I'm a little put off by the tidal wave of threads exactly like this one which are currently flooding /new

They have no justification for their position, except to try and associate NN with Obama.

That feels like a push to me.

So your ad hominem style isn't limited to NN, how surprising.

Dude you are named after a terrorist group for the left.

Terrorism is just a political designation States apply to their enemies, it has no moral valence in and of itself.

I love how you call it NN, almost like its prepared ahead of time.

Lmao. I used a common acronym, must be a shill.

Truly pathetic specimen you are.

Hopefully a good sign that the ShareBlue propaganda campaign has been reduced to shambles. They don't even seem to be trying anymore.

What does Soros have to do with Obama? Maybe you can't read, but the OP didn't mention Obama once.

Read my comment, I was talking not only of this one but of the whole slew of them filling /new right now, many of which do directly talk about Obama. It's the exact same logic of guilt by association.

If you are against NN, then explain why?

The information is out there.

you are so blinded by 'sides' not realizing its how they want you to be

I am against anything that gives the already proven corrupt government more say so in my internet. With the free market, I can take my business elsewhere. With government control, I can't. Plus, who's to say the FCC won't jack up the prices to make it "fair" for everyone? Or they might pull an Obamacare and mandate everyone pay for internet even if you're not using it?

Point being: don't give the government more control.

With the free market, I can take my business elsewhere.

So, you can tell your internet provider that you want them to use a different upstream provider for you specifically, when they don't exist due to the large barrier to entry of the cost of running fiber across the country?

Uh, no I can choose a different provider completely. That's what the free market offers. I'm not limited to one ISP.

but most ISPs use the same upstream routing companies -- that'a the problem. Take a look at a traceroute to any of the sites you use, using different ISPs in your area.

lots of places you can only get 1 provider. you are fucking clueless why even comment

And whose fault is it that there is only one provider there? The local government, typically.

And no, I’m not “clueless”. I’ve lived in many places where it’s one or nothing as well. I just happened to be living in an area where there are several now. And I’m thankful that such places exist and will continue to exist.

What free market? Comcast is the only game in my town.

And here's why: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

NN won't open the doors to more providers in your area either. It will make it easier for Comcast to increase prices though, under the guise of "dealing with new regulations/requirements" of the FCC.

The article I linked above does a good job explaining why competition gets stifled (and it's not just because of the big companies; it's the government). I'm fortunate enough to live in an area that offers multiple ISPs. I'm currently using the fastest speed on a local provider that runs the same cost for half the speed on a national provider.

I'm not OP but this right here is my reason (emphasis mine)

Communications Act of 1934, Title II, Section 223

"Whoever--
in interstate or foreign communications--
by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(A) makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications... shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congratulations, you just gave the gov't the justification to imprison people for annoying people on the internet. I'm not against the principle of Net Neutrality, but this language terrifies me (and explains why the censorship giants are all in favor of it).

This keeps being spun and it's bullshit. I stole this comment from u/anotherpersonperhaps explaining why section 223 isn't the boogie man you think it is.

SEC. 223. [47 U.S.C. 223] OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.

Which not only in name doesn't apply to Net Neutrality, it officially doesn't apply to Net Neutrality.

You should google the word "forbearance." As the FCC did not apply section 223 to Net Neutrality and specifically excluded it from the Net Neutrality order.

Section 223, as well as many other sections of Title II, cannot legally be applied to broadband.

So no, the FCC does not have the power to censor the Internet, as much as people would like to fear monger about that, you my friend are simply spreading misinformation.

Section 223 officially does not apply to Net Neutrality and the forbearance means that it is illegal for the FCC to attempt to apply it to broadband.

Also worth noting is that the law in question that they keep citing does not even exist in that form anymore.

223 is about child porn now.

The text they keep posting is no longer the law.

This is completely untrue. From the full text of the NN order (emphasis mine):

"We also note that the restrictions on obscene and illicit content in sections 223 and 231(to the extent enforced) 1647 —as well as the associated limitations on liability—in many cases, do not vary with the classification decisions in this Order, and thus likewise are not encompassed by the forbearance in this Order. 1648 To the extent that certain of these provisions wouldbenefit broadband providers and could instead be viewed as provisions that are newly appliedto broadband providers by virtue of the classification decisions in this Order, it would better promote broadband deployment, and thus better serve the public interest, if we continue to apply those provisions. 1649 We thus find that such forbearance would not be in the public interest under section 10(a)(3)."

The only part they get rid of is as follows:
"A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) from the telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such commuication."

That law doesn't exist in that form anymore. You are pulling up the law that was passed in 1934 (LOL)

It's been amended and now deals with child porn.

The Communications act of 1934 as Ammended by the Telecom Act of 1996
Making a lot of claims with no sources.

I literally just edited in the source of the current law.

Your link is STILL out of date as the law has been further amended.

You are using false information to back up your claim.

