FCC Has Voted to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

[BeeGood]

There seem to be a whole lot of “low information” types in this thread that are blaming Trump and the GOP without realizing that Ajit Pai (FCC chairman) was an Obama appointee and confirmed by a then-majority -Democratic Senate.

Just thought I’d point that out. Carry on.

 

[bopajuice]

There seem to be a whole lot of “low information” types in this thread that are blaming Trump and the GOP without realizing that Ajit Pai (FCC chairman) was an Obama appointee and confirmed by a then-majority -Democratic Senate.

Just thought I’d point that out. Carry on.

See post 561 and then carry on. Oh heck Ill just post it for you...

He put him on the commission to appease the Republican Mitch McConnell, not because he was Obama's first choice. It was a horse trade. Pai would have been gone in May 2017, if Trump had lost. Unfortunately, Trump won and put Pai in charge of the FCC for a 5 year term.

Glad you decided to leave all that info out though. I'm sure you didnt do it on purpose.

 

[mudslag]

But you guys claimed the economy would tank if he got elected. The exact opposite happened.

You keep saying "you guys" as if there was some mass claim, who are these "you guys" and how do you know it was any particular person and not some random person you're just trying to lump an entire group into with?

Nope. I'm going to need some evidence for his claim that regulation cuts haven't added jobs.

Again it's not my claim to support, no one has yet to provide evidence that regulation cuts are responsible for job creation. You're welcome to show it but I get the feeling you're unable to do so.

"Trump, Mattis turn military loose on ISIS, leaving terror caliphate in tatters"

“The leadership team that is in place right now has certainly enabled us to succeed,” Brig. Gen. Andrew Croft, the ranking U.S. Air Force officer in Iraq, told Fox News. “I couldn’t ask for a better leadership team to work for, to enable the military to do what it does best.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...isis-leaving-terror-caliphate-in-tatters.html

Except it was the Kurds that did most of the actual fighting. Plus there is the secret deal that US made.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/11/16/the-trump-that-scandal-democrats-arent-talking-about/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret

The BBC has uncovered details of a secret deal that let hundreds of IS fighters and their families escape from Raqqa, under the gaze of the US and British-led coalition and Kurdish-led forces who control the city.

A convoy included some of IS’s most notorious members and – despite reassurances – dozens of foreign fighters. Some of those have spread out across Syria, even making it as far as Turkey.

Kind of hard to call it in tatters when they were free to leave.

 

[BeeGood]

See post 561 and then carry on. Oh heck Ill just post it for you...

He put him on the commission to appease the Republican Mitch McConnell, not because he was Obama's first choice. It was a horse trade. Pai would have been gone in May 2017, if Trump had lost. Unfortunately, Trump won and put Pai in charge of the FCC for a 5 year term.

Glad you decided to leave all that info out though. I'm sure you didnt do it on purpose.

Oh, I stand corrected. I didn’t realize McConnell put a gun to his head and forced him to do that...

Oh, wait...he didn’t?

So yeah, it was Obama’s appointment and confirmed by a democratic senate.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

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.

The mistake you are making is assuming "free market" = "perfect competition." Free market is an umbrella term with many different types of competition, ranging from free market (max supply, min prices, great for consumers, terrible for business) to oligopoly and monopoly (min supply, max prices, terrible for consumers, great for business). In a free market system, the market plays out based on inherent factors that determine the end result (google 5 forces model).

With regards to NN and ISPs. The high barriers to entry (permits required, time to deploy, etc.) and low rivalry between firms tend this market to oligopoly/monopoly.

If you extend that line of thinking, without increased revenue, the ISPs will not have the resources to upgrade their infrastructure or invest in new technology. What happens then? People will complain about crappy service, slow service, outdated equipment, etc. It's cynical and absurd to think that additional cost customers will pay will only pad profits for the ISP company.

I don't see anything wrong with offering variable levels of service. It's done in other industries, such as package delivery. If you want your package there overnight, it costs more (as it should). But if you are not in a hurry, you pay less. Same with internet.... If I only use the internet for email and web browsing, why should I have to pay the same amount as some guy streaming gigabytes of data on Netflix?

It's lost on most people who visit this site, but economy packages for internet services do have a place. Many people, such as retirees, small businesses, or non-techies, would use it. On the flip side, if a person or business, such as a stock trading firm, needs top line access because speed can make a difference, that option should be available at a premium, just like sending a package overnight comes with a premium, or flying first class vs. economy class.

