The Devolution Of The Internet And Control Of Information

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Title II requires unrestricted (non-descriminatory) use for all users of a common carrier's infrastructure. "Net neutrality" placed ISPs under Title II, designating them as common carriers.

The FCC has classified them now as "information services" under Title I. They are no longer bound by the requirements of Title II. They can discriminate in any way they wish toward users of their infrastructure.

a reply to: Phage
I am not seeing that. Could you copy paste directly from the cited hundreds of pages of documents on the last page we found this morning? Or give me the page number?? Its been a lot of reading and my eyes are drowsy from donating blood.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

You're not seeing what?
Can you be more specific?

a reply to: Phage
Your post was quite specific.

The FCC has classified them now as "information services" under Title I. They are no longer bound by the requirements of Title II. They can discriminate in any way they wish toward users of their infrastructure.

What part classified them under title I??

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: dreamingawake

Yeah, see, I am not really an online/multiplayer gamer... I am primarily a single player gamer, so I don't see it affecting my gaming habits much, but I do see how people who play primarily multiplayer games would be concerned.

I used to be an online gamer. I got tired of low bandwidth. I paid $10 a month more for higher-tier of speed, more open bandwidth. I saw it as buying a pass for the carpool lane on the highway.

Yep, that's my story. The horror.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

What part classified them under title I??

Restores the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act—the classification affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Brand X case.

transition.fcc.gov...

Actually the article says service providers can block certain sites outright.

Forget about the games, you don't want gov't controlling the net.

a reply to: nOraKat

Personally, I don't want the government or damned corporations either one controlling the internet, grasshopper.

People get addicted to bandwidth. They want more and more. I see ISPs figuring out new ways to (legally) suck your wallet dry. But this isn't really anything new. It's the way a free market seems to work.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Well, I can understand the "money makes the world go around" mentality. However, I find it rather humorous how some try to justify the raping of common people's pocket books and look upon any criticism of it with indignation.

a reply to: Phage
and yet, all the protections against the very threats the MSM and modern propaganda giants such as Facebook and Google, Netflix and others are peddling, continue to apply. This has not erased longstanding existing protections, like the ones cited in what you just posted.

Report and Order

Requires that ISPs disclose information about their practices to consumers,
entrepreneurs, and the Commission, including any blocking, throttling, paid
prioritization, or affiliated prioritization.

Finds that transparency, combined with market forces as well as antitrust and consumer
protection laws, achieve benefits comparable to those of the 2015 “bright line” rules at
lower cost.

Eliminates the vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard, under which the FCC
could micromanage innovative business models

So if all the protections are in law that prevent or at least require the ISP to disclose such practices, then what has happened is that the MSM propaganda has worked to get everyone up in a frenzy about a situation they clearly know nothing about, because such fears are already protected against in legal writing.

With that in mind, what is left to prove that the sky is falling? Seems quite open and shut to me this was really an attempt by the censorship brigade to prevent their ability to stay quiet about the practices they may already be guilty of but do not have to be transparent about.