FCC to vote on scrapping Net Neutrality

[Masark]

In Germany, you have to have broadcasting license to stream on Twitch. That's the US in a few years if Net Neutrality isn't neutered.

non sequiturs for $2000 Alex.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

https://dotesports.com/business/news...h-13850#list-1

[Edge-]

stuff

So...are you giving up on listing a single regulation that would be burdensome to an ISP startup that will be lifted by repealing NN rules?

[Casterbridge]

There ya go again with the "nu-uh!" stuff.

Here's the way I see it: People are looking at NN and, depending on how they feel about government regulation/interference vs the free market/liberty, they're either for it or against it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that without direct, heavy government regulation businesses will invariably do harm to their fellow citizens, then you most likely will be all for the existence of Net Neutrality. On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who thinks the free market provides its own solution to problems within itself and that government interference invariably leads to "crony capitalism" and a general loss of liberty, you'll probably be likely to approve of the removal of the three-year-old existence of Net Neutrality. Like a lot of other things that came out of the Obama Administration, however, NN is mostly just framework for something that the left wants to add to later as they see fit. The internet in the US was just fine prior to NN... if all of these speed reduction hypotheticals that the pro-NN crowd talk about were going to happen, they would have happened long prior to the establishment of NN. The left doesn't want this framework taken away, so they have to come up with all these stories about the evil ISPs giving preferential treatment to various sites. The free market would fix that by holding them accountable to their customers directly. Want to watch Netflix but Spectrum has you throttled because they'd rather you watch their cable service? Switch to a competitor. That's freedom. That's liberty. That's free market capitalism.

In Germany, you have to have broadcasting license to stream on Twitch. That's the US in a few years if Net Neutrality isn't neutered. What if you needed somekind of publisher's license to blog? Or post on a message board? Or Tweet? Can you imagine the people here on MMO-Champion who would bitch if all the mods got fired in favor of government online overseers enforcing a set of rules that are not the TOS set by those who own the site? Some might think I'd like that, but I wouldn't... even if the government said it's okay to discuss something as innocuous as the shape of the Earth.

You keep using the same argument over and over again and missing the point right here:

The free market would fix that by holding them accountable to their customers directly. Want to watch Netflix but Spectrum has you throttled because they'd rather you watch their cable service? Switch to a competitor. That's freedom. That's liberty. That's free market capitalism.

You have yet to explain how the removal of Net Neutrality will help me find my another ISP to go to, since Net Neutrality does not stifle ISPs or in anyway keep them out of the market and specifically in my area, I have to assume that I will continue to only have the choice of two ISPs only now those two will have far greater power to charge me or restrict me from using the services I choose, such as Netflix, rather than the ones they would rather I use.

In order for your argument against Net Neutrality to be valid, the regulation has to, in some serious way, bar entry of additional ISPs into the market and/or expanding, it does not.

What the removal of Net Neutrality does is give more power to already established ISPs making them stronger monopolies and thus stifling competition even more. The exact opposite of what you claim you want, or will fix the problem.

[Ivanstone]

There ya go again with the "nu-uh!" stuff.

Here's the way I see it: People are looking at NN and, depending on how they feel about government regulation/interference vs the free market/liberty, they're either for it or against it.

Net Neutrality isn't about that. The anti-NN people are a small group of corporations looking to maintain their oligopoly. Anti-NN is anti-free market.

[Kiri]

There ya go again with the "nu-uh!" stuff.

Here's the way I see it: People are looking at NN and, depending on how they feel about government regulation/interference vs the free market/liberty, they're either for it or against it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that without direct, heavy government regulation businesses will invariably do harm to their fellow citizens, then you most likely will be all for the existence of Net Neutrality. On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who thinks the free market provides its own solution to problems within itself and that government interference invariably leads to "crony capitalism" and a general loss of liberty, you'll probably be likely to approve of the removal of the three-year-old existence of Net Neutrality. Like a lot of other things that came out of the Obama Administration, however, NN is mostly just framework for something that the left wants to add to later as they see fit. The internet in the US was just fine prior to NN... if all of these speed reduction hypotheticals that the pro-NN crowd talk about were going to happen, they would have happened long prior to the establishment of NN. The left doesn't want this framework taken away, so they have to come up with all these stories about the evil ISPs giving preferential treatment to various sites. The free market would fix that by holding them accountable to their customers directly. Want to watch Netflix but Spectrum has you throttled because they'd rather you watch their cable service? Switch to a competitor. That's freedom. That's liberty. That's free market capitalism.

