OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well party line vote has removed the internet as a utility and a service of the "public good". 86% of Americans believe net neutrality rules should remain in effect. 86% I would say that 95% would agree if they really understood what was at stake. This did nothing but endanger every american, especially those in areas where Comcast has a government subsidized and mandated effective monopoly on a large portion of the country. Comcast has been supported by the FCC and the members of congress that took money to slow down any and all content that is not what Comcast now thinks you should see or not see. They have the right to do it. They have the right to slow down Netflix, Elitedawgs, ie anything they want and pump up their NBC/Comcast data anyway they seem fit. Next step, charging Comcast customers extra money to have reasonable speed for the content they want to see. Republicans sold us out, for next to nothing. Some for only 1000s campaign of dollars from Comcast and others. They could have stopped this at any point during the FCC review. The internet is going to be like cable bills now, except premiums on certain websites. Thanks FCC and Congress.

This should not be about politics. This is about protecting services that were always established for the public good.

[CarolinaDawgs]

I 100% agree. Such a shame to see it happen, but $$$ is king. Ask Paidwell, Nkimdonkee and Gasmask

[mparkerfd20]

One of the worst decisions our government has ever made.

[Dolphus Raymond]

You get what you vote for. Enjoy.

[Lord McBuckethead]

One of the worst decisions our government has ever made.

Yep. I hope the outcome will not be what I fear, but there is a lot of money to be made by slowing down competitors. I may invest in Comcast/NBC Universal now. They would not flip a switch, but do it slowly over months and years. One day, people in Comcast areas will wonder why their content doesn't play anymore, call Comcast and they will give them bullshit bandwidth yada yada yada, but you could pay for this XXXXX service and bypass that issue. They pay the money, and then comcast just opens up the internet to the level you had on 12.13.2017, for a much larger pure profit amount.

I hope it doesn't happen, but greed will make it happen. America, land of the free.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Yep, my wife gets all heated about stuff all the time. I remind her that they either voted for it, or didn't come out to the polls. Why be bothered by it?

[5049]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Because it was placed there by Obama, and literally everything that guy did needs to be undone. Only reason I could come up with. Literally everybody believes that all data should be treated equally by the internet service providers, except the ISPs and the people they gave money to, including all of our representatives and senators. Every single one of them bought and paid for. Regardless that I am sure all Mississippians believe this should be considered a utility.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Here are the people that voted to have this undone.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

notice a theme?

[Dolphus Raymond]

Because it was placed there by Obama, and literally everything that guy did needs to be undone. Only reason I could come up with. Literally everybody believes that all data should be treated equally by the internet service providers, except the ISPs and the people they gave money to, including all of our representatives and senators. Every single one of them bought and paid for. Regardless that I am sure all Mississippians believe this should be considered a utility.
The mentality that everything done by Obama needs to be un-done is short-sighted at best. No one believe that anymore.

[Doggie_Style]

Here are the people that voted to have this undone.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

notice a theme?

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

[Cloak]

17 the FCC

[Cooterpoot]

Being overblown. Just like it was overblown by the other side when the law went into effect.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

It is only political because our state representatives and senators failed every person in this country. This doesn't serve a single good in our society.
Sorry for the political slant. It truly was not intended. This shouldn't even be political, nor should the FCC be political.

[sonofozarka]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

My guess is that they want to be able to allow the ISP's to grow, profit, and charge more to the consumer and to the content providers.

This may be a way for companies like Comcast to offset the huge losses they're seeing in cable subscriptions dropping by allowing them to charge content producers

Also guess this may end up in court, because if they were to have passed it, ISP's may have a case saying the law is hindering their ability to get market value for their service.

We may consider the internet a public service, but it's run by businesses, not the gov't. The businesses want to be able to maximize profit, and the Comcast's of the world are in the pocket of the Republicans

[Lord McBuckethead]

Being overblown. Just like it was overblown by the other side when the law went into effect.

I disagree. If anything, it has been downplayed both times. This has a clear and present danger to all types of accessible and consumable data in our nation. ISP have the right and I say the support by our representatives to choose what information you can access based solely on their discretion. China, North Korea, and now US ISPs have this power. We let this happen.
Will they use it? How can they make money from it? They just have to chose to do it. It's a very simple possible reality.

It's not like in today's day and age you can chose to not use the internet. An internet brought to you by local monopolies too. Can't even chose to change ISPs in a large portion of the county as it is.

[sandwolf]

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

Oh, grow up. This is in no way comparable to abortion.....the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their politics, agree on this issue. If you can't stand a discussion that calls out the Republicans (by both sides of the aisle) for dropping the ball on something then just don't click on the thread. People's inability/unwillingness to acknowledge **** ups by their party is a big part of the problem with the current state of politics in this country. And for the record, I am a Republican.

[BrunswickDawg]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

It's also the result of actually having to live up to some bone headed rhetoric of the last 30+ years. Believing that all regulation of business is bad, that government should be drowned in a bath tub, that facts and history should be ignored all lead to decisions like this.

Business has proven over thousands of years that they will do whatever it takes to secure profits. Sometimes it is blatant, some times it is covert. Ultimately, profit motives win out. Understanding that does not make one anti-capitalist. It makes one a realist. The flip of that is that the roll of government regulation is to protect citizens from corporate profit motive where practical, and in a manner that is fair to business and the consumer. The reason for this is that the government is the representative of the people, and their only option. Recognizing that doesn't make one a communist. It makes one a realist. What has happened since Reagan began attacking regulations has gutted our governments ability to take action. It has created an all consuming Borg - deregulation, the attacks on Labor, the corruption of the campaign finance system, the symbiotic movement of elected officials to K Street (lobbyists) and K Street into regulatory bodies (like the FCC) has created a corruption of the process that we might never be able to restore. While I point out Reagan, Dems are no better, I only point to it as a beginning point. They have all become complicit.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Comcast was doing terrific based on their own releases, without this reversal.
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/2016-year-in-review

[GrooGruxDawg]

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

Why? Does it fracture your world view to find out that the GOP is not the bastion of freedom and liberty you believe it to be? The fact is it doesn?t matter what party you affiliate with. Laws are bought and sold in this country. It?s that simple. Roger Wicker and others don?t give a flying 17 about you. He and damn near everyone else that holds public office sell their ?beliefs? to the highest bidder. This isn?t America anymore and it damn sure isn?t a democracy.

[Dawg61]

This sucks no doubt but I kinda think Disney buying 21st Century Fox today which now gives them 60% ownership of Hulu and Disney has an upcoming streaming service that will have all ESPN networks and now Fox Sports regional networks is going to somehow combat Comcast from fleecing the consumer even more with this decision to end open internet.

[dparker]

Elections have consequences

[Lord McBuckethead]

[/QUOTE]While I point out Reagan, Dems are no better, I only point to it as a beginning point. They have all become complicit.[/QUOTE]

I agree, this is an issue by both Dems and Rep. Our citizens inabilility to call out bullshit when its your party, is the problem in this country. Reagan, Bush HW, Clinton, Bush W, Obama, and Trump has all done stupid shit, but right now their respected parties and more importantly the citizens shy away from calling out their own people.

I for one will say this is a total failure of Congress to do their job, added directly by political contributions by ISPs to blindside every citizen directly. Happens every day, but not this cut an dry.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I thought all of fox sports was staying with Fox.

[Dawg61]

I thought all of fox sports was staying with Fox.

No Fox keeps Fox News, Fox Broadcast channel, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2 but FSS (and all the other regions) FSN, Yes Network are all owned by Disney now. Disney also now owns FXX, Nat Geo, FXMovies etc... This is a gigantic move that happened today. Disney now owns 40% of the box office market.

