FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[GermanSuplex]

I never said private corporations won't wrong the consumer. I said the free market won't wrong the consumer. Huge difference. And from that perspective, you are implying that the government would take better care of the consumer of a good or service than the free market. Socialism. The government loves its money, even more than big corporations do.

With internet, it's not like bread or cars. Internet is limited to only one or two providers in many markets, not all of them small either. I mentioned earlier that I once lived in an area where Comcast was my only provider. For some odd reason, DSL was not available where I lived, it was like a few square-blocks of dead coverage. I could get DirecTV, but not their DSL. And Comcast is the only cable-internet provider where I live. There are no choices, so there is no "free market" so to speak.

 

[827538]

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.

Sorry but Google and Facebook support it? As opposed to Comcast, Verizon and co? Some of the most hated companies in the US? Seriously? You just put that as an argument?
Crony capitalism - how about the $400bn pocketed by the ISPs? This is the most insane argument I think I've ever heard.

I don't care about Facebook but Google provides me with an excellent service. They are an innovative company making real progress in the world - people just need to understand how their data is being used by them.
The fact that the guy pushing through this repeal was a Verizon lawyer should be the biggest red flag in history. That is crony capitalism. I don't even know what to say? Do you not see the irony here? Ajit Pai is literally doing the bidding of the big ISPs, he's owned by them.

Google doesn't compete (outside of Google Fibre) with the ISPs for anything. Neither does Facebook?

As far as I'm aware the FCC does not rule what gets sent over that internet. Only that all traffic is treated equally which is the crux of this whole argument. The ISPs have been caught manipulating the data being sent to you, they've been caught injecting code into websites and you want to trust them?

They could throttle your whole connection potentially but not individual sites. What sort of argument is that? You just made an argument for net neutrality! With NN ISPs are not allowed to throttle individual sites/sources.

None of this is arguments against NN, these are just anti government ramblings.

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.

OK first, that 'high end internet offering' is becoming absolutely vital to living in the 21st century and will only become even more important going forward. The low speed offerings are virtually useless. My other half lives in one of the wealthiest cities in the US, in a very wealthy suburb of that city. She has Comcast or Century Link. Century Link offers at tops 2Mb/s. Her mother typically works from home and runs a large law firm which is in another state. She physically cannot do her job on 2Mb/s. That leaves Comcast, which charges an outrageous amount and has data caps. Which with a household of 6 all on 4K TVs, Xbox's, MacBooks etc etc gets burned through at some rate.
Slow internet is not an option, it would be like telling me running a house from a generator is an option instead of grid electricity. It's simply not.

Sometimes government can do things better than the private sector. We see it all the time in Europe. Do you want examples? How about Sweden or Estonia's national fibre optic networks? Both built and funded by the state and now offer affordable, high speed unlimited connections. The first telephone networks were built by the state.

The private sector has had decades to develop their infrastructure and they have barely done anything. Speeds are low, costs are high, caps are being reintroduced. The private sector took $400bn in the 90s from the US state and pocketed it, instead of building a national fibre optic network. How can you honestly tell me the private sector and competition will fix this? Especially when Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, TWC etc have all bullied, manipulated, legislated and controlled their way to crushing any attempt at for local communities to build their own. This happens again and again.

It doesn't need to be like this, believe me. I live in a country that is living proof that government regulation aka OFCOM can produce a fair, open and competitive market. What you are advocating here is handing absolute control to ISPs because they are private, my god it really will be as bad as everyone things. Comcast hasn't been voted the worst company in the US time and time again for no reason.

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.

https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

Infrastructure spending wasn't only unarmed by Title 2 - spending on infrastructure increased.
I don't know where you got that from but the truth, as spoken by the ISPs to their investors says the opposite.
I'm all for breaking up the ISPs and it's long overdue - but how do you do that when they own they politicians and government regulators that oversee them?
Just for your info, in the UK we have/had the mother of all telecoms monopolies - BT. They have been regulated massively. The result? Massively increased competition, cheaper service and faster speeds. Not all regulations stifle investment and growth, in fact they can do just the opposite.

