Call your representitives about Net Neutrality!

[Blank]

People of E! I highly encourage you to write and call your representatives to say you support Title Two Net Neutrality rules. The FCC Chairman is looking to roll back those rules within the next few weeks. If that happens, you could be denied access to this site by your ISP, or ISPs could ask Elliquiy to pay extra for a "fast lane" which would in turn run our site into the ground with its limited funds.

Again, I implore you to let your voice be heard as citizens of the internet. It is only in your best interest as a consumer and member of the internet to have Net Neutrality rules.

Thanks for reading and hope you have a wonderful day.

[Verasaille]

Adding this as a warning, again, call your COngress people today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html?_r=0

[Scribbles]

I'm not American but I've been keeping an eye on this whole Net Neutrality debacle and I wanted to ask, is this basically the citizenry against the politicians (again)?

From my perspective, it appears as if both democrat and republic politicians are keeping awfully quiet about this. And while Trump may be the one in charge, it was actually Obama that opened the doorway for this by appointing Ajit Pai. Meanwhile, on the ground, it seems that people from both sides are against this.

For what it's worth, I hope the overwhelming pushback succeeds against the December vote...

[RedRose]

As a foreigner I'm forever fascinated by the concept of calling your politicians. I would never think of it, and they would never pick up. I'd probably be speaking to some secretary of a secretary who would tell me this isn't possible.

[Lustful Bride]

As a foreigner I'm forever fascinated by the concept of calling your politicians. I would never think of it, and they would never pick up. I'd probably be speaking to some secretary of a secretary who would tell me this isn't possible.

I personally enjoy it, gives us a more direct measure of letting our representatives know how mad we are. >:)

[Verasaille]

I'm not American but I've been keeping an eye on this whole Net Neutrality debacle and I wanted to ask, is this basically the citizenry against the politicians (again)?

From my perspective, it appears as if both democrat and republic politicians are keeping awfully quiet about this. And while Trump may be the one in charge, it was actually Obama that opened the doorway for this by appointing Ajit Pai. Meanwhile, on the ground, it seems that people from both sides are against this.

For what it's worth, I hope the overwhelming pushback succeeds against the December vote...

I am not sure where you got your information, but Obama was the one who urged the net neutrality issue as well as all the Democrats. Ajit Pai is a Republican, and he is operating under Donald Trump. I found this article, maybe it helps to explain:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/22/565962178/fccs-pai-heavy-handed-net-neutrality-rules-are-stifling-the-internet

[Verasaille]

I found this article as well, where it states that Trump appointed Ajit Pai.

http://www.thisisinsider.com/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-trump-plan-meaning-2017-11

[Blythe]

I am not sure where you got your information, but Obama was the one who urged the net neutrality issue as well as all the Democrats. Ajit Pai is a Republican, and he is operating under Donald Trump. I found this article, maybe it helps to explain:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/22/565962178/fccs-pai-heavy-handed-net-neutrality-rules-are-stifling-the-internet

I think Scribbles might be referring to the fact that Ajit Pai has served in various positions in the FCC before he became Chairman, and he was indeed nominated by Obama in 2011 (and confirmed in 2012) to the commission for a Repulican Party seat on it. He was specifically recommended to Obama for a place in the commission by Mitch McConnell. Ajit Pai has a history of working with the FCC before he specifically became chairman, after all.

Trump, however, is the one who specifically nominated him for chairman this year, and he was confirmed for that in October.

[Blythe]

Ah, and since I can't edit--that being said, Ajit Pai as the chairman is pretty awful. He's probably one of the biggest threats to net neutrality we face here in the States. Am fairly sure Vekseid's mentioned Ajit Pai here on E before as being quite the threat in this regard. Ajit Pai and Jeff Sessions, I think.

[TheGlyphstone]

As a foreigner I'm forever fascinated by the concept of calling your politicians. I would never think of it, and they would never pick up. I'd probably be speaking to some secretary of a secretary who would tell me this isn't possible.

Above the local/state level, I doubt many of our politicians actually pick up the phone either. They've got answering machines and email boxes to get constituent feedback.

[Missy]

Some employ people to handle replies though. My "rep" gave me a bullshit reply on it last time so I decided I would make it clear it's a deal breaker this time, hopefuly I'm not the only one in my area.

