Trump's FCC overturned rules put into place by Obama and returned the internet to those days that made Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google what they are. For a the fear mongering on the left Trump just returned the status quo. Now those huge, left wing companies have lost their protection from new upstarts.
Damned auto correct, INTERNET freedom again.
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 12-17-2017, 02:31 AM
- StandinStraight
- 12-17-2017, 08:08 AM
Trump's FCC overturned rules put into place by Obama and returned the internet to those days that made Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google what they are. For a the fear mongering on the left Trump just returned the status quo. Now those huge, left wing companies have lost their protection from new upstarts.What are you talking about, your completely wrong, it’s the exact opposite. When the internet boom began there was net neutrality because everyone was treated equally. Obama passed a law to keep it that way so one or two companies couldn’t takeover the internet as they became large, much like Walmart did away from the internet in every city across the nation. Obama didn’t want one company to control the internet. Trump did away with net neutrality and now new ventures to the internet will be disadvantaged. It really sucks that they are ruining the internet and turning it into a Walmart.
Damned auto correct, INTERNET freedom again. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 12-17-2017, 08:20 AM
Oh....you're from the Bizzaro universe.
- Budman
- 12-17-2017, 08:44 AM
What are you talking about, your completely wrong, it’s the exact opposite. When the internet boom began there was net neutrality because everyone was treated equally. Obama passed a law to keep it that way so one or two companies couldn’t takeover the internet as they became large, much like Walmart did away from the internet in every city across the nation. Obama didn’t want one company to control the internet. Trump did away with net neutrality and now new ventures to the internet will be disadvantaged. It really sucks that they are ruining the internet and turning it into a Walmart. Originally Posted by StandinStraightCome on professor, WTF does that even mean?
- StandinStraight
- 12-17-2017, 09:07 AM
Come on professor, WTF does that even mean? Originally Posted by BudmanWhat don’t you understand ? Think about it, when the age of the internet began it could be compared to the beginning of civilization as we know it in the cities we live in. Towns were built, mom and pop stores opened, the down town areas thrived in every small town across America because everyone had equal opportunity to start a business in the town they lived in. Fast forward, Walmart’s moved into every town across America, one family now made it impossible for smaller stores to survive or compete with Walmart because Walmart has such buying power with suppliers of goods, they effectively built a monopoly. This led to the demise of our towns and was great for Walmart but sucked for everyone else, they put a lot of people out of business.
Net neutrality was meant to stop any one giant company from having so much power and influence over internet content that it would effectively ruin the internet for anyone other than those in control. Just like Walmart did in towns across America. Without net neutrality what we see or can do and any opportunity on the internet for young entrepreneurs will disappear. It is very sad to see the internet ruined by Republican greed and special interest.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-17-2017, 09:48 AM
Oh....you're from the Bizzaro universe. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornAnd you’re hobo Dick cheese.
The fact that you march lockstep with every fucked up “policy” that the Turd Reich proposes and every cruel and inequitable EO he signs, indicates you’re nothing but a fucking thrall.
I do find it comical that other, newer brownshirted posters-come-lately haven’t yet come to realize what a total fraud you’ve ever been.
In today’s totalitarian environment, it’s unlikely they will.
But we know what YOUR notion of freedoms is, JDrunk.
- Munchmasterman
- 12-17-2017, 10:14 AM
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Net neutrality rules kept the internet the way it had been running before the rules.
Comcast, ATT, etc want to be able to block content and/or slow down (or charge more for) competitors.
What a moron! Who do you think repubs represent? Consumers?
Fuck no. Big business, just like they always have.
Now you can see why trump loves you guys. You back his position without even looking to see what it really is.
And you're supposed to be a teacher.
"The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit or charge more for faster speeds.
Does the above sound like it helps consumers?
In a straight party-line vote of 3-2, the Republican-controlled FCC junked the longtime principle that said all web traffic must be treated equally. The move represents a radical departure from more than a decade of federal oversight.
The big telecommunications companies had lobbied hard to overturn the rules, contending they are heavy-handed and discourage investment in broadband networks.
"What is the FCC doing today?" asked FCC chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican. "Quite simply, we are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence."
