FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[The Flutterlands]

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.

Yeah, I should have the right to purchase internet access. However, I should also have the right to say what I want and do what I want on the internet without ISPs censoring me or nickle and diming everything I do with unreasonable greed.

[Saiwania]

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

The internet will be just fine, it is a given that there will be plenty of countries that have net neutrality. It is the user experience of Americans that might suffer. Companies that don't want to pay an extra toll to US based ISPs might move their servers overseas to countries where they don't have to. Any American end users however, would be left high and dry; being that they generally can't just up and leave for overseas.

Some US cities have municipal broadband, that is a rather effective way to fight back against private ISP shenanigans. If residents have access to an ISP which isn't a private corporation, that takes a significant amount of leverage away. No one will use a private ISP if it offers poorer service in that scenario. The opposite is primarily true where there isn't any municipal broadband and there is instead a regional monopoly or duopoly.

[The Flutterlands]

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

The internet will be just fine, it is a given that there will be plenty of countries that have net neutrality. It is the user experience of Americans that might suffer. Companies that don't want to pay an extra toll to US based ISPs might move their servers overseas to countries where they don't have to. Any American end users however, would be left high and dry; being that they generally can't just up and leave for overseas.

Some US cities have municipal broadband, that is a rather effective way to fight back against private ISP shenanigans. If residents have access to an ISP which isn't a private corporation, that takes a significant amount of leverage away. No one will use a private ISP if it offers poorer service in that scenario. The opposite is primarily true where there isn't any municipal broadband and there is instead a regional monopoly or duopoly.

That is exactly the point. I am an American internet user. And my experience could suffer greatly to corporate greed. Not only that, but this is also another concern as isps will now have the power to control information. Whoever controls the flow of information, controls the election and political process. December 14th 2017, and whenever the new rules become offical, marks the day when the Republican propaganda machine (through Fox and Sinclair, and now the internet) will be set to reign the next elections in its favor. They won’t need Russia’s interference any more, if such stories are true. They’ll interfere themselves, as they do with gerrymandering and voter suppression. No matter which party you belong to, this should concern you. Because from now on, or at least from the moment the rules become official, with corporate control over information on the internet, we’re a democracy in name only.

[The Parkus Empire]

The internet will be just fine, it is a given that there will be plenty of countries that have net neutrality. It is the user experience of Americans that might suffer. Companies that don't want to pay an extra toll to US based ISPs might move their servers overseas to countries where they don't have to. Any American end users however, would be left high and dry; being that they generally can't just up and leave for overseas.

Some US cities have municipal broadband, that is a rather effective way to fight back against private ISP shenanigans. If residents have access to an ISP which isn't a private corporation, that takes a significant amount of leverage away. No one will use a private ISP if it offers poorer service in that scenario. The opposite is primarily true where there isn't any municipal broadband and there is instead a regional monopoly or duopoly.

That is exactly the point. I am an American internet user. And my experience could suffer greatly to corporate greed. Not only that, but this is also another concern as isps will now have the power to control information. Whoever controls the flow of information, controls the election and political process. December 14th 2017, and whenever the new rules become offical, marks the day when the Republican propaganda machine (through Fox and Sinclair, and now the internet) will be set to reign the next elections in its favor. They won’t need Russia’s interference any more, if such stories are true. They’ll interfere themselves, as they do with gerrymandering and voter suppression. No matter which party you belong to, this should concern you. Because from now on, or at least from the moment the rules become official, with corporate control over information on the internet, we’re a democracy in name only.

"Suffer"? The Passion of My Little Pony?

[The Flutterlands]

That is exactly the point. I am an American internet user. And my experience could suffer greatly to corporate greed. Not only that, but this is also another concern as isps will now have the power to control information. Whoever controls the flow of information, controls the election and political process. December 14th 2017, and whenever the new rules become offical, marks the day when the Republican propaganda machine (through Fox and Sinclair, and now the internet) will be set to reign the next elections in its favor. They won’t need Russia’s interference any more, if such stories are true. They’ll interfere themselves, as they do with gerrymandering and voter suppression. No matter which party you belong to, this should concern you. Because from now on, or at least from the moment the rules become official, with corporate control over information on the internet, we’re a democracy in name only.

"Suffer"? The Passion of My Little Pony?

....Christ for the love of God. This has nothing to do with my little pony. Stick with the conversation or get out.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Suffer"? The Passion of My Little Pony?

....Christ for the love of God. This has nothing to do with my little pony. Stick with the conversation or get out.

