Will the FCC's Vote to Roll Back Net Neutrality succeed? And if so, Are you worried?

1
edited December 2017 in Less Rokk More Talk
I haven't seen it discussed on here, but I posted this because tomorrow the FCC's Vote will start.

Will the FCC's Vote to Roll Back Net Neutrality succeed? And if so, Are you worried? 14 votes

I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
50%
LoopyChewfiredoom666DrowGamer77Meat-Popsicledarkwinterbeast8tnevakerjkald 7 votes
I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
21%
wh1t3kn1tecalloycoolkat 3 votes
I don't believe so, and nor am I too worried either.
7%
Dangimarocker 1 vote
I don't believe so, but I am worried.
21%
LordFlatusLiveHomeVideoFritzyKatz 3 votes
Meh, I don't care about the Net Neutrality situation.
0%

Comments

  • I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    I want to stay positive on the fact that the FCC's vote will not succeed, but the situation does have me worried. :/

    I want to hear your opinions on this matter.
  • Here’s the thing. The FCC is currently exceedingly corrupt. They’ve lied, covered up, and bragged about net neutrality from the beginning. They no longer stand for the consumers they claim to protect.
  • Meat-PopsicleMeat-Popsicle Road Warrior
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    It's a done deal. I'm not sure why anyone bothered to arrange for millions of fake accounts to post their support for it, they can just do what they want anyway. Makes me wonder what PAC 99% of people should be giving money to in an effort to counter the wishes of the people known as corporations. How much trouble would it be for 300 million people to come up with $30 million? Money has been officially defined as "free speech". Wouldn't it be nice if it spoke for you, every once in a while?
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    yeah I tried my best to contact my congress people, but I could never get in contact with McCain, Flake said he supports ending all Obama era regulations, and McSally said she would look into it if someone else made a bill.

    so yeah no surprise to me, but none of my elected officials care about what I want
  • LiveHomeVideoLiveHomeVideo Trying too hard
    I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    Here's an important tweet about contacting Congressmen. Hopefully we as a people can convince them of just how bad an idea this is.
  • The FCC voted to roll back the net neutrality rules back in May. It's already happened.
  • edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    I could see a logical argument going either side. However, I think the 'End of the Internet' Mayan Illuminati global apocalypse of epic proportions mentality is overblowing it.

    Personally, I think that if net neutrality does result in increased competition, then that could potentially be good. If new ISPs pop up offering better rates, then that economic competition can, as Ajit Pai believes, further some sort of progress in the field. However, I also fear that companies will avoid the transparency requirement, as we've seen happen many times before, along with some other matters. It's a complicated subject, and to be frank, as long as I still get to use the internet without much interference, I'm complacent.

    I'm also probably in the minority that doesn't hate Ajit Pai's guts. Sure, he's a pretentious snob and downplays the debate, but all of these people making death threats and such, that's simply depressing. Whatever happened to common courtesy and some kind of respect? I think he has some points that are decently valid, and if you disagree with them, that's fine. Just don't send him a million angry Tweets threatening murder. That's just common sense.

    I'm shortening a few of these claims just for the sake of compactness, but in the end, I do not care UNLESS my internet experience is drastically changed for the worse.

    That's actually the first time I've talked about politics in-length on these forums. Do I get an awardment for that?
  • wh1t3kn1tewh1t3kn1te Opening Act
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    not worried at all, competition breeds excellence and science likes to bash it into our skulls that only the strongest survive. however if things keep going the way things are with regulation I wont have insurance, a car, or internet in the future cause I just wont be able to afford it all.
  • I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    coolkat said:

    I could see a logical argument going either side. However, I think the 'End of the Internet' Mayan Illuminati global apocalypse of epic proportions mentality is overblowing it.

    Personally, I think that if net neutrality does result in increased competition, then that could potentially be good. If new ISPs pop up offering better rates, then that economic competition can, as Ajit Pai believes, further some sort of progress in the field. However, I also fear that companies will avoid the transparency requirement, as we've seen happen many times before, along with some other matters.. It's a complicated matter, and to be frank, as long as I still get to use the internet without much interference, I'm complacent.