The push to eliminate net neutrality has stirred fears among consumer advocates, Democrats, many web companies and ordinary Americans afraid that the cable and phone giants will be able to control what people see and do online. But the broadband industry has promised that the internet experience for the public isn't going to change.
The FCC vote is unlikely to be the last word. Net neutrality supporters threatened legal challenges, with New York's attorney general vowing to lead a multistate lawsuit. Some Democrats want to overturn the FCC action in Congress.
"The fact that Chairman Pai went through with this, a policy that is so unpopular, is somewhat shocking," said Mark Stanley, a spokesman for the civil liberties organization Demand Progress. "Unfortunately, not surprising."
On Thursday, about 60 demonstrators gathered in the bitter chill in Washington to protest the FCC's expected decision. Just before the vote, the hearing room was briefly evacuated and searched for unspecified security reasons.
The FCC subscribed to the principle of net neutrality for over a decade and enshrined it in rules adopted in 2015.
Under the new rules approved Thursday, the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world could slow down or block access to services they don't like or happen to be in competition with. They could also charge higher fees of rivals and make them pay up for higher transmission speeds. They just have to post their policies online or tell the FCC.
Such things have happened before. In 2007, for example, The Associated Press found that Comcast was blocking or throttling some file-sharing. And AT&T blocked Skype and other internet calling services on the iPhone until 2009.
Thursday's rule change also eliminates certain federal consumer protections, bars state laws that contradict the FCC's approach, and largely transfers oversight of internet service to another agency altogether, the Federal Trade Commission.
Angelo Zino, an analyst at CFRA Research, said he expects AT&T and Verizon to be the biggest beneficiaries because the two internet giants can now give priority to the movies, TV shows and other videos or music they provide to viewers. That could hurt rivals such as Sling TV, Amazon, YouTube or start-ups yet to be born.
However, AT&T senior executive vice president Bob Quinn said in a blog post that the internet "will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has." He said the company won't block websites and won't throttle or degrade online traffic based on content.
Internet companies such as Google, Twitter and Facebook have strongly backed net neutrality.
On Thursday, Netflix, said in a tweet it is "disappointed in the decision to gut (hash)NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle."
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the Trump administration "supports the FCC's effort to roll back burdensome regulations. But as we have always done and will continue to do, we certainly support a free and fair Internet."
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat appointed by President Barack Obama, lambasted the "preordained outcome" of the vote that she said hurts small and large businesses and ordinary people. She said the end of net neutrality hands over the keys to the internet to a "handful of multibillion-dollar corporations."
With their vote, she added, the FCC's Republican commissioners are abandoning the pledge they took to make a rapid, efficient communications service available to all people in the U.S., without discrimination.
But Michael O'Rielly, a GOP commissioner appointed by Obama, called the FCC's approach a "well-reasoned and soundly justified order."
The internet, he said, "has functioned without net neutrality rules for far longer than it has with them." The decision "will not break the internet."
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, has been investigating what appears to be large numbers of fake public comments submitted to the FCC during the net neutrality comment period. He said 2 million comments were submitted under stolen identities, including those of children and dead people.
Here's a look at what the developments mean for consumers and companies.
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet providers treat all web traffic equally, and it's pretty much how the internet has worked since its creation. But regulators, consumer advocates and internet companies were concerned about what broadband companies could do with their power as the pathway to the internet -- blocking or slowing down apps that rival their own services, for example.
What did the government do about it?
The FCC in 2015 approved rules, on a party-line vote, that made sure cable and phone companies don't manipulate traffic. With them in place, a provider such as Comcast can't charge Netflix for a faster path to its customers, or block it or slow it down.
The net neutrality rules gave the FCC power to go after companies for business practices that weren't explicitly banned as well. For example, the Obama FCC said that "zero rating" practices by AT&T violated net neutrality. The telecom giant exempted its own video app from cellphone data caps, which would save some consumers money, and said video rivals could pay for the same treatment. Under current chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC spiked the effort to go after AT&T, even before it began rolling out a plan to undo the net neutrality rules entirely.
A federal appeals court upheld the rules in 2016 after broadband providers sued.
What the big telecoms want
Big telecom companies hate the stricter regulation that comes with the net neutrality rules and have fought them fiercely in court. They say the regulations can undermine investment in broadband and introduced uncertainty about what were acceptable business practices. There were concerns about potential price regulation, even though the FCC had said it won't set prices for consumer internet service.