I don't see how you're going to win here without magic, let alone without friendship

[Mattopilos II]

I ain't a fan of MLP myself, but bringing it up because of a person's flag isn't really necessary on what is supposed to be a serious topic.

[Camicon]

....Christ for the love of God. This has nothing to do with my little pony. Stick with the conversation or get out.

I don't see how you're going to win here without magic, let alone without friendship

Was it not the Great Emancipator, President Lincoln the Truthful, who said "Do I not destroy my enemies with magic when I make them my friends?"

I ain't a fan of MLP myself, but bringing it up because of a person's flag isn't really necessary on what is supposed to be a serious topic.

If Flutters wants people to take this thread seriously then they need to stop frothing at the mouth and losing their shit at literally every article with the words "net neutrality" in the title.

[The Flutterlands]

Regardless, another reason why I hope the courts strike down is because the net neutrality repeal is built on nothing more than lying bullshit. If the Courts don't strike it down, then it sets the precedent that agencies can lie their ass off in the halls of justice, and to the general publoc, and get away with it.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... ral-report

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... t-true/amp

Don't get me stated on the fraud and identity theft that happened during the comment process. It will set a precedent that agencies can get away with that too. Meaning nothing we say will truly matter.

[Luminesa]

That is exactly the point. I am an American internet user. And my experience could suffer greatly to corporate greed. Not only that, but this is also another concern as isps will now have the power to control information. Whoever controls the flow of information, controls the election and political process. December 14th 2017, and whenever the new rules become offical, marks the day when the Republican propaganda machine (through Fox and Sinclair, and now the internet) will be set to reign the next elections in its favor. They won’t need Russia’s interference any more, if such stories are true. They’ll interfere themselves, as they do with gerrymandering and voter suppression. No matter which party you belong to, this should concern you. Because from now on, or at least from the moment the rules become official, with corporate control over information on the internet, we’re a democracy in name only.

"Suffer"? The Passion of My Little Pony?

If you want to disparage Flutter’s post, at the very least do it in some way that is productive.

[Freezic Vast]

Here's the thing, I highly doubt ISPs actually give a a care about a person's own views, all they want to do is make money. And the way they can make money is to try to charge you. Yet Flutters has this crazy idea that ISPs are trying to undermine our democracy and that this would just censor our free speech. That is incredibly stupid because I doubt that ISPs care about one's personal beliefs because all they care about is making money, nothing more nothing less. And yet all of Flutters insane whining is about how the system is corrupt the FCC being hijacked and how this is a danger to democracy, all the while shoving every American phrase down our throats. There is no threat to our democracy, ISPs only want money not to censor us.

[Luminesa]

Here's the thing, I highly doubt ISPs actually give a a care about a person's own views, all they want to do is make money. And the way they can make money is to try to charge you. Yet Flutters has this crazy idea that ISPs are trying to undermine our democracy and that this would just censor our free speech. That is incredibly stupid because I doubt that ISPs care about one's personal beliefs because all they care about is making money, nothing more nothing less. And yet all of Flutters insane whining is about how the system is corrupt the FCC being hijacked and how this is a danger to democracy, all the while shoving every American phrase down our throats. There is no threat to our democracy, ISPs only want money not to censor us.

But...we’re all aware of that.

[The Flutterlands]

Here's the thing, I highly doubt ISPs actually give a a care about a person's own views, all they want to do is make money. And the way they can make money is to try to charge you. Yet Flutters has this crazy idea that ISPs are trying to undermine our democracy and that this would just censor our free speech. That is incredibly stupid because I doubt that ISPs care about one's personal beliefs because all they care about is making money, nothing more nothing less. And yet all of Flutters insane whining is about how the system is corrupt the FCC being hijacked and how this is a danger to democracy, all the while shoving every American phrase down our throats. There is no threat to our democracy, ISPs only want money not to censor us.

The danger will still be there though because they will nonetheless have the power to block and throttle content they don't like. No one should have that power and because ISPs have done so before, they will do so again. They have blocked content they didn't want costumers using in favor of their own and they have blocked content with political views they disagreed with.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009

.

The system is corrupt and the FCC has been hijacked by telecom thugs who robbed us of our internet protections to make more money through exrtortion. Believe it or not, the FCC IS suppose to serve public interest, not the whims of Big Cable thugs who wants to exploit us. For ten years we have fought for Net Neutrality rules along side the FCC and have finally succeeded in 2015. Now a wicked, evil man, a corporate puppet with great contempt for the American people, took over the FCC and stole those protections away from us, so his evil masters can wreck havoc on the internet again. We must find ways to use every power we got to make him give us those protections back by force. He ignored the will of us so we should ignore the will of Ajit Pai.