    I'm also probably in the minority that doesn't hate Ajit Pai's guts. Sure, he's a pretentious snob and downplays the debate, but all of these people making death threats and such, that's simply depressing. Whatever happened to common courtesy and some kind of respect? I think he has some points that are decently valid, and if you disagree with them, that's fine. Just don't send him a million angry Tweets threatening murder. That's just common sense.

    I'm shortening a few of these claims just for the sake of compactness, but in the end, I do not care UNLESS my internet experience is drastically changed for the worse.

    That's actually the first time I've talked about politics in-length on these forums. Do I get an awardment for that?

    I get where you're coming from, and I can certainly respect that. I'm not one of those naysayers, and I'm not the type of person who would send Death Threats to anyone, because that's just not the type of person I want to be.

    I made the poll, because I fear the Net Neutrality Repeal might affect the internet, as the naysayers claim. They're saying that if Net Neutrality is gone, then it could mean that the users will get charged every time they use Google over Yahoo, Netflix over Hulu, or every time they use Amazon to shop for things.

    I have used Google Chrome as my Web Browser since before joining these forums. Google has always been one of my most reliable websites to do internet searching. I also watch videos on Youtube, and post links on my Wishlist thread. And I also have a Amazon Music account, which I got thanks to my dad. It was so worth it to use my family's favorite shopping site to listen to music on the fly over I-Tunes.

    I don't want to believe getting charged for visiting those websites to be true, but if they are, then I'll be sad that I cannot use my favorite sites without suffering the consequences of having my family pay money to the Telecommunication companies. It means that I'll have to use Yahoo, which I haven't used since before I've began using Google, for a long time, and I won't be visiting Youtube or Amazon for a long time until either someone changes the Net Neutrality rules back to normal or the Repeal gets rescinded tomorrow.

    But once again, I get where you're coming from, and I can respect your opinion on the repeal. But I just want to hope that the Repeal gets rescinded tomorrow. If not, then I'll just hope that I won't get charged for visiting my favorite websites.
  • I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    The problem is a scenario where Disney buys Comcast (or do they already own them?), and then suddenly only Disney IP is available to Comcast subscribers.

    And I don't know about where you are, but for me my options for internet are Spectrum or... a crappy Dish Network connection? There is no free market here for competing ISPs.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    The problem is a scenario where Disney buys Comcast (or do they already own them?), and then suddenly only Disney IP is available to Comcast subscribers.

    And I don't know about where you are, but for me my options for internet are Spectrum or... a crappy Dish Network connection? There is no free market here for competing ISPs.

    its l ike that everywhere, and sadly its been like that for decades. there are only 3 main channels on tv (Disney, fox, and everything turner owns) and that translates to cable companies as well.

    net neutrality wont fix this, de regulation will.



  • My reaction when they try to take my neutrality away.
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.

    The problem is a scenario where Disney buys Comcast (or do they already own them?), and then suddenly only Disney IP is available to Comcast subscribers.

    And I don't know about where you are, but for me my options for internet are Spectrum or... a crappy Dish Network connection? There is no free market here for competing ISPs.

    its l ike that everywhere, and sadly its been like that for decades. there are only 3 main channels on tv (Disney, fox, and everything turner owns) and that translates to cable companies as well.

    net neutrality wont fix this, de regulation will.

    except that net neutrality will allow you to still access things like netflix on any internet service... places without net neutrality has different costs for various services, so if you want to watch netflix you better pay more.

    I am on the opinion that a completely free market with no regulation will make everything worse
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    Dead.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    anything that can be done today can be undone in the future. the GOP is going down in flames, but it takes time for rational people to regain control of the levers of government.
  • I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    Welp, no point in keeping this thread alive. But I'll survive, somehow.

