LOL Chris.
mein neger
LOL Chris.
The truth shall set us free.
No. It shall make us slower. And censored.
The composition of the FCC commission always has been, 3 of the ruling party and 2 of the opposition. That's why Barry appointed him, he had to pick somebody from the (R) side as recommended by the Rs.
Obviously, this might be news to people that don't know anything about the FCC, tbh...
He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...
Perhaps, you missed the point entirely. To wit:
Instead, he:Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party
In other words, Obama could have nominated a pro-Net Neutrality independent, and chose not to.
And it gets even worse for the Democrats:He used to be a lawyer for Verizon too, IIRC...
Politico:
Liberals appointing a militant anti net-neutrality advocate/ exVerizon lawyer and holding him accountable (LOL) by voting for his reconfirmation.DEMOCRATS FOR PAI? — FCC Chairman Ajit Pai locked down his reconfirmation Monday evening in a largely party-line 52-41 vote. But Pai did win votes from four of the six Democrats who voted in favor of last week’s procedural vote on his confirmation: Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)….
— So why did these four buck Democratic colleagues? “I disagree with him on net neutrality, but the president has a right to the chairman because he won the election,” McCaskill told John. “I have worked with him closely on the Lifeline issues and found him to be easy to work with on those issues — and he’s qualified.” [credentialism!] Peters echoed her on Pai’s qualifications and also cited his interest in working with Pai to address the Lifeline program./p>
— The senators like his broadband views. “I just need a lot of help in West Virginia, and he’s been moving in that direction,” former Commerce Committee member Manchin said, lauding Pai’s work in “trying to get the rural broadband fund moving.” Pai is “working with us,” Manchin said. Peters also mentioned rural broadband, singling out Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as an area in need: “I found him very receptive to ways to expand broadband access.” But like McCaskill, Manchin is “still very concerned about net neutrality,” as is Peters, they told POLITICO. Pai’s move to roll back net neutrality regulations dominated the Democrats’ opposition on the floor in the last week. Peters said he “will hold him accountable” and try to ensure “the internet is free and open.”
nobody is defending the senators or politicians in general... just dispelling the notion that Obama selecting a (R) was outside the norm for the FCC... much like (R) presidents have appointed (D) commission members...
There hasn't been an 'independent' (ie: not D or R) member of the FCC commission since 1947... again, people unfamiliar with the FCC political process would find this surprising, tbh, but it's more of the same...
Last edited by ElNono; 11-24-2017 at 10:42 PM.
And Tom Wheeler, the previous commish that passed the net neutrality regulations, was voted in unanimously by the senate
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/29...new-fcc-chief/
I guess conserva s were for net neutrality before they weren't? How could it be?
I have exactly two ISPs available to me (unless Google moves into the neighborhood in the coming months/years). I've not had a cable tv package in around three years because of the different, cheaper, streaming options available. Ditching net neutrality would give these two companies the option to effectively price streaming services out of reach for cord cutters like myself, forcing us to go back to their ty cable tv packages. And that's just one example. It hands too much power over to these companies that already have a monopoly.
Regardless of your political affiliation, or who appointed who, everybody should be pissed about this.
Meh like Obama said, elections have consequences. Anyone who voted for Trump has no room to complain, it was obvious this would happen under him.
I wish they'd complain a little more. This effects everybody. But all except the staunchest Trumpslurpers (who are defending this ) are silent. Which means they don't know, don't care, or don't want to say anything negative about the Trump regime.
Oh TSA is on Trump’s side on this one? What a shock!
TSA is eager to be paying extra to get priority access to 4chan.
Net nuetrality as an idea is great, much like Obamacare. It was the implementation that sucked.
Excellent rebuttal by the way. You really took that down.
It's also incorrect. Netflix had to pay for extra peering agreements because Verizon wouldn't flip a cable, something Netflix offered to do for them. Netflix pays for every penny of bandwidth they use, and it's customers do too.
Obviously, Verizon wants more of the pie than just transporting bits (which, again, are paid for), because they actually offer competing services (ie: On demand video, etc).
Plus, Verizon came clean on admitting they were indeed throttling Netflix, Youtube and other providers :https://www.fiercewireless.com/wirel...tent-providers
The moral of the story here is that there would be no Netflix if you get penalized for innovating and bringing a better product than Cable Co.
At the end of the day, Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc all pay for their bandwidth, and the users pay for their bandwidth too. If the ISP can't handle it, then they need to improve their networks, with the fees they collect.
Most of the non-last-mile providers (Level 3, et all) do exactly that, and are not ing. The issue here are last-mile providers who have a captive audience and are largely monopolies and duopolies, which get to dictate terms.
Yeah I’m not gonna take some random ar-15.com troll’s post seriously.
But all you do is post these days
Thank you for actually taking the time to respond with an informed opinion unlike gook pickle.
I think you hit on certain points and missed on others. Specific thoughts on this claim.
“It would cut the revenue stream at the peering level, and it would remove the traffic shaping and management at the last mile level. This would INCREASE the strain on the carrier networks, AND reduce the spending on upgrading the carrier networks. It will LITERALLY make EVERYTHING worse.”
That statement only makes sense if the carriers would be losing money or were technically not capable of upgrading their networks, neither being the case. The sole reason there's a 'strain' on carrier networks (artificial or not) is that the network operators didn't increase their capacity (spending their well earned money to do so) or they simply want to nickel and dime you to death with 'tiered plans' (artificial too).
You don't see the non-last-mile providers (who carry way more data) having their networks strained. So it's not a technical issue, and it's not a money issue. The real issue is that because they're monopolies or duopolies, they don't have to spend their money providing a better service, they have a captive audience. So they don't upgrade their networks, they pocket the difference, and then when their last-mile lines are overloaded, they don't have to give a because they're the only game in town. Since they're the last piece of the transport to the consumer, they wield major power.
It's also well do ented that internet speeds in the US lag sharply with other 1st world countries, and internet service costs more.
Ultimately, you have to look at this with historical perspective. There's a reason the term 'common carrier' came to be. Unlike a 'contract carrier', which gets to decide who it delivers to, a common carrier delivers information important enough where they can't be exclusionary. And in this day and age, the interwebs, Spurstalk in particular, is simply essential. You can't even apply for a job these days without an internet connection.
Here's the contradiction: the government granted these guys monopolies because they deemed the internet important enough where they wanted them to build their networks even on remote areas where it might've not been profitable enough (like they did with phone companies, and this is a topic that's it's own can of worms), but then the internet is now not important enough to make them common carriers? It makes zero sense.
I should add, expanding the network carries risks. It's an investment. You could 'over-provision'. From a shareholder perspective, you much rather get free money from Netflix than lay down fiber. But the only reason they can do that is because, again, they have a captive audience. If they had to compete, they'll be taking the risks. You can see that on the Wireless market, where prices have bottomed out for service and you get the latest 3G, 4G, LTE tech coming at the same price as the previous generation or cheaper.
“Thank you for dignifying my knuckle dragger bull with an actual response, unlike gook pickle ”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)