Law Upcoming vote on Net Neutrality laws - How many times do we need to strike this shit down?

FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.
Oh, and Comcast is already lobbying.

I'm so sick of this shit, seriously. The FCC is whoring out for Comcast and AT&T instead of ensuring that American citizens have equal access to the internet.
 
So... what do you think you are going to get out of Verizon and Comcast determining which sites you get to go to?

Uh, nothing. I'm for net neutrality. What does the Democratic National Committee get out of Verizon and Comcast not determining which sites I can go to?
 
I'm sure they do.
For decades, they controlled what went on TV, print, and other media. By doing so, they influenced popular trends, what people knew of the world, and even how people thought.

Then along comes this newfangled "Internet" thing where anyone can post anything and everyone can see it.
 
Last edited:
For decades, they controlled what went on TV, print, and other media. By doing so, they influenced popular trends, what people knew of the world, and even how people thought.

Then along comes this newfangled "Internet" thing where anyone can post anything and everyone can see it.
See, you get it! That was the catalyst for a lot of it.

EDIT: In particular, the boundaries that more or less limited what someone wanted to say or do was torn down. You didn't have to attend a special school just to get into a field of communication or other similar subjects just to do what we're doing now, let alone work your way to the top from the very bottom. That was the hurdle that separated pros from amateurs.
 
Last edited:
This thread is making me legitimately angry. Not because of any of you, but because a small handful of corporations have been pushing and pushing to limit freedom and personal rights just so they can make a few more dollars.

Fuck every single person involved in this mess. And fuck the cable industry, I can't wait for it and its shitty practices to curl up and die.
 
So... what do you think you are going to get out of Verizon and Comcast determining which sites you get to go to?
Honestly, this is what depresses me most about this whole thing.

Look, I get it. Businesses are out to make money. That's the whole reason people start businesses in the first place and just because they're successful and become a powerful industry leader shouldn't be a reason alone to vilify them. Businesses = Jobs for people = paychecks = economy. The bigger the business, the bigger impact the rest of the chain has on the economy.

Comcast, Verizon, ATT... I hate them because they are (mostly) shitty at their jobs as an entity, Not because they are megalithic corporations.

But what seriously makes me die inside is the fact that they will be able to determine what I see, read and watch on the internet simply by existing as a service that I pay for.

The internet is the only open and free source of every opinion in the world. I don't give a shit about "Tiers". I give a shit about not being able to access differing opinions because a suit wearing, shitlipped moron in an office decided that "Website XYZ" is offensive and therefore not going to be allowed access through our service.
 
This thread is making me legitimately angry. Not because of any of you, but because a small handful of corporations have been pushing and pushing to limit freedom and personal rights just so they can make a few more dollars.

Fuck every single person involved in this mess. And fuck the cable industry, I can't wait for it and its shitty practices to curl up and die.
We all do, and until that day arrives. All we can do is complain about them and sign online petitions unless someone doxes the homes of the people responsible for these stupid attempts to block the internet.
 
This right here. Assuming in a worst case scenario this BS finally does pass and Internet access in America gets hacked to pieces, would investing in a VPN subscription effectively counter the throttling/blacklisting carried out by service providers?

Or would Comcast & Co be able to see that you're trying to hide your connection through a VPN and block or limit access to said VPN outright?
Code:
$ host -t a facebook.com
facebook.com has address 31.13.71.36
Packets destined for 31.13.71.36 will go fast. Packets headed to any other ip will go slow. Your VPN's IP is not 31.13.71.36. (Just a simple example though. There's more to the situation than this, like facebook having multiple IPs. But yeah, you get the idea.)
Depending on your age, you might remember that there was once a thing known as "Cable decoder boxes". They allowed you to access all the channels on cable without having to pay for a cable box from your service provider.

In the mid 70's when the cable corporations began to rise to power and started renting these cable boxes to access channels that either previously were free over the air or wouldn't be available unless you paid for the rental and service, many MANY people sought out these "Black box" devices as a way to protest against being sold a product that was previously free, or they didn't feel it was their service provider's right to charge extra for in the first place.

How do you think the FCC and Cable Corporations dealt with that?

They made it a criminal act similar to today's filesharing copyright infringement. Anyone caught using one of these devices was hauled into federal court and slapped with crazy amounts of fines.

Considering the precedence set by history in regards to both these cable boxes and more recent filesharing laws, I'm 100% positive that eventually, being caught using a VPN to access premium services you've not paid for through your service provider will become a criminal matter.
That's a dumb comparison. Cable decoder boxes broke encryption. Copyright infringement has always been illegal. The situation with VPNs is substantially different from those two examples. (Well, and VPNs wouldn't prevent throttling in the first place.)
 
That's a dumb comparison. Cable decoder boxes broke encryption. Copyright infringement has always been illegal. The situation with VPNs is substantially different from those two examples. (Well, and VPNs wouldn't prevent throttling in the first place.)

Not really. Are you really suggesting that your ISP is going to be fine with people getting away with not paying for premium services like high bitrate streaming services and filesharing by using a VPN?

