FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Bigmen Yass Lovers]

I think it's great, honestly. Anything that opposes or at least slows down the American influence is a good thing, how do redditors fail to realize this?

[Alvecia]

how do redditors fail to realize this?

You sure you're on the right site mate?

[The Flutterlands]

I think it's great, honestly. Anything that opposes or at least slows down the American influence is a good thing, how do redditors fail to realize this?

....I don't even...

[Neutraligon]

irrelevant, he was legitimately appointed head of the agency and so has not hijacked it irrelevant, he was legitimately appointed head of the agency and so has not hijacked it. Also irrelevant, he was legitimately appointed head of the agency and so has not hijacked it.

If the FCC hasn't been hijacked by ISP thugs, then EPA hasn't been hijacked by fossil fuel thugs. Except they have.

No they have not.

[The Flutterlands]

If the FCC hasn't been hijacked by ISP thugs, then EPA hasn't been hijacked by fossil fuel thugs. Except they have.

No they have not.

We have a former Verizon attorney in charge of the FCC and a climate change denier in charge of EPA. How are those not foxes in charge of the chicken coop with conflicts of interest?

[The Flutterlands]

We are debating on something involved in this subject of the thread. I don't get how we are derailing...

[Camicon]

We are debating on something involved in this subject of the thread. I don't get how we are derailing...

"Debating" is a very generous way to describe it. That would require you to actually consider views that don't agree with your own, and address them in a manner that isn't your rote "YOU'RE ALL WRONG! I'M THE ONLY ONE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY! WHARGARBL!"

[Neutraligon]

No they have not.

We have a former Verizon attorney in charge of the FCC and a climate change denier in charge of EPA. How are those not foxes in charge of the chicken coop with conflicts of interest?

Being hijacked and foxes in charge of the hen house are not the same thing.

[The Flutterlands]

We have a former Verizon attorney in charge of the FCC and a climate change denier in charge of EPA. How are those not foxes in charge of the chicken coop with conflicts of interest?

Being hijacked and foxes in charge of the hen house are not the same thing.

Yes they are. They have been corrupted and shifted dangerously from their intended purposes to benefit what they are suppose to regulate.

[Neutraligon]

Being hijacked and foxes in charge of the hen house are not the same thing.

Yes they are. They have been corrupted and shifted dangerously from their intended purposes to benefit what they are suppose to regulate.

No they are not. A fox in charge of a hen house is not hijacking it is placing a person in charge of something they are supposed to protect who places that thing in danger. Hijacking is to take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. They are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. You could claim that the FCC is currently like a henhouse with a fox protecting it; it is not however being hijacked.

[The Flutterlands]

Yes they are. They have been corrupted and shifted dangerously from their intended purposes to benefit what they are suppose to regulate.

No they are not.

How is deregulating ISPs to leave them frew to wreck havoc on the internet for profit and deregulating fossil fuel companies not counter to the purpose of the agencies? Regulators are meant to regulate. They are no longer regulating.

[Neutraligon]

No they are not.

How is deregulating ISPs to leave them frew to wreck havoc on the internet for profit and deregulating fossil fuel companies not counter to the purpose of the agencies? Regulators are meant to regulate. They are no longer regulating.

Because they have not been deregulated, the regulation has simply changed back to what it was before 2015 (FCC). The purpose of the agencies is not consumer protection. Would you claim that if the FDA changed the classification of certain drugs, it would no longer be regulating?

[The Flutterlands]

How is deregulating ISPs to leave them frew to wreck havoc on the internet for profit and deregulating fossil fuel companies not counter to the purpose of the agencies? Regulators are meant to regulate. They are no longer regulating.

Because they have not been deregulated, the regulation has simply changed back to what it was before 2015 (FCC). The purpose of the agencies is not consumer protection. Would you claim that if the FDA changed the classification of certain drugs, it would no longer be regulating?

