FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

The more you guys badmouth the FCC & big ISPs the more likely they are to target this website...

Maybe someone should make a thread kissing their asses to balance it out.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The key word is "regulating" as in you lose your internet freedoms and choices you have now. I don't see your increased cost when it will basically do the exact opposite by lowering cost due to competition.

No the key word there is competition . There is NO competition in the ISP world for high speed Internet. That is part of the issue with this unruling.,

That is why Comcast,ATT,Verizon year after year get voted among the top most hated companies by its customer base, yet they continue to not only thrive but increase revenue. There is no business in a competitive market that can survive with such hate from its customer base without being a monopoly or Oligarch.

net neutrality was the best of the worst outcomes possible. Now we got the worst outcome possible.

Obama's internet control plan would have but the internet in the hands of a few companies and allow them to tell you what you will see/use on the internet....not good.

I think Obama sucked almost as bad as Hillary.

However, there is no Obama control, that was BS pushed by the GOP and its media base to appease the most hated companies in America that will now control the Internet.

This was the same tactic used last time by the Right to convince the individual republican cheerleaders to go full commie and let Big Gov't decide the winners and the losers in the market , by having tax payer money bailout private failing business.

Except this time, the Right is telling its cheerleaders to go full commie and let only a few companies decide the fate of the global market place known as the Internet.

Since the gov't is owned by tne Lobbyist that is exactly what you got. You just gave the corporations and GOv't the right to tell you what you will see/use on the internet by getting rid of net neutrality principles.

Repeat after me, less regulations is good,

As a libertarian I agree, however not all regulations are bad such as those that encourage free competition in the market place.

The net neutrality principles encourage and ensures competition in the upcoming and most important global market place known as the internet. without out neutrality principles you don't have a free market place , you have a controlled market place.

This is why Trump is saying for every new regulation 5 or more will be repealed.

While I'm ecstatic that Hillary didn't win and he beat her, why was the first regulation that the GOP was successful in overturning was the only Consumer friendly regulation?

Why didn't they use that determination and success when it came to patriot act, obamacare, and all the other anti american consumer friendly regulations? Most importantly why didn;t the GOP attack the anti competition regulation in the ISP industry that allows for their Oligarch to flourish. So much so that not even Google with its right to print money could penetrate it.



No instead they killed the only regulation that ensured a free market place in the Internet.

This will come back to hunt the Republicans as the republicans obamacare.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Annee
I've been following the FCC before and including when Michael Powell was appointed chairman by "W" in 2001.

Ever heard of Clearchannel?

This total control of what media citizens are allowed to see/hear has been in the works for a long time.

Some would argue that it was already in place.

Rip censorship 2015-2017.

Agree.

This is just a formality.

This is what happened. Clearchannel is owned by right wing Christians. They, since 2001, have a monopoly of airwaves. Small local and public channels have to rent from them. Programs dealing with sex education, birth control, LGBT, etc have been cut and denied airwaves access.

This total control has been in the works for a long time.

Wooosh.

But yeah, that's why the left tried to pass the fairness doctrine. They wouldn't compete with conservative talk radio so wanted to regulate it until they could. Which is odd, since they own the TV screen.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The other thing no one is talking about... Content provider and carrier consolidation.

In ten years, the internet will be a real # show.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Because this website isn't Netflix. Net Neutrality was enacted so that Comcast couldn't double charge or upcharge Netflix and other streaming services because they were cutting into Comcast's profit share from lost cable tv revenue. ATS taking a hit is just a logical extension that could happen down the road as this gets worse and worse.

2015 wasn't that long ago. Is your memory really that bad that you can't remember this or are you just trolling and being facetious?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The other thing no one is talking about... Content provider and carrier consolidation.

In ten years, the internet will be a real # show.

Was it a so in the 20 years prior to net-neutrality?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Because this website isn't Netflix. Net Neutrality was enacted so that Comcast couldn't double charge or upcharge Netflix and other streaming services because they were cutting into Comcast's profit share from lost cable tv revenue.

2015 wasn't that long ago. Is your memory really that bad that you can't remember this or are you just trolling and being facetious?

Well if I remember right, Comcast walked that back in 2008, long before net-neutrality.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

Al Gore, actually.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

lin kies

On February 19, 2014 the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules to resume enforcing net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.[67] However, in the event, on April 23, 2014, the FCC reported a new draft rule that would permit broadband ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon to offer content providers, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price, faster connection speeds, so their customers would have preferential access, thus reversing its earlier position and (so far as opinion outside the ISP sector generally agreed) would deny net neutrality.[11][68][69][70][71]

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

So here are the issues.

Many of you and the public and out politicians want to turn this into another left vs right thing. That's pathetic.

People that want net neutrality are afraid that the big companies that control our internet will throttle for certain websites like Netflix, ban certain sites they don't agree with, ATS and give you tiered service or higher prices for gaming and streaming and facebook etc.

Nobody want's more government regulation, except, how else do the little guys...us, protect ourselves from the internet giants that have all the money, power and laws in their favor. Laws are put in place to protect us from those with too much power.

a reply to: darkbake

So now I'll have to pay extra for a different ISP if I want to be able to access ATS and other resources that don't "fit the bill"?

Sad day!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

lin kies

On February 19, 2014 the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules to resume enforcing net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.[67] However, in the event, on April 23, 2014, the FCC reported a new draft rule that would permit broadband ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon to offer content providers, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price, faster connection speeds, so their customers would have preferential access, thus reversing its earlier position and (so far as opinion outside the ISP sector generally agreed) would deny net neutrality.[11][68][69][70][71]

Those services aren't necessities are they?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

We've already seen comcast I think it was throttle netflix to get more money from them. That's only the beginning. Now that all the power is in the hands of the few large internet providers things are different than in 1995.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

There were no clear market winners, and the landscape had not matured in terms of consumer adoption and e-commerce.

Different world today.

What the future now brings, is you'll pay for curated content/services and no option to dip outside the ecosystem bucket- that is, unless you are willing to pay other providers for their ecosystems.

Kind of like why some people pay for Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime video. People of means will be ok. Those with less means, not so much.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

We've already seen comcast I think it was throttle netflix to get more money from them. That's only the beginning. Now that all the power is in the hands of the few large internet providers things are different than in 1995.

And we've also seen Netflix throttle its own customers and blame it on isps

www.cnet.com...

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Twitter removing posts from its own website doesn't and never has fallen under Net Neutrality rules. Twitter owns that content wholly. That was the case before Net Neutrality, during Net Neutrality, and after it is gone it will still be the case. Why is it so hard for free speech advocates to understand that content posted on a website is OWNED by that website and they can do whatever they want to it?

I agree believe it or not. But why then is the issue so different when an ISP wants to charge companies to use their infrastructure that they own?

The internet was created by the government, bro.

The internet was fully privatized in 1995, leaving ISPs to develop and maintain the infrastructure, bro.

We've already seen comcast I think it was throttle netflix to get more money from them. That's only the beginning. Now that all the power is in the hands of the few large internet providers things are different than in 1995.

And we've also seen Netflix throttle its own customers and blame it on isps

www.cnet.com...

Yeah but that still doesn't change the fact that an actual ISP throttled Netflix to get more money from them. That is only the begginning. Didn't I just say that? LOL