FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, you want to pay more money for a worse service?

Also, opponents of net neutrality are Time Warner Cable, a corporation that makes billions and wants Net Neutrally gone to make even more money.

It isn't the small ISPs that are cheering, it's the big corporations.

Could you pay a lot more for better internet than anyone else?

You already can do that with the limited bandwidth plans.

This just milks the consumer more.

[Arlenton]

Could you pay a lot more for better internet than anyone else?

You already can do that with the limited bandwidth plans.

This just milks the consumer more.

But with the corporations slowing down internet for everyone who doesn't pay as much, couldn't you get even faster, in comparison, internet than everyone else?

FYI I'm pretty much illiterate when it comes to tech stuff like this.

[Naval Monte]

YES. FINALLY.

Rules that are to fix a problem that doesn't exist, placing the entirety of the internet under a innovation-stifling Title II, allowing utilities taxes to be levied by the FCC against the internet, totally destroys smaller ISPs who pretty much survive on paid priority, that is supported by people like FB and Google because it also destroys their competitors, and whose stated goal could be far better reached by capitalism than by government overreach.

Net neutrality is dead, as it should be. To hell with Net Neutrality. I am excited to see it enter it's grave, so I can piss on it.

If you think innovation is being stifled because of Title II wait until it is gone, you would see a complete stagnation of innovation. The only ones who would benefit from this are larger corporations who would not see a reason to try new things because they would have enough wealth and power to be comfortable on where they are at and crush smaller companies before they can start, which incidentally would have been the ones to bring in new things to the public.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

YES. FINALLY.

Rules that are to fix a problem that doesn't exist, placing the entirety of the internet under a innovation-stifling Title II, allowing utilities taxes to be levied by the FCC against the internet, totally destroys smaller ISPs who pretty much survive on paid priority, that is supported by people like FB and Google because it also destroys their competitors, and whose stated goal could be far better reached by capitalism than by government overreach.

Net neutrality is dead, as it should be. To hell with Net Neutrality. I am excited to see it enter it's grave, so I can piss on it.

If you think innovation is being stifled because of Title II wait until it is gone, you would see a complete stagnation of innovation. The only ones who would benefit from this are larger corporations who would not see a reason to try new things because they would have enough wealth and power to be comfortable on where they are at and crush smaller companies before they can start, which incidentally would have been the ones to bring in new things to the public.

The problem with Title II is that it injects cyclical uncertainty through the forbearance process that the FCC is currently using to not have all the rules in Title II apply to ISPs.

That does mean a lot.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

You already can do that with the limited bandwidth plans.

This just milks the consumer more.

But with the corporations slowing down internet for everyone who doesn't pay as much, couldn't you get even faster, in comparison, internet than everyone else?

ISP's have speed plans to sell.

[Free Missouri]

YES. FINALLY.

Rules that are to fix a problem that doesn't exist, placing the entirety of the internet under a innovation-stifling Title II, allowing utilities taxes to be levied by the FCC against the internet, totally destroys smaller ISPs who pretty much survive on paid priority, that is supported by people like FB and Google because it also destroys their competitors, and whose stated goal could be far better reached by capitalism than by government overreach.

Net neutrality is dead, as it should be. To hell with Net Neutrality. I am excited to see it enter it's grave, so I can piss on it.



It's the end of the world for people who don't want to have to pay more to use the extra bandwith they pressure their ISP with by using heavy bandwith sites. For most of the internet the thing about it that triggers them is that ISPs will be able to throttle their overusage of pornsites. Because it's the internet and thus full of degenerates.

So, you want to pay more money for a worse service?

Also, opponents of net neutrality are Time Warner Cable, a corporation that makes billions and wants Net Neutrally gone to make even more money.

It isn't the small ISPs that are cheering, it's the big corporations.

Opponents of Net Neutrality are hundreds and hundreds of ISPs, big and small, who see the idiocy of it.

The supporters are high-bandwidth websites run by megacorps like the pornsites, netflix, facebook, and google, who like the idea that they can't be charged more for using more bandwidth.

