Some while ago I saw an user posting pic related where he went through the new bill and highlighted the interesting parts. TL;DR: all the stuff people are scared about, throttling and blocking of websites, cashing in extra for certain websites and so on, is already regulated in the new bill. People complaining about those issues confirmed have no idea what so ever.
A lot of is regulated under current law too --> Sherman Antitrust Laws
Nathaniel Cooper
Huh. I sure do wonder how Onigger was able to fool so many people.
Ryan Diaz
>I sure do wonder how Onigger was able to fool so many people. pic related, he passed it on the day before christmas among a couple hundred other pages so noone notices or objects. also regarding pic related TL;DR: the old bill enabled the government to "counter state and nonstate propaganda" aka your disaggreeing opinnion, enables the government to shut down any website they dont like without having to give a reason or go to court, and just not prolong broadcasting licenses for ISPs resulting in them being pushed out of business as they cant sell internet without it and enabling the government to take over the internetlines and thus the internet of the entire US
Gabriel Williams
I was joking. I know exactly how Onigger fooled so many people. We let niggers, women, and non property owners vote. Literally- we let a nigger woman who lives on welfare in public housing vote. And her vote counts the same as mine. That is retarded nigger faggotry.
Sebastian Carter
figured as much, still fitted the question and shows just what methods (((they))) use to pass a bill
Jaxson Reed
Take this to the general, please. Fuck having 20 open threads on this crap.
Daniel Watson
>complains about multiple threads being open >opens a new thread >tells people of older threads to post in his new thread instead
Alexander Harris
meant for
Henry Roberts
bump
Noah Johnson
bump
where the netjew shills at?
Gabriel Hughes
retard
Brayden Miller
right below you it seems
Jaxon Hughes
Wow, I guess those lobbyists weren't spending all that money for financial interests. It's nice to know someone's finally looking out for the little guy! Take that, liberals!! :)
Brayden Roberts
This, but with google soros and reddit(true protectors of internet freedom) instead of lobbyists.
Jayden Thomas
I know! Finally someone will stop John Soros once and for all from taking over the world and white males and never again will reddit be able to jerk itself off in an echo chamber that no one except Sup Forums cares about.
Matthew Lopez
It was fake news, like the Russia collusion. We are losing the propaganda war since Soros dropped 18 billion
Asher Sullivan
>calling this losing they just scream louder, thats all. in every other aspect we are superior
>On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted to restore the longstanding, bipartisan light-touch regulatory framework that has fostered rapid Internet growth, openness, and freedom for nearly 20 years.
>Following detailed legal and economic analysis, as well as extensive examination of comments from consumers and stakeholders, the Commission reversed the FCC’s 2015 heavy-handed utility-style regulation of broadband Internet access service, which imposed substantial costs on the entire Internet ecosystem.
>In place of that heavy-handed framework, the FCC returned to the traditional light-touch framework that was in place until 2015. Moreover, the FCC also adopted robust transparency requirements that will empower consumers as well as facilitate effective government oversight of broadband providers’ conduct. In particular, the FCC’s action restored the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission to act when broadband providers engage in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices.
Landon Torres
Google is not your friend
Anthony Young
information instead of smokescreens bump
Hudson Perry
what? come one man. their motto is "dont be evil". how could thos guy be any bad?
Daniel Cooper
bump
Gavin Taylor
giving this one some attention
Parker Wright
They've dropped that motto when too many people caught on that they are pure evil.
Julian Richardson
hey, at least they arent hypocritical then
Matthew Wilson
bump
Chase Richardson
another bump
Wyatt Gonzalez
last one if noone cares
Joshua Collins
fake news
Austin Taylor
people do seem to be too baited by other thread to care though
Aaron Howard
put some busty hoe or something as the thumbnail next
Cooper Collins
i can just offer some pure 2D waifuus
Connor Bennett
Some of us remember what the net was like before Obama poked his fucking nose in.
Juan Miller
>the old bill enabled the government to "counter state and nonstate propaganda" aka your disaggreeing opinnion, enables the government to shut down any website they dont like without having to give a reason or go to court, and just not prolong broadcasting licenses for ISPs resulting in them being pushed out of business as they cant sell internet without it and enabling the government to take over the internetlines and thus the internet of the entire US Source? As in, where does it say that in the law?
Connor Collins
you know, in the beginning i thought the "reddit/obama/zuckerberg/soros supports it so it must be bad" would be retarded as it seemed like some reverse psychology as i couldnt really see any good coming from repealing it and never saw anything mentioned until recently. yet the memes stay true. now i feel bad for doubting trump
William Baker
This. Everything has just gotten worse in the past 2 years
Jose Powell
Isn't this what Jontron got nailed for in that debate
Jordan Reyes
>(b) Functions.--The Center shall carry out the following functions: >4) Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States. aka shilling > (5) Facilitating the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices. >technologies and techniques aka shutting down websites and taking away peoples internet. congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text?format=txt eventually i look for the other points, but too lazy for now
Charles Sullivan
NET NEUTRALITY - AHHHH The world is ending.
