/linked/2017/11/22/fcc-net-neutrality

Comments

Water, wet:
Government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires.

_But her emails..._
7:34 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
Is it bad?
8:17 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
John Gruber:
Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States of America.
8:49 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Gruber the Booger:
>Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States of America.

I dunno, New Coke was pretty fucking bad.
9:33 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
It's bewildering that anyone would think Donald Trump is worse than George W Bush or Barack Obama.

When he needlessly occupies a couple countries, plunges the economy into deep, lasting recession, inflates a debt bubble masquerading as a recovery or attempts to give 1/6th of the economy to be managed by the federal government, come back to me.
10:33 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Ero:
It's entirely predictable and consistent with Trumps behaviour and views. If you voted for him over there, you voted for this.

The fervent back peddling of his supporters to somehow justify this will be amazing to watch. Probably a lot of whataboutitis, ad hominems and whining, maybe something about consumer freedom to choose in a monopoly market.
10:37 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Ero:
HAHA just as I posted, last anon comes down with a case of whataboutitis. Can I call it or what?
10:38 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Grubology 101:
Well played, Ero
11:00 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
Is anon even wrong though?

1. Is anything from Trump really that bad? Not really.

2. Is he (so far) worse than the last two? No.
11:07 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
I think people with their hair on fire about this do reasonable discussion a disservice. The internet was okay for two decades without this rule in place, and it will be okay afterwards.
11:16 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Not Anonymous:
It's taken as an article of faith that ending net neutrality is a bad thing.

Surely, the burden is on those who support net neutrality to demonstrate the benefits of this regulation. Hysterical alarmism doesn't suffice.

11:22 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
John Trumper:
>HAHA just as I posted, last anon comes down with a case of whataboutitis. Can I call it or what?

No, because you're an idiot. If you're addressing a statement about who is "the worst" president, how else do you do it without discussing past presidents?

Use some logic, you fucking schmuck.
11:24 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
lmao at the anons over at /r/the_dumbfuck now shilling *against* Net Neutrality.
11:44 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
chad:
@Not Anonymous

Pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to describe why letting utility companies (ISPs) discriminate against certain types of network traffic is at all beneficial to the customer.

But if you're truly too dense to see the benefits of net neutrality, look at countries like Portugal where it is not enforced; providers can literally block you from using certain websites and services unless you pay more per month.
11:48 pm — Wednesday, 22 November 2017
anonymous:
you'd think the left would be all over ending net neutrality given their love of censorship
12:24 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
Wait wait, is ending net neutrality actually unpopular? (It may be awful policy, but put that aside.)

Could even 10% of voters explain it to a pollster?
12:35 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
>1. Is anything from Trump really that bad? Not really.

Yes, it's fucking terrible.

>2. Is he (so far) worse than the last two? No.

He's probably on par with G.W Bush right now. And most of the worst Bush stuff came from Cheney and his cohorts.

Worse than Obama? Fuck yeah. Obama was a class act, and highly competent.
12:47 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
John Gruber:
I'm not 100% sure we're going to solve this issue on DFWC.
1:09 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
If Kushner can fix the middle east, I have faith in DFWC.
2:52 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Your Tax Dollars At Work:
Really, the internet ran without net neutrality rules since the beginning.


None of the FCC"s attempts at ISP oversight have worked; they've all been blocked by the courts.


And in any case, Net Neutrality isn't really what you think. At the core of Net Neutrality is "who pays."


In this fight it's billion-dollar companies fighting other billion-dollar companies.


To understand why means going back to the beginning.


The internet itself is a bunch of networks that are hooked together in arrangements known as peering arrangements. Back in the day peering was done on an ad-hoc friendly basis, because the assumption was that traffic was about equal; for the most part access benefitted everyone, and nobody really carried extra traffic costs because there really wasn't a lot of traffic...especially relative to today's traffic levels.


Those networks were independently owned and operated, even back then. Some were operated by defense contractors, some by universities, some by private organizations. But in general there was a consensus that peering worked just fine, and it sort of faded away.


Well, the internet changed and traffic became highly asymmetrical. That's a problem, for a number of reasons, all of which have to do with money. Why does network A have to pay more for peering with network B when the traffic is originating on network C and the destination is network D?


At a higher level, who pays for the infrastructure that allows google, YouTube and Netflix to make billions of dollars? The government? ISPs? Consumers?


Have you ever wondered why the net neutrality press is so one-sided? Why do google, facebook, netflix, and all the content providers support this so-called "net neutrality" idea?


Because they'd get fucked, just like the way that the telcos are getting fucked. They get to wrap themselves in the towel of "pro-user." But really, content companies are built on top of an infrastructure they don't have to pay for.


