FCC plans to repeal net neutrality this thursday

[Time the Crestfallen]

It amazes me how the FCC and the Government can try to go through with something like this when similar legislation has been blocked in courts twice and the vast majority of the population are against it, and still have the gall to act like they represent the citizens of the US.

[SullyMcGully]

Well, the good news is that there's nothing anyone can do about it at this point. We can complain all we want after it passes (it will pass, trust me) but at least we'll be able to stop arguing and see the actual results. If things get worse, then best case: FCC caves to pressure and Net Neutrality returns immediately, worst case: a Democrat gets elected in 3 years and then Net Neutrality returns. If things get better, then we all got wound up over nothing. 

I really think the pro-Net Neutrality folks are going to have a hard time keeping up their offensive after this though. I've seen a lot of ads where they basically say: "the moment Net Neutrality is gone, everything will change for the worse". If things don't change immediately or don't change in a way that people notice, then a lot of their backbone is lost. And I really doubt we'll see immediate changes for the worse in the wake of Net Neutrality's downfall. Maybe 5-10 years from now, but one has to wonder if we'll even care by then.

[Lord Raven]

38 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Well, the good news is that there's nothing anyone can do about it at this point. We can complain all we want after it passes (it will pass, trust me) but at least we'll be able to stop arguing and see the actual results. If things get worse, then best case: FCC caves to pressure and Net Neutrality returns immediately, worst case: a Democrat gets elected in 3 years and then Net Neutrality returns. If things get better, then we all got wound up over nothing. 

I really think the pro-Net Neutrality folks are going to have a hard time keeping up their offensive after this though. I've seen a lot of ads where they basically say: "the moment Net Neutrality is gone, everything will change for the worse". If things don't change immediately or don't change in a way that people notice, then a lot of their backbone is lost. And I really doubt we'll see immediate changes for the worse in the wake of Net Neutrality's downfall. Maybe 5-10 years from now, but one has to wonder if we'll even care by then.

This is a dangerous mentality. You're suggesting to stop speaking of it now that it's done. "Shut up and take it."

What evidence do you have of this happening by the way? Because if a neutral internet is not kept, in any way shape or form, people will absolutely not forget. You're underestimating the worst case scenario by orders of magnitude, and this opens the floodgates for it.

I was calling for a rational look at what happens in the short-term if anything changes, but the moment something does change (and it won't be a gradual change once it happens, and it definitely will be highly public) then people will hop all over it.

Protesting against harmful results is the bastion of a liberal democracy. Indifference is the worst solution possible.

[SullyMcGully]

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

This is a dangerous mentality. You're suggesting to stop speaking of it now that it's done. "Shut up and take it."

What evidence do you have of this happening by the way? Because if a neutral internet is not kept, in any way shape or form, people will absolutely not forget. You're underestimating the worst case scenario by orders of magnitude, and this opens the floodgates for it.

I was calling for a rational look at what happens in the short-term if anything changes, but the moment something does change (and it won't be a gradual change once it happens, and it definitely will be highly public) then people will hop all over it.

Protesting against harmful results is the bastion of a liberal democracy. Indifference is the worst solution possible.

Sorry, I missed the part where I told people to "shut up and take it". 

I'm not saying people should forget about it; I'm saying a lot of people will. It's just the nature of publicity; you can't keep an issue at the forefront of peoples' minds when it is no longer relevant, or as relevant as it was. We won't be able to do anything about Net Neutrality until we get proof positive that it is actually harmful for the economy and the general public. Until then, people won't be spending a bunch of money advertising their position and the majority of Americans just won't care that much. 

I'm cautious, so I'm going to keep an eye on what happens now. However, with some of the exaggerated reports I've heard, I doubt it will be anywhere near as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. See, I'm not indifferent, I'm just trying to be calm, rational, and optimistic. There's no use getting all strung up over something you can't change.

Keep talking about it if you want. It's a free country, and if that's what you think is right, then go for it. Just remember that I and a good many other Americans feel perfectly comfortable doing otherwise. Net Neutrality is a fight no one will be fighting again for a little while, and next time it becomes the forefront of discussion, we'll have some sweet new data to look at. Who knows? Maybe Pai will prove us all wrong. Or right. It's out of my hands now.

