FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Afrikaaners Ryk]

I guarantee you it won't "End the Internet" or "Kill Internet Privacy" like HuffPo, CNN, the LATimes, Google, Wikipedia, among a bunch of other sites want you to think

And Github, and Etsy, and Kickstarter, and netflix, and Twitter, and Vimeo, and Reddit, and Mozilla, and the EFF, and OkCupid, and the ACLU, and Discord, and Facebook, and AirBNB, and Amazon, and Bandcamp, and Bittorrent, and Change.org, and CollegeHumor, and Creative Commons, and Deviantart, and DropBox, and DuckDuckGo, and FourSquare, and a plethora of VPN's, and Pintrest, and PornHub, and PornMD, and Redtube, and Spotify, and The nation, and Tumblr, and Vidme, and Writers Guild of America East/West, and Yelp, and likely Microsoft.

A lot of these aren't small business' and they know what they're talking about.

Don't forget Musical.ly, 4chan, Fox, Cracked.com, Fox News, the Independent, YouTube, BlogTalk Radio, Myspace, Roblox, 8chan, BestGore, Al-Jazeera, Equestria Daily, PornHub Gay, XXXVideos, Miiverse, Shadbase, Wikia, True Capitalist Radio, AO3, Steam Forums, battle.net and e621!

[Zohiania]

When people are complaining about net neutrality being repealed and not the internet being in the control of the the international community, you know like authoritarian regimes which threaten freedom of speech and would lead to censorship of the internet. One of the main reasons the U.S. has argued to keep the Internet out of the hands of the United Nations's International Telecommunications Unit (ITU) is that the Internet does not classify as a "telecommunication service" and is therefore not in the ITU's purview. However, these net neutrality regulations specifically designate the Internet as a telecommunication service, hamstringing the country in arguing for the Internet to remain out of the ITU's control.

[Vassenor]

And Github, and Etsy, and Kickstarter, and netflix, and Twitter, and Vimeo, and Reddit, and Mozilla, and the EFF, and OkCupid, and the ACLU, and Discord, and Facebook, and AirBNB, and Amazon, and Bandcamp, and Bittorrent, and Change.org, and CollegeHumor, and Creative Commons, and Deviantart, and DropBox, and DuckDuckGo, and FourSquare, and a plethora of VPN's, and Pintrest, and PornHub, and PornMD, and Redtube, and Spotify, and The nation, and Tumblr, and Vidme, and Writers Guild of America East/West, and Yelp, and likely Microsoft.

A lot of these aren't small business' and they know what they're talking about.

Don't forget Musical.ly, 4chan, Fox, Cracked.com, Fox News, the Independent, YouTube, BlogTalk Radio, Myspace, Roblox, 8chan, BestGore, Al-Jazeera, Equestria Daily, PornHub Gay, XXXVideos, Miiverse, Shadbase, Wikia, True Capitalist Radio, AO3, Steam Forums, battle.net and e621!

Meanwhile Yahoo is completely in favor of the repeal, which totally doesn't have anything to do with them being a Verizon subsidiary or anything honest.

[Salandriagado]

When people are complaining about net neutrality being repealed and not the internet being in the control of the the international community, you know like authoritarian regimes which threaten freedom of speech and would lead to censorship of the internet. One of the main reasons the U.S. has argued to keep the Internet out of the hands of the United Nations's International Telecommunications Unit (ITU) is that the Internet does not classify as a "telecommunication service" and is therefore not in the ITU's purview. However, these net neutrality regulations specifically designate the Internet as a telecommunication service, hamstringing the country in arguing for the Internet to remain out of the ITU's control.

If you're going to lie, at least make an effort to make it not entirely obvious.

[Xelsis]

1. Yet nothing even slightly approaching the claim that, without net neutrality, everyone will have to buy the internet in packages, every website will have a slowdown, and startups will be strangled by speed-based blackmail. All of these are put forward as inevitabilities, despite the fact that anyone can just take a gander at the internet and see that's not the case.

2. The problem with that argument is that the solution is completely backwards to it-"The internet has changed, and laws need to change with it", is very much an argument against classifying the internet as telecommunications, putting regulations of the past that were never intended for it on it.





http://openforumacademy.org/library/ofa ... 130905.pdf

Oops, got the date wrong. You are still lying.

