NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Spyder73 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have not read all/any of the posts here but just from the little I have read there seems to be confusion on what the NN repeal means. All that it means is ATT/Verizon/Comcast are no longer regulated by the FCC in the way they were previously.

Free market conditions will prevent anything too drastic from happening to our internet because there is competition for services. It is true that regional monopolies exist for cable companies but I find it really hard to believe they would do anything too drastic because satellite tech is getting pretty dang good (even though AT&T now own Dish Network and Direct TV).

Basically they voted on less government regulation. In the future this may bite us in the ass but I feel it will be when we are all very very old.

The flip side to this is the cable companies may decide that they are going to turbo boost the most used websites and the average consumer will see a large quality of life increase. I guess if you operate in the dark web this might be bad for you but for everyday Americans it will probably speed up our most used sites.

I don't see why a cooking website should have the same bandwidth as pornhub - speed pornhub up and slow down cooking.com IMO - everyone wins

Because we've already seen a lot of instances where ISPs will extract profit while engaging in anti-competitive practices. In a completely free market with no monopoly influence, I'd agree with you, but this does not exist here right now.

ISPs are achieving both horizontal and vertical monopolies in various cases, and they are also the gatekeepers to the marketplace. If Walmart owned the streets, it'd be rather difficult to drive to a store not named Walmart, wouldn't it?

Here's a quick list of anti-competitive practices we've already seen WITH NN in effect.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. They actually sued the FCC over this.

2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. This one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace.

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

Originally Posted by mickmoranis

they have every right to do what I said you just have such a basic understanding of how your government works it sounds like you learned it all from The View.

You keep repeating this like if you wish hard enough for something, it'll be true. If that worked, then your parents would have loved you by now.

Since you know so much about this, tell me exactly where and how the FCC is legally empowered and which statute/EO gives it its authority to do what you're saying. The short answer is that you can't, because you have absolutely no concept of how government works beyond TERKING YER JOBZ RABBLE RABBLE.

The FCC has no authority to censor the internet. They have statutory authority to regulate companies that provide services. It's the same way the FDA can tell restaurants not to let rat shit get into the food, but they can't tell them to how to sprinkle pepper onto your tendies.

[mickmoranis]

Same right they had to just chuck obamas policy they have to just chuck ISP's right to display various websites etc

Remember the FCC alone voted to repeal net neutrality, appointed members of that commission alone chose what to do with the internet. They have the right to do that under tittle II thanks to the 1934 communications act.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Same right they had to just chuck obamas policy they have to just chuck ISP's right to display various websites etc

Remember the FCC alone voted to repeal net neutrality, appointed members of that commission alone chose what to do with the internet. They have the right to do that under tittle II thanks to the 1934 communications act.

The FCC is an administrative agency invested with both executive and legislative authority. They were able to repeal the regulations because the President and Congress explicitly allowed them to do so. They act at the behest of the President in this case. If Obama were still in office, they wouldn't have repealed it because he would not have allowed it. Administrative agencies are pretty much high-ranking secretaries whose boss allows them a bit of authority so the boss doesn't have to deal with trivial things.

If either branch had a problem with this, they could issue Executive Orders or Laws changing each thing respectively. What you're forgetting is that our government is built in a hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is clear censorship which is in violation of the 1st amendment. You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law..."


Now that I think about it, do you believe that the President can ban websites if he wanted to? Last I checked we shed the monarchy back in 1776. You don't seem to understand how governmental authority is derived.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The FCC is an administrative agency invested with both executive and legislative authority. They were able to repeal the regulations because the President and Congress explicitly allowed them to do so. They act at the behest of the President in this case. If Obama were still in office, they wouldn't have repealed it because he would not have allowed it. Administrative agencies are pretty much high-ranking secretaries whose boss allows them a bit of authority so the boss doesn't have to deal with trivial things.

If either branch had a problem with this, they could issue Executive Orders or Laws changing each thing respectively. What you're forgetting is that our government is built in a hierarchy.

What you are suggesting is clear censorship which is in violation of the 1st amendment. You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law..."


Now that I think about it, do you believe that the President can ban websites if he wanted to? Last I checked we shed the monarchy back in 1776. You don't seem to understand how governmental authority is derived.

please type less i dont care about your opinion enough to read this much, so this is the end of our conversation unless you clean up your act

work on it

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

please type less i dont care about your opinion enough to read this much, so this is the end of our conversation unless you clean up your act

work on it

I accept your surrender.

[JurisDictum]

They should have put this off topic debate on CNN -- I feel like we actually addressed the issue a lot better.

[skarlorn]

CNN isn't about facts, reason, or meaningful discourse

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by skarlorn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

CNN isn't about facts, reason, or meaningful discourse

I'm going to kind of miss it -- the circus of it all. They really had everyone going for awhile.

I watched the movie Wag the Dog awhile back...I kind of think what we are seeing is the death of that era. Where the press gets a good 60%+ of the population going about whatever it wants.

The press is still the gatekeeper of information. But they are no longer in complete control of the story. They have to negotiate what the story will be with the public. That is, if they don't fuck us on the back end with NN -- which they will. So it's a question of whether or not we will fuck back.

[skarlorn]

Basically, we just need the last of the Boomers to die before the charade ends. Right-wing boomers are currently decrying fake liberal media while lapping up their fake right wing media. Left wing boomers think Trump's a lying idiot (he's only half of those at any point in time, never both) so they flat out reject the idea that their main news feeds are sensationalist pisswater designed fire up their self-righteous sides and then gobble up the liberal fakenews media and actually BELIEVE trump is 100% evil psychotic but also a retard.

I am hoping we see a proliferation of more news sources that are independently owned in the next 20 years.

PROBABLY WE'LL ALL BE CUCKED AND HAVE OUR BRAINS MELTED INTO PUDDING BY RFID IMPLANTS AND ANTI CHINESE PROPAGANDA BY THEN

[mickmoranis]

all we really need to solve our problems is a world war and 1-2/3rd the pop of the earth to be erradicated in the process.

were just entering the age of caligula in america and we need to make life about work rather than handouts or we'll land square in the center of caligula.

.....then its melted pudding rfid implants and chinese propaganda for everyone.

the culling and making life hard work again is the only way.

life aint worth living unless you work for it and liberalism takes the work out of life and the proof is tumblr facebook and twitter. That's what you get in utopia. Video games and social media and no education.

why educate if you dont need one cus you dont even need to work? Why not just lay down and relax.

Suddenly:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]