Net Neutrality

[o0n8]

Oh, the sky is falling...... ugh.

Name ONE thing the government created controls, that has done better than it was before......and did not do better once they got out....

 

This is a great thing. You can re-read this a year from now.

 

Seems like were gonna find out soon with education

[CRed05]

Do we forget that we are the government? We want to control the internet, we don't want the ISPs controlling the internet.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Nothing is more irritating. People love to blindly have an opinion on something, they don't know anything about.

 

Pro gun folks say this same damn thing to antis all the time and they look at us like we're crazy. I'm fine with someone having an opinion, so long as it's informed. Especially if it's something that seriously affects me.

[Geeto67]

Do we forget that we are the government? We want to control the internet, we don't want the ISPs controlling the internet.

 

That is the message that gets lost here isn't it?

 

The public outcry against this was huge It crossed party lines, religious lines, business lines, etc....I don't think anybody will disagree that those who supported the end of net neutrality were physically in the minority in this case. And yet we are here.

 

Basically in one swift move Trump and Ajit basically said "we, in our capacity as government officials don't represent the public majority interest anymore". I can't honestly think of a bigger fuck you to the whole of America than this particular action.

[Coaster]

Everyone seems to forget about having to pay extra to use Facetime, or that Verizon completely blocked Google wallet because they had a competing idea that wasn't even released yet.

[Geeto67]

Pro gun folks say this same damn thing to antis all the time and they look at us like we're crazy. I'm fine with someone having an opinion, so long as it's informed. Especially if it's something that seriously affects me.

 

To be fair, the NRA actively blocks research on this issue so nobody discussing it can be said to be speaking from an informed position. You want to say you are speaking from an informed position? repeal the Dickey amendment.

[RedRocket1647545505]

To be fair, the NRA actively blocks research on this issue so nobody discussing it can be said to be speaking from an informed position. You want to say you are speaking from an informed position? repeal the Dickey amendment.

 

With this shit again? Look, I dont need the CDC (who themselves most likely dont know a damn thing about them) trying to educate me on the subject. Just like I dont think politicians who think firearms have "a shoulder thingy that goes up", or that silencers make guns silent, should be passing laws about them, speaking from a platform like they are some sort of subject matter expert.

 

I would consider myself more educated on them than 99.8% of the population, including the 'expert's.

[BStowers023]

What do you know, the liberals on the board coming out of the woodwork telling anyone who disagrees with them that they are ignorant and uninformed.

 

Liberal logic: Hey, you know what would be great??? More Govt control!

Also liberal logic: No, no, no. Not from that politician that we don't like.

 

You guys a fucking clowns :lolguy:

[Jewtoys]

Doesn't congress still have to vote on this?

 

Didn't Obama put net neutrality in place when he took office? Will the internet be the same as it was before he took office? What exactly is going to change here? Are we basing potential change on the hypothetical slippery slope?

 

What do you know, the liberals on the board coming out of the woodwork telling anyone who disagrees with them that they are ignorant and uninformed.

 

Liberal logic: Hey, you know what would be great??? More Govt control!

Also liberal logic: No, no, no. Not from that politician that we don't like.

 

 

You guys a fucking clowns :lolguy:

 

 

Look at everything you wrote.

 

 

Take another stab at who the clown is

[BStowers023]

Look at everything you wrote.

 

 

Take another stab at who the clown is

 

 

So congress can't stop it and Obama didn't put NN into effect?

[Jewtoys]

I've been reading more into it and kind of what I got out of all this.

 

So, in broad terms, people for Net Neutrality prefers Govt regulation and people against are for a free market is what I'm gaining. People like Kerry are terrified of capitalism working (because socialist) so they want things like this tied down by regulation. People like Kerry think the Government knows best and not the citizens of this country. Guess what happens if ISPs start charging for websites and what not? People stop using it and the next man up. It's called competition and it works.

 

So congress can't stop it and Obama didn't put NN into effect?

 

 

You should read some more, but clearly that's not a strong suit.

 

From your own posts it's very clear, you have just formed an opinion on the subject and have no actual knowledge. Just looking at it from a political standpoint.

 

Anyone that's against the ruling is just a snowflake,cuck,libtard though, right?

