FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Naval Monte]

You know things are bad when a FCC Comissioner wants people to undermine their plans.

[Herador]

You may take your tutting and place it somewhere out of view.

You're a senior mod. If you think it's flamebaiting then do something about it. Otherwise, don't threaten players.

Moderators involved in a thread can't make calls about posts in that thread, if memory serves.

[Independant Nations and Guilds]

You know things are bad when a FCC Comissioner wants people to undermine their plans.

That really is bad. Thanks for sharing the video. I'll be resharing it on other sites.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Net Neutrality renders ISP companies, by comparison to pre-NN, so unprofitable that they cannot lay new lines or upgrade their infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the basis behind NN is grounded in a bill that is nearly ninety years old and existed to regulate the earliest phone lines. The Internet succeeded because when ARPA and the DOD turned it over, the people that assumed its governance said "there will be no regulation of this sucker whatsoever".

The Internet is free, open, and successful because the government wisely refused to ruin it. Net Neutrality is government regulation of the Internet, which stifles profits, which in turn, stifle infrastructure upgrades. If you want to end the USA's reign as the dominant innovator of the Internet, by all means, let the government ruin the Internet.

[Galloism]

Net Neutrality renders ISP companies, by comparison to pre-NN, so unprofitable that they cannot lay new lines or upgrade their infrastructure.

Then why do the ISPs say the opposite during their earnings calls to shareholders?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Then why do the ISPs say the opposite during their earnings calls to shareholders?

Everyone uses the Internet and everyone pays the ISP oligarchies to use the Internet. Even with the government trying to ruin the Internet, they will still turn a profit. That's why, in my post, I said "comparitively".

[Galloism]

Then why do the ISPs say the opposite during their earnings calls to shareholders?

-because everyone uses the Internet and everyone pays the ISP oligarchies to use the Internet. That's why, in my post, I said "comparitively".

Except they specifically deny that during their earnings calls - saying NN has little impact on profitability and infrastructure investment.

Are you accusing them of lying to their shareholders? That’s quite the accusation.

[Naval Monte]

Another video that offers what to do encase we lost.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJtD_3X-TmI

[Alvecia]

I love how people here are praising plebbit for unironically supporting internet communism.

Seize the mean of pro-gramming

[Vassenor]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Net Neutrality renders ISP companies, by comparison to pre-NN, so unprofitable that they cannot lay new lines or upgrade their infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the basis behind NN is grounded in a bill that is nearly ninety years old and existed to regulate the earliest phone lines. The Internet succeeded because when ARPA and the DOD turned it over, the people that assumed its governance said "there will be no regulation of this sucker whatsoever".

The Internet is free, open, and successful because the government wisely refused to ruin it. Net Neutrality is government regulation of the Internet, which stifles profits, which in turn, stifle infrastructure upgrades. If you want to end the USA's reign as the dominant innovator of the Internet, by all means, let the government ruin the Internet.

So how does Net Neutrality render ISPs unprofitable? And how is Net Neutrality government regulating the internet?

And you know, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... nvestment/

[Petrolheadia]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Net Neutrality renders ISP companies, by comparison to pre-NN, so unprofitable that they cannot lay new lines or upgrade their infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the basis behind NN is grounded in a bill that is nearly ninety years old and existed to regulate the earliest phone lines. The Internet succeeded because when ARPA and the DOD turned it over, the people that assumed its governance said "there will be no regulation of this sucker whatsoever".

The Internet is free, open, and successful because the government wisely refused to ruin it. Net Neutrality is government regulation of the Internet, which stifles profits, which in turn, stifle infrastructure upgrades. If you want to end the USA's reign as the dominant innovator of the Internet, by all means, let the government ruin the Internet.

First, I think I'll buy a car and drive it into a crowd, because it'd be my property, so I could use it as I see fit.

Second, how does selecting the websites you want to give faster traffic to (and I guarantee 100% of them will be by big conglomerates) support free competition?

[Vassenor]

First, I think I'll buy a car and drive it into a crowd, because it'd be my property, so I could use it as I see fit.

Second, how does selecting the websites you want to give faster traffic to (and I guarantee 100% of them will be by big conglomerates) support free competition?