So when my source isn't up-to-date to a development less than a year and a half old, as of April 2016, I'm "lying".

But when you make an openly false statement about something thirteen years ago, you get out with an "oops" and "got the date wrong"?

Yeah, bull on that. Eleven of those under-thirteen years you said they had net neutrality they didn't.

So, Latvia's under the EU net neutrality. The simple question to ask is the same as the simple question in America-did all these evil things that people are claiming will happen if net neutrality is repealed happen in the whole history of the internet up to 2015 in the U.S. and 2016 in Latvia?

Because when the answer is no, and it is, the fearmongering falls apart.

[Salandriagado]

Oops, got the date wrong. You are still lying.

So when my source isn't up-to-date to a development less than a year and a half old, as of April 2016, I'm "lying".

But when you make an openly false statement about something thirteen years ago, you get out with an "oops" and "got the date wrong"?

Yeah, bull on that.

So, Latvia's under the EU net neutrality. The simple question to ask is the same as the simple question in America-did all these evil things that people are claiming will happen if net neutrality is repealed happen in the whole history of the internet up to 2015 in the U.S. and 2016 in Latvia?

Because when the answer is no, and it is, the fearmongering falls apart.

Yes, they did happen. Exactly the same as they did in the US. Just like you've been told, with evidence, repeatedly, in this very thread.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I guarantee you it won't "End the Internet" or "Kill Internet Privacy" like HuffPo, CNN, the LATimes, Google, Wikipedia, among a bunch of other sites want you to think

Do you think getting rid of net neutrality will at least damage the internet, hamper innovation, and even harming the economy?

The specter of Title II has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure.

[Salandriagado]

Do you think getting rid of net neutrality will at least damage the internet, hamper innovation, and even harming the economy?

The specter of Title II has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure.

That sounds like a claim that you can source.

[Alvecia]

Oops, got the date wrong. You are still lying.

So when my source isn't up-to-date to a development less than a year and a half old, as of April 2016, I'm "lying".

But when you make an openly false statement about something thirteen years ago, you get out with an "oops" and "got the date wrong"?

Yeah, bull on that. Eleven of those under-thirteen years you said they had net neutrality they didn't.

So, Latvia's under the EU net neutrality. The simple question to ask is the same as the simple question in America-did all these evil things that people are claiming will happen if net neutrality is repealed happen in the whole history of the internet up to 2015 in the U.S. and 2016 in Latvia?

Because when the answer is no, and it is, the fearmongering falls apart.

Pretty sure someone near the beggining of the thread pointed out that that many years ago, this kind of discriminatory provision of bandwith wasn't possible with the tech that we had.
Dunno about the veracity of it, but it's something to consider.

Also consider that so many years ago the industry was new and growing. Now it's at a comfortable stable size, the companies involved will be looking to expand their sources of revenue.

[Alvecia]

Do you think getting rid of net neutrality will at least damage the internet, hamper innovation, and even harming the economy?

The specter of Title II has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure.

The solution to "this boat has a leak" probably isn't "let's get rid of the boat"

[Nocturnalis]

I guarantee you it won't "End the Internet" or "Kill Internet Privacy" like HuffPo, CNN, the LATimes, Google, Wikipedia, among a bunch of other sites want you to think

And Github, and Etsy, and Kickstarter, and netflix, and Twitter, and Vimeo, and Reddit, and Mozilla, and the EFF, and OkCupid, and the ACLU, and Discord, and Facebook, and AirBNB, and Amazon, and Bandcamp, and Bittorrent, and Change.org, and CollegeHumor, and Creative Commons, and Deviantart, and DropBox, and DuckDuckGo, and FourSquare, and a plethora of VPN's, and Pintrest, and PornHub, and PornMD, and Redtube, and Spotify, and The nation, and Tumblr, and Vidme, and Writers Guild of America East/West, and Yelp, and likely Microsoft.

A lot of these aren't small business' and they know what they're talking about.

Sites that benefit from Net Neutrality are in favour of Net Neutrality. More news at 11.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The specter of Title II has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure.

That sounds like a claim that you can source.

sure thing

The specter of Title II has reduced investment in broadband infrastructure.

