Bowsite.com

Kind of have to fall into the last category for me. The WSJ had a pretty good article on the pros and cons. I cannot find it now, it wants to charge me to get the article...lol.

MAGA

"The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order will reclassify the Internet as an “information service” compared to the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which regulated the Internet as a public monopoly. The order will also require Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon to release transparency reports detailing their practices towards consumers and businesses.

The FCC’s net neutrality repeal order will also restore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) traditional authority and expertise to regulate and litigate unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive telecommunications practices without onerous regulations and increased cost."

''under net neutrality content providers such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have censored the internet, stifled conservative and alternative voices, and serve as a greater threat to free speech compared to ISPs.

Pai charged in a recent speech that Facebook, Twitter, and Google serve as a greater threat to free speech and an open internet."

Which means that your ISP would be able to censor your access

Often without you even knowing.

Repealing net neutrality" means that you will now have to pay to access internet sites you currently get for free. The internet will be like cable TV.

"Net neutrality" is an progressive idea to apply the communication regulations applied to the phone companies over 50 years ago and give government control over this technology.

We can already see the Obama era neutrality effects on sites like Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc. where conservative content has been demonitized and censored.

A good example was demonstrated by Stephen Crowder where he showed the liberal bias of the AI device, Alexa.

YouTube demonitized the videos of Vet Ranch due to showing scenes of treatment of rescued dogs and cats. Vet Ranch is a volunteer program where abandoned pets are treated and found foster homes. Prager U is another site that has felt the effects of net neutrality. We can all see the effects of a comparable government program: health care under Obamacare.

You can't "stick it to the man" when the Government reigns supreme. You're just another sheep, waiting in the pen, for your food to arrive.

Keep Government out of free enterprise, and watch how cheap things will get !

SA x2. I would be interested in Pat's take on it as well.

The term "net neutrality" was coined by the left and it is far from "neutral"...puts the Internet under greater government control. We already have a problem with Google, FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter, et. al. when it comes to censorship, especially conservative views.

As far as ISPs, they already have tiered structure where you pay more for faster service. A lot of people (especially urbanites) do not realize that high speed broadband is not universally available. Infrastructure is not there. When government starts mandating that areas (especially out west where population density is very low) must have high speed broadband, the only alternative that ISPs will have is to raise everybody's rates to pay for providing equal services. All the innovations that have come with the maturity of the Internet would not have happened under the provisions of Obama defined "neutrality".

Look at how the Bowsite is today and compare it with its original site (some of us have been along for the entire ride).

1. My internet provider is also a cable company. That cable company could throttle my access to any streaming service like Netflix, Hulu, Sling, etc and force me to buy their cable TV services. In rural areas this is especially critical as they may only have one choice of internet provider, their local cable company so they are screwed. No Netflix, only high priced cable.

2. The big boys as outlined by TD could enter into exclusive agreements with ISP's to throttle access to competing websites. I.E. amazon could enter and agreement with your ISP to effectively slow or block access to other popular retailers forcing you to make your online purchases through amazon.

3. If your ISP decides to become an activist against hunting they could block your access to Bowsite.

This is a huge deal, especially for those in middle/rural America who do not have the option of switching ISP's if they don't like the practices of their current provider.

Tom, the WSJ article I alluded to but couldn't get into, mentioned that Amazon, Facebook, and a couple of others were against the deregulation because they felt that ISP's could lever up their usage fees on them. I can see that happening actually. I doubt the likes of Amazon will suffer too greatly, the cost will just be passed on to the consumer.

There are pros and cons to this just speaking for myself. It sounds like you rates should go down because some sites won't be premium or streaming or what have you. OTOH, my internet service (rural area) is already suffering from too many users and not enough bandwidth. I know that there is a tiered infrastructure out there and I can pay more for more bandwidth, however, I know people who do and they are getting not getting anything better than what I have.

Normally I am a fan of deregulation, but in this instance for me and mine, I don't see it as a win.

I savvy what Brotsky says, those of us in ruralia don't have many options...

I'll gladly pay a little more or have to hassle with a provider to get what I want before I choose to expand the Government's control over more of my life.

