End of Net Neutrality

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Why the f*** is this a partisan issue? Oh, right, Obama's name was on the protection against the newest iteration of attacks. I mean, it's not possible that Obama could ever have done a single thing right, right?

 

Well, the trick is that they had to get rid of the old rule...you know...because it had Obama's name on it.  They then can put in a new set of rules.....you know.....the same as the old ones.  They then can go into elections claiming the Republicans saved the internet for everyone.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Well, the trick is that they had to get rid of the old rule...you know...because it had Obama's name on it.  They then can put in a new set of rules.....you know.....the same as the old ones.  They then can go into elections claiming the Republicans saved the internet for everyone.

 

 

I'm pretty sure theyr'e not smart enough to vote in new rules. But they may not need to be. The internet might just be screwed. But hey we have states requiring/wanting to require that people pay extra for internet if they're going to watch porn so it all works out in the end.

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, told reporters last week that consumers would not be harmed and he said it would simply return the internet to the pre-2015 oversight.

 

Has Pai ever explained how the 2015 rules harm the Internet?

 

This whole fiasco is partially caused by old farts in Congress having zero clue how/why the Internet works.  These are your parents/grandparents who muck up their email every other month and can't figure out what a .PDF is who we're trying to convince.  It's an uphill battle.

 

 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Has Pai ever explained how the 2015 rules harm the Internet?

 

This whole fiasco is partially caused by old farts in Congress having zero clue how/why the Internet works.  These are your parents/grandparents who muck up their email every other month and can't figure out what a .PDF is who we're trying to convince.  It's an uphill battle.

 

The only thing I've ever heard about the 2015 rules being bad is "big gov'mt, Obummer"

 

And I suppose if your default is "regulation bad" "Obama bad" that explains the partisan part.

[RedDenver]

14 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

The only thing I've ever heard about the 2015 rules being bad is "big gov'mt, Obummer"

 

And I suppose if your default is "regulation bad" "Obama bad" that explains the partisan part.

It's not a partisan issue among voters who overwhelmingly support net neutrality:

Poll: 83 percent of voters support keeping FCC's net neutrality rules

Quote

The survey presented respondents with detailed arguments from both supporters and opponents of the repeal plan, before asking them where they stood on the rules. It found that 83 percent overall favored keeping the FCC rules, including 75 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of independents.

 

This is only because our politicians can be bribed.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[knapplc]

I am shocked.  Happily shocked, but shocked.

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I am shocked.  Happily shocked, but shocked.

 

 

Key part is they're sending it to the House...

[deedsker]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Key part is they're sending it to the House...

Where they have already said that they won't take it up for discussion.

[deedsker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Oh look! The Nebraska senators didn't seem to think we need an open and fair internet. 

 

Nebraska is probably one of the states that needs this most given the vast majority of the state is rural with limited choices in providers. 

[Making Chimichangas]

On 3/7/2018 at 4:50 PM, zoogs said:

This is the action of a moralizing State asserting state control over information access. What does that have to do with net neutrality? 

 

Pretty much everything.  Government is now telling you that you can't view sites that are "offensive" unless you pay a fee.  The natural next step is to have to pay fees for everything (on top of your monthly internet access bill) because someone, some agency, or ISP now gets to decide, for you, what is "offensive."

 

You want to know the most ironic f'ing part of all this?  If this had been done under Obama's Presidency and direction...conservatives would be screaming at the top of their lungs at how this is a gross over-reach of government power and the government has no right to tell people what sites they can access on the internet.  But because it is that orange moron with the dead rat on his head...somehow a lot of elected Republicans are fine with this.  Hypocritical, self-righteous f-tards.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Pretty much everything.  Government is now telling you that you can't view sites that are "offensive" unless you pay a fee.  The natural next step is to have to pay fees for everything (on top of your monthly internet access bill) because someone, some agency, or ISP now gets to decide, for you, what is "offensive."

I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but what you're saying here isn't true. The government is not charging fees or deciding what's offensive.

[Nebfanatic]

On 3/7/2018 at 5:18 PM, BigRedBuster said:

So, is this what we get with the end of net neutrality?

 

 

Isn't that what this is^

26 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, but what you're saying here isn't true. The government is not charging fees or deciding what's offensive.

 

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Isn't that what this is^

 

I don't think that has anything to do with Net Neutrality since a state can pass a law like that regardless, but I could be wrong.

[teachercd]

Remind me not to move to Rhode Island.