Net Neutrality: what it is, and why you should care

641313984.jpg

UPDATE: It's been voted for repeal. The FCC took Net Neutrality to a vote, and it was 3-2, in favor of repeal. This doesn't mean overnight upheaval, but things will certainly change, for better or worse, in due time.
If you've been on the internet at all the past week, there's a high chance that you've heard of something called "Net Neutrality", and you've also likely heard that there might be huge changes to your usage of the internet entirely. This post serves as a quick information briefing on what Net Neutrality is, what could happen if it's repealed, and the current events going on regarding it, and just general visibility to let the community in general be informed.

What is this Net Neutrality thing?


The basic definition of network neutrality is simple: all internet traffic is considered and treated equally. It was established just a bit under three years ago, in February 2015. It prevented companies like Comcast Xfinity and AT&T U-verse from speeding up, or slowing down certain sites based upon content. If you remember, back in July 2017, mobile provider Verizon admitted to targeting Netflix traffic, and specifically throttling it, negatively affecting customers' use of Netflix. Going back to 2014, there were also issues with Comcast customers, and, that's right, Netflix users, as connections to Netflix were notoriously slow. Netflix then entered a legal deal with Comcast, in order to have Netflix connections be faster than they previously were. The 2014 incident was pre-net neutrality, and shows that before the law was enacted, certain sites like Netflix were indeed slowed, and had to specifically bargain with large telecommunication monopolies like Comcast to get fair speeds out to their customers.

In April 2017, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, revealed that he had plans to repeal net neutrality. It's worth noting that Pai was once the Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications, an incredibly high up position with an ISP, who we've stated before as having throttled websites in the past.

Pai's statements on the matter included saying such things as "[the government] would be able to stop micromanaging the internet" and that the FCC and internet service providers would simply have to be "transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy a service plan that's best for them". Shortly after, Comcast began vocally supporting these statements, claiming that government regulation of the internet has been harming innovation and investments of Comcast. David Cohen, the company's Chief Diversity Officer, said that "customers would be clearly informed on our practices [...] Comcast maintains that it does and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content".

Within the movement for repealing net neutrality, also comes with power being given to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would then have the ability to legally charge internet service providers that were not made clear to customers.

You may notice, that within any of the claims made by Pai or Comcast, that equal traffic was never made the focus, instead putting emphasis on making sure these monopolies must be clear and transparent about what they do, but never laying down any solid rules about what they need to be transparent about or why. And, of course, if the FTC were to go after AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or other assorted companies for not being transparent, these legal cases would find themselves taking years to make their way to court, allowing for them to have their way with their customers until a definitive legal ruling. Therein lies the first batch of unease and controversy with the repeal.

In short, net neutrality is a fairly new regulation, which allows for equal traffic between all sites while using the internet. The chairman of the FCC and former higher-up of Verizon wants to repeal it, however. This would allow less government interference with ISPs, but would also allow those ISPs to do what they wish, so long as they're "transparent".

Does repealing Net Neutrality have any benefits?

Spoiler alert: not really

From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality. Ajit Pai claims that should we not have net neutrality anymore, more rural areas would be able to have more companies and providers, and it would allow for more competition and choice for the consumer. However, these smaller companies would also have to fight it out with established services, with years of experience and infrastructure refinements.

As a side note, I've spent thirty minutes researching a potential "pro" argument. I've not found many that seem reasonable. I've listed in the spoiler tag below arguments from other websites and blogs.

Green Garage Blog: While net neutrality allows for freedom of speech, the downside is that almost anything can be posted to the internet. This means that the cruelest or insensitive information imaginable can end up on the internet, and as a result, it can cause a lot of problems from people that otherwise wouldn’t be prone to being under the microscope of criticism. This means that people can post cruel, intimidating, or other harassing messages and often get away with it thanks to free speech legislation. So it can be a very toxic environment for a lot of people to put up with.

Vittana: Reduced income from internet uses limits infrastructure improvements.
There are certain businesses and high-use individuals who consume large amounts of bandwidth every month. If net neutrality was removed, these high-level consumers would be asked to pay more for what they consume. This added income could then be used to upgrade the infrastructure of each internet service provider, making it possible for advanced fiber networks to be installed in many communities.

