F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules... Thanks Trump.

Interesting you brought up "free market". Killing net neutrality is actually making it MORE of a free market. Trump removing regulations at record levels is also making it a more free market.

Definition
In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

The dems are going to look like fools when net neutrality does not do nearly the damage they claim it will. Crying wolf.

You missed the point. It's not a free market because there isn't open access to laying cable without intervention by state government statutes.
It's not simply a case of the number of laws, it's the actual content and effect of those laws.
In this case "net neutrality" is a best fix solution to the infrastructure and regulation environment which actually exists.
 
Definition
In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.
This is the part of the definition you posted that actually refers to the post you're responding to.
 
He is a Trump Knob Gobbler, which means he/she does not have logical reasoning.
Basically he waits for a Meme or Ben Shapiro to tell him/her what to believe.
The ironic part is @Pinyin , has probably shared multiple meme's on Facebook.

Not a POTUS supporter and don't have Facebook.

Guess again, queer.
 
Interesting you brought up "free market". Killing net neutrality is actually making it MORE of a free market. Trump removing regulations at record levels is also making it a more free market.

Definition
In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

You got so close to actually learning something when you did some research, but then shot your load when you saw the Government line, and couldn't see what was right next door "PRICE-SETTING MONOPOLY". Because it's inherently excludable and non-rival, cable internet is a text book case of a natural monopoly.

Concentrate real hard and you'll get there one day.

Edit: Ruprecht got there first.
 
The only real question on the subject:

HOW WILL THIS AFFECT MY PORN VIEWING?

(seriously)

(no. really)
How many different ways would you like to hear about how it could potentially fuck that up?
Let's take just 2 although one could provide many many more with only a little thought.
1. Your only available service provider aligns itself with the Freedom Caucus and bans all porn.
2. Your only available service provider makes a deal with one porn site in particular that you don't happen to like. You can only get the one you do like for a huge extra fee or not at all.
 
The worst part of net neutrality being removed, is you know how google, facebook, YouTube are censoring content?

Well now the ISP's can throttle down websites speeds to censor or extort.
 
Dear Ajit Pai,

Go fuck yourself, you spineless pussy.

Signed,
Constituents

We ain't dead yet!



https://www.cnet.com/news/senate-democrats-win-significant-victory-to-preserve-net-neutrality-rules/

Net neutrality clings to life in big win by Senate Democrats
They came, they fought, they won. But the fight to save the existing net neutrality protections still has a long way to go.

Democrats in the Senate squeaked out a major victory in their effort to save Obama-era net neutrality protections.

A vote on a resolution to turn back the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality passed the Senate Wednesday with a final tally of 52 in favor and 47 against. (Here's how everyone voted.)

Democrats are using the Congressional Review Act to try to halt the FCC's December repeal of net neutrality. The CRA gives Congress 60 legislative days to undo a regulation from a federal agency. Simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate, as well as the president's signature, to roll back the FCC's vote.

All 49 Democrats in the Senate supported the effort to undo the FCC's vote. Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska crossed party lines to support the measure. Collins had pledged her support months ago. But it was unclear whether Kennedy or Murkowski would vote yes. The two senators had said they were undecided up until yesterday. But the measure was expected to pass even without their support because one senator, John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, was not in attendance to vote. McCain is undergoing treatment for brain cancer and is at home in Arizona.

The bill's passage represents a major victory for Democrats. The net neutrality, rules, which passed a Democrat-led FCC in 2015, prevent broadband and wireless companies from blocking or slowing internet traffic. They've become highly politicized, with Democrats in Congress and many internet companies, such as Google and Facebook, strongly voicing their support. A majority of the public also supports net neutrality. Republican lawmakers and broadband lobbyists argue the existing rules hurt investment and will stifle innovation. They say efforts by Democrats to stop the FCC's repeal of the rules do nothing to protect consumers.

The FCC has scheduled the rules to officially come off the books June 11.

But the Democrats' victory in the Senate today is just the beginning of a legislative process to preserve net neutrality rules. The effort still faces an uphill battle in the 435-member House of Representatives, where currently only 160 Democrats have pledged support for a similar House resolution led by Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

Then there's President Donald Trump, who also needs to sign the resolution. Trump has made no secret of his ambitions to roll back Obama-era regulations, signing 15 CRA resolutions since he took office to do just that. It's unlikely he will sign this CRA to restore a regulation adopted under his predecessor.
 
a question I have about this...

if companies then choose to throttle their speeds, or charge more for certain services or whatever....

why wouldn't competition still apply? would not the company that doesn't resort to those things intice more customers?

you know, like the cell phone market and the unlimited plans? Verizon doesn't have the total dominance it used to.....
edit: I realize that if you live in a rural locale (as I do) that you could be screwed either way due to lack of competition already