    Can a Moderator lock this thread, so that we might try and cope with this loss?
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!
  • I don't believe so, and nor am I too worried either.
    calloy said:

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!

    You do have a point.
  • calloy said:

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell, no!

    The Bowling Greens massacre didn’t cripple America either!
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    You people saying this is a major loss do realize that you've only had net neutrality since 2015, right? This is simply a reversal back to the way things went before then. The internet was still easy to access and use without net neutrality written into law.

    Your internet isn't going to change all that much. Everyone's making a bigger mess out of it than it needs to be because oh no, we can't have them PURE EVIL corporations doing anything because they'd rather screw over and turn away practically everyone rather than play the game safe and just not toy around with individual websites. If anyone finds out a corporation is doing what everyone says they will do, then that company essentially shot itself in the foot. It'd be bad for the business.

    Also, when was the last time excessive economic regulation worked? The Soviet Union's economy was heavily regulated, look what happened to them. Look at what's happening to North Korea now. Then look at Hong Kong, one of the most free markets in the world today, and look at how successful it is compared to the regulated economies.

    As Adam Smith once famously stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Regulation constricts things, it doesn't make them grow. The more stuff you put in the hands of government officials the worse things get. I hope most of us can agree with that.

    Minor rant aside, I honestly think this is the best way the vote could have ended. I know for a fact that this will garner dislikes and disagreements, but I'm so sick of this hysterical atmosphere that I just want to vent some of my frustration in the most civil way I possibly can.

    I'm probably going to be seen as the pariah of these forums for this post, especially given the political situation here, but I firmly believe in speaking my mind when the time is right. I feel now is one of those times.
  • The soviet union didn’t fail because of heavy regulations. The soviet union didn’t even have competition, it was all owned by the government.

    Hypothetically, capitalism regulations are meant to protect consumers. However things that should have been regulated by antitrust regulations have gone unchecked leading to less competition and basic monopolies in many parts of the US. Capitalism thrives on healthy competitition due to consumers holding the power with their wallets. Without competition for basic goods and services, we become the Soviet Union.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    a free market without regulation kills people, pure and simple. and if you're poor, it'll double-kill you.
  • I believe so, and, yes, I am very worried.
    coolkat said:

    You people saying this is a major loss do realize that you've only had net neutrality since 2015, right? This is simply a reversal back to the way things went before then. The internet was still easy to access and use without net neutrality written into law.

    Your internet isn't going to change all that much. Everyone's making a bigger mess out of it than it needs to be because oh no, we can't have them PURE EVIL corporations doing anything because they'd rather screw over and turn away practically everyone rather than play the game safe and just not toy around with individual websites. If anyone finds out a corporation is doing what everyone says they will do, then that company essentially shot itself in the foot. It'd be bad for the business.

    Also, when was the last time excessive economic regulation worked? The Soviet Union's economy was heavily regulated, look what happened to them. Look at what's happening to North Korea now. Then look at Hong Kong, one of the most free markets in the world today, and look at how successful it is compared to the regulated economies.

    As Adam Smith once famously stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Regulation constricts things, it doesn't make them grow. The more stuff you put in the hands of government officials the worse things get. I hope most of us can agree with that.

    Minor rant aside, I honestly think this is the best way the vote could have ended. I know for a fact that this will garner dislikes and disagreements, but I'm so sick of this hysterical atmosphere that I just want to vent some of my frustration in the most civil way I possibly can.

    I'm probably going to be seen as the pariah of these forums for this post, especially given the political situation here, but I firmly believe in speaking my mind when the time is right. I feel now is one of those times.

    Yeah these rules did not go into effect until 2015, but that was in response to the practices of ISPs. Companies tried a lot of this stuff before and they were struck down. But then a lawsuit happened that said the FCC did not have authority to do that , which is why in 2015 the rules changed to give them authority.

    so yeah these rules are new, but without them the ISP can get away with stuff that they could not do ten years ago

    Also I find your examples silly, seeing how both Russia and North Korea definitely don't have Net Neutrality, and while I am not 100% sure, what I could see most of Hong Kong does have Net Neutrality in effect
  • calloycalloy Unsigned
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    there's good reason (besides sexual attacks) many in the GOP are heading for the exits. they know what's coming for them
  • edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    Witticus said:

    The soviet union didn’t fail because of heavy regulations. The soviet union didn’t even have competition, it was all owned by the government.

