FCC repeals net neutrality.

[Ukbrassowtipin]

Net neutrality was in place long before that, since the beginning of the internet actually, Obama just had to put it under title II and title I to stop people from slowing internet speeds. The SC told him to put it under title II and there's nothing they can do. FCC repealed it and now you'll be stuck with ****** internet. Don't speak on things you don't know about. Also funny how you trust your ISP 100% Bc ya know if the product was going to get worse or more expensive they'd surely tell you up front right? Uhhh no

Actually the only reason repeal may not be beneficial is bc we don' live in a true free market...we live in a society where govt regulates the hell out of everything so it will be hard bc of nonsensical govt hurdles for competition to enter to provide better alternatives and services. If we did, I wld be 100% behind getting rid net neutrality.

If it weren't for NN and such we would probably already have fiber in several more markets and alternatives where you decide what you want to pay and what works best. Instead, we have a govt who regulates and sticks us with the option of spectrum at their mercy.

Plus I think there will be too many consumer lawsuits if anything did happen...of I pay for Netflix another entity can' block my access to what I technically own. That woukd be like my ordering something and when UPS brings it there being a guy at the front of driveway blocking the delivery guy. This unfounded.youll have to pay 5 dollars per tweet, etc is maniacal behavior. Netflix is so big they can pay any fees...if they want suscribers...i thought you were probably against corporations not paying "their share" anyway

Also...you ever been on facebook or google...Zuckerberg, etc already control the content i can access.

 

[Rebelfreedomeagle]

Where the hell do you people with options live, New York City?

We've heard for years that eastern Kentucky is screwed because business won't locate where there is crappy internet access. Since there's not much money to milk them for, there's no incentive to add infrastructure.This is going to help keep at least a couple of more generations on the welfare train.

 

[sefus12]

Where the hell do you people with options live, New York City?

We've heard for years that eastern Kentucky is screwed because business won't locate where there is crappy internet access. Since there's not much money to milk them for, there's no incentive to add infrastructure.This is going to help keep at least a couple of more generations on the welfare train.

Th repeal of net neutrality is NOT going to keep eastern KY in poverty. That region has a ton of issues but the repeal of NN last week is not what is holding them back.

Common sense folks...

 

[AustinTXCat]

The difference here is say you got taxed 50% after college, but you got free college. Ok I can deal with that I pay into a system that gets our youth good education and betters the nation as a whole. Paying an extra dollar for Netflix is just me paying more with 0 benefits to me.

 

[mashburned]

Eastern KY had gigabit internet before lexington, idiots.

Most of you arguing total fairy tale nonsense stuff you heard from...the internet. I also assume you never lived in a world without internet.

 

[Violent Cuts]

This isn't a republican vs democrat thing, stop making it that. It's a consumer (us) vs giant telecom company thing, and if anyone actually looked into it they would be appalled it was repealed.

I think the opposite. Let the free market figure this out, and if there is abuse by corporations, then you legislate. Other industries don't need legislation, why this one?

 

[OldEvilleCat]

@FutureCityCats can't you do something about this internet stuff?! I thought you were the real FCC!

 

[Rebelfreedomeagle]

Eastern KY had gigabit internet before lexington, idiots.

Most of you arguing total fairy tale nonsense stuff you heard from...the internet. I also assume you never lived in a world without internet.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/in-r...e-internet-for-everyone-has-stalled/674435099
Looked it up on the internet...
Common sense, morons.......

 

[LineSkiCat14]

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/

Enjoyed this article. There are concerns about what these companies will do, sure. But this article tells me (indirectly, that is).. that without Government involvement, progress and innovation will be made. I just don't think these select few ISPs will be able to gouge us for long (if they even do).. they will compete with each other, other players will emerge... or maybe the route of city-provided broadband..

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Pretty sure the free market will work this out. It has with mobile service and it's actually better without regulation in the free market. Unlimited data, hot spots, etc. Why would anyone want the government, which screws everything up, involved in this?

Most Americans lack access to more than 1 broadband ISP. Market forces don't generally work when there is monopoly power.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Those are all content providers. They are not service providers, ISPs, that the content comes thru. That content still has to come thru an ISP.

