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.
 
You're really gonna accuse me of circlejerking when you missed the fact that I said I was for net neutrality three different times?

Well I mean maybe we're all just a little frustrated that you're clutching those pearls hard enough to absorb them into your skin?

"Guys, guys, net neutrality may be an issue... but who's they? And why are (((they))) so adamant on giving us a good thing?" <---- literally every post you've made in this thread.

And before you sperg out, I'm not saying you think it's jews, I'm poking fun at you basically posting like some paranoid alt-righter who insists DER JUDEN did everything. It's a really easy comparison to make.
 
Maybe take yourself out of the partisan circle jerk and ask yourself if you want to pay more money to use less of the internet.
The "save the internet" websites I've seen are very polished. Most political organization shit I've seen, especially from nerds, is not that slick looking. I get the impression that someone's putting a bunch of money into fighting this.

And really, I'm totally grateful for that. This is an important issue, I'm glad someone's dumping a bunch of money into this.

But I think it's a reasonable question to ask who (and why) is putting so much money into this.

Now that being said, if the answer to that question sways your opinion on this, you're kind of a dumbass. But just for curiosity's sake, I think it's a fair question.
 
Maybe you're on your period. Don't get your panties in a twist, take a deep breath and LOL TOP KEK like the /pol/tards who are elated at the prospect of their demise.

So being concerned about net neutrality and censorship means I'm a hysterical woman on my period? What about everyone else in this thread who's rightfully concerned about those things?
 
The internet is the only open and free source of every opinion in the world. I don't give a shit about "Tiers". I give a shit about not being able to access differing opinions because a suit wearing, shitlipped moron in an office decided that "Website XYZ" is offensive and therefore not going to be allowed access through our service.

The suit is the advertisers. You can see that happening at the moment with advertisers putting pressure on Youtube to make it more, let's say "TV friendly". You can see the slow gradual move towards this, the constant internet articles on curbing "hate speech" and "toxicity". It's about sanitizing and structuring the internet in a way that makes it palatable to advertisers, just as TV was. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Reddit, Wikipedia, Yahoo!, Amazon, NetFlix, Ebay. There are main sites that are monopolizing each audience. There is no chance for competition anymore.

This is it now, this is the internet. Can you imagine Facebook or Wikipedia going under? No, they are now fixtures, like saying CBS, or NBC. They are now the internet equivalent of the TV Networks. There will never be another Digg or Myspace. Now is the time to consolidate and restructure.

I'm just thinking of how the wikipedia article will go in say 30 years time, saying how the "wild west of the internet was finally won from the toxic evil trolls and misogynistic harassers known as goobergrape thanks to our sponsors AT&T and Time Warner"
 
Last edited:
I get the basis of your point, I just think there's way more nerds out there who will figure out ways around it. To bring it back around to my original point... like the cable decoder boxes and the filesharing. At the time, they were inventive ways around paying for services people didn't want to pay for.

Life... uh. Finds a way.
They will just give you a small general pool of data for anything you want, then unlimited Facebook , email, unlimited free teir Hulu and then a respectable YouTube bucket.
In the 3rd world there are a variety of exotic tunneling protocols that they've used to get free or unmetered service. I've used many of them and it's been getting harder and harder to find anything that works and most of them are kind of slow anyhow. Look up dns tunneling and icmp tunneling .
 
Its not just about the money

Its also about influence peddling

Hill-dawgs loss deeply scared the folks who make a living selling influence so it was only a matter of time until they moved in to curb the web.

To a lot of them power and the ability to sway public opinion is worth far more then money; the net is/was a wild wild west scenario where they weren't the ones in control and after Trump demonstrated how powerful social medai really was...well it was only a matter of time.

Do you think the sudden swing to the left in tech was just coincidence?


/tinfoil
 
upload_2017-11-22_2-50-3.png
 
The problem I always have with ancaps is that they make a few basic assumptions about human nature that are dead wrong.

They assume major companies have any sort of morals compared to their drive for profit.

They assume some magical "good" company will some day come in without shitty practices that the common people will flock to in droves

They assume the average person gives enough of a shit to not just keep getting fucked in the name of not rocking the boat.

When in reality, most CEOs would castrate your firstborn for an extra nickel a month, monopolies would crush any startup company with any sort of morals, and most people would go around with a razor up their anus if they could somehow be convinced that was just the way things go.
 
Back