| |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe the fact that Trump's DOJ started this lawsuit, backed by the Republican Attorneys General for 11 states that Trump won this year? What exactly is driving you to think that he'd abort a mission that he and his allies started? | | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well the other posters answered, but in a nutshell because his record on consistency is non-existent. Tax Reform, Immigration, Syria, TikTok, most of his original cabinet picks, he wanted to hang his vice president, Wikileaks and government leaks in general, the list goes on, his positions are about as fluid as any person I know. | |
| ▲ | throw16180339 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everything else is for sale in his administration, so I don't see why this wouldn't be. | |
| ▲ | rurp 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well he started the drive to ban TikTok, but did a 180 after a single meeting with a billionaire who owns part of it. I have no idea what Trump's DOJ will do with this case; I doubt he knows or cares about the case himself. I won't be surprised either way they go with it. | |
| ▲ | decremental 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | anonandy42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I had to create an account to ask you this point blank. Why are you acting like taking Net Neutrality rules off the table is a bad thing? Have you read what is in
the Net Neutrality rules? Or are you just regurgitating what the news and your favorite tubers of the time were telling you to do? I read through 100 of the 400 pages, that was enough to make me sick. I was disgusted at the crap in there. A full 2/3rds of the rules I viewed were terrible. Many of those rules clearly existed only to enshrine the largest of players from ever being challenged or having any competition. I'm convinced anybody who speaks in favor of Net Neutrality is ignorant and hasn't bothered to read any of the guidelines contained therein. I can't be convinced that any intelligent free thinking consumer would ever want that drek to exist and am appalled that it has any defenders at all. | | |
| ▲ | justinclift 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I read through 100 of the 400 pages ... Is this the 400 page PDF you're meaning? https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf That's the "Order on Remand" PDF link from this page: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-orde... Which in turn is the "2015: FCC adopts rules..." link on this page: https://www.fcc.gov/net-neutrality --- There's a more recent 512 page thing too, though I'm not real sure where it fits in: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-52A1.pdf | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Net neutrality ensures equal access, protects consumers from conspicuous data caps while no investment is put into infrastructure, prevents ISPs from throttling things they don't like, and increases competition. You didn't actually say what rules are bad, and we'd probably agree "hey this rule in this law is BS" - that's very different than "net neutrality is BS" Feel free to go into detail about why NN is bad for consumers, I think you will find many ardent defenders here. | |
| ▲ | anonandy42 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Go ahead and vote me down for abdicating for your better treatment. You can have true, real net neutrality without keeping competition out of it. But every vote down just tells me you love the colluding Comcast's and AT&T's customer service and prices. I have a small internet company near me. Excellent service, lightning fast internet, a decent price. They have a limited number of available static IP numbers that can be granted to customers, I pay for one because I host a server for my needs, few customers actually need this feature. Under one of the first 20 rules (2015), they would have to provide total and equal service across the board to all customers. Innocent looking on paper, but impossible for the this small company to do realistically. Another rule I recall (9 years ago, may be off a bit on this one) required a method for any government body or customer to call up and view a full summery of data usage at whim by logging into their account. This requires an incredibly costly and unrealistic implementation for a burgeoning company. The point is that, taken alone, these rules seem altruistic and with good intent but when you imagine the requirements of hundreds of them, it is IMPOSSIBLE for new competitors to break into the field. The big boys already collecting your fees monthly can easily afford any thing being arbitrarily required. That company of mine got bought out by the way. One of the big 4 bought them, it was a good 5 years. But we are going back to one choice of ISP in my area again. I fully expect the customers service to go to absolute shit and the cost monthly to slowly begin to rise. | | |
| ▲ | hobs 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't vote you down, but having specific examples of problems with legislation you had is a much stronger argument, and is completely normal. The big boys are already creating a lot of negative competition and you are right that regulatory capture is really bad, more money = more influence in legislation. However, the world of data caps and shitty service abounds very much because of the lack of SOME of these rules, and so the middle ground in my mind isn't destroy it all, it's fixing legislation. Laws often have unintended consequences and trample on minority viewpoints, but while in the "destroy it all" framework we do get to reject some onerous rules, the vast majority of us get bent over a barrel, get more expensive service, and have no choice. |
|
|
|
