net neutrality
If this guy gets his way all you lovers of breitbart and haters of the large corproratized media may be out of luck
Comments
-
Really? Butt hurt snowflake syndrome run amok.
Forbes.com - why is the media smearing new fcc chair Ajit Pai -
Good. I hope they are right. His transition team was full of anti net neutrality guys so it would be a pleasant surpriseSoutherndawg said:
Really? Butt hurt snowflake syndrome run amok.
Forbes.com - why is the media smearing new fcc chair Ajit Pai
-
An op-ed from a guy that regularly lobbies against net-neutrality isn't an impartial source.Southerndawg said:
Really? Butt hurt snowflake syndrome run amok.
Forbes.com - why is the media smearing new fcc chair Ajit Pai -
Confiscatory
-
Sure won't help the little guys of the internet, like Hardcore Husky.
-
I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
-
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.priapism said:I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
-
If I like my internet provider plan, can I keep it?ThomasFremont said:
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.priapism said:I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
-
The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
-
ThomasFremont said:
Sure won't help the cesspools of the internet, like Hardcore Husky.
-
Will I still be able to visit pornhub and watch movies on Netflix? If so, I don't give a fuck about any of this.ThomasFremont said:
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.priapism said:I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
-
Oh so net neutrality is bad because big government is bad. We just shouldn't have any regulations. While we are at it, let's deregulate banks more. And get rid of the EPA and the department of education. That'll help our country.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
-
Only a Trump bootlicker could spin Net Neutrality into a negative.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
It literally means: Treat all data the same regardless of its origin. Comcast can't slow down bits of data from competitors. -
Uh, no it doesn't. You're describing a principal of net neutrality, that's not the same as government regulations using the term as a heading.UWhuskytskeet said:
Only a Trump bootlicker could spin Net Neutrality into a negative.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
It literally means: Treat all data the same regardless of its origin. Comcast can't slow down bits of data from competitors. -
Southerndawg said:
Really? Butt hurt snowflake syndrome run amok.
Forbes.com - why is the media smearing new fcc chair Ajit Pai
You seem confused.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
-
Rather than just say "you are wrong". Why don't you actually explain what you think is in the net neutrality regulations.Southerndawg said:
Uh, no it doesn't. You're describing a principal of net neutrality, that's not the same as government regulations using the term as a heading.UWhuskytskeet said:
Only a Trump bootlicker could spin Net Neutrality into a negative.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
It literally means: Treat all data the same regardless of its origin. Comcast can't slow down bits of data from competitors. -
Comcast paid for the regulations.
-
If someone poasts a picture of Michelle Obama and an Orangutan then all providers by law must instantly show it at the same time - like when TV says "We interupt this broadcast..."2001400ex said:
Rather than just say "you are wrong". Why don't you actually explain what you think is in the net neutrality regulations.Southerndawg said:
Uh, no it doesn't. You're describing a principal of net neutrality, that's not the same as government regulations using the term as a heading.UWhuskytskeet said:
Only a Trump bootlicker could spin Net Neutrality into a negative.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
It literally means: Treat all data the same regardless of its origin. Comcast can't slow down bits of data from competitors. -
What kind of bizarro world do you live in where an ISP would be pro-net neutrality?RaceBannon said:Comcast paid for the regulations.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/ -
Race is right againUWhuskytskeet said:
What kind of bizarro world do you live in where an ISP would be pro-net neutrality?RaceBannon said:Comcast paid for the regulations.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/lobbyists-net-neutrality-fcc/ -
Nope.AlCzervik said:Southerndawg said:
Really? Butt hurt snowflake syndrome run amok.
Forbes.com - why is the media smearing new fcc chair Ajit PaiSoutherndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
You seem confused.
"Media outlets across the political spectrum reporting on Pai’s promotion have focused on a single issue—the FCC’s controversial 2015 open Internet rulemaking, which transformed Internet access providers into public utilities. In doing so, they have trivialized the very real and important issues facing the agency and its new Chairman.
Much worse than that, they have badly conflated and misreported Pai’s views on net neutrality itself—an almost entirely separate topic.
