If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   The GOP warns that FCC net neutrality laws will "derail the internet" and "stifle innovation". Thanks Obama   (foxnews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Federal Communications Commission, GOP, house republican leaders, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, streaming media  
•       •       •

955 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:31 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 08:44:13 AM  
Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?
 
2014-05-15 09:06:44 AM  
Can they show it is doing that now? Didn't think so.
 
2014-05-15 09:19:49 AM  

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


For the same reason that letting Comcast own all the accesses will promote competition, duh.
 
2014-05-15 09:23:16 AM  
The internet is not a truck. Its a series of tubes.
 
2014-05-15 09:35:43 AM  
If we can't stifle competition, how can anyone win?
 
2014-05-15 09:41:29 AM  
"At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate, this is not the time for the FCC to engage in a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet," the lawmakers wrote to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

So they don't want net neutrality. No regulation allows for providers to throttle bandwidth. I am no fan of what the FCC is up to, but the GOP's stance isn't for an open internet, either. The internet is boned. Well, American Internet. The world will give the US the finger if and when Comcast and others get their fingers on it.
 
2014-05-15 09:44:40 AM  
This makes about as much sense as Benghazi, so at least they're consistent.
 
2014-05-15 09:46:16 AM  

hubiestubert: If we can't stifle competition, how can anyone win?


The powers that be already won. We just haven't caught up to that fact.
 
2014-05-15 09:49:14 AM  
Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content
 
2014-05-15 10:16:49 AM  

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


From the article:

The so-called net neutrality rules would prohibit Internet providers from blocking or slowing down websites but allow them to make deals with content companies for preferential treatment, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Huh, is it actually possible they are on the proper side of an issue?
 
2014-05-15 10:24:01 AM  

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.

The Republican ideal is that Comcast should be able to block Netflix unless Netflix pays a premium to allow their traffic that competes with Comcast/NBC content.

It is the exact opposite of promoting a level playing field to foster innovation. It will entrench the already-powerful and create a much higher bar for entry for any entrepreneurial business. It may well become impossible to enter and compete with the FCC rules, it definitely will be impossible with the Republican-backed rules.
 
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM  
Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.
 
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM  
Interesting how the net neutrality regulations that are set to expire were put in place in 2004 by the Bush nominee to the FCC, yet now that the bla man is in office, the GOP is a'gin it!  It's like they would cut off their own feet if they thought it would make Obama look bad.

/Subby
 
2014-05-15 10:36:38 AM  
if the GOP is fo it you should be again it...
 
2014-05-15 10:36:58 AM  

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


Because think of all the price gouging tricks service providers aren't coming up with because they can't mess with Internet traffic..
 
2014-05-15 10:37:13 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: This makes about as much sense as Benghazi, so at least they're consistent.


Faster access to Benghazi scandal websites!!!
 
2014-05-15 10:37:40 AM  

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


[notsureifserious.jpg.]
 
2014-05-15 10:38:20 AM  
House Republican leaders are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to back off proposed open Internet rules, warning that allowing service providers to control content on their networks threatens to "derail" the Internet.

Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about? And now that the Republicans are saying it and Fox News is reporting it, it's somehow evil?
 
2014-05-15 10:38:49 AM  

Garet Garrett: Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies


But monopolies are the end game of Capitalism. Everyone loves unfettered Capitalism, right?
 
2014-05-15 10:39:11 AM  
I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.
 
2014-05-15 10:39:31 AM  
Hmmm.  Obama appoints corporate shill to FCC.  Shill shills for corporations.  GOP opposes shill because Obama?
You might have something here.
This could work.
 
2014-05-15 10:39:32 AM  

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


What's good for Comcast is good for America.  How do you even DARE question that?
 
2014-05-15 10:40:02 AM  
I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?
 
2014-05-15 10:40:31 AM  
At a time when technology businesses need certainty to innovate...

Oh, yea, because if there's one thing that never sparks innovation in the scientific and technology fields it's turmoil and challenge. Remember that period during the Cold War when absolutely nothing farking happened with the computers and networking technologies you're talking about? I mean... aside from their very farking invention?

Are these miserable pukes actually this stupid or have the people they're talking to become so stupid that such obvious lies just don't get caught anymore?
 
2014-05-15 10:41:14 AM  

mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?


no
 
2014-05-15 10:41:32 AM  

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


Not quite. Here's the actual letter. There's nothing in there about the new proposed rules; it's a letter urging the FCC not to classify ISPs as utilities. Fox is spinning the letter pretty ridiculously.
 
2014-05-15 10:42:48 AM  

mayIFark: I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?


They were intentionally vague and even dishonest and contradictory.  Read the comments if you are interested in the general consensus.  If you aren't interested in reading them, they basically say "Obummer's FCC needs to stop trying to regulate everything and give us our freedom!!!!"
 
