INTERNET'S NOT DEAD!!

6244946
I don't know, I think his choice of support has much more to do with distrust of governmental control rather than trust of company shareholders. We have to admit that his distrust is NOT without merit; the US government has dealt and done quite the shady shit. The fault lies in thinking that a small part of government regulation that is there to defend the end-user and stop abuses is what enables the .gov, as he says it, to perform such felonies. Let us be real. If the .gov wants to do so it will and no legislation of its own or not will do terribly much to stop it from doing so at least under the table. But there is a difference in understanding and be wary of fear and letting it control you and your actions. Disassembly here is not the answer, but neither is pushing away everyone who disagrees with our viewpoint, at least not if they do it in a coherent, argumentative way and are open to discussion. Turning this into a "them against us" within ourselves is a mistake.

6244946
You apparently lack vision and understanding. But hey, it’s okay kid. You can keep being an annoying edgelord. So you’ve got that going for you.

Btw, I’ll have a medium fry with my order. Chop chop.

6244991
I distrust both. Simply put I just distrust the .gov more. The mega corporations are a close second though.

6245015
I apologize for being so rude. I just had 2 of my exams, and I'm in the short weekend break before I have more. However, that's completely disrespectful, and I hope you'd never say such a demeaning thing to a child.

Anyway, I get the feeling you just don't trust "the Man". You'd rather trust the corporations that are the root of the problem. Want to know why politicians pass laws that only help corporations? Because they're being bribed, by the corporations. You're essentially saying that government regulation for the internet is bad, when it is government regulation that gives us National Parks, protected species, and a multitude of other things. Want to know what "the free market" would do to a recently unprotected forest, that was incredibly important (The amazon rainforest, for example)? It would get cut down. Corporations are NOT your friend, and will do anything possible to increase profits. Government regulation also prevents child labor, which was common practice before it was banned.

Many of the arguments for net neutrality have a deeper root, the fact that most corporations and companies are utterly corrupt or just want more profits. The only company I can think of that would not exploit me for profit is Nintendo, and I am not sure about any other company.

I'm not even mentioning the fact that Ajit is incredibly corrupt and pretty much downright said that he was installed by telecom companies to kill net neutrality.

guys 38 states sued the government on net neutrality

6245368
And their lawsuit will get shot down on the grounds that it is 100% legal and in accordance with the powers given to those offices. It’s political theater, nothing more.

6245435
well Sean Maloney is making an act to save net neutrality to congress on Congressional Review Act

6245058
Here’s a life tip from the professional business world. No matter what is going on in your life, keep your cool. You can be freaking out internally, but never let your life get in the way of your job. To be blunt, I’ve fired people on the spot for less. Everyone has drama going on in their life, but using it as a crutch or excuse for behavior shows a lack of personal responsibility. You’ve had exams. I’ve had 5 doctor visits for a brain tumor, labs, and procedures scheduled. Yet I’m still generally polite until given a reason otherwise. Give the respect that you want to receive.

And yes, if someone needs to be reminded of things, I have zero issue about laying it out. Generally I’ll be more tactful unless I have reason otherwise.

Btw, like I said in the post directly above yours, I don’t trust the .gov or corporations. I just trust the .gov less. Especially when you look at the context of the other laws that it interfaces with that were passed over the last 20 years. The current net neutrality regulations make it incredibly easy to abuse by any sitting president regardless of political affiliation. Considering how much crap the .gov has been caught illegally doing in the last 18 years (holy crap I feel old now) there is zero doubt that it would be abused like crazy.

Personally (given the framework of other laws) I’d prefer the .gov not have the legal ability to regulate, control, and decide what everyone sees and hears in the US. Yes, that sounds like hyperbole but it isn’t. There have been lots of small amendments stuck in huge bills like the yearly NDAA and have been incrementally increasing .gov control over information, legalizing propaganda, authorizing the .gov to create a multiagency center for controlling data entering the US from outside sources, etc.

And I wish I were kidding on that. You can’t just look at one section of law and regulation. You need to look at how it interfaces with the rest of the connected laws. Telecommunications Act of 1996, NDAA 2012, NDAA 2015, NDAA 2016, NDAA 2017 for examples. Authorization for mega corporations for telecommunications, gutting the Smith-Mundt propaganda act, etc.

