the expense of hard-working citizens located in high tax states (mainly democratic) who will see the repeal of itemized tax deductions and state income taxes. Second, this “pay to access” free-market model, so highly idealized by the Republicans, will limit individuals access, at least those that aren’t able to pay (low income), further expanding the barrier between rich and poor and between the have and have nots. But it may be that the real intent here is to limit access, further filter, and later (during election years) selectively expose the public to the information Republicans want you to hear. Social media played a major role in President Obama’s election, and since, Democrats have keenly used the internet and social media to campaign and discuss the issues. Republicans are now seeking to restrict this access as much as possible and direct your attention elsewhere.
3
Global billionaires already control our government, including centrist Democrats through legalized bribery, and soon will control all internet content.
90% of all political donations come from the 1% and 90% of all policy is being written by for and of the global billionaires, with one in the presidency and more in the cabinet.
All of you that have been so panicked by the idea of centralizing control of the economy under government haven't noticed that a few thousand people have centralized the world economy under their control, by accumulating more than half of the world's wealth, and using an insultingly small part of that money to buy our politicians.
Markets are only democratic for those with money. The rest of us are treated as serfs.
I am frustrated that the low income voters hurt by this legislation have generally failed to show up to vote for their own interests. I hope the recent Alabama Senatorial race is a sign of improvement that will persist....
1
Low-income voters come in many stripes, concerns, and differing circumstances. Exactly which low-income voters are referring to?
I am frustrated that the Democratic Party abandoned low income voters and the rest of the middle class to chase corporate donations and to be the Republican Lite Party.
When the Democratic Party amputates its right leaning "centrists," and starts fighting for those who aren't rich with actual policies that help regular people, it will be able to grow its base, and get people to the polls because they will have a real reason to do so.
Let's look at the monster our government has created:
Internet service providers can now discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.
Service providers can now slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the content.
Service providers can now create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.
Communist countries, along with dictatorships, have similar business models. They may have different end games but ours is no better. Who did we entrust with the job of doing what is right for Americans, politicians or corporations? I didn't vote for Corporate America, did you?
5
It's time for people to start stringing wires across their backyards, pop Wi-Fi antennas out of their windows, and form their own Internet - this is totally possible to do.
At first it will be dinky, but it will grow and grow, until it truly becomes a network - chew on that, Verizon.
Everyone laughed at Bitcoin, and they will laugh at Yardnet - but only at first.
3
Yes, we can develop a distributed decentralized internet service provider.
But of course they will try to make it illegal.
When Bolivia put it's water under control of a private corporation, people started collecting rain water. So the corporation lobbied the government and had the collection of rain water declared illegal.
This led to an uprising in Bolivia's poorest province with the people taking over the water system. After a political standoff, The people now have control of their water system and operate democratically as a commons through consensus.
Fortunately, I tend to take a know-nothing attitude toward the internet providers and never did really trust them. Now given recent news about Facebook and even Twitter and today the FCC decision, I feel vindicated.
This document we have called the Constitution it's first Amendment being violated. If you believe like I do that the Constitution is a living document then most will agree but if you don't I suggest to you that if we didn't why do we have amendments process in that same Document called the United States Constitution?
1
"The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options. "
----------
Just like the GOP insistence that lowering taxes increases revenues—proven wrong time and and time again, but brought back repeatedly.
4
I don't want a "wide array of service options". I just want fast internet.
2
The Japanese government provides free WIFI to every corner of the country at speeds double the fastest corporate ISPs in the US.
NYC has two ISPs: Verizon FIOS and Spectrum. The former will most definitely charge their customers $5 a month for this and $5 a month for that i.e. they will fully take advantage of the net neutrality appeal. If the latter was smart they'll simply tell their customers they're leaving prices alone - no $5 a month for this and $5 a month for that. If Verizon FIOS socked it to their customers there would be mass defections to Spectrum.
Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram should tell Trump if he doesn't repeal the repeal of net neutrality they will ban him for life. See how fast he leaves the internet alone after that. Hey, they're all private companies which have a user policy which clearly states they can ban anyone they want for any reason. Driving up peoples' internet bills (besides being a hateful jackas s) is a pretty good reason.
'Matter of fact, how 'bout all three ban him for life now? Let's see how fast he panics about not being able to tweet all day.
I just called Verizon and told that that I hold them responsible for this, and that if net neutrality (which was originally built in to the internet as a feature) is overturned, I will cancel my Verizon account.
I pay far too much money to Verizon to have them undermining my democracy with my money.
If everyone calls their internet service provider and threaten to cancel their service, this thing wool disappear by midnight.
Good for you McGloin! That's what we all have to do: call our ISPs and tell them under no uncertain terms that we will drop them if they eliminate net neutrality.
If ISPs were smart they'd keep net neutrality.
It sounds like, FCC put the power in the hands of people 'to report abusive behavior of ISPs' price discrimination,' so to avoid the allegations of the ISPs in the courts that FCC overstepped it's authority in 2015? That would makes sense, doesn't it? But, doing so, FCC has given the ISPs to do whatever they want, like monopolizing the areas where there are less options to opt for ISPs. How many regions would be there like that? The post era of net neutrality can be elongated because of too much complications. Users have no option but to avoid post net neutrality in such ways https://www.purevpn.com/blog/how-to-avoid-post-net-neutrality-repeal-era...
1
Seeing the heads of ISP companies state with a straight face that they will not necessarily sell speed and access for profit is ludicrous. It reminds me of a Thanksgiving years ago. My step-mother asked me to set up a card table in the corner and load it with the cakes, pies, fudge, and cookies. Several small children watched with hungry eyes. My step-mother sternly warned then not to touch the goodies. The children all nodded their understanding. Five minutes later, the first child grabbed cookies and took off! The rush was on! Business leaders are like small children. They will say that they are following the law; the press of competition require they raise rates and allocate speed for profit; they did not agree not to compete; etc. Just like children! The sad thing is to see so many advocates of deregulating the internet able to convince so many to believe them. Accepting their promises of good behavior is insane! Their nature is to generate profits; feed the greed and need of shareholders; stay on top at all costs; and lie as needed with straight faces.
The only option I see is to create real competition. Charter and fund the USPS as the federal communication agency. Assign it the task of operating a communication agency for the convenience and benefit of all citizens. Obviously, partisan control of the FCC does not work. Today’s events do not bode well for the C.F.P.B.!!
1
How is this democratic process? It is not. How can so few people rule the many?
This commission ignored the public's wishes and sold us out. (Three of them anyway).
1
The next amendment of the constitution: the right to have access to a free internet.
1
Before that, I think we will need this amendment:
Corporations are Not Persons and Money is Not Speech.
So let examine this:
Unregulated banks: A casino atmosphere followed by a recession.
Unregulated pharma: Astronomical drug prices.
Unregulated environment: Oil spills and drinking water issues.
Unregulated healthcare: Skyrocketing premiums for those who can afford care and no care at all for those that can't.
I could go on, but anyone reading this already knows. Large corporations simply can't help themselves no matter what they promise. They're like drug junkies who'll promise anything to get their next fix. Telecommunication companies are no different from any other large corporate entity so sooner rather than later, they'll find an excuse to do exactly what net neutrality stopped, with in their mind a viable reason to further enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.
Good job Trump supporters and complicit Republicans. Making America poor again.
3
The overwhelming majority of net users popular daily online activities (in descending order) is in connecting to check their email; do a few searches; socialize; read the news; check the weather; buy something; pay their bills. All of which barely moves the bandwidth GB needle. Yet they subsidize, pay as much, as the big users, i.e. gamers; movie & video streamers (e.g. Netflix, YouTube); businesses. Users should pay for what they use.
But it doesnt work like that -- For example Cable TV packages that force you to buy channels you dont want. No consumer likes that -- and you think that is OK for internet speeds and access to websites?
2
Maybe I am.missing something here. How do these clowns get away with spreading the story that net neutrality was the previous administration's idea?
As far as i know, it was the default concept for the Internet by convention. It worked well enough and only when some corporations tried to bypass this excellent principle did the FCC step in to frame the rules.
I would be obliged if someone could set the record straight, if my understanding is incorrect.
2
They get away with it because mass media is entirely owned by global billionaires and the global corporations they own. And they make 90% of all political donations, so 90% of all policy is written by, for, and of them.
The editors are hired because they have a pro-corporate world view and they know exactly what their bosses don't want to see on the news.
There is no net neutrality. I can’t load Netflix on my Amazon Fire, about 40% if the time. But I never have trouble watching anything on Amazon Video.
2
Sue. Threatened: freedom of speech. Violated: Interstate Commerce. Ilegal: antitrust actions. Sue.
3
I live north of the 49th and am a pacifist but I frequently meditate on the 3 hundred million guns in the land of the so called free anf the
cult of the 2nd ammendment so ably magnified by the gop. With their bullying of the American populace why are they not worried?
2
It''s quite simple America. Democracy's biggest enemy is not from without but from within. Railroads highways bridges and tunnels and yes now the internet is what unites this country and brings us together. NO ONE has a right to own these vital veins of democracy. They quite simply part of the American body called infrastructure and with out them we fall.
