Skip to main content

It shouldn't be a partisan issue at all.  The point of this whole issue is over 80% of the populace including 73% of registered Republicans want Net Neutrality.  The reason why it is so revolting is Ajit Pai, the newly appointed head of the FCC doesn't care and won't listen to the 80%.  The other problem is Congress can remove Ajit Pai due to something exactly like this but like Pai, have chosen to ignore 80% of the populace.

And as I posted earlier, it's even more hilarious that outlets like Breitbart are just blindly supporting the repeal because "liburuls" even though it is Net Neutrality that allows them to exist in the first place.  

So leave all partisanship aside and tell me how this isn't a total slap in the face of the American public?    

Of course, there are several other issues, which I've pointed out.  Specifically, all of American telecom, or the actual data pipelines, is held by a small number of mega companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T (being the largest).  So one of the unspoken issues about Net Neutrality under Title 2 is it opens ISP's to anti-trust laws.  And now with the possible upcoming AT&T / Time Warner merger there will be even fewer companies controlling those pipelines.  They are essentially already monopolies.  Monopolies are bad.  I think that's pretty clear when it comes to free markets (which are all but mythology in the upper echelons).  

The other issues that are widely cited is the internet would become like cable packages (like in Portugal, which is a common example) and ISPs would have the ability to throttle the services they don't like or own.  They get to pick the winners, usually based on their stake.  Because they get to pick winners and losers, any small innovative competition will be inhibited and small to medium business in general will suffer or go under.  It's that simple. 

The status of Title 2 is ISPs are listed as public utilities like the old Bell system and are subject to anti-trust just like the break up of the old Bell system.  Getting rid of Net Neutrality also means that ISPs will be in charge of content and regulation so many bloviate about. 

Title 2 gives everyone equal footing and access on the internet and 80% of the population wants it.  It's that simple. 

The only entities who benefit from this are the mega telecom companies. 

Communications Act of 1934

It should also be noted that Tom Wheeler chose to "forbear" over 400 regulations when ISPs where classified as Title 2.  As I also previously stated, Tom Wheeler is a venture capitalist and long time cable and wireless lobbyists. 

In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider announcing rules that would violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for companies to pay ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) to provide faster "lanes" for delivering their content to Internet users.[18] These plans received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners.[19][20] In May 2014, over 100 Internet companies โ€” including GoogleMicrosofteBay, and Facebook โ€” signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet".[21] As of May 15, 2014, the "Internet fast lane" rules passed with a 3โ€“2 vote. They were then open to public discussion that ended July 2014

 And yet, he still listened to the majority unlike Ajit Pai and the Republican Congress. 

Last edited by Henry

Tom Wheeler on the current Net Neutrality issue and what lead to net Neutrality. 

FC: Pai likes to say that ISP spending on infrastructure has been chilled by the Open Internet order. Is that a true assessment of whatโ€™s happened?

TW: First of all, that assertion is balderdash. That so-called study is highly suspect because it was done by somebody who has never liked the open internet rules, has always taken the position of the ISPs, and during my tenure was exposed for having selectively chosen information to make that same point.

So letโ€™s go to what the ISPs tell their financial regulator. You know thereโ€™s an important thing that the ISPs have a lobbying message at the FCC and the Congress that is designed to accomplish their goals of giving them free rein. But then over at the SEC they are under the penalty of law required to tell the truth. How does what they say in their financial filings differ from what they say at the FCC? Well, in their financial filings they say they are spending a constant amountโ€“they say they are spending about 15% of revenue on infrastructure investment. Two days ago, Comcast had their quarterly report and reaffirmed they are spending 15% of revenue on building infrastructure. 

. . . . .

TW: Well I guess the Trump FCC has decided to put on blinders. So letโ€™s go back to 2005 when Comcast announced that it wasnโ€™t going to allow peer-to-peer video over its network because it interfered with some of the services they wanted to make profits off of. The FCC, which by the way was a Republican FCC at that point, said โ€œNoโ€ and sanctioned them. Comcast took [the FCC] to court and the court said โ€˜Oh no, you canโ€™t take that action against Comcast unless you make Comcast a common carrier.โ€™

That, of course, is at the root of the whole Title II issue. And it had been going on for a dozen years by the time it landed on my desk.

But letโ€™s keep going. AT&T and Verizon refused to carry Google Wallet because they were developing their own mobile payments platform. Verizon refused to allow tethering apps because they wanted to have their own tethering apps that they could charge you $20 a month for.

When Verizon sued the FCC to overturn the [Chairman Julius] Genachowski [2010] open internet rules, the Verizon lawyer said in open court โ€œI am authorized by my client to say yes, we do intend to have fast lanes and slow lanes and the fact that this rule eliminates that hurts my clientโ€™s ability to deliver services.โ€

Last edited by Henry
Brainwashed Boris posted:

These corporations are constantly trying to milk every marketing scheme, scam etc. whatever they can manufacture for more money. The greed factor is at an all-time high. 

