Net neutrality gone

[Draco-Onis]

Eh. Any other Republican candidate that win would have this on the table. But I agree with you on not blaming the average voter. This was a party leadership decision, start to finish.

I agree Mitt Romney was also against net neutrality, also democrats are not without blame they could have passed net neutrality into law or at least tried when they had control.

[Erous]

Curious if Blizzard has staffed for the increase in support calls when latency spikes

[Spiral Mage]

Ajit Pai claimed there was "bipartisan" support for his plan.
Unfortunately for him, Congress has announced that for the first time in forever, The Democrats and Republicans have agreed on something. Something they intend to fight against: Ajit Pai.

Numerous Congressmen on both the Democratic and Republican side have said if he does inact the repeal, that Congress will step in and take his power away from him, and reverse his decision.

In addition, numerous groups are preparing lawsuits against the FCC, which will force them to defend themselves in the Supreme Court and if they cannot prove that the regulations have harmed the internet (which we all know is false), the Surpreme Court may simply over-turn the decision.

In spite of the provisions in the new policy, many states have said they will take this battle to court and over-turn the FCC's authority and put in place state laws that will require internet providers to adhere to neutrality standards, Washington state being one of them.

Colorado and a few other states have said that perhaps it's time for the states themselves to run the big internet companies out of town and provide their own internet access to their citizens, with state-run internet which will be affordable, reliable and will adhere to net neutrality laws.

But at this point, all we can assume from this is:
This battle is far from over and it has no shortage of people from state leaders, to Congressmen, all setting their sights squarely on the second most hated man in America, Ajit Pai.

He's basically put a giant bullseye on his head.

We'll see who gets the shot off.

Lastly, speaking of getting shots off ..

They interrupted and cleared the room mid-meeting?
Were there threats on his life, causing security to halt the meeting and search the room extensively?

I'm frankly surprised he hasn't been met with more threats and actual violence yet.
The internet has responded to far more meaningless threats, with far more meaningful violence.
It's surprising to me that the single greatest threat we face, well, hasn't been met with extreme violence.

This decision today will be challenged again and again and cannot take effect for many months.
We'll see what happens.

While this should not be done with violence, I do think something has to be done. What? I don't know. But we have a government that has gone completely rogue. Not just the FCC but the White House, and are dictating our lives to us, and are only interested in one thing: selling our souls for money.

We have a government that serves itself, not the people it was put in place for.
What we are going to do about it? We, the people, may have to do something.
Because if the people who are supposed to fight for us, can't or don't, then we need to decide how to do it ourselves.

"Those who make peaceful resolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ J.F.K.

[Elegiac]

Eh. Any other Republican candidate that win would have this on the table. But I agree with you on not blaming the average voter. This was a party leadership decision, start to finish.

One which was enabled by the Pussygrabber-In-Chief that was elected by.....The right wing.

More philosophically, the right wing and their obsessive pursuit of laissez-faire economics also enabled this.

[Vyuvarax]

Eh. Any other Republican candidate that win would have this on the table. But I agree with you on not blaming the average voter. This was a party leadership decision, start to finish.

If Republican voters vote for people who go against what they want, then that’s a voter issue still. You’re simply not acknowledging that the 73% of republicans who want net neutrality are morons.

[Sormine]

I agree Mitt Romney was also against net neutrality, also democrats are not without blame they could have passed net neutrality into law or at least tried when they had control.

This post makes no sense. We had net neutrality principles but you're somehow blaming Democrats.

[Valqt]

Thank you... the amount of people misunderstanding what I am saying is astounding

People aren't misunderstanding you, your argument is based on statistics that mean jack shit. You could've made a solid point but you chose horrible numbers to back it up.

Honestly, I would be surprised if the majority of republican voters were against net neutrality. But what do I know, they did vote for Trump, who made Ajit Pai chairman of the FCC, and now net neutrality is being repealed.. Big "oops" right there, should've seen it coming!

[yetgdhfgh]

Fuck Trump and fuck his little weasel Ajit Pai!

This could be the death knell of a free and open Internet!

[Zentail]

Can you explain this one to me? I'm honestly interested in how allowing people to fuck with our internet traffic will make it possible for smaller ISPs to compete.

With net neutrality, there is a forced way of running a company as an ISP. You don’t get a whole lot of flexibility with speeds and pricing because it needs to be “fair.” As a result, poor people can’t afford internet because they have to pay for the whole package. They can’t even afford lowest speed options. Us that make money already get fast lanes. I have from Comcast for a while because I give them more than my neighbor. They just hide the fact they do that with all-inclusive price tags.

Naturally, they charge $10/mo, then you opt into services you want for $5/mo. However, net neutrality passed and they were like, “okay, $45 for the package then and you have to pay for it all.”

[Shadowmelded]

If Republican voters vote for people who go against what they want, then that’s a voter issue still. You’re simply not acknowledging that the 73% of republicans who want net neutrality are morons.

"But both sides are equally bad, centrist btw" response inc.

So let's say during the next president election a Democrat wins, cant they just like trump reverse all the shit that that orange idiot has done and restore net neutrality?