United we stand dived we keep falling .. for these corporate greedy lies.
Toll another bell for the further death of democracy if this is allowed to remain
Trumps America is this really what you want?
2
I'd like to know ...
1. How much do you think Ajit Pai and fellow Republican Commissioners will be paid by the Cable/Internet/Mobile industries once they leave their positions, in exchange for this latest vote?
2. When will they be paid? Will they return to industry?
3. How will they be paid? Cash, salaries, stock options?
There seems to clearly be a quid pro quo here.
3
The GOP senators who have yet to sign on to the tax bill should add a provision to restore net neutrality.
6
When pigs fly.
say goodbye to many smaller businesses that rely on the Internet for marketing and even raising capital. and goodbye startups. non-neutrality gives the largest corporations the advantage. and since the government no longer cares about monopolies or "unfair competition" there is nothing preventing this. to see what will happen look at the experience of Portugal which repealed net neutrality. oh..i forget. that is "fake" news.
5
I got my politics from my late Father who was a federal servant...not well paid. He said the country does not do well under the Conservatives....read republican. Yes we are a different country with a different form of governance but it surely applies. Right wing governments are for the elites and our last conservative govt.also pushed an evangelic agenda but religion does not feature as large in Canada. We are generally more secular although we have bible belt areas.
4
This is the beginning of corporate censorship on the internet. Now Comcast, Verizon and others will get to determine what you get to see on the internet based on whatever criteria they decide - who pays them the most, what sites they like or don't like, etc. Since in many areas of the country there are only one or two providers that provide broadband services, this is going to give these companies enormous influence over our lives. Republican or Democrat, this ruling is going to adversely affect you.
7
Well, the FCC already gave away the public's airwaves decades ago to the big networks, rubber stamping their annual license renewals with no oversight.
That de facto deregulation led to network stagnation and helped to insure the rise of cable services.
Perhaps this new outrageous giveaway of a public resource will have a similar effect, and give rise to a consumer revolt and a new paradigm for internet access.
I for one have never heard of internet users who like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and the like.
4
When the President said he'd drain the swamp, he forgot to include the lobbyists. The world's largest cable conglomerate retains multiple lobbying firms, and it's cost them nearly $11 million this year alone. They're also the most active lobbyist on tax issues, the outcome which likely depends on the well-paid lobbyist teams working on behalf of wealthy clients of mega corporations and cable giants to ensure that somewhere within those 429 pages, portions of the tax bill package gets passed in their favor.
3
Another step in the control of free expression of the opinion that corporations control our lives. What they want is a nation of compliant consumers who never protest the economic injustice of the current system.
The only solution will be boycott of all of they digital content that they proffer.
8
I don't suppose that there is any concurrent demand that these internet providers actually provide the services they charge us for? My super duper extra expensive internet service provides me with frequent notices that there just isn't enough bandwidth to continue watching a movie.
Which brings me to the fact that the U.S. is ranked 30th in the world in broadband speeds, behind the likes of Iceland, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Russia, and the U.K. And this is a direct result of the letting a few companies monopolize the internet. But when you let a Verizon shill head the F.C.C., there isn't much hope of anything improving any time soon.
14
Net neutrality is to the unfettered expression and availability of ideas and information in the 21st century what the First Amendment was to these in the 18th. Given that the internet has replaced newspapers (the kind one actually holds in one's hands), this decision amounts to a de facto end of freedom of the press and information in the United States. This decision not only will harm consumers economically but strikes at the very heart of freedom of information and communication. Welcome to China, but without the free healthcare. But instead of allowing the government to control what we see, hear, read, and know about, it hands all of that tremendous power over to the very few corporations - the ISPs - who control our access to the internet and who are accountable to no one. This is an ideological repudiation of everything the founding fathers stood for and everything America and its ideals of an open society stand for. It is fundamentally unAmerican and is absolutely nothing less than an attack on democracy itself.
21
For a quarter century the net and all the technologies it drove experienced exponential growth and innovation. Then we had net neutrality for two years, now we don't. The growth and innovation continues, the world will keep turning and the short reign of this regulation will be forgotten. The only controversy here is "Trump did it".
3
"FCC Chairman Mr Pai said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options."
No. Corporate deregulation on a service everyone uses and historically needs never works like that. What will happen is that prices will go up every which way and there will be multiple tiers of "access" every which way.
18
According to the the FCC's website, their number one goal is: "Promote the expansion of competitive telecommunications networks."
It's not about promoting fair access of radio, television and internet to all Americans.
Three Trump appointees, in support of ATT's, Time/Warner's and other large internet service providers' push to eliminate net neutrality, voted in favor of increasing revenue for wealthy companies, at the expense of end users.
The internet was originally created as a way to bring information, free, to everyone. It was a utility, using phone lines and dial-up modems.
When high speed service became available, by cable, that's when the internet ceased being a utility. Users had to pay a lot more per month, to only one or two competitors in each region. This is healthy "competition", as defined by Pai.
But at least access via high speed internet was still fair and equal to those who could afford the monthly price.
Now, the big ISPs want more money, by limiting content and speed except to those who can afford it. This is a revenue grab, pure and simple, and the poor and middle class will suffer.
The current extreme right administration and Congress fully support this sort of reward-the-rich capitalism, so Americans can't turn to them for help.
The ISPs' pressure to end net neutrality was based in pure avarice. End users have nowhere else to turn to get content...it's already controlled by the biggest companies, like Big Brother.
17
The full implications of this aren't clear yet, but this is another policy that was put in place to please Republican corporate donors. Which means it probably can't be good for ordinary people.
7
I'm curious. An op-ed today without a comments box asks "What if You Couldn’t Access This Page?". Obama's net neutrality rules were imposed by his own FCC (yes, folks, it was his) less than three years ago. Before that, I didn't have a problem accessing the NY Times digital front page (or its Opinion page).
Why would the repeal of what didn't exist until February of 2015 have such an effect when its absence since the dawn of the Internet era didn't cause any problems?
1
It did cause problems.
Lack of net neutrality is what led to the monopoly that some large ISPs have over whole sections of the country.
Now it will be even harder for smaller companies to challenge the big ones and gain a foothold.
6
Netflix had issues with Comcast throttling streaming in 2014 until they paid a hefty fee in a streaming agreement. Google Wallet was blocked by mobile providers including Verizon in favor of their own apps.
This time instead of the corporations paying streaming agreements it’ll be the consumer. And blocking access to content be common place. Deregulation is never in the public’s best interest regardless of what the republican plutocrats tell you.
2
Because net neutrality already existed in practice since the dawn of the internet--until Veriizon sued and won and so NN had to be codified.
1
"Will help consumers" will help us as much as never upgrading internet infrastructure and throttling connections "helps"
9
I just wish I would get the 150mbps internet speeds that I pay big $ for. I am still waiting for the tortoise to deliver. Now it will be never since they will kill the tortoise.
I do not understand the basis of the multi-state lawsuit. If the FCC had the power to promulgate the rule in the first place, then how can they not have to power to revoke it? It seems to me that the former presumes the latter.
1
So the internet started as a government project that eventually became the backbone of the modern economy,slowly became private. So now corporations will profit even more from something that was started with public funding, and they’re crying foul because of regulation?
I’m in the industry, and do you have any idea how difficult is to speak out of both sides of my mouth on a daily basis?
Give those who think this is a good idea a couple of years and you’ll see them complaining about slow speeds at unreasonable high prices. THIS is the end of the internet as we know it, no doubt about it. Next, private libraries or air anyone?
25
If you are in the industry why do you allow this to happen?
Destroying net neutrality won't harm consumers.
Sure.
And Trump is going to build a wall on the southern border of the US, which Mexico will pay for.
The Trump administration is overrun with lying crooks and swamp creatures.
36
Apparently Agit Pai doesn't get democracy. He seems to think the point of it is to enable corporations to make more money. He is wrong. The point of it is to give a good life to the citizens, the voters of the country. Corporations are not voters and have no right to dominate the internet, the highways, the skies, the airways or any other part of those things commonly owned by the citizens of the country. Corporations must rent these things from citizens.
I encourage all of you who believe citizens deserve equal rights to the internet to telephone or write the FCC and one's representatives in the House and the Senate. The FCC has gotten out of hand and needs to be reigned in.
Mr. Pai needs to learn a lesson in how democracy works.
34
I'm sure Ajit got his 30 pieces of sliver...he'll be OK. After all, the central theme of Trumpism is "one for all, and all for ME"
Too late for that. Call your internet service provider and promise to cancel your account if this goes through.
I guess I shouldn't have gotten rid of my two sets of encyclopedias when I moved. Even the Goodwill wouldn't take them.
Fortunately I kept my collection of dystopian novels.
49
One of my English professors lived in Nazi Germany during WW2. He cautioned us to save our texts, any fiction, non-fiction, history, etc...book that we bought, bc one could never tell when one might end up living in an authoritarian state where information and truth was inaccessible or just burned, as he saw. I saved the books. Everytime I moved, I dragged box after box around along with the bookcases that housed them. They're in my basement now. Thank you, professor, for being so prescient.
