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.
 
20171214_225104.png

Totally the same thing...
 
  • Feels
Reactions: The Lawgiver
...won't their internet be taken too...? I really don't get the joke, prolly flew over my head. Do they really believe this won't hit them?

Are they still that upset about Alabama that they think taking away NN is a victory for their side?

A lot of the severely vocal anti-NN folks have been very, very liberal and not exactly quiet about it. The people who think that this is them 'winning' against the liberals are the people who think that anything bad that happens that displeases liberals therefore is good. You could put one of these types next to a Democrat who was yelling about a landslide about to hit them both and they'd laugh at how the other had lost.

They're snakes being told to eat their own tails and doing exactly that. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Anyone who opposes NN is a stupid gullible faggot eating ISP cock. ISPs don't invest shit in infrastructure even if you pay them to do it. Not one person likes these cunts and you want to hand them more power while shouting 'FREE MARKET'? Well guess what you stupid alt-right faggots, the ISP business isn't a free market. They've got specifically marked out territories and monopolies. They've strong-armed cities and smaller competitors. They've ignored agreements they were favorable to them and done sneaky shit behind customer's backs fucking constantly. They screw over their employees.

And you are REALLY going to trust them to innovate? You really are as stupid as the street-shitter and a useless faggot contrarian like all progtards. You're trusting some of the most hated, conniving monopolies on Earth to play nice. You're fucking stupid as dogshit.
 
Anyone who opposes NN is a stupid gullible faggot eating ISP cock. ISPs don't invest shit in infrastructure even if you pay them to do it. Not one person likes these cunts and you want to hand them more power while shouting 'FREE MARKET'? Well guess what you stupid alt-right faggots, the ISP business isn't a free market. They've got specifically marked out territories and monopolies. They've strong-armed cities and smaller competitors. They've ignored agreements they were favorable to them and done sneaky shit behind customer's backs fucking constantly. They screw over their employees.

And you are REALLY going to trust them to innovate? You really are as stupid as the street-shitter and a useless faggot contrarian like all progtards. You're trusting some of the most hated, conniving monopolies on Earth to play nice. You're fucking stupid as dogshit.
I think the morons who support this bullshit need to be exposed to the public.
 
Dafuq is a "DIY Trans site?" And I'm not in favor of censorship, but anything teaching kids to mutilate or drug themselves could kill them, so yeah that shit should be banned. Want to transition? For fuck's sake, go to a professional (and you'll still probably regret it afterwards).
I HOPE they just mean sites that sell chest binders or fake breasts.
 
Anyone who opposes NN is a stupid gullible faggot eating ISP cock. ISPs don't invest shit in infrastructure even if you pay them to do it. Not one person likes these cunts and you want to hand them more power while shouting 'FREE MARKET'? Well guess what you stupid alt-right faggots, the ISP business isn't a free market. They've got specifically marked out territories and monopolies. They've strong-armed cities and smaller competitors. They've ignored agreements they were favorable to them and done sneaky shit behind customer's backs fucking constantly. They screw over their employees.

And you are REALLY going to trust them to innovate? You really are as stupid as the street-shitter and a useless faggot contrarian like all progtards. You're trusting some of the most hated, conniving monopolies on Earth to play nice. You're fucking stupid as dogshit.

Yeah I never got the whole "The Free Market will sort itself out" people. Like all the companies will be too focused on competing with each other on equal terms and won't team up or attempt to subvert government policy in the name of profiteering. How many Stockmarket crashes have their been? AntiTrust Lawsuits?

It amazes me how people naively assume a corporation would have the same moral compass as they themselves as a human being would have. It just blows my mind sometimes just how naive they are.
 
Doing that to improve reliability and availability by restricting or throttling certain general types of traffic, like video or that type of thing, has never really violated what relatively recently started being called "net neutrality" even though it was just a foundational principle of the Internet itself. In fact, that kind of prioritization has been built into the protocols for quite some time.

It's filtering by the specific source that is an issue.

If ISPs start doing that, they're effectively breaking the Internet and should be treated like networks that host spammers, DDoSers, and so on, and they should be blackholed off the Internet entirely.
I don't think I agree. To start with, plenty of higher level protocols have QoS features, but IP's are pretty minimal.

Reliability and availability need to be defined in terms of your goals. There's no universal standard. ISPs have different goals than end users. And various end users have different goals from each other.

And it is, fundamentally, a zero sum game.

Like, to me, filtering based on content (video versus text versus gaming versus bittorrent) is only slightly more legitimate justification than filtering based on source.

If I send some packets out, I expect them to be given the same treatment as any other packets, period. That's what I'm paying for. I don't want my ISP to decide that, because Tor traffic looks like garbled nonsense, it's less important than plain text traffic. The only limitations I'm OK with are total traffic volume and congestion.

