FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

originally posted by: WhatTheory
a reply to: greydaze

Right, because there is no throttling now. Wow!
That was a lame attempt to change the argument. If this "net neutrality" had been given more time for the government to take over, everybody would have slow throttled service. Stop being naive.

And everyone would have been given access to Obama Syndicate / United Nations / European Union approved content. Anything about immigrant rape/crime/destruction would've been instantly censored. Anything revealing details on the Clinton email probe, Bernie Sanders nomination theft, DNC staffer murder, FBI collusion with Clinton campaign under direction of the Obama administration versus Trump, etc... Anything contrary to the establishment's program would meet the ol' Net Neutrality Pit of Misery, operated by Sir Brad.

that you probably won't even bother trying to process what the possibilities are now WITHOUT Net Neutrality blocking your way.

Ok.. enlighten us then. How will the removal of these regulations benefit the majority of consumers? Will major ISPs reduce costs? If half of their customers have literally one choice for Internet, why would it benefit it them to do so? You are dreaming there is some magical infrastructure in place that mom and pop ISP startups can take advantage of to offer citizens new and unheard of deals to improve their browsing experience, now that they can take on lightweights like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.

originally posted by: fleabit

that you probably won't even bother trying to process what the possibilities are now WITHOUT Net Neutrality blocking your way.

Ok.. enlighten us then. How will the removal of these regulations benefit the majority of consumers? Will major ISPs reduce costs? If half of their customers have literally one choice for Internet, why would it benefit it them to do so? You are dreaming there is some magical infrastructure in place that mom and pop ISP startups can take advantage of to offer citizens new and unheard of deals to improve their browsing experience, now that they can take on lightweights like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner.

LOL lower cost lol Ahahahahaha!!! Anyone who thinks this is good for the consumers dont understand business. Businesses are liek th egovernment. they never reduce spending and never give anything back.

Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

a reply to: WhatTheory

I expereienced Verizons mis deeds firsthand from 2009 to 2015. dont tell me they do nto throttle your internet. It took forever to even watch a youtube vid.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

Well AJit pai has given control back to the FTC by eliminating title 2. essentially he is passing the buck.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

Government doesn't care for protest, the FCC just proven that. Just ask Ajit Pai.... he doesn't care.

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

Government doesn't care for protest, the FCC just proven that. Just ask Ajit Pai.... he doesn't care.

When they start losing billions of dollars, that tends to make them care more than they would want to.

a reply to: 3daysgone

Most people wouldn't go two months without the internet, they would have withdrawal-drug like syndromes causing anxiety and depression. I would imagine they'd loose a lot customers to suicide. That might even happen now with big government in charge of the net... We'll loose the libs first, then the conservatives after they realize their mistake for bending over for the FCC.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: 3daysgone

Most people wouldn't go two months without the internet, they would have withdrawal-drug like syndromes causing anxiety and depression. I would imagine they'd loose a lot customers to suicide. That might even happen now with big government in charge of the net... We'll loose the libs first, then the conservatives after they realize their mistake for bending over for the FCC.

Yeah, the internet is kind of addicting. Two months might not fix it. Maybe six months. If it doesn't work out, they can always go back to the way it was.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: 3daysgone

Most people wouldn't go two months without the internet, they would have withdrawal-drug like syndromes causing anxiety and depression. I would imagine they'd loose a lot customers to suicide. That might even happen now with big government in charge of the net... We'll loose the libs first, then the conservatives after they realize their mistake for bending over for the FCC.

Yeah, the internet is kind of addicting. Two months might not fix it. Maybe six months. If it doesn't work out, they can always go back to the way it was.

Yeah it is addicting, my wife freaked out when I forgot to pay our internet bill. Most scariest moment in my life lol....

But before Obama passed that law, there was not that much abuse of the system. I think that Obama law may not really have been necessary. Maybe one of you guys can give me an example of something that was stopped by Obama's law.

Somehow I have the feeling Obama was trying to stop competition of the Democratic party and passed this law to help accomplish this..

In government, nothing seems to be what it appears to be at first glance.

originally posted by: imitator

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: 3daysgone

Most people wouldn't go two months without the internet, they would have withdrawal-drug like syndromes causing anxiety and depression. I would imagine they'd loose a lot customers to suicide. That might even happen now with big government in charge of the net... We'll loose the libs first, then the conservatives after they realize their mistake for bending over for the FCC.

Yeah, the internet is kind of addicting. Two months might not fix it. Maybe six months. If it doesn't work out, they can always go back to the way it was.

Yeah it is addicting, my wife freaked out when I forgot to pay our internet bill. Most scariest moment in my life lol....