2
KenH,
I wish they'd made your comment a NYT pick.
I'm afraid there are a great many of our fellow citizens who think Farenheit 451 is an aftershave.
During the election I implored fellow commenters to read George Saunders's The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil.
Now we're living it.
Glad to see that the FCC is spending its time allowing ISPs to selectively suppress the traffic of their competitors. How about the FCC dealing with the fact that ISPs operate as a cartel, decide not to compete in each other's territories like drug dealers?
If a consumer has only one choice of ISP (because the big companies agree not to compete) then that should be classed as a monopoly. They are a cartel. They should be prosecuted as de-facto monopolies.
33
What will people who can barely afford internet do?
The internet was a way to access information for free, no matter who you are -- now we are limiting this right to information -- this will only segregate the classes further, as poorer people will have less access to information and being smarter, usually a rare ticket out of poverty, would be impossible now.
Very heartbreaking
37
What about political speech on the Internet? The providers want to hang onto this gift, which they will lose if Democrats retake Congress. Are they going to squelch Democratic voices in favor of Republican voices? I see nothing here that would prevent it.
George Orwell comes one step closer to having predicted the future.
26
No Democrats will be allowed to be Republican Lite as always.
It will be the real left that disappears from the internet.
On the contrary it is so liars like Fox can get their dollars to buy more time to lie and conceal... Part of the mussolini lie Trump wants presented... Read 1984...
Pay for what you use is a great idea and this should benefit Frontier Communications Corp. a company that is serving small towns and communities across America.
1
Nice work, Pai. I can already see this message being posted more slowly in the future unless I pay more for faster internet. Thanks for increasing competition at the American consumer’s expense. The argument that this action will increase innovation ignores the exponential innovation that is the norm in our present digital age. You an fall back on a favorite Republican argument that whatever the current state of a given topic is, it’d be ten times better if the voters just let the GOP take the reins, but it’s always a sham in the end. Watch as internet providers further compete with each other to price gouge customers for internet speeds that lag behind those in the rest of the digital world. Isn’t it something else folks? In today’s day and age, our government first considers the corporation’s well-being and then they worry about the consumer’s well-being? Good looking out, Pai. Corporate America First.
31
I pay for the highest available and get the same as the lowest price tier. They do not have to list the truth, so now more lies are legal. I wonder if we all paid for the quality we get instead of the exorbitant fees they charge but do not provide.
Time for municipalities to start building and providing their own broadband. I'd be happy to pay for that in my taxes.
32
ridergk, be careful what you wish for. My utility bill, electric,water & sewer has more than doubled since I bought my home in 2001. If this keeps up it will outstrip my mortgage. It is already higher than my property tax.
Offering select content packages is going to kill the openness of the internet in the United States, mark my words. I've seen what happens when Internet is limited to these kinds of deals. People become narrow minded, blinded and more strong in their beliefs of what content they can wish or only afford to pay for. For example, if AT&T offers a special to only access Facebook for $5 a month and nothing else, that's it. If people are content with that they are comfortable with AT&T and Facebook control the medium without having access to other outlets, then American society is in serious trouble.
20
Pai is another consummate liar who knows where his bread is buttered.
49
There is no mention of the FTC's role in this article. Comcast already pledged Net Neutrality. The FTC can fine Comcast if they do not deliver. Any throttling of content by the carriers must be publicly disclosed.
8
Comcast's pledge on net neutrality remains to be seen, but you can bet subscribers will pay a hefty price for it. Seniors on fixed incomes will be forced to cut the cord, and remaining customers will have to pay the difference to make up for the losses.
1
I understand the reasons for both sides. Pro-net neutrality side is fearful of preferential treatment and rising prices. Anti wonders why such a fuss over a rule that was only recently made, when there was so much internet success before it and feel open market, as in other fields, will keep prices low.
Which is better, I can't say, but I do not feel the doom that others do with either rule in effect.
1
Please get back to us in with your feelings in a few months after your ISP has changed your download and upload speeds, blocked the traffic of its competitors and raised its billing rates considerably.
Tell that to the places in this country where there is NO INTERNET CONNECTION AT ALL... then you would see why it's a terrible idea...
Folks,
Net neutrality passed November of 2015. It’s been 2 years. The Times is reporting this like the sky is falling. We were okay without it before, we will be okay without it now.
Also, speaking of consolidation of power into the hands of the few. Where are the articles on Facebook and Google??
2
Geez don't you get it that Facebook benefits from this? And the majority of Facebook users are not even in this country or are not politically active...
This will turn monopolies into megalo(maniac)-monopolies.
In short, welcome to censorship and political tyranny.
11
I saw this guy Mr. Pai on tv today explaining how this won’t hurt the average Joe. Just bold faced lies on national tv with such a straight face. Mr. Pai, we’re not morons. We know you lie, don’t insult our intelligence.
25
Great move. The internet worked just fine without all of this NN foo-foo.
About half of internet providers stocks are owned by non Americans. I am glad Trump is helping foreigner first over Americans!
6
This is so typical of the Trump administration. If something like the internet and unsullied lands in Alaska can be monetized then why not.
15
It's easy to understand what's happening here. The big ISPs -- Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon -- are basically cable companies. But the cable business is tanking. People are going direct to Netflix and Hulu over the web. The cable companies are panicking. Their cash cow is dying and they need a new one.
The ISP business is not especially profitable -- all they do is carry data back and forth. But what if instead of being data carriers, the ISPs were gatekeepers? Then they could control access and charge people lots of money.
And that's their plan. Their plan is to take what is already freely available on the Internet, package it, and resell it. And on top of that, they want to extort money from Internet businesses to reach their customers.
It's a scam. Everybody know it's a scam. And it won't succeed because businesses and consumers hate it. Businesses hate it because they have to pay off the ISPs to reach their customers. Consumers hate it because it complicates something that was previously simple, and because it makes the Internet more expensive.
How the FCC can ram this through with this much opposition is beyond me. But I can tell you one thing. It won't stand. And it may even lead to a breakup of ISP monopolies. They've gone too far, this time. People already hate their cable companies. This will make us hate them even more. And if making your customers hate you is your business model, good luck with it!
39
I quit watching cable a long time ago. Now, I won't be streaming or buying things online either.
Amazon, etc., you can thank Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Pai, and the rest of the spineless people that allowed the neutrality rules to be repealed.
As long as small business people support politicians that put global corporations ahead of all else, they will be hurting themselves.
Thank you!
I will be the first to sign in a new telecom that guarantee net neutrality, I will give up my actual provider in a second.
Competition will kill the actual telecom business if they censor websites.
8
Many, many locations do not have the choice of multiple carriers. These are monopolies already throughout the country. Has any company not do something they've spent millions to get the right to do?
2
Time for stockholders and users to vote with their feet. Just because they don't have to doesn't mean they will.
2
Were the Russians at it again exploiting our Internet and Democratic openness to flood the comment board with fake comments? Or was it simply those who want to have a stranglehold of the profits and political censorship as they see fit?
This is equivalent to Putin taking over independent TV in his early days as an authoritarian. trump is now doing it with the Internet. This is more than just profits - it is about control of all information. Welcome to the 100% fake Internet.
After his stint at the FCC, I can only imagine the bonuses Pai will get once he returns to work for Verizon - not that he really left.
15
Unless my Internet gets faster, cheaper and better, I'm definitely voting for the person who will restore net neutrality in the next presidential election.
18
This is wrong! Bad move by republicans and one they will regret. Americans want there liberty and net neutral insures that. It's not a partisan issue it's a protected consumer issue. Apparently this administration and congress is trying to pay for their elections with corporate favoring regulations.
8
They're pretty much dragging us back to colonial times. We didn't get a say in anything then, and we still don't have any now. Talk about freedom. Like we have any.
7
It took us less than 30 years to ruin the internet
14
Yeah, we're good at ruining things. Look at the Middle East.
Government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations, aided and abetted by Congressional robber barons.
12
Instead of thinking of this as an attack on equal access to the internet (which it is), I prefer to think of it as another nail in the coffin of the GOP and the Trump administration. This is going to affect all Americans and the Dems need to be constantly reminding the public that Trump and GOP are responsible.
14
Facebook, Alphabet, Netflix, Apple, and Microsoft should create an investment fund (with the money they're soon to repatriate at a very low tax rate) and buy ALL of the ISPs. They can put the assets in a perpetual trust, so the issue of net neutrality never comes up again.
9
Time to boycott any comoany with ties to the commissioners who voted this in and any companies that take advantage of it. And, yes, we may be in for some big sacrifices, as in a week or month or two with no internet commerce, but think of the Montgomery bus boycott and how people walked hours every day for months and months to bring down Jim Crow. This rule change is the new Jim Crow that could cut off not just new companies but progressive news services and candidates and causes. It is time to go past marching and rallying and speeches. The only thing that the puppet masters who are pulling the strings on the GOP in DC and the corrupt Trump administration understands is money. It is psst time to organize to hit the companies behind this in their wallets. Cut them off financially before they kill democracy and free speech completely.
