First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Net Neutrality Is In Danger Again
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/8/17
We have to protect the Internet - again....

Please, Americans, sign the petition. There seems to be an option for non-Americans. Follow the instructions for that, if you are not American, but want to have a say.


One of the biggest problems is that politicians in Washington, DC have decided to turn the Internet into a political football. They’ve made net neutrality a partisan issue, which is silly because it’s not -- it’s a basic technological principle that has made the Internet what it is today. Now the former lobbyist for Big Cable who's been put in charge of internet regulation, Ajit Pai, says he’s planning to “take a weed whacker” to the basic principle upholding the open web.

We need to show Congress and the FCC that people from all across the political spectrum love the Internet and don’t want politicians to screw it up by getting rid of net neutrality. Sign the petition, and check one of the boxes to show decision makers that people want the Internet to stay awesome, regardless of their political ideology.


https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-dc-partisan-politics-break-the-internet-3?link_id=0&can_id=&source=email-net-neutrality-is-not-partisan-6&email_referrer=net-neutrality-is-not-partisan-6&email_subject=net-neutrality-is-not-partisan

The guy Trump picked for FCC Chairman, was one of the lobbyists for the big telecoms. He has sworn to kill Net Neutrality. This is one guy I think Republicans should NOT confirm. Maybe, if you feel inclined, please also write to your Congressman/woman, and your Senator, and tell them NOT TO CONFIRM Ajit Pai for FCC Chairman.
19800 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/10/17
..am I the only one who finds it hilariously ironic DeadlyOats of all people is preaching neutrality of any kind? Mate I thought you were so far lost in the darkness that is the far right you didn't even know what neutrality was let alone want to defend it.
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/8/17
Net Neutrality must exist for as long as ISPs control the infrastructure with laws that prevent or greatly hinder the layout of competitive new infrastructure from new companies. This is indeed not a partisan issue... or rather shouldn't be.

Even though I voted for him this is where I draw the line with Trump (at least the first line, there will be more). I knew this would be under attack immediately and predicted another internet "call to arms" so to speak to defend it. Petitions and FCC commentary will ensue.
36227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 2/8/17
I actually signed this petition earlier tonight since I already subscribe to the Fight For the Future emails. I agree that Net Neutrality should stand and stay.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/8/17

Ranwolf wrote:

..am I the only one who finds it hilariously ironic DeadlyOats of all people is preaching neutrality of any kind? Mate I thought you were so far lost in the darkness that is the far right you didn't even know what neutrality was let alone want to defend it.


Always got to hate, eh?
33154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/8/17 , edited 2/8/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

..am I the only one who finds it hilariously ironic DeadlyOats of all people is preaching neutrality of any kind? Mate I thought you were so far lost in the darkness that is the far right you didn't even know what neutrality was let alone want to defend it.


Always got to hate, eh?


I was going to point out to him how political neutrality and net neutrality are two different things

...Then I remembered the last time I tried pointing out something to him
83698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M
Offline
Posted 2/9/17
"Net neutrality" as you would define it is not a partisan issue and is something all sides want. However, as implemented, it should be a non-partisan issue to want it dismantled. While "net neutrality" is not "government regulating the internet", as implemented, that is exactly what it is. Worse, it is implemented as government regulating the internet through the same rules as the telephone. While the stated intention is not currently to do so, it will almost certainly start to make the internet less free and more expensive (with government creating an internet tax). I don't know where this blind faith in the government comes from. It isn't healthy.
qwueri 
20374 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 2/9/17

ishe5555 wrote:

"Net neutrality" as you would define it is not a partisan issue and is something all sides want. However, as implemented, it should be a non-partisan issue to want it dismantled. While "net neutrality" is not "government regulating the internet", as implemented, that is exactly what it is. Worse, it is implemented as government regulating the internet through the same rules as the telephone. While the stated intention is not currently to do so, it will almost certainly start to make the internet less free and more expensive (with government creating an internet tax). I don't know where this blind faith in the government comes from. It isn't healthy.


I don't know where this blind trust in corporations comes from, but government regulation is the only force that breaks up entrenched monopolies and stops excessive charges like gating internet speeds based on sites.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/9/17 , edited 2/9/17
Net Neutrality was achieved by the FCC defining the Internet as a utility. That made it neutral. What the big telco's want is to make the Internet a service. This way, they can pick and chose who or what to feature.

As it is now, you can surf the net and go anywhere. The way the telco's will change it it to bring back the days of AOL, "walled gardens." Also, businesses will be charged different rates to reach larger markets. Small businesses will lose, big time.

Congress wants to do away with Net Neutrality, because the lobbyists are telling Congress it's bad for business. I don't know which party is doing what, but I think they want to take power from the FCC, and legislate the end of Net Neutrality. Breaking Net Neutrality by legislation will be a lot harder to fight, because, you know, the lobbyists get better access to politicians than we do.

So, we got to stay on top of this. Make the Congress stop politicizing something that the FCC is suppose to regulate. Then we've got to stay on top of the FCC to make sure they continue to enforce Net Neutrality. We've got a long slog ahead.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/what-is-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/



Overwhelmingly, advocates for net neutrality are calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify Internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (PDF). The popular belief is that Title II classification would allow the FCC to protect net neutrality by regulating against against paid prioritization.

