FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[The East Marches II]

Why New Haven is wrong.

That being said, Black Hawk Down is one of my least favorite movies from Ridley Scott. A true masterpiece has to be The Duellists. If you haven't seen it, I absolutely recommend you do. It has Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine.

-TEM liking a movie about French dualists

My like of Harvey Keitel and Ridley Scott overwhelmed my disdain for the French. Its really very good, give it a watch if you have the time.

[Arlenton]

According to the scaremongers, the internet is being shut down, free speech has been repealed, and it will now cost $1.99/Google search. Pre-2015 America must have been a nightmare.

Have you tried to explain the whole thing to an European?

Most of the people I see complaining about it aren't even American.

Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, is repealing the Net Neutrality regulations enacted in 2015.

TL;DR: Literal fucking holocaust.

[Arlenton]

1. I never claimed he was perfect
2. While also ending 2 wars...
3. You're literally the only one here who's made claims like that
4. K'then, neither am I. He was better than Bush and Trump though

I fail to see how this relates to my point, you claimed he never fixed anything, I presented evidence to the contrary, and you go off on a million different tangents, while not actually addressing my point. Tbh, the past few posts were completely uncalled for and looked really childish, I think you might need to step back and calm down a bit.

>Ending 2 wars

But thats wrong :^)

In both senses.

[Luminesa]

According to the scaremongers, the internet is being shut down, free speech has been repealed, and it will now cost $1.99/Google search. Pre-2015 America must have been a nightmare.

It wouldn't shock me if thats what happens in the future.

Says someone who has spent the last few pages scaremongering.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. And Ethel has been doing that to a lot of people in this very thread, don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.
2. That's cute, considering you just had a temper tantrum on the last page. I'm completely calm and would like to have a constructive discussion when you've calmed down, but that's your choice.

Pointing out that Obama did nothing revolutionary is now a tantrum.

This is why you get Trump, don't forget that. Oh and I can dish it out just fine. Only one of us has resorted to implying the other person is childish, and that's you.

Don't talk to me about temper tantrums when literally all you have is lashing out at people who think this is not a big deal, and to condescendingly making points that, really, make you sound paranoid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I also need to remind you, NHA, that you're the one who came up with this gem:

You're not thinking extreme enough Soldi, if big businesses can find a way to make money, they'll fucking do it. So sure, NS will porbably be safe for now, but 2-3 years from now, are you so sure?

The situation is not that dire. You're the one making a storm on a teacup, not me. Only one looks less and less prudent here, and it's not me. I'm fine.

Pointing out Obama didn't do anything stellar as a president because, hey, newsflash, had it not been him it'd have been someone else who got us out of the depression, is not a "temper tantrum", that's just you being hyperbolic as fuck again.

[New haven america]

1. And Ethel has been doing that to a lot of people in this very thread, don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.
2. That's cute, considering you just had a temper tantrum on the last page. I'm completely calm and would like to have a constructive discussion when you've calmed down, but that's your choice.

1.Pointing out that Obama did nothing revolutionary is now a tantrum.

This is why you get Trump, don't forget that. 2.Oh and I can dish it out just fine. 3. Only one of us has resorted to implying the other person is childish, and that's you.

1. Except your claim was that Obama did absolutely nothing. Then, when presented to evidence of the contrary, you have a tantrum, and then proceed to go on tangent claiming I said things that I fucking never said. I never claimed Obama was revolutionary, that was all in your head.
2. If the above is any example of that, then no you fucking can't. Also, I was talking about Ethel, who I think is fully capable of defending himself.
3. Because you threw a tantrum due to someone correcting your blanket statement?

Are you going to accept the fact that you overreacted and are going to knock it the fuck off? Or are we done here?

[New haven america]

I also need to remind you, NHA, that you're the one who came up with this gem:

You're not thinking extreme enough Soldi, if big businesses can find a way to make money, they'll fucking do it. So sure, NS will porbably be safe for now, but 2-3 years from now, are you so sure?

1. The situation is not that dire. You're the one making a storm on a teacup, not me. Only one looks less and less prudent here, and it's not me. I'm fine.

2.Pointing out Obama didn't do anything stellar as a president because, hey, newsflash, had it not been him it'd have been someone else who got us out of the depression, is not a "temper tantrum", that's just you being hyperbolic as fuck again.

1. I'm sorry I actually remember the shit the GOP tries to get away with, excuse me for actually caring about the US. I know what big business is capable of, and acting like they won't do anything is just plain wrong.
2. And if someone else got us out of that Recession, I would've said so. Go reread my point, you said he did nothing (A blanket state if I've ever seen one), I said he fixed the housing and foreclosure crisis, you then proceeded to throw a temper tantrum and putting words in my mouth. I'm honestly surprised you didn't add any autistic screeches or the like.