[Richard Cranium]

Don't forget folks, that companies are people, and can have religious views (thanks Hobby Lobby). It'll be really fun when an ISP starts filtering the internet for their customers based on religious beliefs. Planned Parenthood sites blocked, no more porn, opposing religious sites (flying spaghetti monster) sites throttled or blocked. It will most likely be a small rural carrier where people don't really have another significant option. Don't like it? Don't use the service. Don't let your kids do their homework at home. Don't Christmas shop on Amazon. Want to buy the wife some toys to spice up the bedroom .... nope, those are immoral, can't shop for those. It'll be like a school filter to protect you from yourself. Shopping for guns, or doing research? Can't do that either. Conservatives don't want liberals to control their internet, liberals don't want conservatives to control their internet. The rest of us want them to both shut up and quit trying to control anything. I don't want anyone to control my internet usage but me.

[Jewtoys]

Oh, the sky is falling...... ugh.

Name ONE thing the government created controls, that has done better than it was before......and did not do better once they got out....

 

This is a great thing. You can re-read this a year from now.

 

NN was just a band-aid, to a larger problem but better than nothing.

 

One year from now, most likely nothing will change but the long term effects could end up miserable for the end user.

 

"Free internet" doesn't win, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just letting their political views cloud judgement.

[CRed05]

Everyone seems to forget about having to pay extra to use Facetime, or that Verizon completely blocked Google wallet because they had a competing idea that wasn't even released yet.

 

Lol, yeah. In a funny twist, that competing idea was called ISIS

[Geeto67]

With this shit again? Look, I dont need the CDC (who themselves most likely dont know a damn thing about them) trying to educate me on the subject.

 

So you don't feel like more education is good? That's a pretty ignorant position. Actually nothing pretty about it.

 

First: The CDC wouldn't conduct actual research - they would find real experts to conduct the research and manage the grant and the impartiality.

 

Second: Gathering data and doing root cause analysis is not the same thing as educating you on how to use a firearm or it's components. Research drives decisions - I am sure you are as tired of seeing ill informed gun legislation as I am tired of hearing you talk about the false pretense that guns make you safer. Research would cure both of that.

 

You are an extremist who doesn't want to hear anything contrary to your beliefs, that doesn't make you intelligent or an expert - it makes you closed minded and ignorant.

 

 

Just like I dont think politicians who think firearms have "a shoulder thingy that goes up", or that silencers make guns silent, should be passing laws about them, speaking from a platform like they are some sort of subject matter expert.

 

great then why block the research that would steer them away from that and towards the recommendations of educated people. Politicians are advocates, not experts. They usually rely on experts to make policy - but in the absence of experts they rely on public outcry. Take away the funding you take away the experts and all you have left are people who want something, anything, done but don't have the research to steer them in the right direction.

 

I would consider myself more educated on them than 99.8% of the population, including the 'expert's.

 

It's statements like this that make you look like you are a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

[Brandon]

Right...we'll just go on to the other ISP if one starts blocking certain sites

 

How many choices do you have where you live? 1? 2? 3?

 

Certain things need regulated, get over it.

 

Choices are a municipal problem,Local governments and their public utilities are notorious for charging broadband companies exorbitant prices for access to publicly owned “rights of way,” without which they cannot erect the infrastructure necessary for Internet service. These municipal monopolies are among the chief reasons that many places have little or no competition among ISPs. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Kansas City, Austin, and Provo all hammered out favorable agreements with Google Fiber and several other cities have followed suit. Kansas City partially credits the arrangement for the city’s ascendancy as a tech hub. (HQ2? ahah) Meanwhile, other ISPs have increased their offerings to compete: Verizon and AT&T both recently announced plans to offer higher-speed Internet hookups for customers in select areas.

 

Regulation is cool, if you like innovation to go and die. Broadband invest dropped 3.6 billion from 14-16, as a prime example, reports suggesting a loss of 45 billion in further years.

 

The FCC also has the power to prevent ISPs from charging websites at rates they deem to be unfair and ends "paid priority." This is bad economics. Netflix consumes a huge amount of peak traffic bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Pornography sites consume a huge amount of bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Were an ISP to push YouPorn to pay fees for its higher bandwidth, consumers of the ISP who did not use YouPorn would be the beneficiaries — they wouldn’t be subsidizing YouPorn. “To use one of those dreaded analogies, if you are constantly driving huge trucks, full of big deliveries of pornography, along a road, why shouldn’t you have to pay more for the road’s upkeep?”

