quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The last two years have been the first time there has been a net decrease in non-recession internet infrastructure spending.

Cite? Wouldn't happen to be Ajit Pai, again, would it?

It was from the FCC.
https://www.scribd.com/documen...dom-order#from_embed

In other words: Ajit Pai.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
Here is why I cannot get behind the .gov being involved....They stifle any kind of growth, period! I live in an area that is only serviced by satellite ISP. With NN, there is not much incentive for newcomers to get me some decent service.

The broadband providers have been reclassified under Title II for only two years. How long have you been waiting for broadband? Any broadband?

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
I am also very skeptical as to why the .gov wanted in on this to begin with.

Then I would humbly suggest you read my earlier comments on the issue. I explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
The deal with NN is simple in my eyes. "Fixing" something that wasn't broken in the first place ...

Again: Read my earlier comments, please.

There's more than enough cause to be suspicious in government involvement in anything, I'll certainly grant you that. In this particular case I believe it to be wholly justified.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
In other words: Ajit Pai

Do you have information to the contrary?

This is the fallacy called poisoning the well. You discount outright anything associated Ajit Pai, including the entire FCC, without any consideration as to the truth. Are you suggesting that the entire FCC is corrupt, and nothing from the FCC can be trusted? It’s odd, then, that you are arguing to maintain the policy that leaves the FCC in a position of power over the Internet. I would think that you’d be in favor of moving the power to the FTC, if Pai is corrupt to the point of negating anything the FCC touches.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
In other words: Ajit Pai

Do you have information to the contrary?

Yes. I posted it six posts back. Words out of the IPS' very own mouths.

There are additional articles discussing the issue. One need but search.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
This is the fallacy called poisoning the well. You discount outright anything associated Ajit Pai, including the entire FCC, without any consideration as to the truth.

No, I discount anything coming from the FCC that relates to NN, these days. That's because Ajit Pai has been proven to be bending the truth to further his agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I would think that you’d be in favor of moving the power to the FTC, if Pai is corrupt to the point of negating anything the FCC touches.

That's called argumentum ad absurdum. See: I know logical fallacies, too

I do believe Ajit Pai should be replaced.

For further information on this issue: 98.5% of Original FCC Comments Oppose Killing Net Neutrality

Pai is aptly described as a fox in the proverbial hen house. A former Verizon attorney with a clear bias against NN whose primary goal is the dismantling of it for their benefit. Would you appoint an atheist Pope, or a gun grabber to the head of the NRA? Of course not.

Isn't the administration who gave us "Net Neutrality" the same one who gave us the "Affordable Care Act"?

There is little doubt that the intention of the ACA was to eventually nationalize health insurance and then health care.

What could their long term reason possibly have been for NN? Hmmm...

I'm suspicious that the internet will eventually become about as neutral (for all, other than the feds) as health insurance has become affordable.

I'm willing to take my chances with the free market, even with the short term lack of competition, rather than cede control of the internet to the federal government.

Agree 100%. Let the free market roll. Government control of anything will never make it better or more affordable.

Net neutrality is dead.


The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, a move that has triggered protests from consumer groups, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers.

The repeal passed on a 3-2, party-line vote.

“It is time for the Internet, once again, to be driven by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers rather than lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in remarks before the vote.


Pai, a Republican, announced plans in November to eliminate the rules, calling for a “light-touch regulatory approach” to the Internet. A longtime opponent of the regulations, Pai had signaled plans to undo the rules since taking over as chairman of the FCC this year.

In a moment indicative of the heated atmosphere surrounding the proposal, the FCC hearing room in Washington was briefly cleared Thursday just before commisioners were set to vote on repealing the rules.

Pai was delivering a prepared statement on the vote when he was handed a note and stopped mid-sentence.

“On advice of security, we need to take a brief recess,” Pai said.

After the room was cleared, law enforcement officers with dogs were seen surveying the room. A few minutes later, commissioners and others were let back in, and the meeting resumed.

The net neutrality regulations imposed utility-style regulation on Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon to prevent them from favoring their own digital services over their rivals – for instance, by blocking or slowing certain content.

Pai argues the net neutrality rules adopted during the Obama administration discourage the Internet service providers from making investments in their network to provide better and faster online access.

Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who opposed the proposal, said Thursday she’s “among the millions who is outraged” because the FCC is pulling “its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nation’s broadband consumers.”

“There has been a darker side to all of this over the past few weeks,” she said. “Threats and intimidation. Personal attacks. Nazis cheering. Russian influence. Fake comments. Those are unacceptable. Some are illegal. They all are to be rejected.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan celebrated the move after the vote.

“Despite its unassuming name, the Obama administration’s net neutrality regulation threatens the free and open internet that has done so much to advance modern society," the Wisconsin Republican said in a statement. "The Trump administration’s action to roll back this egregious government overreach into the most innovative space will benefit all users of the internet."