6245452
Given his voting record, I’m sure that’ll work. Anyone can introduce a bill. Whether it gets cosponsors, survives one of dozens of committees, or even survives to the first (of many) floor votes is a challenge. Making it clear though everything is impressive. Only to get vetoed at the White House.

it also stands that net neutrality in most of the world was/is/will be unaffected by this change

6245454
Thing is, the companies bribe the government to do what they want. An example: the food pyramid is utterly incorrect, mostly because of the importance they put on meats, but milk and shit are touted as essentials when they just paid the government to say that. Hell, the "got milk" campaign was paid for by the dairy industry.
Also, I'm usually pretty level headed, but I just had the most stress I've ever had in school. First year of exams, we never did this shit before. Cramming half a year of info for several classes was hard, since at most I've had to cram for a few months for one class. But yeah...I'm gonna be more prepared to not explode at people when I'm used to it.

6244327

The internet was already regulated fine by old telephone utilities law. We never had NN until 2015. The world was fine before that. We already have the internet beholden to market place forces and internet companies would be subject to massive consumer backlash, not to mention the FCC already had the power to go after companies with anti competition practices.

Just look at this huge but misplaced outrage!

With NN gone, do you think a company will risk being that company that's known for being slow? And lose customers?

I went into T Mobile yesterday to get a replacement phone and noticed they had a little sign on the desk saying they were dedicated to NN and would continue to provide data unrestricted as always. See? Companies are already aware it would be a bad move.

With NN gone, more startups can get passed and take on bigger, more established companies. Prior to that, NN made it difficult to do so. Big companies loved It because It made competition difficult. It was a solution for a non existent problem. It was a governmental power grab.

And the rest of you guys need to relax. The sky isn't falling, the your internet isn't going to shit.

/remember the 90s

6244946
If you have to silence your opponent, chances are your stance isn't strong to begin with.

6247712
NN has nothing to do with the Internet being slow. The companies are not stupid either. This is what will happen; first, you will see the first few beneficial packages coming out. More free data on netflix, youtube, and stuff like that. Then, you will see the speed lowered and data limited on non-package deals. Then comes subscription on which packages and which sites you want this speed. A milking that will come from both customer and the sites themselves; after all, if netflix wants to be part of a package it will have to pay Verizon or w/e to have themselves included.

Which means you will see Netflix raise its prices as well, taking it out from you.

Now, what happens to those sites that don't have the capital to have their sites be a package deal or improved? Fuck them, that's what. In this state you will never see the next Youtube or Netflix. It is a climate that will reinforce and induce monopolies, mergings, and deals to flourish.

And lose customers to who? The one other provider who does the exact same thing? You think they will not have made a deal inbetween them? "We get Netflix, you get Youtube" and such?

And the idea that the internet was fine before is one hell of a ridiculous argument (it's like saying I have never been in a car accident thus I will never be in a car accident) and that is WITHOUT putting into attention that NN was put into place to STOP them because they had STARTED doing that exact thing. The fact that it is not perfect is known. It was put into place to stop ISPs from fucking you until more proper measures were put into place. Now, ISPs use their puppets (Ajit Pai, former head councilor of Verizon and now Head of the FCC) to convince you that NO regulations are needed and you should let them do everything they want so that the internet can flourish (by which they mean the handful of ISPs).

If 95% of people and companies are urging against removing all semblance of NN, then I don't think that this is a misplaced outrage, especially not if you see what Ajit Pai wants to put into its place to replace it. Mainly, nothing. The companies, according to him, should be able to do ANYTHING they wish as long as they put up a notification somewhere. Oh, and he wants to forbid states from passing their own NN laws so that this will become permanent.

Yeah, it all looks displaced. Surely without NN it's gonna be a golden age. Whoooo.
#sarcasm

6246763

6247724

This guys says it way better than I can:

Why would anybody want the government, especially one where you can go from a liberal like Barack Obama, to a populist like Donald Trump, to hold more control over the internet? The same government which has agencies that misuse it to unconstitutionally spy on it's people? Whether you like Donald Trump, or you liked Barack Obama, you did not/do not like the government under one of them, and more power for them means they can use it abuse and misuse. Now, complete power to ISPs who just want to make $$$ is not a great idea either, as they are willing to do whatever to make more money, right? So we need a hybrid with limited gov't (but meaningful) control, and that allows the free market to guide the internet in the direction we want. A system where abuses can be fixed, but that also avoids heavy handed control under constantly changing administrations.

Excerpt 1:

Consequently, Title II regulation is an unduly heavy-handed approach to what at worst are relatively minor problems. Although the Title II Order argued that ISPs were incentivized to harm edge innovation, it also conceded that ISPs benefit from the openness of the Internet. The Title II Order found that “when a broadband provider acts as a gatekeeper, it actually chokes consumer demand for the very broadband product it can supply.” We agree. The content and applications produced by edge providers often complement the broadband Internet access service sold by ISPs, and ISPs themselves recognize that their businesses depend on their customers’ demand for edge content. It is therefore no surprise that many ISPs have committed to refrain from blocking or throttling lawful Internet conduct notwithstanding any Title II regulation. Finally, to the extent these economic forces fail in any particular situation, existing consumer protection and antitrust laws additionally protect consumers. We therefore find that Title II, and the attendant utility-style regulation of ISPs, are an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to protecting Internet openness.

Excerpt 2:

In the unlikely event that ISPs engage in conduct that harms Internet openness, despite the paucity of evidence of such incidents, we find that utility-style regulation is unnecessary to address such conduct. Other legal regimes—particularly antitrust law and the FTC’s authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices—provide protection for consumers. These long established and well-understood antitrust and consumer protection laws are well-suited to addressing any openness concerns, because they apply to the whole of the Internet ecosystem, including edge providers, thereby avoiding tilting the playing field against ISPs and causing economic distortions by regulating only one side of business transactions on the Internet.

Excerpt 3:

Today’s reclassification of broadband Internet access service restores the FTC’s authority to enforce any commitments made by ISPs regarding their network management practices that are included in their advertising or terms and conditions, as the FTC did so successfully in FTC v. TracFone. 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. 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.” Today’s reclassification also restores the FTC’s authority to take enforcement action against unfair acts or practices. An unfair act or practice is one that creates substantial consumer harm, is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers, and that consumers could not reasonably have avoided.

Excerpt 4:

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 se illegal under the antitrust laws. Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which applies if a firm possesses or has a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power, prohibits exclusionary conduct, which can include refusals to deal and exclusive dealing, tying arrangements, and vertical restraints. Section 2 makes it illegal for a vertically integrated ISP to anticompetitively favor its content or services over unaffiliated edge providers’ content or services.

Excerpt 5:

Most of the examples of net neutrality violations discussed in the Title II Order could have been investigated as antitrust violations. Madison River Communications blocked access to VoIP to foreclose competition to its telephony business; an antitrust case would have focused on whether the company was engaged in anticompetitive foreclosure to preserve any monopoly power it may have had over telephony. Whether one regards Comcast’s behavior toward BitTorrent as blocking or throttling, it could have been pursued either as an antitrust or consumer protection case. The Commission noted that BitTorrent’s service allowed users to view video that they might otherwise have to purchase through Comcast’s Video on Demand service a claim that would be considered an anticompetitive foreclosure Comcast also failed to disclose this network management practice and initially denied that it was engaged in any throttling—potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices. If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix), that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.

Excerpt 6:

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 while at the same time strenuously asserting that the authority claimed would render the 'statute unrecognizable to the Congress that designed’ it.”

Excerpt 7:

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. 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,” we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures unnecessary.

Summarized ( tl;dr)

• Excerpt 1: The FCC argues that the free market ultimately means that ISPs are going to be financially discouraged from actually hurting the supply of internet access that they provide. Despite this argument, they also add that even if they do throttle speeds, consumer protection laws and anti-trust laws will take over in this case and allow for any wrongs to be made right.
• Excerpt 2: The FTC's power is multivaried, and can ensure that ISPs and edge providers (facebook, twitter, youtube, reddit, ect.) are also open to appropriate regulation, so as to avoid unfairly tilting regulation towards ISPs. IMO, this is beneficial as it moves us closer, albeit not significantly, to extending the 1st amendment to the internet.
• Excerpt 3: Basically, ISPs commercials, advertising and Terms and Conditions can not be deceptive, as to do so would fall under unfair-and-deceptive practices and open the ISP to suit by the FTC. They also provide a definition for an "unfair act" which is, "An unfair act or practice is one that creates substantial consumer harm, is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers, and that consumers could not reasonably have avoided."
• Excerpt 4: Section 1 of the Sherman Act would make throttling or limiting of specific applications illegal, would therefore open an ISP to a suit and is stated by the FCC. Section 2 of the Sherman Act would adequately restrain large corporations like Comcast from favoring it's content over another companies through it's power as an ISP.
• Excerpt 5: Multiple examples are given as to how the FTC could sue companies over activities like throttling. Also, the FCC states that throttling of services like Netflix (literally named) could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.
• Excerpt 6: The FCC states that putting the internet directly into the control of the FCC would give the government control of a significant part of the economy, extravagantly so, and modifies the original piece of legislation to an unrecognizable nature.
• Excerpt 7: AT@T asked the FCC to promise to never bring back Net Neutrality, and make it so that a future FCC can not do it. The FCC is saying fuck off, and that if the FCC wants they can bring back Title II, or Net Neutrality if necessary, meaning that on the off chance that this all goes to hell, Title II can be brought back.