Edit:

Basically here's what I expect:

If I share a connection with 20 neighbors, I expect, at a minimum, 1/20th of the capacity, regardless of what I'm transferring. It's unacceptable to throttle me below that 1/20th because I'm streaming video instead of text. That's not what I'm paying for.

Double edit:

Actually, now that I think about it, end-to-end encrypted protocols are kind of the problem. By and large, the last bit of data ISPs have at their disposal to throttle the more... girthy types of traffic is source/destination.
 
Last edited:
article


The autistic-Righters are gonna be pissed if something like this lands a democrat in the white house next election

December 14, 2017 / 7:44 PM / Updated 4 hours ago
Net neutrality repeal gives U.S. Democrats fresh way to reach millennials
David Shepardson, Ginger Gibson
5 Min Read


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission vote on Thursday to roll back net neutrality rules could galvanise young voters, a move Democrats hope will send millennials to the polls in greater numbers and bolster their chances in next year’s elections.

Chairman Ajit Pai speaks ahead of the vote on the repeal of so called net neutrality rules at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, U.S., December 14, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein
Democrats are hoping to paint the repeal of the rules by the FCC, which is now chaired by President Donald Trump appointee Ajit Pai, as evidence Republicans are uninterested in young people and consumer concerns at large.

“The American public is angry,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat. She added that the actions of the Republican majority have “awoken a sleeping giant.”

Sponsored

Attitudes toward “net neutrality,” or rules that prevent internet providers from limiting customers’ access to certain websites or slowing download speeds for specific content, are largely split along party lines in Congress. The heated debate has turned into the kind of election issue that Democrats think will help them.

Studies show young people disproportionately use the internet compared with older Americans and polls have shown they feel passionately about fair and open internet access. Democrats believe the issue may resonate with younger voters who may not be politically active on other issues like taxes or foreign policy.

U.S. Senator Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, said on Twitter “young people need to take the lead on net neutrality. It’s possible for Millennial political leadership to make a real difference here.”



Republicans on the FCC have sought to reassure young people that their ability to access the internet will not change after the rules take effect. People who favour the move argue that after users realise that little or nothing has changed in their internet access, it will not resonate as a political issue.

Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist, said polls have found young people are favouring Democrats in the most recent elections and that the net neutrality issue could be used to gather support in the 2018 midterm congressional elections.

FILE PHOTO: Fiber optic cables carrying internet providers are seen running into a server room at Intergate.Manhattan, a data center owned and developed by Sabey Data Center Properties, during a tour of the facility in lower Manhattan, in New York, March 20, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo
He said while older voters tend to care about Medicare, polls are finding that younger voters are motivated by net neutrality.

”Net neutrality is the latest data point for voters that the administration is more interested in doing what big companies want them to do, than what people think is in their interest,“ Ferguson said. ”That’s a narrative that is politically toxic for Republicans.”

In November 2018, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for grabs, as will 34 seats in the Senate. Democrats hope to gain control of one or both chambers by capitalizing on the unpopularity of Trump. Republicans currently control both chambers as well as the White House.

To regain power, Democrats will need a strong showing of support among young voters, who traditionally have not shown up in large numbers for elections held in years when there is no presidential contest.

Liberal groups are using net neutrality as an issue to criticise Republican incumbents.

Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, echoed that sentiment, telling Reuters on Thursday that net neutrality will have “huge political legs ... This is something that everyone across the country understands - the importance of the internet.”

The group End Citizens United announced last week a $35 million advertising campaign targeting 20 Republican House members for their stances on issues that relate to business, including net neutrality.

Democrats facing difficult election battles next year are already weighing in strongly in favour of net neutrality rules.

Senator Bill Nelson likely will face a difficult battle in Florida and sent a letter earlier in the week opposing the change in net neutrality rules. Several Democratic candidates are sending campaign fundraising appeals citing net neutrality.

The changes could also become issues in a number of House races across the country, where Democrats will need to win more than 25 seats to control the chamber. Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also publicly opposed the rule changes, a sign that she wanted to be sure to stake a Democratic position on the issue.
 
article


The autistic-Righters are gonna be pissed if something like this lands a democrat in the white house next election
Why else would you think places like the_donald are loudly crowing "WE WON, BOYS"? So they don't have to nervously glance around and realize that unlike muslim databases and tranny death camps, this is a legitimate gripe people will have at the Trump Administration. Like it or not Trump had some involvement by making Pajeet FCC chair, and he's been anti NN since that was brought up in 2015.
 
Porn is such a profitable industry that it will be literally the last thing to ever be throttled on the internet by any company that doesn't sincerely hate the concept of money.
Once Porn is affected, people will riot in the streets. Or just shit themselves and do nothing. (:_(

Television networks have a porn package. It's why mothers are always so confused why $50 gets sucked out of them every month and somehow DON'T suspect that that their son or husband might be buying access to the porn channel.
The internet, if ISPs decide to turn the internet into a glorified television network, will be like that too.
 
Back