 

Meanwhile, other ISPs could calculate that they want to absorb the costs of YouPorn in order to carry YouPorn, since YouPorn could refuse to pay the fees to the first ISP. That would be an advantage for the second ISP. In other words, market choices take place, and those can provide options to consumers.

 

With net neutrality, under the guise of free for all, they also were able to essentially control and coerce the ISP market and and the content they provided. Which would never happen right, the government creating social behavior.

 

The FCC still have the ability to enforce "paid priority" laws which is what all this hub bub is about, so they still have this in place to. Good.

 

Left leaning thinkers hate crony capitalism, yet that is exactly what net neutrality was. Instead, the FCC should be encouraging de-regulation in order bring in more competition, which is the real check against corporate abuse IMO.

 

If there is to be a standard for consumer protection with regard to ISPs, then perhaps it would better for Congress to pass a clear statute that maintains light regulation on the ISP market while returning the Federal Trade Commission to its role of being the enforcer.

[Geeto67]

You should read some more, but clearly that's not a strong suit.

 

From your own posts it's very clear, you have just formed an opinion on the subject and have no actual knowledge. Just looking at it from a political standpoint.

 

Anyone that's against the ruling is just a snowflake,cuck,libtard though, right?

 

You are wasting your breath with this one. He's a guy in his mid 20's, I dare you to find someone who wasn't an overconfident underinformed a-hole in their mid-20's. He will grow out of it eventually or harden into a hate tank - only time will tell.

 

The thing I don't get is that he's a veteran, and like all veterans I am sure the government has fucked him over at some point, but instead of working to help improve veteran affairs, he (like many other vets just like him) takes the angry approach of burn the government down and deregulate everything - even if it isn't in his best interest. If he really got his "libertarian" utopia, all those government benefits he's enjoyed so far evaporate. If your house has a leaky roof, you don't burn the house down, you fix the leaks until they stop.

[BStowers023]

You are wasting your breath with this one. He's a guy in his mid 20's, I dare you to find someone who wasn't an overconfident underinformed a-hole in their mid-20's. He will grow out of it eventually or harden into a hate tank - only time will tell.

 

The thing I don't get is that he's a veteran, and like all veterans I am sure the government has fucked him over at some point, but instead of working to help improve veteran affairs, he (like many other vets just like him) takes the angry approach of burn the government down and deregulate everything - even if it isn't in his best interest. If he really got his "libertarian" utopia, all those government benefits he's enjoyed so far evaporate. If your house has a leaky roof, you don't burn the house down, you fix the leaks until they stop.

 

 

You mean the 80 hours a week I worked overseas in horrible conditions while being shot at for less than minimum wage?

You mean being sent out to the field for 30 days without a shower or A/C or heat depending on the time of year?

Sitting in a fox hole or a .50 cal pit for 16 hours a day for weeks at a time?

Not seeing my family or friends for years?

Going to my friends funerals in a 3rd world shithole?

 

THOSE benefits? I know I signed up for it, but THOSE "benefits" were also in the contract. Don't act like I am getting some sort of hand out, jackass.

[Coaster]

Saying that Nexflix uses large amounts of an ISPs bandwidth is thinking about this incorrectly.

 

The ISPs customers are using large amounts of bandwidth streaming movies. Where those streams come from is not really relevant, could be Netflix or 100 other streaming sites.

 

The ISPs customers are using the service they paid for. If providing that level of service is unsustainable then the ISP oversold by too much. They should be charging customers more or lowering g the speed of their plans. Not trying to extort cash from the severs their customers chose to visit.

[CRed05]

If there is to be a standard for consumer protection with regard to ISPs, then perhaps it would better for Congress to pass a clear statute that maintains light regulation on the ISP market while returning the Federal Trade Commission to its role of being the enforcer.

 

Agree.

[Geeto67]

You mean the 80 hours a week I worked overseas in horrible conditions while being shot at for less than minimum wage?

You mean being sent out to the field for 30 days without a shower or A/C or heat depending on the time of year?

