Thanks, REPUBLICANS, for destroying the internet

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Small-ish Wallet wrote:

FIFY ^

Heck, I'm not even a political/partisan person, but more and more it just seems as though Republican politicians are out to stick it to the little guy. Or at least anyone who isn't extraordinarily rich. WTH?

You're just figuring this out?

Typical Democrat charge: claim that Republicans:

- hate the poor;

- are at war against women;

- hate foreigners;

- hate minorities;

- hate people with gender dysphoria

Yet it is the Democrats that divide us by race, ethnicity, sex via so-called "Affirmative Action" policies and oppose tax cuts even though most Democrat VOTERS are for income tax cuts. And, most sadly to me, they divide the unborn limb by limb and call it hearth care.

80% of Americans are against this repeal, including the majority of Trump supporters. But 100% of Trump supporters on this thread appear to support the measure. It's curious that they would do a complete 180 when a topic is presented by a flamboyant man who wears makeup.

How would our great intellectual forefathers of the enlightenment react to this anti-intellectlualism? They'd probably ask to have their statues removed so they wouldn't have to watch. Has to be said.

The idea that any of the supporters for repealing net neutrality would be for repeal if it were Obama's doing is laughable. Rather, they'd be screaming bloody murder that it was evidence that Obama was "corrupt" and beholden to the rich.

Once Trump discovers how unpopular the move is, he will Tweet that it actually is Obama's fault and the Alt Right talking point guys will follow suit.

Beautiful Day wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure everyone wants Comcast Streaming Services instead of Netflix.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/svn9iXO9bovU9VNWCu48yASkAO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

Who cares. I don't stream anything anyway, being an old SOB. I also don't recall there being any significant issues prior to the adoption of the regulation. Why should I think there will be any huge issue once its repealed?

(Perhaps the following link has been posted already.) "The Internet is Free Again" according to the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-is-free-again-1513297405

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Beautiful Day wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure everyone wants Comcast Streaming Services instead of Netflix.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/svn9iXO9bovU9VNWCu48yASkAO0=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

Who cares. I don't stream anything anyway, being an old SOB. I also don't recall there being any significant issues prior to the adoption of the regulation. Why should I think there will be any huge issue once its repealed?

If you're an old SOB, then I'm sure you recall there not even being an Internet at all. Times have changed a little since the Stone Age. ISPs wanted to double dip on the whole video/game streaming thing once it became popular. Regulations were put in place to protect the consumer from being stupidly over charged. Now they've been repealed, so they can proceed to stupidly overcharge you. The idea that this was hurting innovation is laughable. The idea that ISPs surely won't raise prices or try to offer less for more money is also laughable.

I have exactly one option for an isp where I live. How does this benefit me?

America is even more free now. If only my country could be that free. Stay free guys

Racket wrote:

PerfectoidSpace wrote:

Seems like p-adic Hodge theory is taking over LetsRun. Watch out, alt-right trolls!

Oh man, as if Galois representation theory wasn't hard enough already!

Whoa there; p-adic Hodge theory makes things way easier. Which would you prefer, an arbitrary Galois representation or a (phi,Gamma)-module?

Also you can't even really state Fontaine-Mazur without p-adic Hodge theory conditions.

Checkmate, atheists.

I love how people are defending this repeal...let's just give more power to the ISPs; those monopolistic or at best oligarchical corporations that collude with each other to cripple consumer choice. No other industry is more hated or anti-consumer than the Telecom industry. The big players (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon) all supported this repeal. Why? Because they will have no one to answer to!

This won't happen all at once, but over the next decade expect prices to raise, content choice to drop, innovation disappear, and customer service to continue to suck. Without these regulations we cannot trust ISPs. If we had a decent level of competition at the ISP level, then maybe these regulations would be unnecessary, but that's not the case in this country. Most people only have one or two choices for providers…

And I don't know what world you are living in if you think repealing these regulations will encourage ISPs to innovate their networks. That won't happen regardless.

You might ask Google how easy it was to become an ISP.