If you want to be on my ignore list, just say so, and save everyone the trouble. Strike that, I'll just do it, TG me when you've actually reread what I wrote.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1.Pointing out that Obama did nothing revolutionary is now a tantrum.

This is why you get Trump, don't forget that. 2.Oh and I can dish it out just fine. 3. Only one of us has resorted to implying the other person is childish, and that's you.

1. Except your claim was that Obama did absolutely nothing. Then, when presented to evidence of the contrary, you have a tantrum, and then proceed to go on tangent claiming I said things that I fucking never said. I never claimed Obama was revolutionary, that was all in your head.
2. If the above is any example of that, then no you fucking can't.
3. Because you threw a tantrum due to someone correcting your blanket statement?

Are you going to accept the fact that you overreacted and are going to knock it the fuck off? Or are we done here?

You talk about him as if he was a grand figure. He was no grand figure. Get over it.

In regards of net neutrality he made an administrative decision, and he certainly left little to nothing in stone, most of his accomplishments are being reversed, or are we forgetting about that?

Yes, Obama did absolutely nothing, he only got us out of a recession. Big whoop. That's the equivalent of saying Roosevelt got us out of the great depression. Certainly an achievement, but not something he will be remembered for. That was just him correcting something when shit hit the fan. Fixing things is not the same as doing something on his own.

I also need to remind you, NHA, that you're the one who came up with this gem:



1. The situation is not that dire. You're the one making a storm on a teacup, not me. Only one looks less and less prudent here, and it's not me. I'm fine.

2.Pointing out Obama didn't do anything stellar as a president because, hey, newsflash, had it not been him it'd have been someone else who got us out of the depression, is not a "temper tantrum", that's just you being hyperbolic as fuck again.

1. I'm sorry I actually remember the shit the GOP tries to get away with, excuse me for actually caring about the US.
2. And if someone else got us out of that Recession, I would've said so. Go reread my point, you said he did nothing (A blanket state if I've ever seen one), I said he fixed the housing and foreclosure crisis, you then proceeded to throw a temper tantrum and putting words in my mouth. I'm honestly surprised you didn't add any autistic screeches or the like.

If you want to be on my ignore list, just say so, and save everyone the trouble. Strike that, I'll just do it, TG me when you've actually reread what I wrote.

1. I'm sorry you don't understand what "the situation is not that dire" means.
2. I don't care how you feel about it. Fact is, in the grand scheme of things he actually passed no agenda that progresses anything. Everything is being reversed from the Obama era, so in reality, most of his achievements aren't even real achievements.

I really don't care about you blocking me tbh. You're not the first and you won't be the last to do so, so if you think that's going to make me rethink things, you got it wrong.

I loved the accusations of temper tantrum, tbh. That's always fun coming from someone who has been nothing but condescending and hyperbolic throughout this thread.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know what big business is capable of, and acting like they won't do anything is just plain wrong.

No, you actually don't know what big business is capable of if you think we're going to become fucking India in terms of internet within the next three years.

That's you being hyperbolic.

Remember what everyone said about Trump? We're one year in, and the same people are still spelling doom and gloom and I see no meteorite striking us yet.

You want me to believe this is going to make us slide to third-world country class internet. And I'm not buying it.

[New haven america]

1. Except your claim was that Obama did absolutely nothing. Then, when presented to evidence of the contrary, you have a tantrum, and then proceed to go on tangent claiming I said things that I fucking never said. I never claimed Obama was revolutionary, that was all in your head.
2. If the above is any example of that, then no you fucking can't.
3. Because you threw a tantrum due to someone correcting your blanket statement?

Are you going to accept the fact that you overreacted and are going to knock it the fuck off? Or are we done here?

1.You talk about him as if he was a grand figure. He was no grand figure. Get over it.

In regards of net neutrality he made an administrative decision, and he certainly left little to nothing in stone, most of his accomplishments are being reversed, or are we forgetting about that?

2.Yes, Obama did absolutely nothing, he only got us out of a recession. Big whoop. That's the equivalent of saying Roosevelt got us out of the great depression. Certainly an achievement, but not something he will be remembered for. That was just him correcting something when shit hit the fan. Fixing things is not the same as doing something on his own.