AEI: But in many instances, fast lanes, zero-rating, and the like benefit customers. In separate research, both former FCC Chief Economist Michael Katz (with Ben Hermalin) and I (with Janice Hauge) showed that fast lanes benefit small content providers in their attempts to compete with established industry leaders. AEI scholar Roslyn Layton has shown that elderly and low-income consumers benefit from zero-rating services.

Basically, the only benefit would be if America's current economy wasn't dominated by monopolistic ISPs. Below is an interview with Ajit Pai, showing his perspective.


Scrapping these rules, Pai told Reason's Nick Gillespie, won't harm consumers or the public interest because there was no reason for them in the first place. The rationales were mere "phantoms that were conjured up by people who wanted the FCC for political reasons to overregulate the internet," Pai told Gillespie. "We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015."

If left in place, however, the Title II rules could harm the commercial internet, which Pai described as "one of the most incredible free market innovations in history."

"Companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix became household names precisely because we didn't have the government micromanaging how the internet would operate," said Pai, who noted that the Clinton-era decision not to regulate the Internet like a phone utility or a broadcast network was one of the most important factors in the rise of our new economy.

Pai also pushed back against claims that he's a right-wing radical who's "fucking things up."

"[I ascribe to] the very radical, right-wing position that the Clinton administration basically got it right when it came to digital infrastructure."


What happens if/when this gets repealed, and what does this mean for you?


The worst part of this, is that there's no definitive answer of what WILL happen, only what CAN happen. What has people concerned, though, is the potential things that larger ISPs can do with this new power, should net neutrality be repealed. Internet service providers could slow access to specific sites, and speed up others, in theory, others specifically being sites who pay ISPs for faster access, and those partnered or in contracts with ISPs. Websites like Google, Amazon, Reddit, Etsy, Netflix, and many more have all broadcast their support of net neutrality, stating that without these rules in place thanks to net neutrality, internet providers would become gatekeepers to the internet, restricting what customers can see. Without definitive government restrictions, these companies could be free to split access to the internet into packages, like cable TV, indeed making true on the intention of lowering the cost of internet access, but also making it more difficult and expensive to see all of the internet, as you can right now.

Likely, what will happen, though everything is up in the air, is that certain ISPs will utilize what's called "fast lanes" and "zero rating". Fast lanes are sort of like what we talked about at the start, with Netflix and Comcast. Currently, these fast lanes and zero rating are used with mobile phone data. AT&T customers can watch DirecTV (owned by AT&T) via their mobile data, without it counting towards their monthly cap. These rules could be applied to home internet as well; if you're a Comcast user, and you want to watch Hulu (owned by NBC-Universal-Comcast), maybe your connection to Hulu will be lightning fast, thanks to these theoretical fast lanes, and they won't go towards your Comcast monthly 1 Terabyte home cap. But what if you want to watch Netflix? Either Netflix will have much lower picture quality, or take a longer time to connect to. And if Netflix pays a fee, or gets into a contract once again with Comcast, then that potentially means that Netflix's increased costs move down to the consumer, who also now has to pay more for a service as well.

What can we do?


The only thing left to do is let your voice be heard. Social media has exploded without people decrying the impending repeal of net neutrality, and the negatives that it would entail, to the point of where the majority of Reddit has been plastered with net neutrality posts.

zZOxMA2.png

The FCC will take the repeal to a vote on December 14, 2017. It is highly predicted that the repeal will pass, and net neutrality will come to an end. Millions have taken to the site "battleforthenet" and "callmycongress" to contact their local representatives and congressmen in order to show that American citizens don't want net neutrality destroyed.

You can learn more at the links below. Hopefully this is helpful in describing what net neutrality is, and why it shouldn't be taken away.

:arrow:Techcrunch: These are the arguments against net neutrality and why they're wrong

:arrow: Extra Credits: What a closed internet means

:arrow:Phillip DeFranco: The Internet is under attack

:arrow:Save the internet: What you need to know


:arrow:Ars Technica: RIP net neutrality
 

Sketchy1

gbatemp's shadiest warez dealer
Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,553
Trophies
0
Age
25
XP
651
Country
United States
So if you're in the US definitely fight for net neutrality. Unless you enjoy having throttled speeds until you or the website pay to have the speeds unthrottled. If you don't want net neutrality you either don't know what it is or you probably don't do more than use the Internet for email, news, and social media.