Declaring the internet a public utility to which Title II applies was without a doubt the most horrendously idiotic thing that I have seen people support, and one of the most dangerous.

I piss upon the grave of net neutrality, and spit in the direction of it's supporters.

[Naval Monte]

If you think innovation is being stifled because of Title II wait until it is gone, you would see a complete stagnation of innovation. The only ones who would benefit from this are larger corporations who would not see a reason to try new things because they would have enough wealth and power to be comfortable on where they are at and crush smaller companies before they can start, which incidentally would have been the ones to bring in new things to the public.

The problem with Title II is that it injects cyclical uncertainty through the forbearance process that the FCC is currently using to not have all the rules in Title II apply to ISPs.

That does mean a lot.

If the old bill has problems than I would agree on improving it but I don't trust the people in charge right now on changing it for the better so for now I stand oppose against any changes to Title II until more competent individuals are in charge of the government.

[Arlenton]

But with the corporations slowing down internet for everyone who doesn't pay as much, couldn't you get even faster, in comparison, internet than everyone else?

ISP's have speed plans to sell.

I know that. I'm assuming this "corporate takeover" of the internet will result in prices being higher, with the most expensive plans being faster and the cheapest plans being slower than they are now.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, you want to pay more money for a worse service?

Also, opponents of net neutrality are Time Warner Cable, a corporation that makes billions and wants Net Neutrally gone to make even more money.

It isn't the small ISPs that are cheering, it's the big corporations.

Opponents of Net Neutrality are hundreds and hundreds of ISPs, big and small, who see the idiocy of it.

The supporters are high-bandwidth websites run by megacorps like the pornsites, netflix, facebook, and google, who like the idea that they can't be charged more for using more bandwidth.

Declaring the internet a public utility to which Title II applies was without a doubt the most horrendously idiotic thing that I have seen people support, and one of the most dangerous.

I piss upon the grave of net neutrality, and spit in the direction of it's supporters.

I mean, there are problems with adjusting ISPs to Title II regulations.

But that is the problem with the specific approach, not with the fundamental value itself.

Net Neutrality through Title II seems to me like a ham-fisted idea. I can agree with net neutrality, but the implementation is as important as the idea.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem with Title II is that it injects cyclical uncertainty through the forbearance process that the FCC is currently using to not have all the rules in Title II apply to ISPs.

That does mean a lot.

If the old bill has problems than I would agree on improving it but I don't trust the people in charge right now on changing it for the better so for now I stand oppose against any changes to Title II until more competent individuals are in charge of the government.

The old bill is inadequate because it was conceived at a time not everyone thought that the internet was going to be a huge thing.

The rules we're operating from date from 1996, updated from the 1934 rules. The internet landscape back then was radically different from today.

You either have to introduce a bill that amends the Telecom Act, or introduce a bill that gives the FCC regulatory authority over ISPs to the extent that is needed.

[Free Missouri]

YES. FINALLY.

Rules that are to fix a problem that doesn't exist, placing the entirety of the internet under a innovation-stifling Title II, allowing utilities taxes to be levied by the FCC against the internet, totally destroys smaller ISPs who pretty much survive on paid priority, that is supported by people like FB and Google because it also destroys their competitors, and whose stated goal could be far better reached by capitalism than by government overreach.

Net neutrality is dead, as it should be. To hell with Net Neutrality. I am excited to see it enter it's grave, so I can piss on it.

If you think innovation is being stifled because of Title II wait until it is gone, you would see a complete stagnation of innovation. The only ones who would benefit from this are larger corporations who would not see a reason to try new things because they would have enough wealth and power to be comfortable on where they are at and crush smaller companies before they can start, which incidentally would have been the ones to bring in new things to the public.

This is total BS.

You people who support the massive government overreach of NN are totally and completely idiotic for falling for these ideas.

NN Only helps the websites which engage in massively disproportionate uses of bandwidth, and thus deserve to be charged more for access and use of the infrastructure that they use more. Namely Netflix, Pornsites, Social Media, and Google. Netflix alone they said is something like 30% of surface internet bandwidth using.

