FCC Republicans vow to gut net neutrality rules “as soon as possible” - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51558131]Perhaps this is just my cynicism and pessimism talking, but I only see them sticking to that until their profits are so in danger because they can't compete against the ones that don't uphold net neutrality.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications[/url] They are using pro-consumer practices and they made 8 BILLION in revenue in 2013. I'm sure they will be fine if not do better when people switch to them from a Verizon connection. EDIT: And to add on to that, they are growing a lot. [url]https://newsroom.charter.com/press-releases/2016/charter-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2015-results/[/url]

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51557935]It's so fucking bullshit that net neutrality has become a partisan issue. I thought Republicans were supposed to be for rights? It seems they're only for whatever will line their pockets.[/QUOTE] This is more an example of why freedom and rights are often talked about in such a bullshit way, because in this case, they ARE fighting for rights. It's just the rights and freedom of corporations to control what one does when using their infrastructure. Which of course, impedes the end user. Though, don't get me wrong, I prioritize the customer over the business in this case. Because I find the net benefits on society to be far greater.

make sure you guys write to your representatives about this. as a member of the constituency you have more power than you may think. don't make this easy for them, put the pressure on.

It's so disgusting to see how the Republicans are blatantly in the hands of big corporations. At least the democrats try to hide it a little bit but it's fucked that it ever came to this.

Who asked for this? I mean, do ordinary republicans care about this issue? Or know what it actually means? Can't believe this wasn't brought up during the election. Smart move by the republicans, though. Can't imagine Trump supporters who actively uses the internet would approve of this.

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;51558196]make sure you guys write to your representatives about this. as a member of the constituency you have more power than you may think. don't make this easy for them, put the pressure on.[/QUOTE] It's a small initial step, but yes we ought to. People also should be ready to do more. Much like the wikipedia blackout, and also IRL protests too.

[QUOTE=Kagu;51558021]Honestly cannot see any positives from this. Can someone shed light on what positives can come from this if you consider American work ethic and service? Please, I'm just asking for one. the sad hope is trump will fuck shit up so much that itwill motivate people. Into action.

Can't wait to see Democrats take the blame for losing net neutrality

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51558225]Can't wait to see Democrats take the blame for losing net neutrality[/QUOTE] That's the cherry on top too. Hahahahaahaha, holy shit, the things some conservatives say. I can already see it, a year or two after Trump's put into office and net neutrality policies are removed by his "not-SWAMP" swamp, I can already predict some people or posters going: "Hillary would have done the same" "The Democrats did this" or the age old "Obama's [B]BIRTH CERTIFICATE[/B] did this" While having a Republican majority. It's sad really, the louder you yell America, the more blind you become and the more lenient you are towards inherently bad policies.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558082]I don't really understand how this would work. Websites are privately owned, are they not? How could you legally charge for one and not others? You can't set up a tollbooth and make people pay to get to buildings you don't own. (unless you're the government, and that's only to support the infrastructure and is not for profit)[/QUOTE] That's exactly what Net Neutrality is, it's not legal to make people pay to access another person or company's websites. But without Net Neutrality, they are free to slow down or block access to whatever they want. So Comcast could use this to block or charge access to Netflix, Hulu, etc to encourage people subscribe to Comcast's TV service. It's anti-competitive and anti-consumer, but pro-monopoly, and now you know why Republicans are pushing it so hard.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558082]I don't really understand how this would work. Websites are privately owned, are they not? How could you legally charge for one and not others? You can't set up a tollbooth and make people pay to get to buildings you don't own. (unless you're the government, and that's only to support the infrastructure and is not for profit)[/QUOTE] Others have explained this, but I kind of wanted to use it more along your analogy. You can set up a tollbooth and make people pay to get into those buildings if you own the road. Which they do. Then you can tell those businesses "Hey, I won't make [I]your[/I] customers pay a toll if you throw money my way!"

[B]Great Depression 2017[/B] It is going to be a slow build, but the signs will be there from the start. Businesses will see hits on their ads becoming lower and lower as more people opt to block their ads in favor of faster loadtimes for pages across the internet. On top of that, businesses that do get site visits will see their traffic dwindle to a few loyal customers - everyone else goes to the major retail sites that have dished out their fair share of dosh to the ISPs to get their sites included in a bundle. People will notice this trend immediately and voice their concerns, but are ultimately ignored by the FCC and their Telecom overlords. Nobody can advertise their startups anymore, either, because the dominance of the few major corporations in the market drowns them out - they have paid to be the showcase, after all. With newspapers dead and TV being the only viable marketing platform, all local businesses end up drowning each other out with infrequent TV spots that only a handful of people will actually see. Small business dies out, and with it goes a sizeable chunk of the middle class. With nobody to buy their products, the retail behemoths and any production sectors remaining in the States suffer as well. We will see record high unemployment the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression. All of this because some assholes wanted a quick buck. And before you say this is dramatic or alarmist or downright stupid, keep in mind that most of the US economy is now tied to the internet in some way or another. Go ahead and tell me how disrupting the internet status quo [I]won't[/I] disrupt the economy in some way, because I can guarantee you that it will. And when it does, the FCC will [I]not[/I] remedy the situation by backpedaling. They have been paid not to.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558320]I feel like we need a government-run internet. Non-profit. (but actually for profit since it lays the foundation for consumption, similar to roads)[/QUOTE] ICANN pretty much runs the internet along with all the root DNS servers. A state owned internet is a very very risky subject.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558320]I feel like we need a government-run internet. Non-profit. (but actually for profit since it lays the foundation for consumption, similar to roads)[/QUOTE] Yeah same as Map in a box I'm hesitant for a truly state run internet. I'd be more comfortable with munifiber companies with an ICANN type backbone company.

