FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Tananat]

I'm curious to see what will happen to the Europeans after this repeal passes (if it does)

Considering Net Neutrality isn't a thing in a number of European nations which have been held up as examples of what will happen if this repeal goes through...

Um... it is a thing in every EU country...

[The Black Forrest]

I the news.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/36 ... -with-fake

Maybe donnie didn't ask Putin's people to help with this too?

[Vassenor]

Besides, it's not like the ISPs have been caught throttling services before.

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

Oh wait.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The old bill is inadequate because it was conceived at a time not everyone thought that the internet was going to be a huge thing.

The rules we're operating from date from 1996 when, updated from the 1934 rules. The internet landscape back then was radically different from today.

You either have to introduce a bill that amends the Telecom Act, or introduce a bill that gives the FCC regulatory authority over ISPs to the extent that is needed.

Stop talking sense.

That said I think the net should be treated as a public utility much as the phone network currently is.

At the risk of sounding argumentative, why do you think that?

Mind, you're the only other person I think knows what's going on, so I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

[Terricon]

I the news.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/36 ... -with-fake

Maybe donnie didn't ask Putin's people to help with this too?

ISP's want to throttle traffic. Many websites don't want to pay for "fast lane" bandwidth. Third party organizations cite anti-net neutrality as a constitutional violation. Less popular websites seem to be split over the debate even though they have nothing to gain with the repeal of net neutrality. And now foreign players are being brought in to shill on the same backwater websites which prioritization will hurt the most.
The debate over net neutrality has more sides to it than the Syrian Civil War.

[Ostroeuropa]

Behold.

https://i.redd.it/rkcf032idkzz.png

It is worth a thousand words.

[Scootalove repbulic]

Behold.

https://i.redd.it/rkcf032idkzz.png

It is worth a thousand words.

It's beautiful.

[Ethel mermania]

Stop talking sense.

That said I think the net should be treated as a public utility much as the phone network currently is.

At the risk of sounding argumentative, why do you think that?

Mind, you're the only other person I think knows what's going on, so I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

End of the day, packets are a form of communication. Point to point (or multipoint) delivering messages in whatever format they are sent, the content itself doesn't matter, just the universal method of delivery does. Also the infrastructure costs are tremendous and true competition would have wires and cabling blighting neighborhoods as each provider would have to inststall their own. Also the internet is a gift from the defense department to the world, it was at their behest and funding that american universities were first connected together over leased lines from AT&T.

So I agree with you that congress should get off its ass and write the rules to put internet communications under the FCC.

[Shofercia]

This will go down in History as one of the dumbest moves, if they actually try it. Needless to say, I support Net Neutrality.

[Shofercia]

My thoughts? It's bad, but not quite the End of the Internet that some are claiming.

My only hope is this flips the edgy meme crowd from their focus on triggering snowflakes to fighting Trump's attempt to steal their porn and fast internet.

To get them to fight against Trump's attempt to take their fast internet you would first have to spread this news so they would know what is going on.

When their internet sites slow down, they'll know.

Said it before, will say it again.

ISPs and big corporations want to make your service more shit to get more money.

You get nothing as a benefit from this.

Ted Cruz, who was an advocate for the removal of net neutrality, was in Comcast's pocket when he was advocating for it.


Also, why are the alt righters who where using the internet to help Trump now shocked *Shocked* that the Trump administration that has Ted Cruz in it now want's to kill net neutrality?


I'm just going to put this here incase anyone wants to call the idiots who have more or less hijacked the US government.

They view this as Trump trolling them, and they didn't expect Trump to troll them. On the other hand, it'd be hilarious if President Cuban thanks 4chan for taking down Trump and reinstates Net Neutrality in 2020.

Ajit Pai is such a turd.

Possibly, and there seems to be the issue of a conflict of interest, as he worked for Verizon, allegedly lobbied for them, and is now regulating them. Can I, uhhh, regulate my taxes and salary?

After moving to Washington, D.C., in 1998, Pai worked for the United States Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division as an Honors Program trial attorney on the Telecommunications Task Force. There, he worked on proposed mergers and acquisitions and on novel requests for regulatory relief following the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Pai left his Department of Justice post in February 2001 to serve as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives. Pai left Verizon in April 2003 and was hired as Deputy Chief Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. He returned to the Department of Justice to serve as Senior Counsel in the Office of Legal Policy in May 2004. He held that position until February 2005, when he was hired as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights.

