FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push

a reply to: jacobe001

Protect from what? I have not seen anyone abuse the internet. This is all a speculative law for something that never happened. Just more fear mongering from the government for more control. Wait until it happens first then you can implement laws. It just look like a government power grab to eventually censor site they don't like.

a reply to: interupt42

The FCC is why you have no other choice. Only the FCC can approve telephone providers in an area. And it costs a huge amount of money to do it only large corporations can afford it because they know theyll make the money back in a year or two.

a reply to: dragonridr

Only the FCC can approve telephone providers in an area.

Not really. It is state public utilities commissions which do that.
For example:
Virginia

The FCC makes sure that federal regulations are followed.

Over time, this will # the free discourse of ideas and # small businesses. Its a corrupt move by the ruling elite.

One could argue that either decision would be a type of regulation, and I would argue there is more freedom under net neutrality for more than 99% of people.

Hope you all think the internet in China is awesome because that is where this is headed.

On the plus side it will kill off the cancerous Red Piller sites. I mean that's what they were aligning with anyway, not understanding they are being used will meet the same demise as small sites, thanks to InfoWars and more.

Any plans with ATS for the many who will no longer be able to access it?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Only the FCC can approve telephone providers in an area.

Not really. It is state public utilities commissions which do that.
For example:
Virginia

The FCC makes sure that federal regulations are followed.

Wrong they all ready have to be licensed in the state for the state to allow them to move into new areas. To get a license you contact the fcc broadband providers must also follow regulations under title 2 which means to expand into a new area they even have to prove they will not adversely effect the market.read title 2 they were subject to its rules until now.

originally posted by: pirhanna
Over time, this will # the free discourse of ideas and # small businesses. Its a corrupt move by the ruling elite.

One could argue that either decision would be a type of regulation, and I would argue there is more freedom under net neutrality for more than 99% of people.

Hope you all think the internet in China is awesome because that is where this is headed.

Options decreased under net nuetrality especially small businesses couldnt afford to keep small isps open. Corporations can afford it meaning choices decreased and even internet investments decreased by 5.9 percent prior to 2015 it grew each year.

use.opendns.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

read title 2 they were subject to its rules until now.

OK. I will.

Title II is part of the Communications Act of 1934. It says nothing about licensing of telephone service providers. The only time licensing is mentioned in the entire Act is in regard to radio communications.

What it does require is a certificate be issued for the extension of, or construction of new lines which cross state lines or are longer than 10 miles. A building permit, in other words. And only if it will benefit the public.

until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line: Provided, That no such certificate shall be required under this section for the construction, acquisition, or operation of (1) a line within a single State unless such line constitutes part of an interstate line, (2) local,branch, or terminal lines not exceeding ten miles in length, or (3) any line acquired
under section 221 of this Act:

It is not required to prove that the market will not be adversely affected. What it does require is a telephone provider cannot stop servicing an area without a permit to do so, unless the public will not be affected.

No carrier shall discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community, or part of a community, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that neither the present nor future public convenience and necessity will be adversely affected thereby

transition.fcc.gov...


Title II concerns the use of communications lines as a public utility. They are "common carriers." Telephone companies are public utilities and must follow the regulations. For some reason, the FCC has now decided that internet service is not a public utility, they are not common carriers. Title II is still there, it just doesn't apply to internet service anymore. Does that make sense to anyone? What makes an internet service provider different from a telephone company?

Corporations can afford it meaning choices decreased and even internet investments decreased by 5.9 percent prior to 2015 it grew each year.

No. In 2015 it dropped by $1billion, that is closer to 1.5%.

But it's hard to blame even that on Title II.

However, the accompanying plot of the USTelecom data cited (but not plotted) in the NPRM raises questions about whether the Title II Order generated a major reduction in Telecom Capex following the FCC's 2015 Title II Order on net neutrality: Roughly three quarters of the annual changes between 1996 and 2015 were larger. That change could easily be attributed to any number of other changes. The New York Times claimed that the majority on the FCC had to cherry-pick their data to support their conclusion.[121][122] In her dissent to this NPRM, Commissioner Clyburn wrote, “I have yet to see a credible analysis that suggests that broadband provider capital expenditures have declined as a result of our 2015 Open Internet Order. ... Using the same logic that the NPRM uses, one could suggest that the FCC's classification of cable modem service as an information service in 2002 resulted in an even more precipitous drop in broadband provider investment.”[123]

originally posted by: Jiggly
i think it still has to go through congress, so... maybe we still have some hope


the repubs have a bad rep alrdy, if they dont stop it... it will be the end of them.. and they know it

End of everything for them and end of Trump in 2020.