You need to breakdown revenue into 3 categories. 1) break-even - the amount of revenue needed to break-even with expenses. 2) innovation - the amount of revenue needed for r&d and deployment of new tech. 3) profit - the amount of money distributed to shareholders of the firm.

I have no problem with ISPs and earning profit however without NN, ISPs will be able to very large premium on revenue from tech giants (Netflix, Amazon, etc) and that'll lower the innovation of those firms. Alternatively they'll be able to charge you a large premium as well, which will also decrease innovation since you have less money to invest in other goods and services. This is the fundamental problem with a monopoly/oligopoly: they earn excess profits at the expensive of everyone else. It's the perfect smokescreen, ISPs have chosen to shield themselves with the exact issues they are creating.

 

[EightyTwenty]

5) I am a god dam conservative - but unlike you, I'm not a zealot. And you just showed me exactly why you post the way you do.

I'm not even a conservative. I'm a human being with a functioning brain stem who is capable of seeing multiple sides of an issue. The irony is you are exactly what you criticize. You come across as a hysterical zealot who can only see one side of an issue.

EVERYTHING is always taken to the absolute most ridiculous extreme with you people. It's impossible to have a nuanced conversation with any of you.

"OMG... Trump is literally Hitler!!!"

"OMG... the Internet is destroyed FOREVER!!!"

"OMG... securing the border makes you a NAZI!!!"
[doublepost=1513380627][/doublepost]

Again it's not my claim to support, no one has yet to provide evidence that regulation cuts are responsible for job creation. You're welcome to show it but I get the feeling you're unable to do so.

That's not how it works. If you make a claim that cutting regulations didn't add any jobs, you need to back up that claim. You don't get to make a claim and then go "well, prove me wrong". Doesn't work that way.

 

[Admiral]

Did they really add a provision that States can't make their own rules? And would that really stand in court? I think only Congress would have such authority, not the FCC, and AFAIK there was no vote on it?
I hope States will be able to fight back, I know they are already preparing to take action here in WA.

But the states have no right to enforce, say, Federal immigration law. Care to explain the difference?

 

[mudslag]

That's not how it works. If you make a claim that cutting regulations didn't add any jobs, you need to back up that claim. You don't get to make a claim and then go "well, prove me wrong". Doesn't work that way.

I didn't make the initial claim, the person I replied to did, you then quoted me. There is no evidence that cutting regulations created 1.5 million jobs, I can't prove a negative, specially when it was someone else that made that initial claim.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

"OMG... Trump is literally Hitler!!!"

"OMG... the Internet is destroyed FOREVER!!!"

"OMG... securing the border makes you a NAZI!!!"

This would be absolutely correct. You couldn't have said it better.

 

[villicodelirant]

1) It was a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't exist.

It does.

It's an unnecessary intrusion by government into Internet regulation.

Thetre's no such thing as an "intrusion" of government short of a rectal inspection.

2) Investment in Internet infrastructure is down considerably since Title 2 was applied.

That's fantastic news.
Now natural resources can be spent on things that are actually useful.

That's fine if you think the Internet is done growing.

"Done" growing?
The Internet is for all intents and purposes cancer, as in, a thing that bloats and bloats malignantly and loses usefulness with each passing year.

I believe we aren't anywhere near the full capability of the Internet and much more investment in infrastructure is required and will benefit us all.

The full capability of the internet will be realized when Facespace and Google and kitten videos are taken off it, and papers are made available for free without resorting to sci-hub.cc

http://www.insidesources.com/invest...roviders-since-net-neutrality-economist-says/

3) The Internet was MORE free and MORE open prior to Title 2 being applied in 2015. 1996-2015 was the golden age of Internet freedom and innovation. This rollback returns us to that era.

You mean, the era in which the internet got worse year by year?
Also, an era that's gone?

Yes, it's gone. In 2017 the Internet is the backbone of practically everything, so it needs regulation.

4) The giant tech monopolies are all in favor of Title 2 regs. Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc. There is a reason these entrenched monopolies want heavy government regulation. The same reason all monopolies love government. They want to maintain their power and dominance.

This is absurd nonsense.
The "monoopolies love government" part is hilarious.
If anything, it's the other way around: a healthy nation with a functioning government should seek a state monopoly on everything, but monopolies don't "love government" and regulations do not automatically help monopolies.

Google and Facebook are for net neutrality BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BLOODY CARRIERS and don't own their infrastructure.

