FCC chair: Net neutrality supporters 'proven wrong' day after repeal
Speaking on "Fox and Friends," Pai said Friday that net neutrality supporters such as ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel were wrong to grandstand about the end of "the internet as we know it."
"He's getting everything wrong about it," Pai said of Kimmel. "The free and open internet we had prior to 2015 is the one we're going to have going forward. And that kind of name-calling and hysteria is disappointing, but it's not surprising."
Pai went on to say that Kimmel and others were "proven wrong" by the fact that internet service providers (ISP) had not rolled out immediate changes Friday morning.
"Those who have said the internet as we know it is about to end have been proven wrong starting this morning," Pai said, "as people send emails, check on their Twitter accounts, post on Facebook, and the like."
"We have a free and open internet going forward," he added, "and the FCC and the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] going forward are going to make sure that happens."
The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday to repeal net neutrality rules passed under President Obama's administration in 2015. The repeal was supported by Republicans but opposed by Democrats.
edited 15th Dec '17 12:22:01 PM by megaeliz
I think Ajit is the real life example of a Smug Snake
And a troll.
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
Give him a mustache and he'll be a Dastardly Whiplash!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
x5 Nothing has changed because it hasn't gone into effect yet, and won't for a long time as they still have to deal with the lawsuits, courts and Congress. Also, the article is wrong in saying Republicans supported the repeal, because 83% of Americans and around 75% of Republicans opposed it.
edited 15th Dec '17 1:50:14 PM by Wariolander
Call me Stick
You beat me to it, Pai is trying to trick people on that as usual.
x5 At this point, yes. Which is why I find him to be more hateable than anyone else in the current administration. Not necessarily the worst or even most dangerous, but easily the most hateable.
This is exactly the sort of argument I could see Trump making if/when he leaves office and he hasn't started a nuclear war:
"See? The world didn't end with me as president. You all are a bunch of worrywarts who didn't GIVE ME A CHANCE!"
edited 15th Dec '17 3:12:50 PM by speedyboris
Call me Stick
Senate Democrats Want To Force A Vote To Overturn The FCC’s Net Neutrality Repeal.
Well that's something.
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
Best of luck, Senate Dems!
It's one thing to make a spectacle. It's another to make a difference.
Interesting, force the issue before the midterms so if the Republicans vote it down (which they probably will) it can be used against them once the midterms start.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Steven Colbert on Net Neutrality:
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Democrats want to have this Net Neutrality issue brought before the Senate, and then have senators vote on whether to keep or get rid of Net Neutrality. Right? If this does go to the Senate, what are the odds of a favourable outcome?
Call me Stick
Normally I don't approve of copyright fuckery, but in this case...
edited 15th Dec '17 4:21:37 PM by TroperOnAStickV2
Hopefully I'll feel confident to change my avatar off this scumbag soon. Apologies to any scumbags I insulted.
He might have fallen foul of a cease and desist? The irony! Poor, smug lamb; he really does set himself up for Captain Planet villain comparisons...
Oh, dear me. Do Wrong, Right, mate: open source it!
Call me Stick
Shut up, don't give him advice.
Figure of Hourai
If the vote is left until January and enough states with R senators are launching appeals against it—possible? More than possible if this is another one of those situations that only needs a bare majority.
Avatar Source
The Best Worst Psychonaut
According to Reddit, Wave Broadband, an ISP that operates on the West Coast, has committed itself to retaining Net Neutrality despite the repeal. This got me thinking... is there a map or somesuch that indicates the areas of the country that ISPs operate in? Since I checked and Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, the ones everyone brings up, were far from the only ISPs in the USA (although there were still few enough to make it credible that a lot of them are regional monopolies).
I ask because I think it's possible that other, more localised ISPs might do the same thing - and use the fact that they're retaining NN as a sales point. They may be localised, but the fact that they exist at all would, I suspect, encourage businesses (particularly richer businesses that can afford to travel) to flock to areas where they operate, depriving the bigger ISPs that throttle or block connections of sales; and the added demand and profits may make these smaller ISPs more competitive on a larger scale. It's a long-shot, to be sure, but worth thinking about, I'd say.
I may as well also say that I personally doubt that even the big ISPs will be able to get away with anything too flagrant. IIRC, if you have a monopoly, the best way to take advantage of it is to just hike up all the prices a little higher than they would be otherwise; raising them through the roof and blocking/throttling connections to a snail's pace would just mean that poorer customers who don't really need the Internet regularly will just go without, and people who do need it will just find ways to circumvent it somehow; up to and including stealing it, if it's possible to steal an Internet connection.
edited 15th Dec '17 5:01:32 PM by PresidentStalkeyes
"If you think like a child, you will do a child's work."
Professional Forum Ninja
Best I found. It also tells you how many IS Ps there are on average for an certain area.
Can't the gaming industry go back to the model for Gens 3 through 6 to adjust to the Net Neutrality repeal, where they focused primarily on single-player games and typically made games as complete and polished as possible as there were no patches or DLC back then, or has the industry become too Westernized, expensive and online-reliant (Outside of Nintendo) for that era's style to work anymore?
Nope, online gaming and its components like loot boxes are too integrated in the industry to suddenly cut off now.
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
It's completely ridiculous to expect companies to start making changes to the videogame industry as a whole just because they're unsure if net neutrality will affect them. You might have liked gaming in the past better but the newer model is here to stay because profit. Don't get your hopes up.
edited 16th Dec '17 4:30:25 AM by Grafite
Life is unfair...
There's no putting that genie back in the bottle.
I understand the sentiment, the feeling of getting nickle-and-dimed for content that should've been included from the start, the desire to just have a complete product in your hands. But the longer story of current game development is a topic for another thread.
However, cutting all online support in response to the elimination of Net Neutrality (from my perspective: the way it can fuck over online access for people) would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You reminisce about gens 3-6, but plenty of those games, even classics, are buggy as shit and virtually had no option to do anything about it.
My internet is fucking garbage as it is, and I'm not looking forward to what the price landscape is going to look like in the future, but the ability for developers to be able support their games (and their players) is not something that should go away.
Hey, does that mean I can start vandalizing articles here, too? I mean, seeing as that's comedy gold.
Grow up.
Your momma's so dumb she thinks oral sex means talking dirty.