OO, Look! Trump's being a wazzock, again...
Katzy - 21-11-2017 at 19:02
Watch other countries split from the US system, over this.
LSemmens - 21-11-2017 at 23:57
More info needed. On the surface, lifting restrictions should mean an increased freedom. I wonder what else is being proposed or is this just another
thought bubble that will pop as soon as it hits the air. That 30 second "video" could just be one of those thought bubbles that Trump never had.
marymary100 - 22-11-2017 at 06:59
In America it will lead to paying for content as well as paying your ISP as I understand it. Net Neutrality keeps coming up and getting knocked back.
The problem this time is that the big hitters like Google are now not supporting neutrality and wanting to be earning more.
Katzy - 22-11-2017 at 11:06
"a whole host of websites – including Google, Netflix, Facebook and Reddit
– went dark in protest at what they believe will happen to them if the rules are repealed."
marymary100 - 22-11-2017 at 21:19
LSemmens - 23-11-2017 at 07:53
Thank you for those links. Could be very scary indeed. Maybe the only "free" place for browsing will only be the dark web.
scholar - 24-11-2017 at 01:20
I understand this to be a false statement, with respect to "repeal a law."
The Obama administration did not have a law authorizing them to enforce so-called net neutrality; they decided to act AS IF there were such a law, by
enforcing regulations that had not been enacted into law.
If such a law were passed, then regulations should enforce the law. But, the idea that whomever is President should enforce regulations that are not
supported by law, with the result that the direction and intent of the regulations could change every 4 or 8 years, is stupid.
I prefer internet neutrality, if available for the same price. But, if I could get faster internet in the things I want for the same price, or for a
lower price, with the provider distinguishing between some sources, it would be good to have a choice. I would certainly like the differences plainly
labeled in the purchase agreements and in the billing of any service plans offered.
marymary100 - 24-11-2017 at 06:45
Some folks just don't get it, and never will. This is why the FCC will eventually win.
Katzy - 24-11-2017 at 11:58
It appears so, MM...
scholar - 24-11-2017 at 18:09
The FCC is supposed to be a servant organization to lawful, Constitutional government, not a dictator or a tool to presidents who make up policies
without authorization by legislation. If net neutrality is to be the law of the land, pass a law that says so.
marymary100 - 24-11-2017 at 20:17
Katzy - 24-11-2017 at 21:03
This affects rather more than "the land", my old china.
At the moment, the internet is almost totally controlled by you lot. The FCC is supposed to be government independent. These are it's supposed aims,
with regard to net neutrality (Currently):
This ruling, if your revered emperor gets his way, will make everyone else say "Sod this. We'll create our own infrastructure and you Yanks can go
Some countries have already started doing this, as it happens.
The web will most certainly not be neutral, then.
Good ol' progressive, intelligent Donny, ay?
scholar - 24-11-2017 at 22:02
Katzy--if you think that the President ought not direct the FCC to do whatever the President thinks should be done, without legislative authority,
then you agree with me.
The FCC under Obama enforced net neutrality, without any law having been passed giving it the authority to do so. It was a power grab. Obama screwed
up. If a persuasive, prevailing argument had been made to enact a net neutrality law, then all would be in place for the FCC to implement the law.
Trump is more inclined to have Congress pass laws--they are the legislature, after all.