What is /g/'s stance on the FCC?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/fcc-surrenders-to-republicans-deletes-everything-from-meeting-agenda/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fcc-idUSKBN13B2P8?il=0

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me how we're not completely fucked.

>>57545674
>republicans
you're completely fucked.

>>57544955
>fcc chair it too big a puss to actually put forward a reform bill
>blame trump

>>57544955
Goddammit, time to write some letters again. It's like clockwork.

>>57545674
FCC chairman is going to step down when Trump takes office and Trump is going to appoint a republican/cableshill to his spot. Basically all the work we did to get net neutrality implemented through title II is about to be wiped out.

>>57546564
>Trump is going to appoint a republican/cableshill to his spot
Trump chose Jeffrey Eisenach, a fucking Verizon consultant, to fill the FCC.

We're fucked.

I think FCC is a pretty cool guy. Eh fines retards and doesnt afraid of anything.

>>57545736
Get raped and kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot sack of shit with down syndrome.

File: IMG_4773.jpg (161KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 750x1334px

I was supprised when Tim got into office and did not fuck everything up, now if he is removed, and replaced by some lobbiest.. ehhhh I'm not sure. We probably gonna get shafted.

Man I thought trump was gonna take out the lobbiests.

>>57544955
A bunch of cucks trying to over regulate a free market.

>>57547821
Fuck net neutrality and fuck consumers

>>57547857
If consumers valued net neutrality then they would choose the ISPs who offer it over those that don't.

>>57546564

You're so fucked.

We're all so fucked.

>>57547866
I don't follow. Not everyone lives in an area with competing ISPs.

>>57547884
Because the regulations put up by the FCC make it difficult for newcomers to enter the market.

>>57547256
seems I hit a nerve, I'll bet that's trumps fault too

>>57545736
>>57547918
It's more of the fact that Republicans will be in full control soon so any further actions will be pointless, Trump's just a part of it (and it doesn't help that he hardly knows what net neutrality actually is)

Can someone explain to me if this is good or bad.
I always thought of "Net Neutrality" as a form of allowing the government to dictate what the ISPs can and can't do.

>>57544955
The FCC won't let me be, or let me be me to let me see. They tries to shut me down on MTV but it feels so empty without me

>>57547884

Well then MOVE. Usually just changing neighborhoods or bordering cities works.

>>57547821
>telecom
>free market
Yeah. Nah.

>>57547968

Companies like Netflix want to hog all the bandwidth without having to pay the price.

Meanwhile Netflix charges you extra money for content in 4k/HD. WHy? Doesn't seem very Net-Neutral to me.

Then Netflix wants anyone to be able to make a "cable box" device, meanwhiole Netflix does NOT allow these Chinese boxes to stream in HD or 4k ... Fuck Netflix bruh.

bad luck america, come to russia, you can download all the porns you like

>>57547968
>Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

Basically ISPs and governments shouldn't be able to dictate what content you can access online.

>>57547948
The zodiac killer told me it's the obamacare of the internet. The rest of his party feels similarly. Trump will follow the party line so we can kiss internet freedom goodbye.

Lol the Dems were so much better for da internet xDdddd remember TPP that was soooooo goood

>>57547968
consumer protection against monopolies is a good thing.

>>57546564
>>57547201
>>57547869
MAGA, amirite?

>>57548073

Wheeler is a big supporter of zero-rating.

The government has no right into telling what the cable companies can and can't do, just as it doesnt have the right to regulate what websites you can and can't visit

>>57548109
Retards like you need to be hanged desu.

>>57548119
Not an argument, bootlicker.

>>57548109
>>57548130
Yeah man, I'll go start up my own net-neutral ISP!

Oh, wait...

>>57548130

>>57548140
Too poor and uneducated to do it? Wow who would have guessed

>>57548153
So you're admitting that only rich people get to have a say in how the internet is run?

>>57548109
>just as it doesnt have the right to regulate what websites you can and can't visit

Do you even know what net neutrality is?

>>57548109
>The government has no right into telling what the cable companies can and can't do
Why, exactly?

