@redweasel  
Best comment so far.
 
Best pooting comment!

@Background Pony #5334  

 
Oh I’ve seen the Joys and Benefits of fewer regulations alright.  
[Grenfell intensifies]

I remember that prior to when the internet was available for the masses in the mid 1990s, the only people who had access to the internet in the United States was anyone who worked for the government(Federal, State and Local).

@Joshua  
and if not? the thing is, if it gets removed the isp could do this bad things, and i’m very happy that i have not to deal with this possibility here in europe for many years now.
 
also for example vodafone/cable germany already tried that here, by slowing down the speed for filesharing and one click hosters. nice if you can’t download from mega, mediafire etc. with full speed anymore because they declare it as potential illegal source. that happened here not long ago.

@Background Pony #75D2  
You didn’t refute anything I stated. If anything, you just made an altered variation of the case to return it to pre neutrality days. I’m not going to include the entire detailed history of the internet in my post because I just don’t have the time to include all of it, but just because I didn’t include it doesn’t negate anything I said. You didn’t address the point of bringing that up, which was the bigger political picture. Taken as a bit like that the context is lost and with it the point of the matter. Nitpicking and arguing semantics doesn’t help anyone.

@Bexar Bandito  
That’s like 1 or 2 comments in this whole thread, I think.
 
Do you burn cities to the ground if a crime is ever committed in them?

@Background Pony #5334  

That’s not even remotely true. They did it because they wanted to protect the internet as a common-carrier transmission service, i.e., a service that lets people transmit information of their choosing to and from sites of their choosing without unreasonable discrimination by the carrier that transmits the content. It’s a right protected under Title II of the Communications Act, which the early internet (of the Clinton years and beyond) did most of its development and growth under. The FCC of 2015 was absolutely in the right to return it to Title II as well, given the legal understanding of broadband internet access as a telecom service, and their decision to do so was upheld twice by the federal appeals court.
 
 
@Background Pony #5334  

It may make the FTC responsible, but their power to do anything under the new rules will be so limited as to be laughable. They certainly can’t stop ISPs from practices like blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. A court decision has already ruled that blocking those things outright would treat internet providers like common carriers, which is exactly the designation the idiots at the current FCC are planning to remove.

Man, I can’t WAIT to laugh at everyone’s faces when they realize this whole thing has been a fearmonger this whole time.

@Damaged  

 
Shit like this is the reason I don’t bother voting in 95% of things. One vote DOESN’T make a difference…especially if it’s just going to be ignored.

@Bexar Bandito  
Actually, I really hate the FCC, which is why I want them to have nothing to do with the Internet. They have too poor of a track record and are too easily politically influenced to be trusted with something so important as possibly the greatest invention of all time. I also seriously dislike big business and crony capitalism.
 
Perhaps people don’t always fit neatly into a specific box no matter how hard you try to sterotype them. シ

oh god, we have ancaps on derpibooru who are actually defending the fcc and its plot to censor the internet in the name of corporatist crony capitalism.
 
could someone just put this site out of its misery already? hasn’t it suffered enough?

@Background Pony #3D87  
Actually, I’ve never read anything by either of those organizations, but I will certainly check them out thanks for the heads up. I’m not saying things are perfect or that things always work out with overseeing organizations like the ftc. But, as always it’s the cleanest dirty shirt problem. If you need to wear a shirt and all your shirts are dirty you wear the cleanest dirty shirt. The ftc in thia case is that shirt. Less regulations are usually better for everyone anyway. I would know I’ve lived in both the ridiculously over regulated EU and the US. The more regulations the less opportunity and freedom. I don’t expect people to agree or even really understand that viewpoint, it’s something you have to experience for yourself to really compare them.

A huge part of the repeal is the change in overseeing bodies. Prior to 2015 the FTC oversaw the Internet. Thier primary mission is to protect consumers. They also guard against monopolies and predatory pricing. In 2015 they passed the, poorly named, net neutrality bill and the FCC started overseeing it. The only reason anyone in politics would want to do this is if they wanted to seize power to start going after free expression through political organizations friendly to the previous administration. When you also take into account the illegal transfer of control of the internet out of us government control to a California non-profit overseen by UN friendly owners things start to form a bigger picture. This is why the German government and Chinese government has been suing American websites such as facebook over not removing ‘hate speech’. The problem is that this hate speech is usually mere criticism of Merkel or the EU or the communist party. This isn’t conspiracy these are facts that happened and are happening. This is also a reason for why they have spent the money lobbying. And don’t forget the huge number of businesses lobbying for the bill to stay in effect for political reasons. The repeal will reinstate FTC control and provide slightly more protection for consumers.
 
As far as isp’s go, this will almost assuredly not happen. I have 2 degrees in business. No business works that way, at least not for very long. The market is a very unforgiving mistress and the first company to try that crap will either be a monopoly or it will be out of business in a matter of months. Customers have at this point been abundantly clear that they won’t tolerate it. I would love to do that market research, it would take about 5 minutes. Lets say a company does what everyone is afraid of and they have competition that doesn’t. That company would lose just about all thier customers almost overnight, thats a bad thing and the absolute last thing a company wants. If a monopoly pulls this they will be so tied up with lawsuits and FTC antitrust complaints it would probably result in the breakup of the monopoly by the government, in case you don’t know that is also the last thing a monopoly wants. Businesses aren’t staffed with a bunch of people in top hats twirling their mustaches wile stroking a white cat and cackling into the sky, most of them are just like you and I. If anything it’s more likely that the more greedy a business is the more likely they will actually not change current practices and hope the competition does because then they would make MORE money due to the ability to capture a greater market share.
 
