Do you have adblock enabled?
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 45
    More: Asinine, Federal Communications Commission, GOP, house republican leaders, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, streaming media  
•       •       •

962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-05-15 11:06:16 AM  
3 votes:

sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?


I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.
2014-05-15 10:56:21 AM  
3 votes:

Satanic_Hamster: 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."


I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is.  But screw those peering agreements.  We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough.  We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.
2014-05-15 10:44:06 AM  
3 votes:
Right wing douche bags:
Net neutrality is what we have now.  It's now the internet has always existed.
2014-05-15 10:41:32 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:24:01 AM  
3 votes:

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 11:30:02 AM  
2 votes:

t3knomanser: CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.

You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Once again, you are wrong. Consensus among economists seems to be that increasing minimum wage does contribute to inflation. To what degree is what they debate.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2002/october /i nflation-factors-rise

Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y.
While the differences in inflation noted above may seem simple, the cause of price level changes observed in the real economy are often much more complex. In a dynamic economy it can be especially difficult to isolate a single cause of a change in the price level. However, knowing what inflation is and what conditions might cause it is a great start!
2014-05-15 11:27:01 AM  
2 votes:

m00: Have citations ready from generally accepted sources.

Then find a relevant Fark thread and politely state the case.


Find a Fark thread where that happens. Maybe you can argue that they're just trolls, but Fark's "conservatives" rarely have sources for anything; when they do it's almost always op-eds, special interest think tanks and talk radio; and even when you objectively prove them wrong through immutable sensory and mathematical evidence on certain things they just disappear and lay low for a bit then come right back later and resume the argument like nothing happened.

The fact is that conservatism in this country has become a matter of refusing to admit error, refusing to change opinions based on new information and winning elections at any cost. Look around the world at conservatives in other modern societies and then compare them to what we have here. Other countries have conservatives that are very much like what we had in the early 70s. But since then conservatism in the U.S. has morphed into this weird, "win-at-any-cost" mentality that doesn't even care about being right or governing for the benefit of the nation.

I mean, Jesus Christ... we're talking about a country where the Right side of the argument on abortion can't even seem to agree with itself that rape is a bad thing. If you present math to them to prove a point they just cut the front 2/3 of the chart off and claim your math DISPROVES it.

Conservatism in this country is farked. It's not that conservatism is inherently a bad thing or that Fark really has anything against it, it's that the way conservatism is practiced in America really has nothing to do with being conservative. It's just an adopted label at this point that's used by people who only care about their own ridiculously self-serving ends and it's out of control.
2014-05-15 10:44:43 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:44:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:38:49 AM  
2 votes:

Garet Garrett: Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies


But monopolies are the end game of Capitalism. Everyone loves unfettered Capitalism, right?
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:19:49 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:28:14 PM  
1 vote:

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


No they want NO rules in place.

The Democrats want the rules in place for net neutrality with one sucky piece that lets them sometimes negotiate a "fast lane".

Republicans want 100% shiat - Where ISP can make ANY deals they want. Including blocking totally.

Democrats want 10% shiat. - Where in limited situations they  can offer faster services.

It's a big difference
2014-05-15 11:29:41 AM  
1 vote:

t3knomanser: Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.
2014-05-15 11:29:39 AM  
1 vote:

sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises? Then you are getting what you pay for.


You're right on that point. It's a whole other thing that should be outlawed. I assume that's your point, right? There's too little regulation and the providers are abusing consumers as a result?
2014-05-15 11:25:18 AM  
1 vote:

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?


Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?
2014-05-15 11:24:40 AM  
1 vote:

t3knomanser: Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will  pay, not by the costs of production.



You should revisit Econ 101.

An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices. This is called "cost push inflation".
2014-05-15 11:24:00 AM  
1 vote:

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


t3knomanser: raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat


You two do realize that labor costs are the cheapest costs in most large businesses right?  The biggest expense companies like McDonalds face is facilities and supply expenses.

Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.  Tell McDonalds that since they use so much electricity that they will have to start paying double what they pay to keep service, and the prices of the burger would skyrocket.  You think that McDonalds will just eat that price hike?  I mean, you can just go to Burger King right?  Oops, BK had their power throttled as well.
2014-05-15 11:17:12 AM  
1 vote:

udhq: skozlaw: No... it's not. Most people don't have an alternative. And even if they did, it's not like you can go to the store and compare the two before you buy one.

I don't understand where you think Comcast's customers are going to go if they're unsatisfied with Comcast. Very few have any other option.

Well, I think my conclusion is that I'm spoiled living in a city with a fairly robust municipal wifi service.

I had cable internet for 6 months when I first moved in, then I got rid of it for the municipal internet at 1/10th of the cost, and while it's not quite as fast, it's definitely more stable, and it meets my needs.  I can stream video alright, but I don't know if it would be good enough to do any online gaming.


Just wait till when all of the services you subscribe to jump their prices up to compensate for the cost of going through comcast's bullshiat, essentially effecting you whether you use comcast or not.

Comcast also wants to buy TWC. Essentially, it will be impossible for a packet to not go through a ComCast-owned circuit if it is sourced or the destination is in the North American continent.
2014-05-15 11:06:12 AM  
1 vote:

sendtodave: elchip: 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.

Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?


You must have invested in douche futures.
2014-05-15 11:05:44 AM  
1 vote:
It is almost as if the GoP looks at any issue and thinks "how can we be wrong about this?".

Then they are.

Obviously I am exaggerating, but it is staggering how they can be so completely wrong about so much yet almost half the nation votes for them.
2014-05-15 11:05:12 AM  
1 vote:

udhq: Satanic_Hamster: 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."

Yeah, I understand that much.  My question is, if the competitive advantage that cable has is speed and un-metered bandwidth, why would any company pay them?

If youtube or netflix don't work as well on Comcast, then in the long run that's going to hurt Comcast more than anyone else.


When Netflix doesn't work well on Comcast, people don't cancel their Comcast subscription, they cancel their Netflix subscription. Comcast's position as a monopoly and role as the gatekeeper largely protects it from any negative blowback about service quality.
2014-05-15 11:04:11 AM  
1 vote:

elchip: Satanic_Hamster: 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."

I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is.  But screw those peering agreements.  We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough.  We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.


It is less about the providers controlling packet rates as it is about controlling what those packets are. They want to direct viewers to specific source content and make money off of that. They would do this in a way that allows them to charge protection money to the likes of Amazon, but that real goal is for Comcast to make sure that when you watch a video, that you're watching their video and seeing their ads. It is very much ComCast ensuring that they introduce their model from the cable world (you pay for a slate of channels that they deliver even if you don't watch them) and you watch their advertisements.

They need to control what you can see to ensure that they can maximise the amount of revenue derived from that stream. If you go off and watch some shiat they don't control, they cannot advertise as effectively, they can't make money from the viewing or residuals.

They simply want all of the money, all of the time.

All of it.
2014-05-15 11:00:57 AM  
1 vote:

m00: Trust me when I say this isn't a right or left issue. Every consumer who uses the Internet should passionately want Net Neutrality.

It's a monopoly issue. The same reason we didn't allow the companies who owned the railroads to use their monopoly to acquire steel interests by refusing to ship anyone's steel but their own, and using this position to cheaply acquire the steel companies. Monopolies stifle innovation when they are used to create other monopolies.

Another analogy is if Microsoft didn't allow any browsers other than IE to be installed on your Windows machine. If you tried to install another browser, windows would block it. Or even earlier when Microsoft wanted to create a closed Internet and make it so Windows machines could only access the MS Internet. Hopefully, you can see how if these had been allowed to happen, they would have stifled innovation.

The problem in this case is that ISPs are acting as both a service provider and a content provider. This is directly analogous to the railroad example. For example, Comcast makes a VOIP phone. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all skype and gtalk traffic and if you go to skype.com, it will redirect you to Comcast's VOIP phone sales page. Comcast is in the television and radio broadcast business. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all of those free radio/podcast sites and redirect you to Comcast's site. Unless you have enough money to pay the ransom.

