NET NUTRALITY REPEAL CELEBRATION THREAD

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, the Open Internet Executive Order was put in place in 2010, but NN as a principle existed well before then.

Al Gore and several Academics first brought up a push for the idea in 1994, but it wasn't until 2004 when the FCC adopted a set of proto-NN principles. This was the Madison River case where a phone company was blocking VoIP. However, the case was settled and no jurisprudence was created.

As I mentioned near the beginning of the thread, the FCC had theoretical power to enforce NN regulations, but no ISP was brave enough to try fighting them (outside of the list I posted earlier of NN violations). It was a cold war because ISPs didn't want to push the issue and possibly risk a court decision that restricted them even more than the status quo.

In 2014, Verizon had enough and sued. They won, and subsequently the FCC's power to enforce NN was narrowed. This is why the FCC reclassified the ISPs as Title II common carriers. The Verizon court ruling had limited their authority in a particular way, so they had to find a creative solution to achieve the same result in a different way.

So, no, NN has not only been in place since 2015. It's actually been around for quite a long time.

what most of the libcucks dont know is that before internet moved to cable, from DSL it was considered telecom and fell under the same regulations that the telecome industry has, which is.. wait for it... title II!

However the fact that it was under tittle II is what allows apointed gov employees in the FCC to do what they want with it, and in this case, they chose to make it so appointed gov employees do not have that power. However in doing so they left it up to the free market to do whatever they wanted with it.

Was it corperate money that made them ensure the FCC cannot change the internet? or was it libertariansm or constitutionalsim? That's up to you to decide, but its a mute point anyway.

So when you list off all these answers to when people ask "well NN is only a couple years old and the internet worked fine without it" the correct response is, once the standard was moved from DSL to Cable it went from being protected under tittle II to not being protected under title II and net nutrality brought it back under that protection.

Either they did it to protect our freedom or they did it because corperations want the control for the internet more than they do the phones, it doesnt change the fact that appointed gov employees could do what they wanted with it (as you saw on the 14th)

as far as freedom goes as most libs like to point out "its never happened really before, the government trying to take our freedom, so why worry about it" however you leave out the fact that you think a literal nazi is in the white house and if a 'literal nazi' can get in the white house in 2017 imagine hwo fucked up shit will get in 2117, by then yall might not have any freedom at all, so long as you give the gov the outlet to do what they did on the 14th.

All in all, it was an Oblunder, he should have just said, "nobody" has the right to regulate the internet, rather than "corporations cannot, but the fcc has the power to change the rules"

obama had a tendency to be mostly talk though, and this is what you get when you support candidates that are mostly talk that want to change the world. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]