Law Upcoming vote on Net Neutrality laws - How many times do we need to strike this shit down?

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.

Oh, and Comcast is already lobbying.

I'm so sick of this shit, seriously. The FCC is whoring out for Comcast and AT&T instead of ensuring that American citizens have equal access to the internet.

 

[Secret Asshole]

overregulation is what made it impossible for competition to survive in the first place, and now more regulation is supposedly the solution? what a catch 22.

nevermind that making the internet a utility would literally be giving ISPs monopolies

also, your choice of words seems to imply you're not fond of capitalists?

I am a capitalist. What I'm not, however, is a corporatist . Its just fucking stupid to trust companies. They aren't beholden to your interests, at all. They are beholden to shareholders who will fuck you into the ground if it drives their stock price up by a few pennies. De-Regulation is responsible for 2008. Government has held up failing companies and freely given companies monopolies (see: ISPs). It gives subsidies to companies that don't need it (farming) which functionally destroyed independently owned farms. It allows for massive consolidation and cornering the market. It permits dangerous, idiotic short-term gain and saves companies from the consequences of their own stupidity. Time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again shows that corporations cannot be trusted to do anything. The purely free market is an imaginary ideal, like pure communism. You cannot have a purely free market because humans are stupid greedy cunts who will gleefully blow their own brains out for a few more dollars. This has fucking happened. Why do you think regulations are there in the first place? Why do you think the FDA and EPA came about? Why were investment banks and personal banks separated (at least they used to be)? Because companies are stupid fucking greedy and caused massive amounts of damages that forced regulatory changes. Before the EPA oil companies dumped toxic shit everywhere and anywhere they could. Before the FDA you had people selling shit that killed people and snake-oil salesmen parroting all sorts of cures (though the FDA really needs an overhaul. 10 years per drug is fucking idiotic and is killing people. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist).

All this talk of 'more government regulation!' is horseshit. Corporations have their cocks firmly implanted up both parties assholes. Its just a matter of which corporation is doing the fucking. Now, lets look at your precious ISPs right up the ass of the street shitter:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...er-time-warner-cable-20160517-snap-story.html
The company also agreed to not thwart the development of video streaming services and to comply with Open Internet rules for three years.

Oh look, they promised not to fuck you up the ass for three years. How very kind of them.

lacking competition is what allows them to fuck you as hard as they do

that's the entire reason we came up with anti-trust

Anti-trust is a fucking joke. So is the SEC. How many food companies control nearly the entire market? Oh yeah, about ten. For the entire planet of 6 billion. How many media companies? 6. Wait, wait. Its now 5.5 since Disney bought most of Fox. Look up the communications companies. Most of them are going about buying each other. There won't be that many left. And you will still be left with no choices.

Corporations exist to make money. They can give a shit about their consumers, unless it hits their bottom line. So if they can fuck you just enough that you will still pay them but be fucked, they will. Anyone who thinks different has never studied industry in the early half of the 20th century. (and I'm not talking actual in-depth study. I mean like, learned about it in high school. Because that's the level of education on it you'd need to know this).

Pretty much.

 

[JaneThough]

Addressing why you think the internet hasn't changed since its inception (that you've now beckpedalled on) was pretty important to address if there was to be any hope of having a talk with you about NN that's grounded in reality

I was being hyperbolic. Of course the internet has changed. I’m just not sure why you think giving ISPs the free reign to do what the want (when they’ve proven what they want is to fuck you, which led to NN being made official in 2015) is a good thing.

 

[OwO What's This?]

I am a capitalist. What I'm not, however, is a corporatist . Its just fucking stupid to trust companies. They aren't beholden to your interests, at all. They are beholden to shareholders who will fuck you into the ground if it drives their stock price up by a few pennies. De-Regulation is responsible for 2008. Government has held up failing companies and freely given companies monopolies (see: ISPs). It gives subsidies to companies that don't need it (farming) which functionally destroyed independently owned farms. It allows for massive consolidation and cornering the market. It permits dangerous, idiotic short-term gain and saves companies for the consequences of their own stupidity. Time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again shows that corporations cannot be trusted to do anything. The purely free market is an imaginary ideal, like pure communism. You cannot have a purely free market because humans are stupid greedy cunts who will gleefully blow their own brains out for a few more dollars. This has fucking happened. Why do you think regulations are there in the first place? Why do you think the FDA and EPA came about? Why were investment banks and personal banks separated (at least they used to be)? Because companies are stupid fucking greedy and caused massive amounts of damages that forced regulatory changes. Before the EPA oil companies dumped toxic shit everywhere and anywhere they could. Before the FDA you had people selling shit that killed people and snake-oil salesmen parroting all sorts of cures (though the FDA really needs an overhaul. 10 years per drug is fucking idiotic and is killing people. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist).

ya and now it's the EPA dumping toxic shit and the FDA preventing people from getting life-saving drugs and also perpetuating some of the dumbest subsidies known to man. both agencies are hilariously corrupt and controlled by corporate interests and somehow that's being anti-corporatist?

here's a novel concept: stop creating all these dumbfuck niche agencies and let the justice department be the justice department. expand it if you have to. this these regulation factories aren't fucking working, it's just making the free market far more driven by criminal activity

Anti-trust is a fucking joke. So is the SEC. How many food companies control nearly the entire market? Oh yeah, about ten. For the entire planet of 6 billion. How many media companies? 6. Wait, wait. Its now 5.5 since Disney bought most of Fox. Look up the communications companies. Most of them are going about buying each other. There won't be that many left. And you will still be left with no choices.

this is false equivalency. the media companies don't have territorial monopolies. the food companies don't have territorial monopolies (well there might be some but if there are any it's due to the FDA)

Anti-Trust (which I do agree needs to be strengthened) has had a very positive effect on the national marketplace. Most of the fault with competition not emerging are the regulation mills.

 

[DefunctChip]

A lady who works for FCC came up and reveals some fraud with evidence.

Are we... winning?

That's the funniest goddamn thing I've seen all day. It's not enough that AT&T, Google, Amazon, and the entire city of New York is turning against the FCC, oh no. Now THE FCC ITSELF is turning against itself. And its only been like what, two or three fucking days? These guys are PROFESSIONALS.

 

[One Man Bland]

do you not find it the least bit strange all cable-based ISPs are all pro-NN and all telecomms-based ISPs are against it?

I'm well aware why they're in favor of it. If this was only about contract negotiations with companies that use their service, they'd be arguing that the Title II provisions either shouldn't apply to companies or that different standards should be used when dealing with servicing companies specifically. Instead they're demanding the provisions that in the past have served as legal protection for consumers when these ISPs in the past blocked private texts, sold private information, and attempted to throttle competing services should be done away with entirely.

 

[OwO What's This?]

That's the funniest goddamn thing I've seen all day. It's not enough that AT&T, Google, Amazon, and the entire city of New York is turning against the FCC, oh no. Now THE FCC ITSELF is turning against itself. And its only been like what, two or three fucking days? These guys are PROFESSIONALS.

the FCC is composed of a similar ratio of democrats and republicans. the organization not in-fighting in the current political climate would be the surprising thing.

I'm well aware why they're in favor of it. If this was only about contract negotiations with companies that use their service, they'd be arguing that the Title II provisions either shouldn't apply to companies or that different standards should be used when dealing with servicing companies specifically. Instead they're demanding the provisions that in the past have served as legal protection for consumers when these ISPs in the past blocked private texts, sold private information, and attempted to throttle competing services should be done away with entirely.

not to directly argue your point or even bolster mine, but I would like to make an observation here:

most who are pro-NN focus on examining the motives of the telecomms companies
most who are anti-NN focus on examining the motives of the cable companies

 

[Route 79]

I think in all this pointless bickering we forgot the true meaning of Christmas: laughing at spergs.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

That's the funniest goddamn thing I've seen all day. It's not enough that AT&T, Google, Amazon, and the entire city of New York is turning against the FCC, oh no. Now THE FCC ITSELF is turning against itself. And its only been like what, two or three fucking days? These guys are PROFESSIONALS.

Well, that's what happens when you put a filthy street shitter and his "Damn dirty sexist" cronies in charge of a corporation full of lies.

And it isn't the repeal itself I'm angry about, honestly (disappointed, but the net worked okay since before NN). It's how they went about it that gets me.

 

[OwO What's This?]

I think in all this pointless bickering we forgot the true meaning of Christmas: laughing at spergs.
View attachment 336946 View attachment 336947 View attachment 336948

well that's why I'm doing most of my sperging here and not the salt mine thread.

Anyway, this is my perspective. It's polarizing.

In a data marketplace where there is a lack of competition, I'm inclined to side with the ones who are having much greater difficulty providing prices that would allow them to compete with cable-based ISPs. If they could, they'd offer home internet across the whole nation.

There's a lot of variables at play, but something that caught my attention early on long before it became the edgy republican issue it is today, and long, long before I ever voted republican any time in my life, it's that air-to-air data transfer is an extremely volatile technology. It's held back by a number of things, like old government contracts that allow their holders to ransom the use of radio signals like they're patents with infinite duration, the weather itself...

But what's really relevant to this discussion is the requirement to treat all data equally. Most think about this in an entirely positive light. But when it comes to the telecomms, this presents less able to provide a service that can be as fast and reliable as anything you can get on cable internet. Even if they were allowed to give favorability to Netflix at the expensive of everyone else, I would view that as a positive, because it makes them more able to compete with the cable ISPs in the home internet domain. Even if it's just one thing that works well rather than hundreds, if that one thing does the job it needs to do, then that's what counts.

Now, I do have other issues with the idea that all data should be treated equally no matter what (all of it based within the limitations of our current technology and what ISP startups would be able to provide), but this is the driving issue that's pitting the two types of service providers against each other. And despite the sins of AT&T, Comcast, and the like, I think we'd be better off putting them in a position where they can pose a threat to the cable ISPs, because I'm really fucking tired of having to buy TV packages I don't use just so I can have a monthly data cap that isn't garbage.

 

[Shokew]

well that's why I'm doing most of my sperging here and not the salt mine thread.

Anyway, this is my perspective. It's polarizing.

In a data marketplace where there is a lack of competition, I'm inclined to side with the ones who are having much greater difficulty providing prices that would allow them to compete with cable-based ISPs. If they could, they'd offer home internet across the whole nation.

There's a lot of variables at play, but something that caught my attention early on long before it became the edgy republican issue it is today, and long, long before I ever voted republican any time in my life, it's that air-to-air data transfer is an extremely volatile technology. It's held back by a number of things, like old government contracts that allow their holders to ransom the use of radio signals like they're patents with infinite duration, the weather itself...

But what's really relevant to this discussion is the requirement to treat all data equally. Most think about this in an entirely positive light. But when it comes to the telecomms, this presents less able to provide a service that can be as fast and reliable as anything you can get on cable internet. Even if they were allowed to give favorability to Netflix at the expensive of everyone else, I would view that as a positive, because it makes them more able to compete with the cable ISPs in the home internet domain. Even if it's just one thing that works well rather than hundreds, if that one thing does the job it needs to do, then that's what counts.

Now, I do have other issues with the idea that all data should be treated equally no matter what (all of it based within the limitations of our current technology and what ISP startups would be able to provide), but this is the driving issue that's pitting the two types of service providers against each other. And despite the sins of AT&T, Comcast, and the like, I think we'd be better off putting them in a position where they can pose a threat to the cable ISPs, because I'm really fucking tired of having to buy TV packages I don't use just so I can have a monthly data cap that isn't garbage.

Now you're talking sense - It would be real lovely if I could just buy internet seperate and cut the cord for good, honestly... That doesn't sound unsensible at all.

Speaking of TV, what should have happened by now (and never will fast enough, either...) is the ability to buy only the channels you want - a la carte, if you will.

 

[Trilby]

Now you're talking sense - It would be real lovely if I could just buy internet seperate and cut the cord for good, honestly... That doesn't sound unsensible at all.

Speaking of TV, what should have happened by now (and never will fast enough, either...) is the ability to buy only the channels you want - a la carte, if you will.

That "a la carte" pricing was what EVERYBODY wanted for a long time.

 

[OwO What's This?]

Now you're talking sense - It would be real lovely if I could just buy internet seperate and cut the cord for good, honestly... That doesn't sound unsensible at all.

It's not that I think my views are unsensible, but I don't think most feel like it's a good trade. I think it's the content curation that scares more people than anything. I this odd since I feel like we're already at that point and most just don't realize it, and it's all thanks to their pro-NN data tracking friends at Google. They're delving their toes deeper into censorship too. If you're a business that gets delisted from Google, you might as well disband.

Though, much like I hate Comcast but hope they become able to compete with the cable companies in the home internet sphere, I too hope Google dusts off their Fiber program in the heat of this controversy and starts expanding again. There is absolutely no reason internet has to become a utility with this many different delivery mechanisms. We just need to make sure it's a bigger financial incentive for them to compete than it is for them to draw lines in the sand and fuck the people on their side of the line twice as hard. The harder they fuck each other's pozholes the less AIDS spread to everyone else.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

overregulation is what made it impossible for competition to survive in the first place, and now more regulation is supposedly the solution? what a catch 22.

nevermind that making the internet a utility would literally be giving ISPs monopolies

also, your choice of words seems to imply you're not fond of capitalists?

