'Net neutrality' rules for fair internet access win in court

[ThrashZone]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the government's "net neutrality" rules, preserving regulations that force internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T to treat all online traffic — everything from Netflix and cat videos to games and downloads — equally.
The 2-1 ruling is a sweeping victory for the Obama administration and the consumer groups and internet companies that have pushed net neutrality for years. The Federal Communications Commission's rules block internet service providers from favoring their own services and disadvantaging others; blocking other sites and apps; and creating "fast lanes" for video and other data services that pay for the privilege.

On technical grounds, the ruling upholds the FCC's authority to regulate broadband service as a utility, much like phone service, and to forbid what it considers unreasonable practices. It applies equally to wired broadband providers like cable companies and mobile ones such as Verizon.
TOUGHER REGULATION DOWN THE ROAD
The net neutrality rules have been in effect since June, and the court's decision isn't going to change how the internet works tomorrow. But the FCC has already been taking some steps that would change how broadband providers act. The ruling could pave the way for tougher restrictions on cable and phone companies that affect what services they offer, which consumer data they can use and how, and what they can charge.
The providers who filed the lawsuit say they'll appeal.

Source

 

[RoasterMen]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

It means the FCC can now regulate internet providers as utilities, same as telephone providers, TV and radio broadcasters, etc. As much as detest government regulation, most internet providers in the U.S. have been abusing their coverage monopolies and need to be regulated since they have proven they will not regulate themselves.

 

[Dallas 7]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

Just another government takeover, under the guise of doing it for our own good, claiming it will make it cheaper and/or better for everyone. The problem is, when the government does that, it usually gets worse instead of better. It becomes more expensive and/or decreases the supply. Then they blame it on something other than themselves so they can expand their own control to fix the problems they themselves created. It's like a cat chasing it's tail, and we're the losers.

 

[Jamie White]

I hope that this doesn't happen in the UK.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

Just another government takeover, under the guise of doing it for our own good, claiming it will make it cheaper and/or better for everyone. The problem is, when the government does that, it usually gets worse instead of better. It becomes more expensive and/or decreases the supply. Then they blame it on something other than themselves so they can expand their own control to fix the problems they themselves created. It's like a cat chasing it's tail, and we're the losers.

You are either young or have a short memory. I can remember when there was basically only one telephone company and it was also the long distance carrier (all were owned by AT&T). The company advertised that they may be the only phone company in town but they didn't act like it; it was actually the opposite that was true. You weren't allowed to own your own phones—you had to rent them from the phone company and the choices were very limited—and you paid an extra charge for each extra phone you had. Even once the government forced the phone companies to allow people to own their own phones, they were limited to only four with additional charges for each additional phone (there was a cheat around that; just disable the ringers on the additional phones and pray you didn't get caught) until the government stepped in and removed that restriction.

It took the FCC and Congress to break up that massive monopoly, forming the so-called Baby
Bells, and get them to relax a lot of their restrictive rules that were preventing progress. Telephone rates gradually went down, service generally improved, restrictions on owning one's own phones were gradually eliminated, etc., a lot of that achieved by allowing competition to come in.

When I moved into my present home, over 20 years ago, there was one phone company, period. I now have a choice of two actual landline phone companies (I celebrated when I was able to tell the former Baby Bell to take a hike), far more if you include wireless and VOIP options (I'm now using Straight Talk's Home Connect service that uses the Verizon cellphone network). Instead of being limited to only four phones, the only limitation is dependent on the hardware one uses. All this is thanks to government regulation.

As I said before, I do not like government regulation because it generally tries to "fix what ain't broke". In this case, same as it was with the telephone company, the internet provider industry is "broke" and needs "fixin'" and, since there isn't enough competition to force the industry to clean up its own act, the government is having to step in and do it. I personally feel it is long overdue!

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
The last part of that quote pretty much sums it up
Prices will go up and in anything government overseen project it will take a long time to flatten out prices.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi,
The last part of that quote pretty much sums it up
Prices will go up and in anything government overseen project it will take a long time to flatten out prices.

And yet the overall cost of telephone service went down when the government started actually regulating it. You all have short memories.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi
It took time costs didn't drop over night.

 

[cornemuse]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

Now they can 'de-regulate' it and give these companys free rein to do & charge whatever they want, whenever they want.

One post here said something about the phone co de-reg lowering costs, well, I donno, not in my neck of the woods.

-c-

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Hi
It took time costs didn't drop over night.

Again, your memory is short. It never would have happened, period, without government intervention. Loosening of restrictions and allowing competition came much faster, which did even more to reduce overall costs and improve service. One of the first things that saved me money and improved service was being allowed to show AT&T the door (pity I couldn't have used my foot) and choose my own long distance carrier. Another one was to be able to drop the absurd wiring maintenance charge that Mountain Bell had been extorting; I was perfectly capable of maintaining my own wiring, especially since I put it all in myself (despite the former rules against it).

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

Now they can 'de-regulate' it and give these companys free rein to do & charge whatever they want, whenever they want.

One post here said something about the phone co de-reg lowering costs, well, I donno, not in my neck of the woods.

-c-

Nothing was ever said about deregulation; this is about introducing long overdue regulation to a monopolistic industry that has been abusing that monopoly.

The phone industry was never deregulated. I don't know where you live, but in the Phoenix, AZ area, for the four cordless phones I have in my home, I now pay half of what I used to pay for one wired phone once the FCC paid attention to public outcry, got off their collective ample assets, broke up the Bell system, and started actually regulating the phone companies.

 

[FerchogtX]

Why do I have the feeling that, after reading all this posts, Change.org had just fooled me?

 

[groze]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

It means the FCC can now regulate internet providers as utilities, same as telephone providers, TV and radio broadcasters, etc. As much as detest government regulation, most internet providers in the U.S. have been abusing their coverage monopolies and need to be regulated since they have proven they will not regulate themselves.

Lady Fitzgerald is correct. It could also mean higher internet cost for everyone even people not on Comcast.

 

[ThrashZone]

Yep one speed for all will remove lower speed package choices thus making a basic internet more expensive.
The internet providers will be the same and they will price it nearly as high as and their packages that include basic t.v. services for a ted more

I had 200 channel package it was okay now it cost as much as a 300 channel package possibly 20.us more so yea bussiness will always squeeze for the little bit more or you pay more for less than you did.

Good Bad or indifferent businesses/ isp's will adapt and say profitable.

 

[Dallas 7]

What does this mean? Can anyone make it more simpler?

Just another government takeover, under the guise of doing it for our own good, claiming it will make it cheaper and/or better for everyone. The problem is, when the government does that, it usually gets worse instead of better. It becomes more expensive and/or decreases the supply. Then they blame it on something other than themselves so they can expand their own control to fix the problems they themselves created. It's like a cat chasing it's tail, and we're the losers.

You are either young or have a short memory. I can remember when there was basically only one telephone company and it was also the long distance carrier (all were owned by AT&T). The company advertised that they may be the only phone company in town but they didn't act like it; it was actually the opposite that was true. You weren't allowed to own your own phones—you had to rent them from the phone company and the choices were very limited—and you paid an extra charge for each extra phone you had. Even once the government forced the phone companies to allow people to own their own phones, they were limited to only four with additional charges for each additional phone (there was a cheat around that; just disable the ringers on the additional phones and pray you didn't get caught) until the government stepped in and removed that restriction.

It took the FCC and Congress to break up that massive monopoly, forming the so-called Baby
Bells, and get them to relax a lot of their restrictive rules that were preventing progress. Telephone rates gradually went down, service generally improved, restrictions on owning one's own phones were gradually eliminated, etc., a lot of that achieved by allowing competition to come in.

When I moved into my present home, over 20 years ago, there was one phone company, period. I now have a choice of two actual landline phone companies (I celebrated when I was able to tell the former Baby Bell to take a hike), far more if you include wireless and VOIP options (I'm now using Straight Talk's Home Connect service that uses the Verizon cellphone network). Instead of being limited to only four phones, the only limitation is dependent on the hardware one uses. All this is thanks to government regulation.

As I said before, I do not like government regulation because it generally tries to "fix what ain't broke". In this case, same as it was with the telephone company, the internet provider industry is "broke" and needs "fixin'" and, since there isn't enough competition to force the industry to clean up its own act, the government is having to step in and do it. I personally feel it is long overdue!

I'm 67 so you can't blame it on my youth. Second, although my memory isn't what it used to be, it's good enough that I DO remember we used to pay about $19 per month for an AT&T home phone. Now the wife and I pay $86 per month for 2 flip phones. No internet, no texting, no smart phones, just 2 plain vanilla flip phones.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Just another government takeover, under the guise of doing it for our own good, claiming it will make it cheaper and/or better for everyone. The problem is, when the government does that, it usually gets worse instead of better. It becomes more expensive and/or decreases the supply. Then they blame it on something other than themselves so they can expand their own control to fix the problems they themselves created. It's like a cat chasing it's tail, and we're the losers.

You are either young or have a short memory. I can remember when there was basically only one telephone company and it was also the long distance carrier (all were owned by AT&T). The company advertised that they may be the only phone company in town but they didn't act like it; it was actually the opposite that was true. You weren't allowed to own your own phones—you had to rent them from the phone company and the choices were very limited—and you paid an extra charge for each extra phone you had. Even once the government forced the phone companies to allow people to own their own phones, they were limited to only four with additional charges for each additional phone (there was a cheat around that; just disable the ringers on the additional phones and pray you didn't get caught) until the government stepped in and removed that restriction.