There's isn't any competition in the market that is a threat to your mainstream ISPs (Verizon, ATT, Comcast etc) pricing likely won't change. So maybe you're not happy with Comcast service in your area but your only "alternative" is ATT and they charge $10 less for less bandwidth... As a consumer you'd probably just grin and take it. What are you going to do? Start your own ISP, licensing (which is controlled by the corrupt fed gov) and equipment is super expensive? Perhaps petition your local municipality/city etc to offer service. However: ISP lobbyists don't dig that and want the gov to play favorites Alternatively you can try and Comcast will sue you. Some cities are fighting back

From the political side of things I find it interesting the position so many people take against Trump in this case as it's "Trumps FCC" when it was in fact Barak Obama who nominated Ajit Pai, and he was confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate in 2012 for the FCC. Granted Trump designated Pai for the chair. -I sincerely try to minimize my biases when I sense they're in play. Maybe lip service, maybe to his credit, Pai has been quoted as saying something like the FCC shouldn't be in charge of what happens on the internet since they're all un-elected officials at the FCC and the FCC deciding on access to what's essentially private property (The networks are owned by the ISPs) is in contrast to the idea of representation and democracy. Again the FCC does control who gets to play in the ISP market so if you're big enough or rather your pockets are big enough you might be able to buy your way in...but then you need ROI for your shareholders so you're not wanting prices to drop (which is usually how a free market works)
 
There's isn't any competition in the market that is a threat to your mainstream ISPs (Verizon, ATT, Comcast etc) pricing likely won't change. So maybe you're not happy with Comcast service in your area but your only "alternative" is ATT and they charge $10 less for less bandwidth... As a consumer you'd probably just grin and take it. What are you going to do? Start your own ISP, licensing (which is controlled by the corrupt fed gov) and equipment is super expensive? Perhaps petition your local municipality/city etc to offer service. However: ISP lobbyists don't dig that and want the gov to play favorites Alternatively you can try and Comcast will sue you. Some cities are fighting back

From the political side of things I find it interesting the position so many people take against Trump in this case as it's "Trumps FCC" when it was in fact Barak Obama who nominated Ajit Pai, and he was confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate in 2012 for the FCC. Granted Trump designated Pai for the chair. -I sincerely try to minimize my biases when I sense they're in play. Maybe lip service, maybe to his credit, Pai has been quoted as saying something like the FCC shouldn't be in charge of what happens on the internet since they're all un-elected officials at the FCC and the FCC deciding on access to what's essentially private property (The networks are owned by the ISPs) is in contrast to the idea of representation and democracy. Again the FCC does control who gets to play in the ISP market so if you're big enough or rather your pockets are big enough you might be able to buy your way in...but then you need ROI for your shareholders so you're not wanting prices to drop (which is usually how a free market works)




Obama technically nominated Pai for that seat, but Pai was actually selected and recommended for the position by Mitch McConnell.

That seat was legally mandated to go to a Republican. No party can hold more than three seats on the commission. If it wasn't Pai, it would have been some other corporatist shithead.
 
Obama technically nominated Pai for that seat, but Pai was actually selected and recommended for the position by Mitch McConnell.

That seat was legally mandated to go to a Republican. No party can hold more than three seats on the commission. If it wasn't Pai, it would have been some other corporatist shithead.
Oh I know.... It all stinks. The turtle had a role. I hope he dies soon.
 
I remember when my internet usage wasnt changed post net neutrality.

But I guess we can scare people.
 
I remember when my internet usage wasnt changed post net neutrality.

But I guess we can scare people.

You do realize that providers are still trying to figure out the laws post net neutrality and how to build a framework for charging customers. The law changes but it takes sometime before they make any major changes.
 
From the political side of things I find it interesting the position so many people take against Trump in this case as it's "Trumps FCC" when it was in fact Barak Obama who nominated Ajit Pai, and he was confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate in 2012 for the FCC. Granted Trump designated Pai for the chair. -I sincerely try to minimize my biases when I sense they're in play. Maybe lip service, maybe to his credit, Pai has been quoted as saying something like the FCC shouldn't be in charge of what happens on the internet since they're all un-elected officials at the FCC and the FCC deciding on access to what's essentially private property (The networks are owned by the ISPs) is in contrast to the idea of representation and democracy. Again the FCC does control who gets to play in the ISP market so if you're big enough or rather your pockets are big enough you might be able to buy your way in...but then you need ROI for your shareholders so you're not wanting prices to drop (which is usually how a free market works).

Pai was nominated by McConnell. The seat had to be filled by a republican.
 
You do realize that providers are still trying to figure out the laws post net neutrality and how to build a framework for charging customers. The law changes but it takes sometime before they make any major changes.

So what you're saying is net neutrality ruined the internet cuz now you need regulation?

Well that sounds dumb.
 
I remember when my internet usage wasnt changed post net neutrality.

But I guess we can scare people.
The rules haven’t changed and will not for weeks.

You’re ignorant on this matter.
 
Back
Top