Twitter Comes Out In Favor of FCC's Strict Net Neutrality Rules

a reply to: Aazadan

Great post that really shows how this system is corrupted. I wish more people would see these simple truths and conflict of interests. Problem is money and power cloud weak and greedy minds. And this causes a revolving door of corruption.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Indigo5
They would say...What the hell is twitter?

Oh you can be damn sure Ben Franklin would be all over twitter. Probably along with John Adams, just so he could troll Franklin on twitter.

The only reason why Franklin would be on there was to see how many women he could hit on.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: darkbake
"Obamacare for the internet" to confuse people into thinking that it is better for them to NOT support net neutrality. But the reality is, the individual is going to be better off if they DO support net neutrality. People are being played.

I think it is great that people are beginning to accuse small government proponents of labeling this as something like obamacare. At least we can all agree that obamacare was bad.

You are confused. They label it "Obamacare for the internet" to tickle the lizard brains of ideologues to avoid any risk that they might objectively think before they shout.

They might have just as well said "Net Neutrality is coming for your guns!"

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: buster2010

You support the proposed Net Neutrality (attempt to pass it without revealing details), yet you opposed the Patriot Act (passed without revealing details).

You support Progressive-sponsored legislation blindly, but cite the Patriot Act as being passed through deception and secrecy. That's the double standard.

I support Net Neutrality because it doesn't make people slave to the big corporations I opposed the ACA because it made the people slaves to insurance companies. So there is no double standard because they are no where near the same thing.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Indigo5
They would say...What the hell is twitter?

Oh you can be damn sure Ben Franklin would be all over twitter. Probably along with John Adams, just so he could troll Franklin on twitter.

The only reason why Franklin would be on there was to see how many women he could hit on.

God help me....I just imagined an "Andrew Weiner" scandal with Benjamin Franklin!

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: darkbake
"Obamacare for the internet" to confuse people into thinking that it is better for them to NOT support net neutrality. But the reality is, the individual is going to be better off if they DO support net neutrality. People are being played.

I think it is great that people are beginning to accuse small government proponents of labeling this as something like obamacare. At least we can all agree that obamacare was bad.

You are confused. They label it "Obamacare for the internet" to tickle the lizard brains of ideologues to avoid any risk that they might objectively think before they shout.

They might have just as well said "Net Neutrality is coming for your guns!"

Shucks, I thought there was a much greater recognition of the negative consequences of obamacare since Democrats have been distancing themselves from it.

God knows small government people need to be told that something is like obamacare for them to be suspicious, good catch.

originally posted by: greencmp



God knows small government people need to be told that something is like obamacare for them to be suspicious, good catch.

Apparently yes...since there is no rational basis to make the comparison?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord


3 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About Net Neutrality And The FCC

What I find terribly frustrating is that the people screaming the loudest against net neutrality are horribly ignorant of what it is, and only hear "obamacare for internet!". If you talk to content providers and people inside the IT world, you'd be surprised to learn what this whole thing is really about. It's not about the government saying what you can and can't see on the internet...

Nm it was addressed

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

For anyone wondering all the disinformation on Net Neutrality please follow the money trail. Look deep into where the ads and disinfo are coming from, this will steer you in the direction, and know that Net Neutrality is a good thing for the little guys.

At first I was taken in by disinformation, but today I'm 100% for Net Neutrality.

I really hope this comes to pass.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

So if the FCC regulations is so good then why can no one see the regulations?

a reply to: Realtruth

LOL no one in congress can see the regulations what makes u think it's good? It's just another Patriot Act in disguise, but for the control and restriction of free speech on the internet.

a reply to: buster2010

How do u know if it's really net neutrality when no one is allowed to see the Regulations?

a reply to: amfirst1

And putting in control of corporations that would be able to dictate who has more efficient access isn't a restriction how?

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

For anyone wondering all the disinformation on Net Neutrality please follow the money trail. Look deep into where the ads and disinfo are coming from, this will steer you in the direction, and know that Net Neutrality is a good thing for the little guys.

At first I was taken in by disinformation, but today I'm 100% for Net Neutrality.

I really hope this comes to pass.

Right, the propaganda is being funded to the hilt by the most powerful corporations in the industry and the federal government. They are even stifling dissent on the committee itself.

I never was taken in by the lies and I am still not.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I have no doubt what you said there is true.

Local, state, and federal laws have made difficult or impossible to compete with the big boy ISPs. As a result of stifled competition, Comcast, ATT, and Verizon are able to sell overpriced, unreliable connections over outdated infrastructure. True net neutrality legislation would knock down the barriers preventing other companies from entering the market. Outlawing tiered internet may even be prudent.