[DawgNamedScuba]

Watch this video. She breaks down the Disney deal


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKih7LlKjeA

[Lord McBuckethead]

Wow that is big then. Hope they stick to sports on their sports channels and news on their news channels.

I see the irony in that statement with this post being on this website, but note N.N. is about the internet....so some leeway please.

[BrunswickDawg]

While I point out Reagan, Dems are no better, I only point to it as a beginning point. They have all become complicit.[/QUOTE]

I agree, this is an issue by both Dems and Rep. Our citizens inabilility to call out bullshit when its your party, is the problem in this country. Reagan, Bush HW, Clinton, Bush W, Obama, and Trump has all done stupid shit, but right now their respected parties and more importantly the citizens shy away from calling out their own people.

I for one will say this is a total failure of Congress to do their job, added directly by political contributions by ISPs to blindside every citizen directly. Happens every day, but not this cut an dry.[/QUOTE]

And if you don't believe this. Call the office of your Congressman. Their staff will pat you on the head and say "We appreciate the input of our constituents. Have a nice day." Unless you are bringing them a fat donation check, they have no time for you or your opinion or concerns.

[BeastMan]

This is the move that should make every rational gop voter leave for the Libertarian Party. This shit enfuriates me.

[PSYCHO(thesis)DEFENSE]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

because their sole unifying principle is to transfer as much wealth as possible to their corporate donors

[Ezsoil]

It never amazes me the number of people who fail to realize that government regulation is nothing more than selecting winners and losers and limiting access to the free market by force. Licensing is nothing more than a barrier to market entry. Net Neutrality was a nifty name for government and not the marketplace to determine who can provide your servivce. I'd much rather have a free market where anyone can enter the market and provide any service that I'm willing to pay for .. than to have a limited number of providers who only offer a set of service standards as determined by government....I'm smart enough to determine what is good for me.

[5049]

It never amazes me the number of people who fail to realize that government regulation is nothing more than selecting winners and losers and limiting access to the free market by force. Licensing is nothing more than a barrier to market entry. Net Neutrality was a nifty name for government and not the marketplace to determine who can provide your servivce. I'd much rather have a free market where anyone can enter the market and provide any service that I'm willing to pay for .. than to have a limited number of providers who only offer a set of service standards as determined by government....I'm smart enough to determine what is good for me.
A minimal level of regulation is a necessary, good thing. This really cannot be debated. Prevents a WWW situation.

[mparkerfd20]

This is the move that should make every rational gop voter leave for the Libertarian Party. This shit enfuriates me.

Ugh you do realize Libertarians are against Net Neutrality right?

[Cooterpoot]

A minimal level of regulation is a necessary, good thing. This really cannot be debated. Prevents a WWW situation.

^^Gene Swindoll?

[Turfdawg67]

...and keep electing the same lifers year after year.

[TXDawg]

So...ya'll would rather the internet be like your phone or cell phone bill where you get hit with huge FCC fees and taxes? That's where Net Neutrality was headed.

Pick your poison.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Harper, Gregg $33,800
Kelly, Trent $3,300
Palazzo, Steven $11,100

Cochran, Thad $123,750
Wicker, Roger $151,800

Trent Kelly should have held out for a bit more money. What a dumb ass.

[BulldogDX55]

So...ya'll would rather the internet be like your phone or cell phone bill where you get hit with huge FCC fees and taxes? That's where Net Neutrality was headed.

Pick your poison.

No it is not and it never was. Stop that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as do most people who are against net neutrality.

[Dawgology]

Harper, Gregg $33,800
Kelly, Trent $3,300
Palazzo, Steven $11,100

Cochran, Thad $123,750
Wicker, Roger $151,800

Trent Kelly should have held out for a bit more money. What a dumb ass.

Holy shit!!! Hahahahahahaha! Was he the one that did our bidding for Cam Newton??

[dawgs]

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

This ain?t about politics, this literally affects you every day

[TXDawg]

No it is not and it never was. Stop that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as do most people who are against net neutrality.

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

No more fake twitters or catfish..... Ole Miss is doomed!

[msugolf]

Oh, grow up. This is in no way comparable to abortion.....the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their politics, agree on this issue. If you can't stand a discussion that calls out the Republicans (by both sides of the aisle) for dropping the ball on something then just don't click on the thread. People's inability/unwillingness to acknowledge **** ups by their party is a big part of the problem with the current state of politics in this country. And for the record, I am a Republican.

Absolutely this all day!

[dawgs]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

The govt isn’t “monitoring” anything. (I mean they are but that has nothing to do with net neutrality). All the govt was doing is ensuring that you paid for an internet speed, that you then didn’t have to pay again for Netflix access. Or that your cnn.com loaded just as fast as your foxnews.com. This isn’t the govt picking and choosing winners, it was ensuring every website had equal access. I don’t know what the clarion ledger or the Starkville daily make as local newspapers from their online presence, but you can bet bigger, richer newspapers will be paying on their end to make sure their newspapers load faster than the local papers. It creates an environment where the rich can buy access and the upstarts have no chance.

[Doggie_Style]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

^^^^^^^ This all day....when you look back a year from now you won't notice anything different in your service, only that the Govt's dirty hands won't be as firmly gripped to it. Do you not think the govt. uses these agencies for political purposes? (IRS, FBI, EPA, etc.)

[dawgs]

^^^^^^^ This all day....when you look back a year from now you won't notice anything different in your service, only that the Govt's dirty hands won't be as firmly gripped to it. Do you not think the govt. uses these agencies for political purposes? (IRS, FBI, EPA, etc.)

You’re wrong about there being no differences

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story,amp.html

[BulldogDX55]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about at all, and you seem to grossly misunderstand the issue.

Having this government regulation in place doesn't allow the government to monitor the internet and it doesn't give the government extra power. It is a rule that is in place that tells telecoms to lay off internet regulation that favors one thing over another, which would destroy competition. That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition. It stops Comcast and Co. from doing to the internet what you are currently incorrectly imagining the government is doing to it.

So, once again, please attempt to understand the issue before you comment on it.

I swear, everyone who is in favor of what just happened has no idea what they are talking about in the slightest. It is just a bunch of people who get violently twitchy when they hear the phrase "government regulation".

[Quaoarsking]

If Comcast or uverse has an Ole Miss fan in a high position, be prepared to have a huge monthly fee to access Elite Dawgs, if they let us see it at all.

If not us, it will be other websites, including ones you like.

[TXDawg]

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about at all, and you seem to grossly misunderstand the issue.

Having this government regulation in place doesn't allow the government to monitor the internet and it doesn't give the government extra power. It is a rule that is in place that tells telecoms to lay off internet regulation that favors one thing over another, which would destroy competition. That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition. It stops Comcast and Co. from doing to the internet what you are currently incorrectly imagining the government is doing to it.

So, once again, please attempt to understand the issue before you comment on it.

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian#

[sleepy dawg]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

This is not good for any normal American citizen, republican, democrat, or otherwise. It is also not neutral. If folks weren't being paid by the telecom industry they wouldn've never supported it.

[BulldogDX55]

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian#

OOOOH! Daily Caller! The publication that employs PizzaGate conspiracy theorists.

I'll humor you- I read the article. The only argument that it is making is that google ought to pay more to ISPs in order to function so that they do not get an unfair advantage over their competitors. All this is doing is giving ISPs the power to say who deserves how much access at any given time. What if you do not want to pay what Comcast says you should pay to advertise your website? What if comcast only wants you to have access to websites of a certain political persuasion? What if comcast wants to charge you an extra $20/month to watch netflix, which you are already paying $10/month for, but they'll give you their streaming service at no additional charge? Also, now you have to use Bing to search for everything just because.

