And they'll have even less choices when the govt gets done with it

5/19/2017 9:38:02 AM

That statement makes zero sense in this context. By not abiding by the rule of net neutrality (all packets must be treated the same across the internet), there is LESS competition or choice.

5/19/2017 10:07:30 AM

Okie dokie

5/19/2017 10:25:53 AM

When it comes to looking out for my interests, you know who I trust more than the government?

Corporations.

What's good for the shareholder is good for me, too.

5/19/2017 11:25:19 AM

power companies are going to do it next

power for your TV will now be supplied at 10x the price of power for your lights. coffee maker power at 30x.

5/19/2017 11:34:57 AM

They already offer optional programs to cut your AC off during peaks to save you some money.

5/19/2017 12:22:20 PM

Quote :

"When it comes to looking out for my interests, you know who I trust more than the government? Corporations. What's good for the shareholder is good for me, too."

+1

5/19/2017 12:37:30 PM

Folks think that if the government doesn't regulate something, then corporations will have all the power. Regulation allows the corporations to buy favorable legislation and removes the power from the consumer and gives it to the corporation.

5/19/2017 12:41:23 PM

Quote :

"They already offer optional programs to cut your AC off during peaks to save you them some money."

Corporations are not looking out for you. Here's a flowchart.

1. Does this policy benefit us/our shareholders? If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 6.

2. Does this benefit our customers? If yes, go to 3. If no, go to 4.

3. Implement

4. Can we remain competitive in the market after implementing this shitty policy that hurts our customers? If yes, go to 3. If no, go to 5.

5. Can we lobby the government to remove customer choice in this instance? If yes, lobby, then go to 3. If no, go to 6.

6. Scrap or re-write.

A libertarian utopia removes step 5. You're still dealing with corporations who work for shareholders, not for you. This might be okay in some markets, but not public utilities (and internet is now considered a a human right by the UN.)

[Edited on May 19, 2017 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2017 12:48:52 PM

I wonder what other fundamental human rights we have that scientists have yet to develop

5/19/2017 1:40:40 PM

5/19/2017 2:13:33 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/fcc-plans-to-vote-to-overturn-u-s-net-neutrality-rules-in-december-sources-idUSKBN1DG00H?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5a0d063e04d30148b0cd52dc&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

11/17/2017 10:03:51 AM

Boooo!!!

11/18/2017 4:55:54 PM

This is sure to make America great again

11/18/2017 5:21:46 PM

Fuck

12/14/2017 9:52:14 AM

remember how bad it was 2 years ago before we had net neutrality and we had to pay to access each site individually? that was horrible

12/14/2017 10:03:46 AM

We didn't even have internet before 2015. You just went up to the TWC internet box and put in a quarter, and then it showed some ads...and we liked it.

12/14/2017 10:40:02 AM

remember in 2005 when Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP
remember when Comcast was blocking p2p services
remember when AT&T used to block Skype and other VOIP
remember when MetroPCS tried to block streaming video
remember when AT&T, Sprint and Verizon were blocking Google Wallet to push their own product
remember when Verizon demanded that Google block tethering apps
remember when AT&T required you to pay extra for FaceTime
remember when Verizon and others have explicitly said that the only reason they don't favor some content providers over others is because of net neutrality?
etc...

fucking cuckolds

12/14/2017 11:00:20 AM

Quote :

"remember how bad it was 2 years ago before we had net neutrality and we had to pay to access each site individually? that was horrible"

That is deeply misleading to suggest net neutrality didn't exist before 2015. It did. 2015 was just when those net neutrality rules were codified into law. Originally, the internet ran over phone lines, and was governed by common carrier rules. Even after moving to broadband, ISP were still expected to abide by those general principles of internet openness.

12/14/2017 11:11:57 AM

Search Here:

https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments

to determine if your name was one of the ~2million fake comments submitted to the FCC during the net neutrality comment period.

12/14/2017 12:15:12 PM

^^net neutrality did not exist 2 years ago; there's nothing misleading about that statement. There was no implied honor code to follow it as you suggest, as ISPs were not considered common carriers.

12/14/2017 1:42:29 PM

what are you neckbeards going to do when your ISP charges more for your furry porn?

12/14/2017 2:44:38 PM

I bought the TWW package, I'm good.

12/14/2017 3:24:45 PM

I mostly worry that having super fast gigabit internet will be pointless when they throttle anything I download and then of course if we have to start paying for A La Carte stuff

12/14/2017 3:39:40 PM

i'm pretty sure at&t gigabit already throttles youtube, at least it feels like it does. i'm not looking forward to that getting worse.

12/14/2017 3:58:27 PM

Doss, didn't you get your internet cut off twice over RIAA letters?

12/14/2017 4:02:36 PM

No... one was from the MPAA

12/14/2017 7:24:38 PM

Quote :

"^^net neutrality did not exist 2 years ago; there's nothing misleading about that statement. There was no implied honor code to follow it as you suggest, as ISPs were not considered common carriers."

Why are you such a cuck for big telecomm? Do you really enjoy defending them while they anally rape you?

12/15/2017 7:15:57 AM

He is a cuck for anything republican. He's a giant lummox who does nothing but spout utter bullshit 100% of the time on topics he's well-below qualified to discuss.


At least we'll hear a whole lot less from him on the Pai-net soon

12/15/2017 8:50:20 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

12/15/2017 10:22:41 AM

^the supreme court ruled that the FCC could not enforce 2 of the 3 parts of that order. they were the blocking and discrimination portions. so i guess, yeah, we had rules from 2010 to 2014, albeit illegal rules.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM. Reason : sorry, court of appeals for the DC circuit]

12/15/2017 10:30:27 AM

Can someone who disagrees with net neutrality please educate us on how scrapping it benefits us, the American public?

