FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
https://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-is-under-investigation-over-39-billion-media-deal/
It was only a matter of time before they found what really went on.
-
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
https://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-is-under-investigation-over-39-billion-media-deal/
It was only a matter of time before they found what really went on.
Any idiot knew what was going on. They just couldn't help cover it up any longer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
https://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-is-under-investigation-over-39-billion-media-deal/
It was only a matter of time before they found what really went on.
Any idiot knew what was going on. They just couldn't help cover it up any longer.
Of course we knew, i meant that it could be found and proved.
-
Time to bring back tar and feathering.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Time to bring back tar and feathering.
Among other less humane forms of punishment.
-
An old article, but it helps to explain why Ajit Pai is so insane.
-
AT&T describes a fast lane... Assures public that it's totally not a fast lane.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
AT&T describes a fast lane... Assures public that it's totally not a fast lane.
Sad face.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
AT&T describes a fast lane... Assures public that it's totally not a fast lane.
It's just a really Trump-esque thing to do. We're totally not going to do this thing we just spent an entire press release describing that we're going to do. Who falls for this stuff?
-
@coliver People who vote for Donald Trump
-
-
Rhode Island is attempting to pass a law forcing anyone who wants to watch pornographic material pay a one time $20 fee, which this law would immediately stop people from content which they legally have the right to view.
The goal is to help stop sex trafficking and the like of other illegal activity, but also goes a step further and would require ISPs to block any content that is "patently offensive material".
So who gets to decide what is patently offensive material??
-
Even Pai's fan base is turning on him now, just like how Pai turned on the American people: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/even-isps-hate-ajit-pais-plan-to-take-broadband-choice-away-from-poor-people/
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Rhode Island is attempting to pass a law forcing anyone who wants to watch pornographic material pay a one time $20 fee, which this law would immediately stop people from content which they legally have the right to view.
The goal is to help stop sex trafficking and the like of other illegal activity, but also goes a step further and would require ISPs to block any content that is "patently offensive material".
So who gets to decide what is patently offensive material??
I have been wavering on Net Neutrality for a while. I think though overall it is a good thing. I would just like to make sure that it is transparent and that there is oversight/checks and balances at the FCC. This Rhode Island proposal is what threw me over the edge. I am always hesitate of government regulation, however government does have a job to do and a role to play. With the Intranet truly being something that crosses state lines, this would fall to the preview of the federal government. We have to stop the silliness of things like this Rhode Island law to come into effect.
-
@penguinwrangler said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Rhode Island is attempting to pass a law forcing anyone who wants to watch pornographic material pay a one time $20 fee, which this law would immediately stop people from content which they legally have the right to view.
The goal is to help stop sex trafficking and the like of other illegal activity, but also goes a step further and would require ISPs to block any content that is "patently offensive material".
So who gets to decide what is patently offensive material??
I have been wavering on Net Neutrality for a while. I think though overall it is a good thing. I would just like to make sure that it is transparent and that there is oversight/checks and balances at the FCC. This Rhode Island proposal is what threw me over the edge. I am always hesitate of government regulation, however government does have a job to do and a role to play. With the Intranet truly being something that crosses state lines, this would fall to the preview of the federal government. We have to stop the silliness of things like this Rhode Island law to come into effect.
Interstate commerce is in force, however just like state's can have toll roads, sadly they can interfere with freedom of speech, too.
-
-
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This entire thing of "speeds up to" has been standard for decades. I don't believe I've ever actually had the "up to" speed in all of my previous time being a TimeWarner customer who recently became Spectrum.
Not once.
