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.
 
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?
worst case scenario congress bans the usage of vpns after getting rid of net neutrality
 
Is anyone else suspicious of the marketing around net neutrality efforts?

We've always had it up until now. It isn't some weird innovation. It's why the Internet works at all. It's only recently there's even a name for it because before dumb old politicians had even heard of the Internet, it just operated that way naturally.

Also not everyone using the phrase is necessarily well intentioned or even actually advocating anything other than a buzzword.
 
Honestly the best course of action for all of you is for there to be an alternative to the Internet, there were numerous alternatives that existed in the 80's and the 90's. Nations like the USSR and France had their own entirely complete different services. BBS Systems I mentioned earlier can easily be made to work with any computer and from my limited understanding the only way to wipe it out would be the same as an EMP attack.

Stormfront was on the BBS Systems, Weev I've heard knows a bunch about it and the Daily Stormer guy is on them.
 
Honestly the best course of action for all of you is for there to be an alternative to the Internet, there were numerous alternatives that existed in the 80's and the 90's. Nations like the USSR and France had their own entirely complete different services. BBS Systems I mentioned earlier can easily be made to work with any computer and from my limited understanding the only way to wipe it out would be the same as an EMP attack.

Stormfront was on the BBS Systems, Weev I've heard knows a bunch about it and the Daily Stormer guy is on them.
https://prism-break.org/en/subcategories/servers-anonymizing-networks/

There are a few.
 
This is kind of my point. Why are you, an ostensibly intelligent person willing to think of the issue in such black and white terms?

Because I have worked in IT for 20 years, occasionally for the telecom companies we are discussing right now. Those telecom companies do not, in anyway have your best interests at heart. They are concerned, above all else, with profit and shares, like any other business.

Who is "they"?

The telecom industry. The only people who stand to profit from eliminating net neutrality are the ISPs. When they talk about "consumer choice" they mean your choice to get tiered packages that resemble cable access. Ajit Pai, the new FCC dude that wants to dismantle the regulations, worked in the high ranks of Verizon.

What does it mean to "barb wire" it?

It was an allusion to the 19th century "closing" of the Western frontier.

Why are so many people asking for my address and other demographic information in order to "protest" the issue? Why am I getting text messages that use the same templates as moveon.org's text messages to tell me to send e-mails to my congressperson? Who the fuck is Fight For The Future? Who is paying them?

You don't have to do any of that. You can just do the usual call or snailmail. You can send an email. Normal complain-to-your-congressman stuff. This should not be a partisan issue. It's like... air. We all need the air. The air isn't supporting just the democrats. It's supporting everyone. FFTF and the like are lobbying organizations. Google and other non-ISP tech companies tend to also support net neutrality, because without it, there is no big next thing. Like @Null was describing--if your entire internet is Facebook, you cannot try the next big thing. It cannot gain traction. The way that the internet grows and changes effectively stalls out entirely--it is entirely controlled by telecommunications companies that have a money-based interest in nipping competition in the bud.

Honestly and genuinely, what is the text of the laws (Or whatever) that affirm net neutrality?

There is a history of principle concerning net neutrality. Following from those principles, there have been periodic cases where the FCC has come in to enforce those principles, starting in the early 00's, and those cases have worked their way through the courts, creating precedent.
 
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?

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.
 
"Black box"

Of course I remember the black box, though where I lived they were called "hot boxes". ;)

And yeah, I do remember black boxes being deemed illegal but that didn't stop a sort of black market from forming around them. I remember to get the one we owned we got it "from a guy who knew a guy". But the thing with cable TV is you couldn't really trace the signal once it went out from the broadcasting location, sadly you might be right with similar functionality and the Internet since people can be traced with IP addresses and cookies.
 
"this is (current partys) fault!"

I wish it was that simple. I'ld vote for anyone who actually went "we're keeping the net open and not about to fiddle about with that" but the reality is sadly that nobody who feasibly has a chance at power (in the UK and US at least) is entirely free of this authoritarian desire to censor or tie down the net more to benefit big business.

(and even if there is a smaller party that does promote net neutrality - they likely have almost 0 chance getting up the ladder or will change their tune soon as they taste what the big time politics is like)

The higher you go, the more likely someones badgering you to look after their interests. The Clinton email leaks were a fairly good insight into how bad the level of lobbying is, when the businesses think they can get away with silvering the palms. But totally happens both sides of the stick.
 
Of course I remember the black box, though where I lived they were called "hot boxes". ;)

And yeah, I do remember black boxes being deemed illegal but that didn't stop a sort of black market from forming around them. I remember to get the one we owned we got it "from a guy who knew a guy". But the thing with cable TV is you couldn't really trace the signal once it went out from the broadcasting location, sadly you might be right with similar functionality and the Internet since people can be traced with IP addresses and cookies.

Given that your ISP already is fine with leveraging penalties such as cutting off your internet entirely for infringing on copyrights of people that they don't see any profit from, I can just imagine how invested they're going to be when they feel like you're stealing from them by using a VPN to get non-throttled Netflix when you've not paid your shekels for that amount of packets through their pipe.
 
I hate to tell you guys, but this is partially Trump's doing. So, thanks for that. At least the SJWs got triggered though, right?
Ha ha ha at least those SJWs are mad, right? Right?..

Doling out "Told you so's" has been so very cathartic.

EDIT: lol @ the butthurt, your president is stupid
 
Last edited:
Because I have worked in IT for 20 years, occasionally for the telecom companies we are discussing right now. Those telecom companies do not, in anyway have your best interests at heart. They are concerned, above all else, with profit and shares, like any other business.



The telecom industry. The only people who stand to profit from eliminating net neutrality are the ISPs. When they talk about "consumer choice" they mean your choice to get tiered packages that resemble cable access. Ajit Pai, the new FCC dude that wants to dismantle the regulations, worked in the high ranks of Verizon.



It was an allusion to the 19th century "closing" of the Western frontier.



You don't have to do any of that. You can just do the usual call or snailmail. You can send an email. Normal complain-to-your-congressman stuff. This should not be a partisan issue. It's like... air. We all need the air. The air isn't supporting just the democrats. It's supporting everyone. FFTF and the like are lobbying organizations. Google and other non-ISP tech companies tend to also support net neutrality, because without it, there is no big next thing. Like @Null was describing--if your entire internet is Facebook, you cannot try the next big thing. It cannot gain traction. The way that the internet grows and changes effectively stalls out entirely--it is entirely controlled by telecommunications companies that have a money-based interest in nipping competition in the bud.



There is a history of principle concerning net neutrality. Following from those principles, there have been periodic cases where the FCC has come in to enforce those principles, starting in the early 00's, and those cases have worked their way through the courts, creating precedent.

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 is better than the other, I'm not comfortable with them marketing it as some kind of grassroots deal.
 
Last edited:
I already pay a pretty penny to Comcast for net and cable. Really hope this doesn't go south.
Thankfully the one in my area is a small Ma & Pa operation.

So true!

Major corporations really miss the days when they had a stranglehold on mass media.
I'm sure they do. It was either playing by their rules or going underground!

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 my family, we once had a box in the 80's that picked up Showtime from a particular scrambled channel left on the dial!

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.
The whole "Save Free TV" was a thing going back to the 60's when the notion of paying for TV became something of a frightful worry to those who felt the airwaves should be free. Such early "Community Antenna" operations were setup in outlying, rural areas to pick up signals that were unavailable in those regions. Larger communities though had a different idea.

Then of course you had those that went ahead in setting up such services simply because of the innovation they provided normal TV didn't have yet.

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.
Pretty much.
 
Back