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!

It's per capita those figures, the absolute figures are an order of magnitude higher.
It's wikipedia but the sources are referenced. UK 0.92 US 4.88 per 100,000 - that's a pretty scary high number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I feel like your picking at semantics in and ignoring what I mean. It would be like you calling the UK a democracy and me saying no, it's a parliamentary monarchy. It falls under the umbrella of a type of democracy. The reason I believe the UK has a better democratic system is because our politicians - while incompetent - aren't being openly bought by giant corporations. I don't know how this sort of system can be defended, it's absolute corruption.

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!

Thankyou, there's no doubt the jobs/business/earning potential is higher in the US which is one of the reasons I'm attracted to it. But I'm a firm believer following Europe's example that every worker should have a minimum amount of mandated holiday/maternity/paternity leave. Look at Germany for example, has some of the highest worker productivity on earth and I believe a big part of that is related to their strict balance of work/free time. By not having mandated holiday leave it typically screws over the lowest paid, shop workers, fast food workers etc.

 

[GuruZac]

The misinformation on this issue is really unprecedented. Net neutrality was a power grab over the internet industry by the Obama administration in the same way the CFPB was a power grab over the banking industry. For example:

1. Government proposes that banks need more regulation to "protect consumers"
2. Dodd-Frank is passed and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is formed.
3. The hefty regulations and fines of these actions forced smaller banks to either go out of business or get swallowed up by larger banks who needed additional liquid capital to meet regulations.
4. The small number of banks who were able to meet the ridiculous rules and regulations imposed are permitted to continue operations. Where do the proceeds from these fines go? Right into the government's pocket.
5. Competition is eliminated and controlled by the government under the guise of consumer protection.
6. Banking starts on the path to monopolization.

Hence, Trump's efforts to split regulations into two sections -- larger banks and smaller banks.

Let's examine the same principle with the internet and net neutrality.

1. Government proposes that net neutrality is needed to prevent "evil internet companies" from restricting access to data based on who you are or what you're accessing.
2. Net neutrality is passed under the guise of the "right to privacy and non-discriminatory data usage".
3. In doing so, net neutrality becomes a utility, much like water and electricity, that can be regulated by the government.
4. Internet companies are far more reluctant to invest in any new networking infrastructure due to uncertain financial implications of net neutrality (which were left open-ended by the Obama admin). This has the biggest impact on rural and less-populated areas.
5. These regulations on internet companies, and the fines introduced alongside them, have the same effect as they did in banking. Smaller broadband companies cannot afford to exist. The larger companies either gobble them up or they go out of business. You eliminate competition by positioning the largest companies as the only ones who can afford to keep up with government regulation.
6. Internet companies have NO incentive to invest in furthering infrastructure, and the government benefits handsomely with more fines and fees.... again, right into their back pocket.

The internet never had any issues with data access restrictions and doesn't need the government regulating a free market. The reason we don't internet packages with access to select websites for 5 or 10 bucks a month is because nobody is willing to pay for them. Hence, the market decides what floats and what sinks, as it should be in this country.

Yes yes yes. A voice of reason.

 

[AsherN]

If governments telco's and cable companies think that charging for bandwidth is great idea then they should look to countries that already do that and look at those countries nearly non-existent tech sectors.

Charging for bandwidth IS great. It's what it should be. Netflix pays for it's outbound bandwidth. The more they need, the more they pay. *I* pay for my needs. If I want to stream 4K 24/7, I need to pay my ISP for enough speed and data cap to do that. That's it.

 

[UL2RA]

If Google was against this, they should really push their fiber into as many places as possible. With the uproar this has caused, I think they'd garner a lot more support from the common folk.

 

[harriska2]

I watched through that video. I genuinely gritted my teeth and put up with the talking cat. I got about halfway through before wanting to smash my head off my desk.

I want to add, I’ve got a masters in electronic and electrical engineering, I program, have designed micro architectures, built countless computers and systems. I’ve got a very good technical understand on how the internet works. I’m probably in a far better position than the vast majority to understand the complexities and nuances of this issue. I’ve also spent a lot of time researching this specific issue.