Unfortunately, the current 'Net Neutrality' rules are not being crafted by your industry guru buddies. The White House has been steering the FCC throughout the process. Just like the ACA, they've hijacked a popular movement in order to sneak through a massive federal power grab under the banner of 'net neutrality.'

As usual the debate has gotten a bit hostile. Everyone here wants the same thing - to preserve the freedom and accessibility of the internet. The split seems to occur where trust in government comes into the picture.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Realtruth

LOL no one in congress can see the regulations what makes u think it's good? It's just another Patriot Act in disguise, but for the control and restriction of free speech on the internet.

Posts like this make you sound like you have no idea what Net Neutrality is, so lets start there. Define Net Neutrality in your own words.

originally posted by: amfirst1
How do u know if it's really net neutrality when no one is allowed to see the Regulations?

Here is the released summary… and the text below for easier consumption.

Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet

Chairman Wheeler is proposing clear, sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open Internet as a place for innovation and free expression. His common-sense proposal would replace, strengthen and supplement FCC rules struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit more than one year ago. The draft Order supports these new rules with a firm legal foundation built to withstand future challenges. The Chairman’s comprehensive proposal will be voted on the FCC’s February 26 open meeting.

Consumers and Innovators Need an Open Internet
An open Internet allows consumers to access the legal content and applications that they choose online, without interference from their broadband network provider. It fosters innovation and competition by
ensuring that new products and services developed by entrepreneurs aren’t blocked or throttled by
Internet service providers putting their own profits above the public interest. An open Internet allows free expression to blossom without fear of an Internet provider acting as a gatekeeper. And it gives innovators
predictable rules of the road to deliver new products and services online.

Legal Authority: Reclassifying Broadband Internet Access under Title II
The Chairman’s proposal provides the strongest legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on
multiple sources of authority: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In doing so, the proposal provides the broad legal certainty required for rules guaranteeing an open Internet, while refraining (or “forbearing”) from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices and freedom demanded by consumers.

First, the Chairman’s proposal would reclassify “broadband Internet access service”—that’s the retail broadband service Americans buy from cable, phone, and wireless providers—as a telecommunications service under Title II. We believe that this step addresses any limitations that past classification decisions placed on our ability to adopt strong Open Internet rules, as interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case last year. But just in case, we also make clear that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make available to “edge providers,” it too is a Title II telecommunications service. (To be clear, this is not a “hybrid”— both the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under Title II.)

Second, the proposal finds further grounding in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. Notably, the Verizon court held that Section 706 is an independent grant of authority to the Commission that supports adoption of Open Internet rules. Using it here—without the limitations of the common carriage prohibition that flowed from earlier classification decisions—bolsters the Commission’s authority.

Third, provisions on mobile broadband also rest on Title III of the Communications Act. Among other things, the draft Order persuasively rebuts claims that Title III does not allow classification
of mobile broadband as a telecommunications service.

Finally, Title II’s “just and reasonable” standard and the Verizon court’s finding that Section 706 authorizes the FCC to protect the “virtuous circle” of network innovation and infrastructure development provide standards for the FCC to protect Internet openness against new tactics that
would close the Internet.

New Rules to Protect an Open Internet
While the FCC’s 2010 open Internet rules had limited applicability to mobile broadband, the new rules –
in their entirety – would apply to mobile broadband, recognizing advances in technology and the growing significance of wireless broadband access in recent years. Today, 55 percent of Internet traffic is carried over wireless networks. This proposal extends protection to consumers no matter how they access the Internet, whether they on their desktop computer or their mobile devices.

Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:

No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration – in other words, no “fast lanes.” This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a known standard by which to determine whether new practices are appropriate or not. Thus, the proposal would create a general Open Internet conduct standard that ISPs cannot harm consumers or edge providers.

Greater Transparency: The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman’s proposal also recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposal enhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court.

Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.

In assessing reasonable network management, the Commission’s proposed standard would take account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved—whether it be fiber, DSL, cable, unlicensed wireless, mobile, or another network medium.

However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management—and not commercial—purpose. For example, a provider can’t cite reasonable network management to justify reneging on its promise to supply a customer with “unlimited” data.

Broad Protection
Some data services do not go over the public Internet, and therefore are not “broadband Internet access”
services subject to Title II oversight (VoIP from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heart- monitoring service). The Chairman’s proposal will ensure these services do not undermine the
effectiveness of the open Internet rules. Moreover, broadband providers’ transparency disclosures will
continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet data services —ensuring that the public and the
Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules.