There is none.
It amazes me that most republicans tend to enthusiastically support policies that are not in their interest out of blind support.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It amazes me that most republicans tend to enthusiastically support policies that are not in their interest out of blind support.
There is a lot of great things about this country. But deeper down there’s a lot seriously wrong with it.
I agree with you on the car tax and TV tax. Car tax or VED as its properly called is stupid and the cost should just be added to fuel, far simpler and fairer, plus no way to dodge it.
TV licence fee should be abolished and probably will be at some point. How you can throw struggling people in jail while paying fat cat BBC execs 6 figures or useless ‘stars’ 7 figures is disgusting.
I could write a dissertation on the things I find wrong in this country. But the one thing I envy the US for is a lack of a nanny state. I feel like the state in this country invades every facete of my life, from cradle to grave as we say. There’s no real freedom and everything is either heavily restricted or controlled. I think it’s all remnants of the Second World War when the state needed complete control and sort of never let go. A lot of people find it comforting, I personally find it suffocating.
I felt truly free in America, despite its flaws.
Scolanator, I thank you for your offer to elucidate me concerning the intricacies of Net Neutrality. I doubt, however, it would be more effective than me conducting my own Google search and having a willingness to read the opinions of both sides of this issue, of which there are a nearly endless supply by this point.
I'm not against all government regulation, just unnecessary regulation. Which, coincidentally, most regulation is. I must take exception with your statement about government regulation and interference making things fairer and more competitive. It seldom does so. Most government regulation creates burdensome processes and rules for businesses and individuals to follow which actually stifle investment, innovation, and growth. Minimum wage would be an excellent example of this. It seems good to help those earning the lowest wage but in reality it only increases unemployment because it doesn't increase the worth of the worker to a company, only their expense. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Net neutrality seems good on the surface, but underneath it is another steaming pile of government interference that was causing far more harm than good. Some reasons:
It doesn't prevent discrimination in traffic, yes, that's right, "reasonable network management" is exempt allowing an ISP to differentiate on traffic even with Net Neutrality in place. They can throttle to their heart's content if they so choose.
It's a form of censorship, the FCC can at whim coerce the ISP to provide content that is more to their liking, good as long as "your side" is in charge I suppose. Remember, the FCC is appointed by the President. People fear the ISPs controlling the "flow of speech" but seem ok with the government doing it? I'll take my chances with the free market, thank you. Speaking of who is controlling the "flow of speech" on the internet...
It's crony capitalism at it's worst. Google and Facebook support it, that alone should be enough of a red flag, but despite the veil of their virtue signaling on how much they love the "free and open internet" their corporate self-interest is plain to see. First to avoid competition from the ISPs for the services they offer, second to continue their virtual monopoly on information and who sees what, and third to avoid threats from startups who might try to take their business.
There is already Net Neutrality in the form of competition and free market. Yes, yes, I know many of you will use the retort of how you only have one ISP to choose from in your area, but do you really? Yes choice is presently limited on the high end of internet offerings but most areas have at least 2, sometimes more, options along all ranges of speed offerings. I live in 'flyover country' and have 4. Ultimately you are very close to the solution with your cries of limited access, the answer is not more government interference and regulation but rather more capitalism. There should be increased deregulation on both the federal and state level. Municipal governments should make it easier for broadband companies, especially startups, to gain access to build infrastructure for their networks. Competition will ensure 'neutrality' not the government.
It stagnates technological advancement and investment. The regulations went up so spending went down. Simple economics. Businesses invest where there is the greatest opportunity for returns. Increased regulations and potential new taxes due to Net Neutrality discouraged increased investment. Deregulate and infuse more competition. Break up the monopoly hold on the wires controlled by a select few and encourage them to break out of their own regional strongholds and invade each others territories.
The truth is Net Neutrality was a government regulation trying to 'fix' a problem which did not exist. The internet wasn't broken before Net Neutrality and it won't be broken or destroyed after it goes away. However it can be improved greatly, but not by government regulation. The free market can do it if we get out of the way and let it work. You mention monopolies and there are already anti-trust laws and rules in place to prevent such activity. If you truly believe in all of the things you say you do Scolanator how do you support Net Neutrality?
