Net neutrality gone

[Blamblam41]

No, I just want people to be responsible for their own actions. I want consumers to utilize the power they hold.

- - - Updated - - -



I have already stated my opposition to the current paradigm of government-protected monopolies and oligopolies.

So you like Standard Oil more than the United States, then? Fundamentally, capitalism must bow to the people.

[Krigaren]

except when they changed to net neutrality, all of two years ago.... closer to three but you get my drift.

The battle for net neutrality goes back to at least 2004, so it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only appeared 2 years ago. The final draft of the rules were in 2015, which is what the FCC just voted to repeal.

But Vyuvarax's point was that the FCC has consistently supported net neutrality rules, and that the vote today is the first time it's broken from that.

[Rocko9]

What is this vacation you speak of, I work 12 hour days every day, me and my partner do anyway. But our employees get paid vacation and work 8-5. being a business owner has no benefits.

You're preaching to the choir man. You cannot make someone who has an employee's 9-5 mindset understand the risks, costs or rewarding feelings that come with being a business owner. All they think is "I work and they get paid". No one remembers when the boss was living off of spaghetti and iced tea every fucking day, hoping their customer would pay within the 30 day period so they they could get their own bills out.

[Machismo]

So you like Standard Oil more than the United States, then? Fundamentally, capitalism must bow to the people.

Capitalism should bow to the people, because they hold the power as consumers. I simply want to avoid government intervention as much as possible.

[RobertoCarlos]

The battle for net neutrality goes back to at least 2004, so it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only appeared 2 years ago. The final draft of the rules were in 2015, which is what the FCC just voted to repeal.

But Vyuvarax's point was that the FCC has consistently supported net neutrality rules, and that the vote today is the first time it's broken from that.

How much do you think ajit pai will be getting paid for this

[masterhorus8]

You do know that all the members of that 5 person board was appointed by Obama? the only thing that Trump did was elevate Ajit Pai to chairman. You need to understand that the parties only use differences to distract you from the fact that they are selling the future out as fast as they can.

*At the recommendation of Mitch McConnell because Obama already chose his Democratic appointees.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Google Fiber was blocked/stalled.

https://consumerist.com/2016/09/20/c...-slow-it-down/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...lifornia.shtml

https://billfixers.com/blog/comcast-sues-nashville

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...utility-poles/

http://www.tennessean.com/story/mone...les/889313001/

A few articles showing this (some redundancy above). What is a startup going to do, when the big players will just sue to keep things status quo?

I agree, that kind of political wrangling is messy and not to the benefit of consumers. The constant in all of this though is corrupt local politicians, who somehow keep getting elected. This leads me to believe a couple of things.

1. Consumers in such locales are satisfied enough with their service that there is not sufficient demand to draw investment from a competitor.

2. Consumers in such locales are satisfied enough with their service they don't vote on the issue in local elections.

This kind of influence peddling on the part of politicians is only possible when people have not yet experienced or are unaware of a superior product. Big companies can use politicians to create regulations that allow them to slow walk their service forward free from real competition. You can't go backwards though. People notice real quick when you take away something they previously had. Like I said, this change isn't going to slow our bandwidth. Chances are it will just continue to grow. If I'm wrong in two years, feel free to necro this thread and laugh at me. I'll concede.

[Jtbrig7390]

Damn man.. the way you word this really makes it sounds like you're against small towns growing and small businesses lol. It pretty much sounds like "They aren't NYC, LA or Chicago, so fuck them".

No I am against people not using logic, How does one expect a business to live in a town of 2500. People are not going to move to his small town because his wife knows how to do hair or pant toenails.

[Krigaren]

No, I just want people to be responsible for their own actions. I want consumers to utilize the power they hold.

For a large swath of American workers, that would require collective bargaining. Something that the right has been systematically dismantling and waging a PR war against since Reagan. Most people have absolutely zero leverage to influence their employers.

But since you changed from talking about employees and employers to now talking about consumers, there are some industries where consumers have very little to no power to influence change via the market. Healthcare is one. Utilities are another. Internet service is yet another. In those industries you pay what they charge you, and you don't have a market of alternatives to turn to, especially when the already-limited options start to collude as the telecoms do.

So not sure where you get the idea that people should be responsible for their own actions where there are things that no amount of responsibility will help.

[MatadorMedia]

Pays $50 to access the Internet.
Pays $10 Google package fee to find out what Net Neutrality is.
Pays $10 Discussion Board package to comment on MMO-Champion that repealing this was a bad idea.
Pays $500 Pornography package fee to jerk off and forget about this disaster year of 2017 in America.