12
Who really believes telcos will use this market freedom to create plans that make them less money...?
11
And just when my fixed-income parents had bought an Apple TV and subscribed to sling to stop paying Spectrum $200 a month for cable tv. Coincidence?
9
Cry me a river. They clearly don't have any problems with money if they throw away 200/m on Spectrum and go out and buy Apple TV.
2
Net neutrality and its contested meanings was the topic I presented in this year's SHOT (Society for the History of Technology) conference and what I still feel puzzled about. It is a highly technical and socioeconomic issue disguised in the principle of freedom of speech, customer protection, openness, and the concepts of neutrality that have been misleadingly ill-defined yet unreservedly favored in colloquial terms.
The challenge of keeping the Internet neutral, free and open has not only been to represent interests of broadband companies at a time when we mostly identify innovations and the growth of the Internet with the proliferation of content service providers running on infrastructures that have been mostly invisible and uninteresting to the public.
Another challenge which the public have been in general unaware of is that there have been middle grounds and fine lines between having and losing so-called "net neutrality." The more I plowed through a decade of FCC orders, discussions in academia (economics, law, and communication engineering) and technology news to net neutrality, the more I realized that middle grounds and details have been labeled and obscured in binary categories along with the bipartisan lines.
3
Ah Yes. And who do you think benefits from obscuring the issues? In my opinion, its mostly the Big Government Lawyers.
2
Actually, Amy, obfuscation is the hallmark of America's corporate lawyers, who are the people who actually write much of the legislation and regulations promulgated by our bought-and-paid for legislators and regulators.
About 10 years ago, Google offered to install free Wi-Fi to all of San Francisco. But large companies Iike Comcast and AT&T were able to stop the project. Back then, one could sort of understand their position. They were spending millions to build infrastructure. Smart phones and HDTV were relatively new. But service has always been terrible And expensive, with Data Caps and unexpected fee's. Sometimes these unexpected fee's were in the hundreds of dollars. That's why I switched from AT&T to Comcast, only to have Comcast play games with the service while in the middle of one of their yearly "service" plans.
There needs to be more regulations, not less, if we expect the internet to continue to innovate and build America's future economy. We need more service providers. And yes, now is the time to let Google offer Free Wi-Fi.
6
No, you EITHER have innovation and growth, OR you have gov't regulation.
The marketplace will provide more providers of these services.
You mean the same way the market provided one gigantic oil company about 110 years ago?
Also how do I as a consumer choose a service provider when there is only one to choose from?
4
The marketplace does not provide more providers when the nature of the business encourages the formation of monopolies. Furthermore, government regulation does not inhibit growth and innovaton. American innovations have blossomed in many regulated industries.
2
There are many ways accomplish the goals of Net Neutrality and Net Neutrality has not been a big success thus far - prices are still high and in many ways, government regulation is a gift to the big telcos who are good at manipulating the regulatory system.
One improvement of the current net neutrality laws would be tiers of service and each of there would be Neutrality within each of those. This is the system favored by many of the by Internet companies. Another very important step would be local loop unbundling which would allow more competition to the home and we know that competition is good for consumers.
2
Tiers of service work neutrality at each tier already exists.
2
The FCC must now encourage competition through local loop unbundling. This would bring prices down and minimize concerns about the selective delivery of information.
3
If 83% of people wanted Net Neutrality preserved and 75% of people are against the Republican tax plans, then we currently aren't a representative democracy. They only answer to their donors.
28
The worst hypocrisy of the Republican party is the willful ignorance they present to the American public regarding business. Ajit Pai knows full well that companies will take advantage of the lack of regulation over time, because if their top executives don't there is a host of mid-level managers ready to do it to move up in the company, increase their pay, and please shareholders. That is how business works. Pai is a fraud.
15
Eighty million people in favor of net neutrality and a dozen or so against it. Do we Americans need a weatherman?
18
You don't need a weather man To know which way the wind blows.
Bob Dylan
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/subterraneanhomesickblues.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0
3
This administration does not even bother with a passable fig leaf. I am not Comcast or ATT, etc., and they do not care two beans what I want. They don't work for me or anyone like me.
7
That individual lost her own rigged election
Isn't America supposed to be run by the people? than how come so many people are mad about this but they don't care at all.
12
We in fact do care and believe government is the last thing that should be regulating a free market. Of course folks that have had full control of government will have to adjust to again to more freedom and more COMPETITION.
1
No, America is not supposed to be "run" by the people (or big companies, or big government). We are supposed to be a free society where people can earn their own rewards and find their own path.
1
Chalk one up for Sears and the USPS. If access to ISPs is pretty limited, as it is for most to only a couple, where do you think that competition is coming from? New company gonna run their own cables through the streets? The competition to Amazon and Netflix goes back to being the Sears catalog and Blockbuster down the street. This 'competition' that you mention is basically a reversion to pre-Internet days to get things done. Either that, or start tinkering with HAM radios to start building an alternative web.
What a sham. This government does not represent me one bit. At some point Canada and Australia are just plain better places to make a life, even if it means giving up being American.
16
Come on - there is a better way that leaving. Work a little harder at getting out the vote for people who are not representing the 1% and big corporations. What's great about America is that we, the people, do have the power. Unfortunately, since 32% of the people are Trumpians, too dumb to know they vote against their own best interest, but the 68% of the people who could take back this country just need to get off their tushies, stop complaining and take back the congress to put a check on this administration & congress. It really isn't Trump's fault - he is just a dotard that is a puppet of the Republicans - he has no ideology, just a narcissist, who signs what they put front of him.
4
This is so disgusting. I am enraged. I am calling my Congress people in State Politics (California) to urge for regulations to fight this fundamental blow to our free speech and democracy.
14
Very hard or impossible to change this on a state by state basis.
The Ajit Pai voodoo doll just became this years must have Christmas gift.
18
Merry Christmas America
1
The op-ed entitled “What if you couldn’t access this page?” Surely you jest. Russia would love us to have even more free speech.
1
Trump: The Great Destroyer. Taking away our civil liberties one at a time.
12
Chalk up another win for big business and Trump and the Republicans cronies.
7
Sickening. The cravenness of this congress and administration has no bottom. They’re doing long term damage to our country, if not all of humanity. This is a bad idea. Bad, bad bad.
10
It's off to the courts to this utter nonsense and rip off the less fortunate!
5
From deregulation of the financial services in the late 90s to the mega mergers of banks, airlines, oil companies and allowing companies to get rid of retirement plans to turning health care into a business the government has aided and abetted the savaging of the ordinary citizen by industry and the very powerful. This is just one more example. We as people and citizens have little to no value in this brave new world except to serve these masters and work harder to keep them happy all while being told, time after time, that this will increase competition, or promote economies of scale or some other crock that will lead to paradise. It never does. How do we get our country and lives and control of our government back?
6
Take a deep breath- we will be A-OK.
Vote progressive!!!
I would not be surprised if Pai and other republicans have an offshore account somewhere in Caribbean stashing payments received from corporations. I don't believe for one minute that he thinks this move benefits consumers in any manner.
14
Pai and the republicans don’t need offshore accounts. They are blatantly destroying everything that is good about this country, out in the open for the entire world to see. They have no scruples, shame or honor. They make the rules to enrich themselves and their donors. They do not care one iota for the average American and do not even try to hide their contempt and disgust with anyone not in the 1%. They are literally laughing all the way to the bank. The level of disgust and abhorrence I feel towards these so called “leaders” makes it a daily challenge to even believe in democracy any longer.
And next , Trump only allows his agenda to come over Internet. Does that sound familiar "comrades"?! This is no longer the US OF A! Instead of immigrants flocking here, we "true Americans" will be looking for countries that are as free, and democratic, as we used to be. Get the moving vans ready. Stinks to high heaven! Just like all his unAmerican moves.
5
The oligarchy is winning.
8
My wife says let's call for a day of internet silence in solidarity with those who will now be shut out.
4
Note to self.
Don’t put yourself between millenials and their YouTube if you want to take another election.
They might actually show up and vote.
4
Bingo!
The thing is, the world is based off of the internet. We thrive on it. If this goes away not only will we break but so will the world. Not everyone has money, people shouldn't be forced to pay things that they live off of. We do have freedom so we shouldn't be pushed under the richer and seen as the lesser people. If NN goes away? Internet friends will banish, smaller business will banish, commercials will banish, and eventually? we will too. We buy things off the internet, not everyone can afford the extra cost for accessing certain websites. People get jobs off the internet, not like you tube but having interviews and job applications. The jobs WILL go down. Colleges will lose students. Some people cant few to physical college because they can't afford it, so they take online classes. If NN is gone, they wont be able to afford their college and to pay access for their education. People are gonna lose a lot. Money, Entertainment, Education, Updates, anything for shopping. We need to keep NN. Like if you agree. Like to stop the FFC from taking over. We should have our freedom, its modern day. we have those rights. And what about the people who need the suicide hotline? Would someone wanna pay so they can talk to someone? No. This Net Neutrality can save lives.
The only thing we should pay for is the stuff that saves us. Food and a roof over our heads.
Blah, blah, blah. More lies, lies, lies.
