Forums / Discussion / General

Folks Net Neutrality in the USA is under attack once again by the filthy globalist media companies, there will be a vote sometime in December. This isn't just a liberal or conservative issue this is a everyone who uses the internet issue if you are a communist, feminist, liberal, fascist, Nazi, LGBT, quasigender or just a anarchist this directly affects you. If these companies decide they don't like what your saying or disagree with your politics they can censor you regardless of whatever site you are on.

This is also more than an issue of censorship, this is also an issue of money. Without Net Neutrality in the states these companies can charge you for sites like the charge you with channel packages, it's already happening in Portugal.

All is not lost though we still have time to fight it, contact your members of congress and let them know that you are against any alteration to Net Neutrality. You can either look up your members of congress on your own or use this site
Battle For The Net
which will look up the members for you and provide you with a script on what to say.

Now I'm sure some of you will say "Mr. Jones I'm a potbelly goblin who doesn't live in the glorious utopia of 'muricaland." or "Stupid 'muricans I live not in 'murica I am not affected ha ha!" To which I say, many countries look too the USA on how to run their country, and if we don't have Net Neutrality at some point you won't have it either. So if any of you don't live in the USA but have friends who do urge them to contact their members of congress.

That's about it for me, but if you join me in my battle to keep shitposting free and uncensored on the internet I personally welcome you to the InfoWar.

What about those of us who aren't old to vote? I'm not old enough to vote yet, and I doubt they would listen to some random kid who can't even vote anyway.

Of course they will, if enough people complain at the same time they'll have to do something to rectify it. Kind of like how EA had to cut out their shit when enough people complained to Disney. As for not being able to vote, that's not a real problem here the US Congress is gonna vote on it. If you have US friends and they are old enough to use a phone they can call their members of congress, if their not scumbags they'll realize Children are the future and they should listen to them with as much attention as a adult.

Well, I guess I'll try to talk to my Mom and brother about it, although I doubt they'll care. I would also spread the word on Twitter, but I have 0 Followers and just randomly DMing people and forcefully telling them about Net Neutrality can turn people away, so I need advice on that part.

I'm sure your parent's will be happy to help you out. Most parents like when their kids take a interest in politics, just don't tell them Alex Jones told you to do it.

Alright, I'll try it, it's just that Mom isn't the most tech savy person, neither is my brother. Any ideas on how to spread the word online without being obnoxious and intrusive? I'm considering DMing a few people to spread the message to their followers, but I don't wanna come off as a spam bot. My high school also has a news segment they run during One Lunch, so I might get some Net Neutrality stuff on there.

HumbleWaterFilterMerchant said:

Without Net Neutrality in the states these companies can charge you for sites like the charge you with channel packages, it’s already happening in Portugal.

Your example's disingenuous. MEO is a cell company and those are cell phone data plans. Specifically, data plans for different apps on your phone. It's a little unusual, but considering MEO also offers more traditional data plans I can see how it could be a good option for someone who may only use a few internet apps and not surf on their phone.

I’m not being disingenuous, mobile plans are part of internet usage and these plans do in fact charge you for sites.

If your mom has a facebook you can use that. As for DMing on twitter I wouldn't do it, I can't think of a way to not make it annoying.

Got this from Reddit a few weeks ago:

"LPT: Text "Resist" to 50409. It's a tool called Resistbot. It helps you draft a fax to your representatives via text."

You can use this to message your senators and congress how you feel. Keep the fight alive.

We must demand Ajit Pai's resignation from the FCC.

How can i help if i am from europe?

I'll make a master post on how anyone weather they be part of the USA, other countries or lizard men from the moon can help the cause. I'm busy today so I'll probably do it tonight or tomorrow, but as of right now you can help by spreading awareness on all social channels, asking your american friends(if you have any) to contact their congressman and you can contact the FCC directly as they don't require you to be a US citizen. Just be sure to explain that even though your not from the USA things that happen in the USA eventually end up affecting other countries especially Europe.

Here's a step by step for contacting the FCC about this specific issue, since their trying to make it as hard as possible to express your onion on this issue to them.
1.Go to https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108)) (They made it complicated to navigate their site and make it a chore to voice your opinion against them directly, so this takes you straight to the goods. )
2. Hit “express” on the right hand side
3. Fill this out and hit Continue to review screen. Done!

Hey, don't fucking tell me this isn't a liberal or conservative issue. Republicans make up a vast majority of the ones who want to get rid of net neutrality. I agree that not everything has the be partisan, but one side is very obviously deserving of most of the blame here.

