FCC eliminate rules for small ISPs to give customers detailed rules around prices, speeds and fees - Polidicks

(Note: I hope this source is OK. The article seems legitimate, but I changed the title as I thought it was too biased). [URL="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/it-begins-trumps-fcc-launches-attack-on-net-neutrality-transparency-rules"]https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/it-begins-trumps-fcc-launches-attack-on-net-neutrality-transparency-rules[/URL] [QUOTE] As a result of Thursday's action, "thousands" of small and medium-sized internet service providers (ISPs) around the country are no longer required to give their customers detailed information about broadband prices, speeds and fees, according to the FCC. The newly-rolled-back disclosure requirements, which were designed to help consumers make informed decisions when selecting an ISP, were a key part of the FCC's 2015 policy safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible. ... FCC Chairman Pai has made no secret of his distaste for the FCC's net neutrality policy, which prohibits ISPs from favoring their own services or discriminating against rivals. Earlier this month, Pai halted the agency's inquiry into zero-rating, a controversial practice in which ISPs exempt certain services from data caps, effectively favoring those offerings at the expense of rivals. ... Broadband providers with fewer than 100,000 subscribers were already exempt from the net neutrality transparency requirements. But Thursday's action boosts the exemption limit to companies with as many as 250,000 subscribers, a substantial increase that could affect as many as 9.7 million consumers, mostly in rural and underserved communities, according to Sen. Markey's office. By increasing the exemption limit, Pai has eliminated the transparency requirements for many firms that are actually local or regional subsidiaries of the nation's largest broadband companies, which remain subject to the disclosure rules, according to FCC Commissioner Clyburn. "Many of the nation's largest broadband providers are actually holding companies, comprised of many smaller operating companies," said Clyburn. "So what today's Order does is exempt these companies' affiliates that have under 250,000 connections by declining to aggregate the connection count at the holding company level." In other words, although Thursday's action does not overtly affect the nation's largest broadband companies, it could have the effect of covertly eliminating disclosure rules for smaller companies in which the broadband giants have a financial stake. [/QUOTE] Long enough article, please read it all.

Balantly anticonsumer on a product that should never be anticonsumer.

this already fails Trump's Law as its costing american jobs (those needed to maintain records) and is hurting americans. but i'm sure trump is going to come to the rescue here

Is the new FCC chairman's plan to just ruin the Internet? serious, because i haven't seen a single pro-consumer action come from this administration

[QUOTE=Keelwar;51873844]Is the new FCC chairman's plan to just ruin the Internet? serious, because i haven't seen a single pro-consumer action come from this administration[/QUOTE] You expected otherwise? It's all about money now. It's a business.

imagine being charged for using an app that had no visible fee's you use youtube and bam, every 2 videos is 2$

[QUOTE=Keelwar;51873844]Is the new FCC chairman's plan to just ruin the Internet? serious, because i haven't seen a single pro-consumer action come from this administration[/QUOTE] That's what happens when America elects in a businessman whose sole goal is to make more money for himself and anyone who pays him. Anyone who actually thought that Trump cared about the common person is doing some impressive mental gymnastics.

Remember when Trump supporters told us all the time electing a businessman would do wonders for America? Now that this is one of the end results that's directly going to make life harder for everybody, especially small businesses, all I can see is the internet being ruined for everybody and blatant price gouging/traffic priorities becoming the norm.

Think about all the people who don't understand internet speeds and buy the cheapest plan there is. Dialup will rise again :joy:

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51873931]Anyone who actually thought that republicans care about the common person is doing some impressive mental gymnastics.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=robotnik185;51874121]Think about all the people who don't understand internet speeds and buy the cheapest plan there is. Dialup will rise again :joy:[/QUOTE] As much media as is used on websites these days, nobody would be happy with dial-up.

A pity the new FCC chairman doesn't get hit by a bus, but then that could be said for most of Trump's picks, barring Mattis.

I'm pretty sure /r/the_donald must already have an entire plan on how to blame Hillary for this. Just as they will when their bill gets jacked up within the next year or so.

As bad as this sounds, it's not totally catastrophic. It's still complete bullshit and should never be allowed, but it's not like AT&T and Verizon can suddenly hide their connection speeds and prices now. It only affects ISPs with 250,000 subscribers or less.

[QUOTE=zombini;51875096]As bad as this sounds, it's not totally catastrophic. It's still complete bullshit and should never be allowed, but it's not like AT&T and Verizon can suddenly hide their connection speeds and prices now. It only affects ISPs with 250,000 subscribers or less.[/QUOTE] It's catastrophic because it sets precedent that this is okay to do, they'll lobby and bitch and moan that "those other guys get do it why can't we" and throw money at it until they can too.