Sitting in a fox hole or a .50 cal pit for 16 hours a day for weeks at a time?

Not seeing my family or friends for years?

Going to my friends funerals in a 3rd world shithole?

 

THOSE benefits? I know I signed up for it, but THOSE "benefits" were also in the contract. Don't act like I am getting some sort of hand out, jackass.

 

Yeah you get those benefits, and you earned them by sitting in the fox hole and going to funerals, and all that stuff you listed. Did you think they were immediately determined at the onset of the constitution? because they weren't. Revolutionary soldiers, civil war soldiers, WWI, and WWII soldiers didn't get a lot of the compensation you get. Why? because all those things you get are determined by government regulations, and they developed over time.

 

Both my grandfather's fought in WWII - they didn't get SCRA, or post 9/11 educational assistance program, or tuition fairness, or protections from predatory for-profit colleges, or expanded disability benefits, PTSD treatments or even burial benefits offered to them because those things didn't exist when they served or were alive. Those things exist because soldiers lobbied and marched, and protested and petitioned for them with the government.

 

If you "deregulated" the government they would go away because the government would love to stop paying on them. they don't do it because it's a great incentive for people to enlist (it is an incentive, but it is one of many reasons people join) or it saves them money. Before the government felt it had to pay to incentive people to sign up they just instituted a draft and gave you no choice. You got what you got and you were lucky to get it.

 

yes we get it, you have an ax to grind with the military and because of it you hate the government bureaucracy, and while I am not saying you are getting a handout, I am saying it is hypocritical to accept any kind of compensation from the government for your service when you directly advocate the government should de-regulate and therefore not provide that compensation.

[BStowers023]

Yeah you get those benefits, and you earned them by sitting in the fox hole and going to funerals, and all that stuff you listed. Did you think they were immediately determined at the onset of the constitution? because they weren't. Revolutionary soldiers, civil war soldiers, WWI, and WWII soldiers didn't get a lot of the compensation you get. Why? because all those things you get are determined by government regulations, and they developed over time.

 

Both my grandfather's fought in WWII - they didn't get SCRA, or post 9/11 educational assistance program, or tuition fairness, or protections from predatory for-profit colleges, or expanded disability benefits, PTSD treatments or even burial benefits offered to them because those things didn't exist when they served or were alive. Those things exist because soldiers lobbied and marched, and protested and petitioned for them with the government.

 

If you "deregulated" the government they would go away because the government would love to stop paying on them. they don't do it because it's a great incentive for people to enlist (it is an incentive, but it is one of many reasons people join) or it saves them money. Before the government felt it had to pay to incentive people to sign up they just instituted a draft and gave you no choice. You got what you got and you were lucky to get it.

 

yes we get it, you have an ax to grind with the military and because of it you hate the government bureaucracy, and while I am not saying you are getting a handout, I am saying it is hypocritical to accept any kind of compensation from the government for your service when you directly advocate the government should de-regulate and therefore not provide that compensation.

 

I think Government has it's place. Providing security for our country is definitely one of them, probably at the top. It's a 100% for or against. I'm against unnecessary Govt regulation where I think the private sector will provide a better service for the citizens of the country.

[CRed05]

[El Karacho1647545492]

Oh, the sky is falling...... ugh.

Name ONE thing the government created controls, that has done better than it was before......and did not do better once they got out....

 

This is a great thing. You can re-read this a year from now.

 

How bout the interstate highway system?

 

Or railroad gauge standardization?

 

Net neutrality rules are NOT the government regulating the internet. They are the government regulating ISPs, and making sure that they don't unfairly benefit themselves with undue hardship to citizens. ISPs already enjoy an cartel-like grip on their market so the idea of a "free" market doesn't apply.

[BStowers023]

How bout the interstate highway system?

 

Or railroad gauge standardization?

 

Net neutrality rules are NOT the government regulating the internet. They are the government regulating ISPs, and making sure that they don't unfairly benefit themselves with undue hardship to citizens. ISPs already enjoy an cartel-like grip on their market so the idea of a "free" market doesn't apply.

 

 

Obviously, as stated by everyone here I'm an ignorant bafoon and I know nothing...

 

Why are ISPs essentially a monopoly? Can they become a free market?