Yes, either through the FCC or with a majority or (lol) bipartisan support, enshrine it into law. Technically the later could happen without a Dem President but unlikely with the current thrust for doing as much damage as possible before they run out of time.

[Draco-Onis]

This post makes no sense. We had net neutrality principles but you're somehow blaming Democrats.

By leaving it at the hands of the FCC democrats left it open to be reversed by the next administration, if they had voted it into law it would have been more difficult to overturn. Let's not forget Obama's appointee to the FCC was also against net neutrality but backpedaled because of the public backlash. This is politics democrats will use this for elections, I am saying that they could have stopped this from happening.

[DesoPL]

Ajit Pai claimed there was "bipartisan" support for his plan.
Unfortunately for him, Congress has announced that for the first time in forever, The Democrats and Republicans have agreed on something. Something they intend to fight against: Ajit Pai.

Numerous Congressmen on both the Democratic and Republican side have said if he does inact the repeal, that Congress will step in and take his power away from him, and reverse his decision.

In addition, numerous groups are preparing lawsuits against the FCC, which will force them to defend themselves in the Supreme Court and if they cannot prove that the regulations have harmed the internet (which we all know is false), the Surpreme Court may simply over-turn the decision.

In spite of the provisions in the new policy, many states have said they will take this battle to court and over-turn the FCC's authority and put in place state laws that will require internet providers to adhere to neutrality standards, Washington state being one of them.

Colorado and a few other states have said that perhaps it's time for the states themselves to run the big internet companies out of town and provide their own internet access to their citizens, with state-run internet which will be affordable, reliable and will adhere to net neutrality laws.

But at this point, all we can assume from this is:
This battle is far from over and it has no shortage of people from state leaders, to Congressmen, all setting their sights squarely on the second most hated man in America, Ajit Pai.

He's basically put a giant bullseye on his head.

We'll see who gets the shot off.

Lastly, speaking of getting shots off ..

They interrupted and cleared the room mid-meeting?
Were threats on his life, causing security to halt the meeting and search the room extensively?

I'm frankly surprised he hasn't been met with more threats and actual violence yet.
The internet has responded to far more meaningless threats, with far more meaningful violence.
It's surprising to me that the single greatest threat we face, well, hasn't been met with extreme violence.

This decision today will be challenged again and again and cannot take effect for many months.
We'll see what happens.

While this should not be done with violence, I do think something has to be done. What? I don't know. But we have a government that has gone completely rogue. Not just the FCC but the White House, and are dictating our lives to us, and are only interested in one thing: selling our souls for money.

We have a government that serves itself, not the people it was put in place for.
What we are going to do about it? We, the people, may have to do something.
Because if the people who are supposed to fight for us, can't or don't, then we need to decide how to do it ourselves.

This! This guy! Give him a beer, because he speaks a fucking truth!

[Orby]

Looks like we were right when we said not to trust the GOP.

- - - Updated - - -



You're saying that it wasn't the average voter's fault. But you should have known better. Because the rest of us saw this shit coming.

"You" I aint a democrat, I aint even American lol. and I most certifiably wouldn't be if I was :P

But did they see this coming though? Looking at that poll it seems most democratic voters wanted Net Neutrality. If they knew now what they knew then maybe you wouldn't have gotten Trump.

[Vyuvarax]

I agree Mitt Romney was also against net neutrality, also democrats are not without blame they could have passed net neutrality into law or at least tried when they had control.

We had net neutrality prior to 2014 when Vetizon won a court case claiming that the FCC could not enforce net neutrality under Title I. You understand that, right?

[Wezmon]

People aren't misunderstanding you, your argument is based on statistics that mean jack shit. You could've made a solid point but you chose horrible numbers to back it up.

Those sample sizes are more than enough for a reasonable margin of error. It's a misconception you need large sample for accuracy, much more important is whether the population sampled is varied enough.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-of-only-100/

[breadisfunny]

That's what you get for voting in an orangutang to be President. Good luck!

i didnt vote for him. your logic fails.

[Spiral Mage]

This! This guy! Give him a beer, because he speaks a fucking truth!

I don't drink beer but thank you.

[Draco-Onis]

We had net neutrality prior to 2014 when Vetizon won a court case claiming that the FCC could not enforce net neutrality under Title I. You understand that, right?

You missed my point putting into law instead of leaving it to the FCC makes it so that it can be changed between administrations. The FCC changing it to a utility does not protect it as well as making congress pass a law.

[Exeris]

Nice shilling, but no.

The reason people haven't started new ISPs is a combination of the following;

- High entry capital due to the need for infrastructure.
- The fact that telecommunications as a utility are a natural monopoly due to limited space for infrastructure.
- Lobbying at the state level by existing ISPs to lock start-ups out of the market; see Google Fiber.

I checked out that reddit donald thread, it was very painful to read and they are 100% convinced that with NN gone a lot of small new ISP will start up.

When Google can't with all their funds and lawyers then who can?

[breadisfunny]

So let's say during the next president election a Democrat wins, cant they just like trump reverse all the shit that that orange idiot has done and restore net neutrality?

not unless they get a democratic majority.