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??
-
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.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
Maybe they would like it if their salary was done that way too...
"Your salary will be 'up to' $150kbpy (kilo-bucks per year)!", then just give them something sub-par like $45kbpy.
Then maybe they'll understand.
-
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
Maybe they would like it if their salary was done that way too...
"Your salary will be 'up to' $150kbpy (kilo-bucks per year)!", then just give them something sub-par like $45kbpy.
Then maybe they'll understand.
Right? "We'll pay you up to $45,000 a year based on some arbitrary factors". . . but in all honesty, we're only going to pay you $30k at most. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@tim_g said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@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.
Maybe they would like it if their salary was done that way too...
"Your salary will be 'up to' $150kbpy (kilo-bucks per year)!", then just give them something sub-par like $45kbpy.
Then maybe they'll understand.
Right? "We'll pay you up to $45,000 a year based on some arbitrary factors". . . but in all honesty, we're only going to pay you $30k at most. . .
They should advertise the speeds you should expect to get, for a fitting price.
-
-
Germany actually moving towards better Internet rather than away.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