This is using a monopoly to create other monopolies, and also there's no point in making the next innovative product on your free time, if the railroads refuse to ship it. Imagine if Comcast simply blocked google search from the get-go, because it was competing with AltaVista which Comcast had purchased.


Great points.

Netscape Navigator suffered from that MS monopoly early on.  But that led to MS being put under the microscope, and had that not taken place, we'd not have Chrome, Firefox, etc.
2014-05-15 11:00:22 AM  
1 vote:

elchip: I don't know who Amazon's ISP is, but Amazon is already giving them absurd amounts of money for the huge amounts of bandwidth they consume.

But the ISPs want to be able to screw us all over in at least 3 new ways.

1) Tell Amazon, "Okay, you're paying us for 100 Gbps of bandwidth, but unless you pay us more, the only thing that will get 100 Gbps is videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast."

2) Tell Amazon's ISP, "Okay, we have peering agreements with you, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth as it is. But screw those peering agreements. We're not going to let Amazon send anything across our network unthrottled (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless they directly pay us more... even though we're not their ISP.

3) Tell Amazon's customers, "Okay, you're paying for 50 Mbps of bandwidth, and Amazon is paying out the nose for their bandwidth, but that's not enough. We're not going to allow anything to flow to you at 50 Mbps (except videos of John Boehner fellating the CEO of Comcast) unless you pay more for our deluxe package.


Oh, it's not even just that.

Let's say you're living in California, ordering from Amazon, who's servers are in Chicago.  You're going through 10-20 different servers/routers/ISPs/etc to get to Amazon's site, IN ADDITION to your ISP and Amazon's ISP.

Getting rid of net neutrality allows every business that doesn't have a business relationship with Amazon the ability to shake down you and Amazon for money.
m00
2014-05-15 10:58:00 AM  
1 vote:
Trust me when I say this isn't a right or left issue. Every consumer who uses the Internet should passionately want Net Neutrality.

It's a monopoly issue. The same reason we didn't allow the companies who owned the railroads to use their monopoly to acquire steel interests by refusing to ship anyone's steel but their own, and using this position to cheaply acquire the steel companies. Monopolies stifle innovation when they are used to create other monopolies.

Another analogy is if Microsoft didn't allow any browsers other than IE to be installed on your Windows machine. If you tried to install another browser, windows would block it. Or even earlier when Microsoft wanted to create a closed Internet and make it so Windows machines could only access the MS Internet. Hopefully, you can see how if these had been allowed to happen, they would have stifled innovation.

The problem in this case is that ISPs are acting as both a service provider and a content provider. This is directly analogous to the railroad example. For example, Comcast makes a VOIP phone. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all skype and gtalk traffic and if you go to skype.com, it will redirect you to Comcast's VOIP phone sales page. Comcast is in the television and radio broadcast business. If Net Neutrality didn't exist, Comcast could (and will) simply block all of those free radio/podcast sites and redirect you to Comcast's site. Unless you have enough money to pay the ransom.

This is using a monopoly to create other monopolies, and also there's no point in making the next innovative product on your free time, if the railroads refuse to ship it. Imagine if Comcast simply blocked google search from the get-go, because it was competing with AltaVista which Comcast had purchased.
2014-05-15 10:55:38 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-05-15 10:55:02 AM  
1 vote:
Are these stupid motherf*ckers ever right about anything? Jesus f*cking CHRIST.
2014-05-15 10:53:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:11 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:50:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:49:14 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:46:16 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:45:18 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:44:57 AM  
1 vote:
COMMON CARRIER?

/please
2014-05-15 10:42:49 AM  
1 vote:
It's true. Just look at the way net neutrality has so far stifled the growth of social media.
2014-05-15 10:42:48 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:40:31 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:40:02 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:39:11 AM  
1 vote:
I can't really tell from the article what side the Republicans are on.
2014-05-15 10:35:41 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:16:49 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:46:16 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:41:29 AM  
1 vote:
"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 09:06:44 AM  
1 vote:
Can they show it is doing that now? Didn't think so.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report