[QUOTE=zombini;51875096]As bad as this sounds, it's not totally catastrophic. It's still complete bullshit and should never be allowed, but it's not like AT&T and Verizon can suddenly hide their connection speeds and prices now. It only affects ISPs with 250,000 subscribers or less.[/QUOTE] The irony is the people getting shafted by this (those living in more rural areas where larger companies don't operate) are more likely to have voted for Trump in the election and thus allowed this to happen.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51875130]The irony is the people getting shafted by this (those living in more rural areas where larger companies don't operate) are more likely to have voted for Trump in the election and thus allowed this to happen.[/QUOTE] If there is one thing the Republican party is good at. It's convincing people that they should vote against their best interests.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51875120]It's catastrophic because it sets precedent that this is okay to do, they'll lobby and bitch and moan that "those other guys get do it why can't we" and throw money at it until they can too.[/QUOTE] This will never be allowed full scale because the FTC will shut their asses down in a heartbeat for false advertising. They're already pushing on false advertising with their bullshit "up to" speeds that have a minimum speed of 50% of advertised or higher. Keep in mind, this is not a new thing. All that has been done is that the size of the companies that are allowed to hide specifics is increased slightly. The Big Four of the Internet have several million subscribers each, they have a ways to go before it even gets close to effectively legalizing false advertising. It's something that half the country would call out if they tried to pull something and let AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum have hidden bullshit in their contracts. The FTC WILL step in if they try it, they're very pro-consumer and have torn many companies new assholes for junk products and false advertising. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/lifelock-pay-100-million-consumers-settle-ftc-charges-it-violated]They kicked LifeLock in the balls with a $100,000,000 fine in 2015[/url], why couldn't they kick AT&T in the nuts too? In fact, they have before. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/10/att-pay-80-million-ftc-consumer-refunds-mobile-cramming-case]AT&T got a $105,000,000 fine for tacking on bullshit charges in their mobile contracts.[/url]

[QUOTE=zombini;51875957]This will never be allowed full scale because the FTC will shut their asses down in a heartbeat for false advertising. They're already pushing on false advertising with their bullshit "up to" speeds that have a minimum speed of 50% of advertised or higher. Keep in mind, this is not a new thing. All that has been done is that the size of the companies that are allowed to hide specifics is increased slightly. The Big Four of the Internet have several million subscribers each, they have a ways to go before it even gets close to effectively legalizing false advertising. It's something that half the country would call out if they tried to pull something and let AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum have hidden bullshit in their contracts. The FTC WILL step in if they try it, they're very pro-consumer and have torn many companies new assholes for junk products and false advertising. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/lifelock-pay-100-million-consumers-settle-ftc-charges-it-violated]They kicked LifeLock in the balls with a $100,000,000 fine in 2015[/url], why couldn't they kick AT&T in the nuts too? In fact, they have before. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/10/att-pay-80-million-ftc-consumer-refunds-mobile-cramming-case]AT&T got a $105,000,00 fine for tacking on bullshit charges in their mobile contracts.[/url][/QUOTE] Or Congress/Pres could just axe the FTC if they were 'hampering' business. I wouldn't be surprised if the Congress/adminstration stooped to that low.

...so how will this create more innovation and jobs Mr. Pai?

[QUOTE=Mr._N;51876030]...so how will this create more innovation and jobs Mr. Pai?[/QUOTE] Complaints department.

[QUOTE=zombini;51875957]This will never be allowed full scale because the FTC will shut their asses down in a heartbeat for false advertising. They're already pushing on false advertising with their bullshit "up to" speeds that have a minimum speed of 50% of advertised or higher. Keep in mind, this is not a new thing. All that has been done is that the size of the companies that are allowed to hide specifics is increased slightly. The Big Four of the Internet have several million subscribers each, they have a ways to go before it even gets close to effectively legalizing false advertising. It's something that half the country would call out if they tried to pull something and let AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum have hidden bullshit in their contracts. The FTC WILL step in if they try it, they're very pro-consumer and have torn many companies new assholes for junk products and false advertising. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/lifelock-pay-100-million-consumers-settle-ftc-charges-it-violated]They kicked LifeLock in the balls with a $100,000,000 fine in 2015[/url], why couldn't they kick AT&T in the nuts too? In fact, they have before. [url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/10/att-pay-80-million-ftc-consumer-refunds-mobile-cramming-case]AT&T got a $105,000,00 fine for tacking on bullshit charges in their mobile contracts.[/url][/QUOTE] And this was all under Wheeler. Could be turning into a very different scenario.