No private, profit driven company should have access to the ability to decide what we view on the internet, and shouldn't be able to control how our bandwidth is used. Yes, the ISPs put in the hardware, but in 21st century society the internet IS NOT OPTIONAL.

This will literally kill the competition that Daily Wire is trying to claim it promotes.

[sleepy dawg]

Ugh you do realize Libertarians are against Net Neutrality right?

False. This is being spun as a party thing. It's not. I'm as libertarian as they get and am adamantly against the abolishment of net neutrality.

[TrapGame]

You’re wrong about there being no differences

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story,amp.html

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

[BulldogDX55]

False. This is being spun as a party thing. It's not. I'm as libertarian as they get and am adamantly against the abolishment of net neutrality.

I can see where it would be something a libertarian would have to think about though. You have to choose between a government regulation and between "the free market" but in this case the free market actually creates a regulation that stifles competition.

[Spiderman]

You get what you vote for. Enjoy.

I voted to protect the 2nd amendment, to at least not have my personal and corporate taxes raised, to halt illegal immigration, and no have my little girl have to go into apublic bathroom with a pervert in a dress.

So I'm getting what I voted for so for, and damn glad

[Lord McBuckethead]

If Comcast or uverse has an Ole Miss fan in a high position, be prepared to have a huge monthly fee to access Elite Dawgs, if they let us see it at all.

If not us, it will be other websites, including ones you like.

This is hyperbole, but yes that scenario is now in play. Not that it would ever happen.

[sleepy dawg]

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian#

You're looking at a very small point of this and so does that article. It is ignoring so much. Google isn't an ISP, they're just a search engine. Search engines can be written at any time by any of us. You can write your own search engine if you don't like how google does it. They're a middle man that can be replaced. ISPs cannot so easily be replaced.

This article could only seem informative if you had no idea about what net neutrality really is before you read it. In that case I could see how you could be so easily fooled, but not if you already had any concept of what you were talking about.


I feel like you've purposely shut down half your brain to make sure you aren't looking at the whole picture.

[BulldogDX55]

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

Even if you believe that the LA Times is a bad source (it's not), there is nothing in that article or picture that is wrong. Also, what does Portugals political leanings have to do with this? They've haven't been lead by their socialist party since the 70s, well before the internet was really a thing. What do you need to just look at a source?

[TrapGame]

Even if you believe that the LA Times is a bad source (it's not), there is nothing in that article or picture that is wrong. Also, what does Portugals political leanings have to do with this? They've haven't been lead by their socialist party since the 70s, well before the internet was really a thing. What do you need to just look at a source?

I'm not getting into my beliefs about the veracity of the LA Times b/c that really belongs on the political page. And this whole thread really does too.

[dawgs]

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

1) literally google “Portugal internet” and there’s hundreds of links citing the same information, the links being to a variety of sites with left, right, and balanced viewpoints. There’s also a ****ing difference between opinion and facts, these are literally facts and it doesn’t matter whether brietbart or Rachel Maddow links them, they are facts and facts don’t have a bias. LA times just happened to be the first ****ing link on google.

2) what does portugal’s Socialist leanings (not that the socialists are even running the country) have to do with the fact that they ended net neutrality and let the ISPs “regulate” themselves and it resulted in nickel and dime’ing customers for steaming services and access to certain websites? Nothing, so stop trying to turn this into some “see socialist/democratic/leftist government is bad” example.

[TrapGame]

1) literally google “Portugal internet” and there’s hundreds of links citing the same information, the links being to a variety of sites with left, right, and balanced viewpoints. There’s also a ****ing difference between opinion and facts, these are literally facts and it doesn’t matter whether brietbart or Rachel Maddow links them, they are facts and facts don’t have a bias. LA times just happened to be the first ****ing link on google.

2) what does portugal’s Socialist leanings (not that the socialists are even running the country) have to do with the fact that they ended net neutrality and let the ISPs “regulate” themselves and it resulted in nickel and dime’ing customers for steaming services and access to certain websites? Nothing, so stop trying to turn this into some “see socialist/democratic/leftist government is bad” example.

The sky is not falling snowflake.

2015 internet standards were just as good as 2017.

Get over it.

[dawgs]

The sky is not falling snowflake.

2015 internet standards were just as good as 2017.

Get over it.

Wow, snowflake, quite the original thinker over here.

The reason Obama implemented net neutrality in 2015 was because he (and anyone on the internet) could see this coming from a mile away. He acted to stop it before it could be implemented. But hey, if Obama did it, then trump is hell bent on reversing it, even if it makes no sense to reverse it.

[TrapGame]

Wow, snowflake, quite the original thinker over here.

The reason Obama implemented net neutrality in 2015 was because he (and anyone on the internet) could see this coming from a mile away. He acted to stop it before it could be implemented. But hey, if Obama did it, then trump is hell bent on reversing it, even if it makes no sense to reverse it.

It will be ok. Trump won't block Pornhub.

[BulldogDX55]

TrapGame, you haven?t made any kind of argument as to why this is okay. All you?ve done is show that you?re a rabid partisan who can?t identify something bad happening even though even 70%+ of your party and 83% of society recognizes it as such. Great job!

[TrapGame]

TrapGame, you haven?t made any kind of argument as to why this is okay. All you?ve done is show that you?re a rabid partisan who can?t identify something bad happening even though even 70%+ of your party and 83% of society recognizes it as such. Great job!

Dude, I'll be honest. I really don't give a shit. My life revolves around other things. Net Neutrality ain't one. It can stay or go. I really don't care.

[Tbonewannabe]

Dude, I'll be honest. I really don't give a shit. My life revolves around other things. Net Neutrality ain't one. It can stay or go. I really don't care.

This is an interesting statement in the thread. Why even read the thread and respond if you don't care? For anyone that thinks corporations will not take advantage of the situation, I have some oceanside property in Tishomingo MS for sale really cheap. Corporations didn't spend 100s of Millions of dollars buying politicians just because they wanted to help the average person. It was an investment in a future revenue stream.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well back to basics and to keep it from getting locked. Net Neutrality was a good thing. One of the few purely good things this govt has ever done. This should never have been a political issue to begin with, but a bunch of politicians were bought and paid for. FCC was politicized to a critical point. Now we have the clearest failure of representation I can think of.
Thanks MS US Congress members. Thank you very much. Integrity sold for 10 pieces of silver, some less.

[dawgs]

Dude, I'll be honest. I really don't give a shit. My life revolves around other things. Net Neutrality ain't one. It can stay or go. I really don't care.

I promise you that your day to day life revolves around the internet. A lot. More than you even realize.

[sleepy dawg]

Dude, I'll be honest. I really don't give a shit. My life revolves around other things. Net Neutrality ain't one. It can stay or go. I really don't care.

Listening to you on this topic is like hearing a drowning man say they don't care anything about oxygen. This has everything to do with you, and if you're not pissed about it, you are not paying attention.

[Quaoarsking]

I'm not getting into my beliefs about the veracity of the LA Times b/c that really belongs on the political page. And this whole thread really does too.

Disagree. This directly affects websites like this one and belongs on the main board. If Comcast, AT&T tell Coach34 that he'll have to pay them extra money in order for this site to be available, or tell you that you'll have to pay to see it, at least this thread will have told everyone why.

Ditto for any other websites you like or own.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well I like the conversation fellas. Glad to know on this one issue, I think almost everyone can agree.
Now lets get this tax cut passed and hope it benefits people like us more than it benefits people with a few billion in the bank.

