LToday, the FCC decided to vote 4-1 to undo net neutrality; rules that guarantee equal access to the internet. Of course, there will be lawsuits galore but I’m curious about yalls take on this. Thoughts? Perspectives?
Also, random, I know but to my colleagues that use FC, but are not in a place to pay $60 for three or $24 for a single one, please PM me. I’ll have access to free ones after the new year so I’d be happy to get those for you. Hope you enjoy the laugh of these two polar opposite topics occurring in one post.Here are my thoughts on this.
1. Will this deny access to certain websites? Lets say I am using my phone or service to look up stuff here? Will this get flagged and not be allowed?
2. Is it going to limit access to the internet? What I mean is will cell phone plans start to charge more or less (competition with other companies) for internet service through their network. What I mean is you will have to pay to use the internet thru your phone. If you get a free phone from the government and are not paying your bills will they deny you service? Or will they charge people more for that service? I don't know if it could go that way... but who knows.
3. Will it black ball sites like this or the advertising site which cant be named?
4. Will it sell out to the highest bidder for ads?
Lots of things can go different directions. It will be interesting how this plays out. Also agree lots of litigation will happen.
My guess is that internet providers will employ one of the oldest economic tricks in the book: subdivision -- just like buying a 40-acre farm for half a million bucks, then subdividing it into 320 single-family lots and selling them for $50,000 each.
So how would that work? Sort of like cable works now:
-- Basic internet -- email and unlimited access to your ten favorite sites (facebook, twitter, etc), plus the provider's very limited search engine -- $50 a month
-- Family plan -- Same as above, except no xxx sites -- $75 a month
-- Google Basic - Same as Basic, but 25 Google searches a month - $100 a month -- family plan supplement $25
--- Google Plus -- Same as basic, but 100 Google searches a month -- $150 a month, etc.
-- Google unlimited (that is, the same we have had up till now with net neutrality) -- $200/month, etc
It can be sliced and diced all different kinds of ways -- premiums for streaming, for gaming, for shopping....
Watch your wallets!
...Thanks Pb for the info, I am sure there are many of us that don't understand all of the ramifications of this ruling, but it is my belief that this is consistent with the Trump admin. goals to allow business to extract more money from the public. And after all who did the Trump admin. put in charge of the F.C.C. but an executive from Verizon, is this "the fox guarding the hen-house ?
Sure-like the tax cuts hurts the public, go fish
The only people who "extract" money are tax collectors and robbers. But I repeat myself.
Otherwise I exchange money for goods and services. For instance, providers. They don't extract money from me, I hand it to them. They don't owe me a fuck. My ISP doesn't owe me bandwidth.
Actually the net neutrality rules were announced in June of 2015 to take effect June 15 2015. They were instantly blocked by court action: one of the suits has been dealt with, the other is still preventing the application of the rules. The result is that the rules have not yet been in place.
The dire predictions of the future are nonsense. Since nothing has changed as a result of them, the removal will similarly see no change.
Just because the first rule change was never implemented does not mean that it had no impact on the behavior of the companies who were potentially affected. Also, concluding that because a lack of change in the past will continue indefinitely into the future is a fallacy. There will be change. You can argue about what it will be or when it will happen but sooner or later some company will try to do things differently.
Freedom is messy. That's why most people hate it.
Read what I wrote: the repeal of something that has not been implemented cannot result in a change. It's pretty much logic 101.
As to the rule existing but not being implemented having effected the operation of companies, the evidence would suggest otherwise: the rule didn't exist pre 2015. The authority to make such rules by the FCC didn't exist. And the environment of the Internet did not change with respect to the issues raised by the rule when the FCC asserted that authority, didn't change when the rule was passed. There is, essentially, no change to undo.
You can speculate that things may happen in the future that would have been different had the rules ultimately been implemented, but that is pure speculation, and nothing more. (And with regard to technology, not something about which mankind has been particularly accurate.)
I read what you wrote. You seem to have somehow not read the first sentence of my first reply.
My Corp holds back on all sorts of initiatives if we don’t have a good idea of where the litigation is heading. Just because net neutrality regulations were tied up in court and hadn’t taken affect doesn’t mean it won’t have an effect. If the decision reduces uncertainty, folks may well go head with pricing changes they wouldn’t have bothered with earlier.
I know, I'm so old I remember the bad ole days of 21015. I paid $199 a second to look at TER. Google charged me to sell my info. Netflix was so slow I was forced to watch PBS.
Net Neutrality, which is as honestly named as the Affordable Care Act, was a naked power grab. It was a solution for a problem that didn't exist.
Nothing will change.
I did a lot of research on Female Condoms. I highly recommend using them if a gentleman is bigger. Also some men's penises shut down once you put a condom on them for all various reasons. FC2 condoms were bought by a pharmaceutical company and they are only sold in 3 stores across the state. We are lucky to have the Smitten Kitten here in Minnesota that is allowed to sell them at a reasonable price.
LOL! I do think of Elaine from Seinfeld everytime I pull one out 
.