Discussion:
The Internet Didn't Need Net Neutrality In 2015, And It Doesn't NEED It Now
Add Reply
AlleyCat
2018-06-10 23:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The controversial repeal of Obama-era net neutrality
There's no "controversy", idiot. We didn't NEED "Net Neutrality" BEFORE
the law was passed, and it STILL doesn't NEED it.

=====

The Internet Didn't Need Net Neutrality In 2015, And It Doesn't Now

In authoritarian regimes across the world, government control and
regulation of the Internet is a given.

Here in the U.S., we've managed to keep our online world relatively free
from any bureaucratic oversight.

That changed in 2015, based on a mandate from President Barack Obama, when
the Federal Communications Commission voted to classify Internet Service
Providers as public utilities, the same as water suppliers or telephone
companies.
The 6 blockbuster cases to watch as the Supreme Court term ends
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

This classification was first applied to telecommunications in 1934, aimed
at dismantling the monopoly enjoyed by the Bell Telephone Company. Under
these rules, ISPs must comply with additional standards and regulations in
order to operate. That raises the costs of providing Internet services,
thereby actually reducing the number of ISPs that can stay compliant and
serve consumers.

Therefore, when FCC chairman Ajit Pai submits his proposal to do away with
the 2015 regulations on Dec. 14, it won't be the end of the world. It will
be the end of using a Depression-era law to regulate the most innovative
invention of the last century.

Net neutrality, the principle that all online traffic should be considered
neutral and free from prioritization, is indeed a noble standard. It's one
ISPs should generally adhere to, and the FCC has supported in the past.

The North Carolina-based Madison River Communications was fined by the FCC
in 2005 for blocking Voice over IP phone services. This behavior still
won't be tolerated in a net neutrality-free Internet age, and consumers
will always have remedies available to them.

Detractors rightly point out that regional monopolies limit consumer
choice in many localities throughout the country.

However, this is due to restrictions passed by municipalities and state
governments. They have an active role in stymieing competition and
ultimately benefiting Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon. Only Google Fiber,
backed by the Google behemoth, can raise enough capital to comply with
regulations in order to service cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh.

The municipal broadband service in Madison, North Carolina was shut down
because of the state laws which prohibit municipal ISPs, even though the
FCC sued to overturn the law.

Ensuring enough market access to consumers across the country, especially
rural areas, is something companies such as Google have been keen to
address. But the net neutrality rules as written will not guarantee more
access to ISPs. They'll only make it more difficult for ISPs to grow,
invest, and innovate.

Unfortunately, many observers have conflated the net neutrality
regulations as somehow the only safeguards for a free and open Internet
and providers for universal broadband access. But that just isn't true.

Before 2015, innovation was a hallmark of the Internet. It was the purest
form of the free market at work, allowing for the creation of thousands of
online companies and services billions of us enjoy today. Allowing
entrepreneurs to unleash products and services without burdensome
regulations that only favor the large companies and investors will be good
for Internet consumers.

Without these rules, bad actors will still face the fury of the Federal
Trade Commission, which would regulate anti-competitive behavior.
Consumers will still be protected and have their fair share of choice in
the marketplace.

Therefore, protecting the freedom of the Internet depends on giving it
back its "light touch" enjoyed for the decades before the FCC's
regulations in 2015.

That will ensure we can avoid the dangerous pitfalls of Internet
regulation and censorship like we see in China and Turkey, cutting human
rights campaigners and journalists off by government mandate. That's not a
path to emulate.

In the U.S., we should be proud that our agencies are adopting a vision
that keeps the Internet a realm of the private enterprise sphere, free
from manipulation and over-regulation by bureaucrats. The Internet didn't
need this regulation before 2015 and it doesn't need it now.