If you are really worried about it that much, and if you were clever you might actually want the repeal so that you could start your own local isp and then keep the Internet as it was so that you capture a huge market share. If your competitors do what you think you could have a massive ROI and huge profit margins. You’d make millions! Just dont keep them as retained earnings and you wont get screwed on taxes ;)
 
Or just repost and pretend to actually accomplish something whatever floats your boat.

@Background Pony #5334  

 
…says the dude literally parroting the talking points from super pro-consumer groups like ALEC and the Heritage Foundation.
 
But yeah, let’s strip existing consumer protections in hopes of action from congress (lol) or pass regulation off to an already overburdened agency that has neither the technical expertise nor resources to handle it.
 
NN/Title II classification merely codified what was the status quo. To claim the internet of even three years ago isn’t different from today is laughable. The few (if any) ISP choices most consumers have today are nearly all giant media conglomerates with non-connection related internet services they’d love to incentivize over their competitors. Even prior to TII there were plenty of examples of peering disputes that were based purely on conflicting business interests rather than engineering/capacity issues.

@Background Pony #5334  
Telling people to think for themselves, when you have no fucking clue - an American tradition for years.

@Background Pony #5334  
Just because internet companies in America prior to 2015 weren’t strictly required by law to abide by the current net neutrality rules, doesn’t mean they were free to do as they pleased. They still fell under numerous other smaller regulatory bills and rules, and for a decade they fought to get it all classified in to one blanket idea, and then be given free reign to do as they please. However this ultimately backfired when the FCC passed the net neutrality laws in 2015. It was for the most part all put in to one idea. That of ‘Net Neutrality’. However the ISPs weren’t so happy about the actual outcome.
 
What they are doing now is trying to reverse the entirety of it and have far more control over the internet than they ever have in the past.
 
“Did any of the fear mongering bs that keeps being pushed whenever this comes up even exist?”
 
Yes. As a matter of fact it was a widely debated topic ever since 2005. The advent of social media however, and other sites that allow idea sharing and easy communication such as reddit, imgur, and other forums has made the public knowledge of this issue much greater, and rightfully so.
 
The actual IMPORTANCE of net neutrality has grown far far greater since 2015 as well, with how vast online media has become in recent years such as netflix, hulu, the continued growth of YouTube, online music streaming sites, and much more.
 
The reason corporations are so vigorously fighting it now is because they see now more than ever, the potential for immense amounts of profits and gain, far more than any time before, and its only going to continue to grow. If they are able to eliminate net neutrality now, it would take many years to ever enforce such a thing again, and during this time they would have free reign to milk an untold amount of money from American consumers to gain access to everything they already have access to.
 
America without net neutrality laws will do nothing more than limit access to the free internet to those who can’t afford to pay more on top of our ISPs already exorbitant prices we’re forced to pay.
 
Fun fact: Truly affordable and reliable internet provided by many utility providers across the united states are by law unable to expand outside of the specific area they are given to service in at least 19 states. These laws exist purely because of lobbying on behalf of major ISPs because they know that, given the chance, most people would GLADLY switch away from major ISPs price gouging to join up with local utility company provided internet which is usually cheaper, faster, and more reliable.

@Background Pony #5334
 
Why do you think they’re trying to repeal it so hard year after year if they’re not going to do anything afterwards? If there were no plans for the aftermath they wouldn’t be wasting the time and money.

Or just get rid of Pai.

@Background Pony #5334  
Here is the way I look at it: yes the ISPs were not always held to the laws regarding net neutrality, but what is the harm in keeping them around. Literally the only reason to repeal a law that bans ISPs From limiting access to sites at their discretion is if you are an ISP who wants to do that.
 
Lets say I owned a restaurant, and I started lobbying to get the government to stop overseeing food standards, you might get rightfully concerned. Sure, I wasn’t going to give you rotten food. I promise. Why would I want to give you rotten food? So stop looking at the food i give you guys.
 
It is a similar thing here. Ya, the internet worked almost exactly the same before this law came into place. And sure, the ISPs maybe won’t do all the horrible things people think they will do. On the other hand, why would you Trust the them, The ISPs in this case, When the only reason they would be so aggressively against Net Neutrality is that they don’t want it, or the standards it holds the to.

Are you all literally about 3 years old? The internet you have known for nearly your whole life until 2015 was NOT subject to “net neutrality”. Did any of the fear mongering bs that keeps being pushed whenever this comes up even exist? No.
 
Think for yourself, don’t just parrot this idiotic crap. If you have a problem with big companies, vote for representatives that will break up monopolies or once the FTC has jurisdiction again file an antitrust complaint with them and they can actually do something.

I generally think that net rules should be managed locally/regionally. If there is a monopoly then the company should be regulated like a utility (e.g. net neutrality). If there is enough competition then competition should be what regulates them.

Well, technically, this would be the internet service providers guilty of charging obnoxious content-based plans, so if they left internet alone… lol.

The internet is what brought this community together, lets not let big cable tear us to pieces.