Image result for net neutrality

In a new proposal issued last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set out a plan to eliminate net neutrality protections, ignoring the voices of millions of Internet users who weighed in to support those protections. The new rule would reclassify high-speed broadband as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service” (remember, the FCC is forbidden from imposing neutrality obligations on information services). It would then eliminate the bright-line rules against blocking, throttling, and pay-to-play (as well as the more nebulous general conduct standard) in favor of a simplistic transparency requirement. In other words, your ISP would be free to set itself up as an Internet gatekeeper, as long as it is honest about it.

  1. Raintrees says:

    As long as there is a sticker on the ISP’s modem that is installed that clearly states “Warning: May contain Internets” then we will be all right.

    Got to take care of them lowest common denominator-types…

  2. OmegaProject says:

    I gutted a fish once.
    Gutting Net Neutrality will leave a lot of blood on their hands.

  3. Hmeyers says:

    I am starting to wonder if Net Neutrality isn’t free unlimited bandwidth for Google and Facebook at the expense of the rest of the economy.

    Facebook and Google have a business plan to spy on you in all things. And now Microsoft with the spyware called “Windows 10”. Who pays for this?

    It isn’t Facebook, Google and Microsoft paying for the bandwidth to spy on you.

    And you didn’t give Facebook, Google and Microsoft authorization to spend your bandwidth on their spying.

    Furthermore, sites chocked full of 53 ads with video and noise? Who is paying for that? It isn’t the advertiser. And you didn’t say “Hey advertisers, I give you permission to spend my bandwidth on 10 auto-play videos with loud audio.”

    So let’s be clear here — part of this is Google, Facebook and Microsoft and advertisers getting a free lunch to use as much of your bandwidth as they like.

    And they use tons and tons of it, like free candy.

    You didn’t elect for those companies to spy on you and consume your bandwidth to do it. You didn’t elect for auto-play videos that consume your bandwidth to do it.

    Just maybe Google, Facebook and Microsoft as heavy bandwidth users should get a bill. Perhaps they might optimize their spying.

    Instead of Windows 10 deciding to download itself onto Windows 7 and Windows 8 computers by itself. How much free bandwidth were they using there? 30 GB? 100 GB?

    • Hmeyers says:

      If Net Neutrality goes away:

      Those that will need to pay more are companies like:

      1. Google – $64 billion in cash reserves. Known tax dodger/evader/off-shorer.

      2. Facebook – $32 billion in offshore accounts.

      3. Microsoft – $126 billion in offshore accounts.

      If they have to spend some of those tax dodging billions if Net Neutrality disappears, “Boo fucking hoo!!”

      I’m not going to cry for tax dodgers that are huge consumers of bandwidth having to pay some of their mega-billions.

  4. Hmeyers says:

    “ignoring the voices of millions of Internet users who weighed in to support those protections”

    1) How many of them had educated opinions on the matter?
    2) How many were just parroting what Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook put in front of their faces?

    And the $1 million dollar question.

    Does Perkel know the pros and cons?

    Or is he just repeating what Google and Facebook told him to think (like https everywhere, Let’s Encrypt).

    I don’t claim to be an expert on this subject, but my thoughts on the subject run deeper than Facebook, Google and Amazon’s propaganda on the subject.

    And as stated above, those companies all have untold several tens of billions in off shore accounts to prevent it from being taxed here.

    I am thinking they do not need more free gratuities if they are not paying proper taxes in this country.

    • wisefool says:

      Thanks, Donald Trump..

      • Hmeyers says:

        Microsoft owns Skype.

        What a great business! Steal AT&T phone customers and then sell those customers Skype phone service for $2.95 a month!

        Now Microsoft gets the money and doesn’t need to maintain phone lines while using AT&T’s phone infrastructure to make calls!

        Or how about Disney deciding to start their own streaming service?

        Now they can compete with Comcast and Time Warner while using Comcast and Time Warner’s cable internet for free without maintaining the expensive infrastructure to deliver the internet to customers.

        Why invest money in the internet infrastructure if it just means you are subsidizing a competitor to take away your customers?

  5. Hmeyers says:

    Fun Windows 10 fact:

    Did you know your Windows 10 PC is using lots of bandwidth helping update other PCs on the internet?

    Microsoft loves helping itself to your bandwidth.

    Net Neutrality helps them do it for free!

    Microsoft has volunteered your PC to basically be a Bit Torrent server, sharing updates with other other computers on the internet.

    • Raintrees says:

      Not if you read the installation screens and do not choose “make all settings for me” defaults.