In Germany, you have to have broadcasting license to stream on Twitch. That's the US in a few years if Net Neutrality isn't neutered. What if you needed somekind of publisher's license to blog? Or post on a message board? Or Tweet? Can you imagine the people here on MMO-Champion who would bitch if all the mods got fired in favor of government online overseers enforcing a set of rules that are not the TOS set by those who own the site? Some might think I'd like that, but I wouldn't... even if the government said it's okay to discuss something as innocuous as the shape of the Earth.

And then there are the people who know a thing or two about economics and can identify a failing market when they see them. You know, using facts instead of feelings. Economic theory and all that stuff. The majority of people in the US has access to two or fewer ISPs. People will not be able to 'just switch', especially outside major cities. Due to the high initial costs of entering the ISP market - and established ISPs both partaking in tacit collusion and lobbying to keep things that way - that situation is not likely to change.
As for some of your other points: no, the internet was not fine before the NN ruling that you are referring to. There have been legal battles fought over this issue since Bush. The FCC has fought against ISPs implementing shady stuff like stealth-redirecting searches and stuff like that for the better part of a decade. One such legal battle is actually the reason for the title II classification. The courts ruled that the FCC needed to do that in order to do their job of, well, protecting consumers. Net Neutrality already existed before that; the FCC simply believed itself capable of defending it without the classification.

[Noradin]

Well, I doubt anyone's going to want dial-up in this day and age.

But that was what your example claimed the customers of that hypethetical provider wanted.

[PC2]

Net Neutrality isn't about that. The anti-NN people are a small group of corporations looking to maintain their oligopoly. Anti-NN is anti-free market.

Wrong, NN is a market regulation.

[mvaliz]

Wrong, NN is a market regulation.

And that "Market Regulation" actually makes it a more Free Market than removing NN does.

That's the point of regulation, to make a more Free market by making it a FAIR and safe market. If there are regulations that seem to hold things back and have no reason to, by all means question and vote those out. Removing Net Neutrallity doesn't "Fix" any problem but allow the big corps to gouge.

[Ivanstone]

Wrong, NN is a market regulation.

Its a regulation that allows free market competition to occur. Removing Net Neutrality only allows lazy ISP's to extract money from consumers without competing for it.

[mvaliz]

Its a regulation that allows free market competition to occur. Removing Net Neutrality only allows lazy ISP's to extract money from consumers without competing for it.

That's the problem with these Ayn Randian fukwits... they think Regulations are nothing but some tool to manipulate the market, when in reality it's there for VERY PRACTICAL reasons. Every truck who goes under a bridge safely, every parking spot that accommodates cars sizes, every rule placed to make certain your food isn't contaminated are regulations. They don't notice these - they just notice things that SEEM to make it harder for smaller companies to start up (you know, having to do electrical checks and what not) and want to throw out the entire system entirely instead of realizing the importance they bring.

And Net Neutrality is actually the largest one out there as, again, it ACTUALLY KEEPS THE MARKET REALLY FREE! Removing Net Neutrality is actually a vote against a free market.

[Grapemask]

Wrong, NN is a market regulation.

Kneejerk reactions "AHHH REGULATION = ANTI-FREE MARKET" are ridiculous.

Because of the nature of the internet, regulation is required for that free market to function.

Imagine if the only way you could get to any store was by first going through another store. Because the internet is an artificially constructed network with access points that cannot be freely tapped into, the free market only applies to it artificially. Without net neutrality, you're not putting the free market in charge of the internet. You're putting the company that owns the store that has all of the stores inside of it in charge of the internet. The free market and its invisible hand wait in the parking lot.

[Noradin]

non sequiturs for $2000 Alex.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

https://dotesports.com/business/news...h-13850#list-1

It's also just a lie, I'd call that nation bashing.

You are taking one case out of context and imply it is the case for everyone.

[telygroar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_V7gUxbpiE

found this it is real ?

[Dezerte]

Wrong, NN is a market regulation.

It absolutely is a regulation, however it's there to protect the free market.

[Breccia]

Net neutrality repeal drew 2M fake comments, prosecutor says

Millions of comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission as it sought public feedback on the agency's plan to roll back "net neutrality" rules were fake, New York prosecutors claim.

