Net Neutraility - Petition

[John Connor]

https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/s/F...m_term=5059&sample_rate=0.1&snippet_name=5059

At least fill it out. The second option is to call your representatives. I did both. We have till the 26th!

 

[zinfamous]

internet petition.

lmao!

 

[ninaholic37]

As American citizens

Tricked into clicking US stuff.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Are you feeling alright?

I'm genuinely amazed that one of the many right-wingnut mailing lists that you're on hasn't convinced you to take exactly the opposite stance. Have you not been reading your email lately?

You know ... big government wants to REGULATE the internet and impose new taxes and make it more difficult for altruistic and forward thinking corporations like Comcast to make an honest dollar and continue to innovate and expand the internet in all the wonderful ways that they've been responsible for.

 

[IGBT]

nobody knows the 300+ page rules they will vote on..when will the proposed rules be released to the public for analysis?? or is this another obama scam "you have to pass it to find out what is in it"??

 

[MustISO]

Oh no, I've seen the commercials and heard the radio ads. This is nothing but bad news and will hurt the middle class... I will also be voting for the Keystone XL.

 

[poofyhairguy]

You know ... big government wants to REGULATE the internet and impose new taxes and make it more difficult for altruistic and forward thinking corporations like Comcast to make an honest dollar and continue to innovate and expand the internet in all the wonderful ways that they've been responsible for.

Its funny, my wife's uncle (big PAC guy) tried to give me that line.

I responded by saying "You are wrong, and you don't even know why you are wrong. Do you understand how apps work? How the internet works? No? Then on this kind of stuff you need to stay out of the way of people who do know or you risk turning us into a third world country digitally by the time your grandchildren are grown."

That shut him up. Threatening us turning into a third world country on something that is not related to healthcare or income inequality usually works.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm tired of net neutrality. It's like marijuana and gay marriage. People keep bringing it up from time to time, but it never gets solved one way or the other. "Steps" are taken all the time, but I've given up on anyone ever saying "Well, thank goodness that's settled. We can now proceed to never mention it again".

 

[Newell Steamer]

Government internet will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration internet access? The geeks, the nerds, and the dweebs, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Dank Meme will have to stand in front of Obama's "dead spot panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of ownage on these forums," whether they are worthy of internet access. Such a system is downright evil.

 

[mmntech]

You know ... big government wants to REGULATE the internet and impose new taxes and make it more difficult for altruistic and forward thinking corporations like Comcast to make an honest dollar and continue to innovate and expand the internet in all the wonderful ways that they've been responsible for.

I'm usually a small government guy, but I agree that regulation is necessary in this case. Net neutrality is needed for a competitive global marketplace. The only people who would benefit from the slow lanes are the big ISPs. Everyone else either has to pay more or get sidelined. Which will stifle innovation.

This whole ridiculous fight is just old media desperately grasping to keep its outdated business model going. It's not the internet's fault that they let cable TV turn into an utter bag of shit.

 

[IGBT]

Nobody knows what's in the 300+ pages of regulations. What are they hiding?? Possibly you will have to get a "license" to have a web page and be subject to 300+ pages of FuCC rules and regs?? How can these fools vote on something they know nothing about i.e. the official definition of "net neutrality" based on the top secret 300+ pages of regs??

 

[ImpulsE69]

Eh, the unfortunate thing is that regardless of which way all of this goes the consumer will still probably lose out. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but it is the government. It will end up being not what the publics idea of net neutrality should be. We don't want regulation, we just want fairness and access unhindered by corporate bias and pocketbooks. We want the monopolies gone and for said companies to deliver what they promised a decade ago.

It's a slippery slope. We shouldn't even need these discussions, but capitalism is about quick bucks and greed these days, not about improvement or betterment of society.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Nobody knows what's in the 300+ pages of regulations. What are they hiding?? Possibly you will have to get a "license" to have a web page and be subject to 300+ pages of FuCC rules and regs?? How can these fools vote on something they know nothing about i.e. the official definition of "net neutrality" based on the top secret 300+ pages of regs??

The people actually voting on this do have access to the full document.

There was already a lengthy comment period (where both normal people and businesses were able to have their say) last year, and there will be plenty of ability to contest this should it pass.

Government internet will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration internet access? The geeks, the nerds, and the dweebs, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Dank Meme will have to stand in front of Obama's "dead spot panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of ownage on these forums," whether they are worthy of internet access. Such a system is downright evil.

I'm assuming sarcasm? Or at least I hope so, but considering some of the other stupid shit that's been said, can't be totally sure, you might just be a Comcast or Verizon employee.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Eh, the unfortunate thing is that regardless of which way all of this goes the consumer will still probably lose out. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but it is the government. It will end up being not what the publics idea of net neutrality should be. We don't want regulation, we just want fairness and access unhindered by corporate bias and pocketbooks. We want the monopolies gone and for said companies to deliver what they promised a decade ago.

It's a slippery slope. We shouldn't even need these discussions, but capitalism is about quick bucks and greed these days, not about improvement or betterment of society.

People need to stop acting like all regulation is evil and only does harm. How do you think you keep markets that are given monopoly/oligopoly power to act in the interest of the consumer? If you think less regulation then you need to take Econ 101 somewhere.

Reclassifying them as Title II gives the FCC the power to at some point actually do something about the setup. Local loop unbundling is what we actually need to make this market operate like the Republicans major telecoms claim it does and like people want it to. Title II will give them that power, although they've said they won't be implementing that, but they would have the power to do that should the ISPs make good on their promises to stop "innovating".