LOL! That is funny. Did she have the look of---Do you realize your life is in jeopardy---demeanor?

a reply to: mindpurge

All those nice ad hom attacks mean you have NO argument. Next.

The discussion of states(state's rights) dealing with this has been brought up. Here's the reality of it:

A local Rep has a bill ready but what will that do?

Saving net neutrality in Washington state to be difficult, complex battle

Former Attorney General Rob McKenna says it’s a close call. “It's really hard to say because there really isn't any case law on the question. There isn't that much case law about when the FCC pre-empts states and when it doesn't,” he said.

Source with video

"The order makes plain that broadband will be subject to a uniform, national framework that promotes investment and innovation," Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said in his statement before the FCC's vote. "Broadband service is not confined to state boundaries and should not be constrained by a patchwork of state and local regulations." As a result, he said states are pre-empted from passing their own laws to try to preserve net neutrality.

Also see, according to Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson:

California, Washington, NY take steps after net neutrality vote


"Although the order does acknowledge an extremely limited state role in enforcing their traditional police powers, state actions that go beyond this realm will be subject to scrutiny and challenge," he said.

"The order makes clear that any requirements akin to common carrier regulation are barred." He went on to say that he specifically requested that states also can't adopt their own transparency requirements and he said that states are barred from legislating broadband privacy protections. He promised that if states attempt to bypass the FCC in its efforts that the agency will be vigilant in shutting them down.

Legal experts say this may be where the FCC's repeal could be most vulnerable to legal challenges.

"The law is less clear on this," said Matthew Schettenhelm, a litigation and government analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. "It's at least a little awkward for the FCC to first say it has no power over broadband service, then to say it can use that absence of power to supersede the states."

Source


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a reply to: WhatTheory

You realize that argument has already been brought up on this very thread, and addressed accordingly. I implore you to read up on that.

Oh, and the current government is in the repeal of it. They did a fine job not only mocking people who agree with NN but having the dead comment on it. What's that about government destroying things?

a reply to: darkbake

This will actually be a good thing, just not in the way the crooks wanted.

I bet that a new protocol with its own encrypted dns servers will emerge in the next few years, in the mean time people will get used to stuff like tor and onion links, the so called darkweb will become mainstream.

This if the trump doesn´t get shot in the ass and obama doesn´t wins the 2020 elections

a reply to: yuppa

Do you know how packet switching works? Ips don't throttle anything back it's the content providers that do. Packets go through every network at the same speed can't be controled. Problem is for audio and video those packets have to arive in order. When they don't it skips or stops all together. To get around that happening there is companies that will cash content close to you. Meaning the packets area less likely to take diferent paths and stay in order.

If a content provider choses not to use those services then the further they are from you the more likely packets would arrive our of order. Netflix for example just stoped using a company to cache content arguing comcast should provide this service for them. Comcast has refused unless they pay them storage fees since it would have to keep their content stored on its servers and set up vpns it what is called peering. That dispute went on for years with most of the ips when Netflix stopped paying a company to host content think it was cogent. And netflix has been refusing to pay money to store their content on the isps. Net neutrality or not this is Netflix fault.

What people blame there ips for is simply how the Net operates. Look up packet switching and how it works.

a reply to: dragonridr

yeah. i know that much.

I used to test my isp speed not on youtube as well. at certain times they throttled my connection. every day same time. they were the only content provider when i ran test. i used to go into the router with their private info reserved for tech. they didnt know i had access due to it being a techs credentials.

originally posted by: rickymouse
But before Obama passed that law, there was not that much abuse of the system. I think that Obama law may not really have been necessary. Maybe one of you guys can give me an example of something that was stopped by Obama's law.

It was actions by Comcast in 2008 and Verizon in 2014 that prompted the action in 2015. They didn't just come up with some regulations out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, if that's what you are thinking.

Now that other countries have successfully taken advantage of those lack of regulations, don't think the large money-grubbing ISPs in the U.S. won't follow.

To put it another way, there will be NO benefits to consumers for the removal - the regulations protected consumers. But there are plenty of ways for abuse with them gone. So why in the world would you want them removed? Why would anyone other than the largest ISPs want them removed? I mean, aside from the practice of blindly supporting every tweet and action Trump makes?

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Guys it is really simple. If they start messing around and internet prices sky rocket, then all we have to do is protest. About 2 months not using the internet and cable, they will change their minds very fast, and on a brighter note it would probably a very healthy 2 months for most of us.

If people protested them, the corporate media and their cheerleaders would go on smear campaign to demonize these people as commies and hippies that need to take a bath. That is how these corporate fascists play their game.