News alert for Mr. Pai: There's been plenty of innovation in this country in industries that are regulated. And while businesses unfettered by consumer regulations are likely to help the "economy", what Pai really means is corporations, shareholders and the Wall Street wheeler dealers.
Do these DT deregulators really think the electorate is as dense as the approximate 38% of voters who comprise DTs base and still believe in his conman act? As PT Barnum once said, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time (the trumpsters), but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Please don't insult our collective intelligence by telling us that the deregulated telecom giants are going to help our bottom lines. They never will. Pai argues that "the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers . . . could offer them a wider variety of service options," for which, no doubt, they will charge premium prices to their customers while at the same time restraining their competitors by charging them more for their transmissions.
We have your number Pai, DT and the rest of your hatchet-men deregulators. There will be a tsunami of comeuppances in 2018 and 2020.
5
"....could offer them a wider variety of service options..."
"Them" being those who can afford the options. The rest of you, who cares? We do not care about you.
4
How, if at all, will this affect freedom of speech on the internet?
2
Unless you don't remember, the internet unlike telecommunications, got a separate classification and isn't included as a utility.
Since electricity/water/gas/telephone all flow thru similar "pipes" the utility regulators REQUIRE the pipelines to be left open to every provider.
Since the ISP's will be allowed to self regulate they can determine that they might not like "your provider" and can cut it off completely.
FACISM
2
When a “democratic” government no longer represents the will or interests of the people, but rather those of a small minority, it is not a democracy - it is tyranny. Our forefathers understood exactly what to do about tyrants.
6
Why is everyone so upset? This is the US. This is Capitalism. We won. This is not about censorship or control. This is about making More. Money. You. Me. We will pay to be fast-tracked to whatever we want to see, read, hear or immerse ourselves into. We accept paying TSA for access to fast lanes, we pay hospitals and doctors for special treatments and rooms, we pay for access to private roads to avoid those pesky congested public roads like the lines at the airport. Speaking of airports, we pay airlines for special treatment. Ee even pay the postal service for special treatment of our packages over others. We pay car manufacturers for different features and models and then we pay fashion designers for even more uniqueness because, well, fashion. We pay private schools for special treatment of our packages, I mean children. And we just can't pay for faster electricity because Physics. The alternative of course would involve having to deal with Communism such as (to paraphrase Miss South Carolina) like they have in like Canada, Netherlands, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and uh, everywhere like such as.
2
This is a terribly unthought out plan that strips the American people of their access to gain knowledge. Almost every school in the United States assigns homework to their students that REQUIRES resources only the internet can provide.
4
now you know why they iced Al Franken...
How many of us would pay to have no ads and lesser online tracking? Facebook and Google and Amazon makes money of knowing what we do and selling Ads. I for one would be happy to see additional charges to access Facebook / Google's propagated content via search and recommendations - It will reduce the control they have on the content available on the internet. For this reason alone its worth considering. Yes it would affect choices and yes potentially we have shell out more for accessing content and media but at least there will be more options now. I'm tired of hearing free internet - There is no free lunch in the internet. Ads and cookies know more about how you use internet than your own family. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what options consumers actually get.
Politically smart yet shortsighted. This ensures that most of rural red america will remain with substandard or no internet which is exactly where the GOP and Trump prefer them to be. Without adequate broadband or decent local newspapers, the information diet of Trump's 32% is limited to Fox and Sinclair TV and horrific AM Talk and evangelical radio. Bad politicians maintain their base by keeping constituents in the dark, Pai just did the GOP a great service.
4
It is an odd day when the conservative party votes aggressively for change, and the liberal party votes for the rules to say the same - especially in the polar political climate we have today.
Astute, and actually applicable to almost every decision made by the GOP in the past year. Applies to the last presidential election, too.
What this will do is encourage piracy on a scale never before seen, and the pirates will be considered Robin Hoods.
1
Problem: ISPs now they have the power to throttle the pirates’ protocols with impunity.
“Let’s remember why we have these rules in the first place. There is little competition in the broadband service market.”
If Mr. Beckerman is correct, and it seems he makes a valid point, then shouldn't the real battle be at the FTC, not the FCC?
1
The internet should be declared a utility and regulated as such.
6
So, if nothing will change, according to big telecomm, why the rush to undo these regulations? I don't buy it, and with 90% of voters on the record as supporting net neutrality, I'm willing to bet that nobody else does either.
Just throw this in the bucket with the rest of the Trump/GOP abominations we'll be fixing in 2019.
4
Nothing will change next year or the year after.
And maybe even the year after that, depending on how many distractions Trump can continue to manufacture.
But just wait.
Where are the Dems on this? - will they be wise enough to pounce? It's difficult to get Americans to focus on most policy issues, but this is one that the overwhelming majority of people, and particularly young people, appear to be furious over. Make sure everyone you know is informed on the make up of the FCC - 3 Republicans provided the yes votes, and the deciding vote was a Trump appointee. Tax cuts for billionaires and corporations are apparently not enough, now another gift to corporate America at the expense of average people, brought to us from the corporate lackeys in the Republican Party.
1
Tremendously disgusted, but not at all surprised. FCC chair Ajit Pai has made his views quite clear over a period of years.
The FCC has an excellent staff of dedicated attorneys, engineers and industry analysts. Sad that their good work is being denigrated with this ruling.
In this administration, the consumer is last in line. It would be interesting to know what the public comments revealed, absent the alleged fabricated comments.
15
Even now, almost everyone has moments when the internet seems frustratingly slow or difficult to navigate. Even in the absence of change, the perception of blockage will be out there. This could lead to another win for Democrats, just like Trump's "make America great again" did for a country that was already in the midst of reasonably prosperous times when viewed from a historical and global perspective.
4
The War for the Next Media Age has begun. This is nothing more than the telecoms striking back (a massive blow) against Tech Streaming services that came into existence through the very need created by the monopolized telecom and cable provider industries. And honestly, media streaming had already been captured and placed behind a paywall by new monopolized interests anyways (Amazon, Netflix, soon to be Disney), meaning consumers were never going to win regardless of who wins this war to entertain them. Higher prices are coming for our entertainment no matter what happens. The only difference to the consumer will be who we pay the exorbitant costs to.
2
This is completely one-sided in favor of the media/telecom companies. So right now I have Time-Warner Cable (Spectrum) for cable internet but I use hardware devices from DirecTV, Apple, Sony PS4, and others, not to mention third-party software apps on all of those. Spectrum will now be able to itemize billings and discriminate against the data being used by each url on each device if it's not in Spectrum's best interest. If things get bad I'm assuming the Supreme Court will have to answer whether the internet is truly open as the Obama rule determined.
7
What is a difference between Chinese or Russian government controlling their internet vs our telecom companies controlling the flow of information to their users?
23
The late media magnate Roy Thomson described commercial TV as a license to print money when he was getting in on its ground floor in the UK. That is the vision of FCC chair has of the internet. Like his fellow Republicans/Conservatives, he is expert at using language the way that Orwell described, to mean the exact opposite of his real intentions - which were already bake into the FCC Pai from his time as a Verizon exec.
Pai pushes the idea of deregulating the internet as leading to more choices for the public. The truth is that as long as ISPs are local oligopolies, the real choices will be to pay up and shut up, suffer slower service or do without.
Congress should immediately overrule the FCC, to declare the internet a public utility and mandate that Comcast, Charter and the rest open their infrastructure to competitors as is mandatory in Europe.
23
Slower access and a massive increase in profits for Internet Service Providers paid for on the backs of the middle class and small businesses is how Ajit Pai defines "Innovation".
In fact, that's how everyone in the GOP defines it.
You know what else was "innovative" the Iraq War. And now we have the "innovative" new tax bill as well. My favorite new Republican "innovation" is voting for unapologetic racists and credibly accused pedophiles.
Thank God it only took three Republicans to destroy the internet as we know it!
34
Remember children: there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. /s
9
Except, apparently, when it comes to net neutrality. 3 Republicans just voted allow throttling/denying/removing content based on the whim of the media oligarchy.
1
That is the beauty of having an Administration that works exclusively for the big corporations. Aren't you proud?
36
Liars, Ajit Pai, Brendan Carr, Mike O’Reilly all liars ...Follow the money! Look at and remember these names, these people are the enemy of all Americans and represent the big money interest. The American people have a vested interest in the internet and these thieves just gave it away to private entities, who will ring every dollar they can out of us.
30
... but her emails ...
27
Commissioner Pai is a Former Verizon Lawyer. Now you know where to direct your protests.
39
Trump drained the swamp so he could refill it from the cesspool.
3
I called Verizon this morning and promised to cancel my account if this goes through.
Make sure you do it on the phone with a live representative. It costs them more money.
Mr. Pai is the enemy of the people. He has sold his soul. He will be held accountable not too far in the future, as the political winds are shifting. Mr. Pai, you are an abominable human being, Ghadhi's soul will not rest in peace knowing you are the offspring of Indian parents.
34
2 years and we will be able to get SPACEX satellite WiFi any where on this planet so briars band companies can GTH.
4
You really think Comcast et al. won't manage to monetize that?
