FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Free Missouri]

I dare say many of the people attacking Ajit Pai are just racist.

Some are but others are attacking him because of his blatant disregard towards the American people and for being an obvious shill to Verizon.

That's patent bullshit and you know it. Just because you think it doesn't mean it's true. In fact I could say the same about many of your dem senators being shills. One of your democratic candidates even has a nickname based entirely off of the fact that she's a shill.

People are attacking him because of one of two things:

Either A) They're attacking him because they believe in a stronger fcc that can use Title II against the internet and while they say they're only using "part of it now" think it's perfectly fine for them ot use the breadth of it later.

or B), and this is the more likely one, they've fallen for the total BS that has been parroted out by every left-leaning site and pro-government internet service in the US that Net Neutrality is going to be some kind of "end of the internet" event where the ISPs are going to somehow make it absolutely terrible and this is the end of the world.

No. And this whole internet slowdown among other things are absolute bullshit, and the people who have been spreading the BS and who have been convincing half the internet to try and shove the propaganda down the throats of their users, are shills for massive internet corporations like Google and Facebook, and should not be listened to

[Free Missouri]

Yes.



Horseshit. When it was first announced that Title II will be put in place Ajit Pai himself said that it's a transition to government-controlled internet.

What the fuck does "government-controlled internet" even mean, and how does requiring ISPs to treat 1 bit from company a equally to 1 bit from company b, because they're paid to transfer bits not choose winners between companies lead to that?

Have you read Title II? and the powers it gives over "common carriers?" No? I thought not. It gives expansive, almost absolute power over "common carriers"

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

In fact I could say the same about many of your dem senators being shills. One of your democratic candidates even has a nickname based entirely off of the fact that she's a shill.

Noice Whataboutism there.

Either A) They're attacking him because they believe in a stronger fcc that can use Title II against the internet and while they say they're only using "part of it now" think it's perfectly fine for them ot use the breadth of it later.

or B), and this is the more likely one, they've fallen for the total BS that has been parroted out by every left-leaning site and pro-government internet service in the US that Net Neutrality is going to be some kind of "end of the internet" event where the ISPs are going to somehow make it absolutely terrible and this is the end of the world.

No. And this whole internet slowdown among other things are absolute bullshit, and the people who have been spreading the BS and who have been convincing half the internet to try and shove the propaganda down the throats of their users, are shills for massive internet corporations like Google and Facebook, and should not be listened to

A) No one no where has said that.

B) EVERYONE, from every side of the wings are calling out Pai's BS.

And how are they bullshit?

Your logic seems to be that "Everyone who disagrees with me is a google shill".

Your doing the thing that most people on the right criticized the SJW's for. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" .

Really, a Black and Wight fallacy.

[-Ocelot-]

I cannot believe how much i'm flip flopping with new information... net neutrality means that government will control the internet, it's better in my opinion for the free market to control it.

Net Neutrality prevents both the government and the ISPs from meddling with the internet because it dictates that all content must be treated equally.

Without neutrality ISPs may create slow and fast lanes but the government can also step in and block things they disagree with. One of the reasons most people support net neutrality is to prevent anyone from disrupting free speech platforms.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No.

Yes.

It means all data is treated equal.

Neither the government or the free market controls it.

Horseshit. When it was first announced that Title II will be put in place Ajit Pai himself said that it's a transition to government-controlled internet.

Pai is full of shit.

What the fuck does "government-controlled internet" even mean, and how does requiring ISPs to treat 1 bit from company a equally to 1 bit from company b, because they're paid to transfer bits not choose winners between companies lead to that?

Have you read Title II? and the powers it gives over "common carriers?" No? I thought not. It gives expansive, almost absolute power over "common carriers"

And?

shills

You'd think that the former Verizon employee of all people would be a shill, but he's a Republican so he's /ourguy/.

Either A) They're attacking him because they believe in a stronger fcc that can use Title II against the internet and while they say they're only using "part of it now" think it's perfectly fine for them ot use the breadth of it later.

If by "against the internet" you mean "in the interest of the American people" then sure.

or B), and this is the more likely one, they've fallen for the total BS that has been parroted out by every left-leaning site and pro-government internet service

Support for NN has been rather bipartisan.

in the US that Net Neutrality is going to be some kind of "end of the internet" event where the ISPs are going to somehow make it absolutely terrible and this is the end of the world.