The first point the talking cat made - after the George Soros conspiracy stuff - in regards to bandwidth...

Yes, Netflix uses a huge amount of bandwidth, as does Steam, Amazon etc. BUT THEY PAY FOR IT AT THEIR END.
Then the consumer pays for the connection at their end.

If Netflix’s usage goes up they then pay more - infact they actually use Amazon’s cloud servers to host much of their data. You do realise this is not a problem anywhere else. The cost of bandwidth to a major ISP is very very very low. It’s the cost of building infrastructure capacity. Something Comcast tries to shirk (despite the staggering $400bn they basically fleeced from the US tax payer in the 90’s amongst others).

Data isn’t like electricity or water. The cost of the data packets is tiny (just electrical signals). The real cost is in the pipes to yours house - be it fibre, coax, twisted pair copper etc. The cost of data is nothing. It’s costs more to provide me with 100kWh of electricity vs 10kWh, once the capacity is in place the cost of 1MB vs 1TB is tiny. There’s exceptions to this, for example wireless 4G internet where bandwidth is limited but again, the cost of the data is virtually nothing.

Where I live my ISP has doubled my connection something like 4 times in 7 years, the cost has never increased, data caps do not exist. The economic argument being put forward by the talking cat is false and it’s based on a false idea of how internet works.

The other point the cat makes about censorship on major social media platforms is a very real problem and one I also have a serious issue with. But you’ve got to be suffering brain damage to equate that with net neutrality?
Those are private website platforms, they are legally free to do whatever they like. It would be like a news paper choosing which stories they do or don’t want to publish - it’s their free choice to make. What worries myself and many others is ISPs which are often part of major media corporations deliberately manipulating search results and even website data - WHICH THEY’VE ALREADY BEEN CAUGHT DOING. I can choose which sites I want to visit, I can’t choose if my ISP is manipulating the data it’s sending to me. This is a complete and utter straw man argument.

Oh man this cat is just great. I’m willing to bet you my dozen bitcoins that within 2 years you will have these cable style package deals from ISPs in website. The counter argument made; new ISPs will form...
How, how will they form when you have gigantic regional monopolies with powerful legal teams ready to crush any opposition? I could again post up source after source we’re local communities and municipalities have been blocked from building their own networks by major ISPs because they’ve completely bought out and corrupted local government and officials.
I hate that argument, ‘the free market will fix it’ yeh because the free market is doing so well with giant regional monopolies? I have over 20 different ISPs to choose from way out in the country where I live. My other half lives in a wealthy US city and has Comcast, that’s it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Google literally gave up because it was a beaucratic and legal nightmare trying to deploy fibre - and it’s one of the biggest companies in America.

Just wow - Netflix paid Comcast for priority streaming. No - Comcast threatened to throttle Netflix unless they coughed up. That’s called extortion and a prime example of why Net Neutrality is fundamentally important. Some of the biggest companies in the US would likely not exist today without net neutrality. It should absolutely be classified as a utility.

This video is not just wrong it’s deceitful.

Seriously, this video was absolutely trash. I was hoping for some interesting counter arguments, instead I got strawmen and completely incorrect information.

Wow, great post. This is what I keep coming back to: the consumer pays at one end and the data provider (netflix, amazon, apple, etc) pays at the other. So yes, comcast is handling data packets that don’t end up on one of their customer’s computer but then there are other providers that handle comcast customer’s data. Hence the web/reliability design of it all.

I wonder if putting the genie back in the bottle will work. When comcast got rid of HD for basic cable, we dropped basic cable. If comcast decides it is going to tier what I want to access, well, I happen to live in a town with a good library that has internet. Dropping internet would save me money and keep me from wasting my time here or on facebook. Sort of a win/win.

