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.
 
I don't really care about the FCC as such. I think it should be dissolved except for keeping it to do bullshit related to radio frequencies and its other duties should be handed over to a more competent body.

I more care about being able to access content I like without ISPs saying "no Kiwi Farms for you" or even "no Stormfront for you." If it turned out that the first company actually to do that went promptly out of business and every other ISP made it a policy not to do that because it would make them immediately non-competitive, I wouldn't care in the least.

It's the end result that matters, not the means.

When we're talking about net neutrality and doing away with it, we're talking about two different choices. The Internet continues to work, like it does now. Or a bunch of corporations who don't give a shit about the Internet itself get to make wild, radical experiments on it to see how much money they can extract from everyone. Sort of like taxes, except you don't get anything in return but a shittier Internet.

I don't see how it's conservative to prefer radical change to something that's currently working.
If the market was able to say "lol fuck you" to a company that tried selling tiered internet then I think a lot less people would be worried, but there are plenty of areas with literally 1 ISP, and if they say "4chan is $100 extra" you're just fucked.
 
If the market was able to say "lol fuck you" to a company that tried selling tiered internet then I think a lot less people would be worried, but there are plenty of areas with literally 1 ISP, and if they say "4chan is $100 extra" you're just fucked.

If satellite Internet were an actual competitor, this would be mitigated. However, while you can get great speeds with satellite, the latency is shit partly because of unfixable speed of light issues. So if you're just reading web stuff, this might be okay for you, but good luck playing online games with 600+ ms latency.
 
I don't really care about the FCC as such. I think it should be dissolved except for keeping it to do bullshit related to radio frequencies and its other duties should be handed over to a more competent body.

I more care about being able to access content I like without ISPs saying "no Kiwi Farms for you" or even "no Stormfront for you." If it turned out that the first company actually to do that went promptly out of business and every other ISP made it a policy not to do that because it would make them immediately non-competitive, I wouldn't care in the least.

It's the end result that matters, not the means.

When we're talking about net neutrality and doing away with it, we're talking about two different choices. The Internet continues to work, like it does now. Or a bunch of corporations who don't give a shit about the Internet itself get to make wild, radical experiments on it to see how much money they can extract from everyone. Sort of like taxes, except you don't get anything in return but a shittier Internet.

I don't see how it's conservative to prefer radical change to something that's currently working.




Telecoms have been allowed to monopolize local markets. If we fostered competition among them, there would be no debate over this.
 
Telecoms have been allowed to monopolize local markets. If we fostered competition among them, there would be no debate over this.

Not to quite such a degree. I can get service from any of a half-dozen telecoms, with service ranging from the mediocre to the horrendous and prices ranging from the cheap to the stratospheric.
 
If you really wanted to go apeshit securing it doesn't Mark Levin have some crazy assbackwards way to amend the US Constitution through the states instead of the Congress?
 
I imagine that if this goes through that some of the larger ISPs will eventually try to go full AOL as well as full Cable Company. Only this time all of the proprietary garbage browsers that are required to even connect will be bastardized Chrome to appease Google instead of Microsoft Edge or whatever it's called these days.
 
There’s probably a lot of psychos out there that are only held in check by their unfettered access to porn.
Race War Van is a Go then.
race-war-van-solo-png.76599
 
NN would be a great platform for a democrat running in 2020 or 2018 if this goes through, but AT&T and Verizon gave $340,000 and $300,000 to Hillary's campaign respectively, and I would assume that they would only contribute more next time if NN is going to be a big issue. Also, it looks like AT&T gave $4.2 million to the RNC, and $1.5 million to the DNC. Point is, I wouldn't expect either side of the aisle to fight for NN too strongly.

What a world we live in where we're hoping for ultra-mega-corporations Google and Amazon (and Facebook?) to save the day.

Well the Democrats didn't do much after the financial crisis. It ruined thousands of peoples lives, and even then, congress couldn't get the balls to do anything. Why would they care about the internet?
 
Well the Democrats didn't do much after the financial crisis. It ruined thousands of peoples lives, and even then, congress couldn't get the balls to do anything. Why would they care about the internet?

Because there are a lot of corporation aka donors that rely on an open internet. It’s just a matter if they can buy off more people than the telecoms.
Little people don’t donate or don’t donate enough to even register. Someone like Amazon that could stand to lose profits over Comcast or Verizon fucking with them matters more because they have millions to donate.
So maybe Amazon or Facebook or Netflix will flex their muscles and win for the little guy until they find a way to screw us for their own gain.
 
Actually (although old), this is much more relevant - same guy as my last post, BTW. Take care.
 
What can any President do realistically? Amendments have to go through congress, executive orders can be struck down by the courts or reversed. Aside from saying "Net Neutrality is good yall" like Obama did, there isn't much they can do.
To be fair he could've not put a verizon lawyer who's repeatedly said that he hates net neutrality regulations and wants to destroy them at the head of the FCC. That would've been an option.
 
I guess it's better to hope for them to be the less destructive monster than thinking they're good for being socially progressive.

They're only being good in this case because, at the moment, they're mostly content providers rather than being bandwidth providers. Never trust these cunts, because the moment they end up more bandwidth providers than content providers, things change.

My inner commie wants to say just seize it all and make it a public utility. But my outer sane person realizes that would be an utter fucking disaster.
 
Back