[Machismo]

I agree, that kind of political wrangling is messy and not to the benefit of consumers. The constant in all of this though is corrupt local politicians, who somehow keep getting elected. This leads me to believe a couple of things.

1. Consumers in such locales are satisfied enough with their service that there is not sufficient demand to draw investment from a competitor.

2. Consumers in such locales are satisfied enough with their service they don't vote on the issue in local elections.

This kind of influence peddling on the part of politicians is only possible when people have not yet experienced or are unaware of a superior product. Big companies can use politicians to create regulations that allow them to slow walk their service forward free from real competition. You can't go backwards though. People notice real quick when you take away something they previously had. Like I said, this change isn't going to slow our bandwidth. Chances are it will just continue to grow. If I'm wrong in two years, feel free to necro this thread and laugh at me. I'll concede.

Well, before it was implemented in 2015, they were throttling speeds significantly. So, it already happened.

[RobertoCarlos]

Like I said, this change isn't going to slow our bandwidth. Chances are it will just continue to grow. If I'm wrong in two years, feel free to necro this thread and laugh at me. I'll concede.

By then I'll be too depressed at the reality we are living in, where corporate greed is the only absolute you can count on and life is put second or third.

You are deluded if you dont think comcast and AT are not gonna run with this and start giving themselves bigger performance based bonuses.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

The battle for net neutrality goes back to at least 2004, so it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that it's something that only appeared 2 years ago. The final draft of the rules were in 2015, which is what the FCC just voted to repeal.

But Vyuvarax's point was that the FCC has consistently supported net neutrality rules, and that the vote today is the first time it's broken from that.

What regulations regarding net neutrality did the FCC implement before 2015? That's an honest question as I don't know the answer. All that matters is what regulations are in force. Opinions and moral support are meaningless.

[tankbug]

Most of Trumps voters were "normal" people though. Where they not?

Well, I hope "normal" people aren't as racists, ignorant, self-destructive, hateful, anti-intellectual and deluded as those who think a one of the most greedy and self-obsessed capitalists in the world would make a great president that puts the people first in matters of policies.

[MasterHamster]

Republican shitstains doing this out of spite and nothing else.
Ah, other than the bribes of course.

And how surprising how the "promises" over at Comcast have suddenly disappeared

But yeah, good job, you revoked something Obama did. That was your entire endgame, no?

[Yunru]

Good thing i dont live in the US.
I wonder, but what did Trump say abauth this.

[Machismo]

For a large swath of American workers, that would require collective bargaining. Something that the right has been systematically dismantling and waging a PR war against since Reagan. Most people have absolutely zero leverage to influence their employers.

But since you changed from talking about employees and employers to now talking about consumers, there are some industries where consumers have very little to no power to influence change via the market. Healthcare is one. Utilities are another. Internet service is yet another. In those industries you pay what they charge you, and you don't have a market of alternatives to turn to, especially when the already-limited options start to collude as the telecoms do.

So not sure where you get the idea that people should be responsible for their own actions where there are things that no amount of responsibility will help.

I'm all for collective bargaining. What I'm not for, is the government mandating collective bargaining.

if you are going to speak about things where consumers don't have much sway (inelastic demand of "necessary" resources), then you will also notice that the government is the one involved in such things. If the argument were to be that the government should be involved in providing health care, that is a reasonable argument. It does not make sense to place that burden on employers.

I will note that those markets you speak of... are usually led by government-protected monopolies. Government is already involved in them, but often not the way you may want them to be.

[RobertoCarlos]

Good thing i dont live in the US.
I wonder, but what did Trump say abauth this.

if you think this will be limited to the US you are deluded too.

US is simply first at draining the most money possible out of its markets. Countries will be copying this soon enough

[ArguesWithStrangers]

By then I'll be too depressed at the reality we are living in, where corporate greed is the only absolute you can count on and life is put second or third.

You are deluded if you dont think comcast and AT are not gonna run with this and start giving themselves bigger performance based bonuses.

That's a bit melodramatic man. Go outside, the sun is shining, your belly is full, and you've a lot to be thankful for. If you've people you love in your life, spend time with them. There are more important things in the world than hanging out on the forums with me arguing about abstracts.

[Rocko9]

No I am against people not using logic, How does one expect a business to live in a town of 2500. People are not going to move to his small town because his wife knows how to do hair or pant toenails.

Same way all the other local businesses survive: provide a good service and hope to get a customer base. Can't guarantee success or luck anywhere you set up.