*Flashbacks to Pai's horrid and patronising strawman of a video ensue*

The ones using hyperbole are people like you attempting to strawman the NN side.

No. And this whole internet slowdown among other things are absolute bullshit, and the people who have been spreading the BS and who have been convincing half the internet to try and shove the propaganda down the throats of their users, are shills for massive internet corporations like Google and Facebook, and should not be listened to

"Shill shill shill shill shill"

Isn't it ironic how the anti-NN camp points out how massive corporations support NN, when they are on the side of massive corporations too? In fact, they're on the dude of massive corporations who intend to use the repeal of NN to squeeze as much money as they can out of them?

[Great Nepal]

What the fuck does "government-controlled internet" even mean, and how does requiring ISPs to treat 1 bit from company a equally to 1 bit from company b, because they're paid to transfer bits not choose winners between companies lead to that?

Have you read Title II? and the powers it gives over "common carriers?" No? I thought not. It gives expansive, almost absolute power over "common carriers"

Have you read open internet order, explicitly specifying a lot of those title ii powers won't apply to ISP, and noted that no one has advocated removing those exemptions? If someone actually advocated doing that then that specific expansion can be opposed without opposing existing regulations.

[United Imperial Systems]

I cannot believe how much i'm flip flopping with new information... net neutrality means that government will control the internet, it's better in my opinion for the free market to control it.

Net Neutrality prevents both the government and the ISPs from meddling with the internet because it dictates that all content must be treated equally.

Without neutrality ISPs may create slow and fast lanes but the government can also step in and block things they disagree with. One of the reasons most people support net neutrality is to prevent anyone from disrupting free speech platforms.

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

[-Ocelot-]

Net Neutrality prevents both the government and the ISPs from meddling with the internet because it dictates that all content must be treated equally.

Without neutrality ISPs may create slow and fast lanes but the government can also step in and block things they disagree with. One of the reasons most people support net neutrality is to prevent anyone from disrupting free speech platforms.

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

Don't you guys have no choice for high-speed ISPs only? Aren't there other small ISPs with slower speeds around?

In any case, the NN getting repealed is twice as much of a problem because of these regional monopolies. In a sense, these big companies are the government when it comes to regulating the internet, especially after the regulatory capture of the FCC. If they can push laws through bribing (which they do afaik), they are essentially part of the government.

[Luna Amore]

Net Neutrality prevents both the government and the ISPs from meddling with the internet because it dictates that all content must be treated equally.

Without neutrality ISPs may create slow and fast lanes but the government can also step in and block things they disagree with. One of the reasons most people support net neutrality is to prevent anyone from disrupting free speech platforms.

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

[Valrifell]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

Telecommunications seems to naturally favor monopolies, though. We saw it with telegrams, phones, and television.

[-Ocelot-]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

If anything, no neutrality can create new monopolies inside the internet because while Youtube, Twitch, Netflix etc. can pay up, smaller companies won't be able to. We'll get stuck with the same big websites forever and everything else will get squashed, even if it's better. And this will affect everyone in the long term, not just US citizens.

Of course it depends how American ISPs will use their new freedoms to "innovate" but chances are they will try to get money from big websites in exchange for non-slow lanes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

ISPs aren't interested in an actual market.

[Naval Monte]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

It may not fix the monopolies but it can prevent the companies from screwing over the costumers which is important.

[United Imperial Systems]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

The point of NNs it not to get an actual market, it's to make sure the existing, shit market will not fuck Americans over, that's its whole point.
Getting rid of NN will not necessarily get a market, it's shooting into dark, you might hit the apple, but its more likely you'll the person holding it.
We should better leave it at that, don't fix stuff that isn't broken.

[Luna Amore]

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

Telecommunications seems to naturally favor monopolies, though. We saw it with telegrams, phones, and television.

Maybe so. Then the question becomes why? I also wouldn't call those markets monopolies anymore. BellSouth is no longer 'the Phone company'. You have options, you can take your business elsewhere. TV was rattled by streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. More choices is better. What's hindering the ISP market and how do we change it?

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

ISPs aren't interested in an actual market.