Seriously though, you fagbooks, twatters, media matter faggots and George Soros cockcsuckers are so funny - you are the epitome of who Matt Dillon is referring to:
>> (5) Facilitating the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices. >>technologies and techniques >aka shutting down websites and taking away peoples internet. I gotta disagree with that. It is clear that the bill you are linking to is a propaganda tool.
1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 $20,000,000 to support the Center and provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, journalists, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions for the following purposes: (A) To support local independent media who are best placed to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their own communities. Etc. I just don't see the connection to NN. What does the >Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 Have to do with NN? I'm all for competition and free speech and access to information. The people against NN is doing a fairly bad job at explaining how it will help such a great deal to repeal it. If there is way to much regulation that has to be overcomed because of being perceived as a common carrier, fair enough, but I don't hear that argument.
Mason James
some bump
Evan Flores
So I'm reading on NN, and there are some valid reasons and good people who thinks that NN will inhibit innovation and slow down competition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Opposition_to_net_neutrality " Organizations and companies that oppose net neutrality regulations include several major technology hardware companies, cable and telecommunications companies, hundreds of small internet service providers, various think tanks, several civil rights groups, and others"
But here is the thing. If a person only has 1-3 ISP's to chose from. And the regulations make it impossible for other companies to lay their cable in the citites or where ever, because various governments, state or federal won't let 10 different companies tear up the road at 10 different times, then that is a real problem. And the big companies WILL abuse their unfair monopoly. Maybe wifi will solve that. And maybe repealing NN will spur the innovation needed to make wifi better then cable. It's not that obvious desu. I tell you what though, the reaction from the left is and allways will be cringe.
Jonathan Jones
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Ruling "On the day before the FCC vote, the FCC was expected to vote to regulate the Internet in this manner, as a public good,[15][16] and on February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to apply common carrier of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the Internet. On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. While the latter ruling affects only those two states, the FCC indicated that the agency would make similar rulings if it received petitions from localities in other states" > On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. That right there is a pretty good reason for letting FCC "regulate" the internet. Why would such a law be passed in the first place? Who gives a fuck if states lay some internet cable. Other then big corporations. States should be able to lay internet cable just as they can build roads.
Lincoln Long
FCC is being sued by the states so things might be different.
Jose Powell
>That right there is a pretty good reason for letting FCC "regulate" the internet. Why would such a law be passed in the first place? Who gives a fuck if states lay some internet cable. Other then big corporations. States should be able to lay internet cable just as they can build roads. And while you're right - it oversteps Fed authority on state's rights. Also redundant. State Govs pull that shite, and they'll get some backlash. Yeah, it can sometimes take a while - but the whole point of letting states fuck up is so you can clearly identify when fucks ups are made. One state has clear problems, while a neighnor has none. One-size-fits-all is neither recommended, nor practical.
Sure, some issues seem pretty cut and dry, but the notion is we're not that forward thinking as people, and for all good intentions (which is rarely the case) results are generally guaranteed collective failure.
So yeah. It might seem for certain Tennessee and NC would be shafting their own residents, but that would be contrasts to their neighbors. Neighbors that these residents can visit and communicate with at any time. It really doesn't take that long for this sort of bullshit to get sorted out - but even when it does, sometimes there are good reasons that aren't immediately apparent until exercised. In those instances, neighbors are at liberty to adopt what was a risk, but ultimately a good idea.
The trend toward defaulting in favor of federal intervention is not only counter to the constitution, but generally speaking, counter-productive.
Jack Peterson
pretty much anything can and will be abused. overregulating things doesnt help there as it will just enable a smaller nieche group to thrive enabling monopolies.
well, even with that law it still the case that there are mostly 1-2 ISPs per area in the rural areas. them being able to circumvent the limitations didnt really help there. also this makes it sound like that is an additional bill/law independent from the one that is debated meaning those limitations wont come back into place
Eli Mitchell
You know very well that those states cucked their citizens with corporate lobbyists. Give me a break. Cables should be a utility.
Jayden Morales
Well, I'm certainly not going to react like the left, it might be for the better to repeal NN.
I know that taking away public schooling and programs and just let people figure it out themselves would help education. But I also understand the gigantic fit most people would have because they don't understand that. So, since I'm a dane and it is limited how much I care about americans internet. This will be my final post on this issue. I've heard that some states are now going to make their own ISP's now that NN is repealed. Nature/freemarket is already solving it I guess.
Ryder Diaz
>I just don't see the connection to NN. What does the >>Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 >Have to do with NN? >I'm all for competition and free speech and access to information. The people against NN is doing a fairly bad job at explaining how it will help such a great deal to repeal it. If there is way to much regulation that has to be overcomed because of being perceived as a common carrier, fair enough, but I don't hear that argument.
