FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Outer Sparta]

I don't understand the rationale between less regulations = more internet freedom. It's like saying having less sweets in your diet = an unhealthier diet.

That's not really a good comparison. Regulations can be good or bad. In this case they were good (relative to the status quo), but not all regulations are good.

I probably should've said getting rid of certain regulations are bad, such as environmental protections and net neutrality.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't understand the rationale between less regulations = more internet freedom. It's like saying having less sweets in your diet = an unhealthier diet.

That's not really a good comparison. Regulations can be good or bad. In this case they were good (relative to the status quo), but not all regulations are good.

i am not seeing how prioritization without rate limiting is a bad idea.

though as before i think local access should be considered a public utility. and the internet belongs under FCC control and not the FTC.

[Archysall]

I don't understand the rationale between less regulations = more internet freedom. It's like saying having less sweets in your diet = an unhealthier diet.

That's not really a good comparison. Regulations can be good or bad. In this case they were good (relative to the status quo), but not all regulations are good.

It's a shame all regulations are just band-aids that we've been treating as surgery forever

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It seems like a good portion of society is trying to call bullshit, but Ajit Pai and those like him literally don’t care and are gonna do what they do anyway.

That sort of behavior is only going to make the divide in the US even worse. Though it would be funny if this bill is passed and all of Trumps tweets are censored by companies that are against him.

It’s already further dividing us as far as I can tell, it’s only going to get worse as long as these particular bureaucrats keep totally discarding the public and doing whatever they wanna do. It’s unfortunate but unless we elect better people it’ll keep happening.

[Archysall]

That sort of behavior is only going to make the divide in the US even worse. Though it would be funny if this bill is passed and all of Trumps tweets are censored by companies that are against him.

It’s already further dividing us as far as I can tell, it’s only going to get worse as long as these particular bureaucrats keep totally discarding the public and doing whatever they wanna do. It’s unfortunate but unless we elect better people it’ll keep happening.

“Despotic governments can stand 'moral force' till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”

[Petrasylvania]

It’s already further dividing us as far as I can tell, it’s only going to get worse as long as these particular bureaucrats keep totally discarding the public and doing whatever they wanna do. It’s unfortunate but unless we elect better people it’ll keep happening.

“Despotic governments can stand 'moral force' till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”

Good grief, we've already had to endure weeks of VIVA LA REVOLUÇION, don't encourage it again.

[The Federation of Kendor]

Regulatory control helps keep the internet fair by telling what the ISPs can and can't do. A repeal would provide less freedom because ISPs can do whatever they want.

I agree with you, I was mocking his one-track more gov=less freedom talk.
Honestly, this is either genuine stupidity or corporate shilling.

I agree with you, I was mocking his one-track more gov=less freedom talk.
Honestly, this is either genuine stupidity or corporate shilling.

I don't understand the rationale between less regulations = more internet freedom. It's like saying having less sweets in your diet = an unhealthier diet.

What do you all mean?

[Xelsis]

Net Neutrality in the United States is the FCC, a government agency, regulating the internet under Title II, which gives the government a great deal of regulatory power, rather than under Title I as previously, which allowed minimal power to the government.

The repeal of Net Neutrality is the rollback of federal regulatory authority on the internet. The repeal is what provides greater internet freedom.

It gives ISPs greater freedom. It probably will result in the user having less freedom.

The world is complicated.

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

I agree with you, I was mocking his one-track more gov=less freedom talk.
Honestly, this is either genuine stupidity or corporate shilling.

I don't understand the rationale between less regulations = more internet freedom. It's like saying having less sweets in your diet = an unhealthier diet.

What do you all mean?

What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It gives ISPs greater freedom. It probably will result in the user having less freedom.

The world is complicated.

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

Meat companies had freedom to put whatever in their products until they regulated that, not seeing how that's a good thing.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

ISP executives are unelected bureaucrats, and their one goal is to squeeze as much money as they can it of you.

What do you all mean?

What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

[The East Marches II]

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.




What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

Then what's needed is trust busting and not "net neutrality" no?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

Then what's needed is trust busting and not "net neutrality" no?

Why not both?

[Esternial]

So basically some folks want the equivalent of AT&T as their ISP.

Presumably some of them want it just so they don't have to cave on their blanket-statement ideology.