Surely there is got to be an alternative solution that to A) Trust the big corporations or B trust the government.

So your saying we should alienate people who would want to help just because their conservative? Smart.

We’’re not trusting the government per say, we’re having the government treat the internet like a utility which prevents corperations from overcharging for it or some other scummy shit. It makes the government regulate it so it’s affordable for everyone to use, much like electricity or water. Not perfect but I’d like to see you come up with a better system.

I'm sorry what?

You're trusting the government, specifically the FCC, which has it's own sordid history with censorship, corporate stooging, and protecting the NSA's wiretapping of US Citizens, to essentially treat the Internet as a utility?

The FCC doesn't prevent corporations from over-charging or doing scummy shit. Jesus Christ, man, it promoted and supported the Advanced Television Systems Committee over Digital Video Broadcasting standards, which ATSC standards protect large corporations From competitive forces.

Public Utilities do not compete with one another, they are not subject to market forces, and are protected from consumer driven price checks. Fact is, during the 20 years in which U.S. Internet infrastructure was left largely to engineering-driven self-governance, investors pumped nearly $1.5 trillion into competing network technologies and competing providers, giving the United States four times as many wired connections as any other country, along with the most advanced mobile networks and the most fiber. More U.S. homes have access to broadband than they do indoor plumbing. And except for the very newest high-speed services, U.S. broadband prices are actually lower than they are in price-regulated Europe.

Utilities do not innovate. In fact, they are treated and protected as monopolies, and it is PRECISELY because the electric companies are treated as utilities they are given protection from alternative energies: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/power-to-the-people

Utilities do not service consumers. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives America’s overall infrastructure an overall grade of D-minus, requiring an estimated $3.6 trillion just to repair. With the FCC and state regulators already moving to apply their newly discovered regulatory powers to set prices and define specific business practices of broadband-access providers, why do advocates who gripe every time even a modest storm knocks out their electricity imagine anything better for a public-utility Internet?

I don't like the idea of large corporations creating tiered internet systems. Or pick and choose which site can be hosted, or a host of other demons that supposedly net neutrality protects.

but to believe that government is better? I am not at all convinced, given the horrid history of government abuse of the internet, the monopolistic powers that utilities do have, and the kind of poor infrastructural support that government has for it's utilities.

A better system would be to break down barriers to entry of competative forces from competing with the current internet giants. And the fact is, making it a utility would do the opposite of that.

Innovation is the real solution, decentralization is the real solution. Not protecting a few corporations from competitive forces, or trusting the government to do it for you.

@chewybunny I mean, this mess happened because of a weird collusion between the goverment and corrupt internet companies so is not like repealing net neutrality is the capitalist option is more the pro corporation option. Is all we have at the moment. (The USA is really corporatist at the moment they might as well slash regulations if it will take this direction , but NOT this one at least not alone or how they want to)

>I mean, this mess happened because of a weird collusion between the goverment and corrupt internet companies

So we're going to trust the government then to fix this collusion?
Why? Why are we so eager to trust the very institution that has created the so called mess? Because it pretends to be for the people when it's own actions and history point otherwise? Please, I beg you man, give me a solid reason to this inquiry: why should I put faith and trust into the government of the USA to regulate and control the internet as a utility? Do the benefits outweigh the costs here?

And besides, that's not at all what happened. Throttling was the major problem that all too many consumers suddenly became so upset over. Throttling. You're going to put the internet into a classification that gives the US Government the power to dictate which mega corporation can provide which service and where, just because you fear some companies could use throttling as a tool?

>net neutrality is the capitalist option is more the pro corporation option

Net neutrality itself, as a means to turn the internet into a utility, is the most pro-corporatism thing you can do. You should seriously consider looking into how utilities in the US function and the huge problems we have with government run utilities.

No you are right, yeah the ideal is to break the questionably legal monopoly of internet companies but they wont do that there is no way to do that at the moment so wouldnt this be the next best thing? This whole thing is a mess but I fear comcast (and other companies taking their example) more that I fear the goverment, devil you know vs devil you dont at least in this.

>next best thing?

How can it be? It's literally giving more monopoly powers to the few corporations?

Dude, do you realize that there has been consistantly growing number of competitive companies in providing internet? That, 20% of Americans each year switch companies because of price mechanisms? You cannot do that with utilities, which are often times given franchise monopolies in areas – and have no incentive to improve quality.

>This whole thing is a mess but I fear comcast (and other companies taking their example) more that I fear the goverment, devil you know vs devil you dont at least in this.

So let me get this straight.

You fear a corporation that, at worst, throttled your internet, or just cut off service entirely.

More than you fear a government body like the FCC which has been the symbol for censorship for decades, which has time, and time again, pushed for siding with corporate patents and stiffling innovation.

You fear Comcast more than you fear the absolutely abysmal way the government treats utilities and infrastructure in the US, which is in need of 3 Trillion dollars in repair?

You fear Comcast more than you fear a government that can and is spying on you and has the absolute power to put you in jail, if not outright kill you, on false pretenses?

How? How can you possibly fear a corporation, that at worst would just not provide you a service, over a government which at worst can peramemently destroy your life?

Honestly, I would love an answer.

"muh big gub'ment is evil meme" – chewybunny, 2017

I feel like this sums up the current discussion pretty ask. Person A makes a statement of something terrible that will befall everyone, Person B challenges the notion by bringing up arguments and counter points. Person A refuses to engage and either insults person B or claims they're a shill/cuck/she/alt-right/moron without addressing the arguments presented.

It's honestly why we're here, now, in the current state we are in. Everyone is fed up dealing with that shit and decided to fuck off caring about politics.

Actually based on what I've read on the FCC's plan for this, they'll give ISPs the power to block websites they don't like as well, which I was hoping would not be the case.

…it doesn't mean they'll USE that power, but why give them the chance to?

I still agree that Net Neutrality doesn't do as much as people think it does, but giving them that specific power of blocking and censoring I think is much worse.

>…it doesn’t mean they’ll USE that power, but why give them the chance to?

Because if they choose to use that power, I will, like 20% of Americans every year, choose to switch to another ISP that doesn't do this. Over 70% of Americans have access to more than 3 ISP providers at any moment.

Furthermore, given how much outrage such actions would cause the company, it would be a almost like a death knell.

And besides, is this hypothetical that much worse than giving the FCC and the Government the kind of authority and control over the internet?

I'd hate to circle back to this point, what evidence do we have that the Government is going to do what we all think it will do given it's history past and present?

And contrary to what Jersey Jimmy thinks this isn't about the government being evil. This is about government being inefficient, uncaring, and duplicitous, leaving them being utterly untrustworthy. I have yet to hear anyone give me a solid good reason of why I should trust the Government to do a better job than a bunch of corporations that are perpetually competing with one another.

What about the 30% of Americans who only have access to only 1 ISP, if your statistics are correct? That's still many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that will be extorted from that.

>What about the 30% of Americans who only have access to only 1 ISP, if your statistics are correct?

An unfortunate circumstance that is being remedied by the market forces out there. Given that internet access itself has expanded rapidly since 2000, largely by private investments, and very little government regulation, and given that in the next few years more and more internet use is going mobile, with ever expanding technology, competition will continue to rise.

But even if it wasn't there is no evidence that Net-Neutrality will actually remedy this, in any meaningful way. In fact, by turning it into a utility, far, far, far more Americans would be forced to have access to only 1 ISP…like how most utility services work.

My biggest gripe is this. We have been swamped with all the myriad methods of how this can give so much power to the corporations to do all these evil things.

Yet hardly anyone talks about the cons from the opposing position. Everyone continues to present all t he horrible and negative consequences of Option A here. No one is bringing up any stats and considerations for option B. Is option B all that better? has anyone examined option B and what it exactly entails? Given the history of option B, do we really want to trust it over option A?

Because most people would rather be spied on by the government than have their money basically stolen by a corporation. Honestly, it's because the cons of losing NN really are that much more severe, as I've been led to believe. Censorship, throttling, extortion, it's the possibilities that come with the loss of NN. Keeping NN? Uhhh… innovation is stifled? I guess?

>Because most people would rather be spied on by the government than have their money basically stolen by a corporation.

How would they have their money stolen by the corporation?

> Honestly, it’s because the cons of losing NN really are that much more severe, as I’ve been led to believe.

Well, how much do you understand the alternative option here, how much do you understand what it means for the Internet to be a utility? How much do you understand the history of the FCC, the governmental body we are essentially asked to regulate this. What about the cons of losing NN, in comparison to having it be run to FCC?

>Censorship, throttling, extortion, it’s the possibilities that come with the loss of NN.

It's possible. Absolutely.

> Keeping NN? Uhhh… innovation is stifled? I guess?