That is what the ISP is charging to have access to those services. Don't pay the ISP for them, don't get to use them

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

As others have noted, if Time Warner (or name your ISP) wants to try and jack your prices up, some other company will come along and find a better way to serve you. It's how technology has advanced for years. When my internet gets incredibly slow and I am stuck with the choice of paying much more for the same thing or having no internet at all, I'll gladly admit this was horrible. But until then I'm not nearly as worried as some of you.

Edit: This is me being more optimistic about other companies finding a way to offer a better product than the traditional ISPs than it is me having faith in ATT or TW or whomever else.

ANd you are once again ignoring that most people have no access to a second ISP. And even if a competitor wanted to come along, the local government may prevent it and starting up a new ISP in a locality isn't something that just happens in a few days, it generally takes years.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Actually the only reason repeal may not be beneficial is bc we don' live in a true free market...we live in a society where govt regulates the hell out of everything so it will be hard bc of nonsensical govt hurdles for competition to enter to provide better alternatives and services. If we did, I wld be 100% behind getting rid net neutrality.

If it weren't for NN and such we would probably already have fiber in several more markets and alternatives where you decide what you want to pay and what works best. Instead, we have a govt who regulates and sticks us with the option of spectrum at their mercy.

Plus I think there will be too many consumer lawsuits if anything did happen...of I pay for Netflix another entity can' block my access to what I technically own. That woukd be like my ordering something and when UPS brings it there being a guy at the front of driveway blocking the delivery guy. This unfounded.youll have to pay 5 dollars per tweet, etc is maniacal behavior. Netflix is so big they can pay any fees...if they want suscribers...i thought you were probably against corporations not paying "their share" anyway

Also...you ever been on facebook or google...Zuckerberg, etc already control the content i can access.

Blaming net neutrality on lack of competition? Might want to take a look first at your local government where the officials are often taking thousands to millions of dollars from ISPs to prevent competition from the outside coming in and to prevent the rollout of municipal internet services.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/

Enjoyed this article. There are concerns about what these companies will do, sure. But this article tells me (indirectly, that is).. that without Government involvement, progress and innovation will be made. I just don't think these select few ISPs will be able to gouge us for long (if they even do).. they will compete with each other, other players will emerge... or maybe the route of city-provided broadband..

City provided broadband is a fairy tale as long as local government officials keep lining their pockets or campaigns with money from the ISPs that want to prevent that.

 

[sefus12]

ANd you are once again ignoring that most people have no access to a second ISP. And even if a competitor wanted to come along, the local government may prevent it and starting up a new ISP in a locality isn't something that just happens in a few days, it generally takes years.

It used to, when you had to drag wire everywhere. But things are changing. And I believe a local government would face quite a bit of a legal challenge if they told a new company they couldn't operate.

I totally understand why some people are nervous, but based on the years of internet before NN, I think you will be fine. The media is trying to scare the hell out of you, but in the end you'll likely be just fine.

 

[vhcat70]

That's an ad for an ISP in Portugal.

OK. So it's one ISP. Got it. NN was never about the different content you could get, but about believe that the # of ISP's for each location is always going to be quite limited (they won't be) & that a single ISP will stifle content sources

 

[vhcat70]

Net neutrality was in place long before that, since the beginning of the internet actually, Obama just had to put it under title II and title I to stop people from slowing internet speeds. The SC told him to put it under title II and there's nothing they can do. FCC repealed it and now you'll be stuck with ****** internet. Don't speak on things you don't know about. Also funny how you trust your ISP 100% Bc ya know if the product was going to get worse or more expensive they'd surely tell you up front right? Uhhh no

Now there's idiocy.

 

[vhcat70]

This isn't a republican vs democrat thing, stop making it that. It's a consumer (us) vs giant telecom company thing, and if anyone actually looked into it they would be appalled it was repealed.

You do know the FTC still regulates ISP's, right?

 

[buckethead1978]

Railroads, electrical lines and plants, sewers and water lines. All built with the aid and regulation of government. Not sure why internet is different.

Can’t wait for all this competition to bring me non-DSL internet at my house. I’m stuck with 2005 levels of “broadband” despite being less than 1 mile from cable internet.

 

[Rupp'sRunt]

Now there's idiocy.

Actually everything I said about obama and the SC is fact.

