Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality

Just shows how the idiots are coming out of the woodwork on NN.

 

Oh sure..... THIS Congress is going to stand up to Trump????

You make joke!

 

Calling her a name does not make her wrong on an issue.

Internet service providers should be subject to the same regulations as railroads, airlines and the telephone company,

They are the delivery system, not the producer.

They should be regulated as "common carriers" providing equal access to all content providers.

Donald Trump and Agit Pai don't think so.

 

Usually idiots say idiotic things. Just an observation.

DT and AP do not believe the heavy hand of government needs to be applied to keep the internet free. It was doing fine pre-2015.

 

Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality...

... because it's misnamed. Poll the people on 'Massive Governmental Internet Regulation' and you'll see we don't want it.

 

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. (https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/)
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement/)
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this) (https://www.pcworld.com/article/170661/apple_att_fight_voip_on_iphone.html) (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/0...x-skype-and-other-sites-unless-you-pay-extra/)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace (https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/16/g...l-no-love-for-verizon-att-or-t-mobile-owners/)
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this) ((https://www.cnet.com/news/tethering-apps-blocked-in-android-market/))
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. (https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/18/3351626/att-facetime-block-fcc-complaint-net-neutrality)
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.(https://www.thenation.com/article/verizon-fcc-and-what-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality/)

that's probably why they went with the more accurate headline.

And your wrong, the vast majority want it
http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ers-support-keeping-fccs-net-neutrality-rules

 

Let's see. Most of those were taken care of under previous rules. Many of them are cellular which is not covered under Obama's NN. Obama's NN allowed packaging.

 

Actually, the first set of NN rules (2013) exempted Cellular. The 2015 incorporated it.

Yeah, most of those were stopped by the FCC while the rules weren't in place. Now that the FCC has gutted the very rules that gave them the power to deal with all of those issues, what are the chances they are going to keep that up? I'm going to go with slim-to-none.

 

LOL, most of those were stopped by Bill Clinton's NN rules. The FCC went back to those rules and implemented transparency rules for ISPs and gave the prosecutorial responsibility back to the Federal Trade Commission that Obama took away with the 2015 rule change.

 

So if the previous rules didn't allow for traffic shaping, then why did they need new ones after the Verizon decision (where they said outright that they would exploring those options if it weren't for the NN rules) showed that the FCC had no power to stop traffic shaping for profit?

 

For one it was more of a manufactured problem used to sell government control of the internet.

 

Not very manufactured when you have almost a billion dollars spent by ISPs to overturn it. I mean, they aren't fighting it for nothing.

And what do you mean by control? They aren't creating content filters. They aren't deciding how much to charge people for the plans they have. They are simply saying that if you pay your bill, you get full access to the internet, regardless of the content.

how is that control?

 

It would be interesting to know which of these were legal within our current anti-trust law. I doubt many if any.

 

I didn't. Thanks for the continued display of your ignorance

 

So you're saying that 75% of the Republican respondents were unable to see through this allegedly overpowering bias?

Does not speak well for that party's members.

 

I agree that this is overstated, but access at the basic level is a necessity, and should be free or priced low enough to be available to all.

 

Netflix is not the only source of downloads - obviously - and I do agree that HEAVY users should pay for that heavy use.

This is about basic access for basic internet, and avoiding corporate censorship/fee extortion for access to basic sites.

Like PF.

 

75% of Republican respondents support NN after having both arguments presented.

 

I wish I could say that republicans are too smart to be fooled by slick talking pollsters

But if its done well the left can make any lie sound believable

 

Look in the mirror when you say that.

 

Ah, the old worn out ad hom. When you got nuthin...just sayin.

 

People were against Obamacare too. Didn't stop Democrats from passing it.

 

I think that the private companies who lay the lines to people’s homes and businesses should decide what content those lines will carry

Government does not pay the expense of making the internet available to consumers but in most cases governmenrt does own the right of way that ISPs need to lay the cable

So legally government can treat the internet as a utility if it wants to

But knowing the utter incompetence of government is that a good idea.?

 

I wish I could say that republicans are too smart to be fooled by con men with the mentality of angry twelve year olds.

 

Interesting points of view, and I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground for this issue (as compared to some others).

First I would say that Govt has paid ISPs to lay the cabling to connect people at the most basic level, but the ISPs basically took that money and did next to nothing with it, to the tune of 200Billion+.

Next, I would ask, if you believe it to be ok for a City to put pay-tolls at either end of a city block simply because it gets a lot of foot/vehicle travel?