 

[mike1123]

With internet, it's not like bread or cars. Internet is limited to only one or two providers in many markets, not all of them small either. I mentioned earlier that I once lived in an area where Comcast was my only provider. For some odd reason, DSL was not available where I lived, it was like a few square-blocks of dead coverage. I could get DirecTV, but not their DSL. And Comcast is the only cable-internet provider where I live. There are no choices, so there is no "free market" so to speak.

Except that problem will get far worse in more areas with Net Neutrality, simply due to making the cost of entry and participation higher for would-be new entrants.

The answer to keeping a few big companies from controlling everything is not to regulate it at a governmental level; it is to ease regulations to the point where new competition can be formed.

And on another note regarding "oversight", the FTC did that just fine before Net Neutrality stripped them of authority. Taking away net neutrality returns the power to a very effective agency that operated as advocates for the consumer before these changes were made.

 

[827538]

Wow, great post. This is what I keep coming back to: the consumer pays at one end and the data provider (netflix, amazon, apple, etc) pays at the other. So yes, comcast is handling data packets that don’t end up on one of their customer’s computer but then there are other providers that handle comcast customer’s data. Hence the web/reliability design of it all.

I wonder if putting the genie back in the bottle will work. When comcast got rid of HD for basic cable, we dropped basic cable. If comcast decides it is going to tier what I want to access, well, I happen to live in a town with a good library that has internet. Dropping internet would save me money and keep me from wasting my time here or on facebook. Sort of a win/win.

Thanks, I just couldn't believe how stupid that video was. I suspect someone made it with an ulterior motive as it was basically just lies.

The internet is great and I never want to be without it. The internet doesn't need to go down this dark corporate path. Trust me, I live somewhere where this isn't an issue and it's great. I love having cheap high speed internet.
The problem lies in your system of political lobbying. You need to ban lobbying now. I don't know how, but just do it.
Politicians taking bribes from lobbyists would see them sent to prison in my country, hell the whole of western Europe infact. This is a sickness at the heart of US politics.

Exactly, I worry the ISPs try and spread this propaganda and stupid people eat it up because they don't understand how any of this works. I've even seen some social commentators that I respected spread this same sort of incorrect information.

 

[Iphoneness]

"The numbers prove it" ... the numbers for what? And how in any way you can believe that first sentence is beyond me.

Uhhh well, a few examples: the stock market is up over 5 trillion, unemployment is at the lowest it's been in 17 years, and 1.5 million new jobs created in the last year.
[doublepost=1513358596][/doublepost]

Staying on topic, how is this regulation trash? What harm is it causing?

Having more things under the control of the government. Big government is bad and not what this country was founded upon. Free markets, like what have been promoted and implemented in the last year have had a great positive effect on our population. You want government control, go to China or NK. The Don is president through 2024 and things will only get better from here.

 

[UL2RA]

Thanks, I just couldn't believe how stupid that video was. I suspect someone made it with an ulterior motive as it was basically just lies.

The internet is great and I never want to be without it. The internet doesn't need to go down this dark corporate path. Trust me, I live somewhere where this isn't an issue and it's great. I love having cheap high speed internet.
The problem lies in your system of political lobbying. You need to ban lobbying now. I don't know how, but just do it.
Politicians taking bribes from lobbyists would see them sent to prison in my country, hell the whole of western Europe infact. This is a sickness at the heart of US politics.

Exactly, I worry the ISPs try and spread this propaganda and stupid people eat it up because they don't understand how any of this works. I've even seen some social commentators that I respected spread this same sort of incorrect information.

It is a massive problem here and it really needs to die a horrible death.

 

[HiRez]

The next Democrat president is going to waste his or her entire 4 to 8 years just trying to clean up Trump’s giant, flaming bag of poop and it still won’t be enough.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Except that problem will get far worse in more areas with Net Neutrality, simply due to making the cost of entry and participation higher for would-be new entrants.

This is like saying we need to get rid of sanitation laws so anyone can get involved in food service.

 

[827538]

Except that problem will get far worse in more areas with Net Neutrality, simply due to making the cost of entry and participation higher for would-be new entrants.

The answer to keeping a few big companies from controlling everything is not to regulate it at a governmental level; it is to ease regulations to the point where new competition can be formed.

