Big Internet Firms to Oppose GOP Plans to Roll Back Net-Neutrality Rules

Subsequent to the conversation, there has arose situations where ISP's are charging more for high bandwidth services (netflix mainly), but it is almost as if the NN proponents gave them the idea!

I like that you admit that its happening at the end but are trying to blame the victims. That's quite the talking point you've got there. It's almost like you have to know of Netflix's bandwidth being throttled every time negotiations came up to carefully thread that needle.

So, are you getting paid for your shilling or just regurgitating the bullshit that you reverberates through your Facebook echo chamber?
 
Can anyone point to one actual thing that changed or was different after the FCC Net Neutrality rules went through?

Otherwise I'll side with the camp that says it was just a show.
 
Be nice, GlowingGouhl, if you actually made some arguments as to why it would be good to end net neutrality instead of the canned, anti-Democrat memes you are throwing out.
 
Title I or II the issue is the same, both in my opinion, and even the cuckolded EFF.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has backed the FCC’s Title II reclassification, also noted last-minute concerns about overregulation related to a vague “general conduct rule” included in the rules.



“[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules,” the
foundation wrote in a letter to the FCC. “A ‘general conduct rule,’ applied on a case-by-case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice ‘harms’ consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of ‘harm’ (for those who can afford to engage in it).”

Your position is that a lifelong industry lobbyist changed his mind on net neutrality overnight, for the good of America, and like the EFF, you're willing to say "OK, as long as you double promise pinki swear to not abuse the 'general conduct rule" you just applied to the internet" that's good enough for me!".

We will eventually see who's view is correct. My belief that the FCC will eventually abuse it's self-established new powers as part of a long term political power play by the Democrats, or your trusting, childlike view of the previous FCC as a loving, kind parent looking out for your best interests.

Like wrapping a cyanide pill in a candy coating, the sheep will swallow every time.
 
Be nice, GlowingGouhl, if you actually made some arguments as to why it would be good to end net neutrality instead of the canned, anti-Democrat memes you are throwing out.

The fact that you think the debate is about Net Neutrality itself, and not the unwarranted power grab by an unelected body in the guise of consumer friendly legislation, tells me there's little chance you'll understand what the real issue is here.

Implement Net Neutrality by legislation, and not by handing an unelected body of partisan political hacks expansive new powers in the form of vague, ill defined rules.
 
So the principle of maintaining equal access to our beloved series of tubes is sound, and its just the application that is troubling you?
 
So the principle of maintaining equal access to our beloved series of tubes is sound, and its just the application that is troubling you?
Yea, that's bullshit talking point they are trying to spew. They do that because they have no way to attack NN directly so they are trying to change the issue to something else.

Here is the thing, NN is good for the consumer. All of us.

The bootlickers flooding this thread still refuse to address this point and they are also 'forgetting' that is was the massive outpouring of the will of the people that helped make it happen.
 
So the principle of maintaining equal access to our beloved series of tubes is sound, and its just the application that is troubling you?

There are countless examples of things with good intentions being twisted for nefarious purposes. The ends do not justify the means, especially if the means distort the original purpose.
 
There are countless examples of things with good intentions being twisted for nefarious purposes. The ends do not justify the means, especially if the means distort the original purpose.
I do agree with that philosophical argument, but it doesn't apply in this case. The FCC had the authority to do what it did and was designed that way for exactly this reason. If they didn't, the regulation would already be gone.

This regulation is protecting consumers. Exactly what should happen

There is no ends justifying the means going on here. People arguing against this are the same type of people that believe if they chant a magical phrase in just the right way they become a sovereign citizen immune to laws as they see fit. The NN was put into place correctly.
 
The fact that you think the debate is about Net Neutrality itself, and not the unwarranted power grab by an unelected body in the guise of consumer friendly legislation, tells me there's little chance you'll understand what the real issue is here.

Implement Net Neutrality by legislation, and not by handing an unelected body of partisan political hacks expansive new powers in the form of vague, ill defined rules.

