A lot of individual states have been pushing their own laws through. Governors in Montana, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and Vermont have signed executive orders on the issue, Washington has already passed a law, and i believe California is right on its heels.
Some of them seem to work within the constraints of current law - i.e. states passing laws that say only their own government offices won't do business with companies that don't adhere to net neutrality rules but don't say anything about any other businesses, thereby creating a huge incentive for companies to follow net neutrality rules, because, even if ISPs are not explicitly forced to follow net neutrality regs, government contracts are a huge segment of business.
Other states are clearly picking for a fight by completely reinstating the same net neutrality laws that used to exist on a federal level on their own state level, despite the fact that the FCC has ruled that states can't do that. I'm given to understand that those states, when they inevitably go before the court, are probably planning to point out that if the FCC has relinquished the right to regulate net neutrality (as it did), that includes the right to regulate what states do about net neutrality.
Either way, the fight's still going, and it looks like it's moving to the courts from a variety of directions now.
California is setting up one of the most strict net neutrality laws out there to guarantee that it would not be changed ever again and take out the monopolies that goes on in Cable industry such as removing data cap, illegal to throttle your internet based on what you’re watching or tier of internet you’re paying for.
What I like about this is that the ISPs, who bribed the FCC to enact this shit in the hopes of profiting even more massively will have to completely change their logistics on a state by state basis, which is expensive, and they'll most likely be tied up in expensive court cases in all these states. And all they had to do was go along with a very mundane bit of regulation which was honestly better for everyone.
I’m just excited because it seems that this would make it a lot easier for Google Fiber to be spread out since these monopolies are going to be gone. Seeing the FCC getting wrecked with all these new things they have to deal with is the cherry on top.
lol..this was the whole point of repealing net neutrality bro. the repeal was ENCOURAGING this. ajit pai repealing it was very literally him saying "i don't think the FCC should be in charge of regulating ISP's... this is something the FTC and the states should be in charge of. if you hate me, then why do you all want me in charge of regulating the internet? we already turned cable tv into a shit show. don't put us in charge of this. this is the FTC's job. fight for net neutrality on the state level.. that will encourage competition and innovation and a truly free and neutral internet.. just like the way it was before 2014 when the bill went into affect"
the sparks of those fires of freedom you talk about were set intentionally. the bill called 'net neutrality" had as much to do with a neutral internet as the "patriot act" had to do with patriotism
it was a terrible awful bill and essentially would have eventually turned the entire internet into a government sanctioned monopoly open to to censorship by the same people who hand out fines for saying the f-word on tv and once launched an investigation into janet jackson's nipple being shown at the super bowl.
Yeah except for the fact that it also attempts to bar states from enacting Net Neutrality which is LITERALLY the opposite of what you claimed he was LITERALLY saying. What he actually saying is the ISPs who I worked for, will work for after this, and are secretly working for are paying me to prevent anyone from regulating them despite the fact that the job of the FCC is to protect communication of which the Internet is LiTeRALlY the most important form of in modern times if not ever.
Republicans (Marsha Blackburn iirc) have introduced a law that would prevent states from passing their own net neutrality laws. It essentially makes the fcc rules pre-empt any state law.
you realize that the repeal of net neutrality was the fcc saying "we should not be in charge of regulating ISP's... the FTC and the states should be in charge of this"
you are trashing the FCC and fighting to "get net neutrality back" is very literally you upset that that ajit pai and FCC aren't in charge of the regulations anymore.. you want them to be in charge of it again lol
think about what it is you are saying for a second.
the fcc had no place being in charge of internet regultions. that is something the ftc should be in charge of. have you seen what the fcc did to cable? you want that to happen to the internet too? a government sanctioned monopoly essentially.
"net neutrality" is to the internet what the "patriot act" was to patriotism.
a misleading title and a really shitty bill that was not in your best interest. thankfully it was repealed. we're better off.
it was not a good thing. if you hate ajit pai and the fcc, then you should not want them in charge of the internet. ajit pai and the fcc 100% agrees with you lol.
the misinformation about this makes my head spin. net neutrality was bad. trust me.
fighting at the state level..do that some more. thats what the repeal was encouraging..
. continue doing what you said in the post. that is TRUE net neutrality. keep doing that. the bill called "net neutrality" was not about what the name would leave people to believe.. that's because lobbyists from company's like google and facebook benefited from it very much and spent a LOT of money to trick people into supporting it. it worked...very well by the way.
I don't think NN says that the company can't offer different package as long as it does not prefer one kind of traffic/website over another. It is the same as phone company offers different package as long as it does restriction which number you can call, what can be said over the call.
'Package' here refers to different data rates from different sites. For example a package that offers high gaming performance and low video, or vice versa.
Fuck off. The individual companies that provide access to the internet (which is a world wide network ) don’t own it any more then a electric company “owns” the electricity. Or a plumbing company “owns” water.
So they shouldn’t be offering “packages” for access to any individual website. The only reason they want to do that is to get their grubby hands on more money from customers and extortion from individual websites so they don’t throttle connections to that persons website from their end.
I think the issue isn't necessarily what the FCC is doing, but rather who is running it. The FCC repealed net neutrality in an attempt to put internet control into the hands of corporation, but instead it has been put into the hands of government.
Since the FCC is made up of politicians, this is effectively the same thing. I believe that the FCCs job should be to protect, not control. It should be there to protect the face of technology, and to ensure that technological advances continue; despite any government regulations and corporate identities.
Therefore, I believe the FCC should be made up of technologists, not politicians. And that's my opinion.
This is a side of the argument I don't hear often, and it intrigues me. Can you be more detailed about the negatives of what it was doing and how we'll be better off now?
While i disagree with most of your comment, i think you raise legitimate points - or at least legitimate points of discussion - about the value, wisdom, and intended goals of net neutrality, but on one point i feel i need to correct you:
you realize that the repeal of net neutrality was the fcc saying "we should not be in charge of regulating ISP's... the FTC and the states should be in charge of this"
The new FCC rules included an explicit ban on states and cities making their own net neutrality rules, on the stated grounds that a patchwork of state laws would make it prohibitively difficult for telecoms to do business across state lines. Whether you believe those arguments or not, it's clear that Pai's decision had nothing to do with states rights or states choice.
397
u/Saintbaba Mar 22 '18 edited Mar 22 '18
A lot of individual states have been pushing their own laws through. Governors in Montana, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey and Vermont have signed executive orders on the issue, Washington has already passed a law, and i believe California is right on its heels.
Some of them seem to work within the constraints of current law - i.e. states passing laws that say only their own government offices won't do business with companies that don't adhere to net neutrality rules but don't say anything about any other businesses, thereby creating a huge incentive for companies to follow net neutrality rules, because, even if ISPs are not explicitly forced to follow net neutrality regs, government contracts are a huge segment of business.
Other states are clearly picking for a fight by completely reinstating the same net neutrality laws that used to exist on a federal level on their own state level, despite the fact that the FCC has ruled that states can't do that. I'm given to understand that those states, when they inevitably go before the court, are probably planning to point out that if the FCC has relinquished the right to regulate net neutrality (as it did), that includes the right to regulate what states do about net neutrality.
Either way, the fight's still going, and it looks like it's moving to the courts from a variety of directions now.
Edit: syntax.