1) childish comparison
2) "selecting the websites you want to give faster traffic to" wat?

That's what ISPs did before NN. Comcast quite infamously throttled Netflix speeds until the company paid them more money.

[RepubblicaItaliano]

Essentially the government is giving up control of the Internet and giving it to the main cable providers, which they are going to use to completely subsidize the internet and it's sites. Certain websites will be faster than others and some will downright cost you to enter due to the providers manipulation of the internet and decision of "Who is gonna get what, what websites will succeed, and what businesses will get forced back into advertising in the newspapers."

While people have made memes about it like how Ajiit Pai has made a deal with the internet providers that if they get complete control then they would ban his haters from the internet, and so on and so forth. I have found the topic to be quite dumb, the FCC offers little good reason for it and even though they claim that it is the Liberals who don't want the net neutrality act repealed it was shown that all parties have a high disagreement count for the repeal of the net neutrality act but i suppose public opinion no longer matters.

[Vassenor]

Essentially the government is giving up control of the Internet and giving it to the main cable providers, which they are going to use to completely subsidize the internet and it's sites. Certain websites will be faster than others and some will downright cost you to enter due to the providers manipulation of the internet and decision of "Who is gonna get what, what websites will succeed, and what businesses will get forced back into advertising in the newspapers."

While people have made memes about it like how Ajiit Pai has made a deal with the internet providers that if they get complete control then they would ban his haters from the internet, and so on and so forth. I have found the topic to be quite dumb, the FCC offers little good reason for it and even though they claim that it is the Liberals who don't want the net neutrality act repealed it was shown that all parties have a high disagreement count for the repeal of the net neutrality act but i suppose public opinion no longer matters.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't have been an attempt by the FCC to block investigations into whether large numbers of pro-repeal comments during consultation were fraudulent.

[Camicon]

That's what ISPs did before NN. Comcast quite infamously throttled Netflix speeds until the company paid them more money.

In that case, since i'm a Europoor and was never affected by this, i have to say that i have no idea how it supports free competition.

It supports the free competition of businesses that are based on the internet by forcing internet providers to treat them all the same.

Net neutrality doesn't regulate the internet, it regulates internet providers.

[Arlenton]

I hope they ban Netflix.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It supports the free competition of businesses that are based on the internet by forcing internet providers to treat them all the same.

Net neutrality doesn't regulate the internet, it regulates internet providers.

Did the internet providers ever treat any info differently?

YES.

This is about internet SPEEDS.

Internet speed is information speed.

[Camicon]

It supports the free competition of businesses that are based on the internet by forcing internet providers to treat them all the same.

Net neutrality doesn't regulate the internet, it regulates internet providers.

Did the internet providers ever treat any info differently? This is about internet SPEEDS.

Yes, they have. Comcast throttled Netflix until Netflix paid them off.

[RepubblicaItaliano]

Essentially the government is giving up control of the Internet and giving it to the main cable providers, which they are going to use to completely subsidize the internet and it's sites. Certain websites will be faster than others and some will downright cost you to enter due to the providers manipulation of the internet and decision of "Who is gonna get what, what websites will succeed, and what businesses will get forced back into advertising in the newspapers."

While people have made memes about it like how Ajiit Pai has made a deal with the internet providers that if they get complete control then they would ban his haters from the internet, and so on and so forth. I have found the topic to be quite dumb, the FCC offers little good reason for it and even though they claim that it is the Liberals who don't want the net neutrality act repealed it was shown that all parties have a high disagreement count for the repeal of the net neutrality act but i suppose public opinion no longer matters.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't have been an attempt by the FCC to block investigations into whether large numbers of pro-repeal comments during consultation were fraudulent.

Fair point but still, FCC is still going to get the act passed one way or another. Unless of course people out there actually listen.

[Liriena]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Net Neutrality renders ISP companies, by comparison to pre-NN, so unprofitable that they cannot lay new lines or upgrade their infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the basis behind NN is grounded in a bill that is nearly ninety years old and existed to regulate the earliest phone lines. The Internet succeeded because when ARPA and the DOD turned it over, the people that assumed its governance said "there will be no regulation of this sucker whatsoever".