And on another note regarding "oversight", the FTC did that just fine before Net Neutrality stripped them of authority. Taking away net neutrality returns the power to a very effective agency that operated as advocates for the consumer before these changes were made.

NN does not increase the cost of entry to the market. Please post up sources.

NN also increases infrastructure spending.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

The reason small ISPs can't break into new markets and increase competition is because giant monopolies like Comcast crush all competition, lobby and legislate it so it's next to impossible for startups. Hell Google has basically given up because of the bureaucracy and legal nightmare that is in place. How the hell is some small ISP meant to manage?

You mean the FCC? Ajit Pai, the corrupt Verizon Lawyer now in charge of the FCC is wanting to basically strip all control away from the FCC to control ISPs - which is meant to be the FCCs job. Please don't be so unbelievably naive and ill informed. Also things weren't just 'fine' before Title 2 was introduced, quite the opposite. ISPs were routinely found to be doing illegal and nefarious things. There's quite a good list actually earlier in this thread.

Do you even know what Title 2 and Net Neutrality are?

 

[Iphoneness]

The next Democrat president is going to waste his or her entire 4 to 8 years just trying to clean up Trump’s giant, flaming bag of poop and it still won’t be enough.

Lol hopefully we won't have another democrat president to run our country back into the ground again.

 

[belvdr]

Having more things under the control of the government. Big government is bad and not what this country was founded upon. Free markets, like what have been promoted and implemented in the last year have had a great positive effect on our population. You want government control, go to China or NK. The Don is president through 2024 and things will only get better from here.

It wasn't harming anything then. It improved access.

I guess we should have zero regulation on anything, because, you know, "big government". With net neutrality out of the way, what great things can we expect?

Trump is president through 2020. Whether he gets re-elected remains to be seen.

 

[harriska2]

Thanks, I just couldn't believe how stupid that video was. I suspect someone made it with an ulterior motive as it was basically just lies.

The internet is great and I never want to be without it. The internet doesn't need to go down this dark corporate path. Trust me, I live somewhere where this isn't an issue and it's great. I love having cheap high speed internet.
The problem lies in your system of political lobbying. You need to ban lobbying now. I don't know how, but just do it.
Politicians taking bribes from lobbyists would see them sent to prison in my country, hell the whole of western Europe infact. This is a sickness at the heart of US politics.

Exactly, I worry the ISPs try and spread this propaganda and stupid people eat it up because they don't understand how any of this works. I've even seen some social commentators that I respected spread this same sort of incorrect information.

Yeah, the codified corruption of our political system via lobbying, special nonprofits that can take more corporate money than an individual can give, etc. is a big problem. Sort of another genie that won’t go back into the bottle without a big fight. People that are for getting rid of NN, are they paid? I’ve just put them on the ignore list.

As for NN not really fixing the problem, no it doesn’t - but at least it tried to help keep it from getting worse. I have a pole on the corner of my property. It has no easement. It carries electricity, comcast, telephone. So if it gets to the point where I no longer use electricity because I have my own solar power, can I cut that pole out?

My point is that comcast is only part of what makes this all work - they need city and private propery for their poles. How is it that they have this much say/power over the internet?

 

[Iphoneness]

It wasn't harming anything then. It improved access.

I guess we should have zero regulation on anything, because, you know, "big government". With net neutrality out of the way, what great things can we expect?

Trump is president through 2020. Whether he gets re-elected remains to be seen.

That doesn't mean all regulations should go away. But certainly this one because it was just a power grab for Obama to impose more government on us.

 

[827538]

It is a massive problem here and it really needs to die a horrible death.

Every time I discuss issues and politics with my American fiancé and her family it literally always comes back to lobbying.
Money poisons politics. In the UK we have some very strict rules regarding campaign contributions and the amount a party can spend, it's not perfect but again, compared to the US it works very well. Like on the day of an election there can be no media coverage of the election.

 

[belvdr]

That doesn't mean all regulations should go away. But certainly this one because it was just a power grab for Obama to impose more government on us.

