[–] Naught405 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago  (edited ago)

If it were actually about net neutrality the bill would be a one paragraph update to an existing law. It's obviously another opaque dem created bureaucratic clusterfuck that obfuscates corporate control of government, with a counter-real name.

[–] XSS1337 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, Patriot Act, US Liberty Act, Anti-Boycott Israel Act and now Net Neutrality ( written by lobbyists and corporations )

All are signs of tyranny ......

[–] XSS1337 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Why the downvoat ?

Shlomo doesn't like it when someone names the bills used to instill tyranny ?

Poor Jews and their next holocaust ... not one tear will be shed....

[–] LionElTrump 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

"Freedom of Information" "Most Transparent adminstration" "Affordable Healthcare" "Common-Sense Immigration" "Global Warming" "Climate Change" "Common Core" "Cultural Diversity"

[–] captainstrange 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

I'm beginning to realize that everything the left accuses the right of doing, they are guilty of--yes including being corporate sell outs.

[–] LionElTrump 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

figuring out projection and misinformation makes it fun reading their articles. Start to spot the truth

[–] Wonder_Boy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Bravo! You've learned the game! Who knows when this tactic actually started, but it was articulated by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany: "The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing."

All good tyrants, bad actors, and power-hungry deceivers employ this time-tested tactic--including Satan himself.

[–] weezkitty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's almost like politicians are spineless scum that are puppeted by something much larger

[–] Tryingtothink 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Having a hard time finding full wording of net neutrality documents, is there any specific section/wording that permits censorship you could point me towards?

[–] Ghetto_Shitlord 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Came to ask this, as I have read it in full twice and don't remember seeing any form of content control.

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Obama-era FCC guidelines created the framework for overt control of the Internet using so-called "Open Internet" rules. Created under Title II, this allowed the FCC to regulate the rates that ISP's can charge, which gave the FTC del-facto control over determinations on what was "unjust or "unreasonable" businesses models, essentially at-whim. In addition, the FTC gained the authority to regulate capital investments for existing ISP's, reaching even as far as being able to determine who can/cannot enter the ISP market. Since these rules were written by Google and Verizon, who do you think they favored? The small municipality trying to enter the market? I'd be willing to bet not.

In addition, the FTC's newly gilded fist could now wield the "Internet Conduct" standard, which specifically defines itself as "a metric for assessing abuse, subject to admendment at any time, for any reason". In other words, completely unlocking the kingdom for any type of abuse in the future to be created without due process, input from the public, or any discussion thereof.

All of this power was granted under the false pretense that the Internet was broken (which it was not), and in immindent danger of yet-unactualized threats such as throttling specific large carriers unless they paid additional money for things like peering agreements (to-date, no such case exists, as this particular action has it's own form of "mutually assurted destruction").

In short, Obama-era FTC regulation gave the U.S. Government del-facto authority over what was considerd abuse, and if you've never seen a Federal body declare something completely asinine "abuse" on a whim, you're either completely oblivious to history, lying to yourself and others, or both.

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

You mean the ones literally written by Google and Verizon?

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can't back up your argument? Seems like a pretty simple request

[–] wincest1 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Net neutrality has been opposed by the telecomi.e. comcast ,verizon from the beginning.They had nothing to do with its creation.Try harder shill.

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I've updated the OP with details and a few links.

[–] WedgeSerif 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

This is patently false.

Net neutrality is an inherent property of all computer networks. It is how they were designed to operate from their inception.

It is net neutrality that allows the Internet to be the best level playing field in the world. Anyone can create a website and produce content, and it is equally available to anyone with an internet connection.

The Obama administration re-classified ISPs as utilities to specifically PREVENT THEM from REMOVING neutrality from the Internet.

Right now, your internet speeds have no relation to what websites you visit. If net neutrality is removed, as the FCC is trying to do right now, your ISP can decide against your will what sites you can visit. They can throttle the speeds to a place like VOAT (or block it entirely) in favor of more palatable sites, like Reddit. They can charge sites like Netflix and Amazon extra money for high bandwidth to serve their customers, and there is nothing Netflix and Amazon can do to stop them. They can create their own video streaming services and favor them over all their competition, driving their customers to services they don't want and never asked for.

Created under Title II, this allowed the FCC to regulate the rates that ISP's can charge, which gave the FTC del-facto control over determinations on what was "unjust or "unreasonable" businesses models, essentially at-whim.

Completely false. The FCC (not the FTC) re-classified ISPs as utilities, which subjected them to the same regulations as the electric and gas companies. The standards by which "unreasonable" business models are defined have existed for over 100 years; they are hardly a whim.

