Net neutrality

[Thebobo]

Well today's the day. It's a shame such a momentous decision has been allowed to take place by such a partisan political appointee and just a few other people.

 

[brycejones]

There was no net neutrality before Obama. So, we're going back to same ol same ol, and we're whining about it? Good grief!
This is truly a first world problem that I don't gig a shit about.

We know you don't care since you steal the neighbor's wi-fi anyway.

 

[boomerang]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

 

[sdifox]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

You mean the same competition the isps have in a given area? One or two choices?

 

[fskimospy]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

You’re right, if there’s one thing the telecom/ISP market is known for it’s robust competition.

Lol.

 

[boomerang]

You mean the same competiton the isps have in a given area? One or two choices?

The question is, did NN enhance or hamper expansion of choice. Ajit Pai believes it hampered it.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/

Why am I confident that this approach will work? Because it was a tremendous bipartisan success for two decades. At the dawn of the commercial internet, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed on a light-touch framework to regulating the internet. Under that approach, the internet was open and free. Network investment topped $1.5 trillion. Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, and Google went from small startups to global tech giants. America's internet economy became the envy in the world.

But then in 2015, the FCC chose a different course and slapped heavy-handed regulations from 1934 -- known as "Title II" -- on the internet. This was the wrong decision. Rules designed for the Ma Bell monopoly during the era of rotary phones were a poor fit for the greatest innovation of our time, the internet. Following the FCC's decision, network investment fell by billions of dollars -- the first time that had happened outside of a recession in the broadband era.

This change is not the end of the world unless one's partisan blinders are being worn too tightly.

 

[Commodus]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

The worst scenarios probably won't happen, but rolling back net neutrality isn't really helping anyone other than telecoms. And here's the problem: while it's not etched in stone, it's unlikely to change until Pai is out and Democrats have the majority on the Commission.

It's not "big government" versus "small government." The notion that internet providers shouldn't be allowed to block or throttle competing services is a free market idea. It's the public (which has broad support for net neutrality) versus Republican commissioners who don't even really hide that they're on the take. Whatever your ideology, regulation should not be dictated by the companies it's meant to regulate.

 

[sdifox]

The question is, did NN enhance or hamper expansion of choice. Ajit Pai believes it hampered it.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/



This change is not the end of the world unless one's partisan blinders are being worn too tightly.

Lol partisanship. That is definitely why a Canadian (me) cares about US net neutrality.

 

[fskimospy]

The question is, did NN enhance or hamper expansion of choice. Ajit Pai believes it hampered it.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect-a-free-and-open-internet/

This change is not the end of the world unless one's partisan blinders are being worn too tightly.

I doubt Ajit Pai actually believes it hampered it, he's just a tool of the telecom industry. There is zero evidence that net neutrality regulation reduced telecom investment - zero. If Pai doesn't know this it's because he's deliberately decided not to know.

The change isn't the end of the world, it's just a dumb idea and we all know it. The only reason people support it is because they are like you, blinded by extreme partisanship.

 

[boomerang]

And here's the problem: while it's not etched in stone, it's unlikely to change until Pai is out and Democrats have the majority on the Commission.

Congratulations! You've achieved an understanding of the political process within the U.S. The winners make the rules and your team lost. Eight years of 0bama, eight years of Trump. We don't always get our way. Most of us learn that early in life but certainly by our teen years.

Here's something I don't say very often. I am going to put you on ignore because you're just too damned ignorant to deal with. I don't have to so I choose not to.

But as a parting gift I will pose a question to you. Keep in mind that you don't have to answer because I won't see it.

Why did you choose to adopt a persona here of a Roman emperor that is arguably one of the most decadent, evil and insane to have ever ruled? Is it out of admiration or ignorance? I'm betting on the latter.

http://listverse.com/2017/09/18/10-insane-facts-about-emperor-commodus-left-out-of-gladiator/

Some snippets are below.

"Commodus’s depravity didn’t stop when he left the arena. He had a strange obsession with torturing the physically disabled—once even forcing men with dwarfism to fight each other with cleavers for an audience’s amusement—and he found ways to work torture into every part of life."

"Commodus’s ego was unparalleled. He legitimately believed that he was a living god. He had the head of the Colossus chopped off and replaced with his own likeness and even pressured the Senate to officially declare him a living god."

"The emperors of the old world went mad with power in a way that modern man just can’t compete with. They could get away with things modern leaders can only dream of—and it gave them some crazy ideas.

But Commodus was unique. He was the only emperor born while his father ruled Rome, which meant that he started going mad with power from the first moments of his life.

It made him a little sociopath. According to the Roman rumor mill, the young preteen Commodus would have anyone who made fun of him “cast to the wild beasts.”[4] Playmates who slighted him (or, one time, a slave who made his bath too cold) were all put to death.

He conducted experiments, too. As a boy, he wanted to be a surgeon, so he’d practice—on living people. Once, he cut open a fat man’s belly with scalpels just to see what it looked like inside. His teachers just had to stand by, watch, and even help him do it. If they didn’t, they’d be next."

