The new net neutrality rules without the anti-obama propoganda

[mkultra]

Here is the link to the actual rules sheet

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-1...

Essentially, these rules boil down to three things:Transparency, No blocking, and No unreasonable discrimination. The aim is to make the internet a fairer place, free from anti-competitive actions and policies pushed by big companies.

read it before you run your mouth.

[The Northerner]

1. So, they still have the authority to enact net neutrality despite a court's oppositional ruling?

[BzaDem]

6. The Court's ruling was against their SPECIFIC attempt earlier. It did not say that no new rules

could fix the problems the Court found in the rules before it at the time.

[xchrom]

2. So the various articles that have been posted dissecting the ruling

Are all patently false?

Do you have links to prove that?

And what about the courts ruling?

[AlabamaLibrul]

3. Presumably, that means this is the new net neutrality rules + pro-obama propaganda

end of transmission

[Mortos]

4. So if someone posts anything positive about President Obama...

They have to prove what they say (the op provided 194 pages of actual rules)beyond a shadow of a doubt to the doubter's liking. But if someone posts anything negative based on rumors or hearsay it is believed automatically without question?

Got it!

[MilesColtrane]

5. Great.

But, not if your net access is wireless.

This is a partial win, which seems to be all we can hope for these days.

[truedelphi]

7. And you have read all 190 Plus pages? If so, here are my questions:

How independent of Congress is the Commission?

And how independent is the Commission from all the various avenues of monetary influence - such as money from AT& T? OR Comcast? Or MediaCom? Are those on the Commission today and early next year likely, or not so likely, to end up as a Vice President for Life at any of the Big Media companies, at some point once they step down from the Commission? (Sacks of cash given to someone in the middle of the night at the end of a dark alley are far less likely to occur than the ability for the "job for life" offer to come to someone on such a committee.)

And how much does the Commission really care about the concerns of those of us most critical of its viewpoint. These things, again would touch upon transparency, fairness relating to free use, and competitive policies, etc.

It is one thing to say something in a Mission Statement; it is another thing entirely to develop laws and protocols that will actually encourage transparency,
fairness relating to free use, and competitive policies.

[Eric J in MN]

8. "may not block lawful websites"

In other words, ISPs can block websites over copyright violations.

Democratic Underground was accused of violating copyright by a copyright troll:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/democratic-undergr...

[Pholus]

9. +1 nt

[ixion]

10. Propaganda claiming no propaganda

How very Orwellian of you. Double Plus Good! Extra Choco-rations for you, loyal citizen!

[rucky]

11. Is there something in the source material

that makes you think it's propaganda?

[ixion]

12. well, let's see... we can start with the fcc.gov top level domain

and work our way down from there. That is to say: Anything released by the FCC is going to spin this the way they want it spun.

[TommyO]

13. Locking

While the post is good for the most part, the last line is a personal attack against other members. Feel free to repost without bringing other members into the post.