Innovation would stifle, given how utility companies are often the biggest barriers to real innovation that threaten to compete as I have given examples with energy utilities in the New Yorker article. The cost of internet services would and could go up definitely, if we are to compare to the similar regulations in Europe. The quality of your internet will drastically go down, given the overwhelming evidence of how existing utilities in the US are managed (with the 3.6 trillion dollar repair need that I mentioned).. Competition would be utterly diminished, since by definition a utility is a monopoly.

So here is what you have to choose, the possibility of a lot of bad things, or the guarantee of a lot of bad things.

I, personally, would rather deal with shit internet in general, than have some websites be faster than others, and some websites not show up at all unless I, or the website, emptied their wallets to ISPs. That's the point here. Most people seem to be willing to put up with lower quality around the board, as long as certain websites aren't censored. It gives us the freedom to choose what we see, instead of hoping our favourite websites don't host content that someone from our ISP just didn't like.

So you're in favor of everyone being throttled as a garuntee over a possibility of some sites being throttled? What kind of logic does that make?

I'm looking to make the internet run better and be more accessible to everyone, not worse and intentionally shitty as well as controlled by people like Donald Trump.

Then, and no offense, it shows how little you truly must know about how competitive markets works, how technology progresses and evolves, how economics work. Has it ever once occurred to you that throttling itself may produce alternative solutions to emerge as competitors? Has it ever occurred to you that more and more of the internet is going mobile – and that internet speeds are increasing at such rapid pace that even some throttling would be largely unnoticeable – and subject to a lot of market place scrutiny?

Has it ever occurred to you that net-neutrality, as a law, only existed since 2015 – and that prior to that it seemed very well that these corporations tended to sort out a lot of this shit. That the spirit of net neutrality was often times mutually agreed upon? For example, Comcast and BitTorrent, the spark to this controversy, ended up working a lot of it out with minimal intervention on behalf of the government – way before this ever became law?

Have you done any concrete research into both sides of the issue and what the outcome really is? Because it seems to me that you haven't.

HumbleWaterFilterMerchant said:

I’m not being disingenuous, mobile plans are part of internet usage and these plans do in fact charge you for sites.

You actually were, if unintentionally. Those plans are data "add-ons" that you can have on top your regular data plan, so, for example, if you watch a lot of videos, you can buy extra data for Youtube or other video sites and not burn through your regular data on them.

MEO is not restricting access to any website nor requiring anyone to purchase access to a site. All it is is a fairly ingenious add-on for data plans. In addition, Portugal is a member of the EU and thus subject to the EU's well regarded net neutrality rules.

KaijuSundae|Calkarot said:

…than have some websites be faster than others…

Which is already the case. ISPs don't handle optimization. No two sites will have equal load times as javascript, flash, etc. will all be different and thus load in differenlty depending on the site.

Site load times are really irrelevant in this conversation, though. Most sites will fully load in in under 10 seconds and if they don't, it's not going to be the ISP's fault. The issue with the "fast lanes" are bandwidth heavy sites. In other words, video sites. It's not an issue of sites being faster, it's an issue of buffering being faster.

…some websites not show up at all unless I, or the website, emptied their wallets to ISPs…

This isn't what net neutrality is about and it's unfortunate Google and Facebook have convinced people it is. Websites either pay extra for extra bandwidth (fast lanes) or bandwidth heavy sites have to pay extra for eating bandwidth. The first is optional, the second, mandatory. Neither directly impacts users.

Why would an internet service provider want to restrict access to the internet? This is especially true since most ISPs have caps on data usage (how much bandwidth you can use)--in other words, the more internet their customers use, the more money they're going to make.

There's a reason The Pirate Bay's biggest ally in its many legal fights has been ISPs. Every time a court tries to force an ISP to block a site, they fight it tooth and nail. All those movies and video games add up to a ton of bandwidth.

I figured I'd post this to see what you guys think.

"Why would an internet service provider want to restrict access to the internet? This is especially true since most ISPs have caps on data usage (how much bandwidth you can use)--in other words, the more internet their customers use, the more money they’re going to make."

I think that is awfully idealistic, companies are constantly searching for way to charge you more money, I find it really hard to believe they won't go full EA with the monopoly there is and besides if we let them repeal this law corporations control over governments will increase, first net neutrality gone then SOPA and other shit.

edit: not saying net neutrality is the answer I just don't think this problem is as easy as repealing a single law that is there for protection (net neutrality if it wasn't clear).

The same EA that after so much public outcry (market place pressure) decided to actually fundamentally change a massive AAA game that they developed? It's almost…it's almost as if…it's almost as if they realized they wouldn't make a dime if they keep alienating their customer base.