[Lord Raven]

48 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Sorry, I missed the part where I told people to "shut up and take it". 

I'm not saying people should forget about it; I'm saying a lot of people will. It's just the nature of publicity; you can't keep an issue at the forefront of peoples' minds when it is no longer relevant, or as relevant as it was. We won't be able to do anything about Net Neutrality until we get proof positive that it is actually harmful for the economy and the general public. Until then, people won't be spending a bunch of money advertising their position and the majority of Americans just won't care that much. 

What point are you making? Nobody cares because it's done? Because many, many websites will be preaching this for ages, if nothing else more regularly. Reddit will probably have the snoo gif of it loading in slowly everytime you load up a page, and a bunch of people will continue to have net neutrality in the back of their minds when it comes to voting in 2018, especially when they are educated on what net neutrality is. It's not done.

You also are saying "until something happens," ignoring that other countries without net neutrality actually have significantly less freedom in their internet habits. In one case, they're really under the thumb of their government! So what say you to proof that exists elsewhere? Which part of net neutrality has actually not been tested before and considered an issue?

There is a lot of proof in the past of this being a bad thing, and it looks to get even worse than a few years back.

The "shut up and take it" is implicit in what you're saying.

48 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

I'm cautious, so I'm going to keep an eye on what happens now. However, with some of the exaggerated reports I've heard, I doubt it will be anywhere near as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. See, I'm not indifferent, I'm just trying to be calm, rational, and optimistic. There's no use getting all strung up over something you can't change.

Being "optimistic" is not a conduit for change, as you're suggesting. But, being calm and rational does not mean a resigned take on the issue due to it passing. Calm and rational is "they actually did it despite the outcry of a majority of people in their country, so we need to make our voices louder." What you are doing is not calm and rational, it's regressive and also ignoring previous issues that have occurred.

48 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Keep talking about it if you want. It's a free country, and if that's what you think is right, then go for it. Just remember that I and a good many other Americans feel perfectly comfortable doing otherwise. Net Neutrality is a fight no one will be fighting again for a little while, and next time it becomes the forefront of discussion, we'll have some sweet new data to look at. Who knows? Maybe Pai will prove us all wrong. Or right. It's out of my hands now.

Then why did you come in here just to say "well, it's over, so it's not worth getting riled up over it" if you're so keen on saying that you don't want to talk about it? I don't understand. The discussion is about net neutrality and what specifically makes it a net benefit or a net negative, not whatever you were trying to say about us being insignificant.

As it currently stands, at least two people in this thread received information about the issue that covers the significance of net neutrality as a concept. Therefore, it may be in the back of their minds when they vote or discuss the concept, and actively think about what they want. Do you not want discussions to create a more informed populace just because it's "out of our hands" if it passed? Do you not think that, given that we are on the internet, most websites won't continue to talk about net neutrality?

Is your point that this is just a "flavor of the week" issue? Because I know this has been talked about almost weekly to monthly ever since Ajit Pai mentioned repealing Title II protections. Don't foresee this issue ever going away, especially if ISPs do implement some of the NN-less policies of ISPs overseas.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Tetragrammaton]

On 12/14/2017 at 8:11 AM, SoulWeaver said:

Also, if Verizon wants to say nobody can use Netflix, the obvious answer is to switch away from Verizon.

Why don't you think that all the other ISPs would do the same thing?

Even switch away from Verizon, you still can not access Netflix because they block Netflix too, unless you use Netflix's own ISP.

And by using Netflix's ISP, you can not access google or facebook because this time Netflix blocks facebook and goolge.

How's about that?

The only option for you if you want to access all of them is to use all the services provide by all of them.

[B.Leu]

What I find beautiful is that people worked for Net Neutrality, worked for good and fair rules for everyone. And all of that work, turned to nothing thanks to a few idiots of non-importance that came out of nowhere.
It's like when we go from Obama as president, a guy who became pretty much a symbol, (Like Net Neutrality, golly) to Trump, the drop of level is large. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But yeah, I think people should talk more about it, that's how things should work, I was really surprised when I saw... not many people talk about it.