All of this power was granted under the false pretense that the Internet was broken (which it was not), and in immindent danger of yet-unactualized threats such as throttling specific large carriers unless they paid additional money for things like peering agreements (to-date, no such case exists, as this particular action has it's own form of "mutually assurted destruction").

Again, completely false. The Internet was never described as "broken," only under threat. The large, corporate ISP have stated their intent to create "fast lanes" and offer "packages" of access to their customers. They stated explicitly that they wanted to remove net neutrality from the Internet, which would have given them complete control over how fast their end users could access content providers. The reason no such case exists is because net neutrality still exists; its presence prevents ISPs from committing such abuses. There is no "mutually assured destruction" because the majority of people have only one option when it comes to an ISP, and if that ISP decides to unfairly regulate the users' online behavior, their only option is to get offline completely. How likely do you think that is?

The internet worked just fine before Obama-era "Net Neutrality".

That's because net neutrality existed before Obama took office. Net neutrality has been a part of the Internet since its creation as ArpaNet back in the 60's. Net neutrality was, is, and always should be an inherent property of all computer networks. It allows the network to operate at peak efficiency. The Obama administration prevented massive, greedy, stockholder-controlled corporations from removing said neutrality from the Internet. Allowing them to do so now will absolutely ruin the Interent for everyone but those stockholders. If you lose net neutrality, you lose VOAT. It's that simple.

[–] cstrawfield 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Excellent post -- a clear and concise defense of net neutrality. Afraid it may take losing NN to show people just how high the stakes really are -- and at that point there'll be no unringing the bell.

[–] JustMoveThroughIt 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm a bit confused in how it's bad. Isn't its purpose to stop ISPs from charging you for going to certain websites? What's bad about that?

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Obama-era "Net Neutrality" was literally written by Google and Verizon. Why would Comcast and Verizon write regulation for the US Government aimed at preventing Comcast and Verizon from making money charging more for websites?

Riddle me this, were ISP's doing this behavior (charging for certain websites, as you specified) before the proposed regulation was created? Why would they need to make rules for something they weren't doing?

Dig deeper as to what the regulation DID do, such as giving legal validity to censorship that was already being performed and many argued violated 1st and 4th amendment free speech and privacy protections and you may find your answer.

[–] Amin_Yabhuti 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If there is power that can be abused, it will be, eventually by someone. I've never been a fan of 'we haven't murdered anyone yet, so there's no reason to make murder illegal' type arguments. What will directly affect consumers in the most negative way? Price gouging by corps, or the ability of .gov to deem corps have abusive policies? IIRC corps fought tooth and nail to prevent net neutrality from coming into existence in the first place, thats why obongo had to classify it as a title II utility in the first place as all the senators were/are puppets of the corps and wouldn't pass legislation independently.

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Opposing stuff just because it is put in under Obama (or Trump) is idiotic. Judge laws by their own merit. I disliked Obama and voted against him, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically against every law passed during his term. Just like I'm not automatically for every law under Trump

[–] prairie 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

More gov't control.

[–] wincest1 5 points -1 points (+4|-5) ago 

Ignore the shill,research it .

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Says the shill, haha.

[–] shill343 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The only real solution is trust busting. The FCC is staffed by people from the ISP companies, and overseen by people who have received campaign contributions from ISPs. Don't be ruled by corporations or corrupt government. The two options we are being presented on net neutrality both have the same end.

[–] gazillions 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is what I come up with as well. I want that new internet now.

[–] ardvarcus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

In the confusing and conflicting maze of net neutrality I am guided by only one beacon ... if the left want it, then it must be bad.

[–] tiaksijdo 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Here's three rules that NN provides that are 100% positive in my eyes

No throttling rule https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-07841/p-27
No blocking of specific websites https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-07841/p-25
No payoffs rule https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-07841/p-29

Here is the entire law being debated...


Now OP, please point me to the paragraphs that do what you describe, or are you just here to disinform and link shitty articles instead of the actual bill for people to read for themselves.

[–] obvious_throwaway1 [S] 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Your references to the 2015 amendment to the 2010 act cite no changes to either of my primary concerns - those being the Open Internet or Internet Conduct authority I've cited in my argument.

In fact, by only showing the 2015 and not the original from 2010, you've actually painted what appears to be a very carefully directed and scripted image of what this authority does and/or is intended to do. If that isn't disinformation, then I don't know what is.

[–] tiaksijdo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I posted 2015 one becuase it is the one being voted on dec 14. So what you're saying is you cannot point me to the paragraphs that support your summary of what's happening?

[–] Big_Willy_Wallace 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Obviously. The whole idea was to bring the internet fully under the sovereignty of the government, the expectation being that the government wouldn't abuse this new power. It's a fully stupid idea when you boil it down. It's literally net tyranny, so they called it the opposite. Classic leftist Orwellian bullshit.

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)