One Year Ago Today, the FCC [Did Not] Kill the Internet

by skolvikings

Posted on December 17, 2018

74

Thoughts? http://reason.com/blog/2018/12/14/one-year-ago-today-the-fcc-killed-the-in

I pretty much agree with the general premise. The sky hasn’t fallen since the end of Net Neutrality. The fear mongering was real, and it was wrong.

Comments (74)

74 responses to “One Year Ago Today, the FCC [Did Not] Kill the Internet”

  1. lwetzel

    It's only been a year.

    3 years ago
    0

  2. harmjr

    Plus the current congress could undo it. Yes unlikely so they will keep quiet until we remember less and less of this story and then bam. Internet TOLL ROAD GOING UP. I say give it 2 years. Maybe an excuse well we need to pay for this 5G or rural internet.

    3 years ago
    0

  3. lordbaal1

    Every level headed person knew and was saying nothing would happen. But the media was still spreading FUD.

    3 years ago
    0

  4. Jeffsters

    ISP’s aren’t stupid! They’ll slowly make changes and see how the public and politicians react. These companies must find new revenue streams, their investors will demand it, and they will. Enjoy!

    3 years ago
    0

  5. JimP

    Net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem.

    3 years ago
    0

  6. Bats

    The bottom line is this: INTERNET TECH BLOGGERS ARE DUMB.


    Let's get real here. It's those guys like the boneheads from Ars Technica, Tech Crunch, etc.... that really know nothing. They're not "movers and shakers." Rather, they're just story-tellers who live in a utopian fantasy world that they create in their heads while wearing the jeans, hoodies, and sneakers to work. I'll never forget the time when they demanded that wireless carriers drop "contracts" believing that if they did, our phone bills will be lower. I swear, those people are so stupid.


    Good post, thanks for reminding me.

    3 years ago
    0

  7. spacein_vader

    The premise is wrong. The FCC can't kill the internet. It also doesn't have authority over the internet.


    What it can do is have authority over (and kill/save,) internet access in the US. It makes no difference to the rest of us.


    The US Telco/cable market is weird as an outsider. For a country that has thrived so much on competition to grow its economy internet access is essentially a cartel of local monopolies and the government and even some of the people are ok with that? Weird.


    It's probably one of the only markets I can think of where the US pays more money for less service than most other developed countries.


    No idea what you can do about it though. Good luck!

    3 years ago
    0

  8. jwpear

    Everything is going to plan. Let's kill net neutrality in name, then wait a bit to really do anything harmful so we can prove that it was all an overblown hoax. Such naivety. Or maybe gullibility.

    3 years ago
    0

  9. waethorn

    It was the Democrats that did the fear-mongering on this, and yet it's the Democrats in California that want to tax your text messaging - likely to force you to move to alternative systems like Google's domineering RDS adoption that includes additional tracking information from your phone.

    3 years ago
    0

    • lvthunder

      In reply to Waethorn:

      No, the California Democrats don't want people to move to another technology. They just want more money to blow on stupid stuff. If everyone went to RDS they would just want to tax that too.

      3 years ago
      0

      • waethorn

        In reply to lvthunder:

        Google practically dictates what the RDS standard is to include, and they've been in bed with the Clinton Foundation and the Obama's for years.

        3 years ago
        0

        • skane2600

          In reply to Waethorn:

          Did you use a conspiracy building app? You know, where you just enter terms like "Obama", "Clinton Foundation" and "Google" and it creates a new conspiracy theory?

          3 years ago
          0

          • waethorn

            In reply to skane2600:

            They contributed heavily to the Obama's and Clinton's. Show me where they contributed equally to the GOP.

            3 years ago
            0

            • skane2600

              In reply to Waethorn:

              I assume you mean their campaigns which has nothing to do with RDS or the Clinton Foundation. Not to mention that Obama and Bill Clinton as a former presidents and Hillary Clinton as a non-president have no power over the fate of Google or RDS. And of course none of them has held positions of authority in California.

              3 years ago
              0

              • waethorn

                In reply to skane2600:

                You're not even trying to address my point: Google/Alphabet contributed to the DEMOCRATS. And the Democrats sided with them on every turn, including silencing Conservative voices. Show me where they played fair with Conservatives or the GOP.

                3 years ago
                0

                • skane2600

                  In reply to Waethorn:

                  Yes, companies make contributions to political parties, not exactly news. Democrats can have opinions of course, but they haven't passed any laws to silence conservative voices. And of course, there are tons of conservative voices on the Internet that can be just as easily found with Google as liberal voices.

                  3 years ago
                  0

          • lvthunder

            In reply to skane2600:

            It's not a stretch to say silicon valley is full of Democrats. It's a pretty known fact. Twitter is one of the few that will actually admit it.


            I don't remember off hand which book it was, but when President Obama took office a bunch of Google people went to work with him in the White House. They were all disgruntled because they couldn't use all the same tools as they did at Google because of the security requirements.

            3 years ago
            0

            • skane2600

              In reply to lvthunder:

              People from industry have been taking jobs in Presidential administrations for many decades and most of them were Republicans when they went to work for Republican Presidents and Democrats for Democratic Presidents. Nothing to see there.


              The primary motivation of the vast majority of tech companies is to make money and any social or political considerations are given minimal consideration. Twitter in particular allows Trump to violate the rules simply because he makes them a lot of money even though they are supposedly "liberal".

