NYS Attorney General is going to sue up to the Supreme Court. Washington State vows to not allow this statewide. If the people come out and our representatives from the right states come out and all link together this can be overturned.
Any bets on how long it takes before @bill gets an offer from one of the big services?
Hopefully this will be enough to get this administration out of office in 2020. The whole argument of "we were fine before net neutrality" is crazy. Before we had net neutrality there are plenty of examples of ISPs trying to rip off the customer (ATT blocking VOIP, various ISPs blocking Google Wallet, etc). I've noticed even some of the hardcore supporters are even upset with this decision.
> Doesn't it still have to go to Congress?
Yes and the majority of it is owned by big corporations.
Y'all are fudgeed unless those lawsuits go somewhere.
> Hopefully this will knock some trump voters off fb who don't wanna pay up...
Didn't knock you off here... so..
> Sam wrote:
>> Hopefully this will knock some trump voters off fb who don't wanna pay up...
> Didn't knock you off here... so..
Well it hasn't happened yet so keep holding your breath........................................................................................and then subscribe to the site with billcoin so you don't get knocked off too
> KCPenguins wrote:
>> Sam wrote:
> |>> Hopefully this will knock some trump voters off fb who don't wanna pay up...
>> Didn't knock you off here... so..
> Well it hasn't happened yet so keep holding your breath........................................................................................and
> then subscribe to the site with billcoin so you don't get knocked off too
I don't have to worry as I don't renege on my trades.
If this isn't rejected we'll see an era of mergers unlike anything we've ever seen. Under the table deals with Verizon and whomever else getting into bed with the websites we all use the most and at that point It will literally cost us money to scratch our balls.
> I don't have to worry as I don't renege on my trades.
You must be mistaken. I don't renege on my trades, I reNuge on my trades, brother!!!image
It's no coincidence the head of the FCC used to work for Verizon. It's all about the money for large ISPs (look up how much they have spent to lobby for this repeal). I agree the repeal of NN won't kill the internet but it is a foolish move and bad for the consumer. Your bills will go up and in theory ISPs can straight up block news or websites they don't want you to see. I don't see the plus side to this decision unless you are part of an ISP.
> Scots wrote:
>> Good step. Internet was fine up until 2015. Get the government out of the internet.
> Open your eyes
My eyes are very open. You just proved my point with that article.
The article you posted lists a bunch of scenarios. What do they all have in common? In each situation, the company either paid a big settlement, was fined for malpractice, or reversed their action based on public uproar or advocacy groups calling them out. This is called the market working!
Are you guys really all for the government taking over control of everything? Ensure transparency. I prefer the government play referee when needed, not boss people around to begin with.
> sa330206 wrote:
>> Scots wrote:
> |>> Good step. Internet was fine up until 2015. Get the government out of the internet.
>> Open your eyes
> My eyes are very open. You just proved my point with that article.
> The article you posted lists a bunch of scenarios. What do they all have in common?
> In each situation, the company either paid a big settlement, was fined for malpractice,
> or reversed their action based on public uproar or advocacy groups calling them out.
> This is called the market working!
> Are you guys really all for the government taking over control of everything? Ensure
> transparency and the market will police itself.
> I prefer the government play referee when needed, not boss people around to begin
No..these companies paid up due to the open internet rules that have since been removed. Do you really think a small rural ISP is going to provide fair pricing when they are the only game in town? In 2017 internet is a public utility and needs regulated. What if they removed all regulations on your power company? Your bill could go up to $500/month and there's nothing you could do about it.
I think it's a valid point but in many areas there is no competition (think windstream servicing a rural area). In some cases where you have many ISP options this could work. In my case I only have one ISP who services my area.
I know that Steven Crowder is a "loud mouthed right winger" etc. etc. but he did a video on this and I thought it was one of his well reasoned ones. He concedes there are good arguments on both sides but my view on this actually lines up pretty closely to his.