Can anyone explain to me how gutting net neutrality helps the consumer?

>>57548169
Heres a hint, dumbfuck, find a different ISP if you don't like yours. It's called the free market for a reason

>>57548189
Oh yeah, I'll just choose from the big list of exactly 1 ISP that serves my area. Unless I want 1 mbps DSL.

>>57548189

>government limits who can start an ISP
>gives regional monopolies
>Hurr durr, just find an ISP you like

>>57548182
Because time and time again it has been proven that unregulated capitalism benefits the consumer more than anything else. It's basic Economics.

>>57548200
What makes you think I'm fine with the government regulating ISPs or the formation of them in any form, when I just said the opposite?

Pro tip: if it wasn't for government regulation we wouldn't be even having that problem

>>57548227
>if it wasn't for government regulation we wouldn't be even having that problem
>what is a natural monopoly

Libertarians, everyone.

>>57544955
Get rid of it. I want to be able to legally jam police radar so I can go as fast as I want.

I have the Gunn diode oscillator ready to go. Just waiting for the laws to be overturned.

>>57548227

>industries with high capital barriers of entry naturally have alot of competition

derp

>>57548251

Use it anyway. You'll never get caught. Besides, cops can use "visual estimates" of your speed to write tickets anyway.

>>57548239
Natural Monopolies only occur because they can purchase government power. If governments have no say in the market they are powerless beyond the market.

>>57545711
oh shut it, you sound like even more of a retard for not realizing that both parties are the exact same fucking corrupt circle

>>57548255
I own my own ISP in Europe. It costs no more than your average business.

>>57548274

Fuck you, my dad works at Nintendo and he said you're dad is a faggot.

>>57548265

Natural monopolies occur when there's a high barrier to entry, such as a multimillion dollar cable infrastructure necessary to provide internet to even a small geographic region. Cable and Internet providers are no different than other utilities.

>>57548255
>What are investors
It's like I'm on site filled with literal retards.

>>57548073
Yep

Fact is, no matter who won the internet is fucked

File: TALON.jpg (75KB, 699x465px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 699x465px

>>57548260
>You'll never get caught.

Radar guns usually have some means to detect interference and an RFI indicator LED. The indicator illuminating doesn't necessarily indicate deliberate jamming but depending on the length of interference and other factors it wouldn't be hard to determine whether it is the result of jamming or not and the rough direction. It would be possible to narrow it down to a car. Especially if one was very obviously speeding.

>>57548269
Right, except that when one party was in power, there were strong movements towards enforced net neutrality. Now that Trump's in power, the exact opposite is happening. Why could that be? :^)

>>57548303
>mfw not even google can compete with existing ISPs

>>57547894
This and telecoms tend to have a very high barrier to entry. That said, even potential big players like Google get fucked on the municipal level.

>>57548302
The most successful company of all time was created in a high barrier to entry market by a literal poor and uneducated nobody back in the 1800s

>>57548269
Net Neutrality has been constantly under threat specifically from republican senators and house reps who take money from the telecom companies.

There is a very real chance it may be repealed now.

>>57547968
It's the same thing as common carriage. Would you like the internet determining what is and is not acceptable use of telephones?

Imagine if certain kinds of speech that Disney didn't like were suddenly banned from being spoken on the phone. Or, that same speech had a weird echo that made it much harder to hear compared to the rest of the conversation. It's a similar principle.

>>57548320
Maybe its due to laws and government intervention preventing Google to enter the competition

>>57548363
Also because "regulations are bad!!" mouth breather logic.

>>57548354

Even Google can't compete with ISPs at the local level. To rely on market devices in an industry with an utterly failed market is absurd. There's a very good reason that the government strongly regulates other utilities, Internet shouldn't be any different.

>>57548366
You think Google is bitching about the FCC? Their biggest beef is with municipal regulations put in place to favor incumbent ISPs.