              3 years ago
              0

              • lvthunder

                In reply to skane2600:

                For the most part that is true, but that is changing. Especially for the social media companies. I would say that deplatforming people causes them not to maximize the amount of money they make. They deplatform people like Alex Jones yet people like Louis Farakan get to stay.

                3 years ago
                0

                • skane2600

                  In reply to lvthunder:

                  I'm not a fan of Farakan but how many people have been put in danger because of lies he told? I would have banned Jones the first time he spread his BS. Among other things he claimed 911 was an inside job, that Sandy Hook was a hoax, that Obama was going to put people in concentration camps and promoted the absurd pizzagate theory. If Farakan has done similar things he should be banned too.

                  3 years ago
                  0

                • waethorn

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  Louis Farrakhan has spouted outright hate towards Jews and Israel, claiming both should be destroyed. If you think that's not putting people in danger by inciting hate, you must be anti-Semitic.

                  3 years ago
                  0

                • skane2600

                  In reply to Waethorn:

                  Are you under the miss-impression that Farrakhan is a liberal? 


                  https://medium.com/s/story/no-farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-d2d1a37e1162

                  3 years ago
                  0

    • Bob Shutts

      In reply to Waethorn: Yes and every election we hear the same old trope that the GOP is going to take away your social security.


      3 years ago
      0

    • skane2600

      In reply to Waethorn:

      There's no connection between net neutrality and taxing text messages. In fact, text messages have nothing to do with the net at all. Any other random complaints about Democrats you want to inject into this discussion?

      3 years ago
      0

      • waethorn

        In reply to skane2600:

        Google wants to control RDS, which they're pushing as the replacement for SMS. RDS allows app developers to include additional packets from your smartphone, including precise tracking positions and data from other apps. Google, the company that wants to control the message so long as it meets with Neo-Liberal Democrat approval.

        3 years ago
        0

    • lwetzel

      In reply to Waethorn:

      Can't we leave the politics out of the site? There is enough of this trash on facebook and Twitter to satisfy anyone's need for it. Lets just talk computers.

      3 years ago
      0

  10. jimchamplin

    Only a year.


    Don't worry, the pigopolists are still hard at work. I hope Ajit Pai and his scum-sucking friends end up in prison.

    3 years ago
    0

  11. Usman

    Before the Title 2 classification, Netflix was slowed down by ISPs, until Netflix paid them. The "fear mongering" was based on reality, perhaps those ISPs are being paid behind the scenes by these service providers.


    If they are keeping to net neutrality, then why not keep the regulation? The regulation at least ensures that they stick to those rules.

    3 years ago
    0

    • Thom77

      In reply to Usman:


      But They were doing that before Net Neutrality. They also have been involved in the Netflix Open Connect program which was free and helped ISP's traffic complaints before Net Neutrality.


      So using your same logic ... why even make Net Neutrality to begin with if they were doing it to begin with?







      3 years ago
      0

    • lvthunder

      In reply to Usman:

      Title 2 regulation was more then just net neutrality. Nothing says internet like the Telecommunications Act of 1934 which is where Title 2 came from. The FCC used Title 2 to get around Congress instead of doing things the right way and have Congress pass a new law.

      3 years ago
      0

      • skane2600

        In reply to lvthunder:

        The Constitution is a lot older than Title 2. Should we abandon it because it's old?


        There's little point in Federal Agencies if all they do is sit around and wait for Congress to take action. The FCC has a mandate and it has authority.

        3 years ago
        0

        • Greg Green

          In reply to skane2600

          The FCC, and many other agencies, have power because congress gave away their constitutional obligations. These agencies are extraconstitutional and allow unelected campaign contributors, lobbyists and has-been politicians to rule with little accountability.

          3 years ago
          0

          • skane2600

            In reply to Greg Green:

            These agencies were created by Congress so I'm not sure they could be classified as "extraconstitutional". If you're looking for examples where Congress has effectively given away it's power, the best example concerns military action. "Congress shall declare war" yet today a President can take military action without Congressional pre-approval. Even after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt knew he needed to ask Congress to declare war if he wanted the US to attack Japan.


            3 years ago
            0

        • lvthunder

          In reply to skane2600:

          No go back and read what I said. The internet is new. It's different then telephones. That's why new laws are needed. When they imposed Title 2 they even had to say well we mean this part, but not this part.


          The Constitution applies to the same things now as it did then. Speech, religion, guns, voting, etc. aren't new ideas like the internet is.


          You are right the FCC has a mandate. The internet is not part of that mandate which is why they needed to reclassify it under Title 2 so they could have the authority to do it.

          3 years ago
          0

          • skane2600

            In reply to lvthunder:

            Pro Tip: If you're going to say "go back and read what I said" you need to point out an inconsistency or a misrepresentation of what you said.


            The prior FCC classified the Internet under Title 2 and the current FCC reverse it. Neither of those actions would be legal if the FCC had zero authority over the Internet.

            3 years ago
            0

  12. NoFlames

    Good article. The regulation seemed to be a solution to a mostly hypothetical problem, thus it hasn't been missed.

    3 years ago
    0

  13. Paul Thurrott

    You forgot the word "Yet" at the end of that headline.


    Telecos are evil, period. Don't believe for a second they have your best interests at heart.

    3 years ago
    0

  14. Sprtfan

    Wasn't there part of Net Neutrality that was going to allow/force competition in cable boxes that pretty much ended with Net Neutrality?

    3 years ago
    0

Leave a Reply

We use cookies to improve your browsing experience.

Find out more about our cookie policy here.