[–] Ulluses 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Why doesn't the FCC have protections from sue claims from companies that it monitors? That's like having a guard in a cell with the inmates. Sure they might get along as long as the guard looks the other way but as soon as he tries to maintain order he's going to die.
[–] Tangent-love 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If these broadband providers win is that the end? or could someone like Google fiber provide true open access? if so i can envision a "gold rush" around places with true internet. the demographic shift would be huge. i hope that we get a happy ending because the suspense is killing me.
[–] catechumen 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
I hope they win and this isn't just political theatre.
Now the companies have the right to censor; who needs SOPA, PIPA, or another variant now? I truly believe this was what it was all about, the couldn't get a bill through so they re-framed it in away people would welcome it.
[–] rwbj 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
The actual rules are even worse. They actually say:
The exception "reasonable network management" is used in the bill 72 times. It is never well defined beyond "any practice that is primarily for reasons of network management." Realizing how incredibly vague the term is the FCC have already decided how to deal with disputes in practice. They'll deal with it personally on a case-by-case basis. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be objective!
If it wasn't clear this was an intentional way to undermine the rules from within, this might be an interesting read. That's a 7 year old article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The issue they're talking about was one of Comcast's early manipulations of user traffic they did not approve of. They came under scrutiny but got away with everything by claiming it was all just "reasonable network management." Literally the exact same phrase. As a result of this the EFF, as far back was 7 years, was already strongly urging the FCC to clearly define what qualifies as "reasonable network management" or at the minimum require companies to disclose exactly what sort of "reasonable network management" practices they will be engaging in. The FCC chose to do none of these things.
The net neutrality rules are a disaster for consumers. It's amazing what a bit of song and dance "Oh darn we really don't like these rules." can do to manipulate people. The rules are right there for anybody to read, but they don't.
[–] syn0byte 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
A much better argument against it than the OP and pretty much exactly what i knew would end up getting through.
I don't think the lawsuit is entirely song and dance per se. If they can get the courts to cripple the FCC now all the better, but they certainly have their bases covered. In any case our awareness or even willingness to fight it is as irrelevant as its always been. That's the beauty of it. Don't like it? OK we won't do it and you get filtered and throttled. Oh you do want it? well its so broad and useless you still get filtered and throttled. We lost long before it was even a talking point, the only thing being decided is how big their win is.
[–] AliveInTheFuture 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Hmm...good point. Frightening to think how these regulations could be used for evil.
[–] Ulluses 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Likely they will start out with the typical child porn and terrorist community sites. Along with a few of the known criminal boards.
If people keep an eye on those who try to add to the list and what sites fit under these limited frames we shouldn't have a problem. If people, voters and politicians, let the list get diluted with unneeded garbage and sites that shouldn't be on there then it'll end up like the sex offenders registry: a list that barely tells you anything any more. And worse it'll end up as a corporate weapon to crush start ups who seek to compete with bigger companies.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)
[–] catechumen 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Diane Fienstein just took aim at the Anarchist Cookbook, which is protected by the First. What if they take aim at torrents or TOR for private use? Certainly these things are used nefariously, but not always. Information isn't dangerous, people who use it can be. I also never want the government choosing what they consider to be propaganda. What if I want to get your website censored, could I not post illegal content and report it?
[–] syn0byte 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
You sound shill-ish by intentionally arguing a non-point.
The Government has and the right, granted by sheer power alone, to filter whatever it wants, whenever it wants. See every DNS take down ever. The wording of the regulation with regard to "lawful content" doesn't change that and has no real baring on the outcome for the average user. Why are you trying to argue otherwise? What possible logic is there?
[–] catechumen 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well that's the first time I've been called a shill...
It isn't a non point though, when sites begin disappearing for hosting or linking to content the government doesn't approve of I think you may feel differently. It's like the legal justification for assassinating American citizens, sure it most likely occurred prior, but legal justification for doing it doesn't bode well for the future.