Commissioner Pai does not understand American Freedom.
19
Wouldn't we all like to know how much Pai benefits from the deal?
58
Yup, what's in Pai's wallet? In cold hard greenbacks or iou's? What a telecom toady.
You will find out when he gets hired back into private industry. Of course he still has a huge stock holding of ISPs, I'm sure
The revolving door has been left as a sad monument to the wall between government and corporations that they have ripped out.
Time to repeal the GOP, the single most destructive organization in US history.
27
Another step toward the establishment of a Ministry of Truth.
30
Trump and consorts making America worse off -- again.
16
Could someone please explain to me what the deal with this is? I don't get any of it.
1
It's quite simple, people for 'net neutrality' thinks or presumes that infrastructure to provide them internet such as cables magically popped up and weren't paid and built by these so-called big companies that are just out to get money. But those that think this repeal is a good thing understands that it will allow these companies that does build the infrastructure will compete and continue to expand and innovate to provide and keep up with the growing demand which these people for 'net neutrality' expects. So it's natural that companies like Netflix that does not build the infrastructures but depends on the providers for them to stream are upset and will pretend to be on the side of the people that are so dumb and spoiled and have no grasp of the idea that nothing is free.
Attention Trump Supporter-this one effects you too. Free speech isn't a left or right issue. MA USSR A
14
NATIONALIZE THE INTERNET WITH PROTECTED STATUS ! It needs to be protected from ill conceived and self-serving clowns like trump and the obviously bought-and-paid for in-over-his-head ajit pai. shameful.
16
And the corporate kickbacks continue unabated. Never before in the history of this country has a party in power so blatantly monetized that power to line their own pockets. Disgusting.
13
Who's behind the fraudulent letters sent to the FCC ?
11
My favorite comment here is: disgusting. Consider it repeated many times.
There is no shame amongst those who would convince themselves that letting corporations do whatever they want will somehow benefit "the average little guy." Delusional? No. Fraudulent? Probably. Unkind. ABSOLUTELY. Overall, like everything else the Tea Party/Koch Brothers/GOP puppets do, disgusting.
18
Thanks Ajit , you have made your place in history as the scourge of one of the last bastions of free expression.
23
It was not enough to vote to repeal neutrality, Mr. Pai had to team up with The Daily Caller to rub it in all our faces. https://youtu.be/LFhT6H6pRWg
6
Of course it's not "the end of the world" of the internet as we know it.
It is just the beginning of the end.
Just like the tearing down of the wall of separation of church and state would not turn our government into a Christian Taliban. Not immediately, anyhow.
But it would open the door to that possibility.
Then, under the right circumstances -- like, say, under a Trump Presidency with extremists throughout the Cabinet -- it would just be a matter of time.
6
"There is little competition in the broadband service market.”
Exactly. The day I can pick my cable provider is the day I'll believe that the fair market will adjudicate this. I don't understand why there can be competition with long distance providers ( who share the same wires ) and not for cable.
Oh wait, yes I can : this administration is all about making sure their rich friends are protected.
I would love to know what Ajit Pai will get when his tenure at the FCC is done and he can go back to lobbying for the likes of Verizon.
12
This both sicken sand frightens me. That we, the people, were clearly not in favor of this, like we are clearly against the passing of this tax travesty, seems to have no effect whatsoever upon those we've elected to serve us. I hope we'll have time to make them pay and pay and pay for this.
5
There is people who are poor (like me). Like you expect us to pay for your problems? This is just so sad. Rip schools, it's honestly gonna affect schools and if I don't have these apps it's going to give me anxiety because that's the only app I had that I could actually talk to someone. I'm a shy person and I don't like talking so talking online was much better. But now you're trying to take that away. Ashamed.
4
The next step for the Trump administration: privatize water.
6
That's coming... hope you can afford it... they will also be privatizing rain water so don't get any bright ideas
This certainly does not make Pai look effective. It makes him look corrupt!
6
No surprise(s) here. Losing elections has consequences. Losing them to far right wing nuts has bigger consequences, especially as regards consumer protection. The fun in Trump world is just beginning
5
I wonder what Newton Minow would say about this.
Guys invest in the Substratum cryptocurrency !
Let's work towards hosting our own Internet! And run a node!
Thank you gop! What you’ve done with net neutrality could quite possibly bring going to a library and taking out books to read!
1
This subject is a sure test for passionate nerds (I mean no disrespect). The only people I've met who get really excited about this aren't exactly getting as much vitamin D as is recommended if you catch my drift. Problem is, who else can you trust with it? Best I can tell, if you're for it you'll make a good Corvette owner and if not a great Volvo owner. The social justice crowd gets really upset while the less progressive seem like Gordon Gecko when the topic surfaces. So, the good guys hate it and the bad guys really need to brush up on Thug lessons because they are, after all, nerds first and foremost. Maybe it's enough to know that Trump's crew thought it up and as a barometer, anything Trump usually ain't too good for my digestive system. -CN
How can the Trump Syndicate allow the Internet -- developed by the defense department -- become a fountain of money for cheating, bullying corporations?
Oh yeah, they are the Trump Crime Family, Ok I get it.
7
Awful ruling. Greed wins. Freedom of expression and fairness lose. What next, some form of muzzled information if one cannot keep well informed as fast as the one's with money? No sensible regulation may give rise to a savage capitalism, deepening hateful inequalities, and the inequities it engenders.
1
People won’t accept this massive abuse of power and disregard for the public good. Workarounds like Substratum network will take over.
3
In China it's the government blocking the internet; now in the USA it will be the oligarchs. Censorship is censorship, regardless of its source.
6
if everyone has full and equal access, we dont need options!
1
“Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”
Laughable and disingenuous statement. I live in an “underserved” area and without boring your readers about my trials and tribulations with Century Link, my sole choice for an ISP, and who does “not guarantee” upload speeds, I can tell you we are underserved for a reason. Upgrading equipment and infrastructure is expensive, and because there are “too few” of us for the company to profit, there is no incentive to build a better network. Business minded republicans should know this, but then again, up is down these days. So Ajit Pai, will that better internet service be delivered by unicorns or faeries?
7
Oligarchs have got it going on. Rest of us - just write comments and sometimes vote.
3
of the people, for the people, by the people.
How could this fellow forget this?
2
I wonder how much money was "donated" to Mr. Pai for this?
Those deep pocket ISPs will now make a ton of money and we will have to pay for it. I'll bet the cost to us consumers will be raised as often as the providers can do it.
MAGA - Dump Trump
4
After watching the video of this FCC commissioner promote this change, I truly weep for the poor kids that grew up on the internet. They are simply lost.
1
Among the many comments submitted to the FCC in favor of repealing net neutrality is one from one of my sisters. The name and address attached to the comment are hers, though she in fact submitted no comment.
While it's not identity theft, and perhaps not even criminal, it is certainly a corruption of the democratic process regarding proposed rule making.
Worthy of an official investigation? Perhaps, though I wouldn't count on this administration to do anything that might promote integrity in government.
2
Well, the removal of something else that matters...are we really that surprised? Since January of this year, it's been one political sleight of hand and redirection after another to emasculate the American public and funnel money and freedoms to one small entitled group. The public outcries to these changes mean nothing. The last few months have been a prime example of how much abuse entrenched political power can legally accomplish. Do you think the Trumps, McConnells, and Ryans really represent the interests of their constituents? Pure fantasy and tragic comedy...they know this wave of whatever this is won't last...they are cramming through every lousy idea in order to realize their profits for as long as they can. TERM LIMITS!! TERM LIMITS!! TERM LIMITS!! Absolute power corrupts absolutely...as long as these jerks remain in office, the more entrenched and corrupt they become. It's time to limit the ability of people to abuse their offices and make long-term deals with corporations and donors. We need an amendment for term limits and I encourage everyone to at least stand behind the idea.
3
Pai is a shill. Came from Verizon, and will take the revolving door to go back to Verizon or become a lobbyist. This decision is about him banking for his future payoff.
6
Bribery is alive and well in the F.C.C. I wonder if Mr. Pai can now afford that yacht or maybe that Jaguar? I'll just bet he can along with the other care naught for the average citizen.
4
When Trump said "Make America Great Again," he meant that we should return America to a time when capitalists had no restrictions, workers had no protections, and women and minorities were expected to stay in their lane. Trump's administration represents nostalgia for a colder, crueler world. His supporters should be ashamed.
4
Everything is being monetized. To get a clue how this will all play out, for those of us who have DirecTV, look at what they've done to our choices for entertainment. They want us all to pay for everything we watch. Old movies, or TV shows On Demand, for a premium. They show nothing of value on regular broadcast TV, and try to drive all consumers to pay for disgusting, poorly made movies that are overpriced. It couldn't be more obvious what will happen next. And, it will never, ever be in favor of the consumer. People are getting obscenely wealthy at our expense.
2
I gladly gave up television years ago,
and have never regretted it.
