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.
 
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.

Those porn packages are listed plainly on bills, that's not how they make their money. They make their money by taking advantage of technologically illiterate people.

The way that ISPs will force you to pay for porn in the "tiered packages" scenario is that they will lump all the porn in with an outrageously priced "everything" tier so that you won't be explicitly buying a porn package. You'll be purchasing everything, which just so happens to include the hardcore anal sex that you're thirsting for.
 
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.
I'm surprised if that's still a thing. I would have assumed most of those bit the dust at the end of the last decade.
 
If i have kids, I will be sure to tell them about the internet boogieman of 2017, I'll even call him The Pai Pai Man.
TWoXh6b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Because /pol/ and r/The_Donald are basically SJWs that cheer on anything that pisses off the progs. The more I see them the more the alt-right is identical to the prog tards. They have the same unproven philosophies, excpet instead of toxic masculinity and the progressive stack, you'd have the 'alpha' lifestyle and racial science. They do what their enemies do, cheer things that piss them off with no concept of the consequences. /Pol would easily be eliminated in a second if the ISPs could block it. They're really dogshit stupid people who think they have this miraculous insight.

Hey dumbfucks, when California and New York are fighting for the same thing as Kentucky and Mississippi, you're fucking wrong. No one wants this. Nobody. Repealing NN is equivalent of saying, "You know that monopoly over there? Lets give it more of a monopoly."
 
So apparently the ISPs won't throttle the internet, won't block the internet and wont create packages giving you a "fast lane" to specific content. It's exactly how it was before, except ISPs no longer face legal consequences when they pull a "whoops sorry fam, accidentally tripped over your access to 4chan, lemme just plug it back in".

If that's true then why the fuck would idiot pie goto all these great lengths, just so ISPs don't get punished when prodominently MAGA based communities "accidentally go offline".

And even if they don't try and pull a fast one and the internet remains exactly as before, what's the point in lobbying so hard to get this removed if it makes no difference anyway?
 
Yeah lots of these guys seem to think this is Trump booting liberals, minorities, gays, etc off the internet and letting it be an alt-right paradise. No clue why they think it would benefit Verizon to do that.
...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?
None of them have even considered the possibility that the repeal of Net Neutrality will incentivize the ISPs and big platforms to work together to make the current climate of censorship even worse. Google for example paying Verizon a million or so every month for them to throttle BitChute and Vimeo. But there's more! What if the next democratic super-PAC pays Comcast a few million a month to make their competitor's website load at a snail's pace? It's pathetic how they completely miss the implications of the ISPs receiving this kind of power.
 
Last edited:
It's pathetic how they completely miss the implications of the ISPs receiving this kind of power.
It's scary they are able to fucking vote to begin with. An economic historian named Carlo Cipolla said the stupid are even more dangerous than the most powerful organizations. He coined 5 laws regarding the stupid:

1. Always and inevitably each of us underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2. The probability that a given person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic possessed by that person.

3. A person is stupid if they cause damage to another person or group of people without experiencing personal gain, or even worse causing damage to themselves in the process.

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the harmful potential of stupid people; they constantly forget that at any time anywhere, and in any circumstance, dealing with or associating themselves with stupid individuals invariably constitutes a costly error.

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person there is.

Here is a graph to help define the stupid from others
Cipolla-matrix.png
 
Ok, to anyone screaming about there was not neutrality before Obama. There was, the NN of Obama was more of a reclassification of ISPs as a Utility rather than a Commodity. I assume that both have different legislation and Utilities have to deliver some sort of QoS (Quality of Service). So the rollback is already a negative just for that.

And Europe has NN, to anyone who says it doesn't. But again, it's in terms of QoS. It still lets the companies make different offers to remain, like a Portuguese ISP offering extra GBs for FB usage. It doesn't mean that afB gets throttled without it. It means that they offer you a dedicated service for FB ON TOP of the normal service (which again, has QoS).

NN repeal is fine as long as the QoS doesn't get affected. But that doesn't look like the case, from the history of ISPs lawsuits.
 
Ok, to anyone screaming about there was not neutrality before Obama. There was, the NN of Obama was more of a reclassification of ISPs as a Utility rather than a Commodity. I assume that both have different legislation and Utilities have to deliver some sort of QoS (Quality of Service). So the rollback is already a negative just for that.

And Europe has NN, to anyone who says it doesn't. But again, it's in terms of QoS. It still lets the companies make different offers to remain, like a Portuguese ISP offering extra GBs for FB usage. It doesn't mean that afB gets throttled without it. It means that they offer you a dedicated service for FB ON TOP of the normal service (which again, has QoS).

NN repeal is fine as long as the QoS doesn't get affected. But that doesn't look like the case, from the history of ISPs lawsuits.

...Hence the anger and fear at the idea of the internet becoming as shitty as TV is, like that of Portugal, for example. Those negative feelings are justified for those who aren't well off, but even then - that's about it.
 
...Hence the anger and fear at the idea of the internet becoming as shitty as TV is, like that of Portugal, for example. Those negative feelings are justified for those who aren't well off, but even then - that's about it.
Internet in Portugal isn't actually the nightmare you envision it to be, since the country has to abide by EU regulations which don't allow ISPs to throttle websites. In addition, it's a small enough country that it allows for some degree of competition between ISPs. If your internet became like Portugal's it'd probably be a positive outcome, since you'd have more or less what you have now, with the addition of cheaper ghetto internet packages that allow limited access to Facebook and Twitter or whatever.
 
Internet in Portugal isn't actually the nightmare you envision it to be, since the country has to abide by EU regulations which don't allow ISPs to throttle websites. In addition, it's a small enough country that it allows for some degree of competition between ISPs. If your internet became like Portugal's it'd probably be a positive outcome, since you'd have more or less what you have now, with the addition of cheaper ghetto internet packages that allow limited access to Facebook and Twitter or whatever.

Competition and prevention of throttling: these are two major components in which the US lacks and will continue to lack until people start fighting back proper on these things, in terms of truly understanding why the ISPs can't be allowed to keep getting away with the BS that they have.
Although the "packaging" thing is a downside, it's just one more nation with better internet than we Americans could have, let alone ever hope to have in the future, with how things keep going.

The problem here (and I'm guilty of this, too) - nobody understands just how much red tape (bureaucracy) and other stifling regulations would have to be utterly destroyed for this to stop being a problem and for proper competition to enter the market and prevent throttling from greed-driven assholes in said market. I hear talk against this, but it's from very few people who know what's truly wrong here.
 
Last edited:
NN repeal is fine as long as the QoS doesn't get affected. But that doesn't look like the case, from the history of ISPs lawsuits.
Yeah that's the thing, NN more or less was the QoS regarding ISPs. Most of those companies were already price gouging and giving shoddy service to their territories because there's no other company in the area to compete with, and many of these ISPs have agreed upon minimum price to keep it that way not dissimilar to what the diamond industry does. Rolling back NN just gives them more legal freedom to go even further with that.
 
Back