F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules on the USA

[dpad_5678]

If a representative is making a decision against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, he's not really a representative, is he?

Fucking THIS. THIS is what should be shown to everyone supporting or remaining neutral against the repeal.

 

[WeedZ]

What kills me is no one can seem to say why they're for it.

 

[RustInPeace]

What kills me is no one can seem to say why they're for it.

They say it poorly being very vague and not really understanding what the internet really is about. For example.

The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options. His two fellow Republican commissioners also supported the change, giving them a 3-to-2 majority.

“We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

That makes no sense, and naming the two worst ISPs as examples is more concerning. If the "Father of the Internet" and the inventor of the World Wide Web says you don't understand how the internet works, that's pretty much indisputable, yet Pai and the two commissioners that voted for the repeal go against that anyways. I'm in a weird area about this because I have a feeling my ISP, RCN, won't do the things I fear Comcast and Verizon (isn't the latter famous for throttling Netflix speeds?) so I'm not sure if I'll take the worst of this if it all becomes official or whatever. At the same time, because I'm a pervert, and I do watch camgirls, this is very bad for them, so it's bad for me.

1.) The sites they stream from could be walled off to a separate package that they have to pay for, and from my experiences, cam models can't be spending too much, so another significant expenditure is very detrimental to their, well, business. Way of life for a lot of them as a matter of fact.

2.) On the consumer side, if they're faced with having to buy a separate package, then that's a significant expenditure on their part, they may end up pouring less money into cam models, porn in general, if at all, and then everyone's fucked. Consumer doesn't get their nut (and an avenue of happiness), the performers lose out a bit of their livelihood.

The first thing that came to mind in thinking how to be ready for this is download and keep all the porn I can, and movies for that matter, not knowing how that venue will be affected by all this. A digital bunker, safe house of sorts. I do find it interesting that this issue is the closest to being one-sided, as in 90% of the US population, at least, I believe are opposed to this. Okay, 99%, there's that evil 1% again.

Fucking Hell, I wanted to share a Tweet from someone who tried to defend this repeal, the Poketuber Shofu/Trap Ketchum quoted and replied to the tweet, but now the guy has his account protected. I wonder why...

 

[incidentallyscribble]

Oh boy, I hit the jackpot *grabs popcorn*
It's not too late the net can be saved
---
Anyone that is reading this thread that wants to get notifications on all these spicy flame wars (if you haven't already pressed watch, lol) can do so via this link.

 

[pustal]

AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!

Not sure if trolling or not, but this is a typical american argument I don't get: "deregulation is good". How on Earth is deregulation good. Even from a capitalist standpoint, if you let companies do whatever they want, big companies will always smash small ones and monopolies and oligarchies will control the market.

 

[Navonod]

Not sure if trolling or not, but this is a typical american argument I don't get: "deregulation is good". How on Earth is deregulation good. Even from a capitalist standpoint, if you let companies do whatever they want, big companies will always smash small ones and monopolies and oligarchies will control the market.

More like a typical dumbass. Them being American has very little to do with it. I've seen comments like that from other countries. No hard feelings though.

 

[RustInPeace]

This is the most realistic and sobering look at what the loss of net neutrality means. Much more detailed and well presented than arguments for this repeal.

 

[chartube12]

i will just add to what is posted from above. they good in theory sell exe to websites in bundles or even on a per usage level. But in practice, there would be major backlash in doing so and it would require major reprogrammung of DNS servers. Plus the blocking of alternate DNS servers to avoid people getting around the isp ones, but doing so would also be a long up hill cat and mouse battle. In short it would take too long and be too costly to make changes to the internet across the board to be possible. Otherwise Jtm is correct

 

[MaverickWellington]

i will just add to what is posted from above. they good in theory sell exe to websites in bundles or even on a per usage level. But in practice, there would be major backlash in doing so and it would require major reprogrammung of DNS servers. Plus the blocking of alternate DNS servers to avoid people getting around the isp ones, but doing so would also be a long up hill cat and mouse battle. In short it would take too long and be too costly to make changes to the internet across the board to be possible. Otherwise Jtm is correct

What are you talking about? Mobile internet has exclusionary packages for websites that eat up your data just fine in other countries.

 

[Kioku]

Hm. The world is a worrisome issue..

 

[CallmeBerto]

Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.

 

[Deleted User]

Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.

Call me a nut, but I'd rather have the government regulating the internet than to have the likes of Comcast and Verizon doing so. At least the government is supposed to work in the best interests of the people. Big businesses only care about the end profit, and while that is admittedly largely dependent on customer satisfaction, businesses have done and will do shady things to make money. Why do you think America has all these anti-trust laws in the first place? It's because the working class got shafted by big businesses with a really, really long stick during the gilded age.

Besides, the post above pretty much explains it. Websites are going to have to pay big fees in order to get top billing, or else they'll just be either slowed down to a ridiculous extent that no one can browse the page, or blocked entirely.

This bill isn't going to create more competition amongst websites. The rich will only get richer, while the smaller guys get kicked to the side. Typical of this administration, I'd say.

 

[SG854]

Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.

Capitalism only works if there is actual competition. But there are only a very few ISP's to choose from.
And the big ISP's try to shut down the smaller guys and their competition. Just look at what they are doing to google fiber.
In this case government regulation is necessary so that ISP's don't over step their bounds.
Since people can't just leave to go to another ISP's, since there is no competitive market place.

 

[kumikochan]

and again america fucks the entire world . . . gotta love america

This doesn't apply to the rest of the world. The way i get it is internet providers are gonna slow down website or speed up website acces for the users it has if the owner of the websites pays the company to do so. It doesn't apply for the rest of the world since our providers don't do that so we get full speed acces to any website nonetheless. I don't get why people are stating here that it does apply to the rest of the world when it clearly doesn''t. A provider i'm not with can't slow down my acces since i'm with a provider outside of the US who gives full speed acces to everything. Please tell me how no Net neutrality in the US is bad for the rest of the world when it is only bad for the US. Because i see a lot of bullshit claims here.

 

[comput3rus3r]

Anybody who thinks getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing is a brainwashed zombie.

 

[8BitWonder]

Forgive me if I'm a moron or just misinformed, but doesn't the repeal proposal still need to make it through Congress? Or is the repeal already in effect?

 

[CallmeBerto]

To both @B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N and @SG854

I do agree some government regulation is needed (all industries do) HOWEVER I don't agree that title 2 was the way forward. I believe it was too restrictive in what ISP can and can't do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Forgive me if I'm a moron or just misinformed, but doesn't the repeal proposal still need to make it through Congress? Or is the repeal already in effect?

Congress next and even after that it will take months before anything changes. (assuming they approve it)

 

[Deleted User]

You can not use the stupidity of a minority to completely shut off everyone of a debate by insinuating everyone is just as bad. It's dishonest. That's not how it works in a civilized world. Same wise, That there are a minority of feminist extremists does not mean that feminism in general isn't a cause worth fighting for.

Also, It doesn't matter whether the public is well informed or not. They work for the people. If they think the "people" are wrong, they confront some of them (the loudest, respectful voices) and debate with them, and yes, potentially debunk misconceptions.
But mocking them? No. I'm sorry. By principle, they won't get my support for that.

If they're that confident in their cause, they should have no problem debunking misconceptions.
Honestly? Even after watching the session (part of it, I was at work), I don't see what are the benefits for me, but I do see some potential issues.
I'm obviously not alone in this case. They kept saying they're doing it for the people, but have yet to convince "us" of the benefits of the repeal. And mocking people won't help making it look like it's not yet another attempt at screwing with Obama's legacy for the sake of it.

"stupidity of the minority"
lol
think about the average person. how stupid he is. how brainwashed he is. how little times he stopped and thought about the real issues of his life. things that will affect him and ppl around him for a long time.
now imagine this- half of the people are more stupid then him.
just let it sink in

I dont like the idea of any government agency, big company or any other big body censoring my content. of course Im all for net neutrality. I dont think tho that putting random dudes in front of the government and asking them about the issue will help anybody. Direct Democracy is a good thing, but when you see that most of the people are brainwashed by big corporations and really believe any side of the argument because somebody said good things about it.... I dont trust this half of the population to be good for me. Im not living in usa but stupid people are everywhere... think what would have happened if apple was saying something about limiting processing power in smartphones by law a few years back when it was the big majority of mobile phone manufacturers, making some good arguments ("increase battery life! decrease cost! some other bullshit") and a gazilion of fanboyz would vote for it against the informed minority who support logically the other side of the argument.... given enough money would go to journalists, I think they would win. I cant trust people with no knowledge in the matter to decide the thing for me.
the current form of democracy in america wont allow for better representation, you can see it in the fact there are only 2 parties with chances to win, but it's a matter for other thread

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is the most realistic and sobering look at what the loss of net neutrality means. Much more detailed and well presented than arguments for this repeal.

pleaseput it inside a spoiler. thats too long

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This doesn't apply to the rest of the world. The way i get it is internet providers are gonna slow down website or speed up website acces for the users it has if the owner of the websites pays the company to do so. It doesn't apply for the rest of the world since our providers don't do that so we get full speed acces to any website nonetheless. I don't get why people are stating here that it does apply to the rest of the world when it clearly doesn''t. A provider i'm not with can't slow down my acces since i'm with a provider outside of the US who gives full speed acces to everything. Please tell me how no Net neutrality in the US is bad for the rest of the world when it is only bad for the US. Because i see a lot of bullshit claims here.

when somebody would see that the isp's of other big country do something for the profits they would also do it themselves in their own country. something like that would spread like a virus to the whole world or at the very least to a lot of other countries, which would matter to you even if you dont live in those countries. think about a business getting less revenue because a lot of guys from america just stopped coming to their site. even if they live in antarctica they will still be affected. and so would you.

 

[Deleted User]

sorry if I seem stupid, but is that true that in the us some people get internet access with no bandwidth limit?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Anybody who thinks getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing is a brainwashed zombie.

and sorry, but your argument looks like it was formed by a brainwashed zombie

 

[the_randomizer]

sorry if I seem stupid, but is that true that in the us some people get internet access with no bandwidth limit?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


and sorry, but your argument looks like it was formed by a brainwashed zombie

I've never seen that as a thing, most ISPs will have a cap, even when they don't tell you what it is. Cue Comcast, they have like 500 GB or 1 TB a month, but they don't say unless you ask, it's asinine.