[NEWS] Yet again the FCC is threatening net neutrality (PETITION)

[Master Matthew²]

Your parents are already paying for your internet I assume. Read what the guy is saying. He's not going to allow whitelists or black lists or throttling or anything. Just actually read it lol

Did you read the actual documents or did you just take some random guy's word for it?

[Ad Bot]

[Nonnel]

There will be no normal access.
There will only be whitelisted sites.

this is speculation. please stop talking about things you don't know about.

[Corderlain]

I read the excerpts yes.

[IkeTheGeneric]

Your parents are already paying for your internet I assume.

Is your girlfriend paying for yours? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Tayasaurus]

What if we made a better internet?

With like, blackjack and hookers?

[e-maxx]

Is your girlfriend paying for yours? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

his kids pay for it

[IkeTheGeneric]

What if we made a better internet?

With like, blackjack and hookers?

hell yeah

[Ipquarx]

If what this says is true then I definitely support the repeal of net neutrality. And don't sneer T where its from, everything is sourced  

Damn, these are some seriously shady tactics. This is a pretty common one, to list a whole ton of things that sound vaguely true when they're completely out of context and hope that the sheer number of things convinces a person that the whole point is collectively true. That way, if someone "disproves" just one of them then you can cry tunnel vision.
So let me point out the flaws in every single one of these, leaving the argument with literally nothing to stand on:

1: Privacy.
Congress already ruled that ISPs are free to monitor and sell your traffic. It's a bill that was signed into law by the current president. This overrides any existing FCC regulations.

2: "No Throttling" promise.
They're free to quietly withdraw their promise at any time and receive no consequences whatsoever. This is a common tactic known as "Lie loudly, retract quietly." Comcast has already retracted part of their promise and they're only going to retract more and more until there's nothing left.

3: Is literally just saying there exists a regulation against misleading advertising despite the fact that ISPs do misleading and shady advertising all the loving time with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Irrelevant and wrong.

4: Is literally just saying there exists regulations against multiple companies conspiring together to block or throttle certain things. This is unenforceable because they can simply say that they independently came up with it and the FCC is physically incapable of proving otherwise. It also doesn't mention anything about giving priority to anything.

5: Is unenforceable again because ISPs can just prioritize their own service over netflix. This has already happened in Canada before Net Neutrality was enforced (I actually had to sell some phone plans on this very premise, euch), and as an additional example, they can put it in a package that costs extra. It's not blocking since you can still get it, you just have to pay for it.

Other countries are already doing this. It's not a matter of "are ISPs willing to do this," it's a matter of "how long until they're able to get away with it."


6: is actually really loving hilarious. I have no loving clue how this got into an official FCC report because:
It's a completely irrelevant piece of text cherrypicked from a Utility Air Regaulatory Group v. EPA court ruling. It has nothing to do with the FCC, the internet, or anything else. (Ctrl+F "statutory power")

7: is literally saying that the FCC has the legal capability to reinstate net neutrality. No stuff, but they won't. That's the whole point.

So in summary, literally none of it is true and relevant, and never ever loving trust /r/the_donald.

[cblock360]

Freedom is a myth.

[Drydess]

What if we made a better internet?

With like, blackjack and hookers?

or we could build a great internet...

and make mexico pay for it

[Master Matthew²]

I read the excerpts yes.

Damn, these are some seriously shady tactics. This is a pretty common one, to list a whole ton of things that sound vaguely true when they're completely out of context and hope that the sheer number of things convinces a person that the whole point is collectively true. That way, if someone "disproves" just one of them then you can cry tunnel vision.
So let me point out the flaws in every single one of these, leaving the argument with literally nothing to stand on:

1: Privacy.
Congress already ruled that ISPs are free to monitor and sell your traffic. It's a bill that was signed into law by the current president. This overrides any existing FCC regulations.

2: "No Throttling" promise.
They're free to quietly withdraw their promise at any time and receive no consequences whatsoever. This is a common tactic known as "Lie loudly, retract quietly." Comcast has already retracted part of their promise and they're only going to retract more and more until there's nothing left.

3: Is literally just saying there exists a regulation against misleading advertising despite the fact that ISPs do misleading and shady advertising all the loving time with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Irrelevant and wrong.

4: Is literally just saying there exists regulations against multiple companies conspiring together to block or throttle certain things. This is unenforceable because they can simply say that they independently came up with it and the FCC is physically incapable of proving otherwise. It also doesn't mention anything about giving priority to anything.

5: Is unenforceable again because ISPs can just prioritize their own service over netflix. This has already happened in Canada before Net Neutrality was enforced (I actually had to sell some phone plans on this very premise, euch), and as an additional example, they can put it in a package that costs extra. It's not blocking since you can still get it, you just have to pay for it.

Other countries are already doing this. It's not a matter of "are ISPs willing to do this," it's a matter of "how long until they're able to get away with it."


6: is actually really loving hilarious. I have no loving clue how this got into an official FCC report because:
It's a completely irrelevant piece of text cherrypicked from a Utility Air Regaulatory Group v. EPA court ruling. It has nothing to do with the FCC, the internet, or anything else. (Ctrl+F "statutory power")

7: is literally saying that the FCC has the legal capability to reinstate net neutrality. No stuff, but they won't. That's the whole point.

So in summary, literally none of it is true and relevant, and never ever loving trust /r/the_donald.

I read the excerpts yes.

Bullstuff, you glazed over them and agreed that it looked "good nuff".

[Kidalex90]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan

you know that those were just portuguese phone plans right

[Master Matthew²]

you know that those were just portuguese phone plans right

Checkmate atheists

[Ipquarx]

you know that those were just portuguese phone plans right

I'm well aware yes. The point is to prove that there's precedent. ISPs have already done it in the past (whether it's mobile data or home internet is irrelevant), there's no reason they won't in the future if they're able to.

[Mr Queeba]

i expect the repeal to pass and then a near-immediate challenge in court