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.
 
We're just tired of you fucking pearlclutching because not everyone supporting net neutrality is Literally Jesus.

Yes, not everyone behind NN has the best intentions, but we fucking knew that and you screaming into your megaphone about ((((((((((THE DNC))))))))))) isn't giving us anything new to think about. You just look like a paranoid idiot.

Well now we're clear about what aspects of net neutrality are allowed to be discussed in this thread, so it's straight.
 
Edit: To answer your question: beats me. Maybe just to be contrarian against the Republicans?
I think ideologically it’s just Republicans are less likely to support government regulation of business. That and telecom campaign donations.

What gets my gord about the “commie” argument is that the internet was created as a government project and originally funded by taxpayer dollars. Giving it away to business without any thought to its intended architectural function is kind of like what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union when Boris Yeltsin let oligarchs scoop up the remnants of the state economy due to bribes.
 
Last edited:
Had an interesting conversation with someone regarding bet neutrality, so I figured I'd share them here.

Someone I know argued that the biggest reason Big Telecoms are pushing against net neutrality is that because of that whole "corporations are people" nonsense, net neutrality protects not only the consumers but also other companies that use their service. So while this works out fine for the average websites, companies like Google, Netflix, etc. that use a fuckton of bandwidth compared to their peers benefit from it since they have the advantage with telecoms needing to treat them the same as other websites and net-services (not that they always do obviously) So supposedly the end goal with Big Telecom would be less ducking over the average joe since they're barely a blip on the radar, but getting the shekels out of Netflix and other such companies they feel they're owed, especially now when every tv network and their dog is trying to jump on the streaming bandwagon.

Of course, a lot of the above issue were caused because these companies made a bunch of city regulations that divvied up cable services into mafia-esque territories and put in other bandwidth regulations pre-Netflix and streaming boom to weed out competition. Which is kinda like saying you should feel bad for Disney not having any more public domain works to make into franchises when they were the ones who extended copyrights to the ridiculous length they're at now. And while net neutrality might also protect other big corporations, I rather they do that than let Big Telecom potentially gut start-ups and rising competitors because they have to pay extra to get the "premium" internet speeds to get their business off the ground.

The person who said all this also seemed to be under the impression that Big Telecom will either never get to the "Internet package deals" because the average consumer is small fry compared to Netflix, or that it will at least reinvorgate competition since companies like Verizon and Comcast will start trying to one-up each other to give the widest selection of sites. But I think he has a lot more faith in the altruism of a mega-corporation than I have. Companies like this will always get greedy.

Thoughts?
 
So supposedly the end goal with Big Telecom would be less ducking over the average joe since they're barely a blip on the radar, but getting the shekels out of Netflix and other such companies they feel they're owed, especially now when every tv network and their dog is trying to jump on the streaming bandwagon.

Is this supposed to mean the average joe who is the average ISP customer, or the average joe who is the average small fry start-up?
 
Had an interesting conversation with someone regarding bet neutrality, so I figured I'd share them here.

Someone I know argued that the biggest reason Big Telecoms are pushing against net neutrality is that because of that whole "corporations are people" nonsense, net neutrality protects not only the consumers but also other companies that use their service. So while this works out fine for the average websites, companies like Google, Netflix, etc. that use a fuckton of bandwidth compared to their peers benefit from it since they have the advantage with telecoms needing to treat them the same as other websites and net-services (not that they always do obviously) So supposedly the end goal with Big Telecom would be less ducking over the average joe since they're barely a blip on the radar, but getting the shekels out of Netflix and other such companies they feel they're owed, especially now when every tv network and their dog is trying to jump on the streaming bandwagon.

Of course, a lot of the above issue were caused because these companies made a bunch of city regulations that divvied up cable services into mafia-esque territories and put in other bandwidth regulations pre-Netflix and streaming boom to weed out competition. Which is kinda like saying you should feel bad for Disney not having any more public domain works to make into franchises when they were the ones who extended copyrights to the ridiculous length they're at now. And while net neutrality might also protect other big corporations, I rather they do that than let Big Telecom potentially gut start-ups and rising competitors because they have to pay extra to get the "premium" internet speeds to get their business off the ground.