Bob Quinn, AT&T’s senior executive vice president of external & legislative affairs, responded to the vote by saying they do “not block websites, nor censor online content, nor throttle or degrade traffic based on the content, nor unfairly discriminate in our treatment of Internet traffic.”

“In short, the Internet will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has,” Quinn said.

Still, there have been hundreds of public protests against Pai's plan and more than 1 million calls to Congress through a pro-net neutrality coalition's site.

Smaller tech websites such as Reddit, Kickstarter and Mozilla put dramatic overlays on their sites Tuesday in support of net neutrality. Twitter on Wednesday was promoting #NetNeutrality as a trending topic. Other big tech companies were more muted in their support.

Aside from nixing restrictions that keep broadband providers from blocking or collecting tolls from services they don't like, the change also bars state laws that contradict the FCC's approach and largely transfers oversight of Internet service to another agency, the Federal Trade Commission.

Public-interest groups Free Press and Public Knowledge are already promising to go after Pai's rules in the courts. There may also be attempts to legislate net neutrality rules, which the telecom industry supports. Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, on Tuesday called for "bipartisan legislation" on net neutrality that would "enshrine protections for consumers with the backing of law."

But that will be tough going. Democrats criticized previous Republican attempts at legislation during the Obama administration for gutting the FCC's enforcement abilities. Republicans would likely be interested in proposing even weaker legislation now, and Democrats are unlikely to support it if so.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...security-threat.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So since I'm stupider than a box of rocks, what does the above mean to me in terms of:
1. Cost of my internet service, i.e., should I expect it to go up as a result of this vote
2. Speed/reliability of my internet service staying the same
3. Possibility of my current speed being "throttled down" because I stream TV content

For the record, I just switched over to Xfinity's "Blast" level of internet service with 200 mbps download speed.

Thanks!

I don't think anything will change in the short to intermediate terms, considering that Internet was also fine before 2015.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So since I'm stupider than a box of rocks, what does the above mean to me in terms of:
1. Cost of my internet service, i.e., should I expect it to go up as a result of this vote
2. Speed/reliability of my internet service staying the same
3. Possibility of my current speed being "throttled down" because I stream TV content

For the record, I just switched over to Xfinity's "Blast" level of internet service with 200 mbps download speed.

Thanks!

Expect your expense to go up and your freedom to dissappear. We have given the internet over to the ISPs. Another fucking monopoly and some totally UNAmerican bull shit.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
I don't think anything will change in the short to intermediate terms, considering that Internet was also fine before 2015.

I like how people keep repeating this, despite the fact ISPs had been proven to have throttled/blocked traffic to their own ends.

Furthermore: The period leading up to about the time the FCC imposed NN saw an increasing number of people abandoning traditional services, such as subscription TV and landlines, for streaming and VoIP. The service providers that used to have locks on those things, and whom, "coincidentally," are now the nation's biggest consumer ISPs, want those locks back.

Ajit Pai gave them their wish.

All that remains to be seen is how far ISPs will go to exploit the advantage they just gained. <Looks at calendar...> Wonder if they'll be smart enough to hold their avarice in abeyance until they see how 2018 shakes out?

We're the frog in a pot of water.

Pai is lighting the gas stove underneath us.

Big Telco/ISPs are the ones slowly boiling the water, and us.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

Three thumbs up

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

Not only that, but a 14 year old wrote RIP on a piece of paper...That's how SERIOUS THIS IS!!



Also, Bernie has spoken!



I hope this actually posted, because you know...The internet is now dead.

But, but, but..........mah download speeds!

I’m not well educated on this topic but I’m perplexed that some of you seem to believe that MORE government intervention/regulation equals MORE freedom. That’s isn’t the standard line of thinking in these parts.

I tend to prefer free markets myself. Vote with your dollar and all that.. but to be fair, as I mentioned earlier, I am woefully uneducated and only basing this of general theory/history.

People keeping saying before 2015 it wasn’t an issue. Before 2015 people still watched TV on cable. Cord cutting has exploded nationwide and the big ISP’s have taken a bath...but don’t worry they will remedy that very soon. When was the last time an ISP didn’t try to fuck you in the ass with sandpaper lube? Now they have the government’s blessings.

quote:

Originally posted by soflaac:
But, but, but..........mah download speeds!

Have you paid your SigForum fee yet? Comcast has already announced a $50 per month fee to access SigForum!!

Don't worry though....Fauxcahontas is on the warpath!

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
I’m not well educated on this topic but I’m perplexed that some of you seem to believe that MORE government intervention/regulation equals MORE freedom. That’s isn’t the standard line of thinking in these parts.

I tend to prefer free markets myself. Vote with your dollar and all that.. but to be fair, as I mentioned earlier, I am woefully uneducated and only basing this of general theory/history.

Because ISP’s are monopolies and that isn’t going to change regardless of government action or reaction. No new startup ISP is gonna start running wire nationwide to “compete” with the big boys. It’s just not going to happen. Satellite and DSL is dogshit internet and anyone who thinks it’s actually competitive with real broadband is fucking high.