Net Neutality

[Septic]

Um, no.
From wikipedia

"Public utilities (just "utilities" in British English) are typically defined as companies that supply what are considered basic (essential) services to homes and businesses, such as electricity, gas, telephone, water and sewer connections. They should not be confused with non-connective services such as cellular telephone companies, nor to optional services such as satellite dish or cable-tv providers."

But I get it that progs would have everything classified as a utility because they think it gives them a excuse to get their grubby hands in it.

Please just walk away. You've been thumping your chest all over this thread without the most rudimentary understanding of what's being discussed.

This reclassification is literally at the heart of the matter. It's what allowed the FCC to do what they did.

RTFA

Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

There are many compelling arguments against net neutrality laws, sadly - you've managed to whiff every time you've chimed in. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

 

[Septic]

Awesome. That pocture says it all. Some on here want to paint this net neutrality thing as some huge coup. Lol. This will have little to no effect on the vast majority of peoples lives.

This is just yet another silly thing people can blame and rip Trump over.

There's a backlog of things to bust donnys chops over, this will get sorted out by people who aren't making unilateral decisions.

Speaking of ripping trump, did you see that bozo he nominated for the the US District Court?

[twitter]https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/941484131757838337[/twitter]

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

There's a backlog of things to bust donnys chops over, this will get sorted out by people who aren't making unilateral decisions.

Speaking of ripping trump, did you see that bozo he nominated for the the US District Court?

[twitter]https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/941484131757838337[/twitter]

No. I dont keep up with every little thing the president says or does. Unlike some of you, I have much better things to do than worry about the sewer that is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[KoachKletus]

YAY! Corporations are people to. Their vote is more important. Oh well, November 2018 the democrats will once again have to come in and clean up this republican mess. If we have a country left.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

@

 

[midnight orange]

Please just walk away. You've been thumping your chest all over this thread without the most rudimentary understanding of what's being discussed.

Okay. If you can show me the errors in my logic, I’m all ears.

This reclassification is literally at the heart of the matter. It's what allowed the FCC to do what they did.

Yes. This is the NN debate.

RTFA

Court Backs Rules Treating Internet as Utility, Not Luxury

Broadband is not a utility by definition no matter what the govt says. Govt redefining things in order to take to take control of them is an all too common occurrence. See Wickard v. Filburn for a good example.

There are many compelling arguments against net neutrality laws

I could make an argument for NN that since cable or fiber isp’s are granted near monopoly access to public right of ways, they are required to ensure all data is delivered equally. The problem is that the FCC “whiffed” by overreaching and classifying all isp’s under title 2, which would harm the incentive for creating alternative isp delivery technology. What argument against NN do you find most compelling?

sadly - you've managed to whiff every time you've chimed in. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Uhm. Okay.

 

[orangeluvr]

Awesome. That pocture says it all. Some on here want to paint this net neutrality thing as some huge coup. Lol. This will have little to no effect on the vast majority of peoples lives.

This is just yet another silly thing people can blame and rip Trump over.

Plenty more to come!

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The lesser of two evils is usually the entity that is not the government.

truth

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm going to dive into this tomorrow, but apparently they explain that Google wouldn't exist if 2015 net neutrality existed back in the day. If anybody else wants to listen, here it is. I'll report back in a couple days.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siz9MutFpDk[/youtube]

 

[golfballs]

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his appearance at CES because of death threats - Recode

 

[FLVOL_79]

Net Neutrality fear mongers are just like, if not worse, than the Y2K morons.

 

[Vol0725]

Net neutrality: The internet holds its breath - BBC News

Thoughts?

"Net neutrality campaigners say losing net neutrality will mean internet service providers will be free to trample all over the open web, slowing down services they don't like, and speeding up ones they do.

Campaigners fear we now face an internet where you pay more to use things like Netflix, or that companies may be strong-armed into paying ISPs in order to maintain good access to their product, making things difficult for new companies who can't afford to pay for preferential treatment."

Republicans like to be considered the pro-business party, and the pro-business argument for ditching net neutrality is one of investment and innovation.

The ISPs, and trade organisations that represent telecoms interests, argue that until 2015, when the Democrat-controlled FCC went down strict on net neutrality, the internet was doing just fine.

"For decades, the internet flourished under a bipartisan regulatory approach that allowed it to operate, grow and succeed free of unnecessary government controls," Verizon says.

Investment could mean faster roll out of super-high speed fibre internet. Or, more pressingly, it could improve connections for people in rural America who barely have any kind of internet at all.

