Fucking A. If this holds it is huge for net neutrality.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

Every day I wake up thinking that the government should claim more authority over everything in my life. So I can't wait.

Great read, thanks for posting.

If you like your internet you can keep your internet.

What could possibly go wrong?

I can't believe people are against this.

Just wait until justin implements OC neutrality. We will need 300 "normal" members to combat the tomfoolery that FW and Iggy bring.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1703084 wrote:I can't believe people are against this.

What existing issue(s) will new government regulations fix? The internet is pretty damn free and open as is, no?

justincredible;1703102 wrote:What existing issue(s) will new government regulations fix? The internet is pretty damn free and open as is, no?

The fact that ISP's wanted tiered service like your cable bill where they can charge premium access to whatever sites they chose at whatever speed they chose and working with whatever equipment they chose. Forcing websites to pay for customers.

Were you for that?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1703106 wrote:The fact that ISP's wanted tiered service like your cable bill where they can charge premium access to whatever sites they chose at whatever speed they chose and working with whatever equipment they chose. Forcing websites to pay for customers.

Were you for that?

Of course not. Given your stance here, would you say a lack of competition is the main issue in regards to ISPs in the US?

justincredible;1703102 wrote:What existing issue(s) will new government regulations fix? The internet is pretty damn free and open as is, no?

I think you're out of the loop on what's been going on.

This is to keep it the way it is, Cable companies want to start charging or limiting speeds for ppl/websites. For example, if you stream a lot of netflix, internet providers want to start to straggle your speed the way cell phone companies do, and hustle you into paying more so your speed isn't strangled. It's basically a shake down and fucking bullshit.

justincredible;1703112 wrote:Of course not. Given your stance here, would you say a lack of competition is the main issue in regards to ISPs in the US?

That's definitely a big issue. Internet is already way too pricey (IMO) in the US compared to other countries.

justincredible;1703112 wrote:Of course not. Given your stance here, would you say a lack of competition is the main issue in regards to ISPs in the US?

Mostly. That's why this was so important. You have a few companies that would hold all the chips.

The lack of competition is a direct result of government regulations (not federal, but government nonetheless). I don't think MORE government regulation (on the federal level) is the answer. LESS regulation on the local level, meaning a lower cost of entry for competition, is the only way to truly fix our shit internet.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

This is basically a band-aid that doesn't address the real issue. It just gives the feds more control. But it's "feel good" regulation and that's really all that matters.

Please explain what just happened in layman term.

Sonofanump;1708526 wrote:Please explain what just happened in layman term.

Basically the FCC made it so internet companies can't create "fast lanes" for big business and fuck the individual users. If you use the internet for anything other than email, like netflix for example this is a win. Now an internet provider can't slow your speeds because you watch netflix etc...

justincredible;1703118 wrote:This is basically a band-aid that doesn't address the real issue. It just gives the feds more control. But it's "feel good" regulation and that's really all that matters.

Exactly. They'll just go to usage caps, like in mobile. They'll get their money one way or the other. Government rarely fixes anything, and I've read articles that this is WORSE for the "open internet" because now it can subject sites to govt approval and authorization.

People have been crying about net neutrality for like 10 years. The system wasn't broken, beyond a lack of competition as you mention. Just another solution in search of a problem.

I agree with this:

Vonage Chief Executive Officer, Alan Masarek, released the following statement in response to the FCC's adoption today of Net Neutrality rules: "The Internet is a critical platform for communicating, sharing and accessing content throughout the world and has become an essential part of our daily life. An open Internet ensures that competition is strong and that consumers and businesses have access to the multitude of choices they demand and expect. Limitations on that access, such as paid prioritization, would have a negative long-term impact on consumers and businesses alike, including entrepreneurs who rely on the Internet to create and deliver innovative and disruptive products and services.

Sonofanump;1708526 wrote:Please explain what just happened in layman term.

Two words: Revenue stream.

By the time the dust settles on this, the government will use this as a reveue stream claiming better schools for our kids and greener pastures for our future.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the people who log on to OhioChatter.com will have to pay $12/month in order to read this crap.

gut;1708532 wrote:Exactly. They'll just go to usage caps, like in mobile. They'll get their money one way or the other. Government rarely fixes anything, and I've read articles that this is WORSE for the "open internet" because now it can subject sites to govt approval and authorization.

People have been crying about net neutrality for like 10 years. The system wasn't broken, beyond a lack of competition as you mention. Just another solution in search of a problem.

No that's the whole point of regulation so you can stop this.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1708535 wrote:No that's the whole point of regulation so you can stop this.

But but but obama!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-sweeping-internet-regulation-plan-obama-accused-meddling/

lol good ol fox news.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1708535 wrote:No that's the whole point of regulation so you can stop this.

and ALL such regulation has a downside. Care to speculate on what that will be?

queencitybuckeye;1708537 wrote:and ALL such regulation has a downside. Care to speculate on what that will be?

No ones denying that. Nothing's perfect. we KNOW what the downside of allowing companies to do what they want is.

Cleveland Buck;1703034 wrote:Every day I wake up thinking that the government should claim more authority over everything in my life. So I can't wait.

this

Sorry justin, but I think you either don't understand the issue or are just disagreeing from an ideological rather than logical standpoint.

I know people hate government regulation of business but to call it bad across the board (which many people do, see: libertarians) is naive. The idea that a free and open market regulates itself has been proven wrong time and time again.

The fact is that the ISPs, the majority of which are also cable companies, saw the writing on the wall that cable was dying and that the future of all entertainment was internet-based. This prompted them to attempt to fuck over the consumer in the same way the cable companies have for years: hold highly-sought-after features hostage unless the consumer pays up. And bundle those sought-after features with a bunch of garbage no one wants to try to justify the huge jump in price! ("Yes, you must buy this premium tier to get the NFL Network, but look how many other channels you get! Underwater Basketweaving TV! The Pony Channel! The Grass Growing Network!") The problem with that is, they haven't been restricting like that in the 20 years+ that they have been ISPs.

The fact is, nobody should be able to control what I can and cannot access with my internet connection, as long as its not breaking the law. Not the government, and certainly not a huge shitty corporation like Comcast or Time Warner.

But fucking over the consumer was only the end by-product. This was an attempt by the ISPs to shakedown Netflix and other content providers for a piece of the pie. "Because we can" has never been a good excuse for a company to do anything, and the ISPs fighting Net Neutrality failed to come up with a compelling argument against it other than "We want to make more money but not provide any additional services, but in fact actually limit the services we currently provide."