We Must Ignite This Couch Message Boards

(1) 2 »

 
Net-neutrality!
Grant Ave. Warrior
Joined:
10/27/2006 2:33 pm
From LA
Posts: 1058
The net-neutrality issue is serious.

We may disagree about what is fake news but we're looking at an internet where all of the news will be corporate sponsored and fake.


While I hate it when someone posts a fake article I don't want to live in a world where the only information that is available to us is like CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.

Ending net-neutrality is also about the ending one of the few free markets we currently have available to us.

If we end net-neutrality it will become a world where the content available to us will be decided by large corporations exchanging money which will lead to a reduction of services and also a hike in rates due to extra bureaucracy and lawyers.

It will be funneling money from small businesses to large companies. This will eliminate a way entrepreneurs can currently bootstrap themselves with hard work and ingenuity because this will be a world where small businesses have to pay big corporations to play ball. If you want to make it on a non-neutral net you'll have to have a great idea and deep pockets or you'll be dead in the water. This is building yet anther avenue for cronie capitalism to control our lives.

This is far deeper and bigger than right/left. They have been pushing for a non-neutral internet since the Obama days and this is about little guy vs big guy. We need a lot of little guys to stand up for people over corporations.


They're trying to slip this past us and we need to say hell no before it's too late. I urge anyone who values the free exchange of ideas and opportunity for an individual to boot strap themselves with nothing more than an idea and hard work to contact their representative and tell them to preserve net-neutrality.


Who Is My Rep?

Posted on: 11/22 11:13 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
"Net neutrality" is not what's up for repeal. What's being debated is a repeal to classifying ISPs as public utilities. What that does is lovely things like requiring federal oversight in order to lay new fiber. That means only the big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have the resources necessary to jump through the legal hoops to get new fiber approved. Title II also requires FTC oversight from ISPs, which, among other things, let's them sell your personal data to third parties.

So-called 'net neutrality" is everything the left opposes. But, of course, Soros-funded operations with Orwellian names like "Fight for the Future" and "Battle for the Net" are so effective they've got people convinced that black is white and down is up. Read the Communications Act of 1934 for yourself. Title II begins on page 35. It doesn't even explicitly forbid ISPs from charging different amounts for different websites, so that argument is invalid to begin with.

Posted on: 11/22 1:51 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Grant Ave. Warrior
Joined:
10/27/2006 2:33 pm
From LA
Posts: 1058
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
"Net neutrality" is not what's up for repeal. What's being debated is a repeal to classifying ISPs as public utilities. What that does is lovely things like requiring federal oversight in order to lay new fiber. That means only the big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have the resources necessary to jump through the legal hoops to get new fiber approved. Title II also requires FTC oversight from ISPs, which, among other things, let's them sell your personal data to third parties.

So-called 'net neutrality" is everything the left opposes. But, of course, Soros-funded operations with Orwellian names like "Fight for the Future" and "Battle for the Net" are so effective they've got people convinced that black is white and down is up. Read the Communications Act of 1934 for yourself. Title II begins on page 35. It doesn't even explicitly forbid ISPs from charging different amounts for different websites, so that argument is invalid to begin with.



It doesn't forbid it because of it's current classification as a public utility. Changing the classification is what opens it up to charging different amounts.

Posted on: 11/22 3:37 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
There was no Net Neutrality in 2000-2104. In 2015, Net Neutrality becomes an almost 400 PAGE regulation supported by Soros, Obama, and massive corporations. The Internet was free and open before Net Neutrality, and it will be free and open without it.

Posted on: 11/22 8:03 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Pitt Hater
Joined:
8/21/2013 9:51 pm
From Madhattan
Posts: 1229

Posted on: 11/23 9:20 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12719
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
There was no Net Neutrality in 2000-2104. In 2015, Net Neutrality becomes an almost 400 PAGE regulation supported by Soros, Obama, and massive corporations. The Internet was free and open before Net Neutrality, and it will be free and open without it.


You are like a misinformation magnet.

Posted on: 11/24 3:19 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
"Facts are misinformation"

-Eers88

Speaking of misinformation,

http://archive.is/Mq5yn


Posted on: 11/24 3:32 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
Everyone has been getting all freaked out about the NN order, they just released it yesterday and I have been able to go through most of it, so I will give you a gist.

Here is the proposal for those wanting to read it and judge for themselves. 210 pages, but a lot of it is just comments you can graze over.

Very readable

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

What is happening is that the FCC wishes to return to a previous ruling under Clinton of the internet being an information service. This means the FTC will be able to apply Anti-Trust laws to ISP's again. What this also means is that the FCC wll be shifting to lighter regulations, and many concerns of NN will be returned to the FTC. The FTC has a policy on NN, you can read it here

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/file ... -policy/v070000report.pdf

In the order, it explicitly states that "We find that the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirement we adopt, together with antitrust and consumer protection laws, ensures that consumers have means to take remedial action if an ISP engages in behavior inconsistent with an open Internet."

