This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And the increased deficit is going to help with that. Bigly.

a reply to: angeldoll

DT Jr proving yet again that his father gave him the correct name. Donald Trump.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't know about brooklyn fiber but even Google Fiber has been struggling with the existing regulations put in place to ensure lack of competition in the teleco world.

Perhaps brooklyn fiber has been able to slip through the cracks for Now because the ISP Oligarch put their attention on the bigger threat which was google fiber?

Need to free the market for sure. Net Neutrality repeal would be such a non-issue if we had a free market system and more choices were available.

agreed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And the increased deficit is going to help with that. Bigly.

Yea... I'm trying not to think about that monstrosity being puked through Congress.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or, and hear me out here. I can fight tooth and nail to maintain internet standards that have been in place since its inception. Internet standards that have allowed the current internet kings to rise to the top while simultaneously allowing room for smaller fish (like ATS for instance) to exist. I like that idea much better. It benefits more than just the area immediately around where I live and would have a MUCH higher chance of succeeding.

Mark my words, this decision WILL bite the Republicans in the ass. Millennials may be hard to politically motivate, but watching them get up in arms from the 2015 attempt to hijack the freedom of the internet just shows that this battle is about to get NASTY. I will be joining my fellow generation in standing up for freedom that people such as you don't respect.

I always mark your words. According to my scorecard you're still zero for ten. Prediction might not be your forte.

Government regulation is not the answer. Demanding through the government that others conform to our wishes is statist, and thoroughly dangerous to open societies.

It's not about government regulation, it's about corporations (ISP's) using deregulation (passed by former lobbyists, mind you) to turn a free and open market into a regulated, closed, and censored market where everything comes at a price (that is dictated by corporation, and protected federally).

Nice strawman, though.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I thought this was funny. I wonder when the trumps are going to learn that just because they're learning about something for the first time, doesn't mean others don't know about it. It's downright embarrassing.

Also, I wonder if anyone has told him yet that his daddy appointed this FCC chairman. hehe.

Donald Trump Jr.
✔ @DonaldJTrumpJr


I would pay good money to see all those people complaining about Obama’s FCC chairman voting to repeal #NetNeutality actually explain it in detail. I’d also bet most hadn’t heard of it before this week. #outrage

6:38 PM - Dec 14, 2017

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Beavis! You've got to start consulting someone other than Butthead before you tweet, buddy!

Lol. Just lol.

These people play to their base and demographic so well.

"But muh Obaaaaama."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Well we are in agreement there. Our nation's infrastructure is in the toilet.

It's going to be a lot like our healthcare issues in things are so expensive now even the government can't afford it. We almost need new civil service system for both since even that is inflated...

a reply to: interupt42

I'm off on the political ramifications of this and I wonder if this is a 'quid pro quo' between Trump and the Republican Legislature to get tax reform passed......

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sounds awesome for Brooklyn. Now let's talk about the small town in southern PA I live in, Stewartstown, PA. Y'all make it sound SO simple for a startup to just get up and start covering areas with internet. Never mind that coverage the country has now has taken damn near 30 years to achieve and there are STILL places in the US without access to broadband. So I'm not buying the "Shop around" line for a second. It just shows an extreme ignorance of how the ISP industry and the internet in general works.

Well, I never said it was simple. In fact it would be quite the struggle. The point is, if you care so much about great ISP service, why don't you create it and provide it instead of demanding others provide it for you?

Another poster pointed out how internet is much cheaper and of higher speed in other first world countries.
The retort by another member was that we are spread out and the cost would be prohibitive.

So, your telling others to start their own ISP is not feasible since 95% of Americans do not have a billion dollars laying around. So that leaves us with monopolies.

Also, in regards to regulations, I can cite a long list created by Big Corporations to pass off to their politicians and if the citizens could somehow kill those, the lobbyists and bankers would pile 30 deep into Washington Dc to put a stop to it.

Regulations on the other hand that were created early in the internet history that later are a roadblock to Big Corporations get stomped on.

It is no different than tariffs.
Our countries history is riddled with tariffs lobbied for by corporations, but now that they have gone global, tariffs is a dirty word. Workers and consumers benefited from tariffs in the past which was a side effect and not intentional.

a reply to: jacobe001

Actually it's regulation that makes the cost of starting an ISP so high. The red tape is everywhere at the local and state level. These regulations is what make it difficult and expensive to start an ISP, and this brought about the oligopoly in the first place.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The internet pror to 2015 works fine and no one was complaining. This is just a fear mongering speculation regulation for something that never existed to prevent. It's just an excuse for the government to control the internet and censor anyone who speaks out against the establishment.

If the telecom is really going to censor people like the fear mongers claim then both sides would unite to stop them, but we have yet seen any of the fear-mongering tactics they claim would end the internet.

a reply to: RomeByFire

It's not about government regulation, it's about corporations (ISP's) using deregulation (passed by former lobbyists, mind you) to turn a free and open market into a regulated, closed, and censored market where everything comes at a price (that is dictated by corporation, and protected federally).

Nice strawman, though.

The irony. Nice strawman.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah, but that article is about expanding the private infrastructure. Not about net neutrality. Net neutrality is about how the infrastructure is used.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, but that article is about expanding the private infrastructure. Not about net neutrality.

I was referring to the cost of starting ISPs, not net neutrality. But thanks.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jacobe001

Actually it's regulation that makes the cost of starting an ISP so high. The red tape is everywhere at the local and state level. These regulations is what make it difficult and expensive to start an ISP, and this brought about the oligopoly in the first place.

How they able to do it in other first world socialist countries then?

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jacobe001

Actually it's regulation that makes the cost of starting an ISP so high. The red tape is everywhere at the local and state level. These regulations is what make it difficult and expensive to start an ISP, and this brought about the oligopoly in the first place.

How they able to do it in other first world socialist countries then?

There is no such thing as a first-world socialist country. Can you be specific?

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: nwtrucker

The internet pror to 2015 works fine and no one was complaining. This is just a fear mongering speculation regulation for something that never existed to prevent. It's just an excuse for the government to control the internet and censor anyone who speaks out against the establishment.

If the telecom is really going to censor people like the fear mongers claim then both sides would unite to stop them, but we have yet seen any of the fear-mongering tactics they claim would end the internet.

There are three kinds of people when it comes to Net Nuetrality

1) Those that know what Net Neutrality is
2) Those that don't
3) Those that work for the big ISPs

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Uhhh....it's expensive because of satellites and infrastructure. You gonna lease Comcast lines?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jacobe001

Actually it's regulation that makes the cost of starting an ISP so high. The red tape is everywhere at the local and state level. These regulations is what make it difficult and expensive to start an ISP, and this brought about the oligopoly in the first place.

How they able to do it in other first world socialist countries then?

There is no such thing as a first-world socialist country. Can you be specific?

It is faster and cheaper in European countries and even Communist China has us beat.
Explain

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Uhhh....it's expensive because of satellites and infrastructure. You gonna lease Comcast lines?

Yep
And if you lease Comcast lines, you just made Comcast your landlord Daddy
That is making them bigger, not competing with them.