 

[mashburned]

Railroads, electrical lines and plants, sewers and water lines. All built with the aid and regulation of government. Not sure why internet is different.

:joy: Gold

 

[Wall Knight Teague]

Http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...cernovich-documentary-on-migrant-rape-crisis/

All these leftist companies acting like they give a **** about a "free and open" internet make me LOL. They care about pushing their political worldview and stifling dissent as much as possible, period.

 

[LordEgg_rivals16573]

I think government should own y’alls computers and you go to a terminal in the courthouse to use them paying a per minute fee.

 

[vhcat70]

Railroads, electrical lines and plants, sewers and water lines. All built with the aid and regulation of government. Not sure why internet is different.

Can’t wait for all this competition to bring me non-DSL internet at my house. I’m stuck with 2005 levels of “broadband” despite being less than 1 mile from cable internet.

You've nailed it. And NN did nothing to fix this.

 

[vhcat70]

Most Americans lack access to more than 1 broadband ISP. Market forces don't generally work when there is monopoly power.

More, non-land ISPs are coming. NN would stifle those coming around.

 

[vhcat70]

Actually everything I said about obama and the SC is fact.

"Net neutrality was in place long before that, since the beginning of the internet actually," That's wrong.

"Obama just had to put it under title II and title I to stop people from slowing internet speeds." O did do that & eliminated the incentive to increase speed.

"The SC told him to put it under title II and there's nothing they can do." The Supreme Court???? NO.

"FCC repealed it and now you'll be stuck with ****** internet." Wrong. Not stuck at all. To the degree it was ******, NN assured it remain so.

"Don't speak on things you don't know about." Best thing you wrote.

"Also funny how you trust your ISP 100% Bc ya know if the product was going to get worse or more expensive they'd surely tell you up front right? Uhhh no" I trust ISP's no more/less than any other business.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

It used to, when you had to drag wire everywhere. But things are changing. And I believe a local government would face quite a bit of a legal challenge if they told a new company they couldn't operate.

I totally understand why some people are nervous, but based on the years of internet before NN, I think you will be fine. The media is trying to scare the hell out of you, but in the end you'll likely be just fine.

YOu mean like all the legal challenges that come with the monopoly that is cable TV in most localities?

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

Http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/...cernovich-documentary-on-migrant-rape-crisis/

All these leftist companies acting like they give a **** about a "free and open" internet make me LOL. They care about pushing their political worldview and stifling dissent as much as possible, period.

lol at linking Breitbart. Why not just link Radical Right Wing News Today?

 

[fuzz77]

The predicted doom from this is absurd.

The savior of the world, Net Neutrality, has only been around for about 2.5 years. Absolutely NOTHING has changed with my internet since it went into place. In the typical nanny state fashion folks are now saying "but if we hadn't put this in place the world would have ended".

I'm going to laugh at all of you when nothing changes in the next year.

I live in a small town and have at&T, the cable internet option as well as a local municipal option. I've asked both the cable company and the municipal provider and they anticipate NO changes.

The fact is this. If this was SOOOO important then the Obama administration should have passed this through contract instead of putting an easily reversible regulation in place.

Understand, net neutrality as law has only been around for 2.5 years. It has in fact been the standard since the internet has existed. The people in your small town won't determine how your bandwidth with allocated and sold and any customer service rep you're speaking to is just telling you what they know. Kind of like the town hall of a local office I once worked for when there were rumors of layoffs. The director of the office told everyone that he knew of no layoffs coming. The next week they announced they were closing the office and everyone would be gone, including him.

No, Comcast, Time-Warner, AT&T, Google, etc. don't have any publicly announced plans to change services...but you can damn well bet that over time they will do so especially when they determine the best way to profit. ISPs like Comcast and AT&T are also in the cable/satellite tv business. As people "cut the cord" from their services and increase the usage of streaming services like Netfix, Hulu, etc...you damn well better expect that they are going to recover that lost revenue one way or the other. Why do you think that it's the ISPs who favored the rollback?

Understand why Net Neutrality was put into law to begin with. It was because ISPs were beginning to set data limits and throttling the streaming web services that competed with their other revenue streams.

 

[mashburned]

Spectrum in Lexington is increasing top speeds from 60 to 100. DAMN YOU NET NEUTRALITY.