You don't like your ISP charging netflix or pornhub more because they use more bandwidth? Find a new one. I live in an area where there are at least 4 already in service, and my local electric Coop is starting to lay down it's own fiber optics network. And no we are not some big metropolitan area, we are in the most remote corner of Southeast Missouri. Happen to live in bumfuck nowhere? Start a new ISP, get in with contact convince that small ISP the town over that they could make money off of your town's use of netflix/pornhub seeing as it won't be throttled under them because that's how they are competing.

Title II is the absolute worst way to deal with the internet.

[Ethel mermania]

If the old bill has problems than I would agree on improving it but I don't trust the people in charge right now on changing it for the better so for now I stand oppose against any changes to Title II until more competent individuals are in charge of the government.

The old bill is inadequate because it was conceived at a time not everyone thought that the internet was going to be a huge thing.

The rules we're operating from date from 1996 when, updated from the 1934 rules. The internet landscape back then was radically different from today.

You either have to introduce a bill that amends the Telecom Act, or introduce a bill that gives the FCC regulatory authority over ISPs to the extent that is needed.

Stop talking sense.

That said I think the net should be treated as a public utility much as the phone network currently is.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

ISP's have speed plans to sell.

I know that. I'm assuming this "corporate takeover" of the internet will result in prices being higher, with the most expensive plans being faster and the cheapest plans being slower than they are now.

Yes. In essence, everyone gets a downgrade including those who allready pay for a fast internet.

And, to get back to that same level of service they where getting from that company for years, they need to pay more for "packs" to make Netflix ect faster. Despite it being fast before Net Neutrally going away.

Oh, and if they so happen to have a digital distribution service, they will keep those speeds up just fine.

But If you want to use one that rivals theirs? They will slow you down.

[Naval Monte]

If the old bill has problems than I would agree on improving it but I don't trust the people in charge right now on changing it for the better so for now I stand oppose against any changes to Title II until more competent individuals are in charge of the government.

The old bill is inadequate because it was conceived at a time not everyone thought that the internet was going to be a huge thing.

The rules we're operating from date from 1996 when, updated from the 1934 rules. The internet landscape back then was radically different from today.

You either have to introduce a bill that amends the Telecom Act, or introduce a bill that gives the FCC regulatory authority over ISPs to the extent that is needed.

I can agree with you that the old bill would need an update but I still believe that right now it is best not to do with while republicians have control over the government because chances are they would just change it to benefit companies over the American people.

[Arlenton]

I know that. I'm assuming this "corporate takeover" of the internet will result in prices being higher, with the most expensive plans being faster and the cheapest plans being slower than they are now.

Yes. In essence, everyone gets a downgrade including those who allready pay for a fast internet.

And, to get back to that same level of service they where getting from that company for years, they need to pay more for "packs" to make Netflix ect faster. Despite it being fast before Net Neutrally going away.

Oh, and if they so happen to have a digital distribution service, they will keep those speeds up just fine.

But If you want to use one that rivals theirs? They will slow you down.

That is what I thought. Time to pay extra for the best internet. Charge people money to come over and watch Netflix to cover the costs.

[Pharoahs Haven]

Give'em hell boys!

[Reploid Productions]

I piss upon the grave of net neutrality, and spit in the direction of it's supporters.

You people who support the massive government overreach of NN are totally and completely idiotic for falling for these ideas.

The rest of your post was fine, up until this blatant troll/flamebait of your opponents. Given your track record, *** Free Missouri, WARNED for trolling. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[McNernia]

Egads, this'll slow down the anime streams. That cannot be allowed.

Seeing meguca is buffering.

Than spread the word so that doesn't happen because along with screwing over consumer and average internet users these repeals would screw over other business both out and in the US and just benefit a few companies who already have a monopolistic power on the US internet.

Ive spread the word.

[Vassenor]

If you think innovation is being stifled because of Title II wait until it is gone, you would see a complete stagnation of innovation. The only ones who would benefit from this are larger corporations who would not see a reason to try new things because they would have enough wealth and power to be comfortable on where they are at and crush smaller companies before they can start, which incidentally would have been the ones to bring in new things to the public.

