FCC planning total repeal of net neutrality rules

[carmenere]

www.politico.com/story/2017/11/20/net-neutrality-repeal-fcc-251824

This is really concerning.

[elleblue]

We are so screwed.

[bowies]

I’m not sure we’re going to survive this period, TBH.

[ECB]

So much fucking greed running this country.

[carmenere]

I called my Senators, no answer at the FCC office.

Here's the 5 Calls script:
5calls.org/issue/defend-fcc-net-neutrality

I would also add that you want your reps to speak out against the repeal because it's bad for the people of your state.

[ECB]

Excuse my continuing language:

I also think “so, you fucking fuckers who voted for Trump - hope you feel the fucking pinch when you have to start paying for good internet service to get your fucked up Fox News stories that probably didn’t tell you about this. Fucking fuckers!!!”

And i really wish my phone would accept that i actually want to say fucking and stop auto correcting it to ducking.

[miniroller]

Nov 21, 2017 9:44:55 GMT -5 ECB said:

Excuse my continuing language:

I also think “so, you fucking fuckers who voted for Trump - hope you feel the fucking pinch when you have to start paying for good internet service to get your fucked up Fox News stories that probably didn’t tell you about this. Fucking fuckers!!!”

And i really wish my phone would accept that i actually want to say fucking and stop auto correcting it to ducking.

They have no idea what they’ve done, & even if they were capable of “listening & learning” (TM GBCN), they’ll still be in complete denial when it actually happens, which is the most frustrating part of all!
*sorry for the run-on

[pixy0stix]

FUCK!

[biscoffcookies]

I know someone who is working directly on this effort at the FCC. He supports it. I tried talking to him about it recently to explain why I was concerned and to see why he isn't. It was...not satisfying.

The primary point that he made (and he is a Republican and thinks in line with the Chairman of the FCC, apparently), is that it is important to repeal the net neutrality rules to support the rule of law. The Republicans on the Commission are convinced that the interpretation of the relevant laws that the Democrats used when creating net neutrality was not supported by law and thus making these rules was not authorized by law. For them, the rule of law is the most important thing -- if people actually want net neutrality, then Congress should pass the appropriate law.

The second thing is that he is super, super confident that the parade of horribles won't happen. The main reason he thinks this is that ISPs have never charged people extra to access websites, or slowed down traffic of websites that haven't paid them, so why would they start now? I tried to explain my view that it is naïve to think that they won't do this if they think they can make more money, but he kept saying, "well, they haven't done it yet, so why would they start?"

To be fair, he did agree that he thought it would not be good if ISPs started slowing/blocking websites of people that they disagreed with. However, his responses were:
(1) If you had a scenario like Comcast (which is owned, or owns, NBC) blocking/slowing access to the websites of competing stations like ABC, NBC, etc. that would be something for antitrust enforcement.
(2) If you had a scenario like a Trump-friend-owned ISP blocking access to places like the New York Times or CNN because of ideological issues, or because they couldn't afford to pay the toll the ISP has imposed, then that would not be good, he agreed -- but the answer is to pass a law, not to have the FCC create a rule that the law doesn't authorize it to create.

[ECB]

Nov 21, 2017 9:56:48 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

FUCK!

As you can tell- that's basically all I can say to this.

I wish Trump supporters would eventually realize that he DOES NOT CARE about the little people.  EVERYTHING this administration is doing is against the "little people".  They are all about making money and helping their already rich friends make more $$.  They don't care nor want to help us.  

And to me, this decision more than any other REALLY highlights this.  Taxes, healthcare - that's all confusing and can be hard to see the truth through all the smoke.  But something about net neutrality - it's much more black and white and in our faces.

Trump DOES.NOT.CARE!!!!!!  

[bowies]

Nov 21, 2017 10:07:42 GMT -5 ECB said:

Nov 21, 2017 9:56:48 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

FUCK!

As you can tell- that's basically all I can say to this.

I wish Trump supporters would eventually realize that he DOES NOT CARE about the little people.  EVERYTHING this administration is doing is against the "little people".  They are all about making money and helping their already rich friends make more $$.  They don't care nor want to help us.  

And to me, this decision more than any other REALLY highlights this.  Taxes, healthcare - that's all confusing and can be hard to see the truth through all the smoke.  But something about net neutrality - it's much more black and white and in our faces.

Trump DOES.NOT.CARE!!!!!!  

Most never expected to be helped though. They just want their prejudices and anger reflected back at them from the WH.

