Net Neutrality is Dead.

12346»

Comments

  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,364
    BS44325 said:
    rgambs said:
    BS44325 said:
    BS44325 said:
    my2hands said:
    BS44325 said:
    Net neutrality is not a victory. It is a loss for freedom on the internet once the FCC slowly starts applying decency standards. Over time speech will be curtailed, bloggers will require licensure, forums such as these will need permission from a goverment agency. Positivity and complacency has lead to this outcome.
    None of that happened since this post in early 2015
    Investment in new technologies dropped big time. That’s a fact. Net Neutrality curtails investments.
    Where in your post he quoted did you mention investments? Trouble reading or just the usual bait and switch when you lost a point. More likely, more BS.
    No point lost. Trump via Ajit Pai prevented the nightmare scenerio I warned about in February 2015. Obama FCC dream of regulating speech died before it could be fully realized. Twitter, Google (YouTube), Facebook etc, who are all supporters of Net Neutrality, have made and are making attempts to regulate speech and suppress competition but I am less concerned now.
    Whatever drugs y'all got up there in Canada, you need to share with us down here, I want something that will drive me to such heights of lunacy.
    Actually you don’t. The drugs up here will be worse once the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) takes over this coming summer.

    This is actually a great comparison...

    For about a year or two up until about 6 months ago (give or take) Toronto was in a great place with respect to weed. As the federal government was preparing to legalize dispensaries were popping up everywhere that had unbelievable selection and great prices. It was the equivalent to the unregulated internet...growing in incredible ways. Then all of a sudden the Ontario government decided it would put weed under the control of the puritan LCBO (similar to forcing the internet into 1930’s telecom rules) and the open weed marketplace disappeared. Dispensaries have been raided and shut down. Supply has been harder to come by. Choices have been reduced. Sure we’ll have legal access to green in the summer but it will be under the LCBO’s rules. Buying booze in Ontario sucks...buying weed will be worse. All good though....it’s Weed Neutrality.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,364
    rgambs said:
    This all reads like bad dialogue from a scene where "big telecom" sits around a table with tophats and cigars trying to devise a propaganda strategy for how to sell their newest customer screwing cash grab.
    The only thing missing is some "now see here!" and a "I say!" peppered throughout.
    “Big platform” is having the same meeting except they’re sitting around in their hipster boardroom with big beards, thick rimmed glasses, and starbucks plotting on a white board how to keep their newest customers from thinking for themselves. The only thing missing are a couple of hashtags and emojis peppered throughout.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 22,989
    During my early years in dealing with depression an anxiety, one of the ways I coped was to watch Dave Letterman.  That might sound dumb but I loved Letterman's show and it gave me something to look forward to at the end of the day.  Now I cope better but when depression sets it (which it always does, eventually) the internet is my Letterman for the 2010's.  If I were to lose internet connection, I'd have to keep my wife up late (which she would NOT like) or convince the cat to wear glasses and do a top ten count down every night.
    "Whoever pursues fear as a stigma and courage as an ideal will not live long. To shift responsibility and flaunt yourself as a  symbol of heroism will not attract people to climb after you."
    -Reinhold Messner
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • LizardLizard So CalPosts: 11,842
    Wow...good for you Montana

    http://thehill.com/policy/technology/370133-montana-becomes-first-state-to-implement-net-neutrality-rules-following-fcc

    Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) signed an executive order on Monday requiring internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality principles.

    The order makes his state the first to push back on the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to repeal the open internet rules last month.

    “There has been a lot of talk around the country about how to respond to the recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality rules, which keep the internet free and open. It’s time to actually do something about it,” Bullock said in a statement.

    “This is a simple step states can take to preserve and protect net neutrality. We can’t wait for folks in Washington DC to come to their senses and reinstate these rules.”

    The order says that in order to receive a contract with the state government, internet service providers must not engage in blocking or throttling web content or create internet fast lane. Those practices were all banned under the Obama-era 2015 net neutrality order.

    The Republican FCC voted to dismantle those rules in December.

    Developing...