Between 2007 and 2011, Pai held several positions in the FCC's Office of General Counsel, serving most prominently as Deputy General Counsel. In this role, he had supervisory responsibility over several dozen lawyers in the Administrative Law Division and worked on a wide variety of regulatory and transactional matters involving the wireless, wireline, cable, Internet, media, and satellite industries. In 2010, Pai was one of 55 individuals nationwide chosen for the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship, a leadership development initiative of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Pai returned to the private sector in April 2011, working in the Washington, D.C., office of law firm Jenner & Block where he was a partner in the Communications Practice.

In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a term that concluded on June 30, 2016. Then Pai was designated chairman of the FCC by President Donald Trump in January 2017 for a five-year term. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the additional five-year term on October 2, 2017...

[Naval Monte]

This will go down in History as one of the dumbest moves, if they actually try it. Needless to say, I support Net Neutrality.

It's a high note of stupidity but Trump still has time to do something even dumber in the future.

[Ostroeuropa]

This will go down in History as one of the dumbest moves, if they actually try it. Needless to say, I support Net Neutrality.

An idea occurred to me.

If I were in government while this happened, my first act would be to announce an international, state controlled, net neutral, internet provider, then tweet *laughs in socialist* at all the senators, FCC guys, and internet providers.

"Hey, we'll even pay your cancellation fee with your current provider if one is needed provided you sign up for a year."

Bets China does something similar? Oh wait.
China.
Probably not.

The key being that a state run thing wouldn't need to be cutting edge to compete, it just has to not fall prey to the absurd and toxic jockeying a non-neutral net will provoke.

[Shofercia]

Not really. Nothing is going to change for 90% of the Internet.

Honestly, a few key ISPs should band together to block Fox news' website on the grounds that it's bad for their customers and that being Title 1 means we get to do what we want.

You'll watch a complete net neutrality bill sail through Congress in record time.

I second this suggestion.

https://i.imgur.com/VKPMxzq.png

This guys just wants to be the most hated man on the internet.

I wonder how much money he'll make in "speaking fees" for Verizon and AT&T if he pulls this off.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Said it before, will say it again.

ISPs and big corporations want to make your service more shit to get more money.

You get nothing as a benefit from this.

Ted Cruz, who was an advocate for the removal of net neutrality, was in Comcast's pocket when he was advocating for it.


Also, why are the alt righters who where using the internet to help Trump now shocked *Shocked* that the Trump administration that has Ted Cruz in it now want's to kill net neutrality?


I'm just going to put this here incase anyone wants to call the idiots who have more or less hijacked the US government.

They view this as Trump trolling them, and they didn't expect Trump to troll them. On the other hand, it'd be hilarious if President Cuban thanks 4chan for taking down Trump and reinstates Net Neutrality in 2020.

Fair point.

[Telconi]

At the risk of sounding argumentative, why do you think that?

Mind, you're the only other person I think knows what's going on, so I'd like your thoughts on the matter.

End of the day, packets are a form of communication. Point to point (or multipoint) delivering messages in whatever format they are sent, the content itself doesn't matter, just the universal method of delivery does. Also the infrastructure costs are tremendous and true competition would have wires and cabling blighting neighborhoods as each provider would have to inststall their own. Also the internet is a gift from the defense department to the world, it was at their behest and funding that american universities were first connected together over leased lines from AT&T.

So I agree with you that congress should get off its ass and write the rules to put internet communications under the FCC.

Absolutely!

[The of Japan]

They view this as Trump trolling them, and they didn't expect Trump to troll them. On the other hand, it'd be hilarious if President Cuban thanks 4chan for taking down Trump and reinstates Net Neutrality in 2020.

Fair point.

Source for Cruz-Comcast connection?

[Saiwania]

I would want a test case to be done on net neutrality, is there anywhere in the entire world that has tried to have no net neutrality at all within their borders? What has been the result?

Nobody should give me Portugal as an example, because Portugal has net neutrality, it has been debunked.
For anyone interested: http://www.telecomsense.com/2017/10/not ... ie-apo.php

I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, that net neutrality is the status quo and isn't broken. But I want to see the actual result of not having net neutrality on a trial basis. It is a shame really, that we don't have a clear picture of what is the better choice, we have only theory.