6248769
Sorry, I don't speak Arabic.

6248793
Sorry, could you repeat that? All I got was Allah-something. You might need to get your local Imam to find a translator.

6248829
She was going to, but unfortunately she failed to dodge the thirty-fifth 'truck of peace' on her European vacation. I'm sure your mother's doing fine though, is she still keeping busy with 'entertaining' the ISIS troops over in Syria as is her god-divined place?

6248848
>Europe
>A Woman being able to make her own travel plans without the written approval of five different men submitted to the Sharia Court and a male guardian

See, this is how we know you are lying, Mohammad.

6248858
Your taqiyya tactics won't work here, European. Don't you have a child to molest at a swimming pool?

6248868
At least we only eat the dogs, Mohammed. We all know what you and your ilk do to animals. Or each other, really. Were you a Bacha bazi boy? It certainly explains the hurting of your hindquarters.

6248876
I wondered why you didn't want to provide a source for that baseless claim, Mahmood, and then I found out why.

"The Maximum Penalty for Bestiality in Australia - How serious is this charge?

There is a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison for anyone found guilty of a Bestiality charge. This is a rare but nevertheless serious offence that may carry a prison term on a finding of guilt."

Take note of 'This is a rare but nevertheless serious offence'.

Meanwhile, in Europestan:

The size of the community, and thus the demand, has even led to the formation of so-called “bestiality brothels", especially in countries where the practice has been recently outlawed. The Daily Mail brought the issue to light in 2013 after a slew of such brothels were rumoured to exist in Germany, though institutions of this nature are likely to maintain a low profile given their illegality. Such buildings host an array of animals, with which paying visitors can engage in intercourse away from the eyes of the law.  

You have animal brothels, Mahood. You pay for this.

6248898
Careful, those in glass houses...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

6247713
I apologized later in the thread. Read on.
I should probably delete that...

6248904
Oh, wow. Thanks. Reading that really made my day.

6248781
Obama ramped up the NSA spying started by the Bush admin. Why the fuck would you want them to have MORE power over the internet? The Telephone Utilites law of 1934, as I said before already gives the FCC power to go after internet companies with unfair business practices. People will sue companies and raise holy hell about it.

NN was a power grab by the government and nothing more.

6249142
No probs bud, it's what I do.

6249952
Which is why he's arguing against it. He wants NN repealed.

EDIT: In case of Poe's Law type issue: the way I read it sounds like you think Arxsys wants NN to stay in place. If that's not your intention, then my bad.

This thread is like being at the mall overhearing two teenagers have a conversation about a topic they have no idea about. My goodness this thing has become a mess.

6250753
The beginning sentence makes it sound like he agrees with Crimmar and the DeadBloxxEpic. Confusing.

6252046
I think he's acknowledging the argument that corporations can be just as bad as the government in the shady things they can pull. I think that the central part of each side's argument is about which group do they trust less: the US Government or large corporations.

I think this is an area where the Golden Mean Fallacy is probably the better option. Keep some of the protections Title 2 offers, while also forbidding the US Government from interfering with a business' ability to innovate. There's a very fine line I think a law can walk, but it's going to take time to craft such a law.

6252054
Corporations are more vulnerable to boycotts and public backlash if it affects their bottom line. I cited a personal anecdote of Tmobil promising to keep NN policy. They also dont have force of law.

6252063
Which is why, if I am forced to choose between the two sides (NN or repeal), I prefer the repeal. There are more tools to use against corporations than there are to use against the government.

6250768
Feel free to cite your stance and reasons why us folks don't understand. Go on.

6248904
I was assured diversity was our strength by the UK government.