Net Neutrality might end.

Even if we assume that such reports are true, that doesn't really explain how that set the stage for abolishing the good in the rules, along with the supposed bad. Why not just make net neutrality better rather than just eliminating it all together and making the whole situation worse?

Anyways, I don't think that's where all this started anyways. This all started when comcast and other ISPs began experimenting in throttling the internet to certains cites prior to the rules being in place. That set in motion the need to created these rules in the first place.

And really, you can take it even further back than that and blame the local ISP monopolies as the starting point for all this - local politicians making deals with ISPs and giving them monopolies over certain segments of their cities and so on, which kills any kind of potential for for a true market based solution as new ISPs were simply not allowed to set up in these cities. If you're going to allow monopolies then you are forced to engage in heavy handed regulations to keep them in check.

There's an argument to be made for a market based solution to this all that involves getting rid of net neutrality rules. But in order for that solution to work you have to also get rid of the local rules that allow for monopolies in certain areas. Getting rid of net neutrality without getting rid of the monopolies will only exacerbate the situation.

Originally posted by BackFire
Even if we assume that such reports are true, that doesn't really explain how that set the stage for abolishing the good in the rules, along with the supposed bad. Why not just make net neutrality better rather than just eliminating it all together and making the whole situation worse?

Anyways, I don't think that's where all this started anyways. This all started when comcast and other ISPs began experimenting in throttling the internet to certains cites prior to the rules being in place. That set in motion the need to created these rules in the first place.

And really, you can take it even further back than that and blame the local ISP monopolies as the starting point for all this - local politicians making deals with ISPs and giving them monopolies over certain segments of their cities and so on, which kills any kind of potential for for a true market based solution as new ISPs were simply not allowed to set up in these cities. If you're going to allow monopolies then you are forced to engage in heavy handed regulations to keep them in check.

There's an argument to be made for a market based solution to this all that involves getting rid of net neutrality rules. But in order for that solution to work you have to also get rid of the local rules that allow for monopolies in certain areas. Getting rid of net neutrality without getting rid of the monopolies will only exacerbate the situation.

If you don't wanna say it set the stage it sure as hell contributed to it.

So I mean, if people want to go on a whine fest, there is plenty to go around, it's not just Republicans. It's the golden boy.

If you wanna take it even further back cool, people then just need to chill on the party vs party shit then. If they want to go there it won't end well.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you don't wanna say it set the stage it sure as hell contributed to it.

So I mean, if people want to go on a whine fest, there is plenty to go around, it's not just Republicans. It's the golden boy.

I think that's incorrect.

Obama favoring "heavy handed" regulations was really the only move to make since that was his only recourse short of killing the local government's agreements with the local ISP's, which is not something the federal government can do since they were done at a state/local level.

What the federal government can do is enforce its own regulations on these monopolies to ensure they don't engage in predatory practices like throttling/blocking websites, which they were already beginning to do.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think that's incorrect.

Obama favoring "heavy handed" regulations was really the only move to make since that was his only recourse short of killing the local government's agreements with the local ISP's, which is not something the federal government can do since they were done at a state/local level.

What the federal government can do is enforce its own regulations on these monopolies to ensure they don't engage in predatory practices like throttling/blocking websites, which they were already beginning to do.

But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

Originally posted by Surtur
But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

I guess technically it did play a part since it led to the law being created. But that doesn't mean they share any of the blame of what is going on right now, because the law was a reasonable and necessary response to something that the ISP's decided to begin engaging in. The idea you hear a lot - that everything was fine before net neutrality is extremely dishonest. Everything was fine because Net Neutrality became law before the ISP's predatory practices had time to explode. They were just beginning, they weren't wide spread yet, so most people didn't encounter them. Net Neutrality stopped them before they got really bad.

Originally posted by BackFire
I guess technically it did play a part since it led to the law being created. But that doesn't mean they share any of the blame of what is going on right now, because the law was a reasonable and necessary response to something that the ISP's decided to begin engaging in. The idea you hear a lot - that everything was fine before net neutrality is extremely dishonest. Everything was fine because Net Neutrality became law before the ISP's predatory practices had time to explode. They were just beginning, they weren't wide spread yet, so most people didn't encounter them. Net Neutrality stopped them before they got really bad.

They set the stage though and if we assume they are intelligent they knew what it could lead to. Or we assume they are very naive.

I'm no democrat so that is up to you decide which it is.

Originally posted by Surtur
They set the stage though and if we assume they are intelligent they knew what it could lead to. Or we assume they are very naive.

I'm no democrat so that is up to you decide which it is.

They didn't set the stage, though. At least not in the way you are implying. They put in place regulations that were necessary based on ISP's beginning to engage in predatory practices while they were allowed to do so. If anything the ISP's did this to themselves by trying to employ sketchy practices in the first place.

Look I'm not saying dems are angels and devoid of any and all blame here. Because some of the local monopolies were agreed to by both parties of the local government in varoius places, and in that sense then yeah both parties are complicit.

