FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, you say that the FCC should provide what people want. Yet the people spoke and wanted neutrality. It seems you want the FCC to do what the people want... as long as it isn't neutrality.
The “people” couldn’t quote me one line of NN.
Clark Howard slammed Verizon over the play the made and then turned around and tried to stop NN repeal later. Nobody understands this law. That’s clear.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you blind someone form the NN discussion and ask them what they want they would pick choose. They don’t care about your speculative theoretical issues where some unknown media type is suppressed.
You are grasping. People want freedom and protection. The ISPs dont' want to have to do what people want. It's as simple as that. Pai sold us out. Money or hatred, doesn't matter.
You keep saying that bad things would happen if NN was around, but how is THAT not speculation?
-
Alrighty will continue when at desk! Lol gotta get some sleep.
We need to get into the laws verbage to get anywhere. Open to further debate!
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also, you say that the FCC should provide what people want. Yet the people spoke and wanted neutrality. It seems you want the FCC to do what the people want... as long as it isn't neutrality.
The “people” couldn’t quote me one line of NN.
Clark Howard slammed Verizon over the play the made and then turned around and tried to stop NN repeal later. Nobody understands this law. That’s clear.
But they all understand teh intent, at least, and the reasons that the ISPs want it repealed. That's the important part.
What part of the law do you take issue with? You've not said yet. Everything you've said thus far about the law all points to how critical it was.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Alrighty will continue when at desk! Lol gotta get some sleep.
We need to get into the laws verbage to get anywhere. Open to further debate!
I agree, and that's where I am lost. I've heard nothing but praise about what the law has protected us from, but then that the law needs to go. I'm so confused how it can be so awesome, but then that we want to get rid of it... especially with nothing at all to replace it.
-
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
WSJ isn't exactly an unbiased source. But even if it was... paywalled. They don't in the value of their own journalism.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Good, unbiased article...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405
WSJ isn't exactly an unbiased source. But even if it was... paywalled. They don't in the value of their own journalism.
When I think from Square one about why I hated and was confused by NN it mostly revolves around my experience with title ii... this is a good read I just found that described a the issues.
http://www.ccmi.com/blog/the-problem-with-todays-title-ii-an-out-of-control-fcc
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
And this echoes the way I saw it “now the fcc controls the internet”
Also, even if some small service is throttles they still have to wade the expense of a legal battle against giant ISP’s. NN infractions could never be enforced by the FCC.
Seriously this link is worth a gander...
-
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
My favorite link I can’t post here because it linked to pornhub and was titled “Hot Indian fucks entire world” and was a link to the FCC broadcast of the NN live broadcast.
It was so funny I almost wished I was on the other side of the argument. Lmao.
And you can't link that here... why?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
I also always thought NN was bullshit, based on speculation and phantom issues that did not exist. More specific legislation could have addressed issued like throttling, one of the guises the NN supporters used to bring this into effect. It just wasnt a well crafted law, and was widely open to the kind of abuse that would reduce competition.
There is no system for competition today. They could have retained NN and fixed these things. Removing NN is the issue, failing to fix the other things is an issue, using repealing NN under the excuse of the other things is an issue.
NN didn’t add competition. And on the agenda Pai is looking to add legislation to donjust that.
On your other comment, I’m not saying one is bad and the other worst. Pai looks like Batman to me and Wheeler like the Joker.
Of course it didn't - it did give customers consumer protections that the lack of competition prevented them from getting.
i.e. an unthrottled connection to the internet for one.If I pay for a 100/20 connection, why should you the ISP be allowed to slow content you don't like down?
Right, it was dealing with reality... in the real world we don't have competition for utilities. NN protected us so that we kept ourselves free as a country.
Since it came into play NN has reduced infrastructure investment and only benefited big internet. It’s a ruse.
Also not true. Literally has been proven false every step of the way. There are dozens of links in this thread alone that show that infrastructure investment actually went up since 2015.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
Never happened or never will? You should read this thread there are at least 3 links to collations of net neutrality violations by ISPs.
