FCC reversal of net neutrality rules expected to be published Thursday

[variant]

The history is that title II did empower monopolies. I suspect that if you actually spent a few minutes looking at Title II you would not support it. At. All.

Here, take a look for yourself: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Title II begins on page 35 and ends on page 137. Did you know that Title II prohibits the use of certain words between individuals in communications. Seriously. Censorship is a major component of Title II. Again, just take a look at Title II.

I'm all in favor of "net neutrality". Title II is not net neutrality.

You are shameless. Of course Title II isn't net neutrality it was merely the law that allows the government to regulate on net neutrality. It also hasn't been repealed.

Title II as you understand it is a red herring to the issue, applying it is only necessary as per the supreme court as the only legal means to enforce net neutrality (you know rather than censorship or creating monopolies or other irrelevant things not being discussed).

This means of enforcing net neutrality is now gone as per the FCC and so is net neutrality which you are definitely not in favor of as you are cheering it's demise.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You are shameless. Of course Title II isn't net neutrality it was merely the law that allows the government to regulate on net neutrality. It also hasn't been repealed.

Title II as you understand it is a red herring to the issue, applying it is only necessary as per the supreme court as the only legal means to enforce net neutrality (you know rather than censorship or creating monopolies or other irrelevant things not being discussed).

This means of enforcing net neutrality is now gone as per the FCC and so is net neutrality which you are definitely not in favor of as you are cheering it's demise.

Methinks you are shameless. Using Title II as a pretense for Net Neutrality.

Pass net neutrality legislation. It shouldn't be difficult to get people to agree on it. Almost everyone agrees that net neutrality is a good thing. So ... just pass the legislation if it's that important, which it may be.

Title II though? Just say NO!


It is noted that you didn't disagree that what's in Title II would be horrific for the internet if anyone attempted to enforce it.

 

[variant]

Methinks you are shameless. Using Title II as a pretense for Net Neutrality.

Pass net neutrality legislation. It shouldn't be difficult to get people to agree on it. Almost everyone agrees that net neutrality is a good thing. So ... just pass the legislation if it's that important, which it may be.

Republicans have no interest, they are too busy removing it at the behest of industry stooges. One of the many issues the public is absolutely against them on and they have decided to side with their large corporate oligarch donor class.

It is noted that you didn't disagree that what's in Title II would be horrific for the internet if anyone attempted to enforce it.

No it would be fine if they used it to enforce violations of net neutrality.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No it would be fine if they used it to enforce violations of net neutrality.

You have a lot more faith in the government limiting its control than I do.

 

[variant]

You have a lot more faith in the government limiting its control than I do.

What exactly is the harm of using title II for the express purpose of enforcing net neutrality as the courts required? Please spell it out in detail what you are afraid of.

 

[KCfromNC]

I always find it amazing when people cast Obama-era regulations as if they were a gift from heaven.

I always find it amazing that some people's only way of determining if a law is beneficial or not is asking if it was signed by a black president.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I always find it amazing that some people's only way of determining if a law is beneficial or not is asking if it was signed by a black president.

 

[NightHawkeye]

What exactly is the harm of using title II for the express purpose of enforcing net neutrality as the courts required? Please spell it out in detail what you are afraid of.

Amazing!

You want to use a nearly century-old mass of bureaucratic red-tape to regulate the digital frontier. Count me out.

Even foes opposed to the FCC's reversal can't find much besides emotional hysteria to complain about. Let's take a look:
The unwinding of net neutrality will begin on April 23rd

The FCC’s new rules are really a lack of rules. Its “Restoring Internet Freedom” order entirely revokes the net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing.
...
So is the entire internet about to change? Not overnight, and probably not even in the immediate future. When it does change because of these lack of rules — and it will — it’ll be in subtle ways that are difficult to notice ...​

 

[super animator]

Your naive if you think ISP won't abuse their new found power.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Your naive if you think ISP won't abuse their new found power.

ISP's already abuse their power.

You are naive if you believe government regulation will work out better than open competition.

 

[super animator]

ISP's already abuse their power.

Irrelevant and hogwash.

You are naive if you believe government regulation will work out better than open competition.

A third of Americans don't have alternative options.

 

[NightHawkeye]

A third of Americans don't have alternative options.

Hogwash ... DSL, Fiber, 5G, 4GLTE, Fixed wireless, Satellite

 

[Kentonio]

ISP's already abuse their power.

You are naive if you believe government regulation will work out better than open competition.

Ah yes, like before the EPA existed and ‘open competition’ did such a great job of stopping business from poisoning rivers, polluting the air and making soil toxic.

Government regulation is necessary to protect the public from profit driven companies, and if you think the free market is going to magically protect you then you’re extremely naive.

 

[super animator]

Hogwash

You can deny reality all you want, it still exist.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Ah yes, like before the EPA existed and ‘open competition’ did such a great job of stopping business from poisoning rivers, polluting the air and making soil toxic.

The EPA may not be the best regulator example to use ...

The idiocy underlying their toxic Animas river spill is nothing short of stupifying. I just happened to travel the length of the Animas river at the time and saw it first-hand.

Government regulation is necessary to protect the public from profit driven companies ...

No argument.

Expecting the government to be your savior though, that's naivete in the extreme. Net neutrality legislation is not that hard to draft. Demand that your legislators do so.

 

[Kentonio]

The EPA may not be the best regulator example to use ...

The idiocy underlying their toxic Animas river spill is nothing short of stupifying. I just happened to travel the length of the Animas river at the time and saw it first-hand.

No argument.

Expecting the government to be your savior though, that's naivete in the extreme. Net neutrality legislation is not that hard to draft. Demand that your legislators do so.

The government is you. If the government sucks then stop electing crappy representatives and elect better ones. That’s what I hate about this ‘government is terrible’ stuff, it shows a complete lack of self responsibility.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The government is you. If the government sucks then stop electing crappy representatives and elect better ones. That’s what I hate about this ‘government is terrible’ stuff, it shows a complete lack of self responsibility.

I'm doing my part.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

The net is international. With hosting done on servers all over the world.
If services using servers in the USA are throttled, they will migrate elsewhere.
Eventually every other nation will be using only their own pathways and severs.
the USA will be able to throttle its on users as much as it wants to.
Big users like face book will centre their business wherever it is best for them, and their customers.
They will not put up with being held to ransom by ISP's.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The net is international. With hosting done on servers all over the world.
If services using servers in the USA are throttled, they will migrate elsewhere.
Eventually every other nation will be using only their own pathways and severs.
the USA will be able to throttle its on users as much as it wants to.
Big users like face book will centre their business wherever it is best for them, and their customers.
They will not put up with being held to ransom by ISP's.

Curiously, most governments around the globe already seem to restrict internet freedom.

That's a good reason the US government needs to keep hands OFF.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Curiously, most governments around the globe already seem to restrict internet freedom.

That's a good reason the US government needs to keep hands OFF.

Net nutrality is not about government control.
It is about equality of use between users. With no one being able to buy an advantage, such as being able to throttle the speed of other users.
We all have to pay for access, but when online every ones data should be
treated equally.
Ending neutrality means priority can be sold to the highest bidder. Home uses will be a long way down the list, and our speeds will dramatically reduce.
It will also cause many problems as the USA is the only country with out net neutrality. So international users will no longer want to use american ISP's or servers.

Governments will always have an ultimate finger in the pie, as they can demand the infrastruction owners to comply with security laws. But that is not a net neutrality issue.