12/15/2017 12:45:44 PM

Who here is against it?

12/15/2017 12:53:15 PM

eleusis is for sure because breitbart told him to be

12/15/2017 12:58:31 PM

^^ also NeuseRvrRat, clearly. Have you not read any of this thread, or even this freaking page?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:01 PM. Reason : jesus man]

12/15/2017 12:59:55 PM

Him for sure, yea, but I didn't heed the posts that were 7 months old, on this page.

I see this as being mostly a problem for content providers like Netflix, Amazon, etc. What will stop AT&T from pairing up with Disney to provide sufficient bandwidth for the streaming service they come out with, while limiting Netflix's. Then they'll say "Well, Disney paid us oodles of millions of dollars to provide faster speed for their service...how much you guys gonna pay us?"

Then they're all like "Well, we can pay more oodles of millions than Disney has, but we're going to have to jack up rjrumple's subscription fee to 24.99/month."

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:10 PM. Reason : dsfas]

12/15/2017 1:09:39 PM

Then TWC will be all like "So the rich neighborhood down the street is paying several oodles of millions to have faster internet, so since you're in the poor house rjrumple, we're gonna suck the bandwidth right out of your neighborhood to fullfil the rich folks data consumption. You hear that rjrumple? That's the sucking sound of your bandwidth leaving"

Disclaimer - I'm not an idiot when it comes to bandwidth usage, just trying to make a point.

12/15/2017 1:12:44 PM

Apparently ending net neutrality is "restoring internet freedom [for ISPs to fiscally rape their customers]"

12/15/2017 1:20:32 PM

https://mises.org/wire/no-neutral-ground-problem-net-neutrality

12/15/2017 1:31:18 PM

^^^
It's not only that. Internet providers could block content entirely. Other organizations could pay them to block damaging information. They could also inject content into web pages (Comcast does this already with pop-up notifications).

Quote :

"^the supreme court ruled that the FCC could not enforce 2 of the 3 parts of that order. they were the blocking and discrimination portions. so i guess, yeah, we had rules from 2010 to 2014, albeit illegal rules. [Edited on December 15, 2017 at 10:35 AM. Reason : sorry, court of appeals for the DC circuit]"

In the lawsuit by Verizon, who were found to be throttling the internet that same year?

Loose rules were put in place in 2005, but not codified until 2009. They held a hearing in 2007 when Comcast was found to be interfering with P2P traffic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling#United_States

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2017 1:35:19 PM

uh, no part of that explains how it's better for consumers

12/15/2017 1:36:09 PM

Quote :

" Perhaps, as the ISPs argue, the increased revenue from a non-neutral internet would enable the expansion of broadband networks, ending regional monopolies of service providers."

which is huge for me, as someone in an area with no broadband service at all

the free market is not perfect, but it's the best option we have. don't confuse crony capitalism with the free market.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ds]

12/15/2017 1:39:44 PM

Quote :

"In the lawsuit by Verizon, who were found to be throttling the internet that same year?"

yes, that's the correct lawsuit

12/15/2017 1:43:23 PM

^^But you have to trust Comcast and TWC. To me, those are two very untrustworthy corporations. Maybe trustworthy isn't the right word, but they sure as hell don't care about consumers.

Any extra revenue will NOT be put back into infrastructure to make their service cheaper for their customers.

12/15/2017 1:45:00 PM

So these companies, the same companies who have pocketed something like $400 Billion in public money that was supposed to go to expanding infrastructure, are going to suddenly start expanding networks into unprofitable areas?

lol, okay bud, way to think positive i guess

12/15/2017 1:46:15 PM

Quote :

"the same companies who have pocketed something like $400 Billion in public money that was supposed to go to expanding infrastructure"

another government fuck up

^^i trust the profit motive more than i trust the government's ability to effectively/efficiently do anything

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:48 PM. Reason : saa]

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:49 PM. Reason : they key is to make the areas profitable]

12/15/2017 1:47:18 PM

Quote :

"Further, the internet is historically the result of market activity rather than top-down regulations. If one approves of its remarkable evolution to this point, it seems peculiar to assert that this is the moment to freeze it through government action. "

Net neutrality doesn't freeze the damn internet, ffs.

Quote :

"which is huge for me, as someone in an area with no broadband service at all"

So you want all of us to pay more for our broadband because you believe the ISPs are going to unprofitably expand broadband service to your homestead?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:50 PM. Reason : i like how that article stayed impartial for the first half then let fucking loose in the second]

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM. Reason : this is just another NRR GUBMENT IS BAD rabbit-hole devoid of any analysis of the actual issue or how it will affect consumers]

12/15/2017 1:49:22 PM

Quote :

"another government fuck up"

the fuck up was not holding them accountable

but since you are seemingly aware of that boondoggle, why do you think they will suddenly act differently and start expanding into unprofitable areas? their record proves they won't

what you should be screaming for is municipal broadband, that is your only chance

12/15/2017 1:51:07 PM

municipal broadband would be exactly what synapse just mentioned, charging everyone more to expand a service into an unprofitable area.

12/15/2017 1:54:22 PM

What evidence do you have that Wake Co would charge me more than TWC? I mean I assume it would be Wake Co since I don't live in city limits.

12/15/2017 1:57:03 PM