My first post in this thread was to point out your misstatement concerning America's form of government and to address the other gentleman's embellishment concerning Netflix raising their pricing now that Net Neutrality regulation has been repealed. I agree with you that Netflix pricing has little to do with Net Neutrality. Actually my opinion on Net Neutrality wasn't mentioned anywhere in that first post, just my obvious weariness concerning hyperbolic statements filled with misstatements and irrational fears.
I think a great many people around the world both past and present would give a very large care about what happened 241 years ago. It mattered in the conversation because you stated that the governmental system of the UK was superior to the governmental system of the United States. A statement with which I strongly disagreed. Referenced here:
At any rate despite your insistence on the contrary the United States is not classified as a democracy. Again, we are a Representative Republic. We do democratically elect our representatives but that doesn't make us a democracy. Perhaps this is where your confusion lies.
Every election represents the will of the people. Obama's two elections did. Like it or don't like it, the people spoke. Just as they spoke on November 7th last year. Speaking of making a difference I would say that one made a great deal of difference to a great many people no matter which "side" you come down on. Every vote matters, every election, especially at the local and state levels. Vote your conscience, vote for what you believe in, even if you stand alone and you know your side is going to lose, vote for your beliefs. It always makes a difference.
As to the murder rate and all of the other horrifying statistics in your last line that imply living in America is akin to taking a solitary late night stroll through the West Bank wearing a 'Hebrews Rule' t-shirt I can only say...righttttt.
I expect our murder rate and road fatality is five times the UK as we also have five times your population. Life expectancy...meh, so subjective. You're speaking of an aggregate life span determined over a large variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Let's break the data down into some smaller focus groups and then we can talk. You said our democratic system is completely broken, thank you for calling it democratic, you're on the path to the truth of America's form of government!
As for holidays and leave, etc. the United States leaves such decisions up to the individual employers. It's worked very well without government regulations or interference. You'll find that most employers offer very attractive time off packages and many other benefits including paternity leave in many companies these days. They have to if they want to attract the best talent. Free market and all.
I do hope you choose to live in America, Scolanator. You seem an intelligent, passionate fellow. We need people with the courage to think and discuss the issues at hand in a civil manner. Best wishes in your decision and for your impending marriage!
I'm fine with that and agree with the last line.
How do we get the federal & state side to stop trying to shut down all municipal efforts?
How can we get local loop unbundling so competitors can actually compete across the last mile access?
The answer is definitely not "let entrenched monopoles do more of whatever they want".
There is no innovation on the ISP side that will fix these issues that is being restrained by simple "treat bits equally" NN legislation.
The best question to ask is...why did anything have to change right now?
Shouldn't nothing have happened while we work to figure out a proactive route forward on the things holding back more competition? I fully agree that we need more competition and then the market has a chance to be the solution here.
These large players who lobbied and bought this change do. not. want. competition.
No amount of easing up anything on the likes of a Comcast is going to make them spuriously go expand all over. That is expensive and involves competition with possibly similar players. That's a lose lose for Comcast (or any other large ISP).
It's way more profitable to rent seek and squeeze the customers (and little competitors if they have any) in their monopoly zones and slowly acquire more competitors and just own as much of the country as possible while providing as little as possible.
Markets need rules. That doesn't mean squeezing them or choking them, but rules to play by. There is no reality out there where we let huge corporations do exactly what they want and they do what's best for the citizens of the country. We have different interests, thus the need for regulations.
Shouldn't the FCC be working for the citizens and not following corporate desires?
It's right in their mission statement...
Anything about the FTC being a great solution is a farce.
Tom Wheeler laid that bare just recently in interviews.
Last edited:
So much for those that criticize North Korea,China,Thailand,Iran,Saudi, Myanmar,Israel,UAE,Kuwait,Syria,Russia,Cambodia and a few others along those lines. America joins them slowly but surely with such laws being passed these days
I just don't get that kind of comment. As much of a narcissistic megalomaniac as the man is, he has to do something impeachment worthy to even get proceedings to happen, and even then, unlikely he gets kicked out. Hell, look at Bill. Lied under oath, impeached, but nothing happened. Anyway, as much as the one side wants to kick him out, they forget his insurance policy. He picked a super right wing VP. They'd have a heart attack if Pence suddenly became president.
On the plus side, maybe everyone who has Comcast will get their Fox News connection blocked and MSNBC put into the fast lane. ;-P
Enjoy this coming to America:
Wait, before 2015, did we have something like this going on? If so I don’t remember being charged extra.
You raise a lot of great points. Unfortunately
1. you’ve presented opinion as fact, almost exclusively;
2. you’ve provided no supporting evidence (or even examples!) for many widely and easily contestable assertions;
3. this is an Internet forum where many people are on mobile devices. Ease up. Hard to read and respond.
I will take exception to the whole foundation of your argument, which is that you are an expert because you can read some articles you found on the internet.
I realize that experts aren’t in vogue in our current climate. We’re all experts! But that’s obviously not the case. Every time you drive a car, fly in an airplane, or access MacRumors, you are relying on the abilities of experts, and in fact, their silent success. I won’t even get into the medical profession. I would be willing to bet that Ajit Pai knows more about this issue than I, but I would DEFINITELY question his motives.
As another quick point, it’s great you have (4) options for ISPs. That’s really unusual even in major metro areas. If we want to bet on one of the stated rationales for rescinding NN, I will throw down right now. I guarantee you that this action of Ajit Pai will not materially change broadband access and speeds across the country, particularly in those areas of greatest need.
That would solve the Net Neutrality question... can't use candlelight to power your internet modem. Is it reasonable? probably not - but it is probable. It can be done and for some people (like Trump voters), it should be done. Not a fan of this repeal action. But then again, I was never a fan of most of what Trump spouted during campaign or what he has followed through on.
This is our bed... this is where we all must lay our heads - except for that british guy who is thinking of going home with his american wife... (few posts back).
Wait. Full stop.
There is a British guy? On MacRumors. Going home with his American wife? Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
Prince Harry and Meghan, right here kicking up the dust on MacRumors? It’s like I’ve been touched by god. I hope this doesn’t count against my 15 minutes of fame.
This doesn’t bother me since I was pretty ok with internet from 1996-2015. Obama obsessed over regulating EVERYTHING. He couldn’t expand government fast enough. For those blaming one political party for the **** show America is, please. Take off your blinders and stop drinking the MSM kool-aid. I’m almost positive we continue to elect DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS election after election. There is no one party in control. What’s worse, we love the idea of smooth talking ‘polished’ career politicians...because they’re experienced.It’s a joke. America is a place that worships money and power, values athletes and entertainers over doctors, scientists, and teachers. As long as we have our conveniences, all is well. We deserve to fall. We had 8 years of Bush because of Clinton. 8 years of Obama because of Bush. And we have Trump because we had 8 years of Obama. Imagine what we’ll get next... probably another baffoon like Trump and Obama.
I can see your slant, "Obama obsessed over regulating EVERYTHING" which is anything but true.
Your argument is specious.
Big business needs to be regulated. You can't trust corporations to do anything, except that which make the executives money and enrich the share holders. Monopolies need regulation and more than 50% of the country only has one ISP in their area.
Obama a buffoon (your spelling is wrong)? You lump a constitutional law scholar with a twitter idiot?
Of course, you don't see a problem with that.
I want banks regulated.
I want the guy that is trying to manage my retirement to be my fiduciary and not that of a company he sells products for.
I want telco/telecom regulated such that it's treated as a hose and I can use my hose they way I want.
I companies not to take advantage of consumers with impunity.
If that is obsessed, then I'm obsessed like Obama.
That's pretty funny, considering the absolute hysterical freak-out we saw today.
Wait, what.
I think the started sucking horse balls around the time FaceSpace and so-called "Web 2.0" took over, i.e. circa 2003, actually.
It's called... democracy, you know. It's kind of the reason why they don't have racial laws from Nazi Germany anymore.