If that's what you want, that's fine. But don't lie to the public that it's some kind of populist thing. It's not, it's just basic greed, on both sides.
2:58 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Your Tax Dollars At Work:
Actually, the previous rules (which were never put into effect) is problematic for small ISPs, but since Goober never leaves his bubble he may not realize that there are hundreds of tiny phone companies all across the US that were going to be screwed.
3:04 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
[Tim Wu: Why the Courts Will Have to Save Net Neutrality](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html)

>Back in 2005, a small phone company based in North Carolina named Madison River began preventing its subscribers from making phone calls using the internet application Vonage. As Vonage was a competitor in the phone call market, Madison River’s action was obviously anticompetitive. Consumers complained, and the Federal Communications Commission, under Michael Powell, its Republican-appointed chairman, promptly fined the company and forced it to stop blocking Vonage.

>That was the moment when “net neutrality” rules went from a mere academic proposal to a part of the United States legal order. On that foundation — an open internet, with no blocking — much of our current internet ecosystem was built.
3:19 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Your Tax Dollars At Work:
Anti-competitive is the FTC. If there are issues like that they should be handled by the FTC, not the FCC.

The whole NN is a land grab by the FCC, plain and simple. If there is anti-competitive behavior it should be handled by the FTC or the DoJ, depending.
5:27 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
John Trumper:
>Obama was a class act

LMAO
7:55 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
> The whole NN is a land grab by the FCC

how does NN give the FCC any power? what do they gain from it?
8:06 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Alex:
> anonymous:
> > you'd think the left would be all over ending net neutrality given their love of censorship

Without Net neutrality, these left activists will have to pay more for to watch porn. When there is a clash of ideals and personal expenses, fuck the ideals.
8:59 am — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
Great to see not everybody here is snookered into thinking Net Neutrality is great.

First, Title II regulations literally do the opposite of what NN supporters want, and on top of that it allows massive government control of the internet. So even if you support NN, you should oppose Title II regulations implementing NN.

Second, NN is against the basic principles of the internet. The FUD spewed by NN supporters has never been supported by reality.

So NN is bad. End of story.
2:31 pm — Thursday, 23 November 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
> how does NN give the FCC any power? what do they gain from it?

Title II gives them complete and unchecked regulation of the internet. Oh sure, they've said (FOR NOW) they won't exercise it. But nothing is stopping them from chaining their mind.

You'd think with all these people calling Trump a fascist, they wouldn't want him controlling the internet. But then, they don't actually take the time to understand their positions, just spew BS.
2:33 pm — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
> Title II gives them complete and
> unchecked regulation of the
> internet. Oh sure, they've said (FOR
> NOW) they won't exercise it. But
> nothing is stopping them from
> chaining their mind.

I'd like to chain my mind, too, but don't know how.
4:17 pm — Thursday, 23 November 2017
anonymous:
Seems like your mind is already pretty well chained.
6:47 am — Friday, 24 November 2017
Ero:
John Trumper:
> No, because you're an idiot. If you're addressing a statement about who is "the worst" president, how else do you do it without discussing past presidents?
>
> Use some logic, you fucking schmuck.

The comment was "addressing" net neutrality. Comprehension fail, mate.

Though, again, not an unexpected response.
7:42 am — Friday, 24 November 2017
anonymous:
That's a very optimistic interpretation, Ero.
6:44 pm — Friday, 24 November 2017
Gruber the Booger:
It's interesting how much people complain about internet access and how its a utility and so on and so forth.

Where is the outrage and vitriol for actual utilities?

Gas, electric, water, sewer, paved streets with lights, stop signs, libraries (that have free internet, heat, water, electricity and books) and on and on.

How many choices do you have for your water, gas, or electric? Where is the neutrality outrage on that shit?

Some people say "I never go to the library, why should my tax dollars pay for that?"

Some people use so little yet still get charged the minimum usage charge on their water, gas or electric.

Someone has to connect the wires from point A to B.

Do you want that someone to be the government with one choice or do you want that someone to be a corporation with a government supported monopoly on the market?

Either way I don't see the "little guy" planting telephone poles, digging ditches, laying undersea cables and launching communication satellites.

It is what is what it is folks. Big business and big government. Get used to it.
9:49 am — Saturday, 25 November 2017
John Trumper:
>The comment was "addressing" net neutrality. Comprehension fail, mate.

Nope, it wasn't.

Moron.
6:04 pm — Saturday, 25 November 2017
Ero:
John Trumper:

> Nope, it wasn't.
>
> Moron.

Well, we're not all class acts like you.
3:41 am — Monday, 27 November 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!