    Hypothetically, capitalism regulations are meant to protect consumers. However things that should have been regulated by antitrust regulations have gone unchecked leading to less competition and basic monopolies in many parts of the US. Capitalism thrives on healthy competitition due to consumers holding the power with their wallets. Without competition for basic goods and services, we become the Soviet Union.

    Perhaps I skimmed over things a bit. My point was that because the economy was heavily regulated and controlled, that it helped worsen the growing cracks in the concrete. Economics wasn't the sole reason, but it was a noticeable part of it. A lack of competition arguably is what mostly kills a controlled economy, you can't really go anywhere because it's all for the state, the benefits go to one party only. For example, China essentially had to save itself in the post-Mao era by transitioning to a pseudo-free market that can be attributed to a few factors, many of which stem from supporting the state more than the people. You can't sustain that, eventually everything will crumble apart.

    However, I do agree with the point you made about regulations in a capitalist system. Capitalism can't be entirely free. If it was, then we'd have a new kind of tyranny under a more familiar face. Antitrust laws, consumer rights, whatever the safeguards may be, it keeps the market free without letting it become so free that the system essentially becomes a corporate dictatorship with the same pitfalls a command economy possesses. I generally believe that boundaries are good, they're a set of rules the system has to play by, I'm mostly against giving the government more power to interfere when I believe that it's better to let the game play itself.

    I also can't argue with the overpowering influence of monopolies and that antitrust regulations haven't done much. There are times where monopolies naturally happen, probably the most common being when a new sector or market materializes (YouTube with video-sharing comes to mind as a basic example), and that's to be expected, but it's when the monopoly is so omnipresent that competition is quickly squashed where it's a problem. Standard Oil is without a doubt the most shining example of that, although that's a case where antitrust laws were used to end the monopoly and begin new companies that would compete in the same market.
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: “Our broadband providers will get extraordinary new power from this agency. They will have the power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor.”
  • wh1t3kn1tewh1t3kn1te Opening Act
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.
    calloy said:

    anything that can be done today can be undone in the future. the GOP is going down in flames, but it takes time for rational people to regain control of the levers of government.

    both parties have rational and irrational people, no need to just blame one side. also in response to another comment you made about the GOP splitting up, its also happening to the DNC, so if things keep going the way they are, we're going to have 6 parties here in the US. fun times.
  • LiveHomeVideoLiveHomeVideo Trying too hard
    I don't believe so, but I am worried.
    Let's not give up hope! When even the GOP and even people FROM the FCC are against this, I'm pretty sure it's still possible to convince Congress and/or the Supreme Court not to go through with this. Here's another tweet with more info on contacting your representatives!



    (Trying to spread this as much as I can, since I feel it's very important that people take action)
  • I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    coolkat said:

    You people saying this is a major loss do realize that you've only had net neutrality since 2015, right? This is simply a reversal back to the way things went before then. The internet was still easy to access and use without net neutrality written into law.

    Your internet isn't going to change all that much. Everyone's making a bigger mess out of it than it needs to be because oh no, we can't have them PURE EVIL corporations doing anything because they'd rather screw over and turn away practically everyone rather than play the game safe and just not toy around with individual websites. If anyone finds out a corporation is doing what everyone says they will do, then that company essentially shot itself in the foot. It'd be bad for the business.

    Also, when was the last time excessive economic regulation worked? The Soviet Union's economy was heavily regulated, look what happened to them. Look at what's happening to North Korea now. Then look at Hong Kong, one of the most free markets in the world today, and look at how successful it is compared to the regulated economies.

