Scary article about the FCC, and "New net neutrality rules"

[Independent voter]

Except for the fact that the republican did not say that...he was directly quoting BARACK OBAMA from 2007...did you read the quote? O.o

Thanks for the snark.

Okay, if he said that in 2007, so what?

[Gumboy]

Thanks for the snark.

Okay, if he said that in 2007, so what?

So what? So going from "This should 100% be open for public review because it effects us all" to "No, it is private because it is my people passing it" is just a-ok?

I am NOT trying to make this about Obama himself, merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy involved. IF someone wants it to be private just because they are in power...what does that tell you?

Why is something that effects every single person that uses a united states based website being kept private?

[Deleted]

I see loads of stuff about this "net neutrality" thing, but I don't really understand what it is and it's always relating to american stuff. Is this like literally just a US issue and I can safely ignore it? Or is it gonna make a difference to people in the UK too?

[Gumboy]

I see loads of stuff about this "net neutrality" thing, but I don't really understand what it is and it's always relating to american stuff. Is this like literally just a US issue and I can safely ignore it? Or is it gonna make a difference to people in the UK too?

Do you use any US based websites or services? If so, it effects you.

[Grummgug]

it blows my mind that people equate net neutrality with government control. do they seriously think governments wont abuse the hell out of such power? have not paid attention to history at all?

[Rukh]

I wouldn't care if it was a Republican saying those things. Or a communist. Or a nazi. This is not a political issue, that is being attempted to be FORCED into a political issue....for reasons I don't think anyone understands.


This is simply not a political "Side" or partisan issue. This effects every single person reading this, whether you are from the US or not.

- - - Updated - - -



So when the rule changes go live, we will know the new rules. that makes NO sense. None.

And Obama himself agrees with me. Or at least he used to.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean, this is not some podunk rule change that changes basically nothing for daily life of the american (And, the world). This is a MASSIVE change, that is being made in secret, by a commitee of old men that have worked in the phone industry for decades.

When the reps need to vote, they gets the rules and then vote on them.

[Gumboy]

I am not some crazy conspiracy theorist that thinks Obama is trying to control the internet and what we can do on it. I don't know what the fuck these rules are saying. Because they are keeping them private from the public and congress :P

[Deleted]

Do you use any US based websites or services? If so, it effects you.

That's a broad term. Do you mean "anything with head offices in the US" or like, just stuff connecting to servers in the US?

[Gumboy]

When the reps need to vote, they gets the rules and then vote on them.

And, by forcing this issue to be on political lines....it will be voted on, on party lines. Their is NO hope for compromise, or actually getting anything done, if the thing you are going to be voting on is being forced through by a 3 of one party and 2 of another panel, that the people and congress can't have any input on.

Maybe i just flat out don't trust a panel of old men that have worked in the (Dead) telephone industry their entire lives

[Grummgug]

I see loads of stuff about this "net neutrality" thing, but I don't really understand what it is and it's always relating to american stuff. Is this like literally just a US issue and I can safely ignore it? Or is it gonna make a difference to people in the UK too?

the net neutrality issue is about big government zealots who want new rules to give big government more control over the internet, under the guise that this somehows guarantees the internet remains neutral. they point to the idea that companies may slow traffic to sites they dislike. they refuse to point to governments that block sites they dislike when they strongly control the internet.

[Gumboy]

That's a broad term. Do you mean "anything with head offices in the US" or like, just stuff connecting to servers in the US?

I can't tell you exactly what these rules say, because they are keeping them private until a panel of old men vote on it.

But it would vastly effect the internet in general if certain things were changed.

[abracmike]

That's a broad term. Do you mean "anything with head offices in the US" or like, just stuff connecting to servers in the US?

Mostly the 2nd, but potentially both. It sounds broad because it really is that broad. Any of your traffic crossing through the US can be affected

[Rukh]

I see loads of stuff about this "net neutrality" thing, but I don't really understand what it is and it's always relating to american stuff. Is this like literally just a US issue and I can safely ignore it? Or is it gonna make a difference to people in the UK too?

Various countries have various rules. It will affect you in the UK as lots of web businesses are based in the US. This will prevent ISPs from prioritizing businesses based on paying a premium for service. It will also prevent ISPs from throttling certain types of traffic based on content. Businesses will get internet access they pay for. No blocking competing businesses, no throttling ideological opponents, etc etc etc.

[Gumboy]

the net neutrality issue is about big government zealots who want new rules to give big government more control over the internet, under the guise that this somehows guarantees the internet remains neutral. they point to the idea that companies may slow traffic to sites they dislike. they refuse to point to governments that block sites they dislike when they strongly control the internet.

That is not what this thread is about. I am not saying the government being in somewhat control of the internet is the worst thing ever, that is just silly. I am saying the rules should be public, so we know what the hell they are going to be :P

[Rukh]

I can't tell you exactly what these rules say, because they are keeping them private until a panel of old men vote on it.

But it would vastly effect the internet in general if certain things were changed.

I linked to you the changes. You don't need the individual lawyereese specifics to know what the changes are.

[Gumboy]

Various countries have various rules. It will affect you in the UK as lots of web businesses are based in the US. This will prevent ISPs from prioritizing businesses based on paying a premium for service. It will also prevent ISPs from throttling certain types of traffic based on content. Businesses will get internet access they pay for. No blocking competing businesses, no throttling ideological opponents, etc etc etc.

Or so you think. Nobody knows wtf the rules say :P

[Rukh]

And, by forcing this issue to be on political lines....it will be voted on, on party lines. Their is NO hope for compromise, or actually getting anything done, if the thing you are going to be voting on is being forced through by a 3 of one party and 2 of another panel, that the people and congress can't have any input on.

Maybe i just flat out don't trust a panel of old men that have worked in the (Dead) telephone industry their entire lives

Other bills aren't voted on party lines? I don't think you know much about legal process if you think 300 pages for a bill is any sort out of the norm.

- - - Updated - - -

Or so you think. Nobody knows wtf the rules say :P

Except that we do and I linked you what they are.

[Gumboy]

I linked to you the changes. You don't need the individual lawyereese specifics to know what the changes are.

No, those are the "talking point" changes they "in general" are discussing in the rule changes, not the actual rules.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that we do and I linked you what they are.

Yeah,a talking point blurb = every single rule. You can say it will be all lawyer stuff the rest of the way...but you don't fucking know that.

[Rukh]

No, those are the "talking point" changes they "in general" are discussing in the rule changes, not the actual rules.

The "actual rules" will do what these summaries say. This is how ALL bills work. What you see is a summary of the propositions. What is voted on is the 300 page legalese. There's a reason that being a representative is a full-time job.

If you're going to claim we can just never trust the summaries you're opening a giant can of worms with every single legislative vote ever.

[Gumboy]

The "actual rules" will do what these summaries say. This is how ALL bills work. What you see is a summary of the propositions. What is voted on is the 300 page legalese. There's a reason that being a representative is a full-time job.

Have you read the rules? The document itself?

Have you decided why it is normal for someone to go from "The rules should be public for public discussion" to "The rules are private because I'm in charge"