This would actually be pretty cool if this stopped them from sending letters to people who download stuff. But we all know that they'll stop throttling it but still bitch at you for downloading.
that would be another $20.99 per month subscription for the anti-nagging package.
lul
 

RandomUser

Rosalina in Plush Form
Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
967
Trophies
1
XP
1,042
Country
United States
Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
In case anyone is interested:
EmailHeader211.30.PNG



December 5, 2017



Dear <Removed>,


Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Open Internet Order, often referred to as "net neutrality." My office has heard from other Oklahomans on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the recent actions taken on net neutrality.


Net neutrality describes the concept that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally and content providers should not pay for priority access. Since the Internet was developed, the market and consumers have driven innovation and expansion, which has caused the Internet to thrive in a relatively regulation-free environment. However in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule, called the Open Internet Order, which would prevent Internet providers from negotiating priority access agreements and would prohibit them from blocking or discriminating against any lawful content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in January 2014 that the FCC does not have the right to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet under Title I of the Telecommunications Act. The federal government can only regulate public utilities like telephone service and electricity.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama formally announced his support for net neutrality, and he encouraged the FCC to reclassify and regulate the Internet as a Title II utility. A Title II utility under the Communications Act of 1934 is the most heavy-handed version of all Internet regulatory proposals. It was comprised of 16 rule parts, 682 pages, and 987 rule sections. It provided the FCC an enormous amount of power to dictate prices, practices, innovation, and business terms to Internet companies.

In a 3-2 decision on February 26, 2015, the FCC announced its approval of the 317-page net neutrality rule that classifies broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” to be regulated under Title II. The reclassification removed ISPs from the purview of the Federal Trade Commission to the FCC. On June 14, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, in a 2-1 vote, upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. The ruling denied the petitions for review, which effectively sustained the rulemaking.

On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, legislation to disapprove of the Open Internet Order under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA process allows Congress to act on a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 session days of receiving the final rule. The resolution must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President. Once signed, the measure stops the rule and prevents similar rules from being issued unless Congress enacts a new law. The House passed S.J. Res 34 on March 28, 2017, and President Trump subsequently signed the measure into law on April 3, 2017.

The CRA simply keeps existing consumer protections and regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been under its purview for nearly two decades. I voted in favor of the CRA because I believe treating ISPs as public utilities will deter new investments in infrastructure, obstruct improvements to existing broadband networks, and discourage new market entrants. While there is broad agreement that ISPs should treat all legal content equally when delivering it to paying customers, achieving an “open Internet” does not necessitate a dramatic increase in new federal regulations.

After seeking public comment, on November 21, 2017, the FCC released a draft Order entitled, “Restoring Internet Freedom” for consideration at the Commission’s December 14, 2017, open meeting. The measure would reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order and return ISPs under the framework of Title 1 of the Communications Act. Mobile broadband would also be returned to the original classification as a private mobile service. The change in classification would return ISPs under the original authority of the FTC to enforce strong consumer protection and regulate broadband privacy.

ISPs would still be subject to transparency and public disclosure requirements on network management practices, performance, and commercial terms to consumers, businesses, and the FCC. Specifically, ISPs would be required to disclose blocking, throttling, prioritization, congestion management, and security practices. For commercial terms, ISPs would be required to disclose terms of service, prices, privacy policies, and options for resolving consumers redress. ISPs must also release the disclosures on publicly, easily accessible websites or make them publicly available via the FCC. The Commission will also review the disclosure to ensure compliance with the transparency rules. Additionally, states are allowed to enforce individual consumer laws and enforcement actions against ISPs that misrepresent themselves to consumers. ISPs still have strong consumer protections to maintain.

It is important to note that the FCC is primarily restricted to jurisdiction granted to the Commission under the Communications Act. The Act does not explicitly give the FCC authority to regulate in areas like pricing and content-management conduct rules. Sweeping regulatory changes should be deliberated by Congress, not by Executive agencies. For those reasons, I support the FCC’s initiative to begin reversing the 2015 Open Internet Order and will continue to monitor the rulemaking process for further developments and assess the need for legislative solutions.

I encourage you to visit the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom page for informational resources and public notices. FCC Chairman Pai also wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the draft order.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please continue to visit my website and sign up for my e-newsletter to ensure you receive the most up-to-date policy conversations and votes. Please also feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.