The person who said all this also seemed to be under the impression that Big Telecom will either never get to the "Internet package deals" because the average consumer is small fry compared to Netflix, or that it will at least reinvorgate competition since companies like Verizon and Comcast will start trying to one-up each other to give the widest selection of sites. But I think he has a lot more faith in the altruism of a mega-corporation than I have. Companies like this will always get greedy.

Thoughts?

What's happening here is true fascism / stifling of actual opportunity and innovation, all in the name of propping up greedy old fossils who need to die and burn in Hell, already.

Also, this guy sounds like a total idiot for thinking the internet needs to be like some shitty TV package that will shrink just like any of those always do if you ain't very fucking well off (which barely anyone in this nation is, anymore...), unfortunately.

This is the kind of shit that encourages real anarchy and it sucks royally that's NOT what we're seeing it towards, like these SJWs who do it should be doing for the good of this nation, when it comes to the big picture and things that truly fucking matter - like NOT becoming like China or worse, just to prop up a bunch of old greedy fossils who need to be run over or shot dead for thinking this shit is A-OK, honestly.

I'm sorry, but this shit happening to our slow-as-fuck and shitty enough internet (our only true source of freedom and democracy left in this nation which could use some real anarchy thrown its way, right about now, IMHO...)... It pisses me right off!!!
 
MAGA MY NEGHOLE DADDY TRUMP
I'LL JUST STOP USING THE INTERNET






MAGA MY NEGGGGGGHOOOOOOOL3EEE
Can these people argue about any contrary opinion without saying that it can only lead to the same goddamn liberal dystopia where all conservatives are oppressed, just because it resembles some liberal doctrine regardless of context?

These people are the notion of slave morality taken to its peak.
 
I've never heard a compelling argument against Net Neutrality. The one person who I talked about with in person argued that "People who haven't done anything wrong have nothing to worry about," as if that solved the whole issue with censorship.
This non-argument is always incredibly dangerous, because it never thinks critically about just who is deciding what "wrong" is.
 
Is this supposed to mean the average joe who is the average ISP customer, or the average joe who is the average small fry start-up?
He meant the former specifically, but it could also apply to the latter.

Also, this guy sounds like a total idiot for thinking the internet needs to be like some shitty TV package that will shrink just like any of those always do if you ain't very fucking well off (which barely anyone in this nation is, anymore...), unfortunately.
Agreed, though to be fair to him it seemed like it was less the Internet "needs" to be like cable tv more so that telecom companies won't make it that way because they'll be too busy gutting Netflix and Google of everything they're worth. Which is kinda like saying the tigers won't eat anyone at the zoo if you let them out of their cages because they'll make a beeline for the elephant exhibit across from them.

Of course he's also a lot older and doesn't be use social media, so his perspective on the internet is... limited to say the least.
 
This non-argument is always incredibly dangerous, because it never thinks critically about just who is deciding what "wrong" is.
When in doubt, usually (but not always) assume the person is defending the side trying to implement the thing in question.

Had an interesting conversation with someone regarding bet neutrality, so I figured I'd share them here.

Someone I know argued that the biggest reason Big Telecoms are pushing against net neutrality is that because of that whole "corporations are people" nonsense, net neutrality protects not only the consumers but also other companies that use their service. So while this works out fine for the average websites, companies like Google, Netflix, etc. that use a fuckton of bandwidth compared to their peers benefit from it since they have the advantage with telecoms needing to treat them the same as other websites and net-services (not that they always do obviously) So supposedly the end goal with Big Telecom would be less ducking over the average joe since they're barely a blip on the radar, but getting the shekels out of Netflix and other such companies they feel they're owed, especially now when every tv network and their dog is trying to jump on the streaming bandwagon.

Of course, a lot of the above issue were caused because these companies made a bunch of city regulations that divvied up cable services into mafia-esque territories and put in other bandwidth regulations pre-Netflix and streaming boom to weed out competition. Which is kinda like saying you should feel bad for Disney not having any more public domain works to make into franchises when they were the ones who extended copyrights to the ridiculous length they're at now. And while net neutrality might also protect other big corporations, I rather they do that than let Big Telecom potentially gut start-ups and rising competitors because they have to pay extra to get the "premium" internet speeds to get their business off the ground.

