- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ajit Pai explains net neutrality decision. Mandatory viewer for the misled NN supporters.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:29 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:29 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Here's your grain of salt. He was in-house counsel for Verizon.[quote]
[quote]
Oh. But's rock solid proof!! Reddit said so!
So let's repeat it 1000 times.
The next original thought these fools have will be their first.
I was just trying to give those on this site who might want to look at all perspectives of an issue (not you, of course) some perspective.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 3:32 pm
0
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:30 pm to slackster
quote:
The repeal of net neutrality is a good thing for any major internet company. It's awful for consumers and those who ever had a dream to create a major internet company.
You can always piggyback your online business through Amazon.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:30 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
You realize Title 2 is one of the worst things to happen if we are wanting new internet companies to get into the market, right?
I understand Title 2 makes it difficult for wired providers to get into the market, yes.
I also understand that is a small price to pay for net neutrality, which has far greater reaching impacts.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:31 pm to Parmen
Its really frightening how they've brainwashed all these millenials into thinking Obama's commie internet scheme is something they can't live without all because it has a nice sounding name.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:37 pm to CAD703X
Pretty sure that was the first time I posted anything remotely like that.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:38 pm to slackster
quote:
I also understand that is a small price to pay for net neutrality, which has far greater reaching impacts.
Except, we don't have to pay that price.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:41 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
StraightCashHomey21
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:44 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Except, we don't have to pay that price.
Except, we do, and we will, and we have already. If you think this repeal opens up the door for competition, you're asinine.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:45 pm to slackster
quote:
Except, we do
No. We don't. A method was proposed in 2014 that avoided Title 2.
quote:
If you think this repeal opens up the door for competition, you're asinine.
If you think the repealed order did either, you're just as asinine.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:52 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
No. We don't. A method was proposed in 2014 that avoided Title 2.
Point me in the direction of net neutrality without the Title 2 designation. I'd like to read about it.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:54 pm to slackster
house republicans proposed it in 2014. I'm on mobile so I'm not going to go searching for it.
Basically it made it a federal law that ISPs couldn't do the things everyone wants to make sure they don't do. It gave the FCC the authority to enforce those laws. It explicitly said however that they don't have the power to regulate the internet.
Dems shot it down because they wanted that title 2.
Basically it made it a federal law that ISPs couldn't do the things everyone wants to make sure they don't do. It gave the FCC the authority to enforce those laws. It explicitly said however that they don't have the power to regulate the internet.
Dems shot it down because they wanted that title 2.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:55 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Basically it made it a federal law that ISPs couldn't do the things everyone wants to make sure they don't do. It gave the FCC the authority to enforce those laws. It explicitly said however that they don't have the power to regulate the internet. Dems shot it down because they wanted that title 2.
If there is a way to get neutrality without Title 2, I'm for it.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:59 pm to slackster
quote:
If there is a way to get neutrality without Title 2, I'm for it.
There is. The FCC tried to do it in 2010 but USSC truck it down because they didn't have congressional authority to enforce such rules. So, using that framework, the 2014 proposal was made, with the authority granted to the FCC.
However, the government wants that title 2 control, for obvious reasons, so it was shot down. I'm not saying it will be easy to pass something like that, but if the people are aware of it, we can get it passed. There is enough passion behind this issue, and a solution that all parties (minus the authoritarians) would be happy, that it can be done.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News