This is an underrated picture

@AaronMk  
That is completely true.

@Ihhh
 
Arguably by virtue of being an American issue it’s nearly a global issue. As described in a radio discussion on this issue: the online economy is the golden goose of the American economy. If moves are taken to limit it with favoritism it would be disastrous for it. If a site like Netflix gets punished by broadband companies (As was the case in 2014) and that this becomes the legal norm, Netflix’s American audience will either be limited, or Netflix may be forced to limit its own foreign audience abroad by jacking up prices if Netflix is a presence in the foreign market.
 
You could probably keep applying the same notion across the board. Title II of the Communications Act is all about limiting the powers of the companies to limit user access to whatever content he or she wants, and giving the legal power to the consume to block content on their own, personal receiving end.

@PonyPon  
No. This is not his country, and this is not his issue. He doesn’t have the experience with American issues that an American has. Why doesn’t he just focus on his own country?

@Ihhh  
A little advice seems within his rights.

@detction  
You don’t live in America. Stop commenting on American politics. It’s not your country, you don’t get to have any say.

@detction  

 
You will have to point me to this, because after suffering through the entirety of Title II of the Federal Communications Act I can find no statement declaring in the broad and open sense deemed necessary by legal verbosity that ever says the Federal government has the right to state sanction telecoms for ideological reason or another, or that local monopolies must be imposed. In so far as I can gleam from reviewing the law directly is that under Title II companies may not discriminate in coverage based on race, class, or sex of the customer, may not discriminate in priority services that may be rendered over their telecoms, charge unjust fees or to force customers - outside of rates of charge - to take up bundled services; and that if a customer requests an unbundled service the charge offered to them on that service is just in terms of the economic cost of that service provided on its own.
 
In the entire act, licenses are never mentioned.
 
And on the block or black-listing of content as you assert Title II does: that power is only ever spoken of in reference to the choice of individual, or parent in protection of the child. Cases of blocking by service provider is not allowed, neither may the government interfere provided it does not conflict with standing united states law (as is the case in the distribution of child pornography). But that as Title II outlines in its section on the internet, the government as policy would respect the freedom of the internet and make no move to limit the free dissemination of information, political, cultural, scientific, or economic in data or service provided over the internet.
 
What the repeal of Title II, or its weakening does do however is give power to the companies to disregard any of this.
 
But please, in case I missed anything could you perhaps go and locate these passages, providing the page number and/or the section and subsection where it is outlined.
 
Here is the PDF.

@AaronMk  
Actually it does. Clear lack of understanding. Classification of Title II provider which requires the purchase of a broadcast license. Also NN allows the government to blacklist any provider deemed as anti state propagandists. If a small entrepreneurial doesn’t play ball, they revoke their license, and the government buys up the infrastructure to support the monopolies. That’s literally the basics of what the NN bill actually does.

@detction
 
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the geographic distribution of service. It has only to do with whether a company can or can not prioritize certain sites.

@AaronMk  
And they only have 1 provider because net neutrality prevents competition from getting in the way of the monopolies.

@Silent Wing
 
Reminder that a majority of the people in the US are stuck in areas served by only one broadband provider.
 

@detction  
You don’t live in the US. You have no idea how terrible it actually is here for most considering the lack of ISP’s, especially before NN.

@detction  
I suspected you were a lolbertarian lmao

@Background Pony #A250  
How about get rid of the whole idea of robbing people of their money.

@detction  
Sure, and also the new tax changes coming up are going to benefit the middle and lower class most of all. Especially them because when corporate America does better so does everyone else. :P

@Background Pony #E6FF  
And EU law is even worse than the US’s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA  
Funny what 5 minutes of research can do to debunk “net neutrality.”

@detction  
fyi net neutrality is in EU law

@Silent Wing  
right

@Silent Wing  
You aren’t gonna be paying for more internet tho. If you actually knew what Net Neutrality did, you’d know Title II classification does nothing to actually prevent throttling.  
In Poland we have no net neutrality, and also no FCC, yet you can get a completely free and un-throttled internet for 54PLN/month, or the equivalent of 13 dollars.  
What you had was never net neutrality. What you had was phony laws set in place to protect monopolies by driving down honest competition and killing the free market by exploiting people’s gullible fears.

@Bexar Bandito  
Pinkie Pie throws you a party for free because she likes you.
 
Ajit Pai wants you to pay more for internet, because he hates you.
 
Two very different pies, and the fictious one is more human and acceptable.

>comparing pinkie pie to a shit pie
 

Ajit Pai is just a garbage human.

mfw net neutrality was never net neutrality.

ajit why