I think he's saying that without NN, and the leverage afforded to the government by way of broadcast licenses, the Countering Information act has no teeth. They can't enforce these rules over ISPs unless the ISPs are title II, and therfore, subject to the the whole of the FCC's enforcement and regulations.
Robert Perry
and leaving everything up to a central authority would cuck literally everyone
Disassembling NN means those lobbyists have to 50 independent battles. They win some, but even if they don't lose others, either through intention or incompetence, examples of a free network market would remain. Which would be ideal can then be compared. Not possible in a federal solution - it is either collective success or collective failure. Given no basis for comparison, who's to say which was the result
Jordan Long
some bump
Gavin Williams
calling it 'net neutrality' is a joke. it isn't net neutrality. it's consumer protectionism and federal regulation of services. the telecommunications act of 1934 (amended in 1996) has literally zero to do with network neutrality. there is nothing in either the act or amendment that says ISPs can or cannot throttle or shape traffic in any way. the closest it gets is to require ISPs to submit schedules for charges 120 days in advance of those charges being enacted, and that the public has the opportunity to challenge such charges as unreasonable.
Justin Parker
most interesting is how many shill for it without even knowing whats actually written in there. they just here "neutrality" and hear about it somehow stopping ISPs from charging extra and they hop onto that bandwagon. now it could be they are all just paid shills, but if that is the case then this was probably truely one of the biggest shilloperations i saw, even bigger then during the elections
Nolan Mitchell
Comcast removed their NN promises the day FCC announced it would repeal NN.
They are slowly pushing it into your shitter and all you do is sitting here posting pro Trump memes.
You trust these people with the most important medium of our time??
Adam Reyes
i don't know what the explanation is, but it seems that when there's an issue to be on a side of, many people pick a side. this issue being called 'net neutrality' captures the hearts and minds of people who 'feel' strongly about things being 'fair', and so they choose the side of the propaganda that best represents their sentiments. however, they don't expend the time*energy=work to challenge their sentimental affiliations, and so:
the path to hell is paved with good intentions
rinse, repeat, ad nauseum
Carter Myers
i tell you who i dont trust with the most important medium of our time, obama, soros, zuckerberg. and they are for the NN stuff.
and again read the thing in the OP, all the stuff people complain about is regulated in the new bill. no charge for specific content/websites, as well as no blocking or throttling those.
Evan Myers
Bumping for justice, this thread could be an eye opener for some leftists that still have a shred of logic and dignity
Daniel Brooks
im aware of the mechanism, but the sheer amount of people is what baffled me
Adrian Perez
you shouldnt be, by now
people are retarded and facebook spies on them and models their behavior with 5D algorithms
Jason Gutierrez
nah brah you are giving them too much credit. the whole point of the issue is that people think and fear they are going to be charged more from isps. Here in italy the reaction has been the same and most people don't even know that this only applies to the US so far. Wanna bet that if the new fcc rules also required the ISPs to charge 50% less people would be having celebratory parties everywhere? At the core, all they care about is their stomach
Henry White
yet we beat them with 4D chess
Isaiah Stewart
> someone wrote the text in OP's pic and actually thought they were amusing
Brody Cooper
Oh man, thanks for reminding me about this. I meant to dig through it when it first was released by the FCC but I got busy and eventually couldn't find the source. Thx
Joshua Myers
at least he took his time to actually provide something of value
Zachary Ortiz
I didn't know either of those people own an ISP.
Austin Gutierrez
they all shilled for the NN law and were against the repeal. wether they have an ISP or not is irrelevant
Joseph Lewis
soe bump
Parker Reyes
bump
Kevin Gray
...
Lincoln Kelly
Oh. But they can stop you from viewing any website or using any webservice they want, right?
Julian Fisher
obama would have been able, but all of them are in on the same (((group))) who would have been able to make you stop
Jaxson Brooks
>If an ISP... Degrades the speed of competing video services... Uhh excuse me sir, Comcaat Video (and many other select sites) simply get a speed BOOST! over other sites like netflix. Netflix still gets the totally regular speed thank you have a nice day bye.
Julian Adams
so? that means the net neutrality thing was faulty from the beginning with loopholes and one of the cases people feared will happen because of the repeal happened before it already
Mason Martinez
How many sites did Obama use Net Neutrality to block?
Jackson Allen
quite a lot websites, youtube channels and even twitter channel got taken down last year. wether the order came from the government or the websites/serverprovider acted on their own is there rather irrelevant as they are all part of the same agenda and shows what it would be used for
>speeds keep getting faster >data caps keep going up hundreds of gigs >everything Plebbit cries about is illegal and now fully subject to FTC enforcement >"c-cant you see, if you don't give control if the internet back to the (((Democrats))) everything is going to be ruined!"