I'm queazy about anyone who is championing the idea of more government regulation.

I'm queezy about anyone who thinks only the government can do bad things.

Some are queazy about anyone who champions the perspective of Comcast or Verizon.

So you seriously don't think we should have regulations for what big banks are allowed to do? Or regulations for how much a company can pollute the neighborhood? What about how much lead is allowed in our paint?

Net Neutrality is the exact polar opposite of "free and open internet."

Section 223, nowhere near enough people have read it. 99% of NN advocated I've spoken to have not seen that section of Title II (probably because no one reports on it).

Everyone on this sub that links to 223 is using the version that no longer exists from 1934.

223 is about child porn.

You should read the CURRENT law

(The Communications act of 1934 as Ammended by the TElecom Act of 1996)[https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf]
It's still there. Can you get me a source on this?

Post it.

I have multiple times to counter this particularly heinous bit of disinformation but here ya go.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

Before anyone comes back to try and argue with me about what this means I would just point out a couple things about 223

Subsection (c) does not apply to Net Neutrality as the FCC used a process known as forbearance to exclude it from Net Neutrality. What this means is that the FCC cannot apply 223 to a broadband provider.

Second, 223 requires that you are convicted of another crime before it can be used against you.

Since 223 relates to child porn being used to harass someone, or obscene content being used to harass someone, it cannot be applied on its own. You MUST be guilty of another crime before 223 can be used against you.

So if you use child porn to abuse a minor, you get charged for child porn and can be charged under 223 in addition to that.

223 cannot be used by the FCC to censor the Internet.

I wasn't criticizing you. Just out of the 39459032439320 threads about net neutrality floating around, and the swarms of people promoting it, I just figured it would be a good idea to start substantiating claims to bring the intelligence of the conversation up.

Yeah I should have posted the source. I just have gone back and forth on 223 in multiple threads over here with multiple people pushing that narrative and it gets a bit mixed up.

Plus I was posting on mobile earlier and links and long drawn out discussions are hard.

Thanks for requesting the link though, I'm happy to provide it.

No worries man. I have been in enough of these threads myself and seen all kinds of comments flying around, but no info. Last time I read into this heavily was several months ago, and I just don't save a ton of stuff. But it seems like it is being demanded that we all make decisions on this thing right now, and the whole conversation is emotional. Myself included. This issue has escalated out of logic into unreason.

Honestly, we should have made decisions long ago.

It's a bit too late now, and most Americans don't consider Net Neutrality to be a serious issue worthy of their concern.

It's also a rather opaque topic that has been difficult for people to grasp (until it affects them like when Comcast was throttling Netflix or when Verizon did the same thing).

There's a lot of misinformation out there also and a lot of confusion. Tons of things get lumped under Net Neutrality that have nothing to do with it (like mobile carriers charging data overages, or Internet privacy, or censorship) and it just muddies the waters.

I also believe that there is a lot of FUD out there about what it means and what the consequences of lacking it will be.

But as far as making a decision right now today, it's already too late. Neutrality is going to be killed and there isn't anything you can do to stop it today.

If you really want to learn about Neutrality, turn away from politics because political sources are just loaded with baggage and misinformation about it. There are some good political sources talking about neutrality, but you gotta sift through a lot of bullshit to get down to it.

If you or anyone reading this wants to learn about neutrality, turn away from politics and turn to the tech reporters. They have it right and although they have a bias in that they are in the tech industry, their bias is not causing them to blanket the conversation with misinformation.

So if you haven't already, there's a bot you can text, that helps you write an email or a fax, free of charge, to your senator, or governor. Text "resist" to "504-09" and it'll ask you some questions, then you're onto writing. From another thread a few weeks ago, someone posted this message, and it think it's a great one to send.

"Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet.

Control over the Internet should remain in the hands of the people who use it every day. The ability to share information without impediment is critical to the progression of technology, science, small business, and culture.

Please stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all."

I'd love to credit the user, but have lost the comment, but please, go send some faxes, show your politicians you want net neutrality to stay.

Here is another way to get the message across. The three (out of five) FCC Commissioners planning to vote against Net Neutrality are Ajit Pai, Michael O'Rielly, and Brendan Carr. Here are the links to directly email them:

• Ajit Pai

• Michael O'Rielly

• Brendan Carr

This is an easy way to directly get in touch with those who will be casting the votes. Here's a message that will drive the point across. Feel free to edit or to send a completely different one:

"Net Neutrality is the cornerstone of innovation, free speech and democracy on the Internet. Control over the Internet should remain in the hands of the people who use it every day. The ability to share information without impediment is critical to the progression of technology, science, small business, and culture. Please stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all."

Everyone on this sub that links to 223 is using the version that no longer exists from 1934.

223 is about child porn.

You should read the CURRENT law

I literally just edited in the source of the current law.

Your link is STILL out of date as the law has been further amended.

You are using false information to back up your claim.