OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogDX55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogDX55

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheltonChoked

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/a...164881682.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheltonChoked

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/net...ing-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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BiscuitEater

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032501328.html

https://www.theverge.com/2014/6/13/5...n-speed-issues

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by preachermatt83

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by preachermatt83

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.

Make Net Service Providers Great Again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Porn is hard to watch while buffering.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeastMan

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgface

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doggie_Style

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Churchill

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogDX55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg-gone-dawgs

Why is everyone so scared of political debates?

---

Because there is no winner. Both sides suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cooterpoot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iPat09

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroons

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

---

No it won't...

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gutter Cobreh

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/a...164881682.html

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BiscuitEater

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonofozarka

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgface

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheltonChoked

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogDX55

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogDX55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Political Hack

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

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?