    Is it over yet? #ITMFA
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 22,989
    I don't understand this subject very well.  For whatever reason, I do not grok it well.  Can someone explain net neutrality in simple terms and the advantages and disadvantages?  Thanks!
    "Whoever pursues fear as a stigma and courage as an ideal will not live long. To shift responsibility and flaunt yourself as a  symbol of heroism will not attract people to climb after you."
    -Reinhold Messner
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,605
    You're welcome

    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 22,989
    CM189191 said:
    You're welcome

    Holy shit, sorry, I could not not not follow this guy.
    "Whoever pursues fear as a stigma and courage as an ideal will not live long. To shift responsibility and flaunt yourself as a  symbol of heroism will not attract people to climb after you."
    -Reinhold Messner
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • PapPap Serres, GreecePosts: 18,995
    edited January 24
    :lol:
    Ooh, yeah! All right!
    Were [Pearl] jammin
    I wanna [Pearl] jam it wid you.
    Were [Pearl] jammin, [Pearl] jammin
    And I hope you like [Pearl] jammin too.


    Sep 30, 2006 - OAKA Sports Hall - Athens, Greece
    Jul 11, 2014 - Milton Keynes Bowl - Milton Keynes, UK
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 7,268
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 22,989
    Will check it out tonight, thanks!
    "Whoever pursues fear as a stigma and courage as an ideal will not live long. To shift responsibility and flaunt yourself as a  symbol of heroism will not attract people to climb after you."
    -Reinhold Messner
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 9,223
    It is going to a vote in the Senate

    if anyone lives in a state with a Republican Senator (or two).  Please contact them asking them to change their stance.  

    As it is now, it is almost a clean Partisan divide between Democrat and Republican.  We need 1 more vote.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    If my home connection is censored or my speeds affected or get a flood of shit I don’t want, I’m canceling. In reality, who needs it?
    I guess to be honest I would have to say, "No, I don't need it."  But I do a lot of my work at home which I could not do without the internet.  That doesn't mean I would starve and at 66 I guess I could accept the idea of less work but work is one of the things I live for.  I would face a fair degree more depression without it.  I hope my ISP doesn't screw me over this.   

    My wife would be bummed big time if we lost internet service because it got to be too expensive.  The internet is how she keeps in touch with her extended family and she has a lot of extended family!

    But I don't think it's going to go away, just some more of our hard earned money (and maybe some of our time) is going to go away.  :frowning:
    The thing is, people want to use business as proof that everyone needs internet, but the reality is that the breadth of internet delivered services a typical business uses is tiny and utilitarian.  It will likely be fully covered in the most basic packages in the post-neutrality market.
    Entertainment services are the targets here and the concern.

    I'm pretty insular and selfish on this issue.
    I live beyond the range where internet is accessible and therefore rely on it much less than most people my age.  I use my phone for social media and this forum, and I like having Google to look things up, but I wouldn't be outraged to give these things up.
    I think we have serious societal problems with this issue, so even though this is a nasty cash grab that's total bullshit, I just can't bring myself to care very much that people will have to pay extra for their Netflix and Hulu and YouTube.
    That is really just saying that you can't bring yourself to care about consumers' rights though.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    If my home connection is censored or my speeds affected or get a flood of shit I don’t want, I’m canceling. In reality, who needs it?
    I guess to be honest I would have to say, "No, I don't need it."  But I do a lot of my work at home which I could not do without the internet.  That doesn't mean I would starve and at 66 I guess I could accept the idea of less work but work is one of the things I live for.  I would face a fair degree more depression without it.  I hope my ISP doesn't screw me over this.   

    My wife would be bummed big time if we lost internet service because it got to be too expensive.  The internet is how she keeps in touch with her extended family and she has a lot of extended family!

    But I don't think it's going to go away, just some more of our hard earned money (and maybe some of our time) is going to go away.  :frowning:
    The thing is, people want to use business as proof that everyone needs internet, but the reality is that the breadth of internet delivered services a typical business uses is tiny and utilitarian.  It will likely be fully covered in the most basic packages in the post-neutrality market.
    Entertainment services are the targets here and the concern.

