End of Net Neutrality







Advocates of keeping the 2015 open-internet rules have the backing of 50 U.S. senators, including Republican Susan Collins. And with the absence of Senator John McCain because of illness, they believe they will win on a 50-49 vote.
Click to expand...




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?

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.
Click to expand...


Again, they are flat out lying about this because they know how stupid enough of the general public is. The oversight was required due to a new loophole being found. The oversight kept things the way they are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Click to expand...


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.

 
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.
Click to expand...




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.

 
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.
Click to expand...


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.

 
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.
Click to expand...


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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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

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.
Click to expand...


This is only because our politicians can be bribed.

 
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.  :facepalm:

 
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? 
Click to expand...


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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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."
Click to expand...
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.

 
Back
Top