Business Net neutrality restored as FCC votes to regulate internet providers

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The FCC on Thursday restored “net neutrality” rules that prevent broadband internet providers such as Comcast and AT&T from favoring some sites and apps over others.

The move effectively reinstates a net neutrality order the commission first issued in 2015 during the Obama administration; under then-President Donald Trump, the FCC subsequently repealed those rules in 2017.

Net neutrality is the principle that providers of internet service should treat all traffic equally. The rules, for instance, ban practices that throttle or block certain sites or apps, or that offer higher speeds to customers willing to pay extra.

“In our post-pandemic world, we know that broadband is a necessity, not a luxury,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement ahead of the vote.

The telecommunications industry opposed the reintroduction of the rules, as it has before, declaring it an example of unnecessary government interference in business decisions.

The measure passed on a 3-2 vote split by party lines, with Democratic commissioners in favor and Republicans opposed.

---

Article taken directly from [Source] [Archive]

 

[Jew-ish]

Holy shit, did not expect this.

 

[Merry]

The only Biden admin W, and probably entirely accidental overall, to own Drumpf

 

[The Backwards Man]

Won't unfuck the damage that's already been done. Our website is already over and we will enjoy prison.

 

[Google.com]

Were so fucking back

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Hint: It does the opposite of what it is titled.

 

[Morrowind: GOTY Edition]

Won't unfuck the damage that's already been done. Our website is already over and we will enjoy prison.

Wrong again, stalker child. Josh always wins.

 

[Seafarer]

Null was already told about this in the MATI thread and this was his response:

This was expected but I really want a lawyer familiar with FCC administrative law to break down if this would actually benefit us.

 

[Lone MacReady II]

Hint: It does the opposite of what it is titled.

Next you'll be telling me the "Patriot Act" wasn't at all Patriotic...

 

[God of Nothing]

Hint: It does the opposite of what it is titled.

I thought I remembered reading about this.

Spoiler: doomerism conspiracy

 

[Imagine Reading This LOL]

If the press statement from the FCC is any indication, it appears all they are doing is classifying the internet as being a "telecommunications" asset under the Communications Act of 1934. Meaning this will change nothing for us. Providers are still legally permitted to block legal content such as Kiwifarms. The Communications Act of 1934 does not prevent service providers from blocking services because "MUH ALT RIGHT REEE"

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402082A1.pdf

 

[The Man With No Name]

This is a discussion that's been happening for years but basically while it seems good on the label, the reality is that it's a precedent that the internet can be regulated by the FCC at all.

You probably don't want the Federal government having legal standing that because they're already regulating the internet via Net Neutrality, they should also be able to regulate who and what is allowed to be accessed on the internet. Redditors have wanted the internet to be regulated as a utility (like natural gas, electric, etc) for a while. Not sure we should cross that threshold.

 

[Imagine Reading This LOL]

This is a discussion that's been happening for years but basically while it seems good on the label, the reality is that it's a precedent that the internet can be regulated by the FCC at all.

You probably don't want the Federal government having legal standing that because they're already regulating the internet via Net Neutrality, they should also be able to regulate who and what is allowed to be accessed on the internet. Redditors have wanted the internet to be regulated as a utility (like natural gas, electric, etc) for a while. Not sure we should cross that threshold.

Difference is, you can take the FCC to court and argue what they are doing is unconstitutional if they regulate your ability to see content on the internet.

You cannot do the same for the unelected jewish plutocrat who owns the cable companies you get your internet from.

Both options are gay, i'd rather have an option where you can at least have some legal recourse.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Null was already told about this in the MATI thread and this was his response:

This is the correct response. What does a lawyer that has actually read through the hundreds of pages of legalese make of this? Is it everything we wished for or a monkey's paw? I think we should be careful before cheering.

 

[the_hidden_one]

Nothing the government does is ever good for the people. This will end up being used for something lame and gay.

 

[Marvin]

If the press statement from the FCC is any indication, it appears all they are doing is classifying the internet as being a "telecommunications" asset under the Communications Act of 1934. Meaning this will change nothing for us. Providers are still legally permitted to block legal content such as Kiwifarms. The Communications Act of 1934 does not prevent service providers from blocking services because "MUH ALT RIGHT REEE"

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402082A1.pdf

The document linked says specifically that this would prevent blocking legal content.

 

[Imagine Reading This LOL]

The document linked says specifically that this would prevent blocking legal content.

Read the text of Title II

It doesn't do what you think it does

 

[torvalds]

It doesn't do what you think it does

Yes it does, you're just looking at the wrong law:

Internet service providers will again be prohibited from
blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content, restoring the
rules that were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in 2016

On June 14, 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Open Internet Order in a 2-1 decision, ruling that the FCC had the authority to implement the Order and that ISPs should provide equal access to all users.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such
person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-
harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

 

[Marvin]

Read the text of Title II

It doesn't do what you think it does

I was just saying the document you linked didn't support your point.

Though more importantly, the belief that title II status requires that kind of non-discrimination is the legal perspective of the regulatory state on this issue. And at the very least, this would lead to an interesting series of lawsuits. Dragging Cogent into court to settle the question is totally doable.

 

[LurkTrawl]

I thought I remembered reading about this.

Spoiler: doomerism conspiracy

Ver archivo adjunto 5938346

"Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692)"
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 | SEC. 1287" - "page 1396 (or 1,438 in PDF format)"
Relevant sources listed for quick reference so reading the whole damn thing again isn't necessary

Interesting read. Seems like a good reason to cheat an election if it was going to need to be renewed by the end of this year, and fits with this guy's theory. Still seems a bit... out there but at this point he's probably sadly correct. I guess we'll just have to see if it escalates to the point that this gets utilized the way this guy predicted it would, and what kind of outrage - if any - is generated when the first test target is taken out using it.