The Internet is free, open, and successful because the government wisely refused to ruin it. Net Neutrality is government regulation of the Internet, which stifles profits, which in turn, stifle infrastructure upgrades. If you want to end the USA's reign as the dominant innovator of the Internet, by all means, let the government ruin the Internet.

So how does Net Neutrality render ISPs unprofitable? And how is Net Neutrality government regulating the internet?

And you know, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... nvestment/

Ars Technica is bae.

[Liriena]

Did the internet providers ever treat any info differently? This is about internet SPEEDS.

Yes, they have. Comcast throttled Netflix until Netflix paid them off.

And before that, there was the P2P controversy that started the whole thing.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Your argument would hold water if this was the 90s, back when internet wasn't integral to our technology. These days, you LITERALLY CAN'T OPERATE A COMPUTER OR SIMILAR DEVICE WITHOUT AN INTERNET CONNECTION. Even if a computer itself is a self-contained system, almost ALL software these days uses the internet for authentication, updates and patches, and/or some other reason, and this even applies to the computer's operating system. The internet is no longer a luxury, it's a NECESSITY. And with the rise of IoT (I have my own issues with "Internet of Things" devices, but they have nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with InfoSec), it's not just computers, smart phones and tablets that need a connection. There are thermostats, coffee pots, aquarium monitor systems, cars, and even a freakin' hydroelectric dam in France (don't ask) that all rely on the internet for some reason or another.

[Liriena]

The Internet is a luxury. It is a privilege and not a right. Those are not your lines, not your infrastructure, not your hosts. It is your ISP's property and they have a right to use it as they see fit.

Your argument would hold water if this was the 90s, back when internet wasn't integral to our technology. These days, you LITERALLY CAN'T OPERATE A COMPUTER OR SIMILAR DEVICE WITHOUT AN INTERNET CONNECTION. Even if a computer itself is a self-contained system, almost ALL software these days uses the internet for authentication, updates and patches, and/or some other reason, and this even applies to the computer's operating system. The internet is no longer a luxury, it's a NECESSITY. And with the rise of IoT (I have my own issues with "Internet of Things" devices, but they have nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with InfoSec), it's not just computers, smart phones and tablets that need a connection. There are thermostats, coffee pots, aquarium monitor systems, cars, and even a freakin' hydroelectric dam in France (don't ask) that all rely on the internet for some reason or another.

Yeah, the internet has already become a social and economic necessity in practice, even if it's not recognized as a human right by many. That its infrastructure is privately owned does not change that.

[Alvecia]

Your argument would hold water if this was the 90s, back when internet wasn't integral to our technology. These days, you LITERALLY CAN'T OPERATE A COMPUTER OR SIMILAR DEVICE WITHOUT AN INTERNET CONNECTION. Even if a computer itself is a self-contained system, almost ALL software these days uses the internet for authentication, updates and patches, and/or some other reason, and this even applies to the computer's operating system. The internet is no longer a luxury, it's a NECESSITY. And with the rise of IoT (I have my own issues with "Internet of Things" devices, but they have nothing to do with Net Neutrality and everything to do with InfoSec), it's not just computers, smart phones and tablets that need a connection. There are thermostats, coffee pots, aquarium monitor systems, cars, and even a freakin' hydroelectric dam in France (don't ask) that all rely on the internet for some reason or another.

Yeah, the internet has already become a social and economic necessity in practice, even if it's not recognized as a human right by many. That its infrastructure is privately owned does not change that.

It’s so integral to our technology it’s on par with electricity as a utility, I’d say. Not a necessity for life, but a necessity for the average quality of life in most all Western nations.

[USS Monitor]

You may take your tutting and place it somewhere out of view.

You're a senior mod. If you think it's flamebaiting then do something about it. Otherwise, don't threaten players.

She couldn't rule on it because she was a participant in the thread. She brought it to the attention of other moderators, and I ruled the post not actionable.

Seriously? Way to flamebait me -- and set up a strawman all at once.

It's not actionable as flamebait.

I hope this post clears up any confusion about what took place. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.