[dragonlordsd]

1 hour ago, B.Leu said:

What I find beautiful is that people worked for Net Neutrality, worked for good and fair rules for everyone. And all of that work, turned to nothing thanks to a few idiots of non-importance that came out of nowhere.
It's like when we go from Obama as president, a guy who became pretty much a symbol, (Like Net Neutrality, golly) to Trump, the drop of level is large. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But yeah, I think people should talk more about it, that's how things should work, I was really surprised when I saw... not many people talk about it.

Well, we're probably going to have a few months of litigation at the very least.

I mean, they're already being sued by New York (the state, I think? Maybe just the city), so it hasn't really happened yet.

[Tryhard]

You won't see an immediate impact. Comcast and the other ISPs are smart enough to let people forget about this ruling before they attempt to do anything, and their first target would likely be torrent sites like they blocked/throttled Bittorrent in 2005 and people will defend them as combating piracy and illegal activity most likely.

By the way, interestingly enough, the phrase 'net neutrality rules' was used by people prior to 2015. Here's an article from 2008 describing the above 'violation of net neutrality rules'.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-was-illegal/

[SoulWeaver]

13 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Why don't you think that all the other ISPs would do the same thing?

I mentioned why I think this in that same post. Let me pull it up...

On December 13, 2017 at 6:11 PM, SoulWeaver said:

All a company has to do is wait for Net Neutrality to be repealed, then come out and make an official statement that they will be holding themselves to the rules of Net Neutrality of their own accord, they don't have to make any sort of major changes to the system they already had in place, they build goodwill with the people, they get all the business from the customers who are leaving their previous provider because their previous provider decided to be moronic, other companies see that and follow suit, and presto, the only real change that happened was the government deregulated itself. This is actually how Switzerland did this, seeing as how you're bringing up countries that don't have government-run Net Neutrality.

As a business decision, it would be an extremely smart move to announce your company is remaining Net Neutral when everyone around you is blocking sites behind paywalls because then you're the good guy who's going to do the best for the people while "all those moneygrubbers are busy trying to line their own pockets". Barring a mass collusion where all the ISPs decide to screw everyone over at once, I believe the chances of this NOT happening are rather small because contrary to popular belief the market itself eventually punishes those who choose to discriminate against just about anything for just about any reason WITHOUT the government needing to step in. Maybe it doesn't immediately punish them, perhaps it doesn't punish them as much as we'd like when we'd like it, but the market system is perfectly capable of checking, balancing, and governing itself. Companies are mainly driven by the desire for profit and business, and their competition with one another inspires them to do just about everything they financially can to draw in consumers, including, among other things, lowering prices. Therefore, if we as a people say we're only going to support ISPs who are Net Neutral and more importantly follow through with that statement, then the natural process of the market will weed out those who refuse to listen to their customers, who, I'll point out, are where they get their money from - if we don't pay them for stuff, they take losses, and if they don't learn from their mistakes, they eventually crash and burn.

[Tryhard]

11 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

I mentioned why I think this in that same post. Let me pull it up...

As a business decision, it would be an extremely smart move to announce your company is remaining Net Neutral when everyone around you is blocking sites behind paywalls because then you're the good guy who's going to do the best for the people while "all those moneygrubbers are busy trying to line their own pockets". Barring a mass collusion where all the ISPs decide to screw everyone over at once, I believe the chances of this NOT happening are rather small because contrary to popular belief the market itself eventually punishes those who choose to discriminate against just about anything for just about any reason WITHOUT the government needing to step in. Maybe it doesn't immediately punish them, perhaps it doesn't punish them as much as we'd like when we'd like it, but the market system is perfectly capable of checking, balancing, and governing itself. Companies are mainly driven by the desire for profit and business, and their competition with one another inspires them to do just about everything they financially can to draw in consumers, including, among other things, lowering prices. Therefore, if we as a people say we're only going to support ISPs who are Net Neutral and more importantly follow through with that statement, then the natural process of the market will weed out those who refuse to listen to their customers, who, I'll point out, are where they get their money from - if we don't pay them for stuff, they take losses, and if they don't learn from their mistakes, they eventually crash and burn.

That's nice and all that, but you still haven't answered how this is going to help those with only one or two choices that are likely going to screw people over in areas that essentially have monopolies over their available ISPs. They have no options, and they just get to take it up the ass.