    I'm pretty insular and selfish on this issue.
    I live beyond the range where internet is accessible and therefore rely on it much less than most people my age.  I use my phone for social media and this forum, and I like having Google to look things up, but I wouldn't be outraged to give these things up.
    I think we have serious societal problems with this issue, so even though this is a nasty cash grab that's total bullshit, I just can't bring myself to care very much that people will have to pay extra for their Netflix and Hulu and YouTube.
    That is really just saying that you can't bring yourself to care about consumers' rights though.
    I think that's stretching the boundary of what is and isn't a consumer's right.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    edited May 9
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    If my home connection is censored or my speeds affected or get a flood of shit I don’t want, I’m canceling. In reality, who needs it?
    I guess to be honest I would have to say, "No, I don't need it."  But I do a lot of my work at home which I could not do without the internet.  That doesn't mean I would starve and at 66 I guess I could accept the idea of less work but work is one of the things I live for.  I would face a fair degree more depression without it.  I hope my ISP doesn't screw me over this.   

    My wife would be bummed big time if we lost internet service because it got to be too expensive.  The internet is how she keeps in touch with her extended family and she has a lot of extended family!

    But I don't think it's going to go away, just some more of our hard earned money (and maybe some of our time) is going to go away.  :frowning:
    The thing is, people want to use business as proof that everyone needs internet, but the reality is that the breadth of internet delivered services a typical business uses is tiny and utilitarian.  It will likely be fully covered in the most basic packages in the post-neutrality market.
    Entertainment services are the targets here and the concern.

    I'm pretty insular and selfish on this issue.
    I live beyond the range where internet is accessible and therefore rely on it much less than most people my age.  I use my phone for social media and this forum, and I like having Google to look things up, but I wouldn't be outraged to give these things up.
    I think we have serious societal problems with this issue, so even though this is a nasty cash grab that's total bullshit, I just can't bring myself to care very much that people will have to pay extra for their Netflix and Hulu and YouTube.
    That is really just saying that you can't bring yourself to care about consumers' rights though.
    I think that's stretching the boundary of what is and isn't a consumer's right.
    Isn't getting a good value for goods and services a consumer right? Isn't it their right to not be subjected to nasty cash grabs, not to mention to not be subjected to corporate controlled censorship, particularly when it comes to a service that has been deemed a basic human right by the UN?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 10,591
    Net neutrality isn't about Netlfix or Hulu or Youtube charging more for their subscription services. Net neutrality ensures that, because you already subscribe to Netflix and pay $12.99 a month, your ISP cannot charge additional because you watched over X hours of Netflix this month.  They can't charge you more because you have a $2000 iMac instead of a cheap $300 Best Buy HP junkbox.  They can't charge you more because you're black or live in a black neighborhood and just don't think you should have internet.  They can't charge you more because you accessed sports, movies, music, news, or porn instead of just text.  They can't charge you more because you down/uploaded pictures and videos. They can't charge you more for using Wifi instead of a wired connection.  They can't charge you more because you have 8 devices connected instead of only 1.
    It is the concept that everyone who is provided internet service be given equal access to the same data and not be throttle behind paywalls based on what/how/when/where/with whom we access it.
    it has nothing to do with consumer content providers increasing the costs of their services.  It does have to do with your ISP saying "We know you pay for Netflix, but we have to charge you extra to access it, too. And if you don't pay, it'll take 7 hours for you to watch that episode of The Office because we'll just slow down your service."
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    edited May 9
    That isn't necessarily true. It could definitely mean higher bills for internet access, and for particular services, and that is why I'm talking about protecting consumers. As you say, without net neutrality providers can charge fees for access to (rival?) sites and shit like that. It would hypothetically lead to AT&T, as an example, charging you fees to access Netflix or Hulu or whatever. But it could also lead to Netflix and other content providers charging more because the ISPs could charge those companies a toll to make their content available, and that expense could trickle down to consumers.

    Anyway, this is a TERRIBLE direction being taken, and it fucking SHOCKS me that voters aren't absolutely shitting their pants over it. This alone should be enough for the midterms and the next federal election to be an absolute landslide for the Dems.