It took the FCC and Congress to break up that massive monopoly, forming the so-called Baby
Bells, and get them to relax a lot of their restrictive rules that were preventing progress. Telephone rates gradually went down, service generally improved, restrictions on owning one's own phones were gradually eliminated, etc., a lot of that achieved by allowing competition to come in.

When I moved into my present home, over 20 years ago, there was one phone company, period. I now have a choice of two actual landline phone companies (I celebrated when I was able to tell the former Baby Bell to take a hike), far more if you include wireless and VOIP options (I'm now using Straight Talk's Home Connect service that uses the Verizon cellphone network). Instead of being limited to only four phones, the only limitation is dependent on the hardware one uses. All this is thanks to government regulation.

As I said before, I do not like government regulation because it generally tries to "fix what ain't broke". In this case, same as it was with the telephone company, the internet provider industry is "broke" and needs "fixin'" and, since there isn't enough competition to force the industry to clean up its own act, the government is having to step in and do it. I personally feel it is long overdue!

I'm 67 so you can't blame it on my youth. Second, although my memory isn't what it used to be, it's good enough that I DO remember we used to pay about $19 per month for an AT&T home phone. Now the wife and I pay $86 per month for 2 flip phones. No internet, no texting, no smart phones, just 2 plain vanilla flip phones.

You are comparing apples and kumquats. Cell phone service does not equate to landline phone service. Of course you are paying more for the cell phones.

Before I yanked my landline earlier this year, I was paying $35 for it, including fees and taxes, plus 10¢/minute for long distance. Long distance, back when we were younger (we are roughly the same age) was anything out of town; now one can call partway across the State without incurring long distance charges. When adjusted for inflation, that is fraction of what I used to pay "back in the day".

I now pay $16.59 per month for unlimited talk on my landline equivalent, including fees, taxes, and long distance within the U.S. Plus, when I travel, I can take that service with me as long as I'm within range of a Verizon tower.

 

[Dallas 7]

You are either young or have a short memory. I can remember when there was basically only one telephone company and it was also the long distance carrier (all were owned by AT&T). The company advertised that they may be the only phone company in town but they didn't act like it; it was actually the opposite that was true. You weren't allowed to own your own phones—you had to rent them from the phone company and the choices were very limited—and you paid an extra charge for each extra phone you had. Even once the government forced the phone companies to allow people to own their own phones, they were limited to only four with additional charges for each additional phone (there was a cheat around that; just disable the ringers on the additional phones and pray you didn't get caught) until the government stepped in and removed that restriction.

It took the FCC and Congress to break up that massive monopoly, forming the so-called Baby
Bells, and get them to relax a lot of their restrictive rules that were preventing progress. Telephone rates gradually went down, service generally improved, restrictions on owning one's own phones were gradually eliminated, etc., a lot of that achieved by allowing competition to come in.

When I moved into my present home, over 20 years ago, there was one phone company, period. I now have a choice of two actual landline phone companies (I celebrated when I was able to tell the former Baby Bell to take a hike), far more if you include wireless and VOIP options (I'm now using Straight Talk's Home Connect service that uses the Verizon cellphone network). Instead of being limited to only four phones, the only limitation is dependent on the hardware one uses. All this is thanks to government regulation.

As I said before, I do not like government regulation because it generally tries to "fix what ain't broke". In this case, same as it was with the telephone company, the internet provider industry is "broke" and needs "fixin'" and, since there isn't enough competition to force the industry to clean up its own act, the government is having to step in and do it. I personally feel it is long overdue!

I'm 67 so you can't blame it on my youth. Second, although my memory isn't what it used to be, it's good enough that I DO remember we used to pay about $19 per month for an AT&T home phone. Now the wife and I pay $86 per month for 2 flip phones. No internet, no texting, no smart phones, just 2 plain vanilla flip phones.

You are comparing apples and kumquats. Cell phone service does not equate to landline phone service. Of course you are paying more for the cell phones.

Before I yanked my landline earlier this year, I was paying $35 for it, including fees and taxes, plus 10¢/minute for long distance. Long distance, back when we were younger (we are roughly the same age) was anything out of town; now one can call partway across the State without incurring long distance charges. When adjusted for inflation, that is fraction of what I used to pay "back in the day".

I now pay $16.59 per month for unlimited talk on my landline equivalent, including fees, taxes, and long distance within the U.S. Plus, when I travel, I can take that service with me as long as I'm within range of a Verizon tower.

I don't like kumquats, whatever they are, plus I was defending what's remaining of my memory. LOL
And congrats on your good phone deal.
Aside from that, I learned a long time ago not to trust federal government power grabs in general. They seldom do what they say they'll do and it usually costs much more than they promise.
I recall a statement by a certain congresswoman about a certain bill a few years ago...
"We have to pass it to see what's in it". But isn't that the description of a stool sample??