[TrapGame]

I promise you that your day to day life revolves around the internet. A lot. More than you even realize.

And that's the problem with the world. Our lives revolve around something like the internet.

I like hanging out with you guys and talking MSU sports but this is why I don't talk politics or religion.

I'm sure the pro-NN people have a valid concern. However, this repeal does not make the internet a lawless wasteland.

[TrapGame]

Listening to you on this topic is like hearing a drowning man say they don't care anything about oxygen. This has everything to do with you, and if you're not pissed about it, you are not paying attention.

Ok, Sleepy tell me what I should be pissed about. I'm all ears and willing to listen. Shoot.

[dawgs]

And that's the problem with the world. Our lives revolve around something like the internet.

I like hanging out with you guys and talking MSU sports but this is why I don't talk politics or religion.

I'm sure the pro-NN people have a valid concern. However, this repeal does not make the internet a lawless wasteland.

Do you use google maps when traveling? Do you stream Netflix? Amazon prime? Are you a cord cutter and use roku or psvue? Stream MSU games on espn now? Do you manage your bank account online? Pay bills online? Do you still read an actual newspaper and watch the nightly local news, or do you browse the weather and daily news on your news website of choice? If you are looking for a new job, do you still go through the classifieds? Or are you using indeed and LinkedIn and glassdoor to find jobs? Do you hand delivery your application or email/post it online to apply?

This goes FAR beyond access to reading people bitch about MSU sports.

[dawgs]

Well I like the conversation fellas. Glad to know on this one issue, I think almost everyone can agree.
Now lets get this tax cut passed and hope it benefits people like us more than it benefits people with a few billion in the bank.

Hate to break it to you, but corporate and rich tax breaks have never resulted in a trickle down to folks like us. There’s plenty of economic research from post-WW2 until now that prove as much. I don’t like paying taxes either, but it’s undeniable which tax breaks actually do benefit the average person.

[Bulldogg31]

Elections have consequences

So does nominating unelectable people.

[SheltonChoked]

My guess is that they want to be able to allow the ISP's to grow, profit, and charge more to the consumer and to the content providers.

This may be a way for companies like Comcast to offset the huge losses they're seeing in cable subscriptions dropping by allowing them to charge content producers

Also guess this may end up in court, because if they were to have passed it, ISP's may have a case saying the law is hindering their ability to get market value for their service.

We may consider the internet a public service, but it's run by businesses, not the gov't. The businesses want to be able to maximize profit, and the Comcast's of the world are in the pocket of the Republicans

Run like a business like the power company? Run like a business like the phone company?

Imagine if GE, who makes the power, made electric power that only worked with the appliances.

[BulldogDX55]

Run like a business like the power company? Run like a business like the phone company?

Imagine if GE, who makes the power, made electric power that only worked with the appliances.

Yeah, this right here is one of the major concerns. All major ISPs are also content providers. What is to stop them now from only allowing access to their content, or charging an exorbitant rate to use someone else?s? That kills competition.

[preachermatt83]

It never amazes me the number of people who fail to realize that government regulation is nothing more than selecting winners and losers and limiting access to the free market by force. Licensing is nothing more than a barrier to market entry. Net Neutrality was a nifty name for government and not the marketplace to determine who can provide your servivce. I'd much rather have a free market where anyone can enter the market and provide any service that I'm willing to pay for .. than to have a limited number of providers who only offer a set of service standards as determined by government....I'm smart enough to determine what is good for me.
Amen

[preachermatt83]

Well I like the conversation fellas. Glad to know on this one issue, I think almost everyone can agree.
Now lets get this tax cut passed and hope it benefits people like us more than it benefits people with a few billion in the bank.

Standard deduction doubles. That should help a lot of ppl.

[dawgs]

Run like a business like the power company? Run like a business like the phone company?

Imagine if GE, who makes the power, made electric power that only worked with the appliances.

Implement blackout periods except for users of GE appliances

[Tbonewannabe]

Amen

You realize there is no such thing as a true free market right? Purely due to the Barriers of Entry and the size of the corporations, removing Net Neutrality will lead to monopoly type situations. This can even affect how politicians are elected. If Comcast doesn't like a politician then it could either slow the access or completely prevent you from getting information on anyone but the corporations chosen candidate. That is an extreme possibility but it isn't out of the realm of imagination.

[dawgs]

Standard deduction doubles. That should help a lot of ppl.

Kicking peanuts to the middle class while kicking millions/billions to the corporations and 1%ers isn’t really helping the middle class. It’s a bait and switch to get them on board for a plan that on the surface sounds good for them but in reality ****s them. End of story. There’s no 2 ways about it. Multiple center-right publications with strong big money leanings (Forbes, the Wall Street journal, etc) have bashed this tax plan as a giant cluster**** that is going to hurt Americans.

[Turfdawg67]

The sky is not falling snowflake.

2015 internet standards were just as good as 2017.

Get over it.

There it is again... snowflake. The new buzzword for the intellectually challenged.

[BrunswickDawg]

Kicking peanuts to the middle class while kicking millions/billions to the corporations and 1%ers isn’t really helping the middle class. It’s a bait and switch to get them on board for a plan that on the surface sounds good for them but in reality ****s them. End of story. There’s no 2 ways about it. Multiple center-right publications with strong big money leanings (Forbes, the Wall Street journal, etc) have bashed this tax plan as a giant cluster**** that is going to hurt Americans.
Bush 41 said it best - it?s voodoo economics. Always has been. Anyone who believes Arthur Laffer is a bloody idiot. Just ask anyone living in Kansas how well it works.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Yep, my wife gets all heated about stuff all the time. I remind her that they either voted for it, or didn't come out to the polls. Why be bothered by it?

Many of our wives, mine included are downright infuriated.

[Turfdawg67]

Well I like the conversation fellas. Glad to know on this one issue, I think almost everyone can agree.
Now lets get this tax cut passed and hope it benefits people like us more than it benefits people with a few billion in the bank.

Well... you?re in for a 17?n shock. But if you?re a party line kinda guy, either you won?t acknowledge or you?ll somehow blame the other side.

[BulldogDX55]

Amen

How do the few of you who think that what happened today is a good thing continue to not understand what is happening? Like, I get having a different opinion on things (let's keep tax talk to the political board), but 100% of you who are happy about this don't even seem to grasp what is going on.

Let me try, one more time, to explain why this is really, really bad.

Up until 2015, TeleComs tried on multiple occasions, to regulate the flow of information and access to content that went through their service. Because they controlled both the access (to a monopoly level) and had their own content, this was ruled by multiple court cases to be an unfair business practice because they tried to restrict access to competitors. In order to save everyone time, the FCC in 2015 created Net Neutrality, to rule that once and for all that Telecoms can't do that because the internet, at this stage in society, is a necessary good. Now that Net Neutrality has been killed, the TeleComs will go back to regulating flow and access themselves. This is what people like you seem to be confusing about the situation- the NN regulation is actually an anti-regulation regulation, making it so that everyone has equal access to the internet and the services and content provided by it.

I really can't make this any clearer. I do not understand why anyone would want Comcast, the country's least favorite company, to be able to control what you can access.

[TrapGame]

There it is again... snowflake. The new buzzword for the intellectually challenged.

Sorry I hit a nerve Francis.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Sorry I hit a nerve Francis.

Not a nerve. Just a contempt for cheap-shot language.

[Liverpooldawg]

My guess is that they want to be able to allow the ISP's to grow, profit, and charge more to the consumer and to the content providers.

This may be a way for companies like Comcast to offset the huge losses they're seeing in cable subscriptions dropping by allowing them to charge content producers

Also guess this may end up in court, because if they were to have passed it, ISP's may have a case saying the law is hindering their ability to get market value for their service.