"Cleander’s wasn’t the only family Commodus massacred. He also had the Qunctilii family almost completely wiped out, but it wasn’t because they’d betrayed him or because anybody demanded it. They were just wealthy and respected, and as far Commodus was concerned, that meant it was just a matter of time before the people started calling for them to rule Rome.[9] So they had to die."

 

[umbrella39]

Get to a fucking meeting dude...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

There was no net neutrality before Obama. So, we're going back to same ol same ol, and we're whining about it? Good grief!
This is truly a first world problem that I don't gig a shit about.

Thanks Obama

 

[Zorba]

Comcast Corp v. FCC. They were throttling bittorrent.

Then after they won that case, they started throttling Netflix and demanding that they pay. Now they are offering speed increases only to TV subscribers.

 

[Phokus]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

LOL, dude, more than 800 startups penned a letter asking ajit pai not to end net neutrality, you think google and facebook were the only companies against the rollback? You are delusional.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/26/startups-letter-pai-engine-techstars-y-combinator/

 

[brycejones]

Here's something I don't say very often. I am going to put you on ignore because you're just too damned ignorant to deal with. I don't have to so I choose not to.

Another conservative alpha male seeking his safe space.

 

[thraashman]

There was no net neutrality before Obama. So, we're going back to same ol same ol, and we're whining about it? Good grief!
This is truly a first world problem that I don't gig a shit about.

Except that there was net neutrality before Obama as regulated by the FCC. The reason the FCC changed the rules of how ISPs were classified is because it lost a court case that essentially ruled under current classifications the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate them and enforce net neutrality. So to continue enforcing it, like the vast majority of the public wants, the classification was changed to maintain the "same ol same ol". What the man with the world's most punchable face, Ajit Pai, wants is something that hasn't been done before, an internet in which ISPs are free to pick and choose their favorites and screw over individuals at their whim.

 

[Thebobo]

Some states have resolved to keep NN or parts of it. check your state you might have nothing to worry about. I do

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...ogy/net-neutrality-legislation-in-states.aspx

 

[fskimospy]

While some states have resolved to keep NN or parts of it my state has yet done so. List of states. check your you might have nothing to worry about. I do

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...ogy/net-neutrality-legislation-in-states.aspx

Ironically this patchwork of regulations is exactly what the telecoms said they didn't want. Guess they should have been careful about what they wished for, considering that net neutrality is overwhelmingly popular.

It also makes you wonder why the FCC is enacting regulations that nobody supports. Oh wait, it doesn't.

 

[repoman0]

Some states have resolved to keep NN or parts of it. check your you might have nothing to worry about. I do

http://www.ncsl.org/research/teleco...ogy/net-neutrality-legislation-in-states.aspx

Massachusetts :thumbup:

A person or entity engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service in Commonwealth of Massachusetts shall not: Block lawful content, applications, services or nonharmful devices; impair or degrade lawful internet traffic; engage in paid prioritization.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Massachusetts :thumbup:

Yup, our Souther Brothers hate how we get shit done but we do get shit done in Massachusetts

 

[sdifox]

Yup, our Souther Brothers hate how we get shit done but we do get shit done in Massachusetts

Them be bitching still about the war of northern agression

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Them be bitching still about the war of northern agression

I know especially with their new battle cry that Southern Democrats wanted to keep slavery and Northern Republicans wanted to end slavery.
Even that puts them on the losing end, it’s so confusing

 

[sdifox]

Maybe boomerang is picking up Spidey's fight as ISP shrill.

 

[Amused]

Here's an article with a minimal amount of bias. Opponents are mostly afraid of what might happen. I think they have little grasp of how competition will dictate that the doom and gloom scenarios they envision aren't going to happen. Regardless, none of this is etched in stone in such a manner that it can not be changed and the roll back was not a complete one by any means.

The arguments I read here and elsewhere are mostly based on proponents of big government versus proponents of small government. When I see that Google and Facebook are against the roll back, that immediately makes me think that the roll back was a good thing.

https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutr...icially-dead-open-internet-congress-now-what/

No. Just fucking no. You've been informed with incontrovertible proof and still choose to remain ignorant and see only what you want to see. I already posted a list of things that were already happening before Net Neutrality was passed. It would have only gotten worse. Guess who wants the end of this? Cable providers. Guess why? So they can turn the internet into a pay to view system just like cable TV. Cable TV is dying and they want to turn the internet into that.

 

[K1052]

Ironically this patchwork of regulations is exactly what the telecoms said they didn't want. Guess they should have been careful about what they wished for, considering that net neutrality is overwhelmingly popular.

It also makes you wonder why the FCC is enacting regulations that nobody supports. Oh wait, it doesn't.

A recurring theme during this administration. Companies ask for some leeway then the admin flips over the table and lights it on fire paving the way for states to do what they will.

On that note going to laugh my fucking ass off at the stupid automakers when the courts say that CARB states still get to set their own emission standards.