FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
This is bizarre to me.
Pai's proposal relies on filings made by carriers to bolster his argument that the functional test "resulted in unnecessary and costly filings" and "can also delay network upgrades." The proposal dismissed the Communications Workers of America argument that the functional test doesn't create uncertainty, saying the union's argument is "directly contradicted by the comments of many carriers."
I'm not a fan of Unions, especially since they directly benefit from this rule, but why are you relying on the people you are charged with regulating when you should be doing your own study? Oh right... money.
-
-
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Basically... "We want states to regulate municipal broadband and prevent cities from creating their own ISPs.... but we don't want states to regulate us." am I understanding this correctly? Seems like we want our cake, eat it, and prevent the poors from ever getting flour to make their own cake.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Basically... "We want states to regulate municipal broadband and prevent cities from creating their own ISPs.... but we don't want states to regulate us." am I understanding this correctly? Seems like we want our cake, eat it, and prevent the poors from ever getting flour to make their own cake.
Yup, but more like "we don't even want the poors to know what cake is."
-
-
-
Isn't... isn't this against the conservative/Republican philosophy?
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Isn't... isn't this against the conservative/Republican philosophy?
Well it goes against the basic federal state law standard. Meaning that the fed sets the minimum requirements or law for something. And states can ramp it up from there.
-
Also to note it's interesting that the FCC can't see that clearly the states and residents of those states want Net Neutrality. Yea Pai is actively doing everything he can to remove and prevent Net Neutrality from ever existing.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Isn't... isn't this against the conservative/Republican philosophy?
Not for the last twenty years. They've been pro-monopoly.
-
https://i.imgur.com/adY4SDM.jpg
It Fits.
-
LOL - Comcast was already strangling torrents and things before the rules.. you know that will be right back in place once these rules are lifted.
What's worse though is that true competition is kept out through agreements between the city and these ransom holding vendors!
The FCC should only even maybe (but not really) consider removing this if they also put in place that municipalities can't give exclusive access to one or even two vendors. With this, the BS excuse that the free market will fix the problem is not possible.
-
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
-
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
-
@scottalanmiller Dont forget Pro War, Pro Poverty, Pro Fear, Pro Tax, Pro Police State, Anti Freedom
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster. Because there is competition in the market those prices are pretty reasonable and there are alternatives. If internet service was truly competitive then you could have a scenario where a Comcast charged for everything under the sun and smaller ISPs could come in and offer open internet for less and take customers forcing Comcast to change their offerings or lose customers. But it isn't truly competitive. Thus why I think the FCC is addressing the wrong thing.
-
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@kelly said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Fundamentally repealing Net Neutrality is the right thing to do...if ISPs were not monopolies or duopolies in the majority of the country. If freedom to compete actually existed in the market, then removing regulations would spur growth. Unfortunately competition does not exist currently, and won't exist after repeal. The FCC is addressing the wrong problem with this.
I'm not sure that I agree - even in an open market, do you want infrastructure suppliers choosing what you RECEIVE?
For example, UPS and FedEx don't choose to deliver some types of products or from different companies - everything costs the same and comes at the same speed. They don't choose to make certain vendors unable to deliver to you or make some packages slow to discredit those vendors and it would be good for no one if they did.
Well, someone does have to pay to get their packages to their destination faster.
That's open and equal to all. Nothing related to what we are discussing with is refusing to deliver things that have been paid for already.
-
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Net Neutrality is about delivering things equally for all people who have paid. Both parties, the sender and receiver, have paid for a service. But one doesn't know that they don't receive what they paid for.
See Comcast disagrees with you. In small print they tell you what you’re paying for is a curated internet, curated by them. At least that’s he case after the change.
Just because you don’t read the small print doesn’t mean they didn’t tell you.