This has people riled up! (says Obama with glee)

The difference being if we speak up and shout loudly enough, Congress and Trump will have to listen and then repeal the repeal or kill it.

I can't believe that InfoWars supports Trump on this.

Are there any provisions in the net neutrality law as it stands which allows for any sort of censorship of the Internet and it's content?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

read title 2 they were subject to its rules until now.

OK. I will.

Title II is part of the Communications Act of 1934. It says nothing about licensing of telephone service providers. The only time licensing is mentioned in the entire Act is in regard to radio communications.

What it does require is a certificate be issued for the extension of, or construction of new lines which cross state lines or are longer than 10 miles. A building permit, in other words. And only if it will benefit the public.

until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such additional or extended line: Provided, That no such certificate shall be required under this section for the construction, acquisition, or operation of (1) a line within a single State unless such line constitutes part of an interstate line, (2) local,branch, or terminal lines not exceeding ten miles in length, or (3) any line acquired
under section 221 of this Act:

It is not required to prove that the market will not be adversely affected. What it does require is a telephone provider cannot stop servicing an area without a permit to do so, unless the public will not be affected.

No carrier shall discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community, or part of a community, unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a certificate that neither the present nor future public convenience and necessity will be adversely affected thereby

transition.fcc.gov...


Title II concerns the use of communications lines as a public utility. They are "common carriers." Telephone companies are public utilities and must follow the regulations. For some reason, the FCC has now decided that internet service is not a public utility, they are not common carriers. Title II is still there, it just doesn't apply to internet service anymore. Does that make sense to anyone? What makes an internet service provider different from a telephone company?

You really need to read section 7 that is what gives them permission to regulate localmarkets based on public interest. But more important your wrong again the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the document that said they have tobe integrated into the local market with other carriers. And they have to show it would not adversely effect those carriers. Ive noticed youve been wrong alot lately is it your hatred of Trump? Really i dont like him either but wow.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
The difference being if we speak up and shout loudly enough, Congress and Trump will have to listen and then repeal the repeal or kill it.

I can't believe that InfoWars supports Trump on this.

Are there any provisions in the net neutrality law as it stands which allows for any sort of censorship of the Internet and it's content?

Takes control of content from providers and gives it to FCC my guess that is why info wars wanted it repealed. They dont like washington having control.

a reply to: Phage

5.9 percent was me misreading an article that was for comcast. The actual percentage was much worse then your chart based off fcc filings.

Once in place, the FCC’s net neutrality regime was highly effective at curbing the fast pace of investment that had brought broadband to so many consumers. ISPs cut their investments by 12% in the wake of the FCC’s Title II tactic and telephone companies lost about 800,000 of their broadband lines.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: darkbake

Sounds like our masters are clamping down...
I'm pretty sure as soon as the kids start losing Netflix&Chill they will be up in arms, pitchforks and torches, tearing shiz up.

What's the best way to get certain people to be against net neutrality or pretty much anything else? Convince them Obama started it.

Works like a charm every time.

Want to change things?...start a movement, where everyone cancels their internet for 6 months, to a year. Everyone buys a basic pay-as-you-go cell phone and uses it for a year. Pick up a HD antenna, mount it on your roof or attic and watch broadcast TV for a year. Start buying a newspaper everyday. How are these bastards going to make money then? Won't happen because people have become SLAVES to the internet, smart phones and social media. We need our Netflix, we need our Twitter, we need our Facebook, YouTube and online porn. We are our worst enemy and the ISPs know this.

This is not a deregulation push. It is transfer of control over the internet to a few corporations. Business in America. Same as it ever was. The overturn of net neutrality will be fiercely opposed. Relatively few people who truly understand the issue are in favor of this. And that is a fact.

Typical republican fear based legislation. Our freedom of speech is at risk. It probably won't be long before sites like ATS are completely blocked. Free discourse and sharing of information is now a thing of the past. It's thought control, plain and simple.

It's just another way to remove freedom from the people. The Trump presidency needs to be followed by a libertarian or democrat who will push for internet freedom. I have some ideas on this, but I will have to create a different topic in a new forum.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Want to change things?...start a movement, where everyone cancels their internet for 6 months, to a year. Everyone buys a basic pay-as-you-go cell phone and uses it for a year. Pick up a HD antenna, mount it on your roof or attic and watch broadcast TV for a year. Start buying a newspaper everyday. How are these bastards going to make money then? Won't happen because people have become SLAVES to the internet, smart phones and social media. We need our Netflix, we need our Twitter, we need our Facebook, YouTube and online porn. We are our worst enemy and the ISPs know this.

almost like it's a public utility, or something...