    As Adam Smith once famously stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Regulation constricts things, it doesn't make them grow. The more stuff you put in the hands of government officials the worse things get. I hope most of us can agree with that.

    Minor rant aside, I honestly think this is the best way the vote could have ended. I know for a fact that this will garner dislikes and disagreements, but I'm so sick of this hysterical atmosphere that I just want to vent some of my frustration in the most civil way I possibly can.

    I'm probably going to be seen as the pariah of these forums for this post, especially given the political situation here, but I firmly believe in speaking my mind when the time is right. I feel now is one of those times.

    Yeah these rules did not go into effect until 2015, but that was in response to the practices of ISPs. Companies tried a lot of this stuff before and they were struck down. But then a lawsuit happened that said the FCC did not have authority to do that , which is why in 2015 the rules changed to give them authority.

    so yeah these rules are new, but without them the ISP can get away with stuff that they could not do ten years ago

    Also I find your examples silly, seeing how both Russia and North Korea definitely don't have Net Neutrality, and while I am not 100% sure, what I could see most of Hong Kong does have Net Neutrality in effect
    You're correct, the rules were put in place due to various incidents with ISPs. I stated in an earlier post that the argument could go either way, I think it's a topic open to debate and interpretation, so I can see why the FCC was given the authority. It makes sense to do it, but I could also make a claim for the opposing side. I believe that the corporations are mostly at fault, people within made the conscious decision to block sites and do other activities in the same vein of that, but I do not think the FCC power is absolutely necessary. The most recent of the examples I've found goes back to 2014, a year before net neutrality became written into law, and I'd say the internet started booming in the late 1990's and the early 2000's and started becoming as we know it today in the period between 2010 and 2014. The internet used to be a place where you could do that and get away with it - it was harder to get caught. However, once people noticed and started raising cane when these cases started becoming more publicized and more frequent, you begin to notice the amount of major cases decreasing. If a corporation angers the public and loses revenue because of it, then usually this will cause a downward trend in it happening. Personally, I'd argue that with that in mind that eventually tampering with websites just wouldn't be worth it. The backlash would be too great, and people would likely abandon support of your business if you kept doing it. Hence, I believe that since awareness of these incidents has become so great that we likely won't face one. Of course, I could always be proven wrong, but that's the nature of hypothesizing on what could have been.

    My comments in response to your stance on regulation was more from an economics point of view, which I do feel constitutes part of the argument. I agree that no regulation is bad, and I brought up the point in an odd fashion because the message I sent was the opposite of my intentions, which I apologize for. What I meant to do was talk about regulation and how too much of it is bad and too little of it is also bad, and I explained it more in the second post. Hence why I brought up examples of heavily regulated nations (still existing or not) and of an example of a lightly regulated nation.
    calloy said:

    FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: “Our broadband providers will get extraordinary new power from this agency. They will have the power to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor.”

    Again, I feel this could be addressed without the FCC intervening. I still believe that anytime something bad is publicized you see the frequency of it decrease, and I believe that was the trend around the time net neutrality was put into law.

    I don't think net neutrality is a bad thing, I don't, I can see a perfectly logical reason for using it, but I don't think we absolutely need the government protection when the private sector and the people over time are perfectly capable of solving the issue.

    At the end of the day, all of us can really do is acknowledge our differences now and just talk about it. Either way we argue, we're still going to live without net neutrality in a few weeks, so we might as well come to bear it.
  • calloycalloy Unsigned
    edited December 2017
    I believe so, but, I'm not too worried.

    calloy said:

    anything that can be done today can be undone in the future. the GOP is going down in flames, but it takes time for rational people to regain control of the levers of government.

    both parties have rational and irrational people, no need to just blame one side. also in response to another comment you made about the GOP splitting up, its also happening to the DNC, so if things keep going the way they are, we're going to have 6 parties here in the US. fun times.
    dumb argument. for one thing, I don't see the DNC supporting pedophiles. we'll see who's left standing in 2018. put on your voting pants.
1
Sign In or Register to comment.