If you have 10 minutes, it's worth a watch regardless of what you think about it.https://youtu.be/G35g5HQVjpU
That's all Obama rule did. Basically said we've looked into your eyes, it's pure evil we know what you'll do if left to operate according to your own devices and were going to safeguard against that. That's what a referee does. I'd agree that historically the private sector is more reliable than government. However it's naive of you or anyone not to pay credence to the fact that over the last twenty years it's a variable tie for who screwed the hard working people of America more corporate interests (specifically conglomerates, not local buy incorporated small businesses) or our government from both sides the isle.
> Tens of millions of Americans live in areas where there is one option for internet
> service. We have one company and that's it. If this creates tiers, limits, throttling..
> it's gonna hurt a lot of people. If it starts costing the Netflix and hulu's out
> there more that cost is getting passed to us for sure.
That cost won't be passed to them. They'll just get in bed with service lords and still hand us a higher bill just because they can. Capitalism at its finest moment on a shining hill. Where of course our founding fathers beloved that both the government and the private business sector have a larger role in creating policy than the voice of the starving proletariat desperate to work but finding themselves in hands corporate warlords who prefer to make money speculating instead building anything, other than their empires which are built with our sweat our blood and the tears of children whom they sacrifice for a Little Extra bulge in thier Hampton house portfolio.
> Again, this won't stick, but defending this move is defending the attempted murder
> of freedom of opinion.
Sensationalism at its finest.
> Does it give anyone pause that big corporations are all big supporters or net neutrality?
The fact that you're the second or third Trump backer in the past 24 hours to say this almost verbatim certainly does. Of course smart companies are all about Net Neutrality, this stance benefits them twofold: One, popular support helps enhance their product and service value in the eyes of those who agree with them, and two, they know with NN gone and ISPs being GIVEN the OPTION to charge premiums for "prioritized" (or normalized) treatment of their data and services (such as Netflix), these ISPs will absolutely go to town on their bank accounts just as hard as they can get away with.
Can't you guys admit Trump appointed a fudge-up groomed by Verizon to do this one thing that'll make ISPs billions that US consumers can't stand? If it's such a NOT big deal, why do they want Net Neutrality gone?
When Verizon started throttling Netflix traffic unless they paid premium and the FCC intervened thanks to Net Neutrality, where was your stance there? That Verizon SHOULD be charging different companies different money to get normalized service? This "innovation" and "product creation" they're talking about is literally "We want to give ISPs the ability to charge premiums and "create products" for things they currently are forced to treat equally to every other bit of traffic they serve up".
I seriously cannot believe so many Trump supporters got played so hard on this. Have you EVER seen a company like Comcast say "You don't have to watch us, man, we'll be good to you. Trust us." in the history of history and believed them? Literally a company that's won "Worst Company of the Year" multiple times?
But hey, we're all in this together. Once you start getting nickle and dime fudgeed by your provider that holds an effective monopoly on service in your area, you'll feel like you have some skin in the game here. Ajit Pai is a fudging shill for data providers, and you're ignoring all the evidence. And yesterday was his big payday. Woo.
> Second, I'm not saying nobody should watch the ISPs. I'm for full transparency laws.
> In the Verizon/Netflix example, they didn't get caught and make sure it stopped "because
> of net neutrality." That's totally disingenuous, IMO. They got caught and stopped
> it because we have a lot of watch dogs (in a good way) who will find these things,
> and make sure they are exposed.
Net neutrality was the only reason why what they were doing was illegal and was stopped. They explained it away embarrassedly, stopped doing it and the FCC didn't have to come in and fine them for being royal fudge-ups, they were probably just seeing if they could get away with it or if it was theoretically possible to implement.
Now that behavior is fine. Now all they have to do is either announce their throttling publicly (To better serve the vast majority of our customers and keep the speeds they expect and deserve from us, masturbatory details) OR just set a new standard of transmission rates and start charging for "prioritized" traffic. New VoIP start-up? Pay now to get "Fast Lane" access or, you know, stay clumped up with the rest of the people not on toll roads. Oh, you don't want to do VoIP anymore because you can't afford reasonable latency and packet priority? Huh! Well, okay buddy! The big guys seem to think the toll roads are just fine!
I 100% want to be wrong about this. But I don't trust our ISPs because they give me zero reason to trust them. Which is why I wanted them regulated. I don't believe in the honor system, not with this much money on the line. Not with something this important. They've already taken away choices. Comcast pisses me off, that's tough crap for me, AT&T hasn't laid down fiber yet at my new place so my only other options are Hughesnet (crapty quality satellite internet) or 20 meg AT&T, 3-5 times slower than Comcast.
So I had to go with AT&T 20 meg after I moved. Pretty sweet huh?
The point being, many of these carriers have effective monopolies in the markets they service, which was by design. If they do crapty business practices that piss me off, like throttling Netflix, I have no recourse because there is no equivalent or greater service being offered here, which is a common occurrence.
Yes, I can get on the Internet and dog on Twitter (Hopefully!) but at the end of the day, my options are pay more for less service with Hughesnet, or pay less for less service with AT&T. That's not theoretical or hypothetical, that's my reality. When they're the "best" show in town and there's literally zero competition, what's Comcast's impetus to behave?
I hate the argument that "net neutrality has only been around since 2015 and we were fine before." While true the formal net neutrality we know today has only been around a few years..there has been fair internet framework around long before 2015. There are many cases of carriers blocking p2p,voip,etc and the FCC has to step in. Why should we have to launch a big investigation and lengthy court battle every time an ISP pushes the boundary? Just set the ground rules up front before they can start ripping everyone off.
> Why is this so different for internet service than for every other commodity in the
> I understand the primary argument for net neutrality to be around fairness and equality
> for the consumer. But by replacing a marketplace that encourages competition and
> innovation, net neutrally essentially means that who gets what will pretty much be
> decided by politics. That doesn't seem positive to me at all.
> A market for a product is typically driven by demand from those who want or need
> the products most. Prices often go up with demand. And some people are able to pay
> more for a service or product than others. So, businesses create more options to
> cater to all levels. That's why we have the $10 coffee at Starbucks and the $1 cup
> on the street. The offering and transactions of the former don't interfere with the
> latter. Our economy works this way in pretty much every sector - electronics, food,
> So when we see an ISP making a deal with Netflix where Netflix will use a fast lane
> that they pay for as a massive data user, I say that's great. I think this will actually
> create a lot of room for innovation and growth that will increase speeds and capabilities.
> AT&T became a monopoly back in the day because of some of the same principles of
> net neutrality, and they didn't innovate at all, because there was no reason or way
> to. More options and levels for customers to get involved is exactly what broke us
> out of that.
Scots- the issue here is that the ISP's have a near monopoly on owning the infrastucture. So when the AT&T/Comcast/Verizon decide they want to throttle and sectorize the network, there is no other option for independent ISP's, because there is no other route. And because of this, there is no incentive for the large networks to offer a "discount" plan, because the competition all need to buy into the base fee to use the lines.
Think of it this way: every bridge out of your city is owned by the Bridge Corporation. The Bridge Corp decides you need to pay a toll to cross their bridges. Now you're paying everytime you need to leave the city, and it doesn't matter if you drive, take the bus, a cab, whatever. They're all paying to get across those bridges, and passing the buck on to you.
> Oh ya, and PRO TIP: Corporations are not your friend. They do not have your best
> interests at heart.
Couldn't agree more.
When will Americans realize that the only way to get these rich butt-holes to pay attention is with violence?
> Uppercat wrote:
>> When will Americans realize that the only way to get these rich butt-holes to pay
>> is with violence?
> What would it take for Americans to actually revolt? All basic human rights to be
> violated and removed? The signs are all telling that there's a recession looming...
> I am terrified to see how deep the markets can crash with a gov't that only cares
> about padding their own pockets.
Seems a bit over the top to me. In a fudgeed up way, they're cutting taxes, they're deregulating heavily (removing money from their pockets)... So far we've seen a lot of fiscally conservative activities (that only tangentially benefits Trump and his benefactors). The market hasn't folded in on itself, though Wall Street strength's certainly not telling of the general American well-being, to be clear, but I can't look at much going on and say "Man we're fudgeed". We're not. So far it looks very much like life will go on for the next three years.