What Silicon Valley wants
Internet companies such as Google have strongly backed net neutrality, but many tech firms have been more muted in their activism this year. Netflix, which had been vocal in support of the rules in 2015, said in January that weaker net neutrality wouldn't hurt it because it's now too popular with users for broadband providers to interfere.
What happens next
The vote for net neutrality in 2015 was also along party lines, but Democrats dominated then.
In the long run, net-neutrality advocates say undoing these rules makes it harder for the government to crack down on internet providers who act against consumer interests and will harm innovation. Those who criticize the rules say undoing them is good for investment in broadband networks.
But advocates aren't sitting still. Some groups plan lawsuits to challenge the FCC's move, and Democrats -- energized by public protests in support of net neutrality -- think it might be a winning political issue for them in 2018 congressional elections."
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...utrality-rules
The big providers can change things (price, speed) without any notice except for in the terms of service.
That few people read.
Comcast, ATT, etc want to be able to block content and/or slow down (or charge more for) competitors.
Trump's FCC overturned rules put into place by Obama and returned the internet to those days that made Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google what they are. For a the fear mongering on the left Trump just returned the status quo. Now those huge, left wing companies have lost their protection from new upstarts.Att, Comcast and Verison were GIVEN protection. Now they can kill the upstarts at the beginning by throttling their speed down or raising prices. The rules kept the status quo.
Damned auto correct, INTERNET freedom again. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
What a moron! Who do you think repubs represent? Consumers?
Fuck no. Big business, just like they always have.
Now you can see why trump loves you guys. You back his position without even looking to see what it really is.
And you're supposed to be a teacher.
"The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit or charge more for faster speeds.
Does the above sound like it helps consumers?
In a straight party-line vote of 3-2, the Republican-controlled FCC junked the longtime principle that said all web traffic must be treated equally. The move represents a radical departure from more than a decade of federal oversight.
The big telecommunications companies had lobbied hard to overturn the rules, contending they are heavy-handed and discourage investment in broadband networks.
"What is the FCC doing today?" asked FCC chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican. "Quite simply, we are restoring the light-touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence."
The push to eliminate net neutrality has stirred fears among consumer advocates, Democrats, many web companies and ordinary Americans afraid that the cable and phone giants will be able to control what people see and do online. But the broadband industry has promised that the internet experience for the public isn't going to change.
The FCC vote is unlikely to be the last word. Net neutrality supporters threatened legal challenges, with New York's attorney general vowing to lead a multistate lawsuit. Some Democrats want to overturn the FCC action in Congress.
"The fact that Chairman Pai went through with this, a policy that is so unpopular, is somewhat shocking," said Mark Stanley, a spokesman for the civil liberties organization Demand Progress. "Unfortunately, not surprising."
On Thursday, about 60 demonstrators gathered in the bitter chill in Washington to protest the FCC's expected decision. Just before the vote, the hearing room was briefly evacuated and searched for unspecified security reasons.
The FCC subscribed to the principle of net neutrality for over a decade and enshrined it in rules adopted in 2015.
Under the new rules approved Thursday, the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world could slow down or block access to services they don't like or happen to be in competition with. They could also charge higher fees of rivals and make them pay up for higher transmission speeds. They just have to post their policies online or tell the FCC.
Such things have happened before. In 2007, for example, The Associated Press found that Comcast was blocking or throttling some file-sharing. And AT&T blocked Skype and other internet calling services on the iPhone until 2009.
Thursday's rule change also eliminates certain federal consumer protections, bars state laws that contradict the FCC's approach, and largely transfers oversight of internet service to another agency altogether, the Federal Trade Commission.
Angelo Zino, an analyst at CFRA Research, said he expects AT&T and Verizon to be the biggest beneficiaries because the two internet giants can now give priority to the movies, TV shows and other videos or music they provide to viewers. That could hurt rivals such as Sling TV, Amazon, YouTube or start-ups yet to be born.
However, AT&T senior executive vice president Bob Quinn said in a blog post that the internet "will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has." He said the company won't block websites and won't throttle or degrade online traffic based on content.
Internet companies such as Google, Twitter and Facebook have strongly backed net neutrality.
