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.
 
Probably quite a bit until the ISPs decide to fuck them over too. Then they'll REEEEEEEEEEEEEE until their twitter or Tumblr access start to get shittier.

This is one of those unique situations where pretty much everybody on every part of the political spectrum is getting fucked in some way or another. The only people entirely benefiting from this are Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.
 
Well, ackchyually, let's let these teenagers tell us why we're wrong:
View attachment 334672
View attachment 334673
View attachment 334674

Do we have a gloating children thread for this? We probably should.


I have no fucking clue why a furry of all places would want to support net neutrality but here is another simpleton

Market Neutrality.png You're gonna suffer too you know.png

and this is what the fool was trying to link to
 
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.
The cost benefit ratio was only ever bad because of the legal issues, not for any technical issue.

Because of this decision today, unless someone intervenes, the legal issues are going away.
 
The cost benefit ratio was only ever bad because of the legal issues, not for any technical issue.

Because of this decision today, unless someone intervenes, the legal issues are going away.
The legal issue lasted all of 2015. What about 2014? What stopped it then?
 
The legal issue lasted all of 2015. What about 2014? What stopped it then?

No one was foolish enough to try to nickel-and-dime us common folk on an extremely large and near immeasurable scale like they will get away with now more than ever.

Yeah... THAT.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: IAmNotDavid
The battle now is between the tech giants of Google and Apple and Amazon and Facebook who stand to lose profits in the wake of the NN Repel versus the ISPs like Comcast and Verizon and AT&T who are the cause of all this and are this street shitter's masters. The question now in a war between giant monolith corporations is this:

Whose greed is greater? Whose avarice is stronger?
I'm glad Google is on our side, but how fucked is it that everyone's like "thank goodness these huge corporations are here to save us"?
 
few will learn
many don't
write a bill and pass it on
heard it all heard enough


bury head, baiting for
binge it now or binge it then
it's bad enough my internet
I need to fap
I need the fap


cause I'm hooked
addicted to the internet
it's too slow
thanks to Pajeet

well if they're writing it
then they're passing it (passing it)
gather up all your porn
cause it's the hassle of (hassle of)
all the dial up (dial up)
pinging makes the remorse

after all, they blue my balls
'course getting laid cheap is possible
if you're a goon, SA's shit anyways
get a life and go outside

It's typical, online's a safe
special place of autism
to never work or get a job
just grab a book

cause I'm hooked
addicted to the internet
it's too slow
thanks to Pajeet

well if they're writing it
then they're passing it (passing it)
gather up all your porn
cause it's the hassle of (hassle of)
all the dial up (dial up)
pinging makes the remorse

Bandwidth has maxed, my bills have been paid
Bandwidth has maxed, my bills have been paid
Bandwidth has maxed, my bills have been paid
Bandwidth has maxed

well if they're writing it
then they're passing it (passing it)
gather up all your porn
cause it's the hassle of (hassle of)
all the dial up (dial up)
pinging makes the remorse
 
I don't understand how this can be "Trump's FCC" when Pajit was Obama's pick.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...he-first-legal-challenges-are-already-coming/
Partially because he was the one who promoted Pajit to head chairman. Which is why technically both Obama and Trump deserve the blame. But at the same time, it raises all too many questions as to why either Obama brought him on in the first place or why Trump didn't kick his ass out when he took office considering our internet street shitter isn't a true American.
 
Partially because he was the one who promoted Pajit to head chairman. Which is why technically both Obama and Trump deserve the blame. But at the same time, it raises all too many questions as to why either Obama brought him on in the first place or why Trump didn't kick his ass out when he took office considering our internet street shitter isn't a true American.

I wonder if there would have been "But he's a POC" backlash if Trump HAD kicked him out. Not that Trump would care about that, but it would have been an interesting thing to see play out.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jewelsmakerguy
I wonder if there would have been "But he's a POC" backlash if Trump HAD kicked him out. Not that Trump would care about that, but it would have been an interesting thing to see play out.
Knowing some of the stupidest anti Trump articles i've seen, i'd be willing to bet that there would probably be some people willing to ignite the POC backlash if Trump decided to fire Ajit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
I wonder if there would have been "But he's a POC" backlash if Trump HAD kicked him out. Not that Trump would care about that, but it would have been an interesting thing to see play out.

Nobody would care about a Republican being fired, even if Trump literally outright said he was firing him for being a curry-eating, shit-streeting dothead mongoloid.

States say shit like that all the time and it means nothing imo.

New York is one of the states. They routinely sue everyone from the federal government to other states, and quite often win.
 
Back