We may consider the internet a public service, but it's run by businesses, not the gov't. The businesses want to be able to maximize profit, and the Comcast's of the world are in the pocket of the Republicans

This is it. I know I guy that owns a small ISP in Mississippi. He said net neutrality basically forced him to subsidize companies like Hula and Netflix by providing their infrastructure for them . It forced Comcast and the like subsidize their competitors. It wasn't fair. It favored some companies over others. It was crony capitalism at the highest level.

[Doggie_Style]

This is it. I know I guy that owns a small ISP in Mississippi. He said net neutrality basically forced him to subsidize companies like Hula and Netflix by providing their infrastructure for them . It forced Comcast and the like subsidize their competitors. It wasn't fair. It favored some companies over others. It was crony capitalism at the highest level.

Exactly....that?s why all the big boys were for it....thank God Trump saw through the BS!

[TXDawg]

So, the internet?s been around since the 90?s and has operated openly and freely since its inception. But, now, we Should suddenly be concerned about *big, evil corporations* exploiting it for profit? And why? Because a politician tells you you should be?

If limiting access to certain websites is such a big concern, why weren?t the ISP?s doing it in 2000 - 2010? There were no Net Neutrality laws to prevent them from doing it. What stopped them then and what will continue to stop them now is the free market economy. If Comcast starts limiting access or charging more to access certain sites, they?ll lose customers and the market will force them to change their asinine policies.

Again, Net Neutrality is a government power grab framed as a solution to a non-existent problem. Why would you want to give the government control over something so important to your daily life? I mean, they did so well with healthcare, why not give them the internet too?

[drunkernhelldawg]

This is it. I know I guy that owns a small ISP in Mississippi. He said net neutrality basically forced him to subsidize companies like Hula and Netflix by providing their infrastructure for them . It forced Comcast and the like subsidize their competitors. It wasn't fair. It favored some companies over others. It was crony capitalism at the highest level.

That''s fair. But where is this? I can't seem to find a small ISP to subscribe with. My choices are only ATT or the cable company.

[BulldogDX55]

That''s fair. But where is this? I can't seem to find a small ISP to subscribe with. My choices are only ATT or the cable company.

All his story shows is that this is good for he TeleComs and bad for literally everyone else.

[TrapGame]

Not a nerve. Just a contempt for cheap-shot language.

Seems appropriate to me.

[TrapGame]

A few of y'all have your Lefty slips showing. If a righty really believes this is bad and can convince me I'll listen with an open mind but I'm not buying Lefty talking points.

[BulldogDX55]

A few of y'all have your Lefty slips showing. If a righty really believes this is bad and can convince me I'll listen with an open mind but I'm not buying Lefty talking points.

There?s several in this thread already, but I guess you won?t take my word on that because my ?lefty slip? is showing. The guy who started this thread advocated for the tax plan ffs.

[TrapGame]

There?s several in this thread already, but I guess you won?t take my word on that because my ?lefty slip? is showing. The guy who started this thread advocated for the tax plan ffs.

Then they can persuade me. I'm open to listen but I've read four or five articles over the last hour that lead me to believe this is getting blown way out of proportion.

[BeardoMSU]

A few of y'all have your Lefty slips showing. If a righty really believes this is bad and can convince me I'll listen with an open mind but I'm not buying Lefty talking points.

Adorable.

[dawgs]

A few of y'all have your Lefty slips showing. If a righty really believes this is bad and can convince me I'll listen with an open mind but I'm not buying Lefty talking points.

Good god

[TrapGame]

Good god

Yes, God is good.

[bluelightstar]

A few of y'all have your Lefty slips showing. If a righty really believes this is bad and can convince me I'll listen with an open mind but I'm not buying Lefty talking points.

Lmao at "I'm not listening to a Democrat." *This* is why our politics is a freaking disaster.

[TrapGame]

Lmao at "I'm not listening to a Democrat." *This* is why our politics is a freaking disaster.

Says the liberal.

C'mon guys this is too easy.

[BeardoMSU]

Says the liberal.

C'mon guys this is too easy.

Your troll game is very elaborate, baby cakes**

[BulldogDX55]

Says the liberal.

C'mon guys this is too easy.

Are you just deliberately trolling the thread or do you want to seriously discuss the issue at hand?

[Dawg61]

Anyone supporting anything Comcast wants needs to take the next Uber to Canada and stay there permanently

[drunkernhelldawg]

Seems appropriate to me.

It doesn't seem appropriate to me. It seems insulting or denigrating. It's a term meant to drain respect from those to whom it is applied.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I do acknowledge that it may not be as bad as it seems. However, it was disgusting that the FCC insisted on going ahead with the vote even though millions of fake comments supporting the change have been revealed to have occured on the official FCC discussion of the issue.

[BulldogDX55]

I do acknowledge that it may not be as bad as it seems. However, it was disgusting that the FCC insisted on going ahead with the vote even though millions of fake comments supporting the change have been revealed to have occured on the official FCC discussion of the issue.

Hell, I also acknowledge it might not end up being that bad. However, if we left NN in place, then we KNOW the potentially catastrophic things won?t happen. Why get rid of it? Who here actually trusts Comcast not to bend us over?

[ckDOG]

It never amazes me the number of people who fail to realize that government regulation is nothing more than selecting winners and losers and limiting access to the free market by force. Licensing is nothing more than a barrier to market entry. Net Neutrality was a nifty name for government and not the marketplace to determine who can provide your servivce. I'd much rather have a free market where anyone can enter the market and provide any service that I'm willing to pay for .. than to have a limited number of providers who only offer a set of service standards as determined by government....I'm smart enough to determine what is good for me.

But are you smart enough to realize that not anyone can jump into the market to compete for your dollars, not bc of regulation but bc it?s too damn expensive and risky to lay the infrastructure to compete against what is already there? Zero regulation only works in a perfect world. Complete government control has no place in reality either. Protecting consumers (this isn?t luxury products, it?s a cornerstone of our economy) is an excellent idea when we have no alternatives. I?m very okay with the Feds regulating the major gas pipelines that supply my local utility companies with their fuel. Why? Bc they are in a unique position to royally **** us over due to virtually zero competition. I?m okay with regulating broadband as well bc they could easily do the same - just with megabytes instead of molecules.

All that said, it?s up to citizens to make sure that regulation doesn?t become overbearing and overextends its purpose of consumer protection. This knee jerk ?all regulations are bad? attitude I see today is not only lazy logic, it can be down right dangerous for our safety it we get too drunk with scaling essential regs back.

[Dawg61]

Who here actually trusts Comcast not to bend us over?

Nobody trusts Comcast. The Trump Trolls are just getting what they love best right now. Ruffling the feathers of the rest of us "snowflakes". They don't care that it will cost them more money because it's worth it to them to enjoy pissing off everyone else. Trump Trolls are now awaiting their leader to issue the next troll. Should be only days away. One big one happens once a week on schedule.

[SheltonChoked]

This is it. I know I guy that owns a small ISP in Mississippi. He said net neutrality basically forced him to subsidize companies like Hula and Netflix by providing their infrastructure for them . It forced Comcast and the like subsidize their competitors. It wasn't fair. It favored some companies over others. It was crony capitalism at the highest level.

This is why net neutrality was passed. Comcast started charging Netflix a fee to not throttle them. In 2013. Here is the WSJ story.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

Now it begins again.... Getting ready to pay more for content. Or I hope you like NBC universal programming.

