OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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**

[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/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.

[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/a...164881682.html

[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/a...164881682.html

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

[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/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

[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.

[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.