In God We Trust,
SenatorSignature48.jpg


James Lankford
United States Senator
https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextra...om/senatorlankford/&redir_log=377570906103264
So what do you think?
 
Last edited by RandomUser,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
In case anyone is interested:
EmailHeader211.30.PNG



December 5, 2017



Dear <Removed>,


Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Open Internet Order, often referred to as "net neutrality." My office has heard from other Oklahomans on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the recent actions taken on net neutrality.


Net neutrality describes the concept that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally and content providers should not pay for priority access. Since the Internet was developed, the market and consumers have driven innovation and expansion, which has caused the Internet to thrive in a relatively regulation-free environment. However in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule, called the Open Internet Order, which would prevent Internet providers from negotiating priority access agreements and would prohibit them from blocking or discriminating against any lawful content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in January 2014 that the FCC does not have the right to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet under Title I of the Telecommunications Act. The federal government can only regulate public utilities like telephone service and electricity.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama formally announced his support for net neutrality, and he encouraged the FCC to reclassify and regulate the Internet as a Title II utility. A Title II utility under the Communications Act of 1934 is the most heavy-handed version of all Internet regulatory proposals. It was comprised of 16 rule parts, 682 pages, and 987 rule sections. It provided the FCC an enormous amount of power to dictate prices, practices, innovation, and business terms to Internet companies.

In a 3-2 decision on February 26, 2015, the FCC announced its approval of the 317-page net neutrality rule that classifies broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” to be regulated under Title II. The reclassification removed ISPs from the purview of the Federal Trade Commission to the FCC. On June 14, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, in a 2-1 vote, upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. The ruling denied the petitions for review, which effectively sustained the rulemaking.

On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, legislation to disapprove of the Open Internet Order under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA process allows Congress to act on a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 session days of receiving the final rule. The resolution must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President. Once signed, the measure stops the rule and prevents similar rules from being issued unless Congress enacts a new law. The House passed S.J. Res 34 on March 28, 2017, and President Trump subsequently signed the measure into law on April 3, 2017.

The CRA simply keeps existing consumer protections and regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been under its purview for nearly two decades. I voted in favor of the CRA because I believe treating ISPs as public utilities will deter new investments in infrastructure, obstruct improvements to existing broadband networks, and discourage new market entrants. While there is broad agreement that ISPs should treat all legal content equally when delivering it to paying customers, achieving an “open Internet” does not necessitate a dramatic increase in new federal regulations.

After seeking public comment, on November 21, 2017, the FCC released a draft Order entitled, “Restoring Internet Freedom” for consideration at the Commission’s December 14, 2017, open meeting. The measure would reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order and return ISPs under the framework of Title 1 of the Communications Act. Mobile broadband would also be returned to the original classification as a private mobile service. The change in classification would return ISPs under the original authority of the FTC to enforce strong consumer protection and regulate broadband privacy.

ISPs would still be subject to transparency and public disclosure requirements on network management practices, performance, and commercial terms to consumers, businesses, and the FCC. Specifically, ISPs would be required to disclose blocking, throttling, prioritization, congestion management, and security practices. For commercial terms, ISPs would be required to disclose terms of service, prices, privacy policies, and options for resolving consumers redress. ISPs must also release the disclosures on publicly, easily accessible websites or make them publicly available via the FCC. The Commission will also review the disclosure to ensure compliance with the transparency rules. Additionally, states are allowed to enforce individual consumer laws and enforcement actions against ISPs that misrepresent themselves to consumers. ISPs still have strong consumer protections to maintain.

It is important to note that the FCC is primarily restricted to jurisdiction granted to the Commission under the Communications Act. The Act does not explicitly give the FCC authority to regulate in areas like pricing and content-management conduct rules. Sweeping regulatory changes should be deliberated by Congress, not by Executive agencies. For those reasons, I support the FCC’s initiative to begin reversing the 2015 Open Internet Order and will continue to monitor the rulemaking process for further developments and assess the need for legislative solutions.

I encourage you to visit the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom page for informational resources and public notices. FCC Chairman Pai also wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the draft order.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please continue to visit my website and sign up for my e-newsletter to ensure you receive the most up-to-date policy conversations and votes. Please also feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.