Of course, when you have a two-party, cat&dog system and an extremely voluble electorate that will alternately vote for Darth Vader or Princess Le-I mean, Darth Vader and Jar Jar Binks...
Wait a second, who the **** cares about innovation.
No, really, why is everybody talking about innovation?
Who wants innovation?
The Internet is fine as it is, and in fact all sorts of "innovation" going on since 1997 have lowered its usefulness.
The internet is by now the world's #1 means of communication and delivery of news.
The problem is that its now possible to penalize select information providers or messaging services.
Say your provider is owned by Joe X, very well, the strongly anti-Joe X website joexsucks.com is now $99 to access.
foreignnewspaper.com is now $200, welcome to your new country-specific information bubble (as if America weren't living in a bubble anyway).
This essentially allows your information provider to operate soft censorship.
Really bad. Not that it has improved.
Last edited:
Waiting to hear people here complain when ISP's start blocking/slowing down Apple services without an additional fee... I think opinions will change very quickly then.
Surely you understand how in 1996 the world was a rather different place: you'd go to Blockbuster to rent a video, you'd get a physical newspaper subscription and the POTUS wasn't on Twitter (whether that's good or bad I'll let you decide).
Just for context: https://www.space.com/25592-space-email-bill-clinton-laptop-auction.html
Clinton, who in general did not use email while in office out of security concerns, was visiting with friends in Arkansas when the White House was alerted John Glenn wanted to send him a note. Recognizing the potential historic nature of the request, the president's staff scrambled to locate a computer to use.
Are you an anarcho-libertarian, Sir?
Good news, a guy who previously held no office nor ever worked a real job nor ever had to worry about paying bills is POTUS.
Doesn't get any less experienced than that.
Oh, that they did months before that vote...Amazing that they vote for something that is bad for people and in broad day light
I think it is somewhat justified. Does anyone not remembers the throttling wars some years back? The favoritism of some sites over others? That alone was worth regulation.
[doublepost=1513337576][/doublepost]
My parents have some friends from the UK that love coming to the US, and have considered moving here, but their healthcare in the UK keeps them from making the move. The US voting population really has their heads in the sand on some issues. Maybe they should see a doctor....
*cough*whichwouldstillbeanimprovementovertheUS*cough*
I'm Italian (keep in mind that our healthcare system is notoriously... spotty) and I have trouble imagining a world where this is not perfectly... normal.
If people read what the FCC had been drafting to regulate internet access & usage, they would not be so mad. When politics drives technical innovation and science it usually backfires on the consumer.
For anyone who is interested, the Wall Street Journal has a piece making the case in support of the FCC decision to repeal the 2015 "net neutrality" regulations. You may still disagree with the decision but it does a pretty good job of explaining why some of us (apparently a small minority of MacRumor readers) support yesterday's decision.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
Well done Trump voters. Hope you're enjoying America becoming great again
How is government regulation 'Free & Open'?
Can a self-described 'Genius' Obama loving Democrat/Bernie Socialist/Neo-Liberal with countless years of higher institutional learning experience please explain to me - How government choosing winners and losers is 'OPEN'?
These same people who cry over a 'Free & Open' Internet are the same people burning down Universities over 'Free Speech' THEY DON'T LIKE - Give me a F'n break!
[doublepost=1513343663][/doublepost]
It's a great piece - thanks for the heads up.
There are seriously people that think removing Net neutrality is a good idea? I can't understand this at all. We can consumers are screwed. The internet is going to become cable. How will we cut that cord.
I have three to choose from: Comcast, RTC and AT&T, so this is not an issue for me. And I live in the Chicago area. I have Verizon cell service--I get 30 down. The middle tier Comcast internet package is 25. I think Verizon LTE is absolutely legitimate.
I am in favor of anything to allow more ISP's into the market---but "net neutrality" isn't going to make that happen.
Whatever---it's over.
And no---no law suits are going to overturn it.
What's with you people? Trump wins---we need recounts to overturn the election because we didn't like the result! Brexit happens----we need to everything possible to overturn the will of the voters! Net neutrality loses---we need to sue to keep it!
Jeez. Sometimes you don't get what you want in life and your side doesn't win. Move. On.