Save Net Neutrality

[Ben 2,390 / 32,172]

If FCC ends Net Neutrality, it will allow ISP to block any sites as they'd like, as well, as rigging your internet speed which makes you pay more speed to be "faster". Or if they'd like, ISP can block GFL.

 

To stop them, watch this video:

And then go to this site, which tells you where to go and where to tell FCC to keep the Internet open.

https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/

 

If you aren't aware of what I am talking about, this link above will help, or those sites will: 

https://www.battleforthenet.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/6ms59g/today_july_12_the_internet_makes_its_stand_click/
https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/6mtgtp/we_need_your_voice_as_we_continue_the_fight_for/
Or any other source.

 

 

In no way is the lack of net neutrality a good thing, and it never will be. We all rely on the internet daily. Giving American ISPs the ability to legally blackmail and extort companies is not consumer friendly, it's not competitive and it will not serve us a better future.

[annoying furry 6,351 / 64,548]

F

[__ 727 / 8,828]

Haha, classic america

Enjoy your slow internet

[Alucard33rd 1,177 / 15,169]

I wrote a paper on this a while back:

 

 

Net Neutrality

 

    On February 26, 2015, the FCC's Open Internet rules were created to protect free expression on the Internet and promote investment in the nation's broadband networks. The Open Internet rules are based on Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC rules provides framework needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers. The rules prevented internet service providers from restricting content or reducing speed for content they do not own. (Open Internet)

 

    I believe people should have access to content they want to see and not be restricted by their service providers. I have this stance because people already have to pay service providers for internet access.

 

    The constitutional principle that applies is, Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The internet service providers are trying to change the rules that will affect Freedom of Speech. Even though the Constitution was written in 1791, the internet is a modern form of communication just like the press and speech was back in 1791. By the internet  service providers restricting media and content they are restricting freedom of speech and press.

 

    The Congress is looking to change the FCC rules because of lobbying by the internet service providers.

 

    The FCC’s Open Internet rules reclassified internet service providers as “Common Carriers”. This means that internet service providers can not restrict or limit speed for competitors content. This is a restriction of corporate rights and they believe that it restricts innovation. Here are some pros for regulating internet providers: (Net Neutrality Pros and Cons)

 

- Network neutrality avoids that ISPs charge online services such as Skype and  Netflix for fast lanes. These extra costs for fast lanes are an issue because they can make the services more expensive for internet users and can prevent small companies from the capacity to compete with the big companies.

- Net neutrality avoids discrimination among users. Without regulations some companies can change premium fees to create pay to play systems.

- Network neutrality helps to promote freedom of choice, as ISPs cannot obstruct or incentivize particular contents or sites over others.

- Anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules prevent ISPs limiting access or promote some  type of content. The role of ISPs is to only transport data to the users that have paid for delivery, and therefore they should not restrict content consumption.

Net neutrality evens playfield for competing companies.

 

    From a common good perspective, the internet service providers have a monopoly on delivering content to users. What that means is some internet users don't have a lot of choices for internet service providers. Here are some pros for allowing internet providers to do what they want: (Net Neutrality Pros and Cons)

 

- Regulation on net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.

- Sponsored content and pay-to-play schemes could go against net neutrality, but they can help companies improve the overall service they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more.

- Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against piracy. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respected. Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control adult content.

 

    I believe that service providers should be regulated to make sure customers are able to access the surface web. This should be done because customers have already paid for their internet service. It would become a pay to play system if service providers choose to add additional fees to access information. To add, some customers do not have access to more than one service provider.

 

    My basis for my position is the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights. The US Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. reviewed the FCC rules and allowed them to be upheld. This means the internet service providers will have to take the case to the  Supreme  Court, if they want to fight the rules. The decision was to treat internet service providers like the older phone companies, which had a monopoly because of the landlines for telephones. (Fung)

 

    The internet service providers argued that the rules violated the first amendment for freedom of speech. They argued that they make speech when they choose how to carry content over their networks. And they also claimed the regulations would impact their network upgrades, resulting in “bad internet speed/performance”. (Fung)

 

    In conclusion the case is still being argued, and the FCC rules are in place which provides full access to the internet. The internet service providers are now paying lobbyist to change the FCC rules or laws to allow them to restrict customers.