I'd also like to point out that many companies have abysmal PR and still manage to profit massively regardless.

Now, if there wasn't such a monopolistic nature that the ISPs populate in America, then maybe it wouldn't be as necessary.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Tryhard

[dragonlordsd]

6 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

I mentioned why I think this in that same post. Let me pull it up...

As a business decision, it would be an extremely smart move to announce your company is remaining Net Neutral when everyone around you is blocking sites behind paywalls because then you're the good guy who's going to do the best for the people while "all those moneygrubbers are busy trying to line their own pockets". Barring a mass collusion where all the ISPs decide to screw everyone over at once, I believe the chances of this NOT happening are rather small because contrary to popular belief the market itself eventually punishes those who choose to discriminate against just about anything for just about any reason WITHOUT the government needing to step in. Maybe it doesn't immediately punish them, perhaps it doesn't punish them as much as we'd like when we'd like it, but the market system is perfectly capable of checking, balancing, and governing itself. Companies are mainly driven by the desire for profit and business, and their competition with one another inspires them to do just about everything they financially can to draw in consumers, including, among other things, lowering prices. Therefore, if we as a people say we're only going to support ISPs who are Net Neutral and more importantly follow through with that statement, then the natural process of the market will weed out those who refuse to listen to their customers, who, I'll point out, are where they get their money from - if we don't pay them for stuff, they take losses, and if they don't learn from their mistakes, they eventually crash and burn.

There are a few problems with this rationale:

First, collusion has happened multiple times in the past. While there's always a chance that it won't happen, that's only a chance. 

The thing about the market is it's not self correcting. This is largely due to the fact that companies, by definition, seek to maximize their profits, and will eliminate competition by any means necessary. This isn't an inherently good or bad thing, it's just how business works. If someone makes a better product than you, you can either a. make a better product or b. eliminate that company. The only distinction between these two options is which is cheaper.

Sure you could lower your prices. But it's sometimes cheaper to just buy the other company.

But the biggest thing is that I see absolutely no upside to revoking net neutrality. I mean seriously, what's the point?

[Lord Raven]

I’d like to point out that a lot of issues with the US are not having to do with capitalism but corporatism. If we get rid of corporatism and corporation benefiting legislation and tax plans then a regulation like NN isn’t necessary.

I also think if the US were a lot smaller in population and more densely concentrated and uniform it would be easier. But “just switch providers” does not work for the internet or healthcare or any utility/service you can name. That kind of local competition literally doesn’t exist here. An anecdote is that my only two choices at my apartment complex are Cox (good internet, 60/month, high speed but outages once a month, 300 gig data cap) vs CenturyLink (30/month, very low speed, no effective data cap) and if I wanted a power price I have to move to significantly lower quality. It’s a choice between good and bad internet, except the good internet isn’t great and hasn’t made an effort to get better because at least they’re not centurylink!

Now imagine in other cases you have Comcast vs centurylink. That’s bad vs bad internet, and the only way you can protest is by cutting off internet which is not the best thing in this day and age.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Lord Raven

[dragonlordsd]

Just now, Lord Raven said:

I’d like to point out that a lot of issues with the US are not having to do with capitalism but corporatism. If we get rid of corporatism and corporation benefiting legislation and tax plans then a regulation like NN isn’t necessary.

I also think if the US were a lot smaller in population and more densely concentrated and uniform it would be easier. But “just switch providers” does not work for the internet or healthcare or any utility/service you can name. That kind of local competition literally doesn’t exist here. An anecdote is that my only two choices at my apartment complex are Cox (good internet, 60/month, high speed but outages once a month, 300 gig data cap) vs CenturyLink (30/month, very low speed, no effective data cap) and if I wanted a power price I have to move to significantly lower quality. It’s a choice between good and bad internet, except the good internet isn’t great and hasn’t made an effort to get better because at least they’re not centurylink!

I think you are absolutely right, but the two lead into each other. It's the cycle of capitalism, like how the economy crashes every 30 or so years.

There is already plenty of competition in the ISP sphere, so I see no need to open it up further. And much as people argue that this is a business issue, I'm way more worried about censorship. If companies are allowed to shut off websites, even if that's not unconstitutional, it's still not a good thing.