That's not a response to the problem though. Neither is NN. What is causing the near monopolization of ISPs in America right now? What can we do to fix it? Declaring all data equal and a utility does not change the players controlling the market.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

It may not fix the monopolies but it can prevent the companies from screwing over the costumers which is important.

I disagree. We can't personify Verizon and Comcast as the image of pure evil and then pretend that NN took away their power to fuck people over.

If they still have an effective monopoly anywhere, they can fuck you over some other way.

The point of NNs it not to get an actual market, it's to make sure the existing, shit market will not fuck Americans over, that's its whole point.
Getting rid of NN will not necessarily get a market, it's shooting into dark, you might hit the apple, but its more likely you'll the person holding it.
We should better leave it at that, don't fix stuff that isn't broken.

You describe it as a "shit market" and then say "don't fix stuff that isn't broken". You see why that's just silly, right? If it's a shit system, fix the system. NN is a feel good bandaid on a shity system that needs an actual overhaul. The same companies people are rallying against now had the same control over the market during NN. That's the problem.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

The point of NNs it not to get an actual market, it's to make sure the existing, shit market will not fuck Americans over, that's its whole point.
Getting rid of NN will not necessarily get a market, it's shooting into dark, you might hit the apple, but its more likely you'll the person holding it.
We should better leave it at that, don't fix stuff that isn't broken.

You describe it as a "shit market" and then say "don't fix stuff that isn't broken". You see why that's just silly, right? If it's a shit system, fix the system. NN is a feel good bandaid on a shity system that needs an actual overhaul. The same companies people are rallying against now had the same control over the market during NN. That's the problem.

Geting rid of NN doesn't just pull a market out of thin air, just lets the shity one be even more shitty.

[Luna Amore]

You describe it as a "shit market" and then say "don't fix stuff that isn't broken". You see why that's just silly, right? If it's a shit system, fix the system. NN is a feel good bandaid on a shity system that needs an actual overhaul. The same companies people are rallying against now had the same control over the market during NN. That's the problem.

Geting rid of NN doesn't just pull a market out of thin air, just lets the shity one be even more shitty.

Better to aim for a functional system than to prop up a failing one. Given how often it was attacked and how quickly NN was repealed, it wasn't really a safeguard. It was lip service to a bigger problem.

[Naval Monte]

Geting rid of NN doesn't just pull a market out of thin air, just lets the shity one be even more shitty.

Better to aim for a functional system than to prop up a failing one. Given how often it was attacked and how quickly NN was repealed, it wasn't really a safeguard. It was lip service to a bigger problem.

But what can the average American do to fix the problem? We have companies who have a ton of cash who can bribe politicians to side with them. So to fix that problem we also need to fix the lobbying problem.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Telecommunications seems to naturally favor monopolies, though. We saw it with telegrams, phones, and television.

Maybe so. Then the question becomes why? I also wouldn't call those markets monopolies anymore. BellSouth is no longer 'the Phone company'. You have options, you can take your business elsewhere. TV was rattled by streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. More choices is better. What's hindering the ISP market and how do we change it?

Telecomms generally become either monopolies or oligopolies with few players because capital costs for laying down your internet infrastructure - particularly submarine cables and satellites - are beyond the reach of anyone who isn't a big mega-corporation, a billionaire, or a state. This therefore makes entering the specific industry of internet provision extremely prohibitive for most would-be players. Its not like chocolates, bread or other insipid consumer goods with very low barriers to entry and therefore can be made by mom-and-pop insect stores.

Want more choices, find a way to deliver internet without requiring massive infrastructure investments.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Geting rid of NN doesn't just pull a market out of thin air, just lets the shity one be even more shitty.

Better to aim for a functional system than to prop up a failing one. Given how often it was attacked and how quickly NN was repealed, it wasn't really a safeguard. It was lip service to a bigger problem.

NN in that case could be used as a way buy time to figure out how to break the death grip Comcast and friends have on the market.

Doesn't fix the problem but prevents those assholes from tearing the consumers to peaces.

[-Ocelot-]

Maybe so. Then the question becomes why? I also wouldn't call those markets monopolies anymore. BellSouth is no longer 'the Phone company'. You have options, you can take your business elsewhere. TV was rattled by streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. More choices is better. What's hindering the ISP market and how do we change it?