I say it is because that is what they been trying to be since the conception of the internet. They have always been trying to put regulations on internet providers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... istory/amp

And if they change the classification of certain drugs to that which they have no authority over, yes they are. Which is what the FCC did to broadband. They got rid of all the rules they made for ISPS since at least 2004.

[Neutraligon]

Because they have not been deregulated, the regulation has simply changed back to what it was before 2015 (FCC). The purpose of the agencies is not consumer protection. Would you claim that if the FDA changed the classification of certain drugs, it would no longer be regulating?

I say it is because that is what they been trying to be since the conception of the internet. They have always been trying to put regulations on internet providers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... istory/amp

And if they change the classification of certain drugs to that which they have no authority over, yes they are. Which is what the FCC did to broadband. They got rid of all the rules they made for ISPS since at least 2004.

I am sorry but are you saying the FCC has no authority change regulation, when you know that is precisely why the agency exists, to regulate and determine what regulations should be? Similarly the purpose of the FDA is to regulate Food and Drugs, including what the regulations should be, and classification of drugs determine what the regulations are. Knew directions for agencies are not something to be surprised about, that is what happens when you get someone with a different opinion in charge of the agency. And once again, they are simply returning to the regulation pre-2015 which is not the same as no longer regulating at all.

[The Flutterlands]

I say it is because that is what they been trying to be since the conception of the internet. They have always been trying to put regulations on internet providers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... istory/amp

And if they change the classification of certain drugs to that which they have no authority over, yes they are. Which is what the FCC did to broadband. They got rid of all the rules they made for ISPS since at least 2004.

I am sorry but are you saying the FCC has no authority change regulation, when you know that is precisely why the agency exists, to regulate and determine what regulations should be? Similarly the purpose of the FDA is to regulate Food and Drugs, including what the regulations should be, and classification of drugs determine what the regulations are. Knew directions for agencies are not something to be surprised about, that is what happens when you get someone with a different opinion in charge of the agency. And once again, they are simply returning to the regulation pre-2015 which is not the same as no longer regulating at all.

No. They returning regulations to pre-2004. They have had rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization since the beginning. I'm also saying that they shouldn't have the authority to yo-yo regulations at the drop of a hat with every change in party control.

[The Flutterlands]

Regardless, this deregulation puts the flow of information on the internet in the hands of those who have much to gain from exploiting it with almost zero oversight. That is extremely dangerous and goes against everything internet stands for as a place for public discourse as well as democracy. Imagine politicians influencing corporations into influencing the news to serve their interests. That is close to dictatorship. Not to mention It will make life difficult for small businesses who can't afford the fast lane bribes, as ISP thugs will certainly make those. It should not be tolerated and we the People should demand that they restore our internet protections with as much backlash as possible. If they don't give in to our demands then we should make their lives as hard as possible without breaking the law.

[The Flutterlands]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/net-neut ... d=52903541

More proof of why this is so dangerous and why the courts must save us from this attack in our internet rights.

[-Ocelot-]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/net-neutralitys-end-lets-internet-service-providers-direct/story?id=52903541

More proof of why this is so dangerous and why the courts must save us from this attack in our internet rights.

That's one of the reasons big ISPs don't want NN in the US. Ajit Pai is Republican and there are elections coming up in 2018 and 2020. Without NN, ISPs can help Republicans stay in power or at least combat the enemies of their sponsors. The evangelist sponsors, for example, could make it harder to access websites that are pro-atheism or help people to escape cults and abusive behavior. Money isn't the only reasons Republicans want NN repealed.

[The Flutterlands]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/net-neutralitys-end-lets-internet-service-providers-direct/story?id=52903541

More proof of why this is so dangerous and why the courts must save us from this attack in our internet rights.

That's one of the reasons big ISPs don't want NN in the US. Ajit Pai is Republican and there are elections coming up in 2018 and 2020. Without NN, ISPs can help Republicans stay in power or at least combat the enemies of their sponsors. The evangelist sponsors, for example, could make it harder to access websites that are pro-atheism or help people to escape cults and abusive behavior. Money isn't the only reasons Republicans want NN repealed.