What this means is that in order for the FTC consumer laws to be applicable, they have to go by what the company relays to their consumers. The FCC understands corps like to keep things hidden, so the proposal is making a Transparency ruling, that way corps cant try to sneak around. You will notice on Comcast's twitter today they decided to make a "We will not throttle or block" tweet. Now you might be saying to yourself, sure, of course you wont sarcastically, but under this proposal they just sealed the deal that if they try any ****, they will be subject to consumer laws in violating NN. Any company that attempts paid prioritization, blocking, or throttling, is subject to Anti-Trust laws.

The FTC seems well on board with protecting NN and the consumer. They made a statement recently.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- ... een-k-ohlhausen-restoring

I do not know if they will update their own policy on protecting your internet, but if they keep to the way things were prior to 2015, you should be good.

There is only one thing I am still reading into that may or may not be a concern, which has to do with a reclassification of mobile providers separate from broadband. It appears that is what is necessary for the FTC to regain jurisdiction, but I am still reading.

Something to gnaw over though, ever look into who actually owns the companies who have been telling you this was the end of the world? Like NBC, MSNBC, CNN, TechCrunch.com, Huffington Post? Ever decided to figure out who the parent companies are? Might not be too surprised on why they would want to keep the FTC Anti-Trust laws out of their way.


The whole Net Neutrality outrage IMMEDIATELY struck me as suspicious because not only was it so coordinated to where suddenly it was at the front page of every single site and news feed everywhere in a matter of hours, but the sources of the said panicked screaming all came from the same leftist sites and organizations. Primarily MSM companies, and Internet powerhouses like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and other sites. I saw the same 4 or so pro NN copy-pastes on almost every site that mentioned it and any discussion I try to find either gets drowned out by incoherent spam or disappears altogether.

This is textbook influencing the public narrative by panic and fear mongering and it is the very reason why any significant problem that terrifies the public MUST be researched deeper than what your favorite man on the tv or youtube page tells you. There must be SOMETHING in those Obama-era NN laws with the FCC that these internet monopolies are taking advantage of, because they sure are saying they do NOT want to loose it. There is a reason GEORGE SOROS is pushing this. And you are willingly eating out of the palm of his hand.

Posted on: 11/24 7:29 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
The day after the *actual* FCC rule change proposal was made public and it's reasonable, all the net neutrality hysteria is gone. Not one word of it anywhere. Wonder why :)

Posted on: 11/25 2:49 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
Actual Text of FCC net neutrality repeal - Read paragraph 109 - Utility-Style Regulation of Broadband Is a Solution in Search of a Problem


109. Internet was open before Title II, and many economic factors support openness. The Internet thrived for decades under the light-touch regulatory regime in place before the Title II Order, as ISPs built networks and edge services were born. We find that the sparse evidence of harms discussed in the Title II Order—evidence repeated by commenters in this proceeding as the basis for adopting a Title II classification—demonstrates that the incremental benefits of Title II over light-touch regulation are inconsequential, and pale in comparison to the significant costs of public-utility regulation


Net Neutrality is the name of the program that killed net neutrality.

Posted on: 11/26 4:14 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
After reading through even more of the 200 some pages, relax, get comfortable, and prepare to thoroughly educate yourself.

Everyone here agrees that ISPs should not throttle/paywall/censor/restrict our content. Period. End of story. ISPs are notoriously shady, but here are some reassurances the FCC has given us:FTC Privacy Regulation, sec.177:

Restoring FTC [Federal Trade Commission] jurisdiction over ISPs will enable the FTC to apply its extensive privacy and data security expertise to provide the uniform online privacy protections that consumers expect and deserve.651

Direct quote: No throttling.FCC release, p.83

Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs. 508

(FCC release p.82):

The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503

Conspiracy theorists put down your pitch-forks, ISPs cannot conspire. (FCC invokes Sherman Act Antitrust Laws, Section 144, p.85, FCC release)

Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, making anticompetitive arrangements illegal. If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements would be per seillegal under the antitrust laws.518

**UNLIMITED NETFLIXXX, [UNCENSORED EDITION] **

If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.

Obama & The Globalist Friendship Squad attempted to create a safe space on the internet.

We also conclude that the Commission should have been cautioned against reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service in 2015 because doing so involved “laying claim to extravagant statutory power over the national economy ..."

FCC now reserves the right to return to Title II (Obama Net Neutrality) regulations if ISP fuckers get uppity.

176.We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.


Posted on: 11/27 12:26 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7350
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
"Net neutrality" is not what's up for repeal. What's being debated is a repeal to classifying ISPs as public utilities. What that does is lovely things like requiring federal oversight in order to lay new fiber. That means only the big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have the resources necessary to jump through the legal hoops to get new fiber approved. Title II also requires FTC oversight from ISPs, which, among other things, let's them sell your personal data to third parties.

