Welcome to Thunderdome

Is it true one of the assholes said in his statement today that your online comments wouldn't be read and then later said a public hearing wasn't needed because you could go online and comment?

If so, that person should be hung for treason.

I'm not kidding.

Ajit Pai actually has a jokey YouTube video out about killing Net Neutrality. What a cock sucker.

Fortunately, the tax bill is going to kill thousands and thousands. All those dead people mean more bandwidth for the rest of us. Provided of course that I make enough money not to be one of the dead people.

On the up side, I'm kind of looking forward to ISPs charging people to use Twitter. Should clean up a lot of the stupid comments.

I just read the comment below the video from HelloChinese. I think they're really confused.

I actually think this is a good idea. I think more competition helps. There is a cell/internet service in my area that uses the radio internet like they're talking about. I'm not in one of their zones where I can be reached, but I looked into them before I went satellite.

Vince wrote: I actually think this is a good idea. I think more competition helps. There is a cell/internet service in my area that uses the radio internet like they're talking about. I'm not in one of their zones where I can be reached, but I looked into them before I went satellite.

They're going to find out just how hard this stuff is, but more power to them.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: I actually think this is a good idea. I think more competition helps. There is a cell/internet service in my area that uses the radio internet like they're talking about. I'm not in one of their zones where I can be reached, but I looked into them before I went satellite.

They're going to find out just how hard this stuff is, but more power to them.

Oh, I agree. And I suspect they'll quickly come to resent someone telling them how they have to run the network that was so difficult to get off the ground. If they're ever able to do it.

That's fucking stupid.

Everything is stupid. The left went after Neil Gorsuch because he vocally opposed Chevron deference. Now leftists are suing the government and the FCC try to stop their reversing of the Net Neutrality rules. The only way for them to win will be to overturn the Supreme Courts ruling on Chevron (which was unanimous).

Pretty good interview. If the former FCC chairman isn't just lying (and no reason I can tell for him to be since the specifics of what he's saying could be easily disproven by a legal person), then the pro net neutrality people have REALLY been sold a bill of goods. It also explains one of the things that has bothered me; if all this was bad stuff was on the verge of happening if the FCC reversed itself, how come none of it was happening before 2015?

Here is an article that is pro net neutrality in principle (just not via the FCC), but confirms a lot of what the guy in the video is saying. This part in particular is of note to me:

Indeed, the FTC would have policed net neutrality back in 2007 when Comcast was throttling BitTorrent — a clear net neutrality violation. But the Republican FCC insisted on taking the case, needlessly kicking off a decade of litigation over the agency’s authority. Ironically, Title II shut out the FTC completely, as the FTC can’t regulate “common carriers.”

It is fun to watch Velshi get destroyed though.

Vince wrote: how come none of it was happening before 2015?

I have a problem with this logic.

Just because something didn't happen previously doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. Most importantly, especially now that the idea is out in the wild. Remember not being charged ATM fees? How about not being charged for your boarding group or for checked bags? Remember not being charged a delivery fee when you ordered a pizza? Just takes one person to see a source of new profit, and voila, you're being charged for shit you weren't previously.

Oh, and FYI, saying none of this happened before 2015 is a bullshit tactic to manipulate people.

First of all, every ISP has tiered plans based on speed. That's already pricing based on your need, IE: what you're using it for. Then you have data caps, which most ISPs have and charge you if you go over. Companies like Time Warner and Comcast have openly discussed different plans for gamers, streamers, etc. and might have put them into place at one time.

So to say "this didn't happen prior to 2015" is a lie. Stuff might not have been in place yet, but it was being discussed. Why do you think, the government, who is last to know anything, passed a law to prevent it?

Also, it was being litigated for many years based on the Open Internet Order prior to the Net Neutrality rules, which was a reaction to the Open Internet Order being mostly vacated in 2014.

Leisher wrote: Oh, and FYI, saying none of this happened before 2015 is a bullshit tactic to manipulate people.

Granted. But equally so to say all these things will happen now that net neutrality is rescinded.

The more I read and understand all the in's and out's of the FCC, the more I understand why a lot of the big players that are not carriers are pushing for this. It makes the FCC one stop shopping for influence peddling.

Let's say that the Internet is deemed a public utility as the pro net neutrality wish. At that point, Google could approach Comcast in an area and tell them "you know, if you paid for a bigger tiered connection to your network for us, you would have an advantage over AT&T in your area". At that point, they grease the proper palms in the FCC to get it approved and the only recourse of AT&T or any of AT&T customers or any of the states where this is occurring is to bring suit against the FCC for allowing it. Google and Comcast is protected and can't be sued.

I wonder. If the current monopoly internet providers start locking shit down for money, if that would prompt Google to continue expanding their fiber networks since the market would suddenly be much better for them.

GORDON wrote: I wonder. If the current monopoly internet providers start locking shit down for money, if that would prompt Google to continue expanding their fiber networks since the market would suddenly be much better for them.

Much more likely they would charge the big providers like Facebook and Google than the end user. The customer isn't the one with the deep pockets.

Oh, and I had to pay Exede $.05 to post this now that net neutrality is gone.

Edit: From what I can tell in news articles, Google is moving ahead with their network now. That's good. I have zero trust in the ethics of Google, but I'm all for more choices.

Oooooooooooooops. I cannot believe this wasn't an option.