[SoulWeaver]

5 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said:

There are a few problems with this rationale:

First, collusion has happened multiple times in the past. While there's always a chance that it won't happen, that's only a chance. 

The thing about the market is it's not self correcting. This is largely due to the fact that companies, by definition, seek to maximize their profits, and will eliminate competition by any means necessary. This isn't an inherently good or bad thing, it's just how business works. If someone makes a better product than you, you can either a. make a better product or b. eliminate that company. The only distinction between these two options is which is cheaper.

Sure you could lower your prices. But it's sometimes cheaper to just buy the other company.

But the biggest thing is that I see absolutely no upside to revoking net neutrality. I mean seriously, what's the point?

…While you make a decent point, I'm actually not interested in arguing about it - as I mentioned in my first post on here, I don't actually want to sit and argue things out, particularly not for something I have very little control over like this. I only originally posted because I wanted to make sure people were actually trying to have a definition of Net Neutrality because if nobody understands what exactly they're arguing about there's literally 0% chance of anyone coming to an understanding of anything other than the fact that they don't understand, and someone asked me a question about why I hold my position, so I clarified. I will, however, thank you all for remaining civil, as I sometimes forget there are still people who know how to do that on the internet and it's nice to be reminded every once in a while. Hopefully I'll run into you all again in a discussion I am interested in discussing at length.

[The Envoy of the Beginning]

14 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said:

But the biggest thing is that I see absolutely no upside to revoking net neutrality. I mean seriously, what's the point?

The only good things that can come out of that (on the consumer side) are

• Municipal ISPs will become more of a thing (although the telecom giants have bullied some into not existing, either by lawsuits or by lobbying)
• ISP companies that follow Net Neutrality principles can expand their markets (again, they could get bullied by said giants)
• The telecom giants such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T would lose customers to other ISPs (but then again, they got monopolies in many parts of the US...*sighs*)
• Corporation-loving politicians who supported Net Neutrality repeal will get voted out of office

[Lord Raven]

1 hour ago, dragonlordsd said:

I think you are absolutely right, but the two lead into each other. It's the cycle of capitalism, like how the economy crashes every 30 or so years.

There is already plenty of competition in the ISP sphere, so I see no need to open it up further. And much as people argue that this is a business issue, I'm way more worried about censorship. If companies are allowed to shut off websites, even if that's not unconstitutional, it's still not a good thing.

I argue that it is censorship partially but it also allows companies to “pay for play” on internet ads so certain regions or ISPs favor certain companies and certain traffic.

I don’t believe corporatism is necessarily an endgame of capitalism, but it is something that comes about when you have a Republican Party like ours.

[dragonlordsd]

2 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

…While you make a decent point, I'm actually not interested in arguing about it - as I mentioned in my first post on here, I don't actually want to sit and argue things out, particularly not for something I have very little control over like this. I only originally posted because I wanted to make sure people were actually trying to have a definition of Net Neutrality because if nobody understands what exactly they're arguing about there's literally 0% chance of anyone coming to an understanding of anything other than the fact that they don't understand, and someone asked me a question about why I hold my position, so I clarified. I will, however, thank you all for remaining civil, as I sometimes forget there are still people who know how to do that on the internet and it's nice to be reminded every once in a while. Hopefully I'll run into you all again in a discussion I am interested in discussing at length.

Thanks! I'm also glad we could keep this civil.

I think we all want what's best for this country, we just disagree about how to get there.

[Tetragrammaton]

4 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

I mentioned why I think this in that same post. Let me pull it up...

As a business decision, it would be an extremely smart move to announce your company is remaining Net Neutral when everyone around you is blocking sites behind paywalls because then you're the good guy who's going to do the best for the people while "all those moneygrubbers are busy trying to line their own pockets". Barring a mass collusion where all the ISPs decide to screw everyone over at once, I believe the chances of this NOT happening are rather small because contrary to popular belief the market itself eventually punishes those who choose to discriminate against just about anything for just about any reason WITHOUT the government needing to step in. Maybe it doesn't immediately punish them, perhaps it doesn't punish them as much as we'd like when we'd like it, but the market system is perfectly capable of checking, balancing, and governing itself. Companies are mainly driven by the desire for profit and business, and their competition with one another inspires them to do just about everything they financially can to draw in consumers, including, among other things, lowering prices. Therefore, if we as a people say we're only going to support ISPs who are Net Neutral and more importantly follow through with that statement, then the natural process of the market will weed out those who refuse to listen to their customers, who, I'll point out, are where they get their money from - if we don't pay them for stuff, they take losses, and if they don't learn from their mistakes, they eventually crash and burn.