There isn't a company more evil than Google, in my opinion

Well, Facebook. Or... ComCast?

If they are for it, I'm against it.

Google has made donations towards cancer research. I take it you are pro-cancer.

5) The tech giants DON'T practice what they preach. Google and Facebook and Twitter want a "free and open Internet".

No, they want your money.

BULLSH*T! Those companies would make Kim Jung Un proud with their political censorship.

What?

They are bullsh*t artists of the highest order. You want your "free and open Internet"? Then you should have spoken up when conservatives were being systematically removed, censored, banned, throttled, and demonetized by the tech giants over the past 2 years.

1. Do you have a source for that?
2. Well, so Google does something good.

I didn't make the initial claim, the person I replied to did, you then quoted me. There is no evidence that cutting regulations created 1.5 million jobs, I can't prove a negative, specially when it was someone else that made that initial claim.

Also because the capitalist mantra of "creating jobs" is ridiculous and borders on insanity.
[doublepost=1513383129][/doublepost]

This would be absolutely correct. You couldn't have said it better.

Wait, the Kim Jong-Un comparison is unfair.

Sure, they both are heirs to an empire their grandfather founded, bu Kim is kind of an okay guy.

 

[GermanSuplex]

There seem to be a whole lot of “low information” types in this thread that are blaming Trump and the GOP without realizing that Ajit Pai (FCC chairman) was an Obama appointee and confirmed by a then-majority -Democratic Senate.

Just thought I’d point that out. Carry on.

Yes, because he wasn’t allowed to appoint a liberal, rules and such. This is nothing more than a reach around to more big corps. Including Comcast, which owns NBC, which Trump hates. But not enough to grab the lube for them.

If anyone thinks ISPs hate net neutrality because they are worried about the people..... LOL.

 

[GuruZac]

Continuing off-topic but this simplistic, echo chamber fodder is too good:

Numbers that continued on the back Obama economic momentum since he took office while gripped in a deep recession. Dropped it from 7.8 to 4.7. Very different circumstances both entered in. One had to clean up the mess Son of a Bush created while the other inherited what was akin to a “World Series-ready” situation.

Things will get even better for people, that’s true. If by “people” you mean the coroporate and lobbyist-types. They gotta get paid back somehow from his swamp. The middle class? Bend over. Or die in the streets. Well most of the sensible among us knew who Trump was going to cater too.

2024, huh? Dear lord this post isn’t going to age well. I very much look forward to it.
[doublepost=1513363638][/doublepost]

Kinda like the last guy who was handed the keys to a Republican mess that was created?

Interesting trend developing. They own this one, all on their own. Hello November 2018. It’s already started, most recently in Alabama.

Jesus. You guys really believe the Republicans are the bad guys. I would love to live in that alternate reality.

Meanwhile, back in this reality, BOTH parties are full of crooks, liars, men and women with no backbone. America’s politicians lack principle and have no concept of what it’s like to live in the real world. How in the world do people blame one party for this... SMH
[doublepost=1513385357][/doublepost]

I disagree passionately.
By 2015 the Internet was the hellhole that we know today.
What's more, what was sufficient back then will not be sufficient in the future.

For better or worse, the Internet is now your (international) newsstand, mail carrier and whatnot and needs to be regulated accordingly; particularly, it is not admissible for Provider Y owned by Joe X to erode the readership of Newspaper Z, which is strongly anti-Joe X, through commercial practices.

Provider Y could, for example, offer Newspaper W (a competitor of Z, but strongly pro-Joe X) for free.
Remember how IE (free with Windows 95) vs. Netscape ended?



Uh, there's plenty of people with an immediate economic or political incentive not to leave it that way.
See my previous example, but I can give you a hundred.



Uh, "common sense" is actually very subjective.
That I know of, Ron Paul is aligned with the Tea Party movement, which doesn't scream "common sense" to me.



How so, exactly? Last time I checked Obama was doing something (too little, too late) in the right direction, from regulating Wall Street to having a healthcare system worthy of a first world country to a saner tax policy than its predecessors (Clinton and Bush alike) and finally, at least on paper, the previous administration didn't actively try to worsen the biggest problem the country is facing right now, which is that of lowering its emissions per capita to a first world standard.



Dude, we (as in, Silvio Berlusconi, arguably the worst prime minister Italy as had since Cossiga in 1979) invented the "lesser of two evils" rhethoric.
The guy won three elections by pointing out how untrustworthy his opponents were.

