NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[Patriam1066]

Also fuck Comcast

[fash]

"net neutrality" is about big companies gaining control of BGP peering via government regulations so they can save money on bandwidth.

Funny how Google and similar companies are arguing in favor of net neutrality, yet they aren't arguing for elimination of monopolies where cities have given companies like Comcast exclusive rights in exchange for installing fiber or other networking infrastructure around the city. Google has entered similar exclusive relationships with their Google Fiber offerings. That's why there is so little choice in picking an ISP in many locations.

These companies aren't arguing in favor of free speech on the internet or for more consumer choice when they support Net Neutrality. They trying to save a few shekels on data bandwidth at the expense of a free and open internet.

Net Neutrality is about neutrality like the Patriot Act is about patriotism.

[Raavak]

Yeah, calling it "Net Neutrality" was another attempt to hide the true motives.

I need more (corrupt) government regulation like I need another hole in my head. With the number of instances in recent history of federal agencies being "weaponized" for partisan political uses I'd rather not have something else out there to be used against me.

[Frieza_Prexus]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

[Shrubwise]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also fuck Comcast

Seconded.

Also, inb4 Beastagoog shows up to make fun of America... again.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

Solid post by a Christian. Go with God, brother

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Solid post by a Christian. Go with God, brother

VAYA CON DIOS

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Shrubwise [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Seconded.

Also, inb4 Beastagoog shows up to make fun of America... again.

dude at best he can get 6mbp uploads in the desert he calls an island.

not to mention the only thing he browses that isnt made by people in america is some football website where he reads about athletes rolling around on the ground crying.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can go back and forth all day about botched implementations, government corruption, and whether or not Title II was a constitutionally appropriate avenue, but the core principle of Net Neutrality is that service providers should not hold monopoly power over the marketplace.

Imagine if Walmart owned public roads. You'd have to take a 30 mile detour to get to any store that wasn't called Walmart.

Even the staunchest conservative should be able to recognize that there are times when the government can, and should, act as a marketplace referee.

then fix it on the state level and then everyone is happy... except Comcast who is upset, but cant afford to lobby EVERY SINGLE STATE instead of 1 governing body.

win win

there is no reason 1 governing body should be the ones that make these decisions, ergo, you get what happened today when someone you dont like is in the white house.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Look,

I'll agree that ideally congress, and not the FCC, should handle this. Not because the FCC is incapable, mind you, but because there are valid, if somewhat shaky, constitutional and procedural reasons to oppose using Title II. Using an executive order/Title II is a bit of a band-aid. A congressional solution is likeliest to be the cleanest, most defined, and most enforceable answer.

Individual state laws are not efficient here due to the scope of interstate commerce. I mean, come on, it's the freaking internet. There's a reason the constitution has the commerce clause. It's for this exact type of situation. The issue is literally broader than any given state's sovereignty.