That "unelected body of partisan political hacks" is doing precisely what they were instructed to do by the Congress of the US and the President of the US when they were given their authority and responsibilities via acts of law that were passed and signed. In addition, they are proposed and confirmed to their positions by the POTUS and Congress.

There is no power grab, the FCC is using power it was already granted to regulate an industry that it was already regulating and was explicitly told to regulate via acts of congress using rules that are well specified and that the FCC followed to the letter with massive and unprecedented support from the people.

AKA, you are spouting conspiracy non-sense. Instead of complaining about the FCC, you should be complaining about the various bought and paid for state legislatures that are enacting laws preventing competition at the behest of incumbent monopoly providers.
 
Last edited:
I like that you admit that its happening at the end but are trying to blame the victims. That's quite the talking point you've got there. It's almost like you have to know of Netflix's bandwidth being throttled every time negotiations came up to carefully thread that needle.

So, are you getting paid for your shilling or just regurgitating the bullshit that you reverberates through your Facebook echo chamber?

Filled with hate much? You're just regurgitating the "any criticism of any attempt to implement NN means you are against NN and in the pockets of the cable companies" line. And how could I not know about the throttling of Netflix when it was well publicized in many tech publications and was determined by those publication when the throttling most likely started?

You seem to think I am against Net Neutrality. I am not. I am against a poorly implemented government enforced "Net Neutrality."

AKA, you are spouting conspiracy non-sense. Instead of complaining about the FCC, you should be complaining about the various bought and paid for state legislatures that are enacting laws preventing competition at the behest of incumbent monopoly providers.

It is no more conspiracy theory than you stating that the legislators are "bought and paid for."
 
Filled with hate much? You're just regurgitating the "any criticism of any attempt to implement NN means you are against NN and in the pockets of the cable companies" line. And how could I not know about the throttling of Netflix when it was well publicized in many tech publications and was determined by those publication when the throttling most likely started?

You seem to think I am against Net Neutrality. I am not. I am against a poorly implemented government enforced "Net Neutrality."

Fair enough, what part of Net Neutrality implementation isn't working well?
 
I lol'd

What changed with Net Neutrality? Nothing. The whole thing was a sham by large content companies to shift delivery costs onto ISPs, which is why they pushed it so hard. Of course in the end they just ended up building out their networks like they should have. And regulations don't mean anything once admins change, that's what legislation is for.

Of course if I can get one, solid definition of what "Net Neutrality" is....

The guy who coined the term was a lawyer, and he had no idea what the flip he was talking about. In the original paper he saw the difference between residential and commercial service as nothing more than a money grab by big business, because he's never done any sort of network planning or architecture and has no concept of backhaul or dl/ul demand or what kind of processing power or bandwidth is required. What he originally wanted was metered internet.

Something tells me most of you don't want metered internet.
 
I see the problem with the FCC being in control of the internet and classifying it as a utility is not so much what it is doing right now with it's new found power , but what it is free to do with it's power in the future . They are "in control" and the wild , wild , west of the internet is on a path to being tamed and eroded down to what government bureaucracies decide it "should be" i.e. Obamacare for the internet...

If we think we need laws to fix the internet then we need our law makers (Congress) to pass such laws , there are inherent problems with turning that authority over to bureaucratic entities like the FCC , EPA , HHS , etc. which have NO constitutional mandate to even exist. These issues are better left to the states to address and settle between them with the federal governments authority limited to arbitrating the disputes between the states and then passing legislation (laws) that bind the states to the provisions of the states agreed upon resolutions. The idea that some unelected , un-mandated group of pea brains gets to "regulate" , basically create laws and enforce them , is inherently dangerous
 
Yea, that's bullshit talking point they are trying to spew. They do that because they have no way to attack NN directly so they are trying to change the issue to something else.

Here is the thing, NN is good for the consumer. All of us.

The bootlickers flooding this thread still refuse to address this point and they are also 'forgetting' that is was the massive outpouring of the will of the people that helped make it happen.

I for one don't agree with you , and your BS calling posters that don't agree with you names is down right "liberal"...ergo I have something YOU can lick...
 
Back
Top