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.
 
tbh, pay-per-website is also an issue, or options to pay for a "bundle" of sites might be a real thing, kind of like cable packages on TV.
It hasn't been done and won't be done because it is unpopular and technically difficult and expensive to implement. Restricting access to that level means the ISPs have to spend a lot of money on engineers and expensive equipment to implement something users will hate. Not going to happen.

re: information control, I meant more like the example @tehpope mentioned of ATT blocking 4chan. that might not be illegal anymore with NN gone.
Might not be illegal anymore? So you don't know if it actually did anything? Hmmm. Well at any rate if that were true, it would have happened with thepiratebay. It didn't happen, QED. There is only one way to have a website removed and it is through government orders. If a court tells an ISP to remove a site (like if the site hosts CP, or drugs), they will remove it.

Stop believing in fear mongering by Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. They're manipulating you. They're spending millions for this NN and all this bullshit is coming from them.
 
Really some Grade-A reasoning going on today.
20171214_202531.png

And why was it called the Civil War, when war isn't civil?

20171214_202554.png
 
I'm stunned at the number of people who seriously believe that this is some sort of victory for free speech and that now there's going to be no more censorship or political correctness, or YouTube ads (a bunch think NN caused those and now they'll go away).

I wonder how happy those stupid fucks will be when the SJWs realize now they can just REEEEEE to their ISP and demand they block "hate speech sites," i.e. anything pro-Trump.
 
I wonder how happy those stupid fucks will be when the SJWs realize now they can just REEEEEE to their ISP and demand they block "hate speech sites," i.e. anything pro-Trump.
If that were possible they would have spent all of last year doing it when NN was in place. But they didn't, because they couldn't, so that demonstrates you're wrong.
 
I wonder how happy those stupid fucks will be when the SJWs realize now they can just REEEEEE to their ISP and demand they block "hate speech sites," i.e. anything pro-Trump.

Only if they know anything about how to do that and are not lazy will we see that ever happen. Otherwise, they'll shit themselves and do nothing, knowing they don't have too much money to deal with this... As much as I want to agree with you, regardless.
That's all they have - because they sure won't be doing much else!

Maybe getting the SJWs off the net is a good thing, honestly - then they can see how powerless and weak in damn near every sense they truly are on issues that ACTUALLY matter!
 
I wonder how happy those stupid fucks will be when the SJWs realize now they can just REEEEEE to their ISP and demand they block "hate speech sites," i.e. anything pro-Trump.

Seriously, this. This is so baldly, painfully, obviously where this will end up, assuming the suit tactic doesn't work

I do not have salty liberal tears. I have not-salty confusion about watching a bunch of people gleefully shoot themselves in the foot. Corporate control of the internet means that you're looking at more of what is already happening to a certain extent--deplatforming anything that doesn't meet corporate community standards.
 
Might not be illegal anymore? So you don't know if it actually did anything? Hmmm. Well at any rate if that were true, it would have happened with thepiratebay. It didn't happen, QED. There is only one way to have a website removed and it is through government orders. If a court tells an ISP to remove a site (like if the site hosts CP, or drugs), they will remove it..

you're conflating issues. Nobody's talking about "removing a site." There's a reason TPB's legal history is so messy and involves moving servers from country to country, and there's a reason its servers aren't in the US. Currently though, NN requires ISPs to give you access to it. without NN, ISP's have no blanket prohibition on blocking your access to the site. I'm saying "might not be illegal" because the law is complicated. NN just provides one very strong legal argument against blocking access to sites, but there could be others, such as free speech laws.

also you're nuts if you don't think ISPs are interested in slicing up bandwidth in package form because it would be too much work.
 
America is a whole different beast. The country is basically the size of all of Europe with a lot of people in rural areas. There are a lot of people that don't have a choice between ISPs. To give an example I only got broadband internet about three years ago, before that my only option was 56k dialup which is worthless for modern day internet. My only choice is dialup and the only broadband provider there is. Millions of people have this exact same issue.

Bottom line is i just don't see any way for an ISP to profit off people in the situation your describing without 1: Offering a plan that most people wouldn't necessarily think twice about like some zero rating "1 TB data limit and free video steaming on select websites !!!" plan for a slightly higher than normal charge. Or 2: Doing something that pisses people off enough to have the regulations slapped on them again like try to push their own services or literally blocking all but a select few sites.

I'll give the ISP's the benefit of the doubt and assume their run by people smart enough to realize that this is likely their one chance to not utterly fuck this up, so i'm assuming option #1 is what we'll see, although we should probably hope for #2.

Because that wouldn't stop them from throttling small sites like KF.

This does make me wonder if we'll be seeing people who were previously saying that freedom of speech only applies to the government/private companies can't be in violation of free speech will change their tune after this though.

Its one potential good side effect of this, i have no problem at all with Google, Facebook, Cloudflare and other companies spending a shit ton of their money to fight for a "free" internet. Maybe the prospect of being de-platformed themselves will cause them to think twice about suppressing wrong-think in the future.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, this. This is so baldly, painfully, obviously where this will end up, assuming the suit tactic doesn't work

I do not have salty liberal tears. I have not-salty confusion about watching a bunch of people gleefully shoot themselves in the foot. Corporate control of the internet means that you're looking at more of what is already happening to a certain extent--deplatforming anything that doesn't meet corporate community standards.
Do they think that supporting the_donald and /pol/ would be a popular public opinion? A shit ton of people, shareholders or not, are going to be why the fuck they keep these 'nazi hate speech sites' up when there's absolutely nothing requiring them to.
 
you're conflating issues. Nobody's talking about "removing a site." There's a reason TPB's legal history is so messy and involves moving servers from country to country, and there's a reason its servers aren't in the US. Currently though, NN requires ISPs to give you access to it. without NN, ISP's have no blanket prohibition on blocking your access to the site. I'm saying "might not be illegal" because the law is complicated. NN just provides one very strong legal argument against blocking access to sites, but there could be others, such as free speech laws.

also you're nuts if you don't think ISPs are interested in slicing up bandwidth in package form because it would be too much work.
By remove I meant block. You're not getting it. I'll try again. Which is easier from the RIAA, MPAA, perspective:
1) Pay ISPs money to block websites like thepiratebay
2) Go through a lot of legal and court action, even to the point of getting the DMCA passed, to have websites removed. And then try more to get them removed in other countries.

Seems like #1 is easier? #2 was done because, as far as I can tell, #1 wasn't possible.

Also, ISPs have the technical ability to provide packages of bandwidth for certain websites based on a package. But the cost benefit ratio is bad, so they haven't done it. And will continue to not do it.
 
Back