So-called 'net neutrality" is everything the left opposes. But, of course, Soros-funded operations with Orwellian names like "Fight for the Future" and "Battle for the Net" are so effective they've got people convinced that black is white and down is up. Read the Communications Act of 1934 for yourself. Title II begins on page 35. It doesn't even explicitly forbid ISPs from charging different amounts for different websites, so that argument is invalid to begin with.


There is so much incorrect information in this post I don't know where to begin.

Posted on: 11/29 10:31 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
"Net neutrality" is not what's up for repeal. What's being debated is a repeal to classifying ISPs as public utilities. What that does is lovely things like requiring federal oversight in order to lay new fiber. That means only the big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have the resources necessary to jump through the legal hoops to get new fiber approved. Title II also requires FTC oversight from ISPs, which, among other things, let's them sell your personal data to third parties.

So-called 'net neutrality" is everything the left opposes. But, of course, Soros-funded operations with Orwellian names like "Fight for the Future" and "Battle for the Net" are so effective they've got people convinced that black is white and down is up. Read the Communications Act of 1934 for yourself. Title II begins on page 35. It doesn't even explicitly forbid ISPs from charging different amounts for different websites, so that argument is invalid to begin with.


There is so much incorrect information in this post I don't know where to begin.


Your post is true if you literally have 0 understanding about Net Neutrality and what's up for repeal. Go ahead and tell me what's wrong, I've already given entirely too much proof from the actual FCC NN repeal that prove me right. Can you prove me wrong by the actual report and not from websites that use fear mongering? I'd love to see you try, because you're wrong, and you can't.

Posted on: 11/30/2017 1:00 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7350
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
"Net neutrality" is not what's up for repeal. What's being debated is a repeal to classifying ISPs as public utilities. What that does is lovely things like requiring federal oversight in order to lay new fiber. That means only the big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have the resources necessary to jump through the legal hoops to get new fiber approved. Title II also requires FTC oversight from ISPs, which, among other things, let's them sell your personal data to third parties.

So-called 'net neutrality" is everything the left opposes. But, of course, Soros-funded operations with Orwellian names like "Fight for the Future" and "Battle for the Net" are so effective they've got people convinced that black is white and down is up. Read the Communications Act of 1934 for yourself. Title II begins on page 35. It doesn't even explicitly forbid ISPs from charging different amounts for different websites, so that argument is invalid to begin with.


There is so much incorrect information in this post I don't know where to begin.


Your post is true if you literally have 0 understanding about Net Neutrality and what's up for repeal. Go ahead and tell me what's wrong, I've already given entirely too much proof from the actual FCC NN repeal that prove me right. Can you prove me wrong by the actual report and not from websites that use fear mongering? I'd love to see you try, because you're wrong, and you can't.


So tell us more about these 1934 Internet Service providers...and can you have your slave clean and press my jacket in the meantime?

Posted on: 12/1/2017 7:14 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
Prove one thing I've said wrong. By the way you are now nominated for the DUMBEST post of the year.

Posted on: 12/1/2017 7:28 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/29/2008 4:48 pm
From Deadwood, Lakota Territory
Posts: 8253

Posted on: 12/4/2017 2:20 pm
_________________
Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Globalist Fascists in BOTH parties are trying to take over the U.S.A.

Help us Eric Cartman, YOU are our only hope.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Pitt Hater
Joined:
8/21/2013 9:51 pm
From Madhattan
Posts: 1229

Posted on: 12/9/2017 9:18 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/20/2008 1:23 pm
From Just barely outside the Beltway.
Posts: 7350
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
The current state of net-neutrality???

https://www.mediaite.com/online/marsha ... o-woman-pro-baby-message/

Hmmm.



Wow. I actually agree with SG here. Can someone write this down?

Posted on: 12/9/2017 9:40 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/8/2008 8:36 pm
From Around
Posts: 7460
Quote:

Yeah I remember that the decades of internet BEFORE NN were awful!!!!!!!!! Good Lord you believe any bullshit the media tells you rather than to just read the damn thing yourself. It's very easy to read so you wouldn't have a problem understanding.

Posted on: 12/9/2017 1:21 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Net-neutrality!
Gettin' Schmitty
Joined:
7/29/2008 4:48 pm
From Deadwood, Lakota Territory
Posts: 8253
Quote:

zwaaa wrote:
Quote:

sg44gold wrote:
The current state of net-neutrality???

https://www.mediaite.com/online/marsha ... o-woman-pro-baby-message/

Hmmm.



Wow. I actually agree with SG here. Can someone write this down?


SAVED!

Ha! Ha!

Posted on: 12/13/2017 1:10 pm
_________________
Liberal, Progressive, Socialist, Globalist Fascists in BOTH parties are trying to take over the U.S.A.

Help us Eric Cartman, YOU are our only hope.
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



(1) 2 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved