FCC votes to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections.

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Marney

If your confidence in a government agency depends on who is running the executive branch, that agency has too much power, not enough oversight, or both.

the whole point of any agency is to have sufficient power over something to make a difference. The problem is the incompetent idiots this administration is nominating to run them that makes me not have confidence in them.

They are pretty much always unqualified and opposed to what they are in charge of. Neither of which is a good thing under any adminstration, others never picked such candidates - and for a reason.

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Chthon

Well best case scenario Internet goes back to pre-NN era (2015 was it?) and everyone continues to live happily

I don’t think there ever was a pre-NN era. Sure, it was only made the law recently, but ISPs never did not adhere to NN rules, law or no law.

Now they lobbied hard to have it removed, so I doubt they stick to NN once they are no longer required.

[Chthon]

Originally Posted by mamba

the whole point of any agency is to have sufficient power over something to make a difference. The problem is the incompetent idiots this administration is nominating to run them that makes me not have confidence in them.

Not from the U.S but in my experience pretty much every administration has nincompoops at the helm. The only thing I notice is some are less incompetent than the rest

Originally Posted by mamba

I don’t think there ever was a pre-NN era. Sure, it was only made the law recently, but ISPs never did not adhere to NN rules, law or no law.

Now they lobbied hard to have it removed, so I doubt they stick to NN once they are no longer required.

I am not from the U.S but have there been incidents of ISPs being dicks before NN laws were passed? I feel like they didn't realize it back then what they could and couldn't do and after the laws got passed they were all like "Oh crap"

[Autentist]

Originally Posted by Chthon

If Congress passes the bill then other countries will soon follow the U.S.A

We will not. In fact, in 2016, our government reinforced net neutrality in the country.

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Chthon

Not from the U.S but in my experience pretty much every administration has nincompoops at the helm. The only thing I notice is some are less incompetent than the rest

agreed, many times the guys in charge are not stellar, but the level of incompetency has reach a new high (or low ?). They are about an order of magnitude worse than what we are used to... nominating chief scientist with no science background, judges that have no idea of the basics of law and procedures, rich donors that are opposed to what they are put in charge of...

I guess ‘incompetent idiot’ pretty much sums up 98% of the current administration and their nominees.

[Marney]

Originally Posted by mamba

They are pretty much always unqualified and opposed to what they are in charge of.

No, they're opposed to your perspective on the issues their agency is supposed to address, which is why you think they're unqualified. And one day, when you're satisfied with a future president's appointments, half the country won't be.

If Congresscritters didn't devolve all their power to unaccountable bureaucrats because they prefer safe reelections to making hard choices, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

[Tycho]

Originally Posted by Ceno

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but either Brent Skorup and Brendan Carr are legally ignorant or they're politically corrupt (more likely), as they seem to be showing off that info (which is true) without explaining the legal repercussions that would follow from becoming not-an-ISP.

First off
https://archive.is/0G7sI

Originally Posted by Ceno

As to your complaints, you're complaining about a symptom of non-Net Neutrality. The US hasn't had Net Neutrality since around 2003. The Obama-era regulations were a victory in an uphill battle, not a close to the war. You should give this a read; I imagine you'll wind up agreeing with much in here: http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...fcc-2017-4/#-1

Second: decent article, valid points made. I'm still not mourning the loss of Title II because it solved exactly none of the problems I deal with and never would deal with them, and people never looked into it any deeper than the shiny "Net Neutrality" giftwrap. If they had they might have noticed the box was effectively empty. I find this is a common thing with much legislation from recent years. People take crappy compromises and think they've won something wonderful from the political establishment and from corporations with lobbyists and legal departments (see the sausage that was the ACA as an example). I don't agree that Title II was a step of any sort, because if it is a step it's a step that leads smack into a wall. Its removal gives us the chance, however remote, to put in something with actual teeth instead of the harmless placeholder that Title II proved to be.

In regards to my distrust of the FCC: The FCC has presided over the agglomeration of nine-tenths of all the media we take in via television, radio and so on under an effective oligopoly of six megacorporations that effectively control what you read, watch and hear. This tells me that the FCC gives not the slightest fuck at worst, and is largely toothless at best (or possibly extra-worst, depending on how you view that). The FCC, for example, did not seem to give a fuck that Clear Channel completely fucking dominated every form of non-Internet mass media in the state where I went to college. As far as I'm concerned the FCC is a failure and was so before Pai came along.

[Marney]

Originally Posted by Tycho

People take crappy compromises and think they've won something wonderful from the political establishment and from corporations with lobbyists and legal departments

Because nowadays we don't have laws so much as we have branded products. What matters is the cutesy acronym and who's pushing it, not what's in the box.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Avyctes]

Originally Posted by Chthon

If Congress passes the bill then other countries will soon follow the U.S.A

Unlikely. It's law here, and might eventually be law EU-wide (given their glacial speed, might be a few years).

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Marney

No, they're opposed to your perspective on the issues their agency is supposed to address

no, they are unqualified, there is a difference between the two. You can be qualified but have a differing opinion, at least to a degree, and there is such a thing as unqualified (denying climate change is being unqualified for running the Environmental Protection Agency, not having a science degree but being the nominee for chief scientist is unqualified). They are the latter.

Listen to this video and tell me the guy is qualified.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/15/politi...lub/index.html

And one day, when you're satisfied with a future president's appointments, half the country won't be.

yes, the delusional third