Consumers deserve a free and open Internet, one that fosters innovation,
gives millions access, and allows for the myriad of companies to compete
while offering great products for us to choose. The best way to do that
will be to repeal the FCC's 2015 rules.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in hate with Russia
these days. They LOVED Russian politics, i.e., Socialism/Communism until
Trump whooped that wide-load Clinton's fat ass. Fucking hypocrites.
Siri Cruise
2018-06-11 00:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
The Internet Didn't Need Net Neutrality In 2015, And It Doesn't Now
It had de facto net neutrality. This only came up when telcoms realised they
could sell internet resources and use their monopoly power to coerce customers.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
AlleyCat
2018-06-11 00:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:39:33 -0700, Siri Cruise says...
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by AlleyCat
The Internet Didn't Need Net Neutrality In 2015, And It Doesn't Now
It had de facto net neutrality. This only came up when telcoms realised they
could sell internet resources and use their monopoly power to coerce customers.
The Internet Didn't Need Net Neutrality In 2015, And It Doesn't Now

In authoritarian regimes across the world, government control and
regulation of the Internet is a given.

Here in the U.S., we've managed to keep our online world relatively free
from any bureaucratic oversight.

That changed in 2015, based on a mandate from President Barack Obama, when
the Federal Communications Commission voted to classify Internet Service
Providers as public utilities, the same as water suppliers or telephone
companies.
The 6 blockbuster cases to watch as the Supreme Court term ends
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

This classification was first applied to telecommunications in 1934, aimed
at dismantling the monopoly enjoyed by the Bell Telephone Company. Under
these rules, ISPs must comply with additional standards and regulations in
order to operate. That raises the costs of providing Internet services,
thereby actually reducing the number of ISPs that can stay compliant and
serve consumers.

Therefore, when FCC chairman Ajit Pai submits his proposal to do away with
the 2015 regulations on Dec. 14, it won't be the end of the world. It will
be the end of using a Depression-era law to regulate the most innovative
invention of the last century.

Net neutrality, the principle that all online traffic should be considered
neutral and free from prioritization, is indeed a noble standard. It's one
ISPs should generally adhere to, and the FCC has supported in the past.

The North Carolina-based Madison River Communications was fined by the FCC
in 2005 for blocking Voice over IP phone services. This behavior still
won't be tolerated in a net neutrality-free Internet age, and consumers
will always have remedies available to them.

Detractors rightly point out that regional monopolies limit consumer
choice in many localities throughout the country.

However, this is due to restrictions passed by municipalities and state
governments. They have an active role in stymieing competition and
ultimately benefiting Comcast, Spectrum, and Verizon. Only Google Fiber,
backed by the Google behemoth, can raise enough capital to comply with
regulations in order to service cities such as Charlotte and Raleigh.

The municipal broadband service in Madison, North Carolina was shut down
because of the state laws which prohibit municipal ISPs, even though the
FCC sued to overturn the law.

Ensuring enough market access to consumers across the country, especially
rural areas, is something companies such as Google have been keen to
address. But the net neutrality rules as written will not guarantee more
access to ISPs. They'll only make it more difficult for ISPs to grow,
invest, and innovate.

Unfortunately, many observers have conflated the net neutrality
regulations as somehow the only safeguards for a free and open Internet
and providers for universal broadband access. But that just isn't true.

Before 2015, innovation was a hallmark of the Internet. It was the purest
form of the free market at work, allowing for the creation of thousands of
online companies and services billions of us enjoy today. Allowing
entrepreneurs to unleash products and services without burdensome
regulations that only favor the large companies and investors will be good
for Internet consumers.

Without these rules, bad actors will still face the fury of the Federal
Trade Commission, which would regulate anti-competitive behavior.
Consumers will still be protected and have their fair share of choice in
the marketplace.

Therefore, protecting the freedom of the Internet depends on giving it
back its "light touch" enjoyed for the decades before the FCC's
regulations in 2015.

That will ensure we can avoid the dangerous pitfalls of Internet
regulation and censorship like we see in China and Turkey, cutting human
rights campaigners and journalists off by government mandate. That's not a
path to emulate.

In the U.S., we should be proud that our agencies are adopting a vision
that keeps the Internet a realm of the private enterprise sphere, free
from manipulation and over-regulation by bureaucrats. The Internet didn't
need this regulation before 2015 and it doesn't need it now.

Consumers deserve a free and open Internet, one that fosters innovation,
gives millions access, and allows for the myriad of companies to compete
while offering great products for us to choose. The best way to do that
will be to repeal the FCC's 2015 rules.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Mexicans.
Mexicans are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, mainly
because they're mostly Catholic... oh, and they HATE you. Am I leaving
anything else out that you just LOVE about them?

Riiiiight... they're potential Democrap voters.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Loading...