  6. bobbo, the culture critic embarassed he's not reading a book says:

    HM: I don’t know the subject well enough to conclude but your comments are on point. Also, not conclusive even if true, but on point.

    My point: I like my internet experience and have a negative kneejerk about gubment “control” of any kind.

    I don’t know what it fully means, but the criticism that strikes home to me is WE THE CONSUMERS pay for the broadband already and the deregulation is for COMCAST and other overly corpulent excessively profitable entities to “double charge” the content PROVIDERS for what we the CONSUMERS already pay for….with a good dose of censorship and increased commercialization (ie ads for Comcast Services).

    ……………and at base, I thought 90% of internet traffic was spam and porn?…….meaning any complaint about what is going on in the remaining 10% is really a dodge?

    …………..but I don’t know. I’m leaving it to the majority will and democratic outcome. xxxxxx BUT INSTEAD: the future of the internet is being made by those paid to reach a particular outcome to favor those with the money to pay for it. IE: Comcast. HA, HA===>I just flashed on that old James Coburn picture with Ma Bell the central Villain. Same issues, same villainy, just a reborn Ma Bell.

    • Hmeyers says:

      See above about Windows 10 volunteering your bandwidth treating your computer as a file-sharing server to send updates to other computers. And you were never asked.

      That should be illegal.

      (I hate AT&T by the way, but I think a lot of truly evil bandwidth consumption is going on — that the consumer is not aware of and wouldn’t want.)

      Follow the money. Google, Microsoft, Facebook are not innocent companies. What are they doing that they are not telling you?

    • Hmeyers says:

      Perhaps another point of view:

      Would you prefer the bandwidth be paid for by …
      1) Higher cable internet bills? (YOU)
      2) GOOG, Facebook, MSFT and their tax dodging tens of billions.

      Someone has to pay for the infrastructure.

      I pick GOOG, Facebook, MSFT to pay their fair share.

      My cable internet bill doesn’t need to go higher.

      Consumers do not owe GOOG, Facebook, MSFT a free lunch. And while I love Netflix, their market value is $90 billion! I think they’ll be ok.

      Besides Netflix just raised prices $2 per month, that is 18% price hike. I think Netflix will be just fine.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Here is something interesting …

      “During the past two years, Facebook has used 5 percent of the Internet’s bandwidth; Google, 2.5 percent; Microsoft’s Windows Update, 3.2 percent”

      Windows Update is using 3.2 percent of all the bandwidth.

      Facebook is at 5%? How? How is Facebook using more bandwidth than Windows Updates — which would be an enormous amount of bandwidth.

      • bobbo, the culture critic embarassed he's not reading a book says:

        I guess I don’t understand the “mechanics” of how the tubes are all connected and such. But it seems to me all of the issues you name have nothing to do with net neutrality.

        If there is an easy explanation that shows I’m wrong, I’d like to hear it.

        • Hmeyers says:

          In your world, when Google Chrome is scanning your files, it is to make sure they don’t have viruses.

          In our world, sadly that’s not why.

          Sure, it will happen to alert you if it finds a virus — but they don’t have $64 Billion in off shore accounts because they are a virus scanning service

          They got that $64 billion from reading your emails, knowing your search history and tracking your phone. That’s why they are scanning your files.

        • Hmeyers says:

          A false quote of Huey Long is “When Fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-Fascism!” Conservatives love to use that so-called “quote” to make fun of antifa.

          But there is a grain of truth in the concept.

          When the Devil shows up in the tech sector, he will have the motto “Do no evil!”

          Lord of the (F)Lies.

  7. Ecksofa says:

    The main problem is that the masses dont care. As long as they have a cheap connection everything else doesnt matter.

  8. Ah_Yea says:

    “As long as they have a cheap connection”

    And that’s the problem. We don’t have a cheap connection. $10/month for reasonable speed would be cheap.

    “net neutrality” is a nice way to say “subsidize”.

    Net neutrality is nothing more us subsidizing Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc.

    That’s why they are all in favor. It makes their connection cheaper while locking out the small competitor wanna-be. It’s ANTI-“net neutrality”.

    Most people are so stupid, it’s disheartening. They will eat anything shoved in front of them.

  9. Ah_Yea says:

    That is to say, Hmeyers above is spot on.

  10. MikeN says:

    Returning the internet to the regulatory state it was in about 2-3 years ago. Somehow we didn’t have all this throttling and shutting out of websites for 25 years before Net Neutrality, but with Net Neutrality, we have shutdowns being conducted against users by Facebook, Google, PayPal, CloudFare, Twitter, and more.