[Valrifell]

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

Then what's needed is trust busting and not "net neutrality" no?

Why not both?

[Ethel mermania]

So basically some folks want the equivalent of AT&T as their ISP.

Presumably some of them want it just so they don't have to cave on their blanket-statement ideology.

I don't understand your point?

[Salandriagado]

That's not really a good comparison. Regulations can be good or bad. In this case they were good (relative to the status quo), but not all regulations are good.

i am not seeing how prioritization without rate limiting is a bad idea.

though as before i think local access should be considered a public utility. and the internet belongs under FCC control and not the FTC.

Prioritisation without rate limiting is simply impossible. If you're giving more bandwidth to some websites, you necessarily do that at the cost of other websites. You have finitely much bandwidth to play with.

It gives ISPs greater freedom. It probably will result in the user having less freedom.

The world is complicated.

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

That's an utterly ridiculous "if", because neither one of those remotely describes either option here.

What do you all mean?

What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Stop lying.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

Unless the companies are functional monopolies. And lack of net neutrality regulations will just encourage those monopolies (step #1 of being a shitty ISP: block access to the websites of all other ISPs).

[Ethel mermania]

i am not seeing how prioritization without rate limiting is a bad idea.

though as before i think local access should be considered a public utility. and the internet belongs under FCC control and not the FTC.

Prioritisation without rate limiting is simply impossible. If you're giving more bandwidth to some websites, you necessarily do that at the cost of other websites. You have finitely much bandwidth to play with.

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

That's an utterly ridiculous "if", because neither one of those remotely describes either option here.

What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Stop lying.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

Unless the companies are functional monopolies. And lack of net neutrality regulations will just encourage those monopolies (step #1 of being a shitty ISP: block access to the websites of all other ISPs).

I don't think you understand how class of service works.

[Galloism]

It gives ISPs greater freedom. It probably will result in the user having less freedom.

The world is complicated.

It does give the ISPs more freedom, as they've had for almost the entire history of the internet.

If the option is between a number of ISPs competing for customers, and unelected bureaucrats who are trying to regulate the internet like a phone line-only one of them is responsive to your business, and only one of them has competing options, and that one is not the government.

Well, I have more competing options in government than I do for ISPs. That's because, like other utilities, the infrastructure costs are so extreme to setup an ISP, they often form natural monopolies or oligopolies, which are not responsive to the needs of the people at all, being both unelected AND having no need to listen to me.

What do you all mean?

What it boils down to is whether you're more comfortable with a variety of companies competing for customers capable of modifying their own products, but not others, or Donald Trump's administration having vast regulatory authority over the internet.

Companies that tick off their customer base enough that they stop buying get driven out of business, and replaced by companies that give the customers what they want. The government's going to be there whether you like it or not-and customer dissatisfaction won't drive it out of business.

Yeah, when they're the only game in town (or the only other game in town does the same thing), being shitty won't drive down their business or drive them out of business.

Look at Comcast.

[Salandriagado]

Prioritisation without rate limiting is simply impossible. If you're giving more bandwidth to some websites, you necessarily do that at the cost of other websites. You have finitely much bandwidth to play with.



That's an utterly ridiculous "if", because neither one of those remotely describes either option here.



Stop lying.



Unless the companies are functional monopolies. And lack of net neutrality regulations will just encourage those monopolies (step #1 of being a shitty ISP: block access to the websites of all other ISPs).

I don't think you understand how class of service works.

Go on then, explain how they can deliver some websites faster than what they currently deliver (which is "what the hardware is capable of") without slowing down other websites.

[Xelsis]

Meat companies had freedom to put whatever in their products until they regulated that, not seeing how that's a good thing.

I'd call the creation and expansion of the internet through 2014 a pretty "good thing"

ISP executives are unelected bureaucrats, and their one goal is to squeeze as much money as they can it of you.

Yes, indeed. And to squeeze money out of you, they have to give you something that you want. The government doesn't need your satisfaction-they can tax you either way. But if a private entity doesn't give you a product that you like, they don't make any money, and out of business they go.

This does not happen in an oligopoly.

Sounds like we should be cutting down on the government regs that set that system up then, doesn't it?

There public couldn't simply "stop buying"from the oil barons, they couldn't simply "stop buying" from the railway barons, and they can't simply "stop buying" from the ISPs.