> law corporations control over governments will increase,

Serious evidence for this statement?

The people trying to repeal net neutrality have jobs in the corporations that are interested in repealing such law and surpris they want to do exactly what their corporation wants them. Once they repeal net neutrality corporations will see that sending their employees to manipulate goverments works and will push FOR laws and then what? Just like the last few years, nothing good.

You realize all these efforts to stop net neutrality being repealed is also a corporate interest, right? Google, Facebook, Sites who don't want to pay more money for taking up huge chunks of bandwidth and constantly avoid having to take any responsibility for how shite they moderate their websites.

These corporations are also using the full weight of their power to fight this legislative decision by mobilizing their lobbies, and mobilizing you, into doing exactly what they want. It's a step beyond with these corporations from getting the government to do what they want to directly getting the people to do what they want with what can be called well placed propaganda advertising. Where do you think a lot of the fight net neutrality sites came from?

So I ask you, what exactly is the difference here? We're trading one corporate ruler for another.

"So I ask you, what exactly is the difference here? We’re trading one corporate ruler for another."

The more I can hurt corporate "progress" and force them to be small the better, corporations hold us back. Its easier to that if we keep them stuck in this step, the corporations have basically locked each other trying to take over the goverment and it is great. If net neutrality is repealed then they can continue their "progress" and monopoly.

Okay, so what are you doing to stop Google's monopoly on information propagation? Or the oligarchy that exists with Social Media Websites integrating with one another and holding huge influential power over the information people do or don't get to see? And what steps have you taken to retaliate against the very real removal of information that these companies have been engaging in for years with 0 accountability, to the point we actually need a serious talk on whether or not censorship can be done by private entities or not?

Probably nothing, because you're listening to them tell you exactly what to think is and isn't important. Don't worry that facebook's selling peoples information to advertisers without consent, or that google is engaging in AI research to stop people accessing information it deems problematic. Instead worry about how the Federal Trade Commission might monitor net neutrality instead of the Federal Communications Commission.

Can you at least tell me why it's a bad thing that the Federal Trade Commission be able to regulate net neutrality versus the Federal Communications Commission?

Because otherwise you kinda come off as a parody of what political activism is supposed to be.

The USA (and by extension the world) created a system where you get a corporate tyranny regardless of what direction you go and I am the bad guy for pointing it out. Ok, and your solution to fight against corporatism is to give corporations exactly what they want or otherwise corporations get exactly what they want, Ok. I don't know what to tell you man, maybe the right should be working in fixing this mess revamping the system and fighting lobbying, instead of repealing laws according to our corporate overlords and nothing else, but I guess that would require an actual change in the status quo and that isn't "conservative" or something.

My reason is basically these: either option is giving them what they want, you should be trying to "punish" them or something to keep corporations away from the government, and overall repealing net neutrality is the option where we surrender the most to our ""masters"" or whatever, so either keep net neutrality or think outside the box, you should not support Comcast.

(edit: I am not even a leftist, leftists can be too idealistic in my opinion, but that is for another thread altogether)

Okay, but what does that have to do with the Trade Commission monitoring Net Neutrality over the Communication Commission?

I'm just asking what is the difference between this government organization having the authority to intervene against corporate overstep of the internet, and this other government organization doing the same thing?

Is it the name? The word "trade" not being the same as "communication"? Is it the people in charge? Is it the history of either organization? What is it that makes you hate giving power to the trade commission, and how is not doing that a "loss" to corporations?

I don't even know…I think I am taking a break for a while, USA politics is a mess…

Bots are swarming the FCC website, commenting on ending Net Neutrality.

I am done bye.

Would you mind cross posting this into the net neutrality comments section? I’d do it myself but I would’nt want to step on your toes.

Since 2015 when Net Neutrality laws were enacted we saw corporations like Google actively try to censor controversial onions by demonetizing you tube channels (Idubbz being the latest evidently), Facebook has been going after their own right wing groups, on top of also evidently working with Russian bots. Twitter as well has undergone massive censorship campaigns….

Yet it is these same corporations that are the biggest proponents of net neutrality, because they are the ones to financially gain the most.

Are we just pawns in a corporate war between those that provide bandwidth and those that control information?

Sadly. Kind of yes. Government owned internet access is not really better than mega-corporate owned either, look at China or South Korea.

Isn't anyone worried about the excessive lobbying in america though? Isn't anyone worried about Ajit Pal? The guy is a dodgy individual and pushing to repeal net neutrality.