They're already regional monopolies. Why not force them to abide by what follows from that.

 

[Piga Dgrifm]

 

[OwO What's This?]

They're already regional monopolies. Why not force them to abide by what follows from that.

because I think that being vendors for entertainment media is a conflict of interest with becoming government-contracted regional utilities and they're just going to end up with the best of both worlds - including taxpayers incidentally funding cable TV infrastructure upgrades.

it's the same infrastructure the internet uses, after all.

 

[One Man Bland]

well that's why I'm doing most of my sperging here and not the salt mine thread.

Anyway, this is my perspective. It's polarizing.

In a data marketplace where there is a lack of competition, I'm inclined to side with the ones who are having much greater difficulty providing prices that would allow them to compete with cable-based ISPs. If they could, they'd offer home internet across the whole nation.

There's a lot of variables at play, but something that caught my attention early on long before it became the edgy republican issue it is today, and long, long before I ever voted republican any time in my life, it's that air-to-air data transfer is an extremely volatile technology. It's held back by a number of things, like old government contracts that allow their holders to ransom the use of radio signals like they're patents with infinite duration, the weather itself...

But what's really relevant to this discussion is the requirement to treat all data equally. Most think about this in an entirely positive light. But when it comes to the telecomms, this presents less able to provide a service that can be as fast and reliable as anything you can get on cable internet. Even if they were allowed to give favorability to Netflix at the expensive of everyone else, I would view that as a positive, because it makes them more able to compete with the cable ISPs in the home internet domain. Even if it's just one thing that works well rather than hundreds, if that one thing does the job it needs to do, then that's what counts.

Now, I do have other issues with the idea that all data should be treated equally no matter what (all of it based within the limitations of our current technology and what ISP startups would be able to provide), but this is the driving issue that's pitting the two types of service providers against each other. And despite the sins of AT&T, Comcast, and the like, I think we'd be better off putting them in a position where they can pose a threat to the cable ISPs, because I'm really fucking tired of having to buy TV packages I don't use just so I can have a monthly data cap that isn't garbage.

I think this is conflating two different issues: Almost all of the cable internet providers are owned by telecoms like AT&T and Verizon already, so those services aren't really competing with each other - especially when half the time they won't have their subsidiaries share the same territories. Hell, there's been a whole thing about AT&T wanting to buy Time Warner Cable in recent news. Again, the above issues you're describing more have to do with the city and county regulations that limit infrastructure and cause areas to be divided into territories with little overlap between different providers, which telecoms don't seem in a huge hurry to rectify considering they have a history of buying out smaller competitors, gutting them for resources, and then leaving the places those companies serviced with only dial-up or satellite options for internet.

And wanting to get rid of NN has nothing to do with wanting to give favorable service to companies like Netflix. Part of the reason telecoms wanted to repeal NN was because they hate having to service a company whose product directly competes with the cable TV services they own - and Netflix has basically replaced traditional cable in the eyes of consumers. Hell, it's well documented that ISPs have often throttled Netflix just to get the upper hand during negotiations. If anything with the number of companies looking into starting streaming channels, I wouldn't be surprised if the "buying TV packages you don't want just to get decent internet" worsens just because the current repeal has given companies like Comcast, AT&T, etc. the power to throttle an entire business format that's directly competing with their own.

 

[OwO What's This?]

I think this is conflating two different issues: Almost all of the cable internet providers are owned by telecoms like AT&T and Verizon already, so those services aren't really competing with each other - especially when half the time they won't have their subsidiaries share the same territories.

Let's check this out then.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
http://croctail.corpwatch.org/

Top 10 Broadband Internet Providers by Coverage

XFINITY from Comcast
Charter Spectrum
Cox Communications
Optimum by Cablevision (Altice USA)
WOW! (WideOpenWest Inc)
Suddenlink Communications (Altice USA)
Mediacom Cable
RCN (TPG Capital)
CableONE
GTT Communications Inc

Woah it's almost like you're full of shit!!!

Edit: Oh and I was bein nice in countin Xfinity, since Comcast is sort of an exception to this whole phone vs cable dealio, they're a cable company against NN, but given how many fingers they have in different pies that doesn't surprise me. (Supposedly they're in cell talks with.. Verizon I think it was)

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2017/12/18/tax-tuesday-055564

More republicans are starting to think that Pai’s plan was not a good idea.

 

[Male]

They even stole names from Anime

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/19108221877027878

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1910822020507004

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/19108220829518298

 

[The Great Chandler]

They even stole names from Anime

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/19108221877027878

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1910822020507004

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/19108220829518298