1. I'm sorry I actually remember the shit the GOP tries to get away with, excuse me for actually caring about the US.
2. And if someone else got us out of that Recession, I would've said so. Go reread my point, you said he did nothing (A blanket state if I've ever seen one), I said he fixed the housing and foreclosure crisis, you then proceeded to throw a temper tantrum and putting words in my mouth. I'm honestly surprised you didn't add any autistic screeches or the like.

If you want to be on my ignore list, just say so, and save everyone the trouble. Strike that, I'll just do it, TG me when you've actually reread what I wrote.

3. I'm sorry you don't understand what "the situation is not that dire" means.
4.. I don't care how you feel about it. Fact is, in the grand scheme of things he actually passed no agenda that progresses anything. Everything is being reversed from the Obama era, so in reality, most of his achievements aren't even real achievements.

5.I really don't care about you blocking me tbh. You're not the first and you won't be the last to do so, so if you think that's going to make me rethink things, you got it wrong.

1. No I don't, I just prefer having him over Trump, is that really such a terrible thing?
2. But that counts as doing something, which goes against your claim. Also, if the only thing FDR did was getting the US out of the Depression, I don't see why that should be ignored, why should the Recession be?
3. I'm sorry you don't remember the housing and foreclosure crisis was like, or how many people went jobless under Bush, or the loads and loads of other crap we had to go through. Things will get worse, this is just the first step.
4. You also apparently didn't understand my point. I said nothing that should've set you off that badly, but you blew up for... reasons. You're the one who misread the situation and threw a tantrum, this is your problem, not mine.
5. K'then, have fun~

[Soldati Senza Confini]

3. I'm sorry you don't remember the housing and foreclosure crisis was like, or how many people went jobless under Bush, or the loads and loads of other crap we had to go through. Things will get worse, this is just the first step.

Yes because clearly not being able to watch Netflix all day every day is the same as a housing crisis where people went fucking homeless.

Definitely putting priorities in perspective, there.

[-Ocelot-]

3. I'm sorry you don't remember the housing and foreclosure crisis was like, or how many people went jobless under Bush, or the loads and loads of other crap we had to go through. Things will get worse, this is just the first step.

Yes because clearly not being able to watch Netflix all day every day is the same as a housing crisis where people went fucking homeless.

Definitely putting priorities in perspective, there.

It's not just Netflix, is it? Americans rely on internet-based services too much, to the point that some people consider it as vital as electricity. And the ISPs are on their way to restrict access, slow down competitors and block websites that don't pay ransom. This will most likely hurt the US economy in the long-run, just like most changes this second gilded age government wants to implement.

[New haven america]

Yes because clearly not being able to watch Netflix all day every day is the same as a housing crisis where people went fucking homeless.

Definitely putting priorities in perspective, there.

It's not just Netflix, is it? Americans rely on internet-based services too much, to the point that some people consider it as vital as electricity. And the ISPs are on their way to restrict access, slow down competitors and block websites that don't pay ransom. This will most likely hurt the US economy in the long-run, just like most changes this second gilded age government wants to implement.

Nope, pretty much every company certain ISPs don't like would be targets in the US. For example, let's say a company like Comcast wants to start its own search engine, and in order to really make it popular among its costumers, Comcast would have the power to throttle... Google, or be extra assholish and put the site behind a paywall in order to leech more money from their customers (Think of the gaming industry's current problem with micro transactions). This becomes an even bigger problem considering the fact that a lot of areas in the US only have 1-2 choices of ISP's, so they'd be forced to deal with that behavior and have no real way to escape.

Unfortunatly, certain people can't see past the surface or only believe it's people just complaining about not getting Netflix or other entertainment, and not realizing that this affects a lot of sites and features that are required in today's society (Email is a good example, if an ISP doesn't like Google or Yahoo, and you only have a Gmail or Yahoo account, well you're pretty much fucked then).

[Naval Monte]

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/36 ... ity-repeal?

This magnificent bastard better win!

Also keep pestering congress so we can sway their votes to our needs.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[Salandriagado]

There is an indirect effect that must be acknowledged; a lot of providers have a large amount of their market filled by American consumers. If the cost of servicing American consumers rises, making it unprofitable to service them, overhead fixed costs could make it unprofitable to serve /just/ the portion of the market filled by foreign consumers. That's unlikely for most providers, except for those that have large portions of their market as Americans, high fixed costs, low profit margins, AND high bandwidth services...so, maybe futuristic high-definition news video.

For standard shopping sites now, it's not going to be a problem.
Once you go to video all bets are off 480i I can do in a meg. 4k video is a hog, about a 20mbs. I would be surprised if you where you are we could do 2 way 4k session without loss now even if we both had 100 meg pipes to our isp.