But that's not the same as saying that Obama or whatever is somehow at fault for favoring a law that protected people from these monopolies that started to throttle internet speeds after the fact.

It's one of those things where it seems like you don't know. Did they know what it could lead to? Did they care?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's one of those things where it seems like you don't know. Did they know what it could lead to? Did they care?

You're being too vague, here. What is the "it" in this question? The Net Neutrality law itself? If so, then what is it that the law could lead to?

Originally posted by BackFire
You're being too vague, here. What is the "it" in this question? The Net Neutrality law itself? If so, then what is it that the law could lead to?

I just wonder if they knew it could lead to what people are worrying about right now with net neutrality.

To be honest, it reminds me of Jerusalem in a way. He said he'd make it the capital. He knew the situation. Said it anyways. Knew it would never happen.

I just can't trust any of these people anymore. They are made of lies.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm hearing shit from Ben Shapiro about stuff like this:

FCC Democrats caved to Obama on net neutrality rules, Senate Republican probe finds

Seems like they set the stage for this.

Regardless, you're welcome to post whatever wrong doing Obama was responsible for.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh and just for giggles:

Here Are Obama's 11 Worst Regulations

Number 3:

[b]"3. Net Neutrality. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided to regulate the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, subjecting the previously unregulated industry to a wide swaths of regulations, including one that "allows the FCC to prevent any practice by an Internet access provider that the FCC believes will 'unreasonably disadvantage' an Internet user, application, or content provider," according to National Review. Net neutrality will also enable the FCC to becoming the sole authority on "which tradeoffs and business models are acceptable."

"So when providers are unsure about whether a new technology or business model 'unreasonably' harms some Internet constituency, they can submit those prospective plans to the Commission and pray for an affirmative (and timely) advisory opinion," writes George Mason University research fellow Brent Skorup. "These advisory opinions border on Kafkaesque. The FCC can decline the request for an opinion, can permit the innovation, or can require more information from the submitting party. These opaque determinations cannot be appealed, and affirmative decisions can be reversed at the agency’s whim."

I guess I just don't wanna hear whining at Republicans only. [/B]

Obama's administration implemented Net Neutrality and put ISP's under Title II regulations. The current FCC is fighting to repeal Net Neutrality. Worse, they want to prevent local municipalities from regulating ISP's themselves.

The current FCC head literally wants LESS regulation against the ISP's on a federal level while restricting and INCREASING regulation against the citizens at the more local level.

including one that "allows the FCC to prevent any practice by an Internet access provider that the FCC believes will 'unreasonably disadvantage' an Internet user, application, or content provider," according to National Review. Net neutrality will also enable the FCC to becoming the sole authority on "which tradeoffs and business models are acceptable."

Why do you think this is a bad thing? He's obviously leaning one-way with his views (The 11 worse regulations of the Obama era, really?) but it is crucial. Internet freedom should be a fundamental human right. And if you think ISP's are to be trusted to regulate themselves when their is no law to govern them? Well, guess what, we tried that, look at what happened with Netflix. Worse, look at the billions of tax payer dollars given to ISP's to upgrade your infrastructure that they pocketed and never implemented.

The current ISP's have a monopoly and it's terrible. Without net neutrality? I hope you're ready to pay premium for that Netflix or Pornhub package!

Originally posted by Surtur
But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

Net neutrality was created reaction to the experimental throttling and immoral practices being performed by the ISP's. If there was one thing that Obama did correctly, it was implementing this.

Not that it even MATTERS who started what. It happened and it's here and overwhelmingly, Republicans want to f*ck all of you guys without any lube. It's the INTERNET. The goddamn INTERNET! The greatest culmination of our work towards communication and they want to limit ACCESS to it. Doesn't that piss you off on a fundamental level? That 10 years from now you might not be able to visit youtube without being a premium? That your kids won't be able to access their favorite free comic websites without paying extra for image loading? Jesus....

If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible... Kinda depends on whether Trump is reelected in three years, or we get someone right after him that'll implement a successor to net neutrality and thus restore internet freedom.

Among other factors perhaps.

Surt: "Obama did something good which provoked Republicans into doing something bad. It's OBAMA'S FAULT!"

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible... Kinda depends on whether Trump is reelected in three years, or we get someone right after him that'll implement a successor to net neutrality and thus restore internet freedom.

Among other factors perhaps.

Let's hope so.

https://twitter.com/Scully2018/status/939479946401067008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23939479946401067008

Contact your representatives.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible...

How do you figure?

Originally posted by Surtur
I understand, I still want to know how we got here though. Do you have any clue? This is what I asked:

Surt your credibility would be much improved if you were willing to call Trump and the Republicans out on their shit instead of consistently deflecting to Democrats for no reason.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Obama created the Net Neutrality rules that Trump's FCC head and these slimeball Republicans are trying to repeal.

Surt your credibility would be much improved if you were willing to call Trump and the Republicans out on their shit instead of consistently deflecting to Democrats for no reason.

Cite your source.

March for net neutrality on Wednesday.

https://www.facebook.com/events/397458310684312/