YOU Have til Friday Midnight to beg for Net Neutrality.

[nowaysj]

There is not even a hole where the tv was. It is not even a thing. I do fear losing the internet. I learn so much and meet really nice cat lovers... but alas, maybe I'll have to do with my fuckstick neighbors.

[Genevieve]

Let them do it, it'll make using TOR a lot more fun or some kids will develop an alternative to the internet.

[nowaysj]

Some kind of router based meshnet. Maybe like a hybrid of BBS's and the web. But then that will be made illegal.

Anything that acts to the people's benefit will be reduced, restricted, regulated, or made outright illegal.

[_ronzlo_]

Encrypted Ham Radio data packet exchange protocols...

Started reading this, got depressed and had to stop.

FORMER COMCAST AND VERIZON ATTORNEYS NOW MANAGE THE FCC AND ARE ABOUT TO KILL THE INTERNET

[Genevieve]

Some kind of router based meshnet. Maybe like a hybrid of BBS's and the web. But then that will be made illegal.

Anything that acts to the people's benefit will be reduced, restricted, regulated, or made outright illegal.

It'll be illegal from the start, but it won't stop people from using it. The more attuned the law becomes to it, the more people will find ways around it. Information travels and people will create their own information underground railroads.

No one should've assumed that the internet is just 'it', it's the first major, global network of its kind. But with society changing, similar types of networks that work through different types of mediums and protocol will arise. The OG Silkroad was stopped through a very, very avoidable and stupid human error. It gives us an idea of how easy it is to get away with taking part in major information networks like these.

I'm just appalled by this as anyone. But drug prohibition does not stop people's need to get high. Likewise, controlling the internet won't stop people from trying to share information freely.

[sigbowls]

there will be something new like google maps could have avatars an you can talk with headsets

[nitz]

That A&T picture is deeply scary.

Despite many of us thinking, including me, that oh well you could just disconnect from net, in reality that is hardly than it means. If your friend has gone to Poland and the only way to contract him is via the net, namely social network sites, how do your do you that without the net? This is just a single example.

maybe people will start writing letters again

also think of the positive impact on music scenes, no more of that "internet/youtube killed [insert local music scene that blew up and was arguably bastardized because of teh internet]"

That's a very plausible argument - perhaps i should have used some better examples haha

[_ronzlo_]

Some kind of router based meshnet. Maybe like a hybrid of BBS's and the web. But then that will be made illegal.

Anything that acts to the people's benefit will be reduced, restricted, regulated, or made outright illegal.

It'll be illegal from the start, but it won't stop people from using it. The more attuned the law becomes to it, the more people will find ways around it. Information travels and people will create their own information underground railroads.

No one should've assumed that the internet is just 'it', it's the first major, global network of its kind. But with society changing, similar types of networks that work through different types of mediums and protocol will arise. The OG Silkroad was stopped through a very, very avoidable and stupid human error. It gives us an idea of how easy it is to get away with taking part in major information networks like these.

I'm just appalled by this as anyone. But drug prohibition does not stop people's need to get high. Likewise, controlling the internet won't stop people from trying to share information freely.

You could even argue that at this point, the metaphorical cat is out of the bag and the invisible handz of the market will clamor to provide a "free" alternative that monetizes use differently. People have sipped the nectar and would probably go apeshit if you took away their porn and ESPN.com.

The threat of this alone is enough to ensure that whatever the big boys do to take advantage of this ruling, they'll proceed cautiously - at first. Then try and use the new allowances to charge for "new" types of services that they can claim warrant the added expense.

[mks]

Some kind of router based meshnet. Maybe like a hybrid of BBS's and the web.

Encrypted Ham Radio data packet exchange protocols...

I'm actually highly interested in this.

[_ronzlo_]

Why the FCC Is Ditching Net Neutrality
Charts: The "open internet" is no match for revolving doors and buckets of cash.

Good analysis here.

Same conclusion:

[nowaysj]

Some kind of router based meshnet. Maybe like a hybrid of BBS's and the web.

Encrypted Ham Radio data packet exchange protocols...

I'm actually highly interested in this.

Best thing you could do is develop and patent a system for snooping on this emerging counter technology to feed into NSA data centers. Could make the skrill'pon the skrill.

[nowaysj]

And this is cool. A kind of pincer move on the net, attack it on two fronts.

The idea of taxing email is no more popular today than when President Bill Clinton signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act into law. But a dedicated congressional minority now wants to allow states and localities to tax email—unless these governments are given new powers to collect sales taxes on e-commerce.