On Thursday, Netflix, said in a tweet it is "disappointed in the decision to gut (hash)NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle."
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the Trump administration "supports the FCC's effort to roll back burdensome regulations. But as we have always done and will continue to do, we certainly support a free and fair Internet."
FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat appointed by President Barack Obama, lambasted the "preordained outcome" of the vote that she said hurts small and large businesses and ordinary people. She said the end of net neutrality hands over the keys to the internet to a "handful of multibillion-dollar corporations."
With their vote, she added, the FCC's Republican commissioners are abandoning the pledge they took to make a rapid, efficient communications service available to all people in the U.S., without discrimination.
But Michael O'Rielly, a GOP commissioner appointed by Obama, called the FCC's approach a "well-reasoned and soundly justified order."
The internet, he said, "has functioned without net neutrality rules for far longer than it has with them." The decision "will not break the internet."
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, has been investigating what appears to be large numbers of fake public comments submitted to the FCC during the net neutrality comment period. He said 2 million comments were submitted under stolen identities, including those of children and dead people.
Here's a look at what the developments mean for consumers and companies.
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the principle that internet providers treat all web traffic equally, and it's pretty much how the internet has worked since its creation. But regulators, consumer advocates and internet companies were concerned about what broadband companies could do with their power as the pathway to the internet -- blocking or slowing down apps that rival their own services, for example.
What did the government do about it?
The FCC in 2015 approved rules, on a party-line vote, that made sure cable and phone companies don't manipulate traffic. With them in place, a provider such as Comcast can't charge Netflix for a faster path to its customers, or block it or slow it down.
The net neutrality rules gave the FCC power to go after companies for business practices that weren't explicitly banned as well. For example, the Obama FCC said that "zero rating" practices by AT&T violated net neutrality. The telecom giant exempted its own video app from cellphone data caps, which would save some consumers money, and said video rivals could pay for the same treatment. Under current chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC spiked the effort to go after AT&T, even before it began rolling out a plan to undo the net neutrality rules entirely.
A federal appeals court upheld the rules in 2016 after broadband providers sued.
What the big telecoms want
Big telecom companies hate the stricter regulation that comes with the net neutrality rules and have fought them fiercely in court. They say the regulations can undermine investment in broadband and introduced uncertainty about what were acceptable business practices. There were concerns about potential price regulation, even though the FCC had said it won't set prices for consumer internet service.
What Silicon Valley wants
Internet companies such as Google have strongly backed net neutrality, but many tech firms have been more muted in their activism this year. Netflix, which had been vocal in support of the rules in 2015, said in January that weaker net neutrality wouldn't hurt it because it's now too popular with users for broadband providers to interfere.
What happens next
The vote for net neutrality in 2015 was also along party lines, but Democrats dominated then.
In the long run, net-neutrality advocates say undoing these rules makes it harder for the government to crack down on internet providers who act against consumer interests and will harm innovation. Those who criticize the rules say undoing them is good for investment in broadband networks.
But advocates aren't sitting still. Some groups plan lawsuits to challenge the FCC's move, and Democrats -- energized by public protests in support of net neutrality -- think it might be a winning political issue for them in 2018 congressional elections."
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/...utrality-rules
The big providers can change things (price, speed) without any notice except for in the terms of service.
That few people read.
- the_real_Barleycorn
- 12-17-2017, 10:55 AM
Keeping it short...what does it serve a company to raise the price when someone else will lower their price and steal their market share? A shrinking market share...great way to lose your business. Kind of like T.G.&Y, K-Mart, and Gimbels. Someone will come along with new idea and beat Wal-Mart. Your words betray you though. You care more about protecting Wal-Mart, Amazon, and eBay than allowing room for a hungry upstart.
- Guest123018-4
- 12-17-2017, 11:10 AM
You mean so the government can decide who has what access and at what speeds?
So the government can decide what content is restricted and what is allowed?
Why do so many people want Fascism in our nation where everything is controlled and regulated by the government. Like having the government involved is always a good thing?
Look how they fucked up with forcing lenders to make loans to people that had no capability to pay them back.
Why is it that the leftists have this unending need for the government to tell them how everything should be?
I suppose it is like having to have a shepherd for the sheep.
So the government can decide what content is restricted and what is allowed?
