The FCC decides the fate of Net Neutrality today!

detheater · December 2017

If you live in the United States and care about the openness of the internet contact your representatives to let them know that you want them to fight the FCC's repeal of Net Neutrality. It's never too late to let them know how you feel!

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

smokebailey · December 2017

Too late, it seems.

Government voting in favor of the corporations.......big surprise. -_-;

smokebailey · December 2017

Despite the opposition from congress, techheads and the public.....once again, they do opposite of people demand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

rattler2 · December 2017

Supreme Court here we come.

smokebailey · December 2017

rattler2 wrote: »

Supreme Court here we come.

And that's considering the big companies have not bribed them, yet.

Hell, I heard some things along the lines that they used names of dead folks when in this vote.
Like Carlin said, "They don't give a TRIBBLE about us at all."

detheater · December 2017

It is NOT too late!!!!!!! PLEASE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!!!!!

This is how it works: The FCC is a regulatory agency that is part of the executive branch of government. They may only create regulations they cannot create laws only Congress can do that.

The FCC has voted to repeal the net neutrality regulations from 2015. This is NOT a law. Congress can still pass a law that makes net neutrality a LAW and not a REGULATION. Also, Congress can pressure the FCC to not repeal Net Neutrality.

Sorry for the government lesson but its is definitely NOT too late to make your voice heard. This will be going on for some time. We lost the first fight but there is still a war to be won!

EDIT: So you know I know a little about what I am talking about. I live and work in Washington DC and have a masters degree in Political Science.

smokebailey · December 2017

not the first time the govt tries to TRIBBLE us over, yo.

detheater · December 2017

valoreah wrote: »

TBH, I don't foresee Congress allowing the repeal to become law.

I want this to be correct, but unless we put our voices behind it I don't know.

smokebailey · December 2017

valoreah wrote: »

While that's true in some instances, not every single thing the government does is bad and intended to **** over the populace.

For me, like George Carlin, I don't believe a **** thing the government says. Too many lies and too many **** to make me believe anything they say anymore.

To me a politician is a special interest BOOT LICKER.

thunderfoot · December 2017

This has been ping ponged back and forth for the last sixteen years. As soon as the Administration changes to the other party, it will get bounced back to the other viewpoint. Meanwhile, with Net Neutrality rules in place before this ruling, the USofA still has internet service and connectivity and infrastructure which comes in a very poor and distant second to most countries in Asia. Including the People's Republic of China.

markhawkman · December 2017

The really sad part is that people seem to have forgetton the arguments about whether any of this was a good thing.

smokebailey · December 2017

thunderfoot006 wrote: »

This has been ping ponged back and forth for the last sixteen years. As soon as the Administration changes to the other party, it will get bounced back to the other viewpoint. Meanwhile, with Net Neutrality rules in place before this ruling, the USofA still has internet service and connectivity and infrastructure which comes in a very poor and distant second to most countries in Asia. Including the People's Republic of China.

Among many other things....

ferroequus · December 2017

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

angrytarg · December 2017

> @ferroequus said:
> Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

Kinda the people's fault for considering this a either-or scenario. Even the US allows for more parties than two.

admrenlarreck · December 2017

angrytarg wrote: »

> @ferroequus said:
> Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent the American people, haven't done so in years.

Kinda the people's fault for considering this a either-or scenario. Even the US allows for more parties than two.

The problem is and will always be money. Only those two parties have enough money to buy the elections. Only laws that force a zero dollar spending limit, AND 100 percent equality between all candidates, ie TV air time etc, can bring this under control. Since the two parties have to pass that law, it will never happen.

angrytarg · December 2017

valoreah wrote: »

Don't forget, Pai's term is up this year (he was appointed in 2012 by Obama, so thank him for it) and he is probably looking at a career in "helping companies navigate the new internet market" which he helped create once his term is finished. See crony capitalism.

Anyhoo, I doubt Congress will pass this into law. Even if they were, companies like Google will tie this up in the courts for decades.

I'm not even a US Citizen, but even I know that "Obama appointed Pai" is incorrect. Obama appointed him on behalf of the the GOP (McConnell to be precise) and Trump made him head of the FCC and renewed his term. The FCC is made up of five commissioners, three of the ruling party and two of the opposition. Under Obama it was two Republicans who were chosen by the GOP. Know your own political system, yo.

sthe91 · December 2017

I disagree that the end of these net neutrality rules will end in the death of the Internet and democracy as we know it. I was around when these rules were not in place and we did fine and the Internet did not die. In fact I liked Youtube (before it got bought by Google) at that time as well as Facebook (not as much now). Here is an article about what the mainstream media and others don't tell you about the benefits of the 2015 net neutrality rules ending. Keep in mind two of the corporations wanting it to remain instead of being repealed are Google and Facebook. So to claim this would be a win for big corporations is false. Also, not all corporations are evil some actually do good and follow the rule of law. Check out heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/debunking-the-lefts-myths-net-neutrality for another perspective on what is actually going on when these rules are repealed. You don't have to agree with the author, this is just another view to consider instead of this conversation being one-sided. Thanks.

angrytarg · December 2017

sthe91 wrote: »

I disagree that the end of these net neutrality rules will end in the death of the Internet and democracy as we know it. I was around when these rules were not in place and we did fine and the Internet did not die. In fact I liked Youtube (before it got bought by Google) at that time as well as Facebook (not as much now). Here is an article about what the mainstream media and others don't tell you about the benefits of the 2015 net neutrality rules ending. Keep in mind two of the corporations wanting it to remain instead of being repealed are Google and Facebook. So to claim this would be a win for big corporations is false. Also, not all corporations are evil some actually do good and follow the rule of law. Check out heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/debunking-the-lefts-myths-net-neutrality for another perspective on what is actually going on when these rules are repealed. You don't have to agree with the author, this is just another view to consider instead of this conversation being one-sided. Thanks.

The very first point the author makes between his very emotional writing seems curious. Why does net neutrality "ban" discounts on services? As far as I know, nothing in the Net Neutrality definitions even mentions that. The author seems to simply exaggerate certain fears, the same thing he accuses the NN supporters of. He states there is no evidence of companies misusing their market power - which I find curious considering the de facto monopoly of some ISPs in parts of the country - but at the same time has little to offer but subjunctives. If NN has in some place held ISPs from providing benefits to the customers maybe he should have used that as an example?

The FCC decides the fate of Net Neutrality today!

Comments