On Nov. 1—three days before Election Day—the Internet Tax Freedom Act is due to expire. In place since 1998 and renewed three times, it wisely prohibits taxes that discriminate against the Internet. State and local governments can't impose burdens online that don't exist offline. And multiple jurisdictions can't tax the same online transaction—a critical consumer protection in a country with more than 9,600 taxing authorities. The law also bans email taxes and new taxes on Internet access services.

Originally authored by former GOP Rep. Chris Cox and Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), the law has attracted large bipartisan majorities every time it's been up for a vote in either house. That's because the law has allowed the Internet to grow into an engine of interstate and international commerce.

But in a few months customers may begin receiving notices from their Internet providers that new taxes are on the way. Even though nearly everyone in Congress opposes slapping all of America's heavy traditional telephone taxes on Internet access, a renewal of this successful policy is being held hostage by lobbyists for giant retailers.

They've persuaded Democrats like Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and even self-styled limited-government advocate Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) that an extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act should be paired with more authority for those 9,600 governments over e-commerce. Unless states and localities are granted new powers to reach outside their borders to force collection of sales taxes on goods purchased online, the plan is to punish all American consumers with new taxes on communication.

Mr. Chaffetz is candid in suggesting the larger moratorium extension won't pass without a new online sales tax. Mr. Durbin's office denies he's among the hostage takers, saying that while he has considered the Internet Tax Freedom Act as a vehicle to increase sales tax collections, "Senator Durbin has not said or implied that he would hold up any piece of legislation" in order to achieve his goal. If that's true, he should support an immediate vote on extending the ban on email taxes.

Since the biggest retailers already collect sales taxes on purchases both online and off, they want to impose a greater tax burden on their smaller competitors. The 1992 Supreme Court decision Quill v. North Dakota found that it would be too great a burden to force a merchant to collect taxes in jurisdictions where it has no physical presence. But the retailers and their allies in state government have pushed hard to run around Quill by rewriting the rules of interstate commerce.

Senators voted last year for such a rewrite when they approved the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would force Web merchants to collect for all of America's taxing authorities. But some Senators have had second thoughts. After lawmakers approved the plan, the bill's author, Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.), couldn't say exactly how many governments would gain new authority to audit online merchants. A last-minute change in the bill, courtesy of Majority Leader Harry Reid, exposed Web retailers to harassment not just from state and local governments but "any tribal organization" as well. That could mean close to 600 additional governments.

Even if one favors additional tax collections on e-commerce—which most Americans do not—why should this controversial idea be used to destroy a successful policy on which most Americans agree?

Congress should make the Internet Tax Freedom Act permanent. And then during the August congressional recess, lawmakers can go back to pondering how to rewrite sales tax laws without crushing small merchants and consumers.

[OGLemon]

wack

[rockonin]

Taxing email's? What are these tnucs smoking!

[_ronzlo_]

^ Money. Lots of it. They're so high on greed and acquisition that they carry on as if the reality inside their heads is the same reality that everyone else lives in but are too stupid to comprehend. Classic drug logic: "those cats don't get it, maaaan."

The Invisible Hand pushing the plunger of the syringe deeper in.

[nowaysj]

This power delusion is so common, so predictable. The steps of institutional psychopathy. A disconnection from reality leading often to violent conflict. Microsoft, "let them eat cake" (probably propaganda), US fed. The pattern is consistent. For those of us in the US, it is painful to watch this slow disconnection reach dangerous levels.

[rickyarbino]

If the OP was too long and you didn't read it, watch this video

[_ronzlo_]

http://www.vice.com/read/cables-compani ... neutrality

[nowaysj]

You know, calling it net neutrality is detrimental. Let us just call it what it is: The End Of The Internet. It is just total corporatisation of our virtual lives. There is no escape if you do not want to participate in the corporatistion of every aspect of your life. You will be digitally dominated. And they will do it how they always do it: 1. Murder - they will kill any serious opposition. 2. Prosecution - they will use the legal system to punitively prosecute any serious opposition. 3. Lies and propaganda, what you are showing here rizlo. 4. Bribery/blackmail - they will buy off or threaten with murder/prosecution/the release of career ending information to blackmail their agenda into effect.

We know these fucks by their techniques. If it is a good thing, you don't need to kill people, bribe people, lie to people to bring it into effect. People will demand good things for themselves, that is the path forward, the path towards success, but that is not the path that we will take. We will head further into total control of every aspect of our lives, and it will be inescapable. There will be no opting out.

[_ronzlo_]

FCC gets DB DoS'd, reveals ancient and highly vulnerable commenting system

Jokes.