Do you think, honestly, that if ISP's slice up access like they've been wanting to do for years, that VPN services to get around this will become incredibly popular and become a target by these corporations as a liability to their profits?
 
The internet is the only open and free source of every opinion in the world. I don't give a shit about "Tiers". I give a shit about not being able to access differing opinions because a suit wearing, shitlipped moron in an office decided that "Website XYZ" is offensive and therefore not going to be allowed access through our service.

Seriously, this is the thing. The money part is the first wave of sucking, the second is that it is going to contribute to the further corporate-ization of the web on the whole. It will stop being a "web." It will end up a corporate-curated... thing. A lot of the internet already is that, really.

I mean, the question we are all asking is, "Who owns the internet?" Is the internet a web of things that a lot of different people own and maintain, or is it owned by large "communications" companies that own the physical lines, reducing the average asshole to mere "crowd-sourced content creators" who are "creating" "content" for other large companies (Facebook, Google) who can negotiate terms with the communications outfits?
 
Last edited:
I understand the ideas behind net neutrality. My posts are about the marketing and funding of the press surrounding the issue. The Ford Foundation, for example, wants to import German style legislation regarding Nazi imagery, yet they're funding these supposed free-speech organizations. I don't trust their motivations because whatever their idea of free speech is seems very different from mine.

It's just shadowy corporations on both sides, and while I'm pretty sure that one group of shadowy corporations us better than the other, I'm not comfortable with them marketing it as some kind of grassroots deal.

You're scared the jews are behind it, aren't you? It's okay, you can admit it, we're a very open-minded forum.
 
Not really. Are you really suggesting that your ISP is going to be fine with people getting away with not paying for premium services like high bitrate streaming services and filesharing by using a VPN?

Do you think, honestly, that if ISP's slice up access like they've been wanting to do for years, that VPN services to get around this will become incredibly popular and become a target by these corporations as a liability to their profits?
It wouldn't work to begin with.
 
Yet you gave Null a Semper Fi medal for saying exactly that it does?
There was more to null's post than just the part about the VPN.
How do you see it not working?
See my post above.

It seems that Filipino ISPs are run by dumbasses. Well, and their customers probably aren't technically knowledgeable enough to the point where accurate throttling is remotely necessary.

It's very simple to accurately throttle traffic. You have a set of approved IPs and any packets to/from those IPs go fast. Any other packets (including ones that go to VPNs) receive the leftover scraps of bandwidth.

There's a few problems with this (maintaining your list of approved IPs), but by and large, that's how it would work.
 
Uh, nothing. I'm for net neutrality. What does the Democratic National Committee get out of Verizon and Comcast not determining which sites I can go to?

Ok, since this post is dumb, does someone want to explain it? Why is the DNC for net neutrality? Are they just good guys who want to do me a solid? Are they bad guys who just feel like net neutrality is too evil? Is it marketing to buy my votes? Because that's actually understandably Machiavellian and I don't have an issue with it.

What's their motivation here? I ask this assuming thst we aren't pretending that Verizon is going to throttle all their websites while redirecting plannedparenthood.com to trump2020.com.
 
Ok, since this post is dumb, does someone want to explain it? Why is the DNC for net neutrality? Are they just good guys who want to do me a solid? Are they bad guys who just feel like net neutrality is too evil? Is it marketing to buy my votes? Because that's actually understandably Machiavellian and I don't have an issue with it.

What's their motivation here? I ask this assuming thst we aren't pretending that Verizon is going to throttle all their websites while redirecting plannedparenthood.com to trump2020.com.
I think you're overthinking this. Just because the fire extinguisher salesman is coming on really hard, doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher.

That's because the risk of fires (and the utility of a fire extinguisher) is pretty well understood. Likewise, the problems with losing net neutrality are well documented.

Edit: To answer your question: beats me. Maybe just to be contrarian against the Republicans? Maybe they realize in the long run, technology is run by capitalists and no matter how many trannies they inject into Silicon Valley, money will always overrule them. So a free and independent internet will always be a useful tool in their back pocket.
 
Ok, since this post is dumb, does someone want to explain it? Why is the DNC for net neutrality? Are they just good guys who want to do me a solid? Are they bad guys who just feel like net neutrality is too evil? Is it marketing to buy my votes? Because that's actually understandably Machiavellian and I don't have an issue with it.

What's their motivation here? I ask this assuming thst we aren't pretending that Verizon is going to throttle all their websites while redirecting plannedparenthood.com to trump2020.com.

To get brownie points with all the people outraged with Net Neutrality's bullshit. They did the math and "Oppose Net Neutrality" came out with a higher profit margin or voter gain than "Go all in".

This doesn't mean they're sitting in their Transylvanian HQs rubbing their hands together while lightning flashes, it's corporate pragmatism.

Just because you don't like who's supporting something doesn't mean the cause itself is inherently poisoned.

Does that make sense, or should I grab the puppets?
 
Back