Reality is NN rules officially ended recently and the lSPs are no longer bounded by those rules. You may want to educate yourself and not believe in craps like the internet wouldn’t be or would be faster due to NN rules ending.
We have went over this many times. NN was never enforced to begin with. Zero rated services were a violation of NN yet nobody did anything about them.
NN >>>>> Zero rates services. In fact, in 2015, FCC didn’t explicitly ban it since they weren’t clear if it would or would not harm consumers, or is actually beneficial. The current FCC chair ended that investigation. This is the least controversial part of NN. Using this example as if all of NN was being violated is missing the bigger picture by a mile.
the investigation finished. It found AT&T and Verizon were violating NN. Trump chose not to enforce the finding and take AT&T and Verizon to court. but lets ignore this for a second, you think that Trump, who campaigned on getting rid of NN and who picked an FCC commissioner adamantly opposed to NN, was going to enforce NN violations even though he clearly didn't ? Apparently everyone in the country knew NN was not being enforced except you tony. you didn't get the memo.
D-controlled FCC was doing something about it, it's just that that ended when Trump got elected. Enforcement of NN more broadly was just starting to gain more teeth as well before that also ended when Pai moved to vacate the rules. Don't think it actually finished. Their preliminary finding after a year or so was that it was a violation. But whether the investigation technically ended or not is neither here nor there, what matters is that, indeed, everyone did know that no enforcement action would happen against zero-rating with an R FCC chair. Anyone who was paying attention also knew that rural broadband rollout would stay slowed to its usual perpetual crawl for the same reason. But I don't think it was immediately obvious NN was going away the second Trump was elected. That wasn't a preliminary finding, nor something that hadn't happened... it was a settled ruled that had been through a court battle and was overwhelmingly popular. Which is why Pai made at least a feeble attempt to make it seem ideological, rather than what it was: an arbitrary handout to Verizon/AT&T. And those guys sprinting out and doing things in violation of NN would just give Dems an issue to run on, which they don't want. The negative consequences for consumer were always going to subtly creep in. They don't want big headlines.
This is some strange logic. Rules are rules. Until they are rescinded, they are still rules. I'm not going into the guessing game of what companies would do - but it's common sense that most would play by the rules. And to illustrate the strange logic - everyone knew Trump didn't like business taxes and were going to reduce it. Why were the vast majority of companies still following the rules and paying taxes at the higher rate prior to the 2017 tax law? Everyone knew Trump wanted to ban Muslim from entering the country. Why didn't the border agents that are fan of Trump just ban Muslim from entering the countries? More importantly, I spelled it out already and you still insist on missing it again. How do you enforce something that wasn't banned in the first place? Why do you insists that zero rating equal to all of NN? As I have explained to Space Ghost, the 2015 FCC thought on zero rating wasn't clear cut and didn't outright ban it. Given this, of course Companies would continue to do what they were doing UNTIL it becomes clear cut. Your example fall completely flat and you have shown a very poor understanding of NN. I find it a complete waste of time just to response to you here. After this posting, I won't continue to engage you about NN topic anymore. Others, such as SG, I would gladly continue to do so. 2015 FCC... Sponsored Data and Usage Allowances 151. While our bright-line rule to treat paid prioritization arrangements as unlawful addresses technical prioritization, the record reflects mixed views about other practices, including usage allowances and sponsored data plans. Sponsored data plans (sometimes called zero-rating) enable broadband providers to exclude edge provider content from end users’ usage allowances. On the one hand, evidence in the record suggests that these business models may in some instances provide benefits to consumers, with particular reference to their use in the provision of mobile services. Service providers contend that these business models increase choice and lower costs for consumers.361 Commenters also assert that sophisticated approaches to pricing also benefit edge providers by helping them distinguish themselves in the marketplace and tailor their services to consumer demands.362 152. We are mindful of the concerns raised in the record that sponsored data plans have the potential to distort competition by allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans.368 At the same time, new service offerings, depending on how they are structured, could benefit consumers and competition. Accordingly, we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary 153. The record also reflects differing views over some broadband providers’ practices with respect to usage allowances (also called “data caps”).369 Usage allowances place limits on the volume of data downloaded by the end user during a fixed period. Once a cap has been reached, the speed at which the end user can access the Internet may be reduced to a slower speed, or the end user may be charged for excess data.370 Usage allowances may benefit consumers by offering them more choices over a greater range of service options, and, for mobile broadband networks, such plans are the industry norm today, in part reflecting the different capacity issues on mobile networks.371 Conversely, some commenters have expressed concern that such practices can potentially be used by broadband providers to disadvantage competing over-the-top providers.372 Given the unresolved debate concerning the benefits and drawbacks of data allowances and usage-based pricing plans,373 we decline to make blanket findings about these practices and will address concerns under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage on a case-by-case basis.
