FCC Downplays Net Neutrality Changes In New Document

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Rexly Peñaflorida is a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware covering topics such as computer hardware, video games, and general technology news.

  • poisonpie
    Stop fearmongering, you seem to not realize that the real solution to the potential throttling issue is the fact that most areas have only one ISP, and "Net Neutrality" did nothing to solve that, in fact, it just exacerbated the issue, making startups jump through so many hoops and deal with Government regulations. If we're truly talking , about net neutrality why no mention the fact that Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and more regularly censor for political reasons. Doesn't seem very neutral to me, yet these big companies are the ones pushing for "Net Neutrality." Kinda strange dontcha think?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I think it's funny they highlight "telehealth applications", yet net neutrality never applied to commercial customers such as hospitals. They were always free to negotiate special traffic policies with their ISPs.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    Those are unrelated topics. A group/company/entity censoring their own content is one thing. Having the provider of the data be able censor or limit access/speed to any site is the core issue.

    I'm a little surprised they used the term heavy-handed so many times. What are they, children? I would take them a lot more seriously if they just used the name of the law with no adjectives.
    Reply
  • kuhndj67
    The point is that if you don't like Google or Facebook you can go to other sites for your politics... if your ISP doesn't make that something else available because they've decided to exclude them from your access then you CAN'T go somewhere else. Net Neutrality means keeping ISP's from making those calls for you - it doesn't mean any of those sites you CAN get to need to follow your political leanings.
    Reply
  • why_wolf
    20430182 said:
    I think it's funny they highlight "telehealth applications", yet net neutrality never applied to commercial customers such as hospitals. They were always free to negotiate special traffic policies with their ISPs.

    It's even more disingenuous when you realize that under the old rules things like telehealth (anything medical related that for some reason uses the internet) and VOIP telephone service were always treated with priority access rules. Under the assumption that these devices if interrupted could create or worsen an emergency situation. So removing Net Neutrally changed absolutely nothing in regards to these kinds of services.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20430141 said:
    Stop fearmongering,
    It's not fearmongering. ISPs have long blocked end-user apps, like bittorrent (which I use for legal distribution of open source OS images), and have engaged in head-end throttling. The concerns aren't theoretical.

    20430141 said:
    most areas have only one ISP, and "Net Neutrality" did nothing to solve that,
    Just because it didn't solve one problem you care about isn't a good reason to do away with it. One solution doesn't need to address all problems. If we care about improving competition, then a real understanding of the issues should lead to a more focused solution to that problem, which can quite likely co-exist with net neutrality.

    20430141 said:
    in fact, it just exacerbated the issue, making startups jump through so many hoops and deal with Government regulations.
    I would like to see this impact quantified. I'm sure its effect is hardly comparable to the anti-competitive practices big cable companies & telcos have used.
    Reply
  • elgiov
    This link is down?
    www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
    Reply
  • sykozis
    So, the FCC chairman, who is a former Verizon employee claims that things that didn't happen Pre-Net Neutrality won't happen after it ends? Verizon fought Net Neutrality on the grounds that they believed they had a right to control user access to data, as well as the right to charge users for access to services that compete with services they provide, and the right to charge competing companies for access to Verizon customers. I wonder how much Verizon stock Ajit Pai owns.... AT&T also tried to charge NetFlix for access to AT&T customers.... Removing regulations has NEVER increased competition in any market. Removing regulations actually DECREASES competition. Removing regulations has NEVER benefited consumers either....
    Reply
  • knightmike
    How is it legal for government officials to blatantly lie to the public? This government is owned by the corporations. We lose.
    Reply
  • chugot9218
    It is important to note that it is the Republicans blatantly lying to the public, enough of this false equivalency. For gods sake they created a whole presidential convention around an intentionally misquoted sentence by Obama. Since "you can keep your doctor" is the obvious rebuttal here, Obama did not make that statement to deceive, Republican amendments and the refusal to accept (for intents and purposes, free) money from the Medicaid expansion, purely on so called principal (which conveniently fall to the wayside once they are in power, deficits anyone???) caused that to be false. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
    Reply