I know it may seem like an irrelevant topic to some of you. But I wanted to make this thread, what does this mean for us? It may be a stupid question or something.

(December 14, 2017, 2:48 pm)AquaL I know it may seem like an irrelevant topic to some of you. But I wanted to make this thread, what does this mean for us? It may be a stupid question or something.

The best case scenario is that things go back to pre-Obama days when ISPs were basically unregulated and everyone pretty much stayed in their own lanes. The worst case scenario is pretty bad - any ISP can block or limit access to any site for any reason.

I suspect we'll end up somewhere in the middle and sites like this won't even be a blip on the radar. You're more likely to see mainstream sites affected in situations where that site is a competitor of the ISP you're on. For example, if you have an AT&T mobile phone but Comcast/Spectrum/Verizon for your home Internet, you may get throttled while streaming via the Comcast/Spectrum/Verizon app but you may get free streaming if you have HBO Now or DirecTV Now (both of which are, or are about to be, owned by AT&T).

I also suspect this will be tied up in the courts for a while. New York is already suing the feds over this.

I also suspect that if/when the White House is occupied by another Democrat, they'll clamor to reverse this as soon as possible. And then the next GOP President will reverse it again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Such is the case when a bunch of asshats are in charge.

(December 14, 2017, 8:31 pm)doubleintegral I also suspect this will be tied up in the courts for a while. New York is already suing the feds over this.

I also suspect that if/when the White House is occupied by another Democrat, they'll clamor to reverse this as soon as possible. And then the next GOP President will reverse it again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Such is the case when a bunch of asshats are in charge.

I fuckin hope youre right. Can we also lynch Ajit Pai?

It means that the government cannot regulate us. It was sold to the American people by claiming it was to ensure "no throttling" and "increased access" when in fact it was just another attempt by the big government types to regulate the internet like they do radio and cable television.
Control the media = more votes for Democrats. Bottom line.

(December 14, 2017, 10:36 pm)LovePreggies It means that the government cannot regulate us. It was sold to the American people by claiming it was to ensure "no throttling" and "increased access" when in fact it was just another attempt by the big government types to regulate the internet like they do radio and cable television.
Control the media = more votes for Democrats. Bottom line.

Man, I can't wait for Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Spectrum to start promoting their own interests by throttling your connection to competing goods/services/ideas... It's not like they did this before (like with ISIS vs Google Wallet, or Comcast throttling Netflix) . At least the government has to try/pretend to be impartial.

If you really think that this is going to be better, then (to borrow a phrase from r/the_donald) you've been cucked.

Frankly, I seriously doubt this thing is going to pass through the courts. Only reason this happened was because a tiny committee had 3 members for it and 2 against it. Once this heads out into the more open world of politics, there are going be a lot more who are for it than against it.

I hope you've enjoyed your free trial of YouTube. Your ISP has decided to charge you an extra $4.99 each month if you'd like to continue getting it in 1080p resolution. It's part of their FuckYouLOL Premium Package.

All this and more, coming your way!

(December 15, 2017, 1:19 am)HappyHats002 Frankly, I seriously doubt this thing is going to pass through the courts. Only reason this happened was because a tiny committee had 3 members for it and 2 against it. Once this heads out into the more open world of politics, there are going be a lot more who are for it than against it.

I don't know man, the way I think about it is that if you've got the money, there is literally no limit to what corrupt individual(s) can do. Laws don't apply to them. if they really want to get rid of net neutrality then its happening one way or another. All it takes is to keep peoples pocket warm with money and all is good. The sad truth is alot of people are willing to sell their souls these days.

(December 14, 2017, 9:43 pm)tomostrife I fuckin hope youre right. Can we also lynch Ajit Pai?

Seriously guys, death wishes?

This law is from 2015, it didn’t exist before then. People are blowing this way out of proportion.

(December 16, 2017, 2:29 am)BrookeL This law is from 2015, it didn’t exist before then. People are blowing this way out of proportion.

Comcast: Comcast says it currently doesn't block, throttle content, or offer paid fast lanes, but hasn't committed to not doing so in the future.
AT&T: AT&T has committed to not blocking or throttling websites in the future. However, its stance around fast lanes is unclear.
Verizon: Verizon indicates that, at least in the immediate future, it will not block legal content. As for throttling and fast lanes, the company has no stance, and even seems to be excited to use the absence of rules to its advantage.
T-Mobile: T-Mobile makes no commitments to not throttle content or offer paid fast lanes and is unclear on its commitment to not blocking sites and services. It's already involved in programs that advantage some services over others.
Sprint: Sprint makes no commitments on net neutrality, but suggests it doesn't have plans to offer a service that would block sites.
Charter (Spectrum): Charter doesn't make any guarantees, but the company indicates that it's currently committed to not blocking or throttling customers.
Cox: Cox says it won't block or throttle content, even without net neutrality. It won't make commitments on zero-rating or paid fast lanes.
Altice USA (Optimum and SuddenLink): Altice doesn't currently block or throttle and suggests it will keep those policies, though without an explicit commitment. The company doesn't comment on prioritizing one service over another.
Google Fi and Google Fiber: Google doesn't make any promises regarding throttling and paid prioritization. However, it is the only company to state that it believes paid prioritization would be harmful.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/12/15/...neutrality