Net Neutrality Protest - Thousands of Sites Join

[Ethel mermania]

There are two questions here.
1. Does title 2 cover ISP's, ?

Per the FCC prior to the election yes. The current FCC is working on reclassifying them from Title 2 to Title 1.

2. If so, should the ISP's be treated as a ... for lack of a term that escapes me a common carrier? (as telephone communications are).

They should and currently are. The FCC is now working on undoing that.

Full disclosure: I agree with you. even though the act of 1934 did not anticipate the internet, end of the day voice is just another form of data.

[The Flutterlands]

In 2015 or so ISPs were ruled to be common carriers, yes.

Court order, congressional action, or FCC rule? FCC rules can be changed on a whim, court orders and laws, not so much.

Not according to the Administration Procedure Act...

[Ethel mermania]

Court order, congressional action, or FCC rule? FCC rules can be changed on a whim, court orders and laws, not so much.

FCC ruling, iirc.

Then what is done can be undone. Congress needs to step up.

[Ethel mermania]

Court order, congressional action, or FCC rule? FCC rules can be changed on a whim, court orders and laws, not so much.

Not according to the Administration Procedure Act...

There is a process. (Same with the EPA), but the administration needs no other input to effect the chsnge.

[Valrifell]

FCC ruling, iirc.

Then what is done can be undone. Congress needs to step up.

Congress needs to step up on a lot of things. Problem being, nobody thinks the problem is with their Senator/Representative, so nobody gets voted out even though we all agree that Congress is shit on the whole.

I blame too much voter cynicism, partisan stupidity, and a lack of willing challengers to incumbents.

[Ethel mermania]

Then what is done can be undone. Congress needs to step up.

Congress needs to step up on a lot of things. Problem being, nobody thinks the problem is with their Senator/Representative, so nobody gets voted out even though we all agree that Congress is shit on the whole.

I blame too much voter cynicism, partisan stupidity, and a lack of willing challengers to incumbents.

I don't disagree, and with this congress I am not sure they will do the right thing.

[The Flutterlands]

Not according to the Administration Procedure Act...

There is a process. (Same with the EPA), but the administration needs no other input to effect the chsnge.

But the Administrative Procedure Act also prevents capricious and arbitrary rule making. Rolling back net neutrality so soon after it's application seems arbitrary and capricious. Not to mention they can't just ignore the whims of overwhelming outcry.

[Ethel mermania]

There is a process. (Same with the EPA), but the administration needs no other input to effect the chsnge.

But the Administrative Procedure Act also prevents capricious and arbitrary rule making. Rolling back net neutrality so soon after it's application seems arbitrary and capricious. Not to mention they can't just ignore the whims of overwhelming outcry.

You haven't seen the American government in action, have you?

[Welskerland]

CNN?

I was gonna say Infowars, but yeah CNN works as well as long as they lie as much as Alex Jones does (They don't so)

I thought you were referring to Fox, since it is conservative, many Republicans are conservatives, and it seems the GOP is against net neutrality if I am understanding all this correctly.

[The Flutterlands]

But the Administrative Procedure Act also prevents capricious and arbitrary rule making. Rolling back net neutrality so soon after it's application seems arbitrary and capricious. Not to mention they can't just ignore the whims of overwhelming outcry.

You haven't seen the American government in action, have you?

There must be some way to fight back against the rollback of Net Neutrality. This can't be allowed to be a waste of the people's time and effort.

[Valrifell]

I was gonna say Infowars, but yeah CNN works as well as long as they lie as much as Alex Jones does (They don't so)

I thought you were referring to Fox, since it is conservative, many Republicans are conservatives, and it seems the GOP is against net neutrality if I am understanding all this correctly.

Nobody wants to openly admit they're against net neutrality, since the Libertarian branch that's against it is the extreme fringe in American politics, and I do mean the extreme fringe.

Then again, it only really risks the youth vote, who politicians already don't really give two shit about, so...

[Valrifell]

You haven't seen the American government in action, have you?

There must be some way to fight back against the rollback of Net Neutrality. This can't be allowed to be a waste of the people's time and effort.