The person who said all this also seemed to be under the impression that Big Telecom will either never get to the "Internet package deals" because the average consumer is small fry compared to Netflix, or that it will at least reinvorgate competition since companies like Verizon and Comcast will start trying to one-up each other to give the widest selection of sites. But I think he has a lot more faith in the altruism of a mega-corporation than I have. Companies like this will always get greedy.

Thoughts?
If that's what their plan actually is, than Ajit and his cronies are even more brain dead r.etarded than originally expected. There's profit (which I get, people need money), then there's being assholes to the people you actually provide the services to who also need to make a profit. And when the ideologies of both sides clash with each other, there's going to be more monetary issues regarding both sides- The ISP provider loses money because sites like Google don't give it to them, while they also lose money because Comcast and their kind will also drop them.

At this point, I'm legitimately amazed Google or Netflix haven't considered suing the FCC and Ajit for their underhanded, potentially money-losing ways.
 
If that's what their plan actually is, than Ajit and his cronies are even more brain dead r.etarded than originally expected. There's profit (which I get, people need money), then there's being assholes to the people you actually provide the services to who also need to make a profit. And when the ideologies of both sides clash with each other, there's going to be more monetary issues regarding both sides- The ISP provider loses money because sites like Google don't give it to them, while they also lose money because Comcast and their kind will also drop them.

At this point, I'm legitimately amazed Google or Netflix haven't considered suing the FCC and Ajit for their underhanded, potentially money-losing ways.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ajit and Big Telecom think that they're pulling this master gambit where if people get frustrated enough they'll just go back to cable TV and they'll make a profit regardless of what service people pick. Kinda like how studios will occasionally pull shit from Netflix thinking that'll encourage DVD sales instead of driving people to torrent shit until it comes back.

Of course, I hear occasionally on the rumor mill the big dogs like Google might forgo the telecoms altogether if this goes through and host everything themselves, but who knows how that would turn out or if it's even true.
 
Last edited:
After all, look at China.
They have what's called the "Golden Shield." It's used to censor a lot of content the government doesn't like.

People still don't get that the "free" in "free speech" and the "free" in "free beer" are two different things.
English got screwed there. Other languages make the distinction, like "gratis" for free as in "free beer" and "libre" for free as in freedom.
 
They have what's called the "Golden Shield." It's used to censor a lot of content the government doesn't like.


English got screwed there. Other languages make the distinction, like "gratis" for free as in "free beer" and "libre" for free as in freedom.

We DON'T need that and should never, ever need that - if America prides itself on being great again,,, Don't become like China, due to chasing short term gains. But tell that to these corporate scumbags doing this thinking it's A-OK and we're NOT like China, when THIS can be twisted into doing so just fine, eventually.
 
The decision is: Would you rather have the government or corporations controlling the internet? In this case I would chose the government.
Here in the UK this isn’t really an issue, our market is far more competitive and if a ISP did something like Spain or Portugal, another ISP would simply advertise the fact they still do net neutrality and would take their market share. However if NN is repealed this would be bad news for the entire internet, but the FCC don’t give a shit unless you have a solid legal argument. I’ve changed my mind now, I think they will repeal it.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Ajit and Big Telecom think that they're pulling this master gambit where if people get frustrated enough they'll just go back to cable TV and they'll make a profit regardless of what service people pick. Kinda like how studios will occasionally pull shit from Netflix thinking that'll encourage DVD sales instead of driving people to torrent shit until it comes back.

Of course, I hear occasionally on the rumor mill the big dogs like Google might forgo the telecoms altogether if this goes through and host everything themselves, but who knows how that would turn out or if it's even true.

I wouldn't doubt it if there is a consortium of tech companies who will seek to bypass the ISPs. They have more money than the ISPs and can easily fuck them. Google and the others aren't going to take this lying down and its going to get ugly. I wouldn't be surprised if the gloves come off between tech and the ISPs.

Besides, you already have groups getting ready to pound this faggot shill in the ground with lawsuits. If he wants legal arguments only, he is going to regret asking for them.
 
Back