And your friend was not forced by Netflix and Hulu. He was forced to to continue to deliver the bandwidth he sold to his customers. We don't let the power company off the hook when they cut off your power because you use too much, and still charge you. Isp's shouldn't either.

[Dawg61]

Another reason y'all should be pissed about today is that it's going to be dragged out in the courts for awhile costing billions of tax dollars. I believe 22 states have already filed to sue the FCC because of the decision today.

[gravedigger]

This is why net neutrality was passed. Comcast started charging Netflix a fee to not throttle them. In 2013. Here is the WSJ story.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

Now it begins again.... Getting ready to pay more for content. Or I hope you like NBC universal programming.

I?m just hoping Obama comes out with a public service message that it is a bad idea to jump off a cliff.

It would amount to genocide.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Not too bad for Netflix, cause they are established and have a company that could possibly pay for it. They will raise rates.

Now for the next "Netflix"....well they do not have the capital to pay the bullshit toll. Their service will slow down to a crawl. They will go bankrupt.

[Dawg61]

This thread is most definitely headed for the political board so if anyone wants to contribute to it when it does be sure to PM Scoobadawg and ask for access as he is the only one with the keys to the stable.

[Cooterpoot]

I’d feel like a ***** if I didn’t think I could live without the interwebs.

[TrapGame]

Look guys I'm sure there are pros and cons. I'm not sold on the robber barons of the internet argument. It's been enlightening but I'm out of this discussion. I'm not here to be an asshole and spew venom.

I really just want to talk sports. Have a good one. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

[SheltonChoked]

Look guys I'm sure there are pros and cons. I'm not sold on the robber barons of the internet argument. It's been enlightening but I'm out of this discussion. I'm not here to be an asshole and spew venom.

I really just want to talk sports. Have a good one. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.the rubber Barron's of the internet is not an argument. It's history. It happened. That's how we got the FCC net neutrality in the first place. Read my WSJ link above.

Then think, would I even know what the next Netflix is if they had to pay the isp's for bandwidth.

[K9 Avenger]

OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.
Good.....it should have been...

[Maroons]

That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition.

I swear, everyone who is in favor of what just happened has no idea what they are talking about in the slightest. It is just a bunch of people who get violently twitchy when they hear the phrase "government regulation".

Actually, leading economists and some Nobel Prize winners show research that says the exact opposite of what you're saying.

[Gatordog]

It never amazes me the number of people who fail to realize that government regulation is nothing more than selecting winners and losers and limiting access to the free market by force. Licensing is nothing more than a barrier to market entry. Net Neutrality was a nifty name for government and not the marketplace to determine who can provide your servivce. I'd much rather have a free market where anyone can enter the market and provide any service that I'm willing to pay for .. than to have a limited number of providers who only offer a set of service standards as determined by government....I'm smart enough to determine what is good for me.

Ann Rand, Atlas Shrugged. Oh how the media and our youth have forgotten true freedom and embraced socialism.

[Maroons]

Yeah, this right here is one of the major concerns. All major ISPs are also content providers. What is to stop them now from only allowing access to their content, or charging an exorbitant rate to use someone else?s? That kills competition.

The FCC will still have punitive power for egregious violations like you're talking about.

[BiscuitEater]

What a bunch of whining snowflakes! Net neutrality wasn't around from 1995-2014 and the internet thrived!

Missed named 'net neutrality' treats internet like a government run utility! How has any government run function worked?

[Gutter Cobreh]

And your friend was not forced by Netflix and Hulu. He was forced to to continue to deliver the bandwidth he sold to his customers. We don't let the power company off the hook when they cut off your power because you use too much, and still charge you. Isp's shouldn't either.

As Corso says "not so fast my friend"!!!! Ask any SCE&G customer! Those folks have been paying higher rates for years to foot the bill ($1.4 BILLION) for a failed nuclear project....

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article164881682.html

[BiscuitEater]

Can someone explain to an ignorant person (me) why Republicans would think this is good? No smart ass remarks please. I understand Trump and Moore are Satan, etc.

All this does is de-regulate government control of the internet and go back to the way it was in 2014!

[sonofozarka]

This is why net neutrality was passed. Comcast started charging Netflix a fee to not throttle them. In 2013. Here is the WSJ story.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

Now it begins again.... Getting ready to pay more for content. Or I hope you like NBC universal programming.

And your friend was not forced by Netflix and Hulu. He was forced to to continue to deliver the bandwidth he sold to his customers. We don't let the power company off the hook when they cut off your power because you use too much, and still charge you. Isp's shouldn't either.

I see the opposite of your power company argument. Repealing NN is going to allow ISP's to charge more to consumers that use the internet and stream more, as well as the content providers that are the ones that need the high speed. Use more, pay more.

Sure it's not fair to us consumers, but as I understand it's not necessarily fair to the ISP's that are having to put millions into infrastructure in order for streaming services like Netflix to work (streaming services are supposedly taking up 50% of internet usage now)

Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay the ISP a fee when it costs the ISP's millions more to deliver their content than it does for them to deliver elitedawgs

[Quaoarsking]

If you're happy about this, fair enough, just remember that you're happy when your favorite websites are suddenly unavailable, slow, or only available with an extra charge.

[Dawg61]

What a bunch of whining snowflakes! Net neutrality wasn't around from 1995-2014 and the internet thrived!

Comcast wasn't getting its ass kicked by Netflix and other streaming services back then either so they didn't even think about how to make up all the money they have lost the last couple years to cord cutters because it hadn't happened yet. THIS IS THEIR ANSWER to people cutting the cord. There's nothing snowflake about trying to stop from having a $250 a month cable/internet package. That is where we are headed very soon after today.

[bluelightstar]

What a bunch of whining snowflakes! Net neutrality wasn't around from 1995-2014 and the internet thrived!

Missed named 'net neutrality' treats internet like a government run utility! How has any government run function worked?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/technology/att-facetime/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/03/25/AR2005032501328.html

https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/13/5807200/fcc-scrutinizing-netflix-comcast-verizon-speed-issues

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/#.WjNDhN-nHIU

FYI -- here are just a few pre-2015 examples...

[BrunswickDawg]

Another reason y'all should be pissed about today is that it's going to be dragged out in the courts for awhile costing billions of tax dollars. I believe 22 states have already filed to sue the FCC because of the decision today.

22 including MISSISSIPPI are suing. Even your dead red home state AG sees how bad it doing away with net neutrality is.

[preachermatt83]

22 including MISSISSIPPI are suing. Even your dead red home state AG sees how bad it doing away with net neutrality is.

Lol, you realize who our AG is don't you? Obama supporting, left wing, democrat Jim Hood.

[Dawg61]

Lol, you realize who our AG is don't you? Obama supporting, left wing, democrat Jim Hood.

That's better than anyone that supports Trumps Trolling Tweets

[dawgs]

Some of y’all should recognize it’s ok to agree with a pansy ass liberal on some issues

[BrunswickDawg]

Lol, you realize who our AG is don't you? Obama supporting, left wing, democrat Jim Hood.

Well I?ll be - how did that happen? Reds must be slipping in MS. Either way, 22 states is a lot and I bet it grows. GA won?t join because AT&T still holds a big sway with our reds.

[Cooterpoot]

Make Net Service Providers Great Again!

[Cooterpoot]

If you're happy about this, fair enough, just remember that you're happy when your favorite websites are suddenly unavailable, slow, or only available with an extra charge.

Porn is hard to watch while buffering.

[Churchill]

Are you saying we had a choice and should have voted for Hillary Clinton ?

[Jack Lambert]

Wasn't this passed seven years ago or so? It's wasn't resent.

[Dawgface]

This is the move that should make every rational gop voter leave for the Libertarian Party. This shit enfuriates me.