Agree on the greed factor, Boris. I think the greed factor started building during Reagan's term. His "trickle down" economics that gave tax cuts, etc., to corporations reinforced greed and short-term thinking. Now that the great businessman (*hack, hack*) is in office, the greediness is once again on full and brutal display in the form of tax cuts, reduced/rescinded regulations, the foxes running the hen houses in government agencies to dismantle any oversight, etc. 

The stifling of free speech can begin to be accomplished by the end of net neutrality, and that is one of the things that scares me the most. The flow of information in the hands of just a few is a dream for those who want to control the message. Net neutrality at least gives people a chance to determine what they want to view/learn about/read without influence. This administration will probably one day say when it's influencing those couple of companies to shut down sites or slow the flow "it's to prevent fake news and foreign countries influencing voters."


indeed, fandame that is the plan.  what would scavengers do if scavengers were the only thing left?  pick each others bones, sure as rain.

gordon gecko...  when I saw the movie I knew it was the truth.  I knew it was already on but I knew it would be seen as inspirational by far too many...  people, I think I can call greedy self-serving bastards that.

we, as a nation, are beyond sick.  yet all the people I associate with any given week sure are nice folks I would trust my dog with.  can not say that about anybody that represents me in a legislative body.

Music City posted:


You presented no facts. Thatโ€™s because in the debate on net neutrality there are no facts- just fear. Fear of what some company COULD do, but not taking into consideration other factors like market fluidity and innovation that should assuage the fears of monopolies or content control.  

Here's some facts for you. 

Madison River Communications block users from using VoIP

Comcast blocks users from using file sharing

AT&T blocks Skype on iPhone

AT&T blocks Google Voice for iPhone

Windstream hijacks users search queries on Google tool bar to their own search engine

Verizon (who?) blocks pro choice text messaging

MetroPCS tries blocking streaming video from everything but YouTube

A bunch of ISPs work with Paxfire to hijack Bing and Yahoo search requests to skip over those sites referrals so the ISPs can get referral fees.

AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon (Verizon? hmmm) block Google Wallet because they all are working on a competing mobile pay system.

Verizon (again? weird) blocks tethering apps from users

AT&T plans to block FaceTime unless you pay more

Verizon (KNOW ANYONE WHO WORKED AT VERIZON????) states in court that they would slow access from content providers that don't pay Verizon as well.

I could go on. This isn't "fear". This isn't something that paranoids will have you belive "could" happen. These are things that have happened. Repeatedly. Including multiple time offender (of just those I listed) Verizon, where your hero Ajit Pai worked. And the repeal of Net Neutrality just made that easier than ever to now get away with even more of things they have already tried.

Never mind that you'll be just as ****ed by your provider as everyone else, the important thing is you can say your team won and overturned something the black guy did! Yay!

The fact you think that somehow those lobbying hardest for the overturning of this aren't immediately gonna take full advantage of it is simply sad and hilarious.

It's sad because, unlike you, I don't want those that aren't on my "team" to suffer. I want everyone to have open access to all content on the internet. It's sad you care more about corporate profits of Verizon (hint Verizon doesn't give a flying **** about you) than your neighbors access to content.   

But, I also find it hilarious when people like you regurgitate what your corporate masters tell you to because you think somehow they will spare you in the end. Newsflash - you're just as ****ed as everyone when AT&T decides to block access to Netflix because they view Netflix as a competitor to DirecTV. But, no biggie if you get screwed over as long as it hurts libtards.    

Music City posted:

The one entity we should be afraid of when it comes to control of content, and abuse of power? That would the government you moron.  

Can you please detail, with specifics, how the enactment of Net Neutrality by the black guy and BIG BAD GUBMINT has hurt consumers or limited the access to content one can get on the Internet today?

Thanks in advance.  

*yawn* indeed

Last edited by Timpranillo

NY AG Schneiderman and other AGs around the country are taking the FCC to court over their vote which destroys Net Neutrality. The FCC is supposed to listen to citizens' comments. The comments part of the debate here was hacked by someone who submitted over 2 million anti Net Neutrality comments using stolen IDs. Some comments recently submitted were from people who have been dead for years. Then, there is the issue of the 1/2 million comments coming from Russian email accounts. Schneiderman and others tried to get the FCC to delay their vote until the 2 million comments made by someone using identity theft and the 1/2 million emails from Russian email accounts could be fully investigated. Schneiderman went on to say that the law says the FCC cannot make drastic changes, such as eliminating Net Neutrality, without citizen approval. The vast majority of citizens want Net Neutrality to remain in place. This is not a done deal, by any means.

Call or write on your own.  Form letters don't have the impact direct contact does.  Be relatively informed on what you're contacting your reps about as well including your stance and why you hold such stance.  Reps get scared when they start hearing from people and not form submissions. 

Here is a site, which will give you info about your reps.

There is a form letter here but more importantly there is abundant information about your representatives and who they support as well as contact info.   

Because the laws the FCC voted to repeal only became law in 2015, this is a fairly easy discussion. Ask yourself one question: Was anything markedly different about your internet usage, availability, and pricing prior to 2015? For me the answer is no.

In the end, this really isn't that big of a deal and is nothing more than political gamesmanship, partisanship, and talking points for votes.