Possible end to "net neutrality"

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Ben Fenner said:

Well it is Saturday and the internet is still running as it should, just like it did for two decades prior to net neutrality. 

 

Nobody said it was going to happen overnight.

 

Lets revisit in a year or two. 

[Stavro]

16 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Nobody said it was going to happen overnight. 

 

Even if it were to happen within minutes of taking effect, the law is not official until it is first published in the Federal Register (likely mid-January, barring any court-ordered delays or congressional overturn), and the effective date will be 30-90 days from the date of publication.

 

If the law sticks in its current form, I'd expect to see the first signs of change sometime around March-April 2018, when the regulations actually end.

[Ben Fenner]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

This is getting very political, isn’t it?

 

About the same as this???

 

(Jeremiah 10:23) 23 I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

 

 

[trottigy]

When I want the extreme conservative view I check out Fox News. Here is how fox news has explained this:

 

Quote

In the short term, the answer is simple: Not much. But over time, your ability to watch what you want to watch online and to use the apps that you prefer could start to change.

 

Your mobile carrier, for instance, might start offering you terrific deals for signing up to its own video service, just as your YouTube app starts suffering unexpected connection errors. Or you could wake one day to learn that your broadband provider is having a tiff with Amazon, and has slowed down its shopping site in order to extract business concessions.

 

All of which would be perfectly legal under the new deregulatory regime approved Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission, so long as the companies post their policies online. Broadband providers insist they won't do anything that harms the "internet experience" for consumers.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/12/15/what-net-neutrality-rollback-means-to.html

 

I love the last sentence,

 

"Broadband providers insist they won't do anything that harms the "internet experience" for consumers." They should add - with their fingers crossed. 

 

No, they won't "harm" their customers - slow down their favorite sites so you'll use theirs - sure, but that's not "harm" 

 

[ChocoBro]

Expect more of this corporate fascism stuff to develop as we draw closer to the end.

 

The thing with the internet is, that it pretty much is a suitable illustration of how unorganized and discordant the demons are. The internet was one of the greatest achievements in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of information, but it also made it harder for governments to control the mainstream of information and opinion. On the one hand, the internet has all the most vital information - including theocratic direction - accessible at a touch of the mouse-button, on the other hand, it made pornography and violence accessible even to children in their own bedrooms. It was a force for evil and disharmony, but also had very illuminating qualities.

 

Of course, now that we draw closer to the end, I think Satan will need some kind of monopoly on history, knowledge, opinion and information. It comes as no surprise to me, therefore, that he uses some of the most greedy and wicked players in his game, namely corporations, investors and corrupt politicians, to achieve the goal of gaining more and more control over the internet.

 

 

[Stavro]

 Justy a heads up, you may want to check to see if your name/address was used to make any official comments on this issue. If the search returns too many results, you can add your ZIP code to the search and filter the results down to just your town.

 

https://ag.ny.gov/FakeComments

 

It seems that Comcast subscribers and dead people make up the bulk of the fake comments, though just about anyone could have had their identity falsely used for this.

[Tortuga]

That was on the local news last week. The reporter interviewed several homeless people and an inmate that supposedly filed a comment.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Tortuga

[ChocoBro]

2 hours ago, Stavro said:

 Justy a heads up, you may want to check to see if your name/address was used to make any official comments on this issue.

 

What kind of comments. Do you have a link to a news piece?

[ChocoBro]

Okay, something like this?

http://mashable.com/2017/12/14/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc/#2cVkrUkXYaqC

 

Welcome to SATAN's world. Unbelievable.

[cricket246]

What do you do if you find a comment with your name on it and you soooo did not say that!!!! Do I report it?!?!!?

[Qapla]

Looks like I didn't make any fake comments .......... or any other comments on this subject ;)

[cricket246]

I found my name under a statement I did NOT post, which has me a bit unnerved...Guess Ill leave matters in  Jehovah's hands...

[Tortuga]

Just now, cricket246 said:

I found my name under a statement I did NOT post, which has me a bit unnerved...Guess Ill leave matters in  Jehovah's hands...

What did "you" say?

[cricket246]

Something to the extent of how " Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet." and how " I support the Federal Communications Commission's decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy." There was some more gibberish n between... This is a form of online social ID theft but whatcha gonna do....sigh....I don't agree and people putting my name on political stuff when I'm neutral irks me....

 

[Tortuga]

3 minutes ago, cricket246 said:

Something to the extent of how " Obama Administration rammed through a massive scheme that gave the federal government broad regulatory control over the internet." and how " I support the Federal Communications Commission's decision to roll back Title II and allow for free market principles to guide our digital economy." There was some more gibberish n between... This is a form of online social ID theft but whatcha gonna do....sigh....I don't agree and people putting my name on political stuff when I'm neutral irks me....

 

 

That sounds like the quote the local news said was being spammed. 

[Tortuga]

There is an interesting fight going on between the California fire fighters and Verizon. The firefighters say Verizon choked their data and made it nearly impossible to communicate while fighting fires, they blame net neutrality. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/08/22/verizon-throttled-unlimited-data-calif-fire-department-during-wildfire/1059486002/

Edited August 22, 2018 by Tortuga

[hatcheckgirl]

Ok, I think this is a bit of a misleading story, if I'm understanding it correctly.  Basically, the Fire dept had reached it's data cap, and thereafter it is throttled to a lower speed, unless it upgrades to a different plan offering more data.  It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "net neutrality" as such.

