FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This isn’t Rowe vs wade. It’s always been speculation.
What do you mean it is speculation? You keep saying this, but we know that given the opportunity, what we feer happens. It's not speculation.
And even suggesting speculation seems crazy considering that companies fought tooth and nail to go against the will of the country to gain teh right to do one thing... and you call that one thing speculation?
-
Also, you say that the FCC should provide what people want. Yet the people spoke and wanted neutrality. It seems you want the FCC to do what the people want... as long as it isn't neutrality.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Take away binge on and stream saver from everyone and then see what everyone thinks of NN lol
Only if you then raise prices artificially to make it SEEM like those things were lowering prices, which we know can't be true. It doesn't work this way. The private companies will just raise prices to convince people of anything.
Would love to see a mobile provider raise their data prices. Wouldn’t work out too well for them.
You just claimed that they would if you took away Binge On and other services. If the prices didn't go up, why would people complain? Makes no sense.
You are proving my point over and over I feel. but missing tha tyou are doing it.
Prices would go up and people would be pissed. How is that pricing your point.
Because the only reason that prices could go up is if they were artificially inflated. Keep the per GB price the same as today, and no one would notice.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, you say that the FCC should provide what people want. Yet the people spoke and wanted neutrality. It seems you want the FCC to do what the people want... as long as it isn't neutrality.
The “people” couldn’t quote me one line of NN.
Clark Howard slammed Verizon over the play the made and then turned around and tried to stop NN repeal later. Nobody understands this law. That’s clear.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you blind someone form the NN discussion and ask them what they want they would pick choose. They don’t care about your speculative theoretical issues where some unknown media type is suppressed.
You are grasping. People want freedom and protection. The ISPs dont' want to have to do what people want. It's as simple as that. Pai sold us out. Money or hatred, doesn't matter.
You keep saying that bad things would happen if NN was around, but how is THAT not speculation?
-
Alrighty will continue when at desk! Lol gotta get some sleep.
We need to get into the laws verbage to get anywhere. Open to further debate!
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, you say that the FCC should provide what people want. Yet the people spoke and wanted neutrality. It seems you want the FCC to do what the people want... as long as it isn't neutrality.
The “people” couldn’t quote me one line of NN.
Clark Howard slammed Verizon over the play the made and then turned around and tried to stop NN repeal later. Nobody understands this law. That’s clear.
But they all understand teh intent, at least, and the reasons that the ISPs want it repealed. That's the important part.
What part of the law do you take issue with? You've not said yet. Everything you've said thus far about the law all points to how critical it was.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Alrighty will continue when at desk! Lol gotta get some sleep.
We need to get into the laws verbage to get anywhere. Open to further debate!
I agree, and that's where I am lost. I've heard nothing but praise about what the law has protected us from, but then that the law needs to go. I'm so confused how it can be so awesome, but then that we want to get rid of it... especially with nothing at all to replace it.
-
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
WSJ isn't exactly an unbiased source. But even if it was... paywalled. They don't in the value of their own journalism.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
WSJ isn't exactly an unbiased source. But even if it was... paywalled. They don't in the value of their own journalism.
When I think from Square one about why I hated and was confused by NN it mostly revolves around my experience with title ii... this is a good read I just found that described a the issues.
http://www.ccmi.com/blog/the-problem-with-todays-title-ii-an-out-of-control-fcc
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
And this echoes the way I saw it “now the fcc controls the internet”
Also, even if some small service is throttles they still have to wade the expense of a legal battle against giant ISP’s. NN infractions could never be enforced by the FCC.
Seriously this link is worth a gander...
-
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
And you can't link that here... why?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
NN didn’t add competition. And on the agenda Pai is looking to add legislation to donjust that.
On your other comment, I’m not saying one is bad and the other worst. Pai looks like Batman to me and Wheeler like the Joker.
Of course it didn't - it did give customers consumer protections that the lack of competition prevented them from getting.
i.e. an unthrottled connection to the internet for one.If I pay for a 100/20 connection, why should you the ISP be allowed to slow content you don't like down?
Right, it was dealing with reality... in the real world we don't have competition for utilities. NN protected us so that we kept ourselves free as a country.
Since it came into play NN has reduced infrastructure investment and only benefited big internet. It’s a ruse.
Also not true. Literally has been proven false every step of the way. There are dozens of links in this thread alone that show that infrastructure investment actually went up since 2015.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
Never happened or never will? You should read this thread there are at least 3 links to collations of net neutrality violations by ISPs.
And yes, they did actually have recourse. File a complaint against the ISP with the FCC. The FCC had the obligation to investigate these practices and determine their affect on consumers. It's a well documented process.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
The FCC has no capacity to enforce small infrastractions.
This is complex issue that was discussed for well over a decade, when title ii was finally applied I really thought everyone had just said “fuck it”. Or better, big internet money had made its way to the right corrupt people. All the sudden after 10 years of debate some magical law was going to solve the issue (and again no one had really had an issue, all theory and speculation)