[Luminesa]

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works...

Still waiting on any evidence that Ars Technica, the evidence I used for my clam, is wrong or somehow illegitimate.

Herp, if he wants something from a formal website, then get something for him from a formal website. That’s all.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Fair point.

Source for Cruz-Comcast connection?

gizmodo

Still waiting on any evidence that Ars Technica, the evidence I used for my clam, is wrong or somehow illegitimate.

Herp, if he wants something from a formal website, then get something for him from a formal website. That’s all.

Couldn't find a secondary source.

[Salandriagado]

So, if i understand now, they wanna force us to pay for certain internet services?

No. They want to force websites to pay to be available to their customers, or to be quickly available to their customers. From the customer side, this is unbelievably shit: for example, NationStates sure as hell can't afford to pay off your ISP, so suddenly you can't get on it, or it loads ridiculously slowly.

[Arkinesia]

Every time there is a regime change in Washington, the FCC rules get changed. Under Obama- it was pro-net neutrality while under Trump- they're attempting to reverse course to be anti-net neutrality. It is ridiculous.

Given how the FCC regulates radio bands to prevent signal conflicts, I propose that it be isolated from the executive branch like the Federal Reserve is. It isn't right that the FCC gets influenced by any presidential administration that comes in. The FCC must be free to operate independently and only have policy guided by what is best for telecommunications overall. The Presidency doesn't have the power to interfere with interest rates or monetary policy, this shouldn't be the case with the EPA or FCC either.

The FCC already has too much power to begin with, considering their punitive restrictions on expression in visual media.

[New Genoa]

Link

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... tes-183468
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/36 ... n-december
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1113201502 ... 0Parte.pdf

The Obama administration’s net neutrality rules met their all-but-certain demise Tuesday as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai outlined a plan to repeal them — while making sure states can't impose their own regulations to fill the void.

Internet service providers, many of whom operate across state lines, also want to avoid a series of disparate rules from states. They want to avoid a repeat of what happened this year on broadband privacy, when nearly two-dozen states proposed legislation to replace an Obama-FCC regulation that Congress revoked.

But proponents of the current rules question whether the FCC has the authority to block states from issuing their own rules, especially when the agency is paring back its oversight over internet service providers in the order

According to the official, the draft proposal would also pre-empt state and local governments from implementing their own net neutrality rules. He said Congress could choose to replace the FCC rules with legislation but that it wouldn't be necessary since all of the major internet providers have committed to not blocking content.

The Commission therefore should preempt any state or local broadband-specific
regulation, irrespective of whether the state or locality claims that its regulation promotes
or supplements federal goals. Thus, for example, state “network neutrality” regulations
addressing the treatment of traffic on the network would be preempted, as would state
broadband-specific privacy requirements. Under this framework, however, states and
their subdivisions would maintain their authority to act under generally applicable laws,
such as state consumer protection and unfair-business-practices statutes (sometimes
called “Little FTC Acts”). Just as in the Vonage Preemption Order, the Commission can
and should preempt “public utility-type regulation” (and any other broadband-specific
regulation) while leaving in place “generally applicable commercial consumer
protection statutes, or similar generally applicable state laws.”

I haven't read the entirety of the third link, but it is sourced in the Ars Technica article.

Seems like their reasoning will be based around interstate commerce or some such.

[Saiwania]

The FCC already has too much power to begin with, considering their punitive restrictions on expression in visual media.

What restrictions? Not being able to swear or be lewd on TV during certain hours? Yeah, I don't care too much about that- most of the general public is in favor of broadcast media not being a free for all, to have at least some quality control standards. An FCC still needs to exist if radio bands overlap. Wireless communication inherently needs regulations if people are to be able to use the bandwidth that is available and get a clear signal.

They can't exactly allow just anyone to use any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum they want, if that'd mean signal conflicts. I'd say that overseeing which radio bands can be used for what, is a very important and crucial task.

[The of Japan]

Source for Cruz-Comcast connection?

gizmodo

Herp, if he wants something from a formal website, then get something for him from a formal website. That’s all.

Couldn't find a secondary source.

What evidence does gizmondo have? I didn’t see anything sourced for the claims about Cruz.

[Vassenor]

So where is the STATES RIGHTS crowd during this open federal override?