The how and why of this serious reporting failure is the real story here.
But first, a reality check. Pai has consistently supported the basic principles of net neutrality—the common sense view that ISPs should not be allowed to block specific legal websites or devices, intentionally slow some traffic to benefit others, misrepresent their network management practices or otherwise behave in conduct long-considered anti-competitive in American law.
Here’s an extended excerpt from Pai’s statement issued at the time the FCC began considering its most recent effort to craft prophylactic rules to enforce net neutrality in 2014, noting the “vigorous” public debate over how best to do so consistent with the law:
But we should not let that debate obscure some important common ground: namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then-FCC Chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet freedom: The freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information.
One year later, the FCC unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the Internet Policy
Respect for these four Internet freedoms has aided the Internet’s tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered long-term investments in broadband infrastructure. It has made the Internet an unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet freedoms, and I am committed to protecting them going forward."
.....
What is true is that Pai objected strongly to the bizarre process that waylaid the agency over the next several months, including an unprecedented intervention by the White House and the legally fraught decision in early 2015 to enact the new rules while, at the same time, transforming broadband Internet access services into public utilities.
But Pai’s 67-page dissent from that decision—which, in nearly 400 pages, itself said almost nothing about net neutrality or consensus on the rules themselves —was devoted entirely and sensibly to problems with the FCC’s process, and authority. It focused on the certain negative unintended consequences of former Chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to abandon what Wheeler himself described as a simple “blueprint” provided by the courts for getting the rules enacted in favor of public utility “reclassification.”
(At yesterday’s annual State of the Net conference in D.C., for example, one of those consequences was bemoaned repeatedly by policy experts on all sides of the debate. In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off.
That removed what had been an active and often aggressive “cop on the beat” for consumer protection, and likely the reason actual net neutrality concerns always remained theoretical during nearly two decades when the FCC had no rules of its own in place.)
-
A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown -
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.RaceBannon said:A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown -
Bingo.RaceBannon said:A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown -
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quotedUWhuskytskeet said:
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.RaceBannon said:A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
-
The big boys will trade 1 page of net neutrality for 1000 pages of protection from competition
-
Uninformed as always, same as it ever was.2001400ex said:
Oh so net neutrality is bad because big government is bad. We just shouldn't have any regulations. While we are at it, let's deregulate banks more. And get rid of the EPA and the department of education. That'll help our country.Southerndawg said:The heart of the disagreement is not over "net neutrality" per se, it's over government policy under the heading of net neutrality; a litany of government regulation and classification as a public utility that result in excessive government control. Hand wringing over aims to change policy on this is at this point a lot like defending Obamacare on the basis that the Affordable Care Act is affordable (or free) just because it says so in the name.
-
JaWarrenJaHooker said:
If I like myThomasFremont said:
If previous conversations here on this topic are any indication, most of the American public has no idea what net neutrality is.priapism said:I think 99+% of the American public supports net neutrality. Trump is going to have to be very tough on this issue, if he wants it to pass...maybe even an executive order. He should fill all the FCC chairs with cable executives.
internet provider planpornhub, can I keep it? -
I did read it. It's a long op-ed about his feelings.RaceBannon said:
Why not pull your head our of your ass instead? Read the Forbes article SD quotedUWhuskytskeet said:
Instead of making up weird conspiracies just say it's part of the Republican platform and admit that's why you agree.RaceBannon said:A world where the FCC is part of a corrupt administration. Buy the regs you want when you know they are coming.
It's how it's done. One step away from a shakedown
Or just rattle dnc propaganda
Indeed, the 2015 order devotes almost no discussion to the rules at all. It is one part net neutrality, and 99 parts public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
ISPs absolutely should be treated and regulated like a utility. -
This is a fight worth having, as opposed to where most Lefties are focusing their efforts.dhdawg said:http://www.wsj.com/articles/ajit-pai-donald-trumps-fcc-pick-set-to-target-net-neutrality-1485259207?mod=e2tw
If this guy gets his way all you lovers of breitbart and haters of the large corproratized media may be out of luck