Why do so many people want Fascism in our nation where everything is controlled and regulated by the government. Like having the government involved is always a good thing?
Look how they fucked up with forcing lenders to make loans to people that had no capability to pay them back.
Why is it that the leftists have this unending need for the government to tell them how everything should be?
I suppose it is like having to have a shepherd for the sheep.
- Budman
- 12-17-2017, 11:45 AM
What don’t you understand ? Think about it, when the age of the internet began it could be compared to the beginning of civilization as we know it in the cities we live in. Towns were built, mom and pop stores opened, the down town areas thrived in every small town across America because everyone had equal opportunity to start a business in the town they lived in. Fast forward, Walmart’s moved into every town across America, one family now made it impossible for smaller stores to survive or compete with Walmart because Walmart has such buying power with suppliers of goods, they effectively built a monopoly. This led to the demise of our towns and was great for Walmart but sucked for everyone else, they put a lot of people out of business.I knew what you were trying to say but for a professor surely you can do better than that. So your solution is companies should not be allowed to grow and expand and negotiate better deals than the competition unless the government says it's OK. Has Wally World put companies out of business. Sure. Have they given opportunities to others to startup or expand their businesses? Damn right.
Net neutrality was meant to stop any one giant company from having so much power and influence over internet content that it would effectively ruin the internet for anyone other than those in control. Just like Walmart did in towns across America. Without net neutrality what we see or can do and any opportunity on the internet for young entrepreneurs will disappear. It is very sad to see the internet ruined by Republican greed and special interest. Originally Posted by StandinStraight
- bamscram
- 12-17-2017, 11:50 AM
Trump's FCC overturned rules put into place by Obama and returned the internet to those days that made Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google what they are. For a the fear mongering on the left Trump just returned the status quo. Now those huge, left wing companies have lost their protection from new upstarts.If you loved AOL, you will love the new internet.
Damned auto correct, INTERNET freedom again. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn
- dilbert firestorm
- 12-17-2017, 12:04 PM
there was a similar debate on MSNBC. host got owned by the former FCC chairman!!! lol!
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...-fcc-chairman/
MSNBC Host Loses It as He Gets Schooled During Net Neutrality Debate with Former FCC Chairman
Posted at 12:30 pm on December 15, 2017 by Brandon Morse
The panic that has surrounded the rightful death of Net Neutrality has been a fascinating one to watch, but like most mob driven panic attacks, there’s little or nothing to fear.
That’s exactly what former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell kept trying to tell MSNBC’s Ali Velshi during his segment. McDowell kept attempting to educate Velshi on the fact that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 wasn’t even around till February 2015.
This didn’t phase Velshi, who claimed that Net Neutrality’s repeal would freeze startups out of the internet game. McDowell dismissed the idea, quoting laws that have been on the books for a while that make that an impossibility.
“So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act,” McDowell said. “Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015.”
McDowell continued by pointing out that Net Neutrality slowed growth, and actually made it harder for startups to improve the internet with new technologies.
“What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent,” he continued. “We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I’ve spoken with says…the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.”
Clearly seeing he was on the losing end of the argument, Velshi switched gears and brought up a scenario where Facebook essentially purchases preferential treatment from internet service providers, making the speeds of other companies slower unless they can pay. According to Velshi, this would essentially shut down smaller companies who won’t have the power of Facebook.
But McDowell killed that idea immediately by once again going to the lawbooks.
“Section I and Section II of Sherman Act and Section III of Clayton Act…you just triggered all three of those sections,” McDowell smoothly responded. “That would be an anti-trust violation…that was against the law before February 2015 and it will be against the laws of today.”
McDowell added that Title II actually helped the bigger corporations keep their thumbs on the smaller startups.
Velshi did not appreciate being on the losing end of the mob’s talking points, and chastised McDowell for using laws and facts to argue his point instead of feelings and scenarios.
“Look, I just feel like we’re having a really unfair conversation here, I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences,” Velshi whined. “And you’re dropping a lot of legal-ese.”
“The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali,” McDowell corrected. “That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws.”
“I’m very familiar with net neutrality,” Velshi snapped. “I’m really not that familiar with being condescended to.”
Velshi kept trying to make a “broader” argument about scenarios and principles, which McDowell continued to shut down with facts, laws, and historical patterns. This just further frustrated the already nettled MSNBC host.