The state's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said Wednesday his office's investigation found that 2 million of the comments stole the identities of real Americans. More than 5,000 people have reported that comments on the proposed repeal of net neutrality were falsely made under their names, according to the probe.

Schneiderman urged the FCC to postpone its vote on the repeal, which is set for Thursday.

"Millions of fake comments have corrupted the FCC public process, including 2 million that stole the identities of real people, a crime under New York law," he said in a statement. "Yet the FCC is moving full steam ahead with a vote based on this corrupted process, while refusing to cooperate with an investigation."

More than 100,000 fake comments were filed in each of four states, Schneiderman's office found: California, Florida, New York and Texas.

The attorney general's office arrived at its count of phony comments by running searches against the public database used to solicit feedback on the rules. Specifically, investigators looked for comments with identical text string, formatting similarities, similar syntax and other factors. The names of people linked to the questionable comments were found in known data breaches.

Schneiderman said the FCC is proceeding with the vote over the objection of more than 30 lawmakers in Congress, multiple state attorneys general around the US and two of its own commissioners.

"One might expect a federal agency to harbor a great deal of concern when faced with strong evidence of a massive fraud uncovered by multiple sources," he said in a letter to FCC general counsel Thomas Johnson Jr.

[Wyrt]

Net neutrality repeal drew 2M fake comments, prosecutor says

Of course they don't fucking care. They never had any intention of listening to the people regardless. Just doing what Daddy Verizon wanted them to do.

[Zandermill]

It's humorous how much the left cannibalizes it's own. Verizon along with it's child company Yahoo are strong left learners, the head of the FCC Ajit Pai is Obama's choice to head up the FCC, and yet it's somehow Trump's and the Republicans fault?
Great jump's of logic there folks. That's your guy doing what Obama chose him for the FCC to do. Trump's obviously too stupid according to most posters here to either A, know what's going on. Or B, not know how it will affect everything.

Oh Well, I work for Big Red, so I don't care one bit.

[Edge-]

It's humorous how much the left cannibalizes it's own. Verizon along with it's child company Yahoo are strong left learners, the head of the FCC Ajit Pai is Obama's choice to head up the FCC, and yet it's somehow Trump's and the Republicans fault?

How is this "the left cannibalizing their own"? Just because Verizon or Yahoo may support some progressive causes doesn't mean that "the left" owes them shit or that any progressives consider either company "their own".

He was not Obama's choice to head the FCC, Trump picked him. He was Obama's choice for various roles in the FCC, at the request of Mitch McConnell, but his term ended earlier this year. Trump brought him back to the FCC and made him the head of the agency.

At least get your basic facts right.

[Grapemask]

It's humorous how much the left cannibalizes it's own. Verizon along with it's child company Yahoo are strong left learners, the head of the FCC Ajit Pai is Obama's choice to head up the FCC, and yet it's somehow Trump's and the Republicans fault?
Great jump's of logic there folks. That's your guy doing what Obama chose him for the FCC to do. Trump's obviously too stupid according to most posters here to either A, know what's going on. Or B, not know how it will affect everything.

Oh Well, I work for Big Red, so I don't care one bit.

I think, uh, you're the one guilty of a "great jump of logic." I don't even know if logic is what you call this.

[kail]

Here's more of what most of you seem to be ignoring about NN...

OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and watched that entire video. Because of that video, it is now the last. 15 minutes of incoherent rambling was a pure waste of time, I don't understand how you think this helps your argument in any way and i have a slight guess that you don't even watch what you post.

Of the video in question, it can be broken down into few points:

- Government is against you (lol)
- Free market is best
- Government will take over and censor the Internet (which NN prevents)
- John Oliver is evil (OK)
- Rambling

If he further elaborated on point 2, he might have had a valid point to make. Instead, they guy literally spent 5 seconds of giving a civilian interpretation of how the Internet works and simply shits on NN without putting much thought on what it does, I'm guessing if it's a regulation on anything it should be done away with. All in all, I hope other users save their time from such a video and grats on making yourself appear further ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

It's humorous how much the left cannibalizes it's own. Verizon along with it's child company Yahoo are strong left learners, the head of the FCC Ajit Pai is Obama's choice to head up the FCC, and yet it's somehow Trump's and the Republicans fault?
Great jump's of logic there folks. That's your guy doing what Obama chose him for the FCC to do. Trump's obviously too stupid according to most posters here to either A, know what's going on. Or B, not know how it will affect everything.

Oh Well, I work for Big Red, so I don't care one bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai