NET NEUTRALITY ENDED ITS TIME TO RISE AMERICA TO DESTROY THE RICH COMMUNIST CAPITALISTS AND RIOT IN THE STREETS LET'S LOOT COMCAST UNTILL THEY FORCE THE FCC TO GIVE US OUR NET NEUTRALITY BACK REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
JK!
To be honest, not much is going to come out of this, at least not in the first few weeks. However, I think as soon as it is cleared in the supreme court (a stupid decision if you ask me since it rids us of some freedoms that the court is supposed to protect), the major ISPs and internet companies will immediately take advantage of throttling. However, I think it will mainly be news and moderately-large websites that are affected. SimplePlanes is safe, because it is simply too small, and virtually nobody has heard of it.
The internet companies were the only people who supported repealing net neutrality, and for good reason. They want to monopolize the internet. Remember a few years ago when the supreme court stopped Comcast and Time-Warner from merging? Well, now the net neutrality thing made it easier for now Spectrum and Comcast to try again, making the ultimate internet/cable monopoly. Verizon, AT&T, and others are also now in total control of what we do online. This will kill domestic competition from all areas, and our economy will therefore ultimately crash if it's as extreme as people say it will be. Small businesses will be destroyed as well.
Despite millions of petitions (not including the 2 million false ones) against net neutrality, pro net neutrality propaganda, multiple death threats, a bomb threat, and over 20,000 letters written to the FCC to keep net neutrality, the FCC decided to end it, despite more than radical measures taken by the citizens. This is unacceptable in my opinion, and should be taken seriously by the Supreme court, as well as the senate.
FCC chairman Ajit Pai was appointed by Donald Trump, as his predecessor was appointed by Barack Obama. This means when we elected Trump, we elected Pai, so Pai, as chairman of the FCC, should have the FCC represent the American people, not big biz interests (which BTW is completely against the founding fathers vision for America). Also, Pai made a public video where he actually made fun of people who were for net neutrality. I believe Pai has no interest in the People's interests, but that is just an opinion. However, I see where Pai is coming from. The basis for the 2015 Net Neutrality laws were founded off of the Communications Act of 1934, which are old rules. Still though, they are needed rules and they do not need to be edited since Net Neutrality passed in 2015.
I don't want to sugarcoat anything. I want it all to be exposed so you all see the truth. Check out the Communications Act of 1934 here.
I have done plenty of research into this in order to come to a sound conclusion. This net neutrality thing is the best political argument ever to be on SimplePlanes. (Not really an argument though, since everyone is on the same boat with it).
I think you need all the support, good luck from the other side of the atlantic
@ForeverPie those are just news articles. News articles which provide no evidence that it actually happened are invalid.
.
The first one does provide an official written version of what Pai said... which doesn't make mention of "net neutrality" it says that when Title II was originally adopted he said he believed Title II's days are numbered which is effectively net neutrality's underlying structure, but is not DIRECTLY or ONLY net neutrality It is also not "when Pai set up the idea" that he said Title II's days are numbered but when Title II was first adopted (according to his words anyway).
.
.
... why am i even doing this? Title II is actually pro-net neutrality as i admitted in my last comment...
i guess i'm just bothered for no good reason that you suck at providing real valid arguments backed with evidence (uhm, no offense?)..... i should probably go do something productive...
Good day/evening/night to you, apologies for my attack on your argumentative abilities.
Here
Here
Paragraph 10 here
Paragraph 3 here
And countless more. :/
@VladlHoff
@ForeverPie your argument is still invalid. A mention of net neutrality, or even the extent of saying that it's days are numbered (please provide where he stated that. Claims must be backed up with facts) does not mean that the act is to destroy net neutrality.
.
However, I'm tried of this argument and have realized (read: had pointed out to me) something...
You could have proven me wrong simply by pointing out that "on account of" doesn't mean "for", and section 230 is just intended that if they filter content, and they miss something, they can't be held liable for missing that slippery thing.
.
And also, the net neutrality part of Title II would be Section 202:
.
SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or
unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations,
facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly
or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or
locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.
(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges
for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of
communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting
or incidental to radio communication of any kind.
(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall
forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for
each and every day of the continuance of such offense.
.
Edit: Also my previous comments have self-destructed, to avoid spreading misinformation.
@VladlHoff The very end of the video on link one Chairman Pai literally says "Net Neutrality."
Also, when Pai set up the idea, he said that Net Neutrality's days are numbered.
@VladlHoff I would like you to first provide official documents directly saying that it is for freeing the internet.
Whether or not, it's pissed of almost every American and were fu$&ked
@VladlHoff I am going back to your thinking that there was never Net Neutrality in the first place. If net neutrality never existed? Why is the FCC trying to remove it by removing Title 2? Net Neutrality was law, because the government said it was law. Therefore, companies had to obey the law. Net Neutrality was based off of Title II, so they work side by side. Title II allows companies to block things that they find offensive, while Net Neutrality prevents abuse of this by giving us the freedom to see what we want to see, so long as it is legal. These regulations work side by side to make sure that companies can protect us from things we don't want to see, but also you cannot block politics, certain websites, etc. If Title 2 is repealed, net neutrality, being based on it, will also be repealed. Title 1 will remain, allowing companies to abuse their power, making us shell out money for things we want to see. Even if the changes are gradual, internet will eventually be controlled by only the largest companies who will turn us into cash. These changes will never happen quickly!! The companies will make it very slow, seemingly invisible, until it is too late.
@VladlHoff Basically it is based off of common sense. It is up to both company and consumers what they find "offensive" and "not offensive".
Without net neutrality, we are screwed, there taking always rights @VladlHoff
Yeah@ForeverPie
@VladlHoff Not anything. It is called "Good Samaritan" blocking because you must have the intent of helping people by blocking it, such as videos that Instagram "blocks" unless if you want to see disturbing content. ISP's are still not allowed to block things like political views. They are only allowed to block things that they truly believe the user does not want to see.
@VladlHoff Not so. According to your quote, it is not protecting companies from Net neutrality, but rather allowing them to block things that literally nobody wants to see. It is just like Youtube age restrictions and Google safe search.
Yeah@VladlHoff
Yes, that's good, so I'm guessing that congress is for Net neutrality then?@ForeverPie
@JackTheBestBoss YES
What congress is suing the FCC?@ForeverPie
@Squirrel I strongly agree.
It's not so much the fact that they may throttle internet speeds on certain sites, it's the fact net neutrality prevented internet providers from choosing who could see what.
.
Essentially, the end of net neutrality in America means that your freedom of expression could be severely limited. That and if internet providers didn't want you to see something, they could simply just not let you see it. They essentially have the power to bend your will by filtering the content you can and can't see. For example, they could filter content to influence how elections and prevent you from viewing competitor websites, etc.
.
Long story short, they have the power to turn you into a puppet and spread propaganda.
@Stellarlabs XD
If anything we are the communist and they are the capitalist in this situation.....
I am keeping my Flammenwerfer closer to me than ever before in these days
I already did. But please, remove your foul language.
@MrDoolittle
@Awsomur just report it if your going to, I really don't care whose feeling are hurt by my curse not directed at anyone.
@ForeverPie hey your message not mine, just more to the point
Yup@Awsomur