(FCC rulemaking guidelines state they must consider public input via a comment period) Chairman Pai, is that you!?
Pai and Commodore both don't want to consider public comment since the vast majority of the public want net neutrality protections and Pai, Commodore, trump, and the large ISPs want to end net neutrality protections. Interesting that they don't care about public opinion, yet they ginned up millions of faked comments to create the impression that the public supported ending NN. Also interesting that when the faked comments were publicized, Pai and the trump supporters seem to poo poo it... as if such a dishonest effort to support their position was "no big deal".
the substance of comments and arguments can be considered regardless of the motives or sincerity or volume of the sender the FCC's decision is not (nor should it be) based on the majority position of the comments, so whether a nefarious source spammed a bunch of them is irrelevant if the FCC must exist, the chairman should not consider policy implications at all, only what the law says. Policy is for the legislature. I would treat comments the same way, ignore them unless they are making a legal argument. If you want to change policy, go vote for those that will, submit comments galore to them. It was foolish for Pai to make the policy case for or against these rules, that's not his job. The legal arguments and precedent and existing court rulings are all on his side. what's amusing is the supposed NN comments from Russia were pro NN, lol
I love how liberals always go for the moral victories. But but but she won by 3 million votes. But but but 80% of Americans support NN. But but but 445k comments were from Russia.
This shows that you care more about political points than pragmaticism. It's a loss for all of America when we have someone as grossly incompetent as the current POTUS. It's a loss for America loosing NN. It's a loss for America when a foreign power that does not share the same geopolitical goals as us uses social media to cram propaganda to US citizens. But hey, liberal tears right.
I'm having a hard time following you. FCC is unelected, unaccountable and so should be abolished. Ok, that indicate being accountable to the public is very important to you. Public comments should be ignored by the FCC. The FCC should only consider comments that align with the current majority members positions. That indicate being accountable to the public is not at all important to you.
I guess this means that trump supporters (not blaming trump on conservatives) always go for immoral victories...
Do expand on that, will you? Court precedent is against, for example, the FCC preempting state law (Wheeler's FCC wanted to preempt state laws that restricted municipal broadband). Pai was strenuously against preemption. Now that he wants to preempt state consumer protection laws, all-of-a-sudden he's for it. Shocker! And, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce NN without ISP being classified as common carriers. So, they fixed that, which is in their purview to do. Let me guess: now you're going to say ISPs shouldn't be common carriers. First, fine, but that's not court precedent. Second, are you really going to take such an asinine position as internet not being a utility in this day and age? And the cases of proven identity theft were anti-NN comments. And it seems when you remove all the fake comments, it's not 80% public approval, it's 99%. So let's stop throwing around that 80% number... it's fake news!
If you bothered to follow my opinion about NN, you would know I didn't care either way. NN did not enforce its own rules anyways and NN did not resolve the bigger issues in regards to the internet. NN was another half ass measure that only regulated for the sake of regulation. Leftist like yourself love this kind of stuff. Why bother addressing all the issues when we can leave half of them unresolved for entities to abuse and take advantage of. The fact is most of you have no idea what you're supporting.
I love it when someone who is b****ing about "not knowing what they are talking about" uses platitudes. It's like a double negative kinda. "I'm not the puppet. You are the puppet!" You essentially just did that.
NN is a principle, not an agency, so this statement is incoherent. Do tell. What are the "bigger issues", and how are they served by taking away protections against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization? Do tell. Maybe you'd like to step in and enlighten me on what court precedents Commodore was referring to then, since you imply you "know what you're talking about? Or were you including yourself in that statement? I await your wisdom and knowledge.
Trying to understand the NN debate. In theory what is wrong with bundles? If someone wants to use a higher amount of bandwidth why shouldn't they be able to subscribe to a bundle that allows higher bandwidth usage?
Because the vast majority dont use the internet that way. Everyone streams hd content. Everyone uses emails. It's a stupid idea. And that isn't the main grip with NN. It's giving the ISPs thrbsujrority to throttle competing services for their own benefit. For example, if Comcast wants to start their own streaming service, they can legally throttle Netflix tovslowntheirncompetion and force Comcast users to use their own. And it's made worse seeing that many regions especially Apartment complexes only have one or two choices of ISP providers. Ask yourself this. What motive do ISPs have in throwing millions to lobbying and campaign donation efforts to remove NN regulation? Is for common benefit of American citizens or their shareholders?
Are you really being this petty to use syntax as an argument? All while ignoring the point being made? Im not surprised honestly. As its been mentioned, an ISP blocking and/or throttling traffic is anti competitive. We dont need NN to decide something that will be stopped anyways. Netflix will not allow this to happen. ISP's are not going to target granny's craft site and threaten to throttle her traffic if she doesn't pay them a premium. The whole Netflix debacle a couple years back had nothing to do with throttling. It had to do with ISP's not willing to upgrade nodes, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just for Netflix sake. Consumers will not see paid prioritization directly. Period. The tiered plan idea is nothing but scare tactics. When people use this as an argument, it only shows they have no idea what they are talking about. When it comes to this topic, there is a distance difference between wireless ISP's and terrestrial ISP's. San's Comcast, terrestrial ISP's are not fighting NN. Its the wireless carriers who are fighting it. Whether you agree or disagree, its for good reason. Wireless spectrum is not infinite and very limited on what can be offered compared to terrestrial lines. The problem wouldn't be as significant if people didn't live their lives attached to a screen watching video's all day long. I honestly don't give a **** about video content creators. They consume 75% of internet traffic. They are the one's who should be fitting the bill for the massive upgrades required to keep up. This of course will now lead to the increase usage of data caps. I am supportive of the Title II regulation only if we are going to treat it as such. This includes turning tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 providers into dumb pipes, deregulating them and prohibiting these providers from owning the end customer. This also includes regulations that force all utilities to work together instead of against each other in expanding and upgrading infrastructure. None of this will happen because people are dumb enough to line up and support one multi billion dollar corporation over the other multi billion dollar corporation and actually think they are supporting the little guy like granny's craft site. Stupid.
Looks an awful lot like a fact, not an argument, but nice try at misdirection. You still haven't answered my question: how does it help to get rid of NN? No, it had to do with both, but yes, the cost of infrastructure buildout was certainly a large portion. And this was all before NN was official policy. Eliminating NN does NOTHING to help this issue. NOTHING. I don't see it as likely in the near-term either, which is why I never made such an argument. How about answering my question of how eliminating NN HELPS? Content providers should foot the bill for network infrastructure? Should light-bulb and appliance manufacturers also foot the bill for power stations? Still nothing answer how eliminating NN rules helps any of this.
ISPs won’t promise to treat all traffic equally after net neutrality https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/15...ns-without-net-neutrality-comcast-att-verizon
Space ghost is so naive to think that these ISPs spend millions to remove a regulation that they aren't going to abuse when it's removed.