if they aren't enforced and everyone knows it then they aren't rules. zero rating is absolutely covered under NN. Its the first and only thing Wheeler looked at under NN and he found it violated NN. Also you can just go read the net neutrality law itself and see . Your statement you posted below is from 2015.... the FCC reported its finding from the investigation in December of 2016 (go click my article). Here is Wheeler's letter to Congress on the matter dated January of 2017. But by all means tell me about what was said before the investigation in 2015.... and tell me all about my 'very poor understanding of NN' the investigation released its findings in December of 2016. Right before Trump took office. not 2015. In fact, they didn't even start the investigation until February 2016. if they had released their findings in 2015 they would of taken AT&T and Verizon to court. like I said, I am gonna love this moving of the goalposts over the next ten years. 'just you wait, that boogieman we warned you about is coming here real soon'
LOL, okay there buddy. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if you were right. But we already had ISPs doing things like blocking BitTorrent, blocking VoIP, blocking FaceTime. That stuff was from when NN was "unwritten/unspoken/implied" law, not actual law. Now that it became a rule and was then pro-actively removed, you think we'll get zero similar behavior over the next decade if the rules stay vacated? Again, would be awesome if I was wrong. But I won't be. The weirdest part about all this is that most seem to agree (publicly, anyway) that the types of behaviors that would be violations of NN are bad behaviors... yet one side desperately wants there NOT to be rules in place to punish those behaviors. That makes sense...
The turtle blocks a net neutrality bill. Public support for net neutrality has been growing... this could be a campaign issue in 2020 and getting a Senate seat or two could make it increasingly difficult to stop it... McConnell: Net neutrality bill 'dead on arrival' in Senate https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...bill-dead-on-arrival-in-senate?rnd=1554848198
you believe support for net neutrality has been growing despite it being removed and nobody being affected? makes total sense. Either that or whatever poll you are looking at is garbage. It won't be a campaign issue as again the issue affects nobody right now.
4 in 5 Americans say they support net neutrality: poll BY EMILY BIRNBAUM - 03/20/19 05:36 PM EDT https://thehill.com/policy/technology/435009-4-in-5-americans-say-they-support-net-neutrality-poll
Kinda irrelevant whether it's "growing" or not, seeing as it's been supported by more than 80% of the public since basically always. The only reason it was removed is because of of all those delicious bribes... I mean "campaign contributions"... from ISPs. Makes roughly as much sense as the proposed law that would disallow the government from creating an easy and free online tax-filing system. Both these decisions are all up to corporate bribes. It's amazing to me that any private citizen without significant personal monetary interest in the corporations involved would ever, ever support either of these.
Maybe 1% of the population understands net neutrality. So polls telling me 80% support it are worthless. And please tell me more about all those 'bribes' to ajit pai who isn't running for an office......
I assume you've heard of the revolving door? His position isn't a lifetime appointment. Watch where he goes after he eventually leaves his position. That's where you see how he has been bribed.
Are we still trying to regulate a problem that doesnt exist? When your best argument is devoid of data and instead uses "4 out of 5 Americans...", its time to rethink the argument.
Did Verizon Wireless Throttle a Fire Department’s Data Service During a Wildfire? Firefighters in Santa Clara, California, revealed that they were forced to buy a more expensive service package due to a company "mistake." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/verizon-firefighter-data-service/
Gonna need detailed information. My unlimited plan is not unlimited. After 22Gbs, my service is throttled. I dont know the circumstances of this issue nor do you. Net Neutrality does not dictate a provider has to give unlimited service to emergency services. The government has already started something like that. Its called First Net. Feel free to research that topic. Or dont.
"1% understands it". Yeah sure, you could make that empty claim about any poll. Anecdotally, 100% of people I've actually talked to in real life agree with it. Even hardcore republicans, who on occasion are against it at first because talking heads told them to be (like my dear old mother), have always agreed with the concept when it's explained to them. Why don't you explain why you're so against it again, huh? Other than "it's not needed"? Explain how it hurts the public interest whatsoever? And questioning those corporate bribes is just willful ignorance. Even if you don't buy that Ajit will get a ridiculously cushy gig with Verizon after his FCC clock runs out (ha), I was more referring to Congress, since they could easily pass a law to overturn Ajit's decision. But apparently they're not going to because again, bribes. The republican opposition is the usual outright lies from their playbook (from Rep. Greg Walden, to start)... quick, CALL IT SOCIALISM! CALL IT A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER! Ignoring the whole time that all NN really calls for is for ISPs to not do the things they *claim they won't do anyway*. Right. Lots of honesty going on there. *Barf*
