FCC Expected to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules in Vote Next Month

[Solomani]

If ISPs are so evil, then why are you using their bandwidth?

Stop being a hypocrite. I did not call any of them evil. You did.

 

[KdParker]

The point is the tech giants engage in egregious censorship today. This isn't a hypothetical - it is an observable fact. Cry me a river if the ISPs decide to do the same.

If you wanted half the country to give a rat's ass about your precious "free and open" Internet, maybe you shouldn't have dumped buckets of crap on their heads for the past 2 years. Maybe it was unwise to ban, block, throttle and censor everyone you disagreed with. They may have felt invested in the current Internet.

To 50% of the country, the Internet is already a place where data gets treated unequally. They know the Internet is anything but "neutral". It is a domain ruled by radical leftist authoritarians who police thought at every turn, and the censorship is only getting more severe as each day goes by.

Wow...it getting deep in here.

Finally....now this is radical leftist authoritarians plan. Nooice.

Thanks for showing your true colors. And your welcome from us liberals for making it possible for you to share your 'ideas'.

 

[Carlanga]

Since when did has the government ever done something that makes sense, and moves to protect the rights of property owners instead of pandering to a popular majority? Weird...

With this example since March 2015 until this repeal becomes reality...

 

[AlexH]

Calm down, the world isn't going to end.

 

[Carlanga]

We already have that. What is your point? I still feel like Net Neutrality was fixing something not really broken. It was always "this could happen" or "that might happen."

No we don't... If you think that then you don't understand what is the fight about.

 

[vartanarsen]

just dont touch my DirecTV Now streaming speed

 

[NoNothing]

There were plenty of cases where ISP's were throttling certain websites/ services. This is the reason why Net Neutrality was passed in the first place. It was to prevent ISP's from controlling what we as consumers have access to.

And they were slapped and forced to stop those actions PRIOR to being classified as a common carrier. Wheeler fixed something never broken.

 

[EightyTwenty]

How are you subsidizing netflix? What you are paying your ISP has no effect on the cost of a netflix subscription...

Up to 70% of bandwidth is used by streaming services during peak times. Everyone who purchases broadband Internet access is paying for that bandwidth usage, whether they use those services or not.

 

[lowendlinux]

And your point? 150,000 is little. Being 2 hours from Chicago does NOT impact services available in the area (it is not a commuter town to Chicago).

My point is, the posts saying most people have at most 2 options is a blatant lie and just more of the FUD machine around this topic.

150,000 is roughly 6 times the population of my little town here in upstate NY we have Spectrum

 

[BlazednSleepy]

And they were slapped and forced to stop those actions PRIOR to being classified as a common carrier. Wheeler fixed something never broken.

Oh yes, let's just slap the hand of these giant ISP's and trust they won't ever do it again. PLEASE.

 

[EightyTwenty]

Stop being a hypocrite. I did not call any of them evil. You did.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with ISPs not being regulated with this asinine "net neutrality" nonsense.

There was no problem prior to 2015. Certainly nothing like these doomsday scenarios people on the side of net neutrality are parroting.

 

[Packers1958]

Up to 70% of bandwidth is used by streaming services during peak times. Everyone who purchases broadband Internet access is paying for that bandwidth usage, whether they use those services or not.

AND somehow your bill is going to go down after this ruling take place? Take off your rose colored glasses.

 

[EightyTwenty]

And yet you trust our current administration in government to take care of it all. *facepalm

Ending net neutrality, removed government interference.

If a store refuses service to a customer, they have that right. Same as any website you use. If you don't like it? DON"T USE IT OR SUPPORT IT. It's that simple.

And if your ISP acts in a manner you don't like, then don't use or support it. It's that simple.

 

[NoNothing]

Wow....
They can't do that now because the playing field is leveled.

Once they roll back the protections you will have your pick of companies that will get pushed out of various markets.

Again. NN is a very new thing (think months). So tell me the company pushed out of the market because of what you said. I don't want hypothetical could be perhaps maybes. I want concrete examples of the lies and FUD you are propagating. I want an example of something prior to mid 2015 of a company unable to compete because of "fast lanes".

 

[i hate phones]

Up to 70% of bandwidth is used by streaming services during peak times. Everyone who purchases broadband Internet access is paying for that bandwidth usage, whether they use those services or not.

Ok, and they currently can offer different packages for different speeds and data caps... what sites you use that bandwidth on should have nothing to do with it. You actually think your costs will go down? good luck with that.

 

[MrX8503]

I think everyone can agree that we want to receive the speed tier we paid for regardless of the content we consume.

If we can agree on that, why is net neutrality even a debate? Capitalism doesn’t work in a monopoly, so we need net neutrality.

 

[maelstromr]

Don't associate me with them, their impulsive subjectivism is not my burden.



Translation: I don't have to prove the things I say, or the ideas I hold, they're self evident, and everyone agrees, and that's how I know it.

Alternative translation: To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, no exclamation as possible. In either case, I don't explain.

I'll venture to suggest that this isn't the statement which lies at the foundation of an irrefutable, self evident view.