[syrus 1,000 / 15,155]

Yea, I saw this on twitch

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

Press F to pay respects to the US

 

long live canada

[Monsoon 95 / 4,018]

F 

With our powers combined we create - captain autism! We shall fight these evil doers and save the interwebs!

[Finnick 2,355 / 32,542]

F

uck you

 

[sl3yz 63 / 2,968]

M

 

urica

 

[nick027nd 139 / 3,313]

I sent a suggestion over Discord to the directors, saying we should support net neutrality by adding a redirect on the homepage (until July 13th) to something like this. 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/

[CNe7532294 177 / 4,830]

F

 

Honestly I don't know if I should support or not. I'm for open intenet, no spying without a warrant, no restrictions. I have yet to see a link to a piece of serious legislation that even consider those concepts under the title "net neutrality" or whatever law is on the books. Net neutrality feels like the "whats in" buzzword of today to start a bunch of crap that gets us nowheresville. The only thing I have seen against my ideals were the bad pieces of legislation that was SOPA and PIPA that we fought and temporarily won against. Besides, the way I see it, this isn't going away anytime soon. Win or lose this, shitters will still find ways to take away our internet freedom. I cite Europe's "hate speech monitoring" laws and our own "in the interest of national security" excuse. I am no lawyer and only a lawyer can tell you if this whole movement is bs or not. I currently get the "it depends" response. They've told me that they can produce work arounds or create things that are non binding. (ie. adding clauses for the common excuse of national security, preventing hate speech, protecting the community, etc.)

 

On 7/12/2017 at 0:34 PM, CrusTi said:

I wrote a paper on this a while back:

 

Net Neutrality

 

    On February 26, 2015, the FCC's Open Internet rules were created to protect free expression on the Internet and promote investment in the nation's broadband networks. The Open Internet rules are based on Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC rules provides framework needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers. The rules prevented internet service providers from restricting content or reducing speed for content they do not own. (Open Internet)

 

 ......

 

    In conclusion the case is still being argued, and the FCC rules are in place which provides full access to the internet. The internet service providers are now paying lobbyist to change the FCC rules or laws to allow them to restrict customers.

Hats off to you for trying to make sense of this. Still, with any paper/essay there needs to be a citation. Can I see those pl0x?

 

PS: Speaking of the FCC I wish they would one day get rid of licensing for FM on 88MHz to 108MHz as well as AM. Radio is dying with local stations burning #1 songs or has been songs down to the ground (aka playing the same shit over and over every 10-15mins). We also have internet radio connecting us towards a broader spectrum of listening to tunes we actually like. If I want to listen to songs with or without ad revenue I can just hook up my 3.5mm mobile device to the aux port in my car or "bluetooth" it if I feel like a filthy casual that doesn't care about being an audiophile.

Edited July 15, 2017 by CNe7532294
Dam auto correct

[Alucard33rd 1,177 / 15,169]

@CNe7532294 there were citations if you looked I just didn't provide the bib.

[Joshy 4,382 / 45,371]

Freedom of Speech?  I'm not so sure.  I don't see anyone claiming the first with other means of communication such as the television, their cellulars, or even carrier mail.  Nobody - including myself - wants to pay more for easier access, but I don't think it's unconstitutional.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Joshy

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

On 12.07.2017 at 5:31 PM, Benroyjam said:

If FCC ends Net Neutrality, it will allow ISP to block any sites as they'd like, as well, as rigging your internet speed which makes you pay more speed to be "faster". Or if they'd like, ISP can block GFL.

Legally that's just like taxi drivers who take a longer route than necessary.

 

You don't need "Net Neutrality" as long as there is an organ for consumer protection.