So I want to ask what do you think about China's Great Firewall?

Do you think it's good or bad?

[Ertrick36]

Well, while the rules have been thrown out the window, there are still two things that can happen immediately to save it.

1. Congress can invoke the Congressional Review Act, which means they can overturn any rule issued by a federal agency within a 60-day time period.  Unlike regular votes, it only needs a simple majority; 51 members of the senate.  Some in congress have already proposed doing this in response to Ajit Pai's actions.  If they receive a huge vocal outpouring of support for net neutrality - through mail, e-mail, or phone - they might be inclined to do just that and even with the Republican held congress, this has a chance of succeeding.  It has already been proposed by some members of congress.

2. A federal judge can rule the FCC's decision or any actions from ISPs unlawful.  There's not really anything we can do here besides sue the government or ISPs...  But this has been one way bad rules and regulations have been overturned in the past.

 

And there's also the fact that we can vote for people in congress who support net neutrality, but I have very little faith in my fellow Americans to extend this struggle that far into 2018, and I know that ISPs will try to play it smart and gradual.  And three years down the line is definitely a long ways a way; all we can really hope for there is that someone with a better sense for agency leaders than Trump will take office.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't something that's set in stone.  Nothing is.  The only thing that really stops positive change is when people stop caring.  Don't let anyone tell you there is nothing you can do.

[Lord Raven]

^ thank you for that @Ertrick36. I think, to add to that, it is also worth going to town halls and mentioning this as a point of concern regardless of your party affiliation. I say this because I don’t believe democrats are necessarily pro-NN so much as it is an issue that they follow constituents on.

[SoulWeaver]

19 hours ago, hanhnn said:

So I want to ask what do you think about China's Great Firewall?

Do you think it's good or bad?

I'm not hugely familiar with the Great Firewall, and so don't have an opinion on it right now. I would need to take a closer look and figure out exactly what I think on it, but I'd be happy to let you know my thoughts once I get them figured out.

[NegativeExponents-]

On 12/15/2017 at 8:31 AM, dragonlordsd said:

Well, we're probably going to have a few months of litigation at the very least.

I mean, they're already being sued by New York (the state, I think? Maybe just the city), so it hasn't really happened yet.

To answer the question, the state of New York is suing, not just the city. It’s not only New York that’s doing this as other states have stated that they will also sue.

Here’s a quote from wcctf.com that lists the other 16 states (17 states total)

Quote

After New York, according to reports several other states have also pledged to join this lawsuit, including:

• California
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Iowa
• Kentucky
• Maine
• Maryland
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Mississippi
• Massachusetts
• Pennsylvania
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington

Here’s the statements made by New York and California attorney generals:

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-decries-fcc-repeal-net-neutrality-rules

Something I would like to point out that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned here is the last paragraph of the NY statement which talks about evidence of fake comments being submitted.

Quote

For seven months, Attorney General Schneiderman has been investigating the flood of fake comments submitted during the net neutrality comment process. The Attorney General’s latest analysis shows that two million comments stole the identities of real Americans – including over 100,000 comments per state from New York, Florida, Texas, and California. Yet the FCC has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation, despite widespread evidence that the public comment process was corrupted.

All of this comes from the US gov website (in case you couldn’t tell from the source) so if anyone is still questioning the legitimacy of these sources idk what else I can possibly do for you.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 3:29 PM, Ertrick36 said:

Well, while the rules have been thrown out the window, there are still two things that can happen immediately to save it.

1. Congress can invoke the Congressional Review Act, which means they can overturn any rule issued by a federal agency within a 60-day time period.  Unlike regular votes, it only needs a simple majority; 51 members of the senate.  Some in congress have already proposed doing this in response to Ajit Pai's actions.  If they receive a huge vocal outpouring of support for net neutrality - through mail, e-mail, or phone - they might be inclined to do just that and even with the Republican held congress, this has a chance of succeeding.  It has already been proposed by some members of congress.