2
Day by day, the Republicans, in servile service to the Trump administration, chip away at the principles that have historically made this country an imperfect yet inspiring place to live, all in support of corporate and one-per center greed. Three months ago, I would have exclaimed, "They should be ashamed of themselves!" Then, for awhile, I just shook my head. But now, I am truly afraid. As a high school English teacher, the lessons of Orwell's 1984 are always at the front of my mind. We got one very, very large step closer to an Orwellian future today with the repeal of internet neutrality. I know that I am one of millions who is sickened by the depraved depredation of this Congress and anti-presidency I am not represented. I am not important. I am not heard. and I have never felt both so frightened and so powerless in my life.
5
The only thing I am sure of is that anytime there is a big corporation in the equation the consumer is NEVER a winner. Thank you Pai.
1
Why is one of the changes that instead of the FCC being in charge the FCC is transferring the authority to and under the Federal Trade Commission?
Do they have the authority to do this? What specific reasons and benefits does this give to these monopolies ATT,Google,Apple, Facebook,Twitter, Comcast,Sinclair,Murdoch et al. ...?
Basically media and it's contents will be what people will be able to purchase as a truth.
Bad roads being well traveled these days....
I've got a lot of things to sell to Ajit Pai if really believes consumers will benefit. Municipal fiber, akin to what's available in Chattanooga, can't come fast enough to my town. Google, Amazon, and thousands of other companies will ensure that net neutrality is preserved no matter what laws are on the book.
1
Finally a way for Verizon to monetize their purchases of Yahoo and AOL. Now, their content will be the easiest to access for free, and/or cheaply and at the fastest speed. Advertisers will have nowhere else to spend their money to reach the digital masses so Verizon and their brethren will rake in big bucks making shareholders even richer and happier. Consumers, not so much. No wonder they paid lobbyists so much. Kinda like the tobacco companies when they used to use smoking doctors in their ads.
2
Glad I don't live in the US anymore. Any pretense that "the government is of the people, by the people, for the people" has been stripped away. Plutocrats run things and the will of the people do not matter. No other advanced country would do this.
4
The only outcome to this will be the fleecing of the consumer. We will be paying more in the future for the same services we receive today. The only reason this was done was to allow the huge internet services to put their hands deeper into our pockets.
2
So basically we are going back to the same regulations that was in place for the first 20 or so years when the internet grew like crazy, just not the last 2years.
No ! Actually, the unthinkably greedy, sniveling attempt to steal the internet, a few yrs ago, was prevented by the Obama admin, who then had regulations put in place to protect it from these foulest of thieves.
Now Trump and the Oligarchs have made off with it, claiming it as theirs ! And will now decide what you can see.
There's no way to justify this decision. The GOP FCC Commissioners haven't even tried to justify it.
I think they don't care about anything other than the cash. Where's the $ in the GOP. I guess you could say "Grand Old Plutocrats".
1
When do we expect American voters to wake up and smell the coffee??
That votes count and that actual things happen to actual people when you waste your vote or do not vote?
2
Ending internet neutrality is just the latest monetization of resources by our current administration. We're pricing Americans out of their national parks...We're diminishing our national monuments so extractive businesses can make additional profits...We're asking the working class to support the wealthy with the proposed tax overhaul...and we're denying health care (CHIP) to children from non affluent families. And the republicans in congress are continuing their support of party over constituents. Shameful.
3
Comcast's X1's interactive TV service doesn't qualify as an Internet service under the FCC's rules. It is an IP-cable service, which is explicitly exempt
from the Open Internet Order. This is essentially what the FCC ruling will do to ALL internet content!!!
Comcast and Netflix signed a deal last year or so to have Netflix app embedded into the X1 platform, with Netflix ponying up big bucks.
It did not go unnoticed by my family that after this occurred, streaming of Netflix was faster and more reliable.
Netflix just raised our bills $2 per month, in case you didn't know
This is how things will operate now for ALL Internet Content.
For those who can afford even bigger bills, more power to you.
For the rest of us, not so good.
2
I am so outraged, I am going to call Verizon and Comcast and let them know!
I'll get back to you in 5 or 6 hours after I go through the redwood sized phone tree, get put on hold continuously, then get 'accidentally' cut off by their 'service' reps. sigh
3
Freedom of speech has just become contingent upon the whim of a very few corporate officers...wow, this is catastrophic
2
For those old enough to remember the original Information Super Highway was the post office. The Founding Fathers of the United States made sure that neither the employees of nor the postal service itself could discriminate. Every piece of mail was guaranteed the same service by law. The sanctity of the seal was also guaranteed. All other free nations adopted these rules. Why? In a true democracy citizens must be able to freely transmit and receive information and correspondence of any nature without fear of persecution.
Why is the Internet any different? In the end it’s a means to the same ends.
Or, why is it that one of the first things a dictator does is take control of the postal system? OOOOOPS I just gave Dump uh Trump an idea....
2
Why do Republicans always side with corporations against consumers? They say their care for the best interests of everyday people, but they're lying. They really don't give a flip for us.
2
The internet should be treated like a public utility not a cable package. When will the plutocratic appetite be sated? America what is happening to you?
3
If only these 1000+ comments had represented actual letters sent by constituents to their representatives.
People, let's resolve NOW to NOT let our energy be dissipated by the act of "Commenting" here. From now on, let's sit down and direct our well-considered and well-articulated objections to places where they need to be heard.
[And like your coach always said, "Follow THOUGH!" Most goals are not scored on the first shot.]
They promise they're not going to block or throttle. Well, what ARE they planning to do with this power? Why did they want it so badly?
1
Pardon me if I seem naive, but if the telcom companies start trying to charge higher prices for Netflix and Amazon video, what is to stop Amazon and Netflix from starting their own ISPs? They have the money to do so and it would put the nail in the coffin of current providers.
I don't see this as a terrible thing. After I'm forced to subscribe to Comcast cable TV to keep my "unchanged" internet connection because I cant afford the new streaming video tier or the increased cost passed on to me from said streaming video services I'll get rid of it all! I'll donate my 4k tv, cancel phones, disconnect streaming tv and internet. I'll go back to writing checks, using payphones/pagers, actually shopping at a store in person and enjoy some outdoor activities in my free time for the next 3-7 years! That wont be so bad I guess. Maybe I'll trade my car in and get a horse to come to work on while I'm at it too! Hey, this will have no effect on my internet services at all.
4
you can still shop locally and people are still starting up bricks-and-mortar businesses and selling stuff!
Seeing the heads of ISP companies state with a straight face that they will not necessarily sell speed and access for profit is ludicrous. It reminds me of a Thanksgiving years ago. My step-mother asked me to set up a card table in the corner and load it with the cakes, pies, fudge, and cookies. Several small children watched with hungry eyes. My step-mother sternly warned then not to touch the goodies. The children all nodded their understanding. Five minutes later, the first child grabbed cookies and took off! The rush was on! Business leaders are like small children. They will say that they are following the law; the press of competition require they raise rates and allocate speed for profit; they did not agree not to compete; etc. Just like children! The sad thing is to see so many advocates of deregulating the internet able to convince so many to believe them. Accepting their promises of good behavior is insane! Their nature is to generate profits; feed the greed and need of shareholders; stay on top at all costs; and lie as needed with straight faces.
The only option I see is to create real competition. Charter and fund the USPS as the federal communication agency. Assign it the task of operating a communication agency for the convenience and benefit of all citizens. Obviously, partisan control of the FCC does not work. Today’s events do not bode well for the C.F.P.B.!!
1
How is enforcing net neutrality "heavy handed" regulation? If anything, lack of net neutrality, which may lead to all sorts of differentiation and stratification, will eventually lead to MORE regulation as internet services become unnecessarily complex. Costs will go up as companies must invest in technologies to police traffic on the internet.
I also wonder how this encourages competition? In many US markets, there is only ONE (lousy and overpriced) provider of internet services. Yet in the socialist dystopian left-wing European countries where they hate freedom and love communism, consumers have the luxury of picking and choosing among many different privately owned providers that provide fast high-quality services, despite (shock horror) the existence of net neutrality. Hmmmm....
It's always the same thing. The rich use the Republicans to get richer at the expense of the poor and the middle class. Here the three Republicans on the FCC voted to create a way for the rich to enforce class structure on the internet. This is class warfare and the people who are losing aren't doing much about it. You need to stand up and fight and that means voting out Republicans wherever you can.
1
Telecom companies would never do anything to enrich themselves at the expense of equal access to the internet. now to take a big sip of coffee and look up what the sole purpose of a corporation is
1
Most people are either too lazy or too busy just getting by to seek out diverse news options or verify information. They will get their information from the most convenient, available source. When legitimate news sources are hamstrung by delayed loading or outright unavailability, they'll get misinformation from the "sponsored" source. Just another way to control the masses and mislead the electorate.
2
Thank you Trump and the rest of the Republican party for watching out for the ordinary everyday American people. Hope to pay you back in the next election cycle.
2
This was not done "for the people." It was done for business. Anytime the government has change regulations saying it will create more competition it just creates a higher bill. I'm so sick of both parties and the elite agendas. Can't we create a third party of common sense? I'm just disgusted
Do we see the pattern of this administration? What corporate America wants, it gets. We the people no longer have standing.