The solution to "this boat has a leak" probably isn't "let's get rid of the boat"

The Anti-Boat Leaking Act has created more leaks in this case

[Alvecia]

The solution to "this boat has a leak" probably isn't "let's get rid of the boat"

The Anti-Boat Leaking Act has created more leaks in this case

The analogy still applies.

[Taihei Tengoku]

What is the argument for NN? On the individual level, it's to increase your broadband speeds as the expectation is that it will become slower without it. The imposition of Title II NN has led to a decline in investment for broadband infrastructure, decreasing the physical available bandwidth available, and therefore whatever share you get.

[Alvecia]

What is the argument for NN? On the individual level, it's to increase your broadband speeds as the expectation is that it will become slower without it. The imposition of Title II NN has led to a decline in investment for broadband infrastructure, decreasing the physical available bandwidth available, and therefore whatever share you get.

It's not that broadband speed will become slower in general, it's that broadband speeds will become discriminatory that's the issue.

[Taihei Tengoku]

What is the argument for NN? On the individual level, it's to increase your broadband speeds as the expectation is that it will become slower without it. The imposition of Title II NN has led to a decline in investment for broadband infrastructure, decreasing the physical available bandwidth available, and therefore whatever share you get.

It's not that broadband speed will become slower in general, it's that broadband speeds will become discriminatory that's the issue.

Discriminatory to your disadvantage, which is slower (for any given constraint)

[Alvecia]

It's not that broadband speed will become slower in general, it's that broadband speeds will become discriminatory that's the issue.

Discriminatory to your disadvantage, which is slower (for any given constraint)

Yes, but comparing discriminatorily slow speeds to generalised slow speeds is a poor comparison, which is why the distinction needs to be made.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Discriminatory to your disadvantage, which is slower (for any given constraint)

Yes, but comparing discriminatorily slow speeds to generalised slow speeds is a poor comparison, which is why the distinction needs to be made.

The "discriminatory" part rubs you the wrong way because you know it's being done to your disadvantage. The key part is that your internet got slower, and you are rationalizing it with the intentions of such a slowdown.

[Alvecia]

Yes, but comparing discriminatorily slow speeds to generalised slow speeds is a poor comparison, which is why the distinction needs to be made.

The "discriminatory" part rubs you the wrong way because you know it's being done to your disadvantage. The key part is that your internet got slower, and you are rationalizing it with the intentions of such a slowdown.

It's not about the speed of my connection, it's about it's accessibility.
I'd rather be able to go everywhere slowly, than a few places quickly. Places, I might add, decided not by me, but someone who has a financial stake in choosing which sites I can access.

[Davinhia]

If it's so unpopular, why even try to pass it
It's only going to get people to not trust anything you do in the future

[Ifreann]

If it's so unpopular, why even try to pass it
It's only going to get people to not trust anything you do in the future

They need to pass their tax reform bill to keep the support of big donors like the Koch brothers.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The "discriminatory" part rubs you the wrong way because you know it's being done to your disadvantage. The key part is that your internet got slower, and you are rationalizing it with the intentions of such a slowdown.

It's not about the speed of my connection, it's about it's accessibility.
I'd rather be able to go everywhere slowly, than a few places quickly. Places, I might add, decided not by me, but someone who has a financial stake in choosing which sites I can access.

Nice signalling but what are your revealed preferences in traffic? I will bet $20 that they are some type of Pareto distribution

[Alvecia]

It's not about the speed of my connection, it's about it's accessibility.
I'd rather be able to go everywhere slowly, than a few places quickly. Places, I might add, decided not by me, but someone who has a financial stake in choosing which sites I can access.

Nice signalling but what are your revealed preferences in traffic? I will bet $20 that they are some type of Pareto distribution

What signalling? Internet traffic? Who's Pareto?

[Ifreann]

Nice signalling but what are your revealed preferences in traffic? I will bet $20 that they are some type of Pareto distribution

What signalling? Internet traffic? Who's Pareto?

Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto was an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist, philosopher, and cat lover.

[Alvecia]

What signalling? Internet traffic? Who's Pareto?

Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto was an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist, philosopher, and cat lover.

Oh. I like cats.