Paid prioritization is a subversion of net neutrality through allowing ISPs to discriminate between websites’ data. If allowed, ISPs could charge content providers, the most common example being Netflix, to deliver data to customers through a so-called “Internet fast lane.”
Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 2/9/17
Money talks morally walks Welcome to Trumps america
Posted 2/9/17
I've signed the petition. Although, as much as I hate to say this, I honestly do think that Congress is going to make this a partisan issue. Republicans in Congress are so fixated on being unified with Trump's picks, regardless of how bad they are for the cabinet position, that they're going to keep confirming them all (including Pai).

Net Neutrality is not a partisan issue; or rather, it shouldn't be. But it's something that Congress is quick to ignore because of the other issues surrounding the country and their own bickering with the opposing side (Democrats and Republicans alike). I'm not hopeful that Congress is going to listen to any of their constituents. Several members of Congress have reportedly stated that they've received an overwhelming amount of comments against DeVos - but, due to pressure from within the GOP, they voted for her anyways. This may result in the exact same scenario, regardless of political party. All they see is "Trump's pick for FCC Chair..." not "Former Lobbyist wanting to destroy what should be freely open and a utility to the people".
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/9/17

T-Mobile is violating the Net Neutrality framework put in place by the FTC. It has conveniently redefined common terms to suit its own agenda and skirt the Net Neutrality rules since the introduction of its Binge On streaming loophole, but the latest “unlimited” data plans are a brazen challenge. It’s almost like T-Mobile CEO John Legere is intentionally crossing the line, looking the FCC in the eye, and saying, “What are you going to do about it?”

Verizon and AT&T recently revamped their data plans to include rollover data. In response, the “Un-carrier” expanded on its T-Mobile ONE “unlimited” plan that offers degraded service and spells out that certain services and types of data will require an additional fee. In other words, some data and services will receive preferential treatment on the T-Mobile network as long as the extortion is paid.

T-Mobile ONE Crosses the Net Neutrality Line

In response to some of the initial backlash about the T-Mobile Binge On service and the ways it violates Net Neutrality, Legere simply invented his own personal definition of throttling that conveniently allows for the semantic difference that seems to make his version of throttling OK under Net Neutrality guidelines. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/01/08/does-t-mobile-binge-on-violate-net-neutrality/#525bec5d3018

The reality is that Binge On does violate Net Neutrality, but for some reason the FCC decided not to fight that battle. The FCC can’t turn a blind eye to the new T-Mobile ONE and ONE Plus “unlimited” plans, though. http://techspective.net/2016/03/18/congrats-youtube-binge-still-violates-net-neutrality/


http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2016/08/29/its-time-for-the-fcc-to-defend-net-neutrality-against-t-mobile-erosion/#594de1943d24


As you can see, while the Internet has been free and open for decades, the big telcos are trying to change this, and the FCC is rolling over. I pay a big price for my fiber optic speedy Internet connection. Why should I also, have to pay for speedier access to certain domains, or websites that are not favored by the telcos?


Same is true for businesses. They pay high prices for enough bandwidth to reach their customers, but now, we have the telcos charging even higher prices for these businesses to keep that high bandwidth. Only large businesses will be able to afford this. Small, independent operations will find themselves falling behind, and losing what growth they've managed to the big businesses.


The reason the Internet is free and open, is because we fight to keep it that way.


Here is another article that gets into the legal aspects of things.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/eff-accuses-t-mobile-of-violating-net-neutrality-with-throttled-video/
30158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/10/17
I may be wrong but from what I understand it's not that he wants to end Net Neutrality, but shift the enforcement from the FCC to the FTC

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sites/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/?q=cache:U9CEcncqeykJ:www.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Flarrydownes%2F2017%2F01%2F24%2Fwhy-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality%2F%20&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#66e1910d2834
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/10/17

SupersunZeratul wrote:

I may be wrong but from what I understand it's not that he wants to end Net Neutrality, but shift the enforcement from the FCC to the FTC

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sites/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/undefined/?q=cache:U9CEcncqeykJ:www.forbes.com%2Fsites%2Flarrydownes%2F2017%2F01%2F24%2Fwhy-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality%2F%20&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#66e1910d2834


You're link doesn't work. It returns a 404 error.
86746 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/10/17 , edited 2/10/17

qwueri wrote:


ishe5555 wrote:

"Net neutrality" as you would define it is not a partisan issue and is something all sides want. However, as implemented, it should be a non-partisan issue to want it dismantled. While "net neutrality" is not "government regulating the internet", as implemented, that is exactly what it is. Worse, it is implemented as government regulating the internet through the same rules as the telephone. While the stated intention is not currently to do so, it will almost certainly start to make the internet less free and more expensive (with government creating an internet tax). I don't know where this blind faith in the government comes from. It isn't healthy.


I don't know where this blind trust in corporations comes from, but government regulation is the only force that breaks up entrenched monopolies and stops excessive charges like gating internet speeds based on sites.


The FCC acted like a legislative body's by creating "net neutrality" - that needs to be repealed. It isn't neutral when some government bureaucrat is dictating outcomes. Want faster internet? Pay for it. I trust corporations rather than BIG government that has no business imposing bureaucratic regulations on the internet ...now that is an entrenched monopoly that needs to be broken up and cut down to its proper role.

Good job Trump! Hope he protects the internet, repeals "net neutrality" (which is a false neutrality) and the partition fails. Obama got his nominees through in the first week; there was something like 65 no's against his picks but there will end up being around 300 against Trumps, truly the Democrats - the party of no - continue their decent into madness and political irrelevancy.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.