I talked about that already. Every thing about this is horrible for America and democracy. We must allow ourselves to let Ajit Pai and his accomplices in this theft of our rights get away with this robbery. If the Courts rule in favor of them, then they rule in favor of every danger we have mentioned.

If they are not with us, they are against us.

[The Flutterlands]

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/fccs-vot ... n-internet

Varying perspectives on the FCC move aside, here’s what is known for certain, based on how the new rules are worded:

• Your ISP — be it Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision or a similar monolithic company — is now the bouncer at your doorway to the internet. Your ISP now completely controls what content you will see, what content you won’t see and how much it charges you for that privilege.

• Your ISP now has the right to charge major content providers — such as Netflix — extra to send movies to you. Should those surcharges start popping up, those extra costs are expected to translate into higher subscription fees.

• Your ISP now has the right to charge you extra to use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and any other social media site. You’ll most likely be paying more to use social media, sooner or later. Plus, social media as an advertising medium could become less attractive for you, given that the major draw of social media among U.S. consumers is that accessing it has been free. In England, for example, where internet regulations are already less consumer-friendly, internet users pay extra to use social media, extra to view videos and extra to exchange messages with their colleagues and friends.

• Your ISP now has the right to make your favorite content disappear. ISPs that also are in the content creation business (and there are a lot of those) can simply choose not to offer competitive content, or make it more expensive.

• Your ISP can now offer faster, more reliable transmissions to your competitors who pay for such premium service — and leave your company to slowly limp along, deliberately engineered to be an also-ran.

• Your ISP has the right to thwart the emergence of cool, new services. The major impetus behind the rise of social media and the easy access to an incredible array of news and entertainment on the internet has been fundamentally founded on its free distribution model.

Under the new FCC rules, there’s a good chance that the story of a kid who started a website in his dorm room and later went on to become the CEO of one of the most influential corporations in human history — a corporation also known as Facebook — will become a rarity, if not just a seemingly fanciful tale from days of yore. Anyone with an incredible internet idea may now have to pay your ISP major coin to see if it will fly on a statewide, national or international level. That pretty much leaves kids in dorm rooms who have great ideas but no cash dead in the water.

• You’re now completely at the mercy of your ISP, given that ISPs are generally a monopoly or duopoly in any given region. While FCC’s Pai has argued that a newly competitive marketplace with the new rules will safeguard consumers from ISPs that get unreasonable about their pricing or policies, reality suggests otherwise. More often than not, consumers looking for reliable, high-speed broadband service generally have only one or two companies from which to choose. And while satellite is often a third choice, satellite suffers from latency issues.

This is unacceptable. The courts must stop this or else they are compliant with the death of the internet as we know it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Weird how none of that is actually happening.

[The Flutterlands]

Weird how none of that is actually happening.

That is a non-argument. The rules aren't official yet because they have yet to go into the federal registry. Then the law suits can begin.

[Big Jim P]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/net-neutralitys-end-lets-internet-service-providers-direct/story?id=52903541

More proof of why this is so dangerous and why the courts must save us from this attack in our internet rights.

There's a good part of your problem. The internet is not a right.

[The Flutterlands]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/net-neutralitys-end-lets-internet-service-providers-direct/story?id=52903541

More proof of why this is so dangerous and why the courts must save us from this attack in our internet rights.

There's a good part of your problem. The internet is not a right.

It is as much a right as water and electricity. Not to mention the free speech rights and right to information that should come with it. The ISPs will get to control everything we do at our expense.

[Big Jim P]

There's a good part of your problem. The internet is not a right.

It is as much a right as water and electricity. Not to mention the free speech rights and right to information that should come with it. The ISPs will get to control everything we do at our expense.

Indeed. You have just as much right to purchase water or electricity as you do to purchase internet access.