NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[mickmoranis]

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

No, the Open Internet Executive Order was put in place in 2010, but NN as a principle existed well before then.

Al Gore and several Academics first brought up a push for the idea in 1994, but it wasn't until 2004 when the FCC adopted a set of proto-NN principles. This was the Madison River case where a phone company was blocking VoIP. However, the case was settled and no jurisprudence was created.

As I mentioned near the beginning of the thread, the FCC had theoretical power to enforce NN regulations, but no ISP was brave enough to try fighting them (outside of the list I posted earlier of NN violations). It was a cold war because ISPs didn't want to push the issue and possibly risk a court decision that restricted them even more than the status quo.

In 2014, Verizon had enough and sued. They won, and subsequently the FCC's power to enforce NN was narrowed. This is why the FCC reclassified the ISPs as Title II common carriers. The Verizon court ruling had limited their authority in a particular way, so they had to find a creative solution to achieve the same result in a different way.

So, no, NN has not only been in place since 2015. It's actually been around for quite a long time.

what most of the libcucks dont know is that before internet moved to cable, from DSL it was considered telecom and fell under the same regulations that the telecome industry has, which is.. wait for it... title II!

However the fact that it was under tittle II is what allows apointed gov employees in the FCC to do what they want with it, and in this case, they chose to make it so appointed gov employees do not have that power. However in doing so they left it up to the free market to do whatever they wanted with it.

Was it corperate money that made them ensure the FCC cannot change the internet? or was it libertariansm or constitutionalsim? That's up to you to decide, but its a mute point anyway.

So when you list off all these answers to when people ask "well NN is only a couple years old and the internet worked fine without it" the correct response is, once the standard was moved from DSL to Cable it went from being protected under tittle II to not being protected under title II and net nutrality brought it back under that protection.

Either they did it to protect our freedom or they did it because corperations want the control for the internet more than they do the phones, it doesnt change the fact that appointed gov employees could do what they wanted with it (as you saw on the 14th)

as far as freedom goes as most libs like to point out "its never happened really before, the government trying to take our freedom, so why worry about it" however you leave out the fact that you think a literal nazi is in the white house and if a 'literal nazi' can get in the white house in 2017 imagine hwo fucked up shit will get in 2117, by then yall might not have any freedom at all, so long as you give the gov the outlet to do what they did on the 14th.

All in all, it was an Oblunder, he should have just said, "nobody" has the right to regulate the internet, rather than "corporations cannot, but the fcc has the power to change the rules"

obama had a tendency to be mostly talk though, and this is what you get when you support candidates that are mostly talk that want to change the world. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

what most of the libcucks dont know is that before internet moved to cable, from DSL it was considered telecom and fell under the same regulations that the telecome industry has, which is.. wait for it... title II!

Cable (or the equivalent technology at the time) fell under Title II starting officially in 1996 under the Telecommunications Act.

Cable was only put under Title I in 2002 because the initial data services they offered were argued to be part of "enhanced packages" which were not meant to carry other's data. The main mover of data at that time was still the phone lines the cable companies argued. These "enhanced packages" were actually pay services where you can get sports scores or stock prices. Because the cable companies themselves were providing this service and the content, they were not considered Title II common carriers by congressional command. Looking back, the Title I classification was a short sighted move because the whole enhanced package thing was a bamboozle. Not only were the packages ultimately not the primary product, they were a dog and pony show to convince Congress to not classify them as such which is what happened when they overrode the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Originally Posted by mickmoranis

However the fact that it was under tittle II is what allows apointed gov employees in the FCC to do what they want with it, and in this case, they chose to make it so appointed gov employees do not have that power. However in doing so they left it up to the free market to do whatever they wanted with it.

This. Is. Wrong. Stop Lying. The FCC cannot do "what they want" with the internet just because of the classification. Title II is a standard that common carriers meet by not messing with the messages they have been paid to transmit. They are merely enforcing a standard of service. Like saying that all surgeries must be performed by a doctor.