2. A federal judge can rule the FCC's decision or any actions from ISPs unlawful.  There's not really anything we can do here besides sue the government or ISPs...  But this has been one way bad rules and regulations have been overturned in the past.

 

And there's also the fact that we can vote for people in congress who support net neutrality, but I have very little faith in my fellow Americans to extend this struggle that far into 2018, and I know that ISPs will try to play it smart and gradual.  And three years down the line is definitely a long ways a way; all we can really hope for there is that someone with a better sense for agency leaders than Trump will take office.

What I'm trying to say is that this isn't something that's set in stone.  Nothing is.  The only thing that really stops positive change is when people stop caring.  Don't let anyone tell you there is nothing you can do.

This ^

There’s still time to before the internet is completely screwed (for Americans anyway) and one way you can help is by contacting your members of congress

https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

let them know that you are indeed opposed to the repeal of net neutrality

[DragonFlames]

If you look at it from the right angle, you could say that Net Neutrality goes against the nature of captialism itself, which is that everything will inevitably lead into a monopoly, so of course it would be in the best interest for the big provider corporations to have that stuff gone.

The worst thing about all this is that America is a country with great influence on other countries, meaning that as soon as net neutrality goes the way of most generic soldiers in the US and corporations and / or governments overseas catch on to the fact that they can essentially control what information goes up and what doesn't, you can bet that Europe, especially Germany,  will immediately try and copy what the US did. Because when it comes to screwing up big time, count on the German government to deliver full satisfaction.
The only ones benefiting from disabling Net Neutrality are the big provider corporations. And since most western countries are ruled by the big corporations anyway through that little thing called lobbyism (to put it simply, politicians get paid to turn the law to benefit the big corporations), well... you can imagine how screwed we Europeans are if this stuff goes through in the US.

I'll say it again: The only ones benefiting from repealing Net Neutrality are those who have / make the most money. Unless you are part of that group, you're not getting anything out of this at all. This is just another way for the rich to get even richer and for the poor to be left in the dust.
If the capitalist point of view isn't for you, consider this: Limited access to websites means limited access to information (and you have to be really naive if you believe that corporations / governments won't try to limit the information you can access), which is a violation of basic human rights, more specifically the right to access any and all information at all times.
If even human rights aren't worth fighting for anymore, then this world really is going down the drain (and honestly, deservedly so).
So we as consumers have pretty much only one choice left. It's not even a question in my mind. 

Of course, this is only my view of things. Feel free to agree or disagree if you will.

[SullyMcGully]

5 minutes ago, DragonFlames said:

I'll say it again: The only ones benefiting from repealing Net Neutrality are those who have / make the most money. Unless you are part of that group, you're not getting anything out of this at all. This is just another way for the rich to get even richer and for the poor to be left in the dust.
If the capitalist point of view isn't for you, consider this: Limited access to websites means limited access to information (and you have to be really naive if you believe that corporations / governments won't try to limit the information you can access), which is a violation of basic human rights, more specifically the right to access any and all information at all times.
If even human rights aren't worth fighting for anymore, then this world really is going down the drain (and honestly, deservedly so).
So we as consumers have pretty much only one choice left. It's not even a question in my mind. 

Of course, this is only my view of things. Feel free to agree or disagree if you will.

Can I get some clarification on the human right to "access any and all information at all times"? This isn't a human right. There's information certain people cannot and should not have. There's certain information that you have to pay money to get. Should I be able to obtain advance information about undercover military and police operations at will? Do I have a right to know the contents of a sociology textbook which I do not own and have not paid for? People are denied the right to information all of the time for various reasons. Some of these are good reasons, as in a system where the government keeps no secrets and writers are not rewarded for their work, you inevitably see peacekeeping forces that are always a step behind in catching criminals and demotivated authors. I don't think anyone here is arguing that people should have access to all information at all times.

To those opposing the FCC ruling: I'm interested in knowing your opinions on 1) the FCC's assurance that ISPs will have to inform customers of any services which are being throttled or otherwise affected in a unfavorable manner and 2) the practice of zero-rating, which is explained in this Wikipedia article.