What power grab and how was it imposing on you? Making statements without any sort of data doesn't help.

 

[harriska2]

This is like saying we need to get rid of sanitation laws so anyone can get involved in food service.

Hilarious. I must have Mike on my ignore list so I didn’t see what he was blathering about but your reply with his quote is priceless.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Perhaps you are again mixing up my comments with others. I never claimed he was an elected representative. You do not need to be elected to be in someone's pocket.

One could argue that you're already beholden to the person who appointed you to said position. But in Ajit Pai's case, he had this position before Trump, he was appointed by Obama. I already said that I believe he has a mix of personal convictions combined with his personal ties (previous employers) which influences his decision to skew towards large corporate interests rather than consumer interest.

It's disingenuous or perhaps naive of you to automatically and categorically think anyone who is "not an elected representative" cannot be influenced by someone.

Perhaps I am. The cord cutter comment was directed toward someone else.

 

[Huntn]

Uhhh well, a few examples: the stock market is up over 5 trillion, unemployment is at the lowest it's been in 17 years, and 1.5 million new jobs created in the last year.
[doublepost=1513358596][/doublepost]
Having more things under the control of the government. Big government is bad and not what this country was founded upon. Free markets, like what have been promoted and implemented in the last year have had a great positive effect on our population. You want government control, go to China or NK. The Don is president through 2024 and things will only get better from here.

You are completely wrong with this conclusion. There is no such thing as free markets and Capitalism is only a good deal for average citizens and the Nation when it is regulated. Study this country’s history, the age of tycoons, breaking up trusts and unfair business monopolies all happened because of regulations and oversight. Look at the realestate bubble, banking regulations relaxed, and soon after, kaboom, resulting in billions of dollars in bailouts.

 

[Glockworkorange]

s are going to control what content you can use on their networks.

I very much doubt that.

But we'll see.

 

[Iphoneness]

What power grab and how was it imposing on you? Making statements without any sort of data doesn't help.

In the big picture, it restricts the free market. Putting limits on what private companies can do like paid prioritization is no bueno. There's no reason to have government involved in that.

 

[827538]

Yeah, the codified corruption of our political system via lobbying, special nonprofits that can take more corporate money than an individual can give, etc. is a big problem. Sort of another genie that won’t go back into the bottle without a big fight. People that are for getting rid of NN, are they paid? I’ve just put them on the ignore list.

As for NN not really fixing the problem, no it doesn’t - but at least it tried to help keep it from getting worse. I have a pole on the corner of my property. It has no easement. It carries electricity, comcast, telephone. So if it gets to the point where I no longer use electricity because I have my own solar power, can I cut that pole out?

My point is that comcast is only part of what makes this all work - they need city and private propery for their poles. How is it that they have this much say/power over the internet?

Your exactly right, NN doesn't fix the problem, no one claimed it did. You will need to break up the monopolies to do that.
But it does a hell of a lot to stop the ISPs absolutely abusing their position and abusing consumers.

The more anti-NN responses I read the more I think these people just hate Obama - now I don't have a pony in this race. I couldn't care less. But I just feel there's this thin veil covering this deep seated hatred of him and anything he's done.

Interesting you bring that up. NN/Title 2 and all that is because the traditional markets and business models are dead. Cable companies are freaking out about their future lost revenue because they are dinosaurs. Their only chip is the cables they own, this is what the fight is really about.

The next fight is with energy. The big energy companies will find they have less and less customers as more and more people generate their own power. I've been reading up on energy companies in certain states lobbying to ban houses running off grid on solar during power cuts - for example in Florida. This isn't a technical issue, this is simply because they could very soon find themselves no longer needed by large numbers of people.

My other half's mother is looking into having a Tesla Solar Roof installed with Powerwalls, it's a trickle about to turn into a flood.

But again, this all comes back to big corporations being allowed to bribe politicians to change things to the detriment of the people. Get money out of politics, then politicians only have to listen to their constituents. This isn't rocket science, it's simple stuff.