The world is moving forward. Republicans are moving the US backwards.

HTRunner wrote:

This won't happen all at once, but over the next decade expect prices to raise, content choice to drop, innovation disappear, and customer service to continue to suck.

I am not for or against the repeal. To be honest, I feel it is much ado about nothing. However, I'd like someone to explain how innovation will disappear. This seems like a scare tactic to me.

As for rising prices and customer service sucking, well, it didn't take a repeal of net neutrality for those two things to happen. If one of the major ISP's abuse their power, you can believe someone will figure out a way around it and make a lot of money in the process. That is the American way.

Wasn't broken, harmed consumers wrote:

Umm, let's see..... in 2015, how much "pay-for-play" and "fast lanes" were there?

In 2015, telcos were common carriers. Try again.

Wasn't broken, harmed consumers wrote:

So much for the theory that "the little guy" is being hurt, when in reality he's missed out on two plus years of innovation, and paid more from discouraged competition (controlled only by oligarchic-sized providers).

Forcing telcos into common carrier status didn't do anything to affect price, service level, or innovation. Removing common carrier status will discourage innovation and competition. You only need to look as far as the nearest utility pole permit for an example of how removing common carrier status will affect competition.

You really have no clue.

piu;u wrote:

Yet it is the Democrats that divide us by race, ethnicity, sex via so-called "Affirmative Action" policies and oppose tax cuts even though most Democrat VOTERS are for income tax cuts. And, most sadly to me, they divide the unborn limb by limb and call it hearth care.

A briedbard bot with a little twist of thought police. Who would have imagined a bot could do that?

Gravy wrote:

I have exactly one option for an isp where I live. How does this benefit me?

Higher prices, less innovation, and fewer choices! It's a big win for telcos. You? Not.

Can someone please tell me what this "innovation" from telcos actually is?

They are providing a connection to a dumb pipe, which was built by the government, or in other words us, and all Net Neutrality does is require them to allow us on without any impediments.

You may recall how much we paid for very, very slow broadband just a few years ago, until Google kickstarted the telcos by running fiber. Suddenly, all the ISPs had fast connections, at decent cost. They couldn't nickle/dime us for a while. I think we went from 20 down to 100 down, overnight, for less money. After all, it's just a dumb pipe, and it's quite fast the way it is.

Now, opponents of Net Neutrality say telcos have wanted to "innovate" all this time. Can you explain this to me?

Racket wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Who cares. I don't stream anything anyway, being an old SOB. I also don't recall there being any significant issues prior to the adoption of the regulation. Why should I think there will be any huge issue once its repealed?

If you're an old SOB, then I'm sure you recall there not even being an Internet at all. Times have changed a little since the Stone Age. ISPs wanted to double dip on the whole video/game streaming thing once it became popular. Regulations were put in place to protect the consumer from being stupidly over charged. Now they've been repealed, so they can proceed to stupidly overcharge you. The idea that this was hurting innovation is laughable. The idea that ISPs surely won't raise prices or try to offer less for more money is also laughable.

I do indeed recall that. Also, when I had to stop at a pay phone to do a conference call if I was on the road for work. Well if they want to double dip, thats up to them. Its up to the consumer not to pay for things they don't want to pay for. If the ISP's want to make money they will have to adjust their pricing. If not, oh well. There will be fewer people running around playing stupid video games.

we are returning to the way the internet was regulated in 2015. Are you saying that the Internet was "ruined" prior to 2015? I had no idea. It seemed to work just fine for me a few years ago... From NRO:

"antitrust law already protects consumers from this type of anticompetitive behavior. Economists recognize these concerns as vertical foreclosure claims. Over the past several decades, courts have developed a robust and detailed framework to assess when such practices are likely to harm consumers. One of the ironies of the 2015 order is that it strips the FTC — America’s strongest antitrust cop — of jurisdiction over broadband providers. Net neutrality proponents thus bear the burden of proving why broadband providers should not be governed by the same competition laws that regulate the rest of the American economy."

De-regulate water, electricity and natural gas, then.