The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The FCC, a federal court... and JUB

Kulindahr

Knox's Papa
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
122,824
Reaction score
4,067
Points
113
Location
on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
The FCC is getting ready to make new rules about how the internet works. They were required to come up with new ones by a January federal court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) decision that the FCC exceeded its legal authority with its existing net neutrality regulations and struck down the Open Internet Order.

The chairman claims that the new rules will restore an open internet, but what he's hiding is that they will allow ISPs to charge extra for access to services, either after the fashion of cable TV and its packages, or by charging content providers for access to the ISPs customers.

So if the new rules are sustained (the public comment period is open), then providers such as AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, etc. could decide to charge JUB to connect through their service, or could charge their users an extra fee to get to any sites with porn, or even both.

Of course it's not hard to understand why the FCC is aiming to sell out the internet: Chairman Wheeler is a corporate lobbyist with a record of favoring companies big enough to be de facto monopolies.


Some articles:

http://www.bna.com/fcc-consider-new-n17179889844/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-for-good-fcc-may-endorse-pay-for-play-deals/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-for-good-fcc-may-endorse-pay-for-play-deals/
http://bgr.com/2014/04/25/fcc-net-neutrality-petition/


Some places to go to take action:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/verizon_netneutrality?akid=10525.2854385.0g3gHV&rd=1&t=1
(I know some of you don't like CREDO, but for this set that aside!)

http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
(also has lots of further information)


Acting on this is in all our best interests.
 
Yeah another cluster fuck. Thanks President Obama. He appointed this man. Obama also said he was against this exact thing happening when elected and vowed to expand broadband and try to bring the price inline. He of course has failed. Its not shocking and the FCC like the FDA are just the enforcers for corporate greed. They sit back and let the hate flow to the Government when they are directly running this shit ship.
 
The Bell system is among the worst example of greed in history. Since its takeover of ISPs they've gotten away with ridiculously highcosts for service that ranks below even the third world. There's nothing good about them.
 
Yeah another cluster fuck. Thanks President Obama. He appointed this man. Obama also said he was against this exact thing happening when elected and vowed to expand broadband and try to bring the price inline. He of course has failed. Its not shocking and the FCC like the FDA are just the enforcers for corporate greed. They sit back and let the hate flow to the Government when they are directly running this shit ship.

Some economist I once read actually predicted that government regulatory boards or commissions will always end up owned by the very people they're supposed to regulate. I wish I could remember how the argument went -- but it sure has proven true!
 
Some economist I once read actually predicted that government regulatory boards or commissions will always end up owned by the very people they're supposed to regulate. I wish I could remember how the argument went -- but it sure has proven true!

It's called "regulatory capture" and it is theorised in some detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
 
It's called "regulatory capture" and it is theorised in some detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Thanks -- there's more in there than I knew of.

The presentation I recall pointed out that legislators seem to automatically turn to industry people to fill regulatory positions because they're "experts" in their industries, and that "expertise" is needed, so the transition from regulating to protecting is both inevitable and quick.
 
Welcome to the future of the internet, please provide your own lubricant.
 
President Obama has spoken in favor of NET NEUTRALITY!

From moveon.org
Here's what President Obama said:

I personally, the position of my administration... is that you don't want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users.

You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.

Very possibly one of the most important proclamations he will ever make, and I KNOW that I'm not going to see or hear it covered on the "evening news," or MSNBC, Fox News, or anywhere else.

Except maybe Rush, which DEFINITELY somebody else will need to "listen to for me." His audio filth, and me, cannot exist in the same space. Of course if he talks about it, he will yammer on about how entirely awful it is that "the monkey president is denying marketplace and jobs to workers" or something. Yes, having corporate control of the internet would indeed create jobs...for all the wrong reasons.

This is something that would have never been possible under President Romney, who is entirely in favor of complete corporate control of the internet.
 
^
So is he just going to dribble words out of his mouth, or actually order the FCC to maintain net neutrality? I'm not hopeful, because the record shows he's good at making pronouncements and then doing absolutely nothing.
 
Actions speak louder then words. HIm being in favor means nothing if he allows this to go through.
 
You guys are right, but I do consider this the first "high-up" political comments I've heard in favor of this, other than from Bernie Sanders. At least it's helping to get the issue out there...a little bit.

I think even after this, it's still an extremely small percentage of the American public who are aware of the concept of "net neutrality" at all, and they just take the Interwebzz for granted.
 
^
So is he just going to dribble words out of his mouth, or actually order the FCC to maintain net neutrality? I'm not hopeful, because the record shows he's good at making pronouncements and then doing absolutely nothing.

Exactly.....
 
People will only realize what this does after it has already taken effect.
And it will be too late by then.
 
Back
Top