[RD] Comments for Net Neutrality Extended

[BvBPL]

At this time, the FCC plans to do away with net neutrality with the "Restoring Internet Freedom" regulation. As part of its rule making process, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has solicited public comments on planned regulation related to net neutrality. This public comment period, which was set to close today, has been extended to the end of this month.

If you have any significant interest in net neutrality, I recommend you share your feelings with the FCC.

Comments can be submitted online through this website. You do not need to be a US citizen to comment; you can select to use an international address. Comments can be issue most easily through the "Express" link. You can use the same site to read the purposed rule and the comments of others.

The FCC has received a record number of comments, twenty million, regarding this regulation, dwarfing the previous record of four million comments. Many of these comments appear to have resulted from some form of attack upon the FCC website related to this regulation.

Briefly, net neutrality is the principle wherein a service provider cannot discriminate in service based upon what internet site is being used.

 

[warpus]

Americans always seem to name their bills in the most hilarious and at the same time depressing of ways. It's always the opposite of what it actually is, it seems

 

[Kyriakos]

^Indeed... How is it "internet freedom" to allow web providers to pick and choose if sites are hosted? The web isn't space owned/carved up by companies, nor should it ever be.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Americans always seem to name their bills in the most hilarious and at the same time depressing of ways. It's always the opposite of what it actually is, it seems

They don't have the monopoly. Remember the "Fair Elections Act"? It's anything but fair, and one of the thing Trudeau was supposed to have done was to repeal it (or at least the most egregious parts of it). Of course that's not going to happen, so the next election could be just as messed up as the last one.

 

[Zelig]

^Indeed... How is it "internet freedom" to allow web providers to pick and choose if sites are hosted?

It isn't. In fact, that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

[warpus]

They don't have the monopoly. Remember the "Fair Elections Act"? It's anything but fair, and one of the thing Trudeau was supposed to have done was to repeal it (or at least the most egregious parts of it). Of course that's not going to happen, so the next election could be just as messed up as the last one.

Good point, and from what I remember that was the Cons who were responsible for that bill. And from my understanding in the U.S. it's usually (always?) the Republicans who name things backwards. Like, if there's a bill that will kill children, they will call it the "Caring for Children Act"

What's wrong with conservatives?

 

[BvBPL]

I would have thought someone who grew up in the Soviet bloc would be inured to absurd titles for government programs.

 

[warpus]

I would have thought someone who grew up in the Soviet bloc would be inured to absurd titles for government programs.

You can expect absurd government program names from a puppet single state government. But in a democracy to see programs named for the exact opposite thing they are supposed to do? Over and over and over?

It's an obvious appeal to emotion designed to affect people who don't know any better. Under communism the government named things whatever they wanted and we couldn't do anything about it anyway. So the names were moreso patriotic rather than the exact opposite of what they were meant to do. It's not like anybody could complain about it either. But.. in a democracy you can, and yet this continues, and nobody seems to care.

 

[onejayhawk]

You can expect absurd government program names from a puppet single state government. But in a democracy to see programs named for the exact opposite thing they are supposed to do? Over and over and over?

It's an obvious appeal to emotion designed to affect people who don't know any better. Under communism the government named things whatever they wanted and we couldn't do anything about it anyway. So the names were moreso patriotic rather than the exact opposite of what they were meant to do. It's not like anybody could complain about it either. But.. in a democracy you can, and yet this continues, and nobody seems to care.

It's marketing spin, like my ping-pong bat having double happiness. There is nothing more to it than that.

J

 

[warpus]

And it does not belong in a modern democracy. Why do conservative voters put up with it? Or am I wrong that this is something that mainly seems to come from conservative parties?

 

[onejayhawk]

And it does not belong in a modern democracy. Why do conservative voters put up with it? Or am I wrong that this is something that mainly seems to come from conservative parties?

Yes, you are wrong about that. Styles differ, but this is very much all parties, including the coverage and the non-elected.

J