In God We Trust,
SenatorSignature48.jpg


James Lankford
United States Senator
So what do you think?
I think it's a start. Supposedly the FCC is getting a flood of letters from Senators, so keep it up guys

That said, you should, as of now, either call or directly fax (with signature) FCC chairpersons rather than using ResistBot, because Pai is using it as an excuse to throw letters of disproval away
 

RandomUser

Rosalina in Plush Form
Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
967
Trophies
1
XP
1,042
Country
United States
I think it's a start. Supposedly the FCC is getting a flood of letters from Senators, so keep it up guys

That said, you should, as of now, either call or directly fax (with signature) FCC chairpersons rather than using ResistBot, because Pai is using it as an excuse to throw letters of disproval away

I'm really suprised that nobody is even boycotting Verizon for even starting the lawsuit against net neutrality. Might as well hit two birds at the same time, or did I get my info mixed up?
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
I'm really suprised that nobody is even boycotting Verizon for even starting the lawsuit against net neutrality. Might as well hit two birds at the same time, or did I get my info mixed up?
Nope, you understand correctly. That's actually why ISPs ended up under Class II regulations in the first place

And on top of that, guess who Ajit Pai worked for
 

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
In case anyone is interested:
EmailHeader211.30.PNG



December 5, 2017



Dear <Removed>,


Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Open Internet Order, often referred to as "net neutrality." My office has heard from other Oklahomans on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the recent actions taken on net neutrality.


Net neutrality describes the concept that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally and content providers should not pay for priority access. Since the Internet was developed, the market and consumers have driven innovation and expansion, which has caused the Internet to thrive in a relatively regulation-free environment. However in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule, called the Open Internet Order, which would prevent Internet providers from negotiating priority access agreements and would prohibit them from blocking or discriminating against any lawful content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in January 2014 that the FCC does not have the right to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet under Title I of the Telecommunications Act. The federal government can only regulate public utilities like telephone service and electricity.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama formally announced his support for net neutrality, and he encouraged the FCC to reclassify and regulate the Internet as a Title II utility. A Title II utility under the Communications Act of 1934 is the most heavy-handed version of all Internet regulatory proposals. It was comprised of 16 rule parts, 682 pages, and 987 rule sections. It provided the FCC an enormous amount of power to dictate prices, practices, innovation, and business terms to Internet companies.

In a 3-2 decision on February 26, 2015, the FCC announced its approval of the 317-page net neutrality rule that classifies broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” to be regulated under Title II. The reclassification removed ISPs from the purview of the Federal Trade Commission to the FCC. On June 14, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, in a 2-1 vote, upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. The ruling denied the petitions for review, which effectively sustained the rulemaking.

On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, legislation to disapprove of the Open Internet Order under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA process allows Congress to act on a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 session days of receiving the final rule. The resolution must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President. Once signed, the measure stops the rule and prevents similar rules from being issued unless Congress enacts a new law. The House passed S.J. Res 34 on March 28, 2017, and President Trump subsequently signed the measure into law on April 3, 2017.

The CRA simply keeps existing consumer protections and regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been under its purview for nearly two decades. I voted in favor of the CRA because I believe treating ISPs as public utilities will deter new investments in infrastructure, obstruct improvements to existing broadband networks, and discourage new market entrants. While there is broad agreement that ISPs should treat all legal content equally when delivering it to paying customers, achieving an “open Internet” does not necessitate a dramatic increase in new federal regulations.

After seeking public comment, on November 21, 2017, the FCC released a draft Order entitled, “Restoring Internet Freedom” for consideration at the Commission’s December 14, 2017, open meeting. The measure would reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order and return ISPs under the framework of Title 1 of the Communications Act. Mobile broadband would also be returned to the original classification as a private mobile service. The change in classification would return ISPs under the original authority of the FTC to enforce strong consumer protection and regulate broadband privacy.

ISPs would still be subject to transparency and public disclosure requirements on network management practices, performance, and commercial terms to consumers, businesses, and the FCC. Specifically, ISPs would be required to disclose blocking, throttling, prioritization, congestion management, and security practices. For commercial terms, ISPs would be required to disclose terms of service, prices, privacy policies, and options for resolving consumers redress. ISPs must also release the disclosures on publicly, easily accessible websites or make them publicly available via the FCC. The Commission will also review the disclosure to ensure compliance with the transparency rules. Additionally, states are allowed to enforce individual consumer laws and enforcement actions against ISPs that misrepresent themselves to consumers. ISPs still have strong consumer protections to maintain.