As if it were hard to make a politician look untrustworthy.

We fundamentally disagree on too many things here to go on. The biggest may be the fact Obama and his cronies turned our healthcare system in to a first world system...are you nuts?? Do you actually live here. I’m in healthcare now working at a hospital and in school full time to become a physician and the system couldn’t be more broken. “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it...” America has no healthcare system worthy of ****. Obamacare mandated insurance for the rest of us pawns while writing themselves out of the law...but it was so good. Why would we trust a government to run org healthcare when they can’t even balance a budget, stop starting wars, and manage social security? Obamacare is a **** show was never designed to be sustainable. How could it be?

This has gone way off topic, so to return to the topic at hand, I disagree with repealing NN without having a viable option in place. I have lost trust in our so called “free market system.” America is a cronie Capitalist oligarchy system controlled by corporations. It’s almost like becoming the world Aldus Huxley wrote about.

 

[827538]

It does.



Thetre's no such thing as an "intrusion" of government short of a rectal inspection.



That's fantastic news.
Now natural resources can be spent on things that are actually useful.



"Done" growing?
The Internet is for all intents and purposes cancer, as in, a thing that bloats and bloats malignantly and loses usefulness with each passing year.



The full capability of the internet will be realized when Facespace and Google and kitten videos are taken off it, and papers are made available for free without resorting to sci-hub.cc




You mean, the era in which the internet got worse year by year?
Also, an era that's gone?

Yes, it's gone. In 2017 the Internet is the backbone of practically everything, so it needs regulation.



This is absurd nonsense.
The "monoopolies love government" part is hilarious.
If anything, it's the other way around: a healthy nation with a functioning government should seek a state monopoly on everything, but monopolies don't "love government" and regulations do not automatically help monopolies.

Google and Facebook are for net neutrality BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BLOODY CARRIERS and don't own their infrastructure.



Well, Facebook. Or... ComCast?



Google has made donations towards cancer research. I take it you are pro-cancer.



No, they want your money.



What?



1. Do you have a source for that?
2. Well, so Google does something good.



Also because the capitalist mantra of "creating jobs" is ridiculous and borders on insanity.
[doublepost=1513383129][/doublepost]

Wait, the Kim Jong-Un comparison is unfair.

Sure, they both are heirs to an empire their grandfather founded, bu Kim is kind of an okay guy.

Not disagreeing with you, just wanted to point out OP was completely wrong. Infrastructure spending increased under Title 2. Scroll down and you'll see the year to year infrastructure spending of the various telcos. Comcast alone spent 26.6% more in 2015-2016 than the year previous. So this argument that Title 2 hurts investment is 100% lies.

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

 

[GuruZac]

I'm not even a conservative. I'm a human being with a functioning brain stem who is capable of seeing multiple sides of an issue. The irony is you are exactly what you criticize. You come across as a hysterical zealot who can only see one side of an issue.

EVERYTHING is always taken to the absolute most ridiculous extreme with you people. It's impossible to have a nuanced conversation with any of you.

"OMG... Trump is literally Hitler!!!"

"OMG... the Internet is destroyed FOREVER!!!"

"OMG... securing the border makes you a NAZI!!!"
[doublepost=1513380627][/doublepost]

That's not how it works. If you make a claim that cutting regulations didn't add any jobs, you need to back up that claim. You don't get to make a claim and then go "well, prove me wrong". Doesn't work that way.

Common sense post. Thank you.

 

[bmac4]

Partisan politics transcends all. Even pedophilia, and sexual harassment.

The issue is about the party. Only support the party.... No need to educate yourself or stick to morals or values. Just repeat what you hear from your partisan news source of choice or your ignorant neighbor of family member. Let's just get in line and do what we are told. After all, Trump is a "businessman". He knows what's best for me.
[doublepost=1513379222][/doublepost]

Thats why I was asking. I am not trying to prove a partisan point, I am asking questions to understand the truth.

The issue is also:

"On Wednesday, the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office announced that its six-month investigation into net neutrality comments sent to the FCC found as many as two million comments had used real people's names and personal info without their permission, including some belonging to deceased persons. That number is expected to rise, and so far, at least 5,000 confirmed victims have filed complaints under New York law."

Also

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...elp-investigate-net-neutrality-comment-fraud/

You do realize people sometimes fight fire with fire. If the bots corrupted the commenting process, then it diminishes the legitimacy of those comments.

"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu...