Telecomms generally become either monopolies or oligopolies with few players because capital costs for laying down your internet infrastructure - particularly submarine cables and satellites - are beyond the reach of anyone who isn't a big mega-corporation, a billionaire, or a state. This therefore makes entering the specific industry of internet provision extremely prohibitive for most would-be players. Its not like chocolates, bread or other insipid consumer goods with very low barriers to entry and therefore can be made by mom-and-pop insect stores.

Want more choices, find a way to deliver internet without requiring massive infrastructure investments.

Then American ISPs bribe politicians into making this new alternative illegal. There is no salvation for the US unless if you break these monopolies or at least stop voting for Republicans who are especially devoted into making the big ISPs bigger.

[Valrifell]

Telecomms generally become either monopolies or oligopolies with few players because capital costs for laying down your internet infrastructure - particularly submarine cables and satellites - are beyond the reach of anyone who isn't a big mega-corporation, a billionaire, or a state. This therefore makes entering the specific industry of internet provision extremely prohibitive for most would-be players. Its not like chocolates, bread or other insipid consumer goods with very low barriers to entry and therefore can be made by mom-and-pop insect stores.

Want more choices, find a way to deliver internet without requiring massive infrastructure investments.

Then American ISPs bribe politicians into making this new alternative illegal. There is no salvation for the US unless if you break these monopolies or at least stop voting for Republicans who are especially devoted into making the big ISPs bigger.

We're discussing on way trust-busting Telecomms doesn't really work for long. You'd have to make it easier, first, or regulate the shit out of the market right after you bust 'em.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

ISPs aren't interested in an actual market.

That's not a response to the problem though.

You're right, it's the problem itself.

What is causing the near monopolization of ISPs in America right now?

ISPs.

What can we do to fix it? Declaring all data equal and a utility does not change the players controlling the market.

It does provide a safeguard until a solution comes up.

[Galloism]

this
And to people who say "Oh then choose a different ISP!", well, I will tell you a secret...
NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE, it's either, you have this one ISP, or nothing.

That’s a problem that needs fixing and NN wasn’t going to fix it. There needs to be an actual market.

In many places in Europe, ISPs are required to sell last mile access at wholesale prices to competing ISPs. This cuts down on the vast infrastructure cost of setting up a new ISP, and since throttling and blocking is typically not done in the last mile area (it's handled at the hub), then that fosters competition around issues like this.

[Luna Amore]

Maybe so. Then the question becomes why? I also wouldn't call those markets monopolies anymore. BellSouth is no longer 'the Phone company'. You have options, you can take your business elsewhere. TV was rattled by streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. More choices is better. What's hindering the ISP market and how do we change it?

Telecomms generally become either monopolies or oligopolies with few players because capital costs for laying down your internet infrastructure - particularly submarine cables and satellites - are beyond the reach of anyone who isn't a big mega-corporation, a billionaire, or a state. This therefore makes entering the specific industry of internet provision extremely prohibitive for most would-be players. Its not like chocolates, bread or other insipid consumer goods with very low barriers to entry and therefore can be made by mom-and-pop insect stores.

Want more choices, find a way to deliver internet without requiring massive infrastructure investments.

Well that and the regulation of entering the market and the inevitable litigation from competitors if you actually set up shop. The answer to those problems is to lessen the barrier for entry, less red tape, no corporate lobbyists using the legal system and the local government to beat down competition.

NN addresses none of that.

It is possible to start a successful local ISP, but it should be easier than it is now.

Better to aim for a functional system than to prop up a failing one. Given how often it was attacked and how quickly NN was repealed, it wasn't really a safeguard. It was lip service to a bigger problem.

NN in that case could be used as a way buy time to figure out how to break the death grip Comcast and friends have on the market.

Doesn't fix the problem but prevents those assholes from tearing the consumers to peaces.

Which is nonsense. They had effective monopolies during NN. They have them now. They can still manipulate consumers. They still have lobbyists. If you are locked in a room with a guy and an assortment of weapons, it's not much consolation for someone to take away the gun and say "Well, at least he can't shoot you now."

It does provide a safeguard until a solution comes up.

Considering how frequently it was challenged and how easily it was removed, it was a pretty shitty safeguard.