Ziggy Vercetti Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Pulled a random article but there's more on this if you search *tagged due to article size When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience. When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked. In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference. But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. And on May 18, the FCC voted to let Pai’s internet-killing plan move forward. What is Net Neutrality? Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online. Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet. What would happen if we lost Net Neutrality? The internet without Net Neutrality isn’t really the internet. Unlike the open internet that has paved the way for so much innovation and given a platform to people who have historically been shut out, it would become a closed-down network where cable and phone companies call the shots and decide which websites, content or applications succeed. This would have an enormous impact. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to decide who is heard and who isn’t. They’d be able to block websites or content they don’t like or applications that compete with their own offerings. Without Net Neutrality, how would activists be able to fight against oppression? What would happen to social movements like the Movement for Black Lives? How would the next disruptive technology, business or company emerge if internet service providers only let incumbents succeed? Didn't we already win strong Net Neutrality rules? Yes. After a decade-long battle over the future of the internet, the FCC adopted strong Net Neutrality rules based on Title II of the Communications Act, giving internet users the strongest protections possible. But ever since then opponents have done everything they can to destroy Net Neutrality. And Chairman Pai — a former Verizon lawyer — is moving fast to destroy the open internet. He must be stopped. Why is Title II so important? Courts rejected two earlier FCC attempts to craft Net Neutrality rules and told the agency that if it wanted to adopt such protections it needed to use the proper legal foundation: Title II. ?In February 2015, the FCC did just that, ?giving ?internet users the strongest possible Net Neutrality rules when it reclassified broadband providers as common carriers under Title II. Title II gives the FCC the authority it needs to ensure that companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon can’t block, throttle or otherwise interfere with web traffic. Title II preserves the internet’s level playing field, allowing people to share and access information of their choosing. These rules have ushered in a historic era of online innovation and investment — and have withstood two court challenges from industry. But Chairman Pai wants to ditch Title II and return the FCC to a “light touch” Title I approach. Translation: Pai wants to give control of the internet to the very companies that violated Net Neutrality for years before the FCC adopted its current rules in 2015. Title I would do nothing to protect internet users like you. Who’s attacking Net Neutrality? Big phone and cable companies and their lobbyists filed suit almost as soon as the Net Neutrality rules were adopted. Free Press jumped in and helped argue the case defending the FCC — and on June 14, 2016, a federal appeals court upheld the open-internet protections in all respects. However, the ISPS are still trying to challenge these rules in court. Meanwhile, industry-funded Net Neutrality opponents in Congress have done everything they can to dismantle or undermine the rules. Legislators have introduced numerous deceptive bills and attached damaging riders to must-pass government-funding bills. The 4 million people who spoke out in support of Net Neutrality in 2015 are fired up and ready to fight back — and you can join them here. Why is Net Neutrality crucial for communities of color? The open internet allows people of color to tell their own stories and organize for racial and social justice. When activists are able to turn out thousands of people in the streets at a moment’s notice, it’s because ISPs aren’t allowed to block their messages or websites. The mainstream media have long misrepresented, ignored and harmed people of color. And thanks to systemic racism, economic inequality and runaway media consolidation, people of color own just a handful of broadcast stations. The lack of diverse ownership is a primary reason why the media have gotten away with criminalizing and otherwise stereotyping communities of color. The open internet allows people of color and other vulnerable communities to bypass traditional media gatekeepers. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs could block speech and prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Without Net Neutrality, people of color would lose a vital platform. And without Net Neutrality, millions of small businesses owned by people of color wouldn’t be able to compete against larger corporations online, which would deepen economic disparities. Why is Net Neutrality important for businesses? Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the open internet to launch their businesses, create markets, advertise their products and services, and reach customers. We need the open internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation. Net Neutrality lowers the barriers of entry by preserving the internet’s fair and level playing field. It’s because of Net Neutrality that small businesses and entrepreneurs have been able to thrive online,. No company should be allowed to interfere with this open marketplace. ISPs are the internet’s gatekeepers, and without Net Neutrality, they would seize every possible opportunity to profit from that gatekeeper position. Without Net Neutrality, the next Google or Facebook would never get off the ground. What can we do now? Chairman Pai wants to replace the agency’s strong rules with “voluntary” conditions that no ISP would ever comply with. Pai unveiled his plan in a closed-door meeting with industry lobbyists in April 2017 and and officially kicked off a proceeding on May 18, 2017, when the FCC voted along party lines to move this proposal? forward. The Trump administration is doing everything in its power to clamp down on dissent. If we lose Net Neutrality, it will have succeeded. Millions have already taken a stand to defend our rights to connect and communicate. Take action now and join the fight. Source: https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muur Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Swear that's the same picture that was used when Thersea May wanted to govern the Internet in the UK Anyway it was stupid then and it's stupid now Least this current one everyone is going all up in arms about is current USA only, we'll stick to pointing and laughing at Mrs May for suggesting something like this for the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 It will probably happen...and there will be riots on every *censored*ing street corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJ! Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 What the *Censored* kinda bullshit is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 What the *Censored* kinda bullshit is this? You're not hearing about this for the first time, are you? Been rumblings about it for years...and even more groans when Trump put the pieces in place for it to happen. Obama had safeguards in place during his presidency, but they've been removed by you know who. Just another piece of Trump's legacy as worst president ever, if it goes through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 So does this mean we will have to pay extra for certain websites or features on the web? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 So does this mean we will have to pay extra for certain websites or features on the web? Yes. It will be like a cable bill, how you have different tiers of content...and content that isn't included in any of those tiers will presumably run like absolute shit (if at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Than Light Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Aside from terrorism, child porn, or anything else just as vile, nobody should be able to make any law about the internet and the internet should have no restrictions on what is viewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Just another way for the rich to get richer I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Just another way for the rich to get richer I see. Scarier than that, it's a pretty good way to create an echo chamber, and keep people only seeing what certain interests want people to see. Honestly, the pay caps are bullshit...but I'm way more concerned about the deeper implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anno Domini. Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 *Censored* me, if anything could pull us closer to a dystopian future, it's this. Is there any concrete way of fighting against this that ordinary people can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muur Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 At least we'd all still be able to post on Caws for free... probably. Ricey boy might put it on the highest tariff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anno Domini. Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 At least we'd all still be able to post on Caws for free... probably. Ricey boy might put it on the highest tariff I don't think it'd be the website owners per se, more so the ISPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M3J Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Any politician who supports this makes it clear they do not have Americans' interest at all. Net neutrality is necessary for free internet, and it's ironic that the republican government wants to govern it/take away freedom of internet usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 This one really could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. With all of the protests and riots and anti-government sentiment that has been stirred up in recent memory...if they try to follow through with this one...it really may lead to some crazy shit. That's just my opinion. You're not getting away with limiting what people can do on the internet in 2017. The internet is some daily life type shit at this point. People are actually addicted to the internet. You might as well be taking crack away from a drug-fiend and thinking that they won't come flying at you like a spider monkey... So many businesses will tank as a direct result of this action (if it goes through). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedmaniac Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Trump fans will still defend this somehow by saying some shit like "get over it snowflake" not realizing this will affect them just as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb ★ Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 This is *censored*ing horrible bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LEGION Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Sooooo...Do hackers just stop existing? Because if not, someone is going to have a rude awakening with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FulGore Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 This is just the governments way of trying to scrub the inernet clean of any bad things said about them. *Censored* these parasites. They can suck on my dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 Trump fans will still defend this somehow by saying some shit like "get over it snowflake" not realizing this will affect them just as much. Facts. Then they'll find a way to blame Obama, or maybe even the next person who takes office. These people are destroying the country, and I'm beyond tired of it. Trumpers gift wrapped our healthcare and the internet to private interests, supported selling private data, caused an increase in hate crimes, defended foreign meddling in our election process, defended dirty energy and pollution, defended the suppression of science. The list goes on. When we look back in a few years and they all say "what went wrong?", I'm going to have a long list of points to slap them in the face with. And why? Because "my side...my precious side...I have to be right...I cannot waiver...must...defend...supreme ruler..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam the d00d Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 how much would i have to pay for pornhub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 how much would i have to pay for pornhub A better question is, how would your ISP even present that option to you? "Hey...ya'll like masturbating furiously? 'The porn package...only $14.99'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shindol Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 I don't think anything will change. It only takes one ISP to remain open and the rest will have to switch back or they're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generations Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 I don't think anything will change. It only takes one ISP to remain open and the rest will have to switch back or they're screwed. Maybe. Unless it becomes federal law that this is the way things are. Which is a real possibility, IMO. And that's basically what Theresa May was suggesting with her "replacement" of the internet a while back. And like I said before...it's the implications that we aren't discussing that scare me more than the increased pricing. If the government says "there's too much unsanctioned activity online, so it's now federal law that you will only have the internet in a limited capacity"...then that's some serious shit. Also, it's more likely that opening the door for a handful of ISP's to increase their pricing will only serve to entice others to follow suit. Everyone wants to make money. If they all band together and do it at the same time, then there is no loser on their end. They only lose if one company decides not to play by the rules...which would be some real white knight shit that doesn't seem likely to me. And even if they slowly add additional charges over time...it's still some horrible shit. Internet service is expensive enough already. The fact that they're essentially getting carte blanche to randomly say "you need to pay more this month" without any real reasoning...that's some shit. But, who knows...maybe it will end up like the whole PS4/XB1 debacle, when they wanted to get rid of pre-owned games. With any luck, the ruling will not go through at all. And if it does, then I sincerely hope you're right about business getting in the way and the whole thing falling apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shindol Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 There could always be ways around it even if it was a mandatory plan. Let's say your broadband cost $39.99 per month. Just a random number. The fair ISP could charge $39.94 for the bare bones deal and then add a cent each for the five add ons or how many there would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.