[Chormee 2,973 / 29,227]

17 minutes ago, TSARGA said:

Legally that's just like taxi drivers who take a longer route than necessary.

 

You don't need "Net Neutrality" as long as there is an organ for consumer protection.

Its not a longer route if they block a site, its like driving for an hour, returning to the starting point and asking for money.

 

And the consumer protection *is* net neutrality.

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

1 hour ago, Twig said:

And the consumer protection *is* net neutrality.

 

Net Neutrality is a tool (just like any other law).

 

What about the Federal Trade Commission? If they have the right to intervene, then Net Neutrality is totally unnecessary.

 

P.S. I'm not 'murican so excuse me for my lack of knowledge lol

Edited July 14, 2017 by TSARGA

[Ben 2,390 / 32,172]

I just got an email from one of South Carolina Congressmen, Jeff Duncan. He replied back and told me that he supports Net Neutrality. FCC won't be ending Net Neutrality. If anyone wants to read full email response, let me know, I'll share.

[Joshy 4,382 / 45,371]

3 hours ago, Benroyjam said:

I just got an email from one of South Carolina Congressmen, Jeff Duncan. He replied back and told me that he supports Net Neutrality. FCC won't be ending Net Neutrality. If anyone wants to read full email response, let me know, I'll share.

 

May you please share this with us?

[TSARGA 57 / 3,122]

3 hours ago, Benroyjam said:

I just got an email from one of South Carolina Congressmen, Jeff Duncan. He replied back and told me that he supports Net Neutrality. FCC won't be ending Net Neutrality. If anyone wants to read full email response, let me know, I'll share.

Share it.

[Ben 2,390 / 32,172]

He have also told me what Net Neutrality is for and such stuff. 

 

 

Dear Mr. Roy,

 

          Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on net neutrality. As your U.S. representative, I appreciate hearing from you.

 

          There has been uproar and much misconception following the Federal Communications Commission’s  (FCC) vote on May 18, 2017 to formally begin the process to peel back President Obama’s net neutrality regulations. The term coined in 2003, net neutrality, is the basic principle of a free and open internet. The debate surrounding net neutrality today can be traced back two years ago, to 2015 under the Obama administration, when the FCC acted to greatly expand its own power. The FCC abated the effectiveness of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) privacy approach by voting on net neutrality rules to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers, thereby making them subject to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

 

          Title II regulations weigh down investment in broadband and have had negative unintended consequences. Essentially, these regulations treat ISPs like “presumptive monopolists”, and according to the current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai the market failure the regulations were enacted to protect was simply non-existent. Market-oriented policies have delivered far more value to both the market as well as the consumer, fostering economic growth. Market-oriented policies, not pre-emptive regulations, are the reason our internet economy is the envy of the world. During the Clinton and Bush Administrations and prior to the last two years of the Obama Administration when the FCC imposed net neutrality rules, the internet flourished under a “light-touch” regulatory approach. In 2015, the FCC under the Obama Administration unnecessarily inserted the government into the Internet economy, thereby stifling growth.

 

          Late last year, just ten days before the 2016 presidential election, the FCC adopted, on a party-line 3-2 vote, overly prescriptive online privacy regulations. I voted in favor of the joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) 2016 broadband privacy rule (H.J. Res 86/S.J. Res 34). Congress was right to rescind the Title II broadband privacy order passed by the FCC in October. The FCC’s overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulations and common sense practices implemented by the FTC to protect consumer privacy while still maintaining the capability of the internet to flourish and foster innovation. The internet has thrived under the technology-neutral privacy regulations developed by the FTC, the entity best equipped in implementing internet privacy regulations. I support the goal of ensuring the online privacy of consumers, and am optimistic that with the guidance of Chairman Pai, this goal will be accomplished well still maintaining a competitive internet market place.

 

          Once again, thank you for contacting my office. I welcome input from you and all my constituents as your Representative in Congress. Should you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office directly.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Benroyjam