The Internet is a function of life and means to communicate, and it should not be unfairly exclusionary for exploited gain. It goes against everything internet stands for. If the Courts and the FCC won't listen to us the the states should not listen to them and make their own Net Neutrality rules regardless of the Court Orders and State Preemptions.

[Freezic Vast]

Here's the thing, I highly doubt ISPs actually give a a care about a person's own views, all they want to do is make money. And the way they can make money is to try to charge you. Yet Flutters has this crazy idea that ISPs are trying to undermine our democracy and that this would just censor our free speech. That is incredibly stupid because I doubt that ISPs care about one's personal beliefs because all they care about is making money, nothing more nothing less. And yet all of Flutters insane whining is about how the system is corrupt the FCC being hijacked and how this is a danger to democracy, all the while shoving every American phrase down our throats. There is no threat to our democracy, ISPs only want money not to censor us.

The danger will still be there though because they will nonetheless have the power to block and throttle content they don't like. No one should have that power and because ISPs have done so before, they will do so again. They have blocked content they didn't want costumers using in favor of their own and they have blocked content with political views they disagreed with.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009

.

The system is corrupt and the FCC has been hijacked by telecom thugs who robbed us of our internet protections to make more money through exrtortion. Believe it or not, the FCC IS suppose to serve public interest, not the whims of Big Cable thugs who wants to exploit us. For ten years we have fought for Net Neutrality rules along side the FCC and have finally succeeded in 2015. Now a wicked, evil man, a corporate puppet with great contempt for the American people, took over the FCC and stole those protections away from us, so his evil masters can wreck havoc on the internet again. We must find ways to use every power we got to make him give us those protections back by force. He ignored the will of us so we should ignore the will of Ajit Pai.

The Internet is a function of life and means to communicate, and it should not be unfairly exclusionary for exploited gain. It goes against everything internet stands for. If the Courts and the FCC won't listen to us the the states should not listen to them and make their own Net Neutrality rules regardless of the Court Orders and State Preemptions.

First, none of the above examples were made to block people because of different political views, except Telus.

Second, the system is not corrupt just because you said it is. Ajit was appointed to the FCC fair and square under Trump, and you constantly act like the system is corrupt just because he was an attorney for Verizon.

Third, ISPs CAN charge you extra because the internet is not a right or a utility you need, it is a service provided to you by ISPs and you should pay for internet.

Fourth, the FCC does NOT have to support public interest, they are a regulatory body created to regulate communications and they decided not to regulate the internet. It is not the government's job to protect your faux rights online that you DON'T have because the usage of the internet is not a right, at best it is a luxury that you should pay for. What right do you have to "free" internet? The old saying still goes that "freedom isn't free"

Fifth, Comcast, AT&T and other ISPs have not "wrecked havoc on the internet" just because of a small number of incidents, if anything you are blowing this out of proportion.

Sixth, none of this is a "real" threat to democracy at all. At the end of the day, people can still say what they want and vote who they want, all you ave to do is just pay a little more for whatever pseudo-internet privilege you may think you have.

Finally, you should really stop foaming at the mouth and telling us that this is the end of our democratic way of life. Stop lecturing us like this is a black and white issue, when really it's not. You act like if someone doesn't 100% agree with you, that they are the enemy, and that way of thinking is critical to your well being. And considering how you constantly act on here, I'd say you take this way too serious and overblow it too much. And your idea that, "if the system is corrupt, let's overthrow it for the glory of democracy and freedom" sounds less democratic and more anarchical, if anything. And since people have commented how you want to be a lawyer, you should really not say that type of shit. Instead of crying and throwing a fit about this how about you actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! But knowing you, you most likely won't and just continue and will continue to bitch to us until eventually the mods finally lock this gods-forsaken thread, or do something about you.

Also, wow 10 edits for one post, that has to be a record.

[The Flutterlands]

I stopped reading at your third statement because that and everything else goes against what the internet is about. The internet IS a utility like water and electricity and I don't give a damn about disagreements comparable to climate change denial. The ISPs are meant to just give us the internet for a single prove, not with extra fees for every thing we are want to see and do. The FCC is meant to serve the public interest and have done great treachery by robbing is of our internet protections. It will take far too long to go after all your other arguments.