 

[IGBT]

Eh, the unfortunate thing is that regardless of which way all of this goes the consumer will still probably lose out. Net neutrality sounds good on the surface, but it is the government. It will end up being not what the publics idea of net neutrality should be. We don't want regulation, we just want fairness and access unhindered by corporate bias and pocketbooks. We want the monopolies gone and for said companies to deliver what they promised a decade ago.

It's a slippery slope. We shouldn't even need these discussions, but capitalism is about quick bucks and greed these days, not about improvement or betterment of society.

..because nobody knows what's in the Top Secret 300+ pages of Big Gov regs the concept of "neutrality" based on the regs is unknown. This is going to end up, "if you like your internet you can keep your internet" grift with mandatory licensing and "fees" to go along with the licensing agreement and criteria that will constantly be in motion. This will result in slower connection speeds because infrastructure investment will be deterred due to the sticky Big Gov rules / regs / criteria. It will end up like Europe where it's regulated like a utility to be equally miserable for everybody.

 

[Carson Dyle]

This will result in slower connection speeds because infrastructure investment will be deterred due to the sticky Big Gov rules / regs / criteria. It will end up like Europe where it's regulated like a utility to be equally miserable for everybody.

Ah, yes. Partisan stupidity at its finest.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I'm assuming sarcasm? Or at least I hope so, but considering some of the other stupid shit that's been said, can't be totally sure, you might just be a Comcast or Verizon employee.

Total sarcasm!

My comment is a mirror of Sarah Palin's comment on healthcare - but, I swapped out healthcare, etc. and replaced it with internet and related terms.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Total sarcasm!

My comment is a mirror of Sarah Palin's comment on healthcare - but, I swapped out healthcare, etc. and replaced it with internet and related terms.

Haha, I assumed, but after some of the things that the telecoms and politicians (oh and plenty of commenters) have said about this, it's hard to tell.

I loved the part where when Wheeler announced the FCC was going to be voting on changes that politicians and the telecoms immediately came out and said it would ruin everything, while then bitching that they didn't even know what Wheeler was proposing.

There was one comment that was so amazing though, it was something along the lines of "the telecoms spew so much shit that they should be reclassified as sewage companies". It's almost hilarious if it didn't have such ramifications.

 

[PliotronX]

Ah, yes. Partisan stupidity at its finest.

Right? The first world European countries all ranking higher in broadband speeds, penetration, and cost to users..

 

[PokerGuy]

Right? The first world European countries all ranking higher in broadband speeds, penetration, and cost to users..

Yeah, with all similar geographical density as the US, completely comparable.

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, with all similar geographical density as the US, completely comparable.

right for BFE America it does not work but for SoCal and basically anything on the east coast between DC and Boston it does and those areas are still shit

 

[IGBT]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/

"Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission's history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the chairman's disposal to ensure transparency and public review," he said.

Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday.

Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.


A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes, was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...pe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.

 

[Kadarin]

It doesn't matter what you think or how many petitions you sign or how many times you call your representative, what's going to decide the issue is money. And there's a LOT of money out there that doesn't want net neutrality.

I wonder how the decision will go...

 

[darkswordsman17]

right for BFE America it does not work but for SoCal and basically anything on the east coast between DC and Boston it does and those areas are still shit

Yep, although they actually have improved a lot in just the past few years, which is why the US isn't as ridiculously shit in comparison any more. But when you take into account price per Mb, Europe is trouncing the US handily. Hell, I think even Canada who has even less population density is beating the US in that regard.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/house-chairman-urges-fcc-transparency/23882079/

"Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission's history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the chairman's disposal to ensure transparency and public review," he said.

Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday.

Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.


A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes, was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...pe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.

Ok, seriously? That's just outright wrong.
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

The US has caught up a lot in just the past few years too, and even then that claim is not even close to being true. Likewise the broadband reach. The only reason they're claiming that is LTE networks which are not in any way comparable to a real wired broadband connection (yeah have fun with your data caps...). Europe clearly outpaced the US in wired broadband, they were offering much faster speeds years before the US was, and their prices are way better. The US has better speeds on cellular than Europe but prices are a total joke in comparison. Europe clearly has the better situation there as well, and because they're improving their cellular speeds they'll probably be at parity if not better than the US in that regard before long as well.

You can't even take Ajit Pai seriously. He's basically been saying it's all bad and making claims that the FCC outright said are not in the proposal. He's outright shilling at this point and it's obvious.

Oh, yes, the internet is in the power of the American people, I guess that's why everyone is so happy with the telecoms. Oh wait, no they're pretty much hated almost overwhelmingly because of their constant fuckups and outright lies and fucking people over. Even they admit their customer service/support is awful, and keep promising improvements, yet none have come. Several months after Comcast claimed they were doing sweeping changes, customers are having their names changed to things like bitch and wise and beautiful woman on their bills. Top-notch customer service there...

Oh, and let's not forget, they've already claimed in some instances that they already are common carriers, of course they do that when it suits what they want, but when it doesn't then of course they aren't. They outright said that Google's fiber falls under common carrier, which means that Google is out-innovating them while dealing with this supposedly so burdensome regulation.

 

[ninaholic37]

That shut him up.

He probably just didn't find you an interesting person to talk to. People like to talk to hear their own voice, not to hear other people talk. Think about it, would you rather talk to someone who smiles and nods and listens to what you have to say, or someone who acts like a drama queen and tries to start a conflict?