And yes, they did actually have recourse. File a complaint against the ISP with the FCC. The FCC had the obligation to investigate these practices and determine their affect on consumers. It's a well documented process.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
Right! Makes no sense! That’s why this particular bill should be called “The FCC Regulates the Internet”
So the FCC protecting websites, and consumers, against ISP throttling was the issue? I'm not sure I follow.
The FCC has no capacity to enforce small infrastractions.
This is complex issue that was discussed for well over a decade, when title ii was finally applied I really thought everyone had just said “fuck it”. Or better, big internet money had made its way to the right corrupt people. All the sudden after 10 years of debate some magical law was going to solve the issue (and again no one had really had an issue, all theory and speculation)
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
But what really came to mind that isn’t listed here is the presidents ability to shut down websites for all kinds of reasons, since they are title ii utilities now...
That doesn't even make sense. ISPs were Title II utilities not website hosts or providers. It's actually easier now for a government agency/president to shut down websites, they just ask their friends at the ISP to throttle them into oblivion and we have no protection against it.
The second part of what you said, which is what has duped everyone, has never happened and never will. Also there is nothing that poor targeted website could do outside of public outcry to stop such a thing. Public outcry is always going to be the defense for the little guy getting oppressed. He will never be able to afford to wade into a court battle with whomever is throttling him. Which is why I always thought the whole was BS!
Never happened or never will? You should read this thread there are at least 3 links to collations of net neutrality violations by ISPs.
And yes, they did actually have recourse. File a complaint against the ISP with the FCC. The FCC had the obligation to investigate these practices and determine their affect on consumers. It's a well documented process.
Lol sounds like it right? But no, that’s not how the law is written. There is no process for this nor would the FCC be able to handle it.
You have to go to court. You have to be the content provider affected. The consumer has no hotline to report an issue. Show me where.
I realize people believe this, but it’s not true. Show me where! This was to cover the fact that the FCC now controls your internet, because it’s a utility. The FTC can no longer oversee that your usage and data is protected. And got president can now suppress opposing points of view with little or no overwrite.
-
@bigbear you are thinking about this in a way that doesn't make sense. I explained it like this yesterday, which helps to explain the issue.
The better way to look at this would be Title II and Net Neutrality protected your access (the internet service speed you pay for) from being throttled by a service provider.
To go off of @momurda example, you pay for water at your residence. Unfettered, as much pressure as you can get out of the tap and shower heads. The water authority didn't have any way to get you to pay more for water, but has been trying to for decades, but they weren't allowed to throttle your water pressure.
Now they are allowed to throttle your water pressure, and for a fee you can have your full water pressure back.
Imagine it like that, except that you will never be able to afford what the water company wants to charge for you to have full water pressure back.
You literally would have no options to have better water pressure (internet speed), you would have no recourse to get your performance back, and you would only have one option to get what you need (and you may not even get what you actually need). Which would be paying more for your internet or services.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear you are thinking about this in a way that doesn't make sense. I explained it like this yesterday, which helps to explain the issue.
The better way to look at this would be Title II and Net Neutrality protected your access (the internet service speed you pay for) from being throttled by a service provider.
To go off of @momurda example, you pay for water at your residence. Unfettered, as much pressure as you can get out of the tap and shower heads. The water authority didn't have any way to get you to pay more for water, but has been trying to for decades, but they weren't allowed to throttle your water pressure.
Now they are allowed to throttle your water pressure, and for a fee you can have your full water pressure back.
Imagine it like that, except that you will never be able to afford what the water company wants to charge for you to have full water pressure back.
You literally would have no options to have better water pressure (internet speed), you would have no recourse to get your performance back, and you would only have one option to get what you need (and you may not even get what you actually need). Which would be paying more for your internet or services.
I think we are getting to the heart of it, because you STILL have no options here. You, the end user, are not protected. The FCC is not setup to handle this.Comcast has throttled Netflix before, during, and will continue to after. There is nothing the consumer can do. The content provider would have to take action. Netflix was already fighting Comcast before NN.
There is no Netflix 2 out there or poor small service that ISP's are worried about throttling. And watch Netflix over the years, as the grow into a monopoly. Amazon used to bitch and moan about paying sales tax, fought it tooth and nail early on. Now that it achieved monopoly status they are all for it. There just used it to compete aginst brick and mortar stores.