    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 10,702
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    If my home connection is censored or my speeds affected or get a flood of shit I don’t want, I’m canceling. In reality, who needs it?
    I guess to be honest I would have to say, "No, I don't need it."  But I do a lot of my work at home which I could not do without the internet.  That doesn't mean I would starve and at 66 I guess I could accept the idea of less work but work is one of the things I live for.  I would face a fair degree more depression without it.  I hope my ISP doesn't screw me over this.   

    My wife would be bummed big time if we lost internet service because it got to be too expensive.  The internet is how she keeps in touch with her extended family and she has a lot of extended family!

    But I don't think it's going to go away, just some more of our hard earned money (and maybe some of our time) is going to go away.  :frowning:
    The thing is, people want to use business as proof that everyone needs internet, but the reality is that the breadth of internet delivered services a typical business uses is tiny and utilitarian.  It will likely be fully covered in the most basic packages in the post-neutrality market.
    Entertainment services are the targets here and the concern.

    I'm pretty insular and selfish on this issue.
    I live beyond the range where internet is accessible and therefore rely on it much less than most people my age.  I use my phone for social media and this forum, and I like having Google to look things up, but I wouldn't be outraged to give these things up.
    I think we have serious societal problems with this issue, so even though this is a nasty cash grab that's total bullshit, I just can't bring myself to care very much that people will have to pay extra for their Netflix and Hulu and YouTube.
    That is really just saying that you can't bring yourself to care about consumers' rights though.
    I think that's stretching the boundary of what is and isn't a consumer's right.
    Isn't getting a good value for goods and services a consumer right? Isn't it their right to not be subjected to nasty cash grabs, not to mention to not be subjected to corporate controlled censorship, particularly when it comes to a service that has been deemed a basic human right by the UN?
    Absolutely not. 
    Getting good value is not a right, the right is in getting the advertised and agreed upon value.
    It is up to a consumer to decide if the value is appropriate to the cost.  
    You know I'm no libertarian laissez-faire idiot, but I don't agree that unfettered internet access is a basic human right any more than I believe unfettered firearm access is.  
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    edited May 9
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    If my home connection is censored or my speeds affected or get a flood of shit I don’t want, I’m canceling. In reality, who needs it?
    I guess to be honest I would have to say, "No, I don't need it."  But I do a lot of my work at home which I could not do without the internet.  That doesn't mean I would starve and at 66 I guess I could accept the idea of less work but work is one of the things I live for.  I would face a fair degree more depression without it.  I hope my ISP doesn't screw me over this.   

    My wife would be bummed big time if we lost internet service because it got to be too expensive.  The internet is how she keeps in touch with her extended family and she has a lot of extended family!

    But I don't think it's going to go away, just some more of our hard earned money (and maybe some of our time) is going to go away.  :frowning:
    The thing is, people want to use business as proof that everyone needs internet, but the reality is that the breadth of internet delivered services a typical business uses is tiny and utilitarian.  It will likely be fully covered in the most basic packages in the post-neutrality market.
    Entertainment services are the targets here and the concern.

    I'm pretty insular and selfish on this issue.
    I live beyond the range where internet is accessible and therefore rely on it much less than most people my age.  I use my phone for social media and this forum, and I like having Google to look things up, but I wouldn't be outraged to give these things up.
    I think we have serious societal problems with this issue, so even though this is a nasty cash grab that's total bullshit, I just can't bring myself to care very much that people will have to pay extra for their Netflix and Hulu and YouTube.
    That is really just saying that you can't bring yourself to care about consumers' rights though.
    I think that's stretching the boundary of what is and isn't a consumer's right.
    Isn't getting a good value for goods and services a consumer right? Isn't it their right to not be subjected to nasty cash grabs, not to mention to not be subjected to corporate controlled censorship, particularly when it comes to a service that has been deemed a basic human right by the UN?
    Absolutely not. 
    Getting good value is not a right, the right is in getting the advertised and agreed upon value.
    It is up to a consumer to decide if the value is appropriate to the cost.  
    You know I'm no libertarian laissez-faire idiot, but I don't agree that unfettered internet access is a basic human right any more than I believe unfettered firearm access is.  
    We're not talking rights afforded by the constitution when we're talking about consumer rights though, are we? Just like if we were talking about workers' rights and unions, fighting for workers' rights doesn't mean that we're talking about fighting just for the rights actually afforded them by state or federal law (i.e. the bare minimum). That's the context I'm talking about anyway. So in that context, yes, consumers should be able to expect and fight for good value and quality. They should be able to expect that prices aren't wildly inflated because of corporate biases.

    As far as access to the internet being a basic human right... You really don't give a fuck about that? Guns and access to information aren't at all comparable obviously. When it comes to the internet being a right, it is all about equality in terms of exercising the right to freedom of expression, as well as being able to access necessary agencies in an equitable way, and those agencies have made it so that isn't the case without internet access. Sure, in this context one doesn't immediately consider how Netflix and Hulu comes in... But they do. Because it's basically a blanket rule. What effects the shit that everyone should have the right to access affects all the non-essential stuff as well. Especially true considering the enormous reach that a small number of companies have. What affects your ability to apply for government assistance could very easily be tied to your ability to access a streaming platform.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 10,591
    PJ_Soul said:
    That isn't necessarily true. It could definitely mean higher bills for internet access, and for particular services, and that is why I'm talking about protecting consumers. As you say, without net neutrality providers can charge fees for access to (rival?) sites and shit like that. It would hypothetically lead to AT&T, as an example, charging you fees to access Netflix or Hulu or whatever. But it could also lead to Netflix and other content providers charging more because the ISPs could charge those companies a toll to make their content available, and that expense could trickle down to consumers.

    Anyway, this is a TERRIBLE direction being taken, and it fucking SHOCKS me that voters aren't absolutely shitting their pants over it. This alone should be enough for the midterms and the next federal election to be an absolute landslide for the Dems.

    True, that is another aspect I haven’t thought of. The ISPs charging content providers to provide content and the content provider passing the buck to the consumer. Excellent point. But that’s still about the ISP treating data unequally and charging more - whether it’s direct or indirect to the consumer. And that is what the concept of net neutrality protects against.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    PJ_Soul said:
    That isn't necessarily true. It could definitely mean higher bills for internet access, and for particular services, and that is why I'm talking about protecting consumers. As you say, without net neutrality providers can charge fees for access to (rival?) sites and shit like that. It would hypothetically lead to AT&T, as an example, charging you fees to access Netflix or Hulu or whatever. But it could also lead to Netflix and other content providers charging more because the ISPs could charge those companies a toll to make their content available, and that expense could trickle down to consumers.

    Anyway, this is a TERRIBLE direction being taken, and it fucking SHOCKS me that voters aren't absolutely shitting their pants over it. This alone should be enough for the midterms and the next federal election to be an absolute landslide for the Dems.

    True, that is another aspect I haven’t thought of. The ISPs charging content providers to provide content and the content provider passing the buck to the consumer. Excellent point. But that’s still about the ISP treating data unequally and charging more - whether it’s direct or indirect to the consumer. And that is what the concept of net neutrality protects against.
    Absolutely - that is by far the most important aspect; I think that because not having that is just plain old sinister and Orwellian, with a stinky capitalist cherry on top. I'm horrified that net neutrality has been abolished in the US like this...... The only kind of selfish bright side to it is that some companies might actually leave the US in favour of Canada, so that they can be under the jurisdiction of the CRTC, which is pro-net neutrality. That said, Canadians are mostly negatively impacted by the decision by the US government here, which just blows.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997

    Senate votes to save net neutrality, but the fight is far from over

    The petition still has to make it through the House — a long shot — and then past Trump’s desk.


    https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17360318/net-neutrality-senate-vote-result

    The Senate voted by a narrow margin on Wednesday to preserve net neutrality and repeal a controversial Federal Communications Commission ruling to dismantle it. But the fight is far from over.