And it is a black and white issues. You are ether with telecom thugs who want to exploit the consumer or you are with the consumer who is entitled to use the whole internet without Telecom thuggery

And as for doing something about it as a lawyer, I can't right now because I am.in school. And the schooling could be ruined because doing research could become hugely expensive without net neutrality. So thank you Ajit Pai for fucking me over. After all the like Freezic said, the internet is only a privilege for the uber rich. So I can't have a say on what I do on the internet soon, because I'm a peasant.

[Freezic Vast]

I stopped reading at your third statement because that and everything else goes against what the internet is about. The internet IS a utility like water and electricity and I don't give a damn about disagreements comparable to climate change denial. The ISPs are meant to just give us the internet for a single prove, not with extra fees for every thing we are want to see and do. The FCC is meant to serve the public interest and have done great treachery by robbing is of our internet protections. It will take far too long to go after all your other arguments.

And it is a black and white issues. You are ether with telecom thugs who want to exploit the consumer or you are with the consumer who is entitled to use the whole internet without Telecom thuggery

And as for doing something about it as a lawyer, I can't right now because I am.in school. And the schooling could be ruined because doing research could become hugely expensive without net neutrality. So thank you Ajit Pai for fucking me over. After all the like Freezic said, the internet is only a privilege for the uber rich. So I can't have a say on what I do on the internet soon, because I'm a peasant.

It's clear to me and everyone else that you have no interest in calmly debating about this issue, all you care about is arguing about how serious this is and shoving down our throats that everyone else is wrong.

If you refuse to see why people aren't nearly as concerned as you are, and only intend to shout at us and say "I'm right you're wrong" then maybe you shouldn't be on here continuing to derail this thread, especially if you're not gonna listen to us, and continue with this narrative of hijacked FCC and ISP thugs that you continue to go on about. And considering that you literally just said "I don't give a damn about disagreements" provess my point of how triggered you can be when someone disagrees with you. Let me tell you this is NOT the place for you then.

The internet is not like water and electricity, those are necessities, the internet however, is not. You don't need the internet to survive and ISPs are meant to provide you internet, and you should pay for continued use of it. The FCC is not meant to serve public interest, they are to regulate, or in this case de-regulate the ongoing communications in the U.S.

And it's not a "you are with us or against us" argument, because clearly all you care about is arguing with us about how we should be with you on this, but we don't care because we know we will be fine, unlike you, who continues to sob and whine about this issue.

I never said the internet was a privilege for the rich, stop putting words in my mouth. What I did say was that the internet is not a free service, you have to pay ISPs for internet access, yet it seems you can't stomach this and think everything should be free.

Also it seems like you are taking this more personal considering you said "thank you Ajit Pai for fucking me over." You really should stop trying to argue with anyone who disagrees with you it does nothing for whatever cause you have, and it just derails this thread more and more. If you can't take us disagreeing with you, and constantly whine about this, why must you constantly bitch to us about how important this is how much this is a "threat to democracy" despite the fact we've explained many times that it's not?

[Big Jim P]

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

Yeah, I should have the right to purchase internet access. However, I should also have the right to say what I want and do what I want on the internet without ISPs censoring me or nickle and diming everything I do with unreasonable greed.

You use more water or electricity, you get a higher bill. You use more bandwidth, you get a higher bill.

[The Flutterlands]

The internet is not like water and electricity, those are necessities, the internet however, is not. You don't need the internet to survive and ISPs are meant to provide you internet, and you should pay for continued use of it. The FCC is not meant to serve public interest, they are to regulate, or in this case de-regulate the ongoing communications in the U.S.

Actually many people do need internet to survive. Millions of people have jobs and education on the internet and make a big living. Heck I bet the guy who made this website makes a living here and so do the mods and such. Without protections from the government, ISPs will be free to fuck them over for profit. This could be devastating on the economy and so many industries. The unemployment rate could skyrocket because the once economically dependent internet has been raped by telecom thugs. But I guess that doesn't bother you because the internet is a luxury for the rich like telecoms and not for peasants like us.

[The Flutterlands]

.

Also it seems like you are taking this more personal considering you said "thank you Ajit Pai for fucking me over." You really should stop trying to argue with anyone who disagrees with you it does nothing for whatever cause you have, and it just derails this thread more and more. If you can't take us disagreeing with you, and constantly whine about this, why must you constantly bitch to us about how important this is how much this is a "threat to democracy" despite the fact we've explained many times that it's not?

It is a threat to democracy though because it gives ISPs control over the flow of information like news and political movements. Also, the derail of net neutrality with such disregard for public opinion sets a truthful precedent that our government cares more about corporate thugs than they do about the public good. I thought this was a country built by the People, of the people, and for the people, but all of that is garbage in the eyes of our government who looks at us like peasants.