I suspect that you'll never actually address the fundamental premis of your views, that you have some right to initiate control other people, and continue to suggest that the point is self evident, and not worthy of proving. In brief reference to your submission, would indicate that punishing those who would willfully do harm to their customers, by, for example, marketing poison as milk, or whatever, is a completely legitimate function of government. That's fraud, and quite possibly murder, and they're both legitimately illegal. You don't need a regulation for that. I'll also indicate the thousands of people who have died waiting for the FDA to approve a drug that could have saved their lives. It is an evil of the highest magnitude to prevent someone from taking an action which they, and their doctors, believe is their best chance for survival, and I'll ask you again: Where. Exactly. Do you get the right to control them; to forcibly remove from them the option of benefiting their life?

I'll take two dead people through a windshield, for not wearing their seatbelts, instead of one person being forcibly prevented from taking the actions which they think would save their lives. Your numbers be damned. You explain to me why my standard should be the common good, and not the right of the individual to I've their life as they see best. I sense another evasion coming.



I never supported this *$$hole for a single second. You can take your garbage, ad hominem straw men right back. Again.

1) I referenced your own post that said something along the lines of "if it takes from me, then you don't have the right to do it." That's what I was calling extreme libertarianism. Maybe I was too polite.

2) I gave you two very concrete examples of global concepts in play across our society. There are literally thousands of them.

3) Your poison milk argument is belied by US history, the concrete example of which I gave as portrayed in The Jungle. It's literally required middle school reading. Give me a break.

4) The Common Good is exactly that...Common. By it's nature it rejects your form of shamefully selfish individualism. We've been rejecting it since we started building cities. This whole society thing doesn't work when you get to decide that driving your own freight train over your neighbor's day care parking lot is as important as your neighbor's kids getting a safe place to learn.

5) This is my last reply to you. Your brand of pseudo intellectualism gets old very fast. Rage away.

 

[BlazednSleepy]

Ending net neutrality, removed government interference.



And if your ISP acts in a manner you don't like, then don't use or support it. It's that simple.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wow. You really think ending Net neutrality is somehow ending government interference? You are in for a severe reality check if this repeal goes through. I feel sorry for you. Honestly.

 

[EightyTwenty]

Ok, and they currently can offer different packages for different speeds and data caps... what sites you use that bandwidth on should have nothing to do with it. You actually think your costs will go down? good luck with that.

Has nothing to do with price for me personally. It's about simple fairness. If the tech giants like Google and Facebook can block, censor and throttle data, then I believe the ISPs should have that same right as well.

If Google can censor data, the ISPs should get that same right.

 

[ocnitsa]

Trump simply will not stop until he has reversed every policy administered by the Obama administration, regardless of the effect on the American people. It's a personal vendetta against Obama and Democrats that we're all suffering from. Hopefully in another 3 years we can get back on track to progress.

In the next 3 years, the new administration will be just trying to clean up the mess. Maybe 10 years from now we will see progress.

 

[NoNothing]

150,000 is roughly 6 times the population of my little town here in upstate NY we have Spectrum

Verizon? T-Mobile? AT&T? I am amazed at the number of my friends using their phones now for all their internet given the "all you can eat" plans available. Truly cutting the cable.

But even then, 60%-70% of the US population live in urban metros (>100,000) and not small little towns. Take that to 50,000 and the number jumps to 80%. So saying most people have at most 2 options is a blatant lie and nothing but FUD.
[doublepost=1511297629][/doublepost]

I think everyone can agree that we want to receive the speed tier we paid for regardless of the content we consume.

If we can agree on that, why is net neutrality even a debate? Capitalism doesn’t work in a monopoly, so we need net neutrality.

There isn't a monopoly. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[BlazednSleepy]

Has nothing to do with price for me personally. It's about simple fairness. If the tech giants like Google and Facebook can block, censor and throttle data, then I believe the ISPs should have that same right as well.

If Google can censor data, the ISPs should get that same right.

Oh now you're suddenly about basic rights. How American of you.

 

[iReality85]

Terrible. Get ready for ISPs to offer "basic", "premium" and "deluxe" internet packages.

"Want to stream online video? Try out our "deluxe" package, which allows full-speed access to Netflix, Amazon Video, and several other popular streaming sites! Want to game online? You'll need the "ultra deluxe gaming package" to access the most popular MMORPG services!"

What a bunch of nonsense and hyperbole. Online gaming doesn't suck up much bandwidth. An ISP wouldn't be able to limit access to a gaming service. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Plus, there already exists tier packages for internet bandwidth.

Instead of conjuring up ignorant BS for page 1 likes, maybe you should contact the mobile companies who push "unlimited streaming" but at 480p. lol. What a joke. That's "net neutrality" for you. Always catering to the lowest common denominator.

Sorry, but if I want to pay more, then I expect better service than someone who is a cheapskate. Period.

 

[Kaibelf]

What the hell are you even talking about?

Also, where do you get a right to break up my company, or control my networking hardware, just because I was better at it than most other people, and succeed at it?

I don't care what good you might derive from it, you don't have a right to use government to initiate damage against me, and I'll wait to hear evidence proving otherwise. if experience is any indication, I'll be waiting quite a while...

Yet the Supreme Court disagrees. Where do they get the right? The US Constitution. Can't handle it? Leave or amend it.

 

[ssgbryan]

I know right. Maybe their streaming being limited and more expensive might force them to look closer in the next election.

Nope - I live around a bunch of these morans, they will blame everybody and everything else - because that is what they do. It is pure tribalism.