Could always keep the issue pressed and always threaten to elect some other loser who will take action in Congress. It'll inspire some "naive" idealist (the ilk we desperately need more of) to run and maybe they'll win. Repeat nationally and maybe they won't seem so naive.

[Ethel mermania]

You haven't seen the American government in action, have you?

There must be some way to fight back against the rollback of Net Neutrality. This can't be allowed to be a waste of the people's time and effort.

Kick congress, it's where it belongs. Congress is suppose to legislate, the executive enforce.

I think that the ISP should be considered common carrriers, and subject to FCC regulation. But I think Congress need to specify that regulation.

[Thermodolia]

Well this explains why pornhub was so damn slow

[Arkinesia]

You haven't seen the American government in action, have you?

There must be some way to fight back against the rollback of Net Neutrality. This can't be allowed to be a waste of the people's time and effort.

“They can't be allowed to do this thing, I don't like it!”

That's not how life, government, anything works. And net neutrality is a piss-poor way to open up the internet anyway, which is probably why so much of the developed world dropped it a long time ago and sought other methods of ensuring a free and open internet (with less government intervention in all cases, as it so happens).

[Liberated Territories]

Isn't the fact that lots of websites that would be "hurt" by Net Neutrality supporting it not ringing off any warning bells for anyone? No one? I guess I am just paranoid.

[The Serbian Empire]

Isn't the fact that lots of websites that would be "hurt" by Net Neutrality supporting it not ringing off any warning bells for anyone? No one? I guess I am just paranoid.

They believe that they'd have to pay the ISP to get on their preferred lists. It hurts them in their bottom line.

[Salandriagado]

Isn't the fact that lots of websites that would be "hurt" by Net Neutrality supporting it not ringing off any warning bells for anyone? No one? I guess I am just paranoid.

Every website that isn't owned by an ISP benefits from net neutrality.

[Polish Theocracy of Joakim]

... This isn't the first time the FCC has fucked up majorly like this and there was a uproar


We should of seen the signs.

[The of Japan]

This might not mean anything, but many of the largest corporations in the US (like google) actually have been supporting net neutrality

[Salandriagado]

This might not mean anything, but many of the largest corporations in the US (like google) actually have been supporting net neutrality

Yeah, those that aren't ISPs but do have significant web presences, so stand to lose from a loss of net neutrality.

[Ethel mermania]

This might not mean anything, but many of the largest corporations in the US (like google) actually have been supporting net neutrality

Google is a content provider. End of the day this is about letting the ISP's charge more to the content providers for providing guarenteed service

. Kind of like a mob shakedown, "it would be a shame if something happened to your data."

[The of Japan]

This might not mean anything, but many of the largest corporations in the US (like google) actually have been supporting net neutrality

Google is a content provider. End of the day this is about letting the ISP's charge more to the content providers for providing guarenteed service

. Kind of like a mob shakedown, "it would be a shame if something happened to your data."

has that ever actually happened?

[Saiwania]

Every website that isn't owned by an ISP benefits from net neutrality.

And major content websites such as Google should keep being able to cut deals to benefit themselves while ISPs aren't able to do the same, why? How is that a good state of affairs? As it is now, websites which are large and wealthy enough; voluntarily enter into peering agreements with Tier 1 providers so that their websites and content can load faster and handle more end user traffic than smaller competing websites.

I don't believe that in practice, that ISPs would charge extortionate rates to websites. If after all, you have a hit website that is the "next big thing" since Amazon or whatever- such a website will be able to set up as much "blazing fast" connectivity and global access that money can buy. It is obvious to me that small websites would still be accessible, just perhaps taking 1 or a few seconds longer to load.

It is fair in my opinion, that priority (which is a finite resource) should be rationed by price- which ideally would be driven by market forces and competition among ISPs.

[Galloism]

Google is a content provider. End of the day this is about letting the ISP's charge more to the content providers for providing guarenteed service

. Kind of like a mob shakedown, "it would be a shame if something happened to your data."

has that ever actually happened?

Yes - multiple times.