 

[fuzz77]

Spectrum in Lexington is increasing top speeds from 60 to 100. DAMN YOU NET NEUTRALITY.

Has nothing to do with neutrality. ISPs have been increasing top speeds pretty much forever. They do so because they can...but they will charge you more to get it.

I see people post about net neutrality and 80% of the people have no real understanding what it means. Their logic is Obama was for it, Trump is against it so I am against it.

ISPs are for it, web service providers are against it. Why? Because it allows the ISP to control the web traffic. So for example if you have Directv along with Spectrum internet service, Spectrum can slow down your VOD speed to encourage you to shift to their cable tv package, or they can place limits on your data making you pay more if you are streaming lots of video. To rectify that issue you could change your ISP to AT&T (they own Directv)...but AT&T internet service may suck in your area which is why you didn't go with them to start.

One thing is sure, the ISPs didn't support rescinding NN because it would allow them to make less money.

And WOW! 100 whole Mbps? Other providers already offer 1Gbps speed.

 

[mashburned]

Yea whatever fuzz. Mere days after trump ends Obama’s draconian bs, the Lexington internet scene explodes. You can write 10 paragraphs about it, but you can’t change the facts.

 

[vhcat70]

That is what the ISP is charging to have access to those services. Don't pay the ISP for them, don't get to use them

True. & NN helps assure that will always be aproblem.

 

[wildcatsboston1984_rivals]

True. & NN helps assure that will always be aproblem.

Um, having net neutrality legally ensures that ISPs actually aren't allowed to do that. Might want to do some research...

 

[FrankUnderwood]

The difference here is say you got taxed 50% after college, but you got free college. Ok I can deal with that I pay into a system that gets our youth good education and betters the nation as a whole. Paying an extra dollar for Netflix is just me paying more with 0 benefits to me.

Only poors can’t affoed an extra $1 charge for Netflix.

 

[Rupp'sRunt]

Only poors can’t affoed an extra $1 charge for Netflix.

Was just an example Frank. Wait til all those dollars add up to 50 extra a month

 

[vhcat70]

Has nothing to do with neutrality. ISPs have been increasing top speeds pretty much forever. They do so because they can...but they will charge you more to get it.

I see people post about net neutrality and 80% of the people have no real understanding what it means. Their logic is Obama was for it, Trump is against it so I am against it.

ISPs are for it, web service providers are against it. Why? Because it allows the ISP to control the web traffic. So for example if you have Directv along with Spectrum internet service, Spectrum can slow down your VOD speed to encourage you to shift to their cable tv package, or they can place limits on your data making you pay more if you are streaming lots of video. To rectify that issue you could change your ISP to AT&T (they own Directv)...but AT&T internet service may suck in your area which is why you didn't go with them to start.

One thing is sure, the ISPs didn't support rescinding NN because it would allow them to make less money.

And the content providers didn't want NN so that they could make more $? LOL. No wonder they supported Obama's & HIll's ancient style regulation of the ISP's.

Tell me, why would ISP's keep increasing speeds, as you claim, and then turn around and decrease speeds of content providers using their service that makes their ISP service look bad & encourages customers to look to other ISPs?

You do know the FTC still regulates the types of anti-competitive behaviors you describe, surely, don't you?

You do know that if hard wired ISPs keep charging you more & more for certain content that it makes wireless ISPs more & more competitive for you, surely, don't you? You do know that Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint are all investing in 5G wireless to end hard wire ISPs domination, surely, don't you?

 

[vhcat70]

Um, having net neutrality legally ensures that ISPs actually aren't allowed to do that. Might want to do some research...

What? ISPs have to carry content for free? LOL.

 

[santamaria78]

Notice a pattern:
Repeal individual mandate: you don' care about sick ppl, ppl will die in the street, something something rich ppl

Tax plan: you don' care about poor ppl, ppl will die in the street, something something rich ppl.

Net neutrality: you don't care about consumers, ppl will die in the street, something something rich ppl.

Dems with the same elementary response for every issue. It' almost like we are supposed to believe the govt is a God and if we don' appease it, it will smite us

net neutrality gives the government power. The more they have the less we have. It's as simple as that.

 

[ThwKentuckyKid]

So when the internet end (assuming we don't all die) where should we all meet up to talk sports?