>>57548371
>Cable Monopolies form because of government regulations so bad that it forced Google out of the market
>"Lol guys jis force more regulations"

Yeah you're totally not the one that's the mouth breather

Google is pro-Net Neutrality, guys.

https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html

>>57548378
>Google can't compete
WOW I wonder why

Pro tip: government regulations

File: 1300180216403.png (47KB, 178x187px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 178x187px

>>57544955
>Republican Dad
>Who hates Trump but voted for him anyways because Not-Hillary
>Thinks Net Neutrality is Internet Socialism and is inherently a bad thing

Yeah, we're fucked--pretty sure that's how the media is spinning it now

>>57548397
>let's repeal FCC regulations that have literally zero bearing on Google's ISP business
>just ignore the municipal laws passed by cable lobbyists

The only reason cable companies are so opposed to net neutrality is because they'd be exposed for underbuilding backbone network bandwidth. Instead, they'd rather try and limit users from actually using their internet connections.

>>57548397
>>57548410

>just deregulate it and allow ISPs to write all the rules, what's the worst that could happen

Even on a theoretical level, it's absurd to rely on market forces in an industry that has absurdly high barriers to entry.

>>57548026
You're an idiot. Netflix wanted to pay the internet providers money and install servers in their data centers and the isps refused

>>57548397
>regulations so bad that it forced Google out of the market

Protip: the people Google was arguing against in Kansas City, were by no means on the "pro regulation" spectrum.

Protip: the people that were arguing against Google were not using the "lets regulate them" rhetoric

PROTIP: THEY WERE COMPLAINING THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR INTERVENTION BY GOVERNMENT IN THE FREE( AS IN CORPORATE FASCISM) MARKET, BY MEANS OF SUBSIDIES.

File: 1479215669846.png (8KB, 305x361px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 305x361px

It seems to me that they are really bad at preventing monopolies (which from my understanding of them is one of their jobs), and the left leaning tech media is ready to sweep this all under the rug and use replubicans as a scape goat even though the democrats have just as poor of an understanding and as poor of ideas as the GOP.

I have lost all faith in net neutrality, because ISPs still fuck us over, buy I Aldo font think that getting rid of it will help either.

>>57548432
They can't write rules when they can't influence the government, you fuckong retard.

>>57548432
What are investors, for the second time.

>>57548478
>>57548459

>if the government stops write the rules for the Internet, dozens of new ISPs will magically spring up and compete against each other

>>57547201
Stop lying you fuck. Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. I trust him over some paid Soros shill liek you

>>57548505
Which is correct, and you have no way of explaining why it isn't.

>>57548451
>It seems to me that they are really bad at preventing monopolies
Perhaps because, there is a big force out there, trying to stop government from having any say on these markets.

>>57548537

He just did, high barrier to entry. Libertarianism doesn't agree with economics.

>>57548047
>and governments
Not really this part. Anything that is illegal (i.e child pornography) can be blocked by IPs.

>>57548566
WHAT ARE INVESTORS, you stupid fuck.

>>57548526
But how can he drain government of himself?

I am not going to enjoy these next 4 years, but I get a feeling neither are you.

How is /pol/ going to reconcile with the fact that they will essentially become government apologists central?

>>57548537

There's nothing hold then back now, except for the billions of dollars in cost of running new cable, with the hope that their investment will pay off sometime in the next 35 years. There's no scenario where a company could even accomplish this and be even close to competitive within the next 30 years.

>>57548598
fuck off shill

>>57548566
>Lol Rockefeller don't go into the oil industry, dont you know the barrier of entry is too high

Literally you

>>57548598
He's either joking or false-flagging

Can anyone provide an argument why net neutrality is bad for the common good without being horrifically uninformed about what it means?

>>57548608
Worked for Rockefeller. Worked for Ford.youre just a lazy fuck with no balls.

>>57548595

So when all regulations are done with and we have a totally free market economy with no interference, you have a new isp which springs up. It has a few investors, say 100m in cash infused. It tries to compete with Comcast. Comcast has a monopoly on the area, and decides to drastically drop prices because it can afford to take a loss. The smaller company even with its large amount of investors eventually goes out of business because it cannot take a loss for as long of a time. Then comcast raises prices.