Some of y’all should recognize it’s ok to agree with a pansy ass liberal on some issues

I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.

[BrunswickDawg]

I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.

That's because both parties are dominated by their extremes - who are in reality the minority. They are vocal and demanding, and our leaders equate that with power. It shows with issues like this. Most people agree, or are very close to agreement on about 75% of the issues that face this country. The parties have also bastardized too many of the things people actually agree on in an attempt create some sort of self-aggrandizing value for themselves. When one party takes an extreme position on an issue that is way out of step with the public (like Net Neutrality,which polls show 75-85% of Americans agree with) it does make you wonder WTF that party is doing.

[bluelightstar]

Wasn't this passed seven years ago or so? It's wasn't resent.

Not exactly, but that's right -- net neutrality have been in play for some time now. The FCC first promoted internet "freedom" without regulation, ultimately started fining companies in the W. Bush era, and promulgated rules nearly a decade ago. The most recent version of the net neutrality rules were enacted in 2015, but FCC made numerous such attempts years before that.

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!

Why is everyone so scared of political debates?

[BulldogDX55]

Are you saying we had a choice and should have voted for Hillary Clinton ?

I'm not saying you had to vote for Hillary, but you can put pressure on your elected officials and let them know that if they don't fix this you'll gladly primary them for someone who isn't on their knees for Comcast and AT&T next cycle.

[Lord McBuckethead]

I'm not saying you had to vote for Hillary, but you can put pressure on your elected officials and let them know that if they don't fix this you'll gladly primary them for someone who isn't on their knees for Comcast and AT&T next cycle.

Good point. It depends on which basic principals of our country people are willing to stand up for. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, equality for all people, right to bear arms, right to have free and open elections, hard work, empathy for unfortunate, prison reform, etc. Some of these will detract from this issue, but know that this is the clearest issue of bought and paid for against the US people I have ever seen. I still have seen a single argument against these rules that makes even a common sense case.

I have a fear that people will let something like abortion sway their resolve on this issue. Abortion is a difficult issue that has been discussed for 50 years in this country with no end in sight. It will not be solved anytime soon, nor do politicians want to solve it. Right now it is a wedge issue and they like it that way. They use it to get their people to vote a certain way so they can continue to do this Net Neutrality sort of thing in the background without ever addressing the wedge issue directly.

[BrunswickDawg]

Good point. It depends on which basic principals of our country people are willing to stand up for. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, equality for all people, right to bear arms, right to have free and open elections, hard work, empathy for unfortunate, prison reform, etc. Some of these will detract from this issue, but know that this is the clearest issue of bought and paid for against the US people I have ever seen. I still have seen a single argument against these rules that makes even a common sense case.

I have a fear that people will let something like abortion sway their resolve on this issue. Abortion is a difficult issue that has been discussed for 50 years in this country with no end in sight. It will not be solved anytime soon, nor do politicians want to solve it. Right now it is a wedge issue and they like it that way. They use it to get their people to vote a certain way so they can continue to do this Net Neutrality sort of thing in the background without ever addressing the wedge issue directly.

Yeah, most of the arguments I've seen against Net Neutrality rank up there with the old Tea Party slogan "Get your government hands off my Medicare!"

[Cooterpoot]

Why is everyone so scared of political debates?

Because there is no winner. Both sides suck.

[iPat09]

Because there is no winner. Both sides suck.

Honestly, and I know this will never happen, but things will never improve as long as there is a "us versus them" mentality. People need to stop determining if they will listen to someone based on the R or the D next to their name. We are all people. We are all Americans. It's time to grow up, put our big boy pants on, and act like it. Once this country, and I'm including politicians as the main group, decides to stop fighting each other, and arguing nonstop because, "you're a Republican, therefor you're wrong" or "you're a Democrat, therefor you're wrong", the possibilities are endless. Growing up, one of the main things taught is that we should put aside our differences and work together to make things better and to make things right and to take ideas from both sides. When that way of life ended is when this county, and its leaders, began to fail everyone who lives in it.

[DudyDawg]

Honestly, and I know this will never happen, but things will never improve as long as there is a "us versus them" mentality. People need to stop determining if they will listen to someone based on the R or the D next to their name. We are all people. We are all Americans. It's time to grow up, put our big boy pants on, and act like it. Once this country, and I'm including politicians as the main group, decides to stop fighting each other, and arguing nonstop because, "you're a Republican, therefor you're wrong" or "you're a Democrat, therefor you're wrong", the possibilities are endless. Growing up, one of the main things taught is that we should put aside our differences and work together to make things better and to make things right and to take ideas from both sides. When that way of life ended is when this county, and its leaders, began to fail everyone who lives in it.

Tribalism is a hell of a drug

[SheltonChoked]

The FCC will still have punitive power for egregious violations like you're talking about.

No it won't...


The rules prohibited the following practices:BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.
THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the content, as long as it is legal.
PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.

Pai told reporters complaints that were protected by Net Neutrality are now the problem of the FTC. If you find out about it...

[SheltonChoked]

As Corso says "not so fast my friend"!!!! Ask any SCE&G customer! Those folks have been paying higher rates for years to foot the bill ($1.4 BILLION) for a failed nuclear project....

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article164881682.html


Does everyone pay higher rates for any kind of electricity? Or do you get a discount for using Nuclear Friendly Electricity?

[SheltonChoked]

All this does is de-regulate government control of the internet and go back to the way it was in 2014!

Back when ATT blocked Facetime, When Netflix had to bribe Comcast, When Comcast blocked P2P traffic. When ATT had secret Data caps on Broadband....

[SheltonChoked]

I see the opposite of your power company argument. Repealing NN is going to allow ISP's to charge more to consumers that use the internet and stream more, as well as the content providers that are the ones that need the high speed. Use more, pay more.

Sure it's not fair to us consumers, but as I understand it's not necessarily fair to the ISP's that are having to put millions into infrastructure in order for streaming services like Netflix to work (streaming services are supposedly taking up 50% of internet usage now)

Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay the ISP a fee when it costs the ISP's millions more to deliver their content than it does for them to deliver elitedawgs

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

[Political Hack]

I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.

I was a staunch republican when I got to DC in 2004. By the end of Bush’s 2nd term I had registered as an independent. I was and still am a big states rights advocate. When the GOP abandoned that platform after taking power in DC, and started pandering to special interests for campaign contributions, I was done. I don’t support either party now, have worked for both, but generally find myself siding more and more with Dems on most issues outside of entitlement spending. The middle needs a voice and the two party system doesn’t provide that.

[Johnson85]

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

Can a state not regulate internet providers? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the issue, but to me it seems like if you have used gov't granted eminent domain rights (or just franchises allowing you to use public rights of way), then the decision on how to regulate should be at the state level. Alternatively, if you're using federally auctioned spectrum, then maybe there should be some federal requirements. But if the ISP isn't using a federally granted right or privilege, then I'm not clear on why the federal government should regulate it? I guess maybe for the really large companies that are ISPs and content providers/owners, maybe it should be an antitrust issue.

[BulldogDX55]

Can a state not regulate internet providers? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the issue, but to me it seems like if you have used gov't granted eminent domain rights (or just franchises allowing you to use public rights of way), then the decision on how to regulate should be at the state level. Alternatively, if you're using federally auctioned spectrum, then maybe there should be some federal requirements. But if the ISP isn't using a federally granted right or privilege, then I'm not clear on why the federal government should regulate it? I guess maybe for the really large companies that are ISPs and content providers/owners, maybe it should be an antitrust issue.

The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap. I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area. Also, smaller ISPs can't really do anything truly independent because they rent the hardware from the big boys, and if they do become a hassle, they just get bought out.