“You’ve come to this show ready for an argument that I’m not giving you!” Velshi snapped.
“Okay so you’re talking about consumers and entrepreneurs and discrimination of your own products, like a Comcast provider?” said McDowell repeating Velshi’s argument back to him.
“That’s NOT what I’m talking about!” snapped Velshi…even though that’s exactly what he was talking about. “I’m saying that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet…because they got the money to buy better…access, then the incumbent is favored over the startup, that’s the only point I wanted to make!”
“And that would be illegal, that’s the point I’m making,” McDowell responded. “It has been a for a long time and will be going forward, so it’s good news.”
“Sorry it’s good news,” said McDowell of the repeal of Net Neutrality.
Somewhere, McDowell heard the words “FINISH HIM!”
“I know it’s good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed and it’s not,” said McDowell with a conversation ending blow.
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...-fcc-chairman/
MSNBC Host Loses It as He Gets Schooled During Net Neutrality Debate with Former FCC Chairman
Posted at 12:30 pm on December 15, 2017 by Brandon Morse
The panic that has surrounded the rightful death of Net Neutrality has been a fascinating one to watch, but like most mob driven panic attacks, there’s little or nothing to fear.
That’s exactly what former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell kept trying to tell MSNBC’s Ali Velshi during his segment. McDowell kept attempting to educate Velshi on the fact that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 wasn’t even around till February 2015.
This didn’t phase Velshi, who claimed that Net Neutrality’s repeal would freeze startups out of the internet game. McDowell dismissed the idea, quoting laws that have been on the books for a while that make that an impossibility.
“So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act,” McDowell said. “Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015.”
McDowell continued by pointing out that Net Neutrality slowed growth, and actually made it harder for startups to improve the internet with new technologies.
“What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent,” he continued. “We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I’ve spoken with says…the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.”
Clearly seeing he was on the losing end of the argument, Velshi switched gears and brought up a scenario where Facebook essentially purchases preferential treatment from internet service providers, making the speeds of other companies slower unless they can pay. According to Velshi, this would essentially shut down smaller companies who won’t have the power of Facebook.
But McDowell killed that idea immediately by once again going to the lawbooks.
“Section I and Section II of Sherman Act and Section III of Clayton Act…you just triggered all three of those sections,” McDowell smoothly responded. “That would be an anti-trust violation…that was against the law before February 2015 and it will be against the laws of today.”
McDowell added that Title II actually helped the bigger corporations keep their thumbs on the smaller startups.
Velshi did not appreciate being on the losing end of the mob’s talking points, and chastised McDowell for using laws and facts to argue his point instead of feelings and scenarios.
“Look, I just feel like we’re having a really unfair conversation here, I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences,” Velshi whined. “And you’re dropping a lot of legal-ese.”
“The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali,” McDowell corrected. “That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws.”
“I’m very familiar with net neutrality,” Velshi snapped. “I’m really not that familiar with being condescended to.”
Velshi kept trying to make a “broader” argument about scenarios and principles, which McDowell continued to shut down with facts, laws, and historical patterns. This just further frustrated the already nettled MSNBC host.
“You’ve come to this show ready for an argument that I’m not giving you!” Velshi snapped.
“Okay so you’re talking about consumers and entrepreneurs and discrimination of your own products, like a Comcast provider?” said McDowell repeating Velshi’s argument back to him.
“That’s NOT what I’m talking about!” snapped Velshi…even though that’s exactly what he was talking about. “I’m saying that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet…because they got the money to buy better…access, then the incumbent is favored over the startup, that’s the only point I wanted to make!”
“And that would be illegal, that’s the point I’m making,” McDowell responded. “It has been a for a long time and will be going forward, so it’s good news.”
“Sorry it’s good news,” said McDowell of the repeal of Net Neutrality.
Somewhere, McDowell heard the words “FINISH HIM!”
“I know it’s good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed and it’s not,” said McDowell with a conversation ending blow.
- Yssup Rider
- 12-17-2017, 10:24 PM
Many of you assholes will be SOL and you'll go cheering all the way down.
Unbelieveable.
Unbelieveable.
- dilbert firestorm
- 12-18-2017, 12:10 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 12-18-2017, 08:56 AM