The pics thread

[rms]

this Moore thing is honestly ridiculous

 

[Master_Yoda77]

It's fucking great. God bless the USA.

 

[CiG]

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

 

[CiG]

 

[isberg]

 

[CiG]

 

[Nate Skalman]

When push comes to shove...?

 

[isberg]

 

[Nate Skalman]

 

[CiG]

 

[The Ozzman]

Literally everyone crying over NN repeal

 

[Vegard Pompey]

People are right to be upset about it. I don't care what your political views are, if you think the repeal of net neutrality is a good thing you don't understand what it means.

 

[The Ozzman]

People are right to be upset about it. I don't care what your political views are, if you think the repeal of net neutrality is a good thing you don't understand what it means.

I may not understand what it means (maybe you can educate me instead of being a dismissive fuckshovel?), but I understand basic supply, demand and economics to know the internet will not end because of this.

Why is a repeal bad? No one has been able to give me a good answer of how this is a detriment to everyone. Seems like free market forces will take over now even though nothing was broken back when this was put into effect 2 years ago.

All I hear is 'muh additional cost for Facebook', 'muh tiered service fees', 'muh torrenting illegal tentacle porn on the dark web' with no explicit facts behind why it's bad. I hear conjecture and emotions.

 

[rms]

you say free market forces like the internet is a vast free market like bread at your supermarket. there are two major companies, Spectrum and Comcast. That's not a free market, dude. We are slaves to those who give us, what I would call, a vital service

It isn't inherently bad to repeal the 2015 thing, but it allows ISPs to charge companies which then charges consumers more. It's fascinating to watch the government grapple with regulation over what I would call the only thing in my lifetime to go from rampant anarchism to the ebb and flow of correct control

 

[Vegard Pompey]

1) There is no 'free market' with regards to internet in the US. ISPs effectively have monopolies over large areas of the US. Also look at how ISPs in the US have done everything in their power to stall the expansion of Google Fiber.

2) What do you mean when you say this was put into effect 2 years ago? If you're subscribed to the belief that net neutrality is something that has only been in effect since 2015, you are wrong.

 

[The Ozzman]

2) What do you mean when you say this was put into effect 2 years ago? If you're subscribed to the belief that net neutrality is something that has only been in effect since 2015, you are wrong.

Please educate me, senpai. Was the internet markedly different before 2015? What makes the 'Net Neutrality' rules in 2015 different from before it was termed 'Net Neutrality'? Is the legislation rolled back any different from before it went into place? Help me understand because I genuinely want to understand the ramifications of this.

Please help me understand how removing regulations that help to cause monopolies will create more monopolies. Please tell me how consumers will be hurt by this.

The results have been bad for consumers. The first negative consumer impact is less
infrastructure investment. The top complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their ISP is doing things like blocking content; it’s that they don’t have enough access and competition. Ironically, Title II has made that concern even worse by reducing investment in building and maintaining high-speed networks. In the two years of the Title II era, broadband network investment declined by $3.6 billion—or more than 5%. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era.

When there’s less investment, that means fewer next-generation networks are built. That means fewer jobs for Americans building those networks. And that means more Americans are left on the wrong side on the digital divide.

The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. I have personally visited some of them, from Spencer Municipal Utilities in Spencer, Iowa to Wave Wireless in Parsons, Kansas. So it’s no surprise that the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”

That’s what makes Title II regulations so misplaced. However well intentioned, they’re hurting the very small providers and new entrants that are best positioned to bring additional competition into the marketplace. As I warned before the FCC went down this road in 2015, a regulatory structure designed for a monopoly will inevitably move the market in the direction of a monopoly.

Turning away from investment, the second negative consumer impact from the FCC’s heavy-handed regulations has been less innovation. We shifted from a wildly successful framework of permission-less innovation to a mother-may-I approach that has had a chilling effect. One major company, for instance, reported that it put on hold a project to build out its out-of-home Wi-Fi network due to uncertainty about the FCC’s regulatory stance.

A coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers —that is, city-owned nonprofits— have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.” Ask yourself: How is this good for consumers?

Much of the problem stems from the vague Internet conduct standard that the Commission adopted in 2015—a standard that I’m proposing to repeal. Under this standard, the FCC didn’t say specifically what conduct was prohibited. Instead, it gave itself a roving mandate to second-guess new service offerings, new features, and new business models. Understandably, businesses asked for clarity on how this standard would be applied. My predecessor’s answer, and I quote: “We don’t know, we’ll have to see where things go.” That’s the very definition of regulatory uncertainty.

Hmm, SOUNDS MONOPOLISTIC BUT OKAY

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Didn't feel like mentioning that your source is Chairman Pai himself? I guess you figured I wouldn't trust his words very far. You'd be right. The only actual statistic he cites to support his claim that this has been bad for consumers, is that broadband network investment has declined, which is naturally going to happen as coverage increases.

As for the Net Neutrality rules passed in 2015; my understanding is that it went something like this; when the internet was emerging, it was implicitly assumed that ISPs were subject to common carrier rules. Since this was before video streaming became a big thing, there weren't vast differences in bandwidth usage. It wasn't until much later (I believe this was in part in response to rumors that ISPs had already started throttling certain kinds of internet usage) that the net neutrality conversation began in earnest. The FCC released a proposal to explicitly allow fast and slow lanes and it was met with universal criticism. So instead they passed a law to protect internet services under Title II. The takeaway being this; the reason the internet worked before 2015 was because net neutrality was implicit and ISPs weren't actively trying to subvert it.

Some reading

 

[The Ozzman]

Didn't feel like mentioning that your source is Chairman Pai himself? I

It's not but the moment I posted the site you wouldn't have given any of it credence anyway. Thanks for at least posting something that gives me an understanding of what is at stake. I still don't believe anything material will happen and if it does then Congress will inevitably intervene and set it back to how it was.

 

[Vilden]

Swedish epiphany singers from late 19th century. The weird monsterish guy is supposed to be Judas Iscariot (with a bag of money) . Kind of creepy tbh.