[pixy0stix]

Nov 21, 2017 10:06:15 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

To be fair, he did agree that he thought it would not be good if ISPs started slowing/blocking websites of people that they disagreed with. However, his responses were:
(1) If you had a scenario like Comcast (which is owned, or owns, NBC) blocking/slowing access to the websites of competing stations like ABC, NBC, etc. that would be something for antitrust enforcement.
(2) If you had a scenario like a Trump-friend-owned ISP blocking access to places like the New York Times or CNN because of ideological issues, or because they couldn't afford to pay the toll the ISP has imposed, then that would not be good, he agreed -- but the answer is to pass a law, not to have the FCC create a rule that the law doesn't authorize it to create.

So he'd rather fight a problem when it happens (and have whoever it is spend a lot of money), rather than head it off in the first place. Sounds pretty typical of a republican.

[carmenere]

Nov 21, 2017 10:16:21 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Nov 21, 2017 10:06:15 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

To be fair, he did agree that he thought it would not be good if ISPs started slowing/blocking websites of people that they disagreed with. However, his responses were:
(1) If you had a scenario like Comcast (which is owned, or owns, NBC) blocking/slowing access to the websites of competing stations like ABC, NBC, etc. that would be something for antitrust enforcement.
(2) If you had a scenario like a Trump-friend-owned ISP blocking access to places like the New York Times or CNN because of ideological issues, or because they couldn't afford to pay the toll the ISP has imposed, then that would not be good, he agreed -- but the answer is to pass a law, not to have the FCC create a rule that the law doesn't authorize it to create.

So he'd rather fight a problem when it happens (and have whoever it is spend a lot of money), rather than head it off in the first place. Sounds pretty typical of a republican.

Bear in mind that republicans' talking points on net neutrality were literally fed to them by the cable industry lobby.

[mbcdefg]

Look at all the shit that's slipping through while the country is focused on this idiot's latest Twitter feuds.

[miniroller]

Nov 21, 2017 10:22:18 GMT -5 carmenere said:

Nov 21, 2017 10:16:21 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

So he'd rather fight a problem when it happens (and have whoever it is spend a lot of money), rather than head it off in the first place. Sounds pretty typical of a republican.

Bear in mind that republicans' talking points on net neutrality were literally fed to them by the cable industry lobby.

Which is so flipping frustrating knowing that (As Always!!), if party roles were reversed, Fox would be shouting this with bullet-pointed bullhorns at least twice an hour!!! 😕
C’mon Dems!

[downtoearth]

This is such a bad idea.

I read this on HuffPo, "If all goes as Pai plans, the FCC will meet and vote on the repeal on Dec. 14. It’s expected to pass 3-2, along party lines."

So what or who do we contact again about not voting for this? Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai?

[carmenere]

Nov 21, 2017 14:12:04 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This is such a bad idea.

I read this on HuffPo, "If all goes as Pai plans, the FCC will meet and vote on the repeal on Dec. 14. It’s expected to pass 3-2, along party lines."

So what or who do we contact again about not voting for this? Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai?

Yes. His number is listed in the 5 calls link in the OP. They also recommend calling congressional representatives and asking them to voice their disapproval, even though congress doesn't vote on this.

[WanderingWinoZ]

this sees like it should go here..sort of with regulating tech.



"Facebook (Still) Letting Housing Advertisers Exclude Users by Race," by ProPublica's Julia Angwin, Ariana Tobin and Madeleine Varner: "In February, Facebook said it would step up enforcement of its prohibition against discrimination in advertising for housing, employment or credit. But our tests showed a significant lapse in the company's monitoring of the rental market. Last week, ProPublica bought dozens of rental housing ads on Facebook, but asked that they not be shown to certain categories of users, such as African Americans, mothers of high school kids, people interested in wheelchair ramps, Jews, expats from Argentina and Spanish speakers. ... Every single ad was approved within minutes. ... Under its own policies, Facebook should have flagged these ads, and prevented the posting of some of them." bit.ly/2jdyP4q

[WanderingWinoZ]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/24/fcc-net-neutrality-process-corrupted-by-fake-comments-and-vanishing-consumer-complaints-officials-say/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-technology%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.43aefb977f70

As the Federal Communications Commission prepares to dismantle its net neutrality rules for Internet providers, a mounting backlash from agency critics is zeroing in on what they say are thousands of fake or automated comments submitted to the FCC that unfairly skewed the policymaking process.

Allegations about anomalies in the record are quickly becoming a central component of a campaign by online activists and some government officials to discredit the FCC's plan.

“The process the FCC has employed,” wrote New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman this week in a letter to the FCC, “… has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities.

[aurora]

I always like The Oatmeal's explainers:

theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[miniroller]

Nov 25, 2017 9:59:30 GMT -5 aurora said:

I always like The Oatmeal's explainers:

theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

LOVE!!! I’ve been posting/ texting/ urging friends to join in making calls. I’m so afraid nothing will happen & a year or two from now our current easy-even-LIBERATED Internet will be a distant dream of the past. People aren’t gonna pay attention until it personally affects them; same with the tax bills. They’re (R’s) such SNAKES 😡