A common carrier, which has been around as a concept since the dark ages, is a party that is paid to deliver other people's messages or content. There is a philosophical, legal, and ethical duty upon that carrier to deliver said message even if they disagree with yet. Yes, Net Neutrality has been around for many hundreds of years.

Originally Posted by mickmoranis

All in all, it was an Oblunder, he should have just said, "nobody" has the right to regulate the internet, rather than "corporations cannot, but the fcc has the power to change the rules"

No one is regulating "the internet." NO ONE IS DETERMINING WHAT CONTENT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP UNDER TITLE II.

Title II simply says if you are paid to transmit a 3rd party's messages, you CANNOT discriminate against the content of the message. You agreed to deliver it, so deliver it like all the others.

[mickmoranis]

dude i dont read your posts cus all you do is stomp your feet about how you think something is wrong and yet here you are crying about NN being repealed by the apointed staff in the FCC.. so you tell me im wrong, yet here you are yelling about it, cus of exactly what you say im wrong about.

They have every power to do exactly the same thing about torrents or bitcoin if they wanted to.

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

youre welcome.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

dude i dont read your posts cus all you do is stomp your feet about how you think something is wrong and yet here you are crying about NN being repealed by the apointed staff in the FCC.. so you tell me im wrong, yet here you are yelling about it, cus of exactly what you say im wrong about.

They have every power to do exactly the same thing about torrents or bitcoin if they wanted to.

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

youre welcome.

You don't read my posts because you don't know how to answer them, and /r/The_Donald can't give you answers either because they're just as shallow as you are acting here.

Look, you seem like you want to be taken seriously on some level, but this isn't the way to do it.

I used to troll people too. It's funny, I get it, but there'll come a time when you realize that politics and real life isn't about lulz. It's about engaging each other because you want to make your nation a better place. When you feel it for the first time, there's a real sense of ownership and accomplishment. I honestly hope you have that epiphany because I know you're not really this dense and unaware. I know you're not here because you believe deeply in repealing NN, but because you enjoy the reaction that an obviously hot button issue creates. I know that there's a person with real thoughts underneath that Skankhunt42 avatar; I just wish he'd come out to participate because that's how we make our world better.

Originally Posted by mickmoranis

It'd be political suicide, but in the case that a demigog took control of our executive branch, starts a war with another world power and managed to put a moratorium on term limits, it wouldnt be. And that's what the constitutionalists are protecting you from.

In law, we call this having the "power to do so, but not the right."

If I have a gun I can kill anyone I can point it at. I have the power over life and death. But I do not have the right. Yes, you are correct that at any point the President could declare himself Grand high Potentate. All Presidents have the power to do so. But, they do not have the right. Our society functions because we have faith that the right (or lack thereof) to do or not do something will be respected.

Certainly we should be prepared for what happens if the government were to go rogue. That's why we have the Second Amendment. But, while we should be prepared for this, we shouldn't live our lives like this. You don't make progress that way. Living like that just creates an atmosphere is mistrust and suspicion. When you come here and tell everyone that we're days away from martial law and that the FCC will eat your children, you're directly contributing to that.

This isn't how we should live our lives, and I know you know that.

[mickmoranis]

there is a fucking wall of text that is whining and crying that I just.. cant... slog through.

Let me explain:

1. FCC had a vote to change the way YOUR internet works.
2. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT TO SHUT DOWN BIT TORRENT OR PORN IF THEY WANTED TO.
3. thanks to the vote on dec 14th now they cannot.
4. Hail Trump.

[AzzarTheGod]

wazap net neutrality

[skarlorn]

wazap net nutrality

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

there is a fucking wall of text that is whining and crying that I just.. cant... slog through.

Remember this moment the next time you're lying awake at night wondering why your life and relationships have fallen apart so badly.

[fash]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AzzarTheGod]

smilin hard. which 1's Mick n is that pokes or skarlorn the enlightened.... no....

loramin and mick fighting over the affections of the aforementioned forum masters