Haha yep! This is so stupid. Who gives a damn about your freaking party. You know good well they don’t give a damn about you.

 

[KPandian1]

... without realizing that Ajit Pai (FCC chairman) was an Obama appointee and confirmed by a then-majority -Democratic Senate.

Just thought I’d point that out. Carry on.

There is something in politics called horse-trading, where you take hit with a glue-factory trade-in to get better stallions! It happens all the time, and Pai was one such "asset!"

Just thought that I should point that out here.

Obama had more than a few Republican staff under him to try to get things done. Pai was a token after the 2010 elections when the House majority was gone and the Senate majority was thin.

The reverse is hard to find, except a few turncoats.

 

[mike1123]

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

Straw man fallacy.
[doublepost=1513389230][/doublepost]

You do realize that it takes years to see the full effects of policy change from a sitting president, right? It’s not like instantaneous. Give it 1-2 more years and let’s talk again.

You mean like once we find out that several top officials jeopardized our national security by selling uranium to a foreign nation, trafficked guns into Mexico that were then used to kill Americans, left a US ambassador to die, put weapons into the hands of ISIS (“rebels”), funneled money to a terrorist state, weaponized a government agency to attempt a coup against an opposing political party (sedition), and encouraged violence against law enforcement? Trump has a lot of crap on his list to fix.

 

[Videomanmac]

How did this get turned around on Trump? If anything, the people are to blame. I am a trump supporter, but Democrats failed to come out on election day, and as a result, Trump won. It was your fault trump won.

I am seeing the exact same thing happening with net neutrality. Yesterday, I saw people posting about Net neutrality and attacking Ajit, when likely they do not even know him, nor knows what the FCC is. But the fact is they were too late. They decided to rage after the effects had happened. Much like what happened in the election.

 

[GoldenJoe]

You're not the brightest spark if you don't understand the difference between a utility and buying goods (where there are countless alternatives).

You're not a very bright spark yourself if you think the internet is a utility, but not power.

 

[827538]

You're not a very bright spark yourself if you think the internet is a utility, but not power.

What? The internet is a utility and that is what it should be classed as.
Your comment doesn't even make sense 'but not power'? What?

 

[LizKat]

File under "not so fast": Schumer's going to try to use the Congressional Review Act to force an on the record vote in the Senate on the FCC's having rolled back the net neutrality rule. He might not get anywhere with it and even if he does it has to get through the House and past Trump... but it's not like the public is a fan of the FCC's recent action. So if you have something to say about net neutrality one wa or the other and like to say it to your Senator... now would be a good time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...te-on-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-idUSKBN1E92TC​

 

[bopajuice]

Oh, I stand corrected. I didn’t realize McConnell put a gun to his head and forced him to do that...

Oh, wait...he didn’t?

So yeah, it was Obama’s appointment and confirmed by a democratic senate.

You comment on politics but don't understand politics. I think I'll be moving on...

 

[BeeGood]

You comment on politics but don't understand politics. I think I'll be moving on...

Probably a good choice if all you have is “but but but he made a deal!”

 

[bopajuice]

This would be absolutely correct. You couldn't have said it better.

Dictators love other dictators. Didn't Trump just meet with Duarte? He serenaded Trump and they even wore the same shirts. What is wrong with America? Have we lost our minds?

[doublepost=1513395230][/doublepost]

Probably a good choice if all you have is “but but but he made a deal!”

Please. Clever retorts will get you nowhere. I suggest you look elsewhere.

 

[hellopupy]

Its severely unfair for a low bandwidth user (emails, browsing, social media) to subsidize the usage of a high bandwidth user (youtube, torrents, gaming, netflix).

The only thing neutral about net neutrality is the name.

Ever wonder why Netflix fought so hard for net neutrality? If it isn't obvious by now...


Browsing the posts in this thread, many members are making the issue of NN, not about the people, but about the President and left/right paradigm. Just like how many Trump supporters are categorized into a cult, those who oppose Trump act like they are in a cult themselves.

All logic goes out the window and emotion takes full control.

The problems with ISPs isn't that they can package out internet speeds, its the fact that they are regional monopolies ALLOWED by the government. So the very government you seek to protect you from getting priced up or down on your internet usage is distracting you from the fact that most of you only have 1 wired internet choice (2 at best).

So while you guys fight on internet forums or sign internet petitions on how much you should be charged for how much you use, ISPs are happy either way because they dominate you with or without net neutrality.