This is total BS.

You people who support the massive government overreach of NN are totally and completely idiotic for falling for these ideas.

NN Only helps the websites which engage in massively disproportionate uses of bandwidth, and thus deserve to be charged more for access and use of the infrastructure that they use more. Namely Netflix, Pornsites, Social Media, and Google. Netflix alone they said is something like 30% of surface internet bandwidth using.

You don't like your ISP charging netflix or pornhub more because they use more bandwidth? Find a new one. I live in an area where there are at least 4 already in service, and my local electric Coop is starting to lay down it's own fiber optics network. And no we are not some big metropolitan area, we are in the most remote corner of Southeast Missouri. Happen to live in bumfuck nowhere? Start a new ISP, get in with contact convince that small ISP the town over that they could make money off of your town's use of netflix/pornhub seeing as it won't be throttled under them because that's how they are competing.

Title II is the absolute worst way to deal with the internet.

Fun fact: A great many people in America don't have the choice. They have one possible ISP. One. So "oh, just find another ISP if you don't like what your current one is doing" is just not an option.

[The Transhuman Union]

I'm curious to see what will happen to the Europeans after this repeal passes (if it does)

[Pharoahs Haven]

I'm curious to see what will happen to the Europeans after this repeal passes (if it does)

The USA has no jurisdiction in Europe

[Telconi]

This is total BS.

You people who support the massive government overreach of NN are totally and completely idiotic for falling for these ideas.

NN Only helps the websites which engage in massively disproportionate uses of bandwidth, and thus deserve to be charged more for access and use of the infrastructure that they use more. Namely Netflix, Pornsites, Social Media, and Google. Netflix alone they said is something like 30% of surface internet bandwidth using.

You don't like your ISP charging netflix or pornhub more because they use more bandwidth? Find a new one. I live in an area where there are at least 4 already in service, and my local electric Coop is starting to lay down it's own fiber optics network. And no we are not some big metropolitan area, we are in the most remote corner of Southeast Missouri. Happen to live in bumfuck nowhere? Start a new ISP, get in with contact convince that small ISP the town over that they could make money off of your town's use of netflix/pornhub seeing as it won't be throttled under them because that's how they are competing.

Title II is the absolute worst way to deal with the internet.

Fun fact: A great many people in America don't have the choice. They have one possible ISP. One. So "oh, just find another ISP if you don't like what your current one is doing" is just not an option.

"A great many" got a source on that number?

[Naval Monte]

I'm curious to see what will happen to the Europeans after this repeal passes (if it does)

At best nothing happens. But worst it can inspire some other politicians in Europe to try and do a similar act.

[Vassenor]

I'm curious to see what will happen to the Europeans after this repeal passes (if it does)

Considering Net Neutrality isn't a thing in a number of European nations which have been held up as examples of what will happen if this repeal goes through...

[Ethel mermania]

This is total BS.

You people who support the massive government overreach of NN are totally and completely idiotic for falling for these ideas.

NN Only helps the websites which engage in massively disproportionate uses of bandwidth, and thus deserve to be charged more for access and use of the infrastructure that they use more. Namely Netflix, Pornsites, Social Media, and Google. Netflix alone they said is something like 30% of surface internet bandwidth using.

You don't like your ISP charging netflix or pornhub more because they use more bandwidth? Find a new one. I live in an area where there are at least 4 already in service, and my local electric Coop is starting to lay down it's own fiber optics network. And no we are not some big metropolitan area, we are in the most remote corner of Southeast Missouri. Happen to live in bumfuck nowhere? Start a new ISP, get in with contact convince that small ISP the town over that they could make money off of your town's use of netflix/pornhub seeing as it won't be throttled under them because that's how they are competing.

Title II is the absolute worst way to deal with the internet.

Fun fact: A great many people in America don't have the choice. They have one possible ISP. One. So "oh, just find another ISP if you don't like what your current one is doing" is just not an option.

For most Americans it is an option. Only very rural areas don't have both telco and cable access.