http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
Please preserve net neutrality under auspices of Title 2
Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
331–340 of 452 posts
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#332http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
I support strong net neutrality backed by Title II oversight of ISPs! Why did you make this so hard?
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#333http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
I support strong net neutrality backed by Title II oversight of ISPs.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#334> Net neutrality is fundamental to competition.
so, I won't get 20 times faster youtube. fuck that net neutrality.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
The common response to this is that ISPs have access to everything you do (which is true), and that they could sell that (which is false). The regulations being overturned here are ones that have only recently taken effect, and non-anonymized, non-aggregate selling of ISP data is still outlawed by the Cable Communications Act of 1984, which protects subscriber privacy is 47USC § 551[1]. Put simply, neither the most r…
Legally, is there a minimum requirement for what it takes for data to be considered "anonymized"? Just because the customers' billing info isn't included doesn't mean you can't figure out who is responsible for traffic.
There might be multiple options that the federal government would respect:
* https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title5/html/USCODE...
* http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=904990
Legally, I can't think of a case where it's been tested that didn't lean the government's way, so who knows?
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#336Trumps appointees disappoint me a lot. This guy and the one over the EPA
Ajit Pai was technically appointed to the FCC by Obama. (Though this panel of 5 people can have only at-most 3 people of the same part affiliation on it at any given time). What Trump did was appoint Ajit the chairman of the FCC. The FCC only has 3 people on it right now (2 R, 1 D), with 2 vacant seats.
This is true. I think it's also worth noting this whole deregulation push to have a fast lane was initiated by Tom Wheeler, who was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama (Ajit Pai was in the ranks at the time). The initiative Wheeler introduced was supported into motion by the 3 Dems appointed to the FCC (overriding the 2 dissenting Reps)[1]. What stopped the fast lane momentum (IMO) was a very loud outcry by the public and some of the big tech companies that also voiced dissent.
It's what Trinity said that has me really worried: "A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something."
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRDEZHJxdw4&t=230s ( 2:18 to 5:00 )
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ajit Pai was technically appointed to the FCC by Obama. (Though this panel of 5 people can have only at-most 3 people of the same part affiliation on it at any given time). What Trump did was appoint Ajit the chairman of the FCC. The FCC only has 3 people on it right now (2 R, 1 D), with 2 vacant seats.
...but Trump is the devil and Obama is our saviour?!?!
Please don't post unsubstantively like this.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fair question to ask! I wrote my representative on this issue actually. I'll let you read for yourself: "On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a proposed rule that seeks to expand its regulatory jurisdiction, create a two-tiered privacy regime for different types of Internet companies, and impose data restrictions on Internet service providers. These types of regulations have…
This is well-written, but I worry it will be scanned by a staffer and replied to with a canned response. I'd be interested in hearing about any response if you care to update?
Sorry I wasn't clear, I didn't state it well. That was the response in italics above. The representative (or rather, her staffer) is asserting that the status quo has not changed. That's only half true. The ability for ISPs to sell data was on shaky ground before, until the FCC closed the door. The door has been reopened, and the FTC has weak jurisdiction.
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#339http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
I want you greedy asshats to understand that we the people want net neutrality and for ISP's to stay under title 2. Freedom of ideas, speech, and choice are all that stand between us and fascism and totalitarianism. So net neutrality needs to be the law of the land and ISP must stay under title2. thank you jrp
Re: Net neutrality is in jeopardy again
#340http://gofccyourself.com (redirect) Edit: If it stays blank after redirect it's because it (FCC's site) can't handle the load, or [conspiracy theory].
I want you greedy asshats to understand that we the people want net neutrality and for ISP's to stay under title 2. Freedom of ideas, speech, and choice are all that stand between us and fascism and totalitarianism. So net neutrality needs to be the law of the land and ISP must stay under title2. thank you jrp