NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

How about just no censorship rather than state to state?

And lets not pretend like the FCC is at all competent enough to prevent people looking up whatever they damn well please. Private corporations however, can do quite a lot with the profit motive.

[Lulz~Sect]

[Post only available for Project 1999® Gold™ account holders]

[skarlorn]

Originally Posted by Lulz~Sect [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and that's how Pai is getting his slice of the "pie" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

damn lulz. dropping some srs woke bombs. I actually did not know that and will go read your recommended literature on this topic. Thanks for the post!

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

no the supremacy clause exists. AT dude is correct.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. the fcc CAN do exactly what they did on the 14th with various websites they have the exact power as the oversight apointed commity to do exactly that.

the very fact that they got rid of NN is a literal example of their power to do exactly that.

No. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

The FCC has the power to enact rules on HOW an ISP delivers its content, not rules on WHAT content may be delivered. Telling people that all cars must travel no greater than 65 MPH on the freeway is not the same as banning all Honda Accords.

Please cite a law, ruling, or administrative memo detailing this power. Don't worry, I've got all day.

Originally Posted by Dildo Shwaggins

2. Explain to me why google put fiber in kansas and not california first. And these states enacting their own regulation on internet is your last fucking hope you stupid loser libcuck, so you better figure out how to succeed at enacting it quick. Or leprechauns are going to charge you 5.99 to browse twitter.

Because Kansas fit the model they needed to experiment with urban fiber, and the city governments were willing to indemnify Google against property damage with the installation of the lines. What does this have to do with anything?

Secondly, I'm a conservative, I just don't worship your god emperor.

Third, have you seen a doctor for your ADHD? For like the 6th time now, the states can launch their own NN regulations, but they will likely fail in Federal court. I know that planning ahead is an alien concept to you, but it's something that grownups like to do because they have responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Skankhunt42

I mean seriously, there is no difference between the goverment allowing corperations to throttle a website and throttling a website the government doesn't want you to have access to.

Except this thing called the Constitution. You know, the little part they amended first to say that the Government cannot restrict your free speech?

And, no corporations shouldn't be allowed to throttle either. If we were in a perfect setting of monopolistic competition, NN wouldn't be needed; you could just buy service from a competing ISP who didn't throttle. Except we're not. At best, most markets are an oligopoly, but typically they are duopolies and monopolies. This means that it's a matter of "when" and not "if" they'll abuse consumers to the detriment of the general welfare of the nation.

I know 4th grade is exciting now, but just wait until you have Economics 101 in about 15 years.

Originally Posted by MLKKK

the entire support structure for getting rid of NN from my alt right bro's is for states to set up their own rules and to not allow the gov to do it federally.

Removing the internet from Tittle II does NOT prevent states from setting up their own regulation.. contrary to what that other poster with the adventure time avatar thinks.

It does not prevent them yet, because there's been no preemption lawsuit yet. You do understand that NN was eliminated because the FCC is hostile to the idea, right? There is a strong chance that because of this hostility that they will challenge individual state's NN laws. Because they have a problem with NN as a concept, not because they simply don't want to handle it.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How about just no censorship rather than state to state?

And lets not pretend like the FCC is at all competent enough to prevent people looking up whatever they damn well please. Private corporations however, can do quite a lot with the profit motive.

if the nn law simply said nobody can regulate the internet, it wouldn't have been shut down.

but it was sloppily put under title II which, allows the FCC to make unilateral decisions about stuff like can it be throttled without public consent.

So in this case you had a government (with an authoritarian demigod as a leader mind you, LOL guess the left was wrong about that) that luckily decided that it wouldn't use this power to take away your freedom, but they could have just as easily banned fake news if they wanted to. Left you alone with the trump news channel and fox news.

So it was just one of many bad, ill prepared, not thought out actions of the Obama administration.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

The FCC has the power to enact rules on HOW an ISP delivers its content, not rules on WHAT content may be delivered. Telling people that all cars must travel no greater than 65 MPH on the freeway is not the same as banning all Honda Accords.

Please cite a law, ruling, or administrative memo detailing this power. Don't worry, I've got all day.

you are done

"using usnet or torrents allows for piracy so all websites that use this type of data are now banned"

thats all you had to do.

BAM

no freedom

you're done.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you are done

"using usnet or torrents allows for piracy so all websites that use this type of data are now banned"

thats all you had to do.

BAM

no freedom

you're done.

How interesting. Can you please link the statute, ruling, or memorandum that is the basis for the FCC's power to ban this type of speech? I'm very interested to see this since you're such a scholar on the topic.

[mickmoranis]

One week ago they made a ruling about how the internet works, despite public concent. The exact same gorup of people have the power to make the ruling that we will from henceforth not allow any websits that support usenet or torrenting.

Here is all the info you need to know how the FCC works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ns_Act_of_1934

The FCC has a ton of power, 1934 was a terrible year for Americans.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One week ago they made a ruling about how the internet works, despite public concent. The exact same gorup of people have the power to make the ruling that we will from henceforth not allow any websits that support usenet or torrenting.

Here is all the info you need to know how the FCC works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commun...ns_Act_of_1934

The FCC has a ton of power, 1934 was a terrible year for Americans.

So, you can't cite it. Got it.

I can say that I own the moon, but it doesn't make it true. I know this is more nuanced than Red Fish Blue Fish, so please tell me if I lose you.

NN supporters are not stating that a Title II classification is the best solution. There are some valid (if not weaker) arguments against it from a Constitutional perspective. Nor are we opposed to statewide regulations if they are allowed to stand against preemption. Most NN supports feel that the best solution is direct congressional legislation that all data must be treated equally.

But, you're not seeing that. You're just jacking off about "NN = CENSORSHIP" without even understanding how or why it works.

"Because I said so" isn't how the law works. I know that's what your dad says when you need to eat your vegetables or when its Goofy Time, but that doesn't fly for civil authority.

If you're going to tell me that NN, as it was enacted, allows the Federal government carte blanche to censor websites, you'll need to cite the exact rule or law that allows it to do so.

And until you do that: Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.