It is important to note that the FCC is primarily restricted to jurisdiction granted to the Commission under the Communications Act. The Act does not explicitly give the FCC authority to regulate in areas like pricing and content-management conduct rules. Sweeping regulatory changes should be deliberated by Congress, not by Executive agencies. For those reasons, I support the FCC’s initiative to begin reversing the 2015 Open Internet Order and will continue to monitor the rulemaking process for further developments and assess the need for legislative solutions.

I encourage you to visit the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom page for informational resources and public notices. FCC Chairman Pai also wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the draft order.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please continue to visit my website and sign up for my e-newsletter to ensure you receive the most up-to-date policy conversations and votes. Please also feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.



In God We Trust,
SenatorSignature48.jpg


James Lankford
United States Senator
So what do you think?
I agree that more regulation is probsbly a not good thing, but this guy really does not care about net neutrality. He really doesn't give any guarantee that net neutrality will be a thing, he just says ISPs have to be transparent under current law.

So basically, this guy is OK with, say, Comcast blocking Netflix as long they say "Yup, we're blocking Netflix, cuz fuck you."

He could advocate for the removal of the Open Internet Order and assure that he would propose a net neutrality law so net neutrality can exist under Title I. But he clearly doesn't care.

Edit: Originally made a typo and said I preferred more regulation, which is the opposite of my actual views.
 
Last edited by ThisIsDaAccount,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
yes, AT&T
Actually, lawyer for Verizon

Did he also work for AT&T or was that a joke?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I agree that more regulation is probsbly a good thing, but this guy really does not care about net neutrality. He really doesn't give any guarantee that net neutrality will be a thing, he just says ISPs have to be transparent under current law.

So basically, this guy is OK with, say, Comcast blocking Netflix as long they say "Yup, we're blocking Netflix, cuz fuck you."

He could advocate for the removal of the Open Internet Order and assure that he would propose a net neutrality law so net neutrality can exist under Title I. But he clearly doesn't care.
Oh ew I only skimmed the bottom paragraphs the first time

Gross
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsDaAccount

Sketchy1

gbatemp's shadiest warez dealer
Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
1,553
Trophies
0
Age
25
XP
651
Country
United States
Actually, lawyer for Verizon

Did he also work for AT&T or was that a joke?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Oh ew I only skimmed the bottom paragraphs the first time

Gross
joke he was only working for Verizon XD

but none the less he has the corporations best interests in mind
 
Last edited by Sketchy1,

DJPlace

going hire Ronald McDonald To Gun Down Nintendo.
Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,815
Trophies
2
Age
41
XP
4,474
Country
United States
thank god i left verizon.... i hope TWC/Septcrum does not do this shit i need my free local/single player games torrrent it's sad i can't play the new bubsy since well i'll shut up.
 

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
If it makes you guys feel better, it's very likely the FCC will get sued when it announces the decision, and it may be unable to implement it until the lawsuits are settled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatmanFan

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • ZeroT21 @ ZeroT21:
    it wasn't a question, it was fact
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    He said he had 3 different doctors apt this week, so he prob there. Something about gerbal extraction, I don't know.
    +1
  • ZeroT21 @ ZeroT21:
    bored, guess i'll spread more democracy
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    @K3Nv2 one more time you say such bs to @BakerMan and I'll smack you across the whole planet
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Make sure you smack my booty daddy
    +1
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    telling him that my partner is luke...does he look like someone with such big ne
    eds?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    do you really think I could stand living with someone like luke?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    I suppose luke has "special needs" but he's not my partner, did you just say that to piss me off again?
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    besides I had bigger worries today
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    but what do you know about that, you won't believe me anyways
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    @BigOnYa can answer that
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    BigOnYa already left the chat
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Biginya
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Auto correct got me, I'm on my tablet, i need to turn that shit off
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    With other tabs open you perv
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I'm actually in my shed, bout to cut 2-3 acres of grass, my back yard.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    I use to have a guy for that thanks richard
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I use my tablet to stream to a bluetooth speaker when in shed. iHeartRadio, FlyNation
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    While the victims are being buried
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Grave shovel
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Nuh those goto the edge of the property (maybe just on the other side of)
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    On the neighbors side
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yup, by the weird smelly green bushy looking plants.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: https://www.the-sun.com/news/10907833/self-checkout-complaints-new-target-dollar-general-policies...