>>46764314 There's no way to enforce a law that passes immediately without warning, it would bankrupt the ISPs. The ISPs with or without a month would file for an emergency temporary restraining order anyways.
>>46768916 Yeah the facebook generation has been "fighting" over it with twitter campaigns, reddit posts, maybe year or two maximum. As long as I remember everybody was against government control. Suddenly everybody is for government control, even the eff who just couple years ago was the biggest opponent of net neutrality turned their backs. Fuck those guys. Back in the the 90's when all was good and when most of the internet users were tech savvy people you got blown the fuck out of the irc channels and usenet groups if you suggested any government control at all. They hated the idea of government sticking their fingers in and ruining all this.
>preventing large ISPs from stifling innovation That was the messaging, that's how it's sold to the public, I think it's still unclear what we "won" yesterday. The thing is there was already laws in place for fighting against abusive corporations that stifle innovation. Why weren't they used?
We have net neutrality by law in the netherlands and that's fucking great. It doesn't mean the government controls the internet. It just means they prevent ISPs from engaging in certain anti-consumerist practices. Though of course I don't know how the murricans will implement it and they do have a reputation for being lying motherfuckers.
Note that the Title I and Title II classifications related to the Net Neutrality ruling come from this and the Telecommunications act of 1934, which were admittedly even worse and was part of what got us into this mess in the first place. The 1996 one was supposed to foster competition and fix old problems, but it has failed to do so.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/telco96.html Read the concluding remarks, then if you want proof actually read through it.
The idea isn't bad, but I'm still wary of the implementation.
>>46770326 > Yeah the facebook generation has been "fighting" over it with twitter campaigns, reddit posts, maybe year or two maximum. As long as I remember everybody was against government control. see >>46769079 Maybe your memory is just fucked, old man.
>>46768782 >Seems great on the surface. >Unfortunately our government has no honor. Look what they were able to do with the "patriot" act. Nothing about the "U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T." act seemed great on the surface, except to idiots and those holding the power.
>>46771755 It is a good thing, in principle. ISP's WERE gonna fuck us. Why else would verison have challenged the FCC's authority? Whether There's crap buried in the law to fuck us anyway, remains to be seen.
Maybe it's all smoke to distract from comcrap TWC merger
>>46767704 Someone has got to be on top, and if its the government, so be it. I would rather have 1 fucked up department be in charge rather than 4 entire companies who want nothing but money to offer shit tier connections and charge the fuck out of you for visiting Youtube, Netfilix, 4chan, and what not.
It would be best for nobody to be in charge but when something fucks up, someone has to be to blame.
>wake up >open Patriotism Obamanet Browser 2019 >"Please enter Social Security Number to access the Internet citizen" >721-01-0911 >"WARNING, REFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 11TH TERRORIST ATTACKS DETECTED. PLEASE SAY PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO CONFIRM FREEDOM LEVELS" >stand up and face government-issued American Flag over my bed >"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..." >throat hurts, had to confirm freedom levels 14 times last night >continue pledge, force a smile >"Connecting to Obamanet servers" >... >"Government authorization complete" >Go to Official USA Weather Report site, want to know if I need an umbrella today >Today's Weather: Sunny, 100% Chance of Freedom, 95% Chance of Obesity in Your Area >Look out the window, it's cloudy >Get umbrella >"WARNING, INSUBORDINATION DETECTED. USE OF UMBRELLA PROHIBITED ON SUNNY DAYS. Please say Pledge of Allegiance to confirm Freedom Levels" >"I pledge allegiance..." >"ERROR! UNPATRIOTIC TONE DETECTED. LOCAL NSA DEPARTMENT CONTACTED. PLEASE LIE ON THE FLOOR AND PLACE HANDS ON YOUR HEAD. I TECHNICIAN WILL BE WITH YOU BETWEEN 8AM AND 5PM TOMORROW"
>>46772139 >significant nuclear accidents can be counted on 1 hand >ignores that wind turbines pose a significant threat to native bird populations and become ice slinging death machines that have to be shutdown in the winter
Yesterday I was watching Fox news when this passed. They had a "security expert" who literally said that this would cause trouble when updating your windows operating system, and would cause security vulnerabilities on the internet.
With news like this I'm not surprised there are so many retarded teenagers here on 4chan who think this is a bad thing.
/pol/ watches fox and uses their website. It's very dangerous to have a news source that actively distorts facts. I don't have a problem with conservative-biased news sources existing, but lying about facts and misleading people is a problem.
>>46772436 I feel bad for you, that you're such a blind, hypocritical retard that you think government services are bad but takes advantage of so many of them. Have fun driving on your private roads and eating unregulated meat.
>>46772545 Nice strawman argument there. I'll just direct you to this. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win
>Reclassification under Title II was a necessary step in order to give the FCC the authority it needed to enact net neutrality rules. But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.
>For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done. We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach.
Figures there are Redditors here who just go with whatever is the current "fight" and don't question the implications of what is being debated at all.
fox news is too mainstream for /pol/, even ron paul is too "normal" for them as is alex jones
/pol/ just wants to be edgy as possible and most of the GOPers out there actively rallying against NN have no idea what it is
most of this is predicated on the fact that the FCC hasn't released their official 300-page policy statement on NN, which of course means boundless speculation that it'll ban porn or something else equally retarded
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.