But this would require that the ISPs choose to spend money in this way. The FCC's move doesn't involve any requirement to commit to investment in internet, rural or otherwise."

complicated, lotta people will have to a have a seat at the table on this one before moving forward...FCC chair's had alleged death threats...who knows.

 

[Mick]

AT&T is calling on Congress for a national net neutrality law that would govern Internet providers and tech companies alike, which the telecom giant says would end a fractious, years-long debate over the future of the Web.
AT&T's legislative campaign aims to head off what many analysts say could be another swing of the regulatory pendulum against broadband providers. In December, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its net neutrality rules — a move that largely benefited AT&T and other broadband companies. But that decision is being challenged in court and in Congress. Many states are also moving to pass their own net neutrality rules to replace the federal regulations.
the FCC has said it will take states to court if they seek to circumvent its decision, companies such as AT&T want a guarantee of stability.

AT&T wants Congress to draft a net neutrality law. Here’s why that’s a big deal. - The Washington Post

 

[Septic]

AT&T is calling on Congress for a national net neutrality law that would govern Internet providers and tech companies alike, which the telecom giant says would end a fractious, years-long debate over the future of the Web.
AT&T's legislative campaign aims to head off what many analysts say could be another swing of the regulatory pendulum against broadband providers. In December, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal its net neutrality rules — a move that largely benefited AT&T and other broadband companies. But that decision is being challenged in court and in Congress. Many states are also moving to pass their own net neutrality rules to replace the federal regulations.
the FCC has said it will take states to court if they seek to circumvent its decision, companies such as AT&T want a guarantee of stability.

AT&T wants Congress to draft a net neutrality law. Here’s why that’s a big deal. - The Washington Post

Be interesting to see how the States Right's crowd comes down on this.

 

[n_huffhines]

Ah, yes...AT&T getting in bed with government to ensure their market power. Where have I heard this before?...

Have we already forgotten Ma Bell? Do we not understand that government enabled that monopoly?

 

[n_huffhines]

Be interesting to see how the States Right's crowd comes down on this.

It's a great idea. I've been saying handle misbehaving ISP's on the local level since this became a topic of discussion.

 

[Mick]

Be interesting to see how the States Right's crowd comes down on this.

Those people have already been proven frauds.

 

[n_huffhines]

Those people have already been proven frauds.

{cough}

 

[midnight orange]

Be interesting to see how the States Right's crowd comes down on this.

It will also be interesting to see if the anti Comcast/att crowd become pro Comcast/att.

 

[Mick]

{cough}

Having a choice based on where you live and what suits your needs is completely different from the majority of Americans that don't have that choice. You are not in a monopolistic market. Without NN censorship is probable.

 

[n_huffhines]

Having a choice based on where you live and what suits your needs is completely different from the majority of Americans that don't have that choice. You are not in a monopolistic market. Without NN censorship is probable.

Non sequitur. The context was whether or not this should be handled on the local level.

With that being said, with more government regulation, censorship is probable.

 

[Mick]

Non sequitur. The context was whether or not this should be handled on the local level.

With that being said, with more government regulation, censorship is probable.

I was just picking back up from our previous conversation. It may have been in the Sling tv NN thread though. On the local level where only one or two providers are in the market, the ISP should not be allowed to throttle content from any source.
Lets say you have one choice. You want internet but not TV. Do you think an ISP should be able to throttle or block ESPN in order to sell you on the TV bundle or you have VOIP service with a delay in order to sell you their phone service? Legitimate concerns.

 

[n_huffhines]

I was just picking back up from our previous conversation. It may have been in the Sling tv NN thread though. On the local level where only one or two providers are in the market, the ISP should not be allowed to throttle content from any source.
Lets say you have one choice. You want internet but not TV. Do you think an ISP should be able to throttle or block ESPN in order to sell you on the TV bundle or you have VOIP service with a delay in order to sell you their phone service? Legitimate concerns.

I agree that an ISP should not be allowed to throttle, but net neutrality doesn't just prevent throttling. It does a whole lot more than that. The landmark case under NN actually hurt consumers, it didn't help them.

Just because ISP's shouldn't be allowed to throttle doesn't mean NN (on the federal level) is preferable.

 

[Mick]

I agree that an ISP should not be allowed to throttle, but net neutrality doesn't just prevent throttling. It does a whole lot more than that. The landmark case under NN actually hurt consumers, it didn't help them.

Just because ISP's shouldn't be allowed to throttle doesn't mean NN (on the federal level) is preferable.

You can't leave it up to the ISP's or local government to decide. I think we both know how that will turn out.