You can, but only in some pretty special situations: the MAGIC group of universities in the UK does multi-party video conferences with about that much data coming out of each university regularly (but those are on dedicated gigabit connections to JANET, which has its own dedicated high-bandwidth cables). Having tried to connect to one of those from outside the dedicated connections, it doesn't work.

[Salandriagado]

You say your smart, so figure it out yourself.

You do know that American companies also have their main servers and HQ's within the US, right? Hence they'd be subject to practices in the US (In Netflix's case, ISP's throttling them in order to press their own streaming services), which harms their sales in their main consumer base, which will also harm their international capabilities. It can make it unprofitable to service the US, which will either: Cause the company to die, force them to move their business outside the US and maybe even stop servicing the country altogether, or limit their capabilities to service international clients.

Nice cut and paste but that is wrong too.
The content is already downloaded to those foreign servers. A french customer of netflix steams from europe. When new content is uploaded. The file uploads across the network between the servers are not time sensitive so someone else's prioritization isn't going to effect that.

I guess there are the indirect effects to consider: if a US-based provider is spending money paying the ISPs to avoid throttling, that's money they aren't spending on expanding provisions in a way that could benefit European customers: if Netflix is giving Comcast a big pile of money every year, they aren't producing a new show with that cash.

[Naval Monte]

Three points here:

[1]America is a corporatocracy & kleptocracy. Democrats & Republicans may diverge on some issues, but they ultimately serve the same boss, Big Business, & consequently, laws they pass will always benefit the rich & will never be done in the interests of the middle class or the poverty-stricken.
[2]The Federal Communications Commission's idea of enforcement involves giving massive corporations a slap on the wrist. The cost of this slap on the wrist, assuming it is given in the first place (which is rare), is miniscule compared to how much $$ the corporation being fined actually has, & is always passed by said corporation onto its customers. In other words, when the FCC does something to "enforce" the rules, WE ARE THE ONES THAT PAY THE FINES. Given that the FCC generally does nothing, & actually ends up fining the American people instead of Big Business, it's a joke to imply that net neutrality exists, at least in this country, or that it even protects us. The rules were nothing but words on paper, nothing more than lip service. That is unfortunate, but that's the reality we need to face.
[3]When anyone insists on repeatedly electing politicians from the two parties that have consistently demonstrated that they do not care about the American people & are only interested in lining their pockets...well, what did you expect?? If you want things like healthcare, education, security, good relations with the international community, democracy, etc., stop electing the Democrats & Republicans.

A quote from Married...with Children comes to mind, courtesy of Marcy: "[If] a man gives a gun to a chimp, and the chimp shoots someone, you don't blame the chimp."

It's easier said than done with the third one. Those guys get way too much money from their corporate cronies during election to ever let other parties be known, there are still too many stupid people that would believe in the bullshit of politicians from both parties as shown and as Trump shows so many people are desperate for the country to improve that all he had to do is act like he was against the establishment and he won, especially since Hillary had a weak campaign. There is also the voting system we have now pretty much enforces that two parties can only ever be chosen from the people with, this video explains well why first past the post voting sucks. The first step would be to change how the votes are cast and remove the electoral college but the chances of that happening are extremely low since the rich and powerful would not want that to happen.

[Donut section]

Yes!
Now for more regulations to be thrown out!

[Torrocca]

Man, this whole government just really hates America and every fucking thing it stands for, doesn't it?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yes!
Now for more regulations to be thrown out!

This really wasn't something that needed to be thrown out.

[-Ocelot-]

Yes!
Now for more regulations to be thrown out!

NN prevents both the government and the ISPs from regulating content. By repealing it they pave the way for new regulations.

[Valrifell]

Yes!
Now for more regulations to be thrown out!

NN prevents both the government and the ISPs from regulating content. By repealing it they pave the way for new regulations.

In fact, I think someone posted here or elsewhere that the FCC said they intend to give the government more control over the Internet as well.

[Vassenor]

Still not convinced that the comments were fraudulent?

How about the fact they were apparently getting them from dead people?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes!
Now for more regulations to be thrown out!

This really wasn't something that needed to be thrown out.

I fully agree.

This was a sane law that shouldn't have been thrown out.

Also, unrelated note, Merry Christmas my favorite gun loving libertarian friend!

Still not convinced that the comments were fraudulent?

How about the fact they were apparently getting them from dead people?

Not surprising, the guy was too busy blowing taxpayer money on dead memes and fidget spinners while calling informed voters "internet trolls".