[Johnson85]

The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap. Pretty sure there would have to be an antitrust exemption for them to do this. I'm guessing you are referring to maybe how cable companies used to work, when they were treated more like a utility than they are now?


I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area. States have much more leeway than the feds. Unless there is a preemption issue, they can require service in a certain area as a condition of being allowed to serve in a different area. They may not have the law set up to do this, but they can.

[BrunswickDawg]

I was a staunch republican when I got to DC in 2004. By the end of Bush’s 2nd term I had registered as an independent. I was and still am a big states rights advocate. When the GOP abandoned that platform after taking power in DC, and started pandering to special interests for campaign contributions, I was done. I don’t support either party now, have worked for both, but generally find myself siding more and more with Dems on most issues outside of entitlement spending. The middle needs a voice and the two party system doesn’t provide that.

Since you worked up there I?d like your opinion on a theory of mine. Here it goes: The elimination of earmarks has killed the incentive for politicians to work together. In the old days, earmarks and support for pet projects in sub committees was how the parties bargained with each other. I?ll swap you this for that. With nothing to trade, the incentive to cooperate is eliminated.

Thoughts?

[Bully13]

Since you worked up there I?d like your opinion on a theory of mine. Here it goes: The elimination of earmarks has killed the incentive for politicians to work together. In the old days, earmarks and support for pet projects in sub committees was how the parties bargained with each other. I?ll swap you this for that. With nothing to trade, the incentive to cooperate is eliminated.

Thoughts?

when did earmarks end?

[Bully13]

I was a staunch republican when I got to DC in 2004. By the end of Bush?s 2nd term I had registered as an independent. I was and still am a big states rights advocate. When the GOP abandoned that platform after taking power in DC, and started pandering to special interests for campaign contributions, I was done. I don?t support either party now, have worked for both, but generally find myself siding more and more with Dems on most issues outside of entitlement spending. The middle needs a voice and the two party system doesn?t provide that.

When Bush said he would sign a bill to end partial birth abortion? is that what you are referring to?

[BrunswickDawg]

when did earmarks end?
2010

[Tbonewannabe]

I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.

If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.

So now the corporation can charge you for your bandwith which is the actual service you are paying for and they will also get to charge the companies you are accessing for the right to do business with you. This will in turn force the companies to either take an increase in Expenses and cut into their profit or the actual outcome of increasing what you pay. The only thing this does is either 1) take away choices from you in the form of possibly no Netflix if you have Comcast or 2) It cost you more to access Netflix if you have Comcast.

All regulations aren't bad. I know a lot of people in the banking industry hate all the regulations but if a large percentage of mortgages weren't set up to screw the customer then it wouldn't be necessary.

[Bully13]

Ban net neutrality ? the internet dies

Drill in AK? Reindeer die (right before Christmas)

Travel Ban? you hate muslims

Repeal Obama care ? people die

Back out of Paris Accord? the World Dies..

Build the Wall? you hate Mexicans.

[Johnson85]

So now the corporation can charge you for your bandwith which is the actual service you are paying for and they will also get to charge the companies you are accessing for the right to do business with you. This will in turn force the companies to either take an increase in Expenses and cut into their profit or the actual outcome of increasing what you pay. The only thing this does is either 1) take away choices from you in the form of possibly no Netflix if you have Comcast or 2) It cost you more to access Netflix if you have Comcast.

All regulations aren't bad. I know a lot of people in the banking industry hate all the regulations but if a large percentage of mortgages weren't set up to screw the customer then it wouldn't be necessary.

You are going to pay for more bandwidth regardless. Everybody is using more bandwidth, so somebody is going to have to pay to install more bandwidth or some people are going to have to pay more to avoid being throttled and the ones that don't will get throttled or just have a right to less bandwidth to begin with.

Net Neutrality might not be bad, but I don't think it's going to suddenly create a wasteland like people are freaking out about.

[Tbonewannabe]

Ban net neutrality ? the internet dies

Drill in AK? Reindeer die (right before Christmas)

Travel Ban? you hate muslims

Repeal Obama care ? people die

Back out of Paris Accord? the World Dies..

Build the Wall? you hate Mexicans.

Build the wall if you hate being fiscally responsible. Want to talk about bankrupting the country. Pres 45 isn't going to get Mexico to build the wall for us. We can either actually fund our education system like a world power should or build a wall that will be roughly 20% effective. The Wall is the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. I am sure there are some great construction companies that would love to fleece the American people out of billions of dollars to build some wall with probably illegals from Mexico, maybe that is what 45 is referring to when he says Mexico will build it.

[Johnson85]

Since you worked up there I?d like your opinion on a theory of mine. Here it goes: The elimination of earmarks has killed the incentive for politicians to work together. In the old days, earmarks and support for pet projects in sub committees was how the parties bargained with each other. I?ll swap you this for that. With nothing to trade, the incentive to cooperate is eliminated.

Thoughts?

Earmarks were big for spending bills. And maybe the lack of that back and forth has also hurt cooperation on non-spending bills. But the bigger problem is that a lot of the "grease" that amde everything work before was the ability to provide benefits now and put the burdens off on future tax payers. The road doesn't look long enough for agreeing to kick the can to continue to work like it used to.

[Tbonewannabe]

You are going to pay for more bandwidth regardless. Everybody is using more bandwidth, so somebody is going to have to pay to install more bandwidth or some people are going to have to pay more to avoid being throttled and the ones that don't will get throttled or just have a right to less bandwidth to begin with.

Net Neutrality might not be bad, but I don't think it's going to suddenly create a wasteland like people are freaking out about.

It will not create a wasteland but it will give the big Telecom corporations the ability to create a Revenue stream that is not currently there. People streaming entertainment at the pace we do now is still relatively new which is why those corporations poured in more than $160 Million dollars into politicians pockets to get the Net Neutrality reversed. The corporations will charge someone and I hate to break it to you but eventually it is the people who get on the internet. You might not care about a few dollars here or there but it will add up for people that use it. I now even just buy my movies on Itunes and stream them instead of buying Blurays.

[Maroon Wizardry]

I'd love to know how they are going to affect payment processing businesses, the entire banking industry, and the stockmarket. What if Comcast starts slowing bandwidth to certain brokerage firms. picks mastercard over visa etc etc. you dumfacks too stubburn to think big will be at the sonic where i'm gonna whip your ass and then you realize that your local ISP is charging 5 dollars to make a payment using visa or mastercard but free for discover cards. that sonic slushy will get expensive real quick

[Bully13]

Build the wall if you hate being fiscally responsible. Want to talk about bankrupting the country. Pres 45 isn't going to get Mexico to build the wall for us. We can either actually fund our education system like a world power should or build a wall that will be roughly 20% effective. The Wall is the dumbest thing I have seen in a while. I am sure there are some great construction companies that would love to fleece the American people out of billions of dollars to build some wall with probably illegals from Mexico, maybe that is what 45 is referring to when he says Mexico will build it.

that's the stupidest shit I've seen in a long time. congrats

[dawgoneyall]

Wanting the government regulating the internet is dumb.

Socialism doesn't work.

[BeardoMSU]

Wanting the government regulating the internet is dumb.

Socialism doesn't work.

You keep using this word, and I'm not convinced you know what it means...

[Tbonewannabe]

that's the stupidest shit I've seen in a long time. congrats

Great counterpoints, just keep Making America Great Again without actually looking at the results.

[Bully13]

Great counterpoints, just keep Making America Great Again without actually looking at the results.

check out GDP, manufacturing job creation, consumer confidence, etc...you should educate yourself.