    A vote to open debate on the ruling passed 52-47, after which the vote on the ruling itself also passed 52-47. Going into the debate, the creator of the Senate resolution, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), seemed confident petitioners had the votes needed to push the measure through the Senate. In the final vote, a few Republicans swung in favor of the ruling, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John N. Kennedy (R-LA), and Susan Collins (R-ME).

    The petition allowed Congress to undo the FCC’s December repeal of net neutrality using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which lets Congress reverse — and, crucially, permanently block — any federal regulation with a simple majority vote.

    On the Senate floor during the debate over the vote, Markey cited a long list of instances in which internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T had blocked customers’ access to competing services in the days before net neutrality rules took effect in 2015. He urged lawmakers to halt the dismantling of net neutrality “to protect the integrity of the marketplace.”

    Sen. John Thune (R-SD), chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, in turn blasted Democrats for “political theater” and rejecting his plea for bipartisan legislation on the issue. Senate Democrats have criticized his proposed bill as being far weaker than Obama-era net neutrality regulation.

    Although the repeal of the FCC’s ruling has been approved in the Senate, the petition will face a tough fight in the House, where a long list of Republicans support the FCC's push to dismantle the regulation. The House is less likely to support Markey’s resolution, and even if it makes it out of Congress and onto President Trump’s desk, the president will most likely veto it.

    The FCC repeal initially went into effect on April 23, 2018, from which point Congress has 60 days to review and revoke it under the CRA. Technically, some relatively minor parts of the repeal took effect on April 23, including the reclassification of the internet as an information service rather than a utility. But none of the ruling’s major consequences are being felt just yet; the full law goes into effect on June 11 unless Congress votes to rescind it. Alternatively, Congress could simply delay a House vote until the 60-day period expires, thereby losing its narrow window of opportunity to cancel the repeal.

    The implications of the FCC’s repeal are vast and complicated. If congressional efforts to save net neutrality fail and the repeal is allowed to take effect, it will almost certainly fundamentally change how people access and use the internet.

    Net neutrality’s best chance at survival lies with the courts

    There’s also still a chance that the repeal might be overturned, not by Congress but by the US Court of Appeals. All 22 states with a Democratic attorney general have signed on to a joint lawsuit against the FCC to revoke the new rules. And this might be the best chance we have at weaving net neutrality protection into the fabric of internet law.

    The multi-state appeal was announced by the attorney general of the state of New York, Eric Schneiderman (who recently resigned after multiple allegations of assault). The attorneys general of the other states joined the appeal by filing similar suits, which petitioned the US Court of Appeals for a review of the FCC’s order. These lawsuits were filed in both DC and San Francisco, and were eventually punted collectively to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

    The selection of San Francisco was essentially hitting the jackpot for net neutrality advocates. Judges serving Silicon Valley are far more likely than judges in other cities to have presided over previous cases involving internet regulations. They’re also far more likely to be well-versed in the many technological issues at play. Since the ultimate outcome of the states’ lawsuit will be largely dependent on which court hears the appeals, this court selection could turn out to be the most crucial factor in whether the repeal takes effect.

    That said, a court fight will be long and messy, so we can’t know when — or if — the repeal's full effects will be felt. It’s possible that even if a court overturns the FCC’s decision, it may only overturn part of it. What the final version of a net neutrality repeal might look like, and when it might take effect, are both unknown at this point, with the future of an open internet hanging in the balance.





    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    edited May 16
    FYI, here is how every Senator voted FOR net neutrality (in two posts because of a weird character limit issue I'm having)





    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    And here are the Senators who voted AGAINST net neutrality


    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    And John McCain didn't vote for obvious reasons.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 39,997
    edited May 16
    So the big question is.... what in the holy hell is WRONG with the GOP??? Seriously. :angry: If I didn't know better, I'd assume none of them have children... or any friends.

    But kudos to the GOP Senators from Maine, Alaska, and Louisiana. I was about to say that couldn't have been easy... but actually... it should be the easiest thing in the world, no? What's hard is understanding how the rest of the Republicans can sleep at night.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
12346»
Sign In or Register to comment.