[Freezic Vast]

Do you not understand what I mean? I never said it was a luxury for the rich and that we are all poor peasants, I said it was a luxury, not a right and that you should pay ISPs to provide you the internet, that's how it fucking works. But I guess that doesn't matter to you as long as you can have "muh free internet." This is not a debate anymore, this is you continuing to spout the same talking points over and over again that none of us care, or worry about at all. So please, go back to whatever safe space you belong to and go there, clearly this isn't the safe space for you, and I am not gonna listen to you bitch about this anymore.

[Dylar]

The internet is not like water and electricity, those are necessities, the internet however, is not. You don't need the internet to survive and ISPs are meant to provide you internet, and you should pay for continued use of it. The FCC is not meant to serve public interest, they are to regulate, or in this case de-regulate the ongoing communications in the U.S.

Actually many people so need internet to survive. Millions of people have jobs and education on the internet. Without protections from the government, ISPs will be free to fuck them over for profit. This could be devastating on the economy and so many industries. But I guess that doesn't bother you because the internet is a luxury for the rich and not for peasants.

No. You really don't need it to survive. It is a luxury and a privilege, not a right. Same goes for cars. It may be faster to drive a car, or in this particular discussion, to use the Internet for work/research, but you can do the same job or get the same education without using the Internet. In fact, the only jobs where you'd need to use the Internet is if you're working for an ISP, or if you are a web designer for a company. You can still open a bank account without the Internet, you can still report the news without the Internet, and you can still create your own cartoons without the Internet. We've been down this road before Flutters, and many posters have told you that both the UN and the US Constitution don't state that the Internet is a human right, so quit acting like it is.

[The Flutterlands]

Actually many people so need internet to survive. Millions of people have jobs and education on the internet. Without protections from the government, ISPs will be free to fuck them over for profit. This could be devastating on the economy and so many industries. But I guess that doesn't bother you because the internet is a luxury for the rich and not for peasants.

No. You really don't need it to survive. It is a luxury and a privilege, not a right. .

Tell that to the schools and public libraries. Though the internet will be ruined for them too, because they won't be able to afford the bribes and tolls put up by Telecom thugs.

Regardless, The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet. Unlike the open internet that has paved the way for so much innovation and given a platform to people who have historically been shut out, it would become a closed-down network where cable and phone companies call the shots and decide which websites, content or applications succeed.

This would have an enormous impact. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to decide who is heard and who isn’t. They’d be able to block websites or content they don’t like or applications that compete with their own offerings

But none of this bothers you... This isn't about Netflix and YouTube, but rather the next Netflix and YouTube that would be nigh impossible to make with the amount of ISP power over what we can do on the internet. This is also about political and social minorities who could be doomed to be silenced by the ISP thugs who disagree with them

[Freezic Vast]

No this isn't. Most people I know don't like the NN repeal because will slow down certain websites and eventually will force you to pay for access to these sites. That is all that this is, and tbf, it's a stupid assessment because there is not such thing as a "free internet" and it is not a right, or a necessity at all. Like I said before "Freedom isn't free" and people need to know that by now.

[The Flutterlands]

No this isn't. Most people I know don't like the NN repeal because will slow down certain websites and eventually will force you to pay for access to these sites. That is all that this is, and tbf, it's a stupid assessment because there is not such thing as a "free internet" and it is not a right, or a necessity at all. Like I said before "Freedom isn't free" and people need to know that by now.

Everything you just said is wrong. You do pay for the internet. However, when you pay for the internet, you only should pay for the whole internet. It shouldn't be like cable tv where you pay for every single website you want in your package. Fuck that shit. I would rather have anarchy with open internet than that telecom thuggery.

[Freezic Vast]

No this isn't. Most people I know don't like the NN repeal because will slow down certain websites and eventually will force you to pay for access to these sites. That is all that this is, and tbf, it's a stupid assessment because there is not such thing as a "free internet" and it is not a right, or a necessity at all. Like I said before "Freedom isn't free" and people need to know that by now.

Everything you just said is wrong. You do pay for the internet. However, when you pay for the internet, you only should pay for the whole internet. It shouldn't be like cable tv where you pay for every single website you want in your package. Fuck that shit. I would rather have anarchy with open internet than that telecom thuggery.

Then by that logic you are now opting against our democratic way of life by supporting anarchy, despite everything you said about how this repeal is dangerous to our way of life. You would seriously support anarchy and lack of any central government JUST for free internet? No, fuck that shit. Clearly you won't listen to reason and logic and care more about your own self need.