22 State Attorneys General are taking the FCC to court, Net Neutrality repeal was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of administrative procedure"

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Not going to have an effect eventually but , you know the drill, strap in for the drama.

In a society whose goals are democratic freedom, the process is just as important as the outcome.  For if either one is not adequate, then the system needs changing.

[Jito463]

16 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you should be for or against NN on it's merits, not because of government.

Except that once government gets their hooks into anything, they never let it go.  And history teaches that when goobermint is involved, things are always more complicated and costly than they need to be.  It's a valid concern.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except that once government gets their hooks into anything, they never let it go.  And history teaches that when goobermint is involved, things are always more complicated and costly than they need to be.  It's a valid concern.

Not sure what history books you have been reading but  I can sight many cases where this is not true:

 

1. the sewer systems and rail networks in the UK/US during the 19th century

2. responses to monopolies and antitrust laws for corporations

3. CASA, ICAO, FAA etc

4. Consumer law in many countries (maybe not the US though)

5. ADR (design rules for motor vehicles to ensure safety on the road).

6. I am sure there are lots more but these are just of the top of my head.

 

 

 

 

[TheCherryKing]

Ho ho ho! Net neutrality must and will go! These people are a bunch of drama queens wasting their time!

[Jito463]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not sure what history books you have been reading but  I can sight many cases where this is not true:

Ignoring that I don't necessarily accept your bullet points as fact, I can cite many more cases where it is true.  However, we could go around and around on this all day spouting examples at each other, and likely never convince the other who is right or wrong.

[Nena Trinity]

The FCC ruin everything cool in the USA, they are trying to ban the best phones in the world so no one in the USA can have them. Probably because the NSA/CIA/FBI does not have a back-door for it, also they ruin the net-neutrality ain't funny!

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Ignoring that I don't necessarily accept your bullet points as fact, I can cite many more cases where it is true.  However, we could go around and around on this all day spouting examples at each other, and likely never convince the other who is right or wrong.

Except you made an absolute statement that " when goobermint is involved, things are always more complicated and costly than they need to be"  which is not true.  Sure there are times when the government involves itself and makes things worse. But that is not always the case and there are many things we take for granted today that are only a thing because of government regulation.   

 

I understand why many US citizen want the government to get out and die already,  I would too if my government was as messed up as yours.  But at the end of the day that the issue that needs to be fixed is government (not a debate about regulation).  Removing a broken part (government)  just means the whole thing won't work.  You have to replace the broken part with a working one if you want the whole system to function as best it can.  

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I would too if my government was as messed up as yours

It's not even about government being messed up or not.  The US was founded upon a healthy distrust of massive, far-off officials trying to control the lives of the average citizen.  That's why originally the federal government was very limited in its scope and capabilities.  The bulk of the power is meant to reside with the states and the people.  Unfortunately, we've allowed the monster to grow and consume way more power than it should have.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's not even about government being messed up or not.  The US was founded upon a healthy distrust of massive, far-off officials trying to control the lives of the average citizen.  That's why originally the federal government was very limited in its scope and capabilities.  The bulk of the power is meant to reside with the states and the people.  Unfortunately, we've allowed the monster to grow and consume way more power than it should have.

 

So you don't consider the government getting out of control with power messed up? but you do consider it a problem?   I fail to see the difference.  Either the government is a problem or it isn't.  Things like regulation are good for a country when the regulating authority is genuinely unbiased.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, Jito463 said:

It's not even about government being messed up or not.  The US was founded upon a healthy distrust of massive, far-off officials trying to control the lives of the average citizen.  That's why originally the federal government was very limited in its scope and capabilities.  The bulk of the power is meant to reside with the states and the people.  Unfortunately, we've allowed the monster to grow and consume way more power than it should have.

And back when it was formed the situations and requirements were totally different, how something was formed can have little bearing hundreds of years later. Much less federal control is required when it takes literal day(s) for citizens to travel between towns and cities let alone across states, now you can fly across the entire country if you wish in hours and then fly back.

 

Some things are just not within the purview of the state, internet and telecommunications is one of those. There are actually many other regulations that applies to the internet that isn't even in this current round of discussions and have been in place for years, some since the beginning of the internet. Activities and information that are regulated that utilizes the internet is still regulated and has an effect on it, the use of the internet doesn't make something that is regulated unregulated i.e. Banking, personal information (which encompasses a huge amount of things) etc all have regulations that effect the usage of the internet.

 

That line of discussion is probably getting a bit to far in to politics but I did want to point out that this does fall under the federal government to control and to apply any regulations they see as necessary following due procedures to that end. To me the no regulation line is a dead end because that has never been a thing and never will be a thing and ignores situations where regulation may be required, and that regulations can be amended or repealed when/if no longer needed. I have seen evidence presented for why the current regulation was required but I have seen little evidence to show why it is not, the stance of I prefer less regulation is not evidence or things were fine 10-15 years ago isn't either.

 

Mind you I would like to point out I have very little interest in the current forms of regulations being talked about, none of the discussions cover any of the issues that will fix the core issues within the US around internet access. Cable TV, last mile open access to any ISP, internet exchange access and policies are the areas that need looking at, fix those and everything else will just naturally fall in to line.

[Jito463]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

To me the no regulation line is a dead end

To be accurate, I never said 'no regulations', what I said was:

16 hours ago, Jito463 said:

My issue all along has been with allowing a small group of unelected officials to control all regulations on the internet

Key word being 'unelected'.

[AlTech]

Apparently only 1 more senator is needed to undo the Repeal.

[TheCherryKing]

Only one more senator is needed but that is unlikely to happen. Hopefully it won't happen.