And now you're trying to make argument number two for governments to stop trying to make "natural" monopolies out of ISPs.

Well, I have more competing options in government than I do for ISPs. That's because, like other utilities, the infrastructure costs are so extreme to setup an ISP, they often form natural monopolies or oligopolies, which are not responsive to the needs of the people at all, being both unelected AND having no need to listen to me.

Costs that are heavily inflated by government meddling in the process. What you get is government hurdles put in the way of startups, the government considering ISPs "natural" monopolies, and then suddenly the demand for federal regulation to solve the problem that was created by regulation in the first place.

Yeah, when they're the only game in town (or the only other game in town does the same thing), being shitty won't drive down their business or drive them out of business.

Look at Comcast.

Which brings us, again, as most of these things do, to getting the hurdles and regulations out of the way of startups.

[Tevehas]

We didn't have Net Neutrality up until 2014, it's not like every website on the internet didn't exist until 2014.

Net Neutrality will allow ISP's to actually charge companies like Google and Facebook (Who are also "coincidentally" sponsoring Pro-NN stuff) for the amount of bandwidth their services use up, and may actually now provide an incentive for ISP's to further upgrade and expand their network infrastructure knowing that their customers will be able to more effectively utilize it rather than having the load of high-usage services take up the freshly laid lines. Comcast and Google are one in the same: They're big companies who only care about the bottom line. Google and Amazon don't care about you, they care about your wallet. If you really want a free and open internet, stop supporting legislation like NN and write your local municipality about lowering the cost for ISP's to lay fiber on public land. The reason we don't have more competition in the wired market is because small towns and states strangle the competition, if you want to give Comcast a run for their money vote with your wallet and not with twitter.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't think you understand how class of service works.

Go on then, explain how they can deliver some websites faster than what they currently deliver (which is "what the hardware is capable of") without slowing down other websites.

No, I am not teaching you ow the internet works, got take a class or three before making stuff up that you don't know about. As simple as I can put it, you don't limit when you configure prioritization.

[Great Nepal]

We didn't have Net Neutrality up until 2014, it's not like every website on the internet didn't exist until 2014.

Net Neutrality will allow ISP's to actually charge companies like Google and Facebook (Who are also "coincidentally" sponsoring Pro-NN stuff) for the amount of bandwidth their services use up,

Which is already paid for when people pay their internet bill. Transferring 1 bit of data from Google doesn't cost anymore than transferring 1 bit of data from Nationstates which doesn't cost more than transferring 1 bit of data from Netflix - 1 bit is 1 bit is 1 bit. Granted Netflix sends more bits to transfer data than Nationstates does but consumer has already paid for that volume because they've bought right to transfer upto x bit of data via their internet connection - how consumer chooses to allocate those x bits is upto them.

Idea that somehow Google and Facebook are 'freeloading' on amount of bandwidth used is akin to arguing alienware is freeloading by using too much electricity therefore electricity companies should be able to prohibit their electricity from being used on alienware PCs unless alienware pays them billions of dollars.

and may actually now provide an incentive for ISP's to further upgrade and expand their network infrastructure knowing that their customers will be able to more effectively utilize it rather than having the load of high-usage services take up the freshly laid lines.

Perhaps fact that people are using services that take up increased capacity means capacity isn't sufficient and therefore should be increased, using the money those people are paying? American ISPs seem to be only group of companies who complain that their product, that they are selling is being used too much.

Comcast and Google are one in the same: They're big companies who only care about the bottom line. Google and Amazon don't care about you, they care about your wallet. If you really want a free and open internet, stop supporting legislation like NN and write your local municipality about lowering the cost for ISP's to lay fiber on public land. The reason we don't have more competition in the wired market is because small towns and states strangle the competition, if you want to give Comcast a run for their money vote with your wallet and not with twitter.

Which physical infrastructure sector is massively competitive?

[Republic of Keshiland]

ATTENTION ALL COMCAST USERS! THEY REMOVED THEIR NET NEUTRALETY PLEDGE

Rip free internet

[Galloism]

ATTENTION ALL COMCAST USERS! THEY REMOVED THEIR NET NEUTRALETY PLEDGE

Rip free internet

Of course they did.

[Parcia]

It's shit like this that makes Alex Jones seem reasonable.
That scares me.