Do you even use your head when you read over ideas or do you just blindly agree with whatever is being said if its said in a convincing enough manner?

>>57548526
And yet here he is appointed a telecom shill to head of the FCC

Good job DRUMPFAG

You just KILLED the internet because some purple haired dyke hurt your fee fees

>>57548621
Yeah, well this whole entire thing has been quite a big drawn out joke.

>>57548654
Your samefag is pathetic. Kill youself shill

>>57548647

NOT AN ARGUMENT

>>57548653
Then the other ISP just needs to be better quality to makeup for its price, basic econ101

>>57548661
>drumpfag gets stumped
>y..your a samefag
Nice argument there schlomo

>>57548654
>Drumpffag

And yet were in the whitehouse...and you arent

>>57548647
>>57548678

The cable companies of today are only here because of the billions of dollars in subsidies from the government to build their infrastructure and decades of growth. There's no scenario where this market becomes competitive.

>>57548691
What position do you hold?

>>57548595
>WHAT ARE INVESTORS, you stupid fuck.
Things that would never invest in a company that may see profit after 30+ years of fighting with local government and billion dollar corporations working really hard to defeat them at every turn when they could instead just put a couple hundred thousand into "instagram for dogs" that gets bought for a billion in 3 years time.

>>57548691

>we are in the White house

Trump and his Verizon lobbyist are in the White House, you're in your mom's house.

>>57548678

Its unfeasible to invest in better quality service and compete and still make a profit when your competitor can do the same and sell at a lower price. No investor is going to back you for 40 years before you make a profit. Maybe you took econ101 but some of the concepts didnt really fully click for you. Competing with a monopoly or oligopoly is unfeasible.

>>57548634
Well I guess most libertarians/an cap crowd argue that, like Natural Selection, natural systems work themselves into group maximums. Which of course is not what Natural Selection does, but that is besides the point.

>>57548618
Except there wasn't a high barrier when he joined. However the reason Rockefeller had a monopoly so tight that he became the richest person in US history (after inflation) is because he then created a huge barrier to entry that stopped others from competing. Exactly like what ISPs have done you dumb fuck.

>>57548713
Then explain Apple

>>57548728

Whats to explain about a company already making a profit creating a successful product which makes them more successful? Can you just admit that your point is bad and monopolies are a cancer on society.

>>57548211
>2008

Here is some light reading for you people saying economics is on your side for unregulated bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

what country do I go to once I finish my degree? I'm trying to finish a year early so I can finish grad early and GTFO from this mess of a country.

File: 1392073457987.png (196KB, 337x404px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 337x404px

>>57548880

India.

>>57548880
The consequence of failed US government, descending into a Banana Republic state, would be far reaching, and difficult to insulate from.

But I guess you can try Switzerland.

>>57547948
>he hardly knows what net neutrality actually is

We just gotta get Trump's 10 year old son to inform his dad for us.


Anyone know what minecraft server the kid plays on? I bet we could get him to shill legislation for us for a stack of diamonds.

>>57548740
>Whats to explain

So you're a teenager? Apple was almost bankrupt under the Microsoft monopoly. How fucking new are you?

File: 1478910870886.jpg (78KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x400px

>>57548956

why are you so mad, Pajeet? Just accept that you're going back. You can make India great for the first time.

File: Shit.jpg (7KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x200px

>>57549016
>Pajeet
The cruel irony is that anon is not aware that Pajeet, unfortunately will no be going anywhere, and will instead be MAGAing the fuck out of us, for at least the next four year.

File: 8c3.jpg (146KB, 496x496px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 496x496px

>Obama literally makes net neutrality a priority in his administration
>Almost all democrats support it
>Most republicans oppose it
>but... they're both bad and corrupt! Doesn't matter!

This is why no one respects conservatives.

As a radiofag I'd say that they are pretty cool guys that aren't afraid of anything.

It's going to be tough for a few years because Republicans don't understand net neutrality and why it's important.

But hopefully someone does educate him on it.

>>57549258
>Republicans are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to pretend that they don't understand net neutrality and why it's important.
FTFY