"Except you forget that obama signed an agreement to keep the net neutral."

What was that Obama said about saving $2400 a year on health care......

Shut dafuq up.....the grown ups are talking.

1)The End of the Internet As We Know It!, because it was only a law 2 years which is an eternity to progressives.

2) The end of Net Neutrality means the “silencing” of gays and “marginalized communities”

3) The end of Net Neutrality is an attack on “reproductive freedom”

4) SUICIDE! ABUSE! MENTAL HEALTH! ANOREXIA! BUZZWORD!

5) The end of Net Neutrality will lead to a new civil war

6) The end of Net Neutrality is the end of free speech on the internet

7) The end of Net Neutrality means the end of democracy

8) $14.99 for Twitter!

9) The end of Net Neutrality means the FCC chairman will try to meme

Good article...

Concludes:

"...Supporters have communicated exactly what they want. There can be no confusion about what the net neutrality agenda is all about: supporters of net neutrality demonize Internet service providers in their populist arguments for government control. But if they win their dream, consumers will be the real losers in this battle over Internet control..."

Worth reading...some relevant parts:

"...Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we’ll simply reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework..."

"...a huge part of the answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As part of this landmark law, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of 2the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

They deliberately rejected thinking of the Internet as Ma Bell, or a water company, or a subway system. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build out wired and wireless networks throughout the United States. 28.8k modems eventually gave way to gigabit fiber connections.

U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs used this open platform to start companies that have become global giants. (Indeed, the five biggest companies in America today by market capitalization are Internet companies.) America’s Internet economy became the envy of the world, and the fact that the largest technology companies of the digital economy are homegrown has given us a key competitive advantage.

But then, in early 2015, the FCC chose a decidedly different course for the Internet. At the urging of the Obama Administration, the FCC scrapped the tried-and-true, light touch regulation of the Internet and replaced it with heavy-handed micromanagement.

It did this despite the fact that the Internet wasn’t broken in 2015. There was no market failure that justified the regulatory sledgehammer of Title II. But no matter; 21st century networks would now be regulated under creaky rules that were the hot new thing back in the 1930s, during the Roosevelt Administration..."

"...The impact (of Obama Internet Neutrality imposition) has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. I have personally visited some of them, from Spencer Municipal Utilities in Spencer, Iowa to Wave Wireless in Parsons, Kansas. So it’s no surprise that the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”

That’s what makes Title II regulations so misplaced. However well intentioned, they’re hurting the very small providers and new entrants that are best positioned to bring additional competition into the marketplace. As I warned before the FCC went down this road in 2015, a regulatory structure designed for a monopoly will inevitably move the market in the direction of a monopoly..."

nahh, worse.....,

I never even knew the government got involved till I watched fox last week.

Ever since droid and I phones came along I have only used that as my source of internet.

Even if I am on my tablet or laptop I just use the hotspot on my phone.

Curious how this would affect the cell phone companies.

When Verizon began offering unlimited data again I jumped on it right away.

So this is astronomically bad. Now internet providers can silence who they want, charge through the roof for whatever the want, the internet as we’ve known it is over! What a great time in America to be a Corporation! https://t.co/t3VnySFDpw

— Chaz Bono (@ChazBono) December 14, 2017

"So why does Google itself support Net Neutrality?

Google is a huge proponent of Net Neutrality. Their website is outfitted with an uppity “We Stand Together. Support a #FreeAndOpen Internet” slogan.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

Enforcing “net neutrality” does the exact opposite of what its proponents claim. It results in an internet where a handful of large corporations have access to peering agreements with large transit providers (what some people refer to as "the fast lane"), and the rest are subject to far fewer options in terms of services, and even upon growing and gaining market share, will be denied the opportunity to shop around for different ISP plans that suit them best."

I'm thinking about getting a tattoo that says that now.....

The next generation of satellite internet will be faster, cheaper and available world wide as it is going to be based on the GPS model of an array of low earth orbit satellites.

Terry

Of course, the libs can't allow businesses to grow and thrive, so they intervened.

Good on the Trump administration for reversing course.