2014-05-15 10:42:49 AM  
It's true. Just look at the way net neutrality has so far stifled the growth of social media.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:02 AM  
The fundamental problem here is that ISPs like Comcast refuse to build out their own infrastructure to handle the amount of traffic their clients are requesting.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:06 AM  
Right wing douche bags:
Net neutrality is what we have now.  It's now the internet has always existed.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:36 AM  

nmrsnr: Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.

[notsureifserious.jpg.]


The chemtrails people are serious too, but you don't see anyone giving them the time of day.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:43 AM  
Headline does not seem to match article...

On one hand net neutrality is vital to protecting service, on the other some prioritization (namely putting spam and bots second to valid traffic like cat videos and call of duty servers) can maximize the networks health.
The question is, once you allow prioritization, how do you define who gets that priority.
Hence why everyone wants the show to go on hold so they can get their fingers in the pie.

I'd suspect they want the government to define what is priority traffic, which can be as bad as letting the ISP's do it (but at least it would be public record).

/To me it seems to be more a problem of hunting down abusers so all traffic can be treated equally.
/internet is best without giving the ISPs something to screw around with.
 
2014-05-15 10:44:57 AM  
COMMON CARRIER?

/please
 
2014-05-15 10:45:18 AM  

mayIFark: I am the only one with reading comprehension fail or the article tried hard to make it vague to understand that what GOPer are saying is the bad position?


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 10:45:43 AM  
I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.
 
2014-05-15 10:45:47 AM  

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


It allows the big players, companies that everyone has already invested in, to innovate without having to worry about ankle biters.

And it also saves the investors from taking unnecessary risks.  Do you want another pets.com?  No?  Then you should favor the stability that a high barrier to entry brings!
 
2014-05-15 10:46:16 AM  

mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about? And now that the Republicans are saying it and Fox News is reporting it, it's somehow evil?


Either you didn't bother to read the actual letter or you're confused about the immediate state of network neutrality. Which is it?
 
2014-05-15 10:47:06 AM  

physt: I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.


It's a masterful plan.  Appoint someone to the FCC who does what Republicans have been asking for.  Since Obama now supports it, Republicans oppose it and write net neutrality into law.
 
2014-05-15 10:49:12 AM  

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


lol compete. cute.
 
2014-05-15 10:49:14 AM  

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


Netflix is already paying tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year for bandwidth with its ISP. Its ISP has peering arrangements with other ISPs. If they don't like those peering agreements, they can presumably renegotiate them.

Ending net neutrality would effectively be double-billing companies like Netflix.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:00 AM  
And once again, the GOP displays its particular brand of libertarianism.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:26 AM  

udhq: but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider


Except there aren't. Cable, fiber and DSL are not equivalent and that's the "option" the relatively few people who have any option at all have. I can choose DSL instead of cable, but it's not much of a choice. It's like saying I can choose McDonald's over a five star meal. Sure, they're both technically food, but they're not really like things when it comes right down to it.

Real competition would mean I could choose 10mbit cable from multiple cable providers or I could choose 100mbit fiber from multiple fiber providers. It doesn't mean I can settle for a 2mbit phone line if I don't like my 5x faster cable company's service for some reason.
 
2014-05-15 10:50:55 AM  

CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.


Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.
 
2014-05-15 10:51:11 AM  

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


They want to be able to shake down both their end users and individual websites.

"Hey Amazon, give us $100k a year or we'll throttle all traffic to your site from the state of California."
 
2014-05-15 10:51:47 AM  

elchip: physt: I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.

It's a masterful plan.  Appoint someone to the FCC who does what Republicans have been asking for.  Since Obama now supports it, Republicans oppose it and write net neutrality into law.


The Republicans are trying to end net neutrality (regulations currently on the books set to expire), not write net neutrality into law.
 
2014-05-15 10:53:05 AM  

udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.


The problem is that there isn't multiple providers at your house. You have, typically, one cable. If comcast owns that cable, they're not obligated to allow some other provider to use that.

Common carrier in the Telco sense would require that they share that infrastructure.

There is no competition today. Zero, and the large providers are working very hard to ensure it stays that way while simultaneously working to eliminate competition for the entertainment services and any upstart that could change the rules on them. They are lobbying to codify their dominance into law and basically, turn the internet into the same washed-out landscape as broadcast TV or Cable forcing the consumer to eat a diet of only what they feel like serving you.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:01 AM  

udhq: CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.

Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.


The only realistic, superior option to cable is fiber, but if (like me) no one's bothered to run fiber lines to your residence, it's not really an option, eh?
 
2014-05-15 10:55:02 AM  
Are these stupid motherf*ckers ever right about anything? Jesus f*cking CHRIST.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:27 AM  
Liars.
 
2014-05-15 10:55:38 AM  

hawcian: ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content

Not quite. Here's the actual letter. There's nothing in there about the new proposed rules; it's a letter urging the FCC not to classify ISPs as utilities. Fox is spinning the letter pretty ridiculously.


This isn't spin. This is a flat out lie.
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report