 

"Verizon spokesperson Heidi Flato said in a statement to USA TODAY that the issue is not related to net neutrality court proceedings. Verizon has a practice for removing data restrictions during emergency situations, but this case was a customer service error, Flato said. 

"In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake," the statement said."  

 

It is stupid customer service, and Verizon should have over-ridden it's cap for such an essential service.  What a world!  Use your humanity, people!  Or should we just let our buildings and forests burn because of a data cap? 😖

[EccentricM]

11 hours ago, hatcheckgirl said:

Verizon should have over-ridden it's cap for such an essential service

I was thinking the same. I would have thought emergency services would have free networking.

[Shawnster]

7 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

I was thinking the same. I would have thought emergency services would have free networking.

Not in the United States. At least not every state. Nor on any state I'm aware of. 

[Myew]

"Unlimited" cellular data has not meant unlimited high speed data for years in the USA, before the net neutrality debacles. Almost all phone data plans are technically unlimited, but after a certain number of GB, they reduce you down from around 3? 8? mbps to around 128kbps, or charge you more to keep using high speed data. Its not very hard to go over a cap if you're using video. There are some people who still run on truly unlimited cellular data plans, they have been able to grandfather them in and keep them running.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/06/att-imposes-another-5-price-hike-on-grandfathered-unlimited-data-plans/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/att-imposes-another-5-rate-hike-on-grandfathered-unlimited-data-plans/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/12/att-urges-unlimited-data-customers-to-give-up-plans-raises-price-by-5/

Edited August 23, 2018 by Myew

[Qapla]

I have my cell phone with Cricket (they are actually owned by ATT).

 

When I signed up the plan came with 2 GB data. I set my data alarm and was very careful. I ended up "needing" to use my cellular data more than I thought I would - thing is, I never even came close to the 2 GB

 

They offered me an upgrade to 3 GB for "only $5 more a month" - I reasoned that, since I was not using the 2 GB, why would I pay more for data I would not use.  

 

A couple months later they raised me to 3 GB without any extra charge.

 

Some months later I got another offer - yep, 4 GB for only $5 more - again, I did not bite 

 

Well, I am now up to 5 GB data a month and am still paying the same rate I did when I signed up with the 2 GB  

I quit worrying about how much data I use and turned the data alarm off - since, in my normal use of the phone, without any regard to a data limit, I never go over my limit 

 

I wonder when they will raise me to 6 GB

[Miss Bea]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:26 PM, hatcheckgirl said:

Ok, I think this is a bit of a misleading story, if I'm understanding it correctly.  Basically, the Fire dept had reached it's data cap, and thereafter it is throttled to a lower speed, unless it upgrades to a different plan offering more data.  It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "net neutrality" as such.

 

"Verizon spokesperson Heidi Flato said in a statement to USA TODAY that the issue is not related to net neutrality court proceedings. Verizon has a practice for removing data restrictions during emergency situations, but this case was a customer service error, Flato said. 

"In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake," the statement said."  

 

It is stupid customer service, and Verizon should have over-ridden it's cap for such an essential service.  What a world!  Use your humanity, people!  Or should we just let our buildings and forests burn because of a data cap? 😖

In an emergency situation, they should remove limits period. Yes, it was a customer support, but, it should have been routine.

[Old]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

I have my cell phone with Cricket (they are actually owned by ATT).

 

When I signed up the plan came with 2 GB data. I set my data alarm and was very careful. I ended up "needing" to use my cellular data more than I thought I would - thing is, I never even came close to the 2 GB

 

They offered me an upgrade to 3 GB for "only $5 more a month" - I reasoned that, since I was not using the 2 GB, why would I pay more for data I would not use.  

 

A couple months later they raised me to 3 GB without any extra charge.

 

Some months later I got another offer - yep, 4 GB for only $5 more - again, I did not bite 

 

Well, I am now up to 5 GB data a month and am still paying the same rate I did when I signed up with the 2 GB  

I quit worrying about how much data I use and turned the data alarm off - since, in my normal use of the phone, without any regard to a data limit, I never go over my limit 

 

I wonder when they will raise me to 6 GB

I am not aware that phone use affects data. Doesn't data usage only keep track of inernet use? Someone correct me if I am in error.

[Qapla]

Yes, the data I was talking about is the Internet Data

 

You know, using Google, looking up information on the web, looking at YouTube - and, this is a big one for me, downloading books - this includes the publications on JWL and audio books I d/l from the library.

 

I used to only d/l if I was able to use my WiFi connection, never over cellular - however, I no longer worry about that. My JWL app is set so it can d/l over cellular and I don't wait to d/l an audio book from the library - I don't care if it comes in by WiFi or cellular - since I never use the amount of data they have given me

[Old]

2 hours ago, Qapla said:

Yes, the data I was talking about is the Internet Data

 

You know, using Google, looking up information on the web, looking at YouTube - and, this is a big one for me, downloading books - this includes the publications on JWL and audio books I d/l from the library.

 

I used to only d/l if I was able to use my WiFi connection, never over cellular - however, I no longer worry about that. My JWL app is set so it can d/l over cellular and I don't wait to d/l an audio book from the library - I don't care if it comes in by WiFi or cellular - since I never use the amount of data they have given me

Sorry I mis-interpreted your ORIGNAL POST! Sorry I cannot respond in like, I am out of town and my laptop will not bold or increase the font size! Did you mention you acessed everything through wifi?