No way this is going anywhere, I can tell. Everyone protested the last time it was an issue and they'll protest again

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558341]I suppose internet would be a different beast than roads and electricity, considering the power of manipulation that could take place.[/QUOTE] Happens with roads and such too. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal"]Very recent example[/URL].

Look at China if you want to see what a state run internet does for a country.

I'm not especially knowledgeable on how these sort of new rules and restrictions would be applied, but surely people would develop tools to bypass it, yes? Something akin to how pirates crack software DRM now. Can someone explain how possible or impossible that would be?

[QUOTE=~Myst;51558379]I'm not especially knowledgeable on how these sort of new rules and restrictions would be applied, but surely people would develop tools to bypass it, yes? Something akin to how pirates crack software DRM now. Can someone explain how possible or impossible that would be?[/QUOTE] It's likely people could, but we shouldn't really have to in the first place.

Let's see how the Republicans fair next election after 4 years of everyone experiencing slow internet and all blaming them for it. Hell, after 2 years even. These guys would be idiots to think they can get rid of Net Neutrality and not have the entire Republican party suffer for it. People who are normally to self-centered and apathetic to vote will actually have something that personally affects them in a way they can't ignore. And as soon as Net Neutrality is gone, it doesn't even MATTER if ISPs start slowing down the internet, because people will start blaming it for slow internet anyways.

[QUOTE=~Myst;51558379]I'm not especially knowledgeable on how these sort of new rules and restrictions would be applied, but surely people would develop tools to bypass it, yes? Something akin to how pirates crack software DRM now. Can someone explain how possible or impossible that would be?[/QUOTE] You can't really feasibly bypass something like this. ISPs giving preferential treatment to who pays them most will be like getting the internet speed you pay for for services, and if you use a VPN you negate the point of having decently fast internet. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Helix Snake;51558401]Let's see how the Republicans fair next election after 4 years of everyone experiencing slow internet and all blaming them for it. Hell, after 2 years even. These guys would be idiots to think they can get rid of Net Neutrality and not have the entire Republican party suffer for it. People who are normally to self-centered and apathetic to vote will actually have something that personally affects them in a way they can't ignore. And as soon as Net Neutrality is gone, it doesn't even MATTER if ISPs start slowing down the internet, because people will start blaming it for slow internet anyways.[/QUOTE] Little of the country knows what Comcunt did to Netflix, so I doubt this. It just seems like we're becoming more and more of a fascist nation and the populace is dumb enough to be ok with it.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51558409]You can't really feasibly bypass something like this. ISPs giving preferential treatment to who pays them most will be like getting the internet speed you pay for for services, and if you use a VPN you negate the point of having decently fast internet. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] Little of the country knows what Comcunt did to Netflix, so I doubt this. It just seems like we're becoming more and more of a fascist nation and the populace is dumb enough to be ok with it.[/QUOTE] You could feasibly bypass it if your ISP wasn't a tier 1 provider and didn't peer with whatever if you could just obscure where the traffic was coming from. But everyone is becoming a tier 1 nowadays.

FCC member Ajit Pai says that net neutrality rules "are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation." How will giving giant ISPs the power to throttle internet speeds, create internet fast lanes, and charge content providers create jobs and innovation?

[QUOTE=Map in a box;51558330]ICANN pretty much runs the internet along with all the root DNS servers. A state owned internet is a very very risky subject.[/QUOTE] Until October 1st of this year ICANN was under the oversight of the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#History"]US Department of Commerce[/URL]. [editline]20th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr._N;51558440]FCC member Ajit Pai says that net neutrality rules "are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation." How will giving giant ISPs the power to throttle internet speeds, create internet fast lanes, and charge content providers create jobs and innovation?[/QUOTE] They've been claiming that monopolies create jobs for over a decade. The reason it works is because they also [del]bribe[/del]lobby the fuck out of everyone they can in the federal government.

[QUOTE=Mr._N;51558440]FCC member Ajit Pai says that net neutrality rules "are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation." How will giving giant ISPs the power to throttle internet speeds, create internet fast lanes, and charge content providers create jobs and innovation?[/QUOTE] It's a lie. That's all it is really. Just a lie. They're lying, like they always do.

FCC Republicans vow to be cartoonishly evil "as soon as possible"

[QUOTE=Mr._N;51558440]FCC member Ajit Pai says that net neutrality rules "are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation." How will giving giant ISPs the power to throttle internet speeds, create internet fast lanes, and charge content providers create jobs and innovation?[/QUOTE] Buzzwords.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51558451]Until October 1st of this year ICANN was under the oversight of the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#History"]US Department of Commerce[/URL]. [/quote] Thats why ICANN is so important nowadays.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51558225]Can't wait to see Democrats take the blame for losing net neutrality[/QUOTE] Well, the democrats and what the DNC pulled is partly responsible for a lot of the issues this country will face. If they only listened to their own people this wouldn't have happened.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51558320]I feel like we need a government-run internet. Non-profit. (but actually for profit since it lays the foundation for consumption, similar to roads)[/QUOTE] US Government-run internet would probably make most of the fathers of the internet have a fit, many of them wanted to see a self run, government-independent internet service, even if it is sort of a pipe dream from the early days when the internet was a technolibertarian dream. [url=https://www.wired.com/2012/10/joe-postel/]I mean Jon Postel pretty much stole control of the internet from the government in 1998.[/url]