You already have a choice of what you get and where to go. All of those 'evil' service providers have to compete for your business. They do that by offering more and better services than the others do and at a better price,

It's called competition and it works light-years better for consumers than does a system where bureaucrats make the call.

Heck, if had been up to the government, we'd still all be using dial-up to access the internet.

BS!!!

You're even dumber than we thought, and that's hard to imagine!

Providers understand that the best way to make money is to provide better service with more options, and with more features their customers want than their competitors do, then do it at a lower price as well.

THAT'S how ALL businesses make money; because if they don't do that, their customers will go elsewhere for their goods and services. It's called acting in their own RATIONAL self-interest.

Some people are born stupid. Some people are intentionally ignorant. You fall into the latter category without question and might also fall into the first category.

FYI, EVERYONE has access to the internet.

In areas with competition I could see how providers would not want to be the one to upcharge while competitors stay put on pricing and capitalize on the advantage they were just handed. I just hope that the telecom regs will keep my OTA ISP pricing in check since it's already pretty expensive for mediocre service. And the investment required for a competitor is quite the barrier especially given the potential return from such sparsely populated areas.

Having said that, I'm all for free market and competition over government (over)regulation any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Living in a remote area is a choice and a choice people make freely. I envy those who make that choice.

There are YUGE advantages in living in remote areas, but as you noted, there also disadvantages.

That said, people who make the choice to live in remote areas have NO rights to REQUIRE those who choose to live in urban and suburban areas to subsidize that choice.

NONE!

Also, with cells you can have in your home antennas and range extenders which increase your cell signal.

Most new phones can be set up as a hotspot giving you wifi via your phone.

This is very true - assuming there are competitors in the marketplace. Building off of what scrap wood said, I’m an urbanite and my market is only served by one provider (other than satellite and OTA which I don’t even consider competition) - nearly 50% of the country (130 million people) are in a similar position. This is not just a rural phenomena. Market inefficiencies are well documented in markets dominated by monopolies, particularly markets with high barriers to entry.

Sorry, but that's not the way life works!

I WANT to have $20,000,000 in my investment accounts.

I WANT eternal life.

I WANT Constitutional conservatives to hold every seat in the House and The Senate.

I WANT a whole lot of other things, but I have a RIGHT to none of them

This is the sort of result that comes with "net neutrality"...the "big" guys control the content. Little guys have no say.

Facebook Nixes Photo of Vatican Nativity Scene as ‘Sexually Provocative’

In one of the least likely stories of all time, Facebook has vetoed a photo of the Vatican’s yearly Nativity scene, referencing its policy against “sexually suggestive or provocative” images.

The manger scene integrates into the typical depiction of the Holy Family in Bethlehem, a series of vignettes highlighting the corporal works of mercy: feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and imprisoned, burying the dead and clothing the naked.

It was this last element that excited the censors at Facebook with its portrayal of a naked man being offered clothing by a charitable pilgrim.

An ad featuring the image of the scene was rejected by Facebook with the following justification: “Your ad can’t include images that are sexually suggestive or provocative.” The image in question was simply a photo of the naked man in the Vatican’s nativity scene.

Note: Facebook is one of those BIG internet entities that support Obama's net "neutrality" regulations.

Read Henry's great link.

Revocation of Obama's net neutrality government regulations will have little effect on the censorship by the "big" players (google, Facebook, YouTube, etc.)...conservative views will still be censored. What the difference is that the "big" players will not be protected by the government.

Tax the productive so the government can promise (not deliver) on more freebies for those who believe in the promises.

Truly, a "freeglee" moment ;o)

No, they are not.

Your rights are:

1. You have the right to life.

2. You have the right to liberty.

3. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, if you're a liberal, you don't believe in the first one..

Like others have mentioned, it would be nice if Pat commented on it considering his profession and experience.

How 'bout we have a free market where ideas, products, and service have to compete with each other without government interference or subsidies?

If Comcast won't give me what I want, I can go to Centurylink or ATT. Let's look at telephones and air travel, both of which improved greatly after deregulation.

Net neutrality has a nice sounding name. So did "free health care" but anything can have a great name. It's what is required to get that "Net neutrality" that is unacceptable and expensive.