I fail to see how this promotes competition when the isp and cable providers are maintaining a policy of only 2 to 3 providers per market. There is no competition when companies agree not to enter a given market so that the two providers there can charge higher prices. Until the Market fixing that is currently at play is dealt with we will continue to be subject to the same price fixing and gouging but in a much more invasive manner. Now internet will be packaged just like Cable packages and everyone will pay more. Lower accessibility will lead to reduced market interest. That will in turn lead to fewer investors and lower rate of commerce. This will mark the end of and age of innovation in the United States.
2
ISP and cable providers don't get to determine how many companies get to enter a market. That's a function of 1) local governments, who have traditionally extorted exorbitant fees from ISPs for the opportunity to install lines, and 2) the billions of dollars of upfront investment necessary to build the infrastructure. Once ISPs have paid the extortion and raised the capital, they have a right to a return on their investment without interference from a federal government that contributed no funds to either 1 or 2.
The government invented the internet. We, the taxpayers who fund the government, paid for it.
Portugal tried it. It didn’t work out. We’re on a slippery Orwellian slope now.
Like life itself, enjoy the ride. This round has been won by the forces of money over the general good.
Might be time for unions to stage a comeback...if that’s even possible.
8
We need municipal broadband. The internet is the public commons, and should be handled like water: free flowing and essential for all to have.
9
That's a certain prescription for exorbitant costs.
Now that the internet is owned by a few large, powerful companies, we face the awful danger of no longer having what we used to have (traditional media) and no longer having what replaced it (a neutral internet guaranteeing equal acces to all digital media). This decision, perfectly aligned with Trump's totalitarian project, therefore threatens to destroy the fourth pillar of democracy. Make no mistake about it. They're shutting us out, one step at a time.
17
The internet is NOT "owned by 4 companies" or anything nears that. Actually hundreds, if not thousands own it through network they built, fiber and otherwise, nationally and internationally. It's the ultimate collective. You are being sold false information. The booming of the internet is a case study of how business evolves when there is no regulation to impede progress, and make no mistake, competition and free market brought you the internet you enjoy, not regulations from some DC or state bureaucrat. This is great news for all, it will only get better.
The internet isn't owned by four companies. The PIPES through which much internet traffic runs is owned by a handful of companies, though: a handful that spent hundreds of billions of dollars building those pipes.
It's starting-maybe- Netflix is raising its streaming prices next month. A small amount, but it's an increase.
4
As often with the dysfunctional left, they can only say what they don't want, rather than defining in positive, proactive terms how they want ISP services to be sold and/or regulated in the public interest. The Wheeler/Obama Rule was heavihanded, awkward, and too arbitrary in its rule. By petulantly insisting that advanced IPS services with better service specs could NOT be offered, the rule stifled the development of advanced services. A more lightweight rule would merely say that service specs could not be offered and priced privately, i.e. ISP services would be offered only to the public, with published service specs (testable from the outside) and based on a published price schedule.
The new rule is much closer to this, in Commissioner Pai saying that ISPs either have to publish their service "policy", or give it over to the FCC. Most will prefer to publish. That rules out private sweetheart deals, no?
It's better in the long run that we have this form of transparency, but not overconstrain the development of new, advanced services. The Silicon Valley startups wanted the public to subsidize advanced services through their monthly bill, even though not receiving the advanced services. Nice try. Didn't work.
Go out and raise the capital to do what you want to do, and let the ISP world go back to published price schedules and service specs, free to amp up services.
1
Ok, here's what I want. The internet should be part of the national infrastructure, just like highways. Everybody has free access to the same roads and drives at the same speeds and the internet should be the same.
8
Looking at the deteriorating conditions of our national highways, you've got to say what would be gained by giving the government a monopoly in internet services. Internet services do not require state control to function and develop, only a lightweight regulation in the public interest.
Study Mr. Pai's comments today...that's what FCC is switching over to.
Another proponent of The Other Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Not even the combined voices of every corner of the internet could scream loud enough to drown out the sounds of the promised money.
Actually, I find that quite hard to believe. There must be something else at play, because there's a limit to how much the influence of wealth can distract someone from the demands of the people. Perhaps they truly believe that this will actually help us?
It appears that we have all forgotten the power media already has to distort information to influence the will of the public. I'm willing to bet that most of you reading this comment has not done much research on the topic, trying to use trustworthy sources. I know I haven't. So perhaps, we may be wrong? I certainly hope we aren't right.
2
The next step is to privatize our Interstate highway system and make them all toll roads. (I’m fully aware that some are already toll controlled). Those that can’t afford to pay the tolks will be forced to take the older, slower highways. Welcome back to US 1 north and south on the East Coast; Route 66 from Chicago to LA; etc.
Great roads and I highly recommend them for a view back to how America once was, but totally ineffective for the 21st Century. (Indeed, parts of Rte 66 don’t even exist anymore).
It’s the equivalent of charging access for traveling on what was once called “the information superhighway”. Or only allowing some trucks to travel on the Interstates if they pay a higher fee.
8
what are you talking about. people already pay different rates for different connectipn speeds. what they want is that even though a user has already paid for some type of bandwidth, the isp can still go ahead and slow down an internet service that theu dont like.
what you mean is that people should be charged different rates based on which brand of car they want to drive on the same road for which they have akready paid a toll.
3
Thanks again to bernie, Sarandon and their young followers who decided to stay home or voting for the green candidate (whi has disappeared from the face of the earth). Their opposition to Hillary has been extremely beneficial to poor and middle class Americans. Well done fellows.
21
Clinton won the popular vote, despite the types of voters you mention. It was the Electoral College that put Trump in office.
As for those who voted third party, I have no problem with people who vote their conscience. Both parties have been captured by corporations and the billionaires. For example, both Democratic Senators from my state (Reed and Whitehouse) voted in September against Rand Paul's amendment to end the AUMF and force Congress to debate before paying for future wars...these "Democrats" are happy to continue endless war. And they are toothless in fighting for the rights of the poor, the working poor, the middle class, the elderly and disabled. This is not the Democratic Party I grew up with 50 years ago. They will get my vote when they deserve it.
5
Don't forget to thank the DNC, the super-delegates and the media for all the chicanery in advancing HRC, possibly the worst candidate the Democrats have ever nominated.
2
The Green candidate?
You mean Jill Stein, who can be seen sitting at a 2015 RT banquet table across from Putin and General Flynn?
I am very glad my network provider is city owned and operated. I pay $50 a month for fiber to my house, 1GB download/1gb upload, no throttling, no pay fro priority, just good service that is far cheaper than CenruryLink and Comcast. And a speed which they cannot match, but make you pay between $80 to $100 a month fro 50mb service; if that.
And by the way way, because the city owns the electric utility, I have some of the lowest rates in the country.
So, sometimes "socialism" works very well.
44
Yeah that is great and as it should be, but the internet can be throttled at the other end too. The web sites you access can be impacted by their service providers.
Under today's new rule, ISPs have to publish their "policies" for everyone to see what is being sold in terms of services. So, there is a reasonable check on "throttling", as that would have to be publically disclosed by the ISP.
Jealous. But we'll have such a service in the near future, in FoCo. Can't wait!
Read the Wikipedia page on the pros and cons of net neutrality. The NYTimes (and most media sources) are HEAVILY biased in favor of MORE regulation.
The internet, and all the innovation that came with it, grew to become what it is without regulation. There were no net neutrality regulations two years ago, and mass commercial censorship generally wasn't occurring. Regulations don't drive innovation - they lock in the status quo. After digging into Net Neutrality a fare amount, I place my faith in the power of the free market, not regulation in this case.
Those that tell us to be outraged - Google, Netflix, and others are manipulating public opinion to meet their own very corporate agenda. The media providers want the media distributes to pay their bill. Netflix is a giant free-loader on the internet, and want us to be outraged that they may have to share their profits with the people that actually run the fiber optic lines to get their content to our homes.
3
The Internet was created by governments and taxpayers. The free market had zero to do with it. Only after it existed and was well-proven did free markets kick in to build new companies and make profits. That's the way it usually works.
Then people forget the history and give free enterprise credit for everything. It usually works that way, too.
4
Wrong wrong wrong. Net neutrality was built into every piece of hardware the internet was built on. It was the cornerstone of the internet. All this started when companies tried to change the rules to the internet which required us to turn those rules into formal laws. Net neutrality was always implemented on the internet.
4
The internet has become such a vital part of modern living that creating tiered systems will essentially deprive many people of of a voice in their own society. At its core, it is fundamentally undemocratic. Job searches are virtually all online or at least require online application.Doctors and patients coordinate care online. Shopping is online. Small businesses advertise online, and yes, we may even be moving toward voting online.Those without access or with unequal access simply can't compete. This is a disaster in the making.
Furthermore, I find it outrageous that a technology that was developed by the US military over many years and with the American taxpayers money is now being commandeered by private corporations who will now be able to sell it BACK to the American public at rates that can be considered nothing less than extortion.
17
Trump is repealing each and every one of Obamas' policies. sad America.
12
Excellent, back to capitalism vs the socialist trend we have been on for 8 years.