    I had to correct CD way back when as he was complaining that Republicans were repealing Net Neutrality. At least this time there is something being repealed. Back then, the protests were really that Republicans were refusing to pass Net Neutrality, and Google was getting away with calling it repealing.

    Actual investments by ISPs have dried up since Net Neutrality passed, with the major investment was Comcast not on network upgrades but in its new interface for the box(a major major improvement).

  11. bobbo, the culture critic embarassed he's not reading a book says:

    Just watched a unique two night interview of freakazoid Jaron Lanier coming out with his new book “Dawn of the New Everything.” He is an early and continuuing contributer to Microsoft and their virtual reality programs most recently….he is somewhat of a guru in the industry.

    Tavis Smiley asked him about Net Neutrality and his answer was it was all based on a beginning mistake from the Left wanting everything to be free which led to the revenue coming from Advertisers which led to consumer behavior being captured by algorhythms which being modeled on human behavior maximize some of the more negative aspects of human behavior because that is what motivates us most strongly.

    Fascinating Stuff.

    Anyway, HE says we don’t have a good choice as the model is a monopoly: either by Facebook or by Comcast. The entire model of the internet would have to start from scratch to fix the initial error made.

    Rare to see a real “idea” man on the tube. Time to listen….. understand it later.

  12. NewFormatSux says:

    I left out YouTube demonetizing people whose politics they dislike.

    Google had a liberal thinktank employee fired because she wrote an editorial calling for antitrust action against Big Tech.

  13. RR says:

    Pay their fair share? Wait a minute, I already pay for the bandwidth I use, the bandwidth I use to take advantage of the many free services the internet has to offer. Like let me see, Microsoft updates, Google searches and content, etc. I even subsidize my Netflix account by paying for their bandwidth that I use while watching them with my subscription.

    Gutting NN, just gives the cable companies the ability to double dip on billing. If you even think they will lower my cable bill when they start charging Google or MS, ROFLO. It also will hurt the start ups how can’t pay for a NOT free and open internet to build their business.

    Hmeyers please crawl out of Fox new’s pocket.

    • Hmeyers says:

      “I already pay for the bandwidth I use”

      No you don’t. You have unlimited bandwidth.

      And we both know you aren’t paying an unlimited amount of $$$.

      If you wanted metered internet, your ideas are fine.

      And then you would pay attention to how much bandwidth, say, Windows Update is using or how often Google Chrome transfers your personal information to their servers.

      If you wanted unmetered internet (unlimited — like you have now) — the companies that are deciding how much bandwidth is being used by your computer — need to chip in for the tubes.

      • RR says:

        Since we all have metered bandwidth, everyone, unless you have unlimited speed. I pay for the complete amount of data I can download given my speed in a month. That is what I pay for and is pretty much what the cable companies have used as advertising until lately when their fine print started including data caps. Lets see, get a 100 meg down, we’re faster, get 150 meg down when you switch to us, bla, bla, bla.

      • RR says:

        chip in for the tubes, LOL, I already do. My cable bill is what pays for the tubes. I am not on the cable company side, they get their money already. Gutting NN just allows them to double dip and screw over the little guy, but I’ve already said that…………..

    • Hmeyers says:

      Did you not read my post above that Windows 10 uses *your computer* as a server to provide Windows updates to other people’s computers?

      Microsoft is using your bandwidth instead of Microsoft’s bandwidth.

      • MikeN says:

        I wonder how much they are charging NSA for the privilege.

      • MikeN says:

        Are liberal netizens going to reserve their outrage to Net Neutrality? What about the reauthorization of e-mail surveillance by NSA, with the predicted loosening of restrictions, allowing FBI access?

      • RR says:

        Not my PCs, have that feature shut off.

        • Hmeyers says:

          Ok so instead of 600 million Windows 10 PCs, it is 599 million PCs shuttling around Microsoft’s update traffic for free.

          There is peak power consumption during certain hours of the day.

          There is also peak bandwidth use for certain hours of the day.

          Bandwidth is finite, every year the amount we use goes up.

          Someone will be paying for Windows update using 3.2% of all internet bandwidth.

          Would you like to pay more? Or maybe Microsoft with their 124 billion offshore tax free should pay more?

  14. NewFormatSux says:

    “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

  15. NewFormatSux says:

    The FCC reclassified the Internet to be a telecommunication service. The telecommunications act passed in 1934, to cover landline telephones. The Turing machine was created two years later. The transistor was invented in 1947.

  16. The FCC is trying to kill the Internet again. This time, it’s even worse.


Bad Behavior has blocked 15731 access attempts in the last 7 days.