[Lustful Bride]

Some employ people to handle replies though. My "rep" gave me a bullshit reply on it last time so I decided I would make it clear it's a deal breaker this time, hopefuly I'm not the only one in my area.

If we all make more than enough noise they will listen.

[Missy]

I'm hopeful that people will get pissed off and stay pissed long enough to see a lot of the current fucks find their way to the axe stump.


Although really problems like this will never go away as long as money is such a central aspect of politics.

[Lustful Bride]

Although really problems like this will never go away as long as money is such a central aspect of politics.

True, but if we work hard we can mitigate it enough so that it is less of a problem. Corruption will always be there, like a cancer, but we can cut enough of it out to stop the major damage that it does. We just have to keep an eye out for it and never be afraid to face it, no matter what side it comes from, or how high.

[Trieste]

Net Neutrality is not one of my chosen battles* but I've been keeping an eye on it. It does seem to be another of those cases of politicians against the populace - or, rather, of donors against the populace. Because, really, that's what matters to politicians with several tough races coming up: money.

Above the local/state level, I doubt many of our politicians actually pick up the phone either. They've got answering machines and email boxes to get constituent feedback.

My Congressman will answer if he's in the office and you ask for him. You have to know to ask for the Congressman directly, and he has to be in the office. But he'll talk to you. He compared himself to Einstein during his last town hall, so I always greet him with the nickname 'Einstein' when I talk to him. It always goes something like,

"Hey, Einstein, how's tricks?"
*long pause* "How can I help you, Mrs. Kazyth?"
"Well, I was wondering what your statement is on ..."

My state is a one-party consent state with recordings, so I record the calls and post his statements to social media. I fucking love being a pain in his ass, the knuckle-dragger.

So yeah, you can get in the metaphorical faces of even national reps. And my state reps answer the phones themselves. The governor doesn't, but that's because he's too busy hanging out with Sheriff Joe (Arpaio).

*

It's not that I don't care about it; it's just that my Indivisible chapter has working groups on issues and asks each person to step up on a max of two issues, plus whatever need-to-move-now protests get distributed. We've found that in the beginning, we were all trying to care about all of the issues and we all got burned out. We have a solid number of people working on Net Neutrality, though, and we're one of the few local Indivisible chapters that actually freaking knows what it is. Mostly due to the fact that my chapter has active members under the age of 70.

[Missy]

True, but if we work hard we can mitigate it enough so that it is less of a problem. Corruption will always be there, like a cancer, but we can cut enough of it out to stop the major damage that it does. We just have to keep an eye out for it and never be afraid to face it, no matter what side it comes from, or how high.

Most citizens are too complacent for this to become a reality. Most don't even know how they're being disenfranchised or they don't have enough direct contact with it to care.

[Scribbles]

I think Scribbles might be referring to the fact that Ajit Pai has served in various positions in the FCC before he became Chairman, and he was indeed nominated by Obama in 2011 (and confirmed in 2012) to the commission for a Repulican Party seat on it. He was specifically recommended to Obama for a place in the commission by Mitch McConnell. Ajit Pai has a history of working with the FCC before he specifically became chairman, after all.

Trump, however, is the one who specifically nominated him for chairman this year, and he was confirmed for that in October.

Yup, that's what I was referring to, but I was unaware that Obama wasn't the one who personally appointed him as chair; that fact was apparently glossed over in the media I followed. I hate how the narrative can change with the slightest missed detail...

[Trieste]

Most citizens are too complacent for this to become a reality. Most don't even know how they're being disenfranchised or they don't have enough direct contact with it to care.

Are you talking about in the US? Because if so, this statement is a bit too broad-brush. There are manymanymany areas where voter registration is in full swing and where outreach is at a fever pitch. We probably won’t see Aussie-style compulsory voting anytime soon but there is more than one area where volunteers are fighting like hell to get voter turnout up and to get voter education more accessible, and the stats show it’s working.

Yup, that's what I was referring to, but I was unaware that Obama wasn't the one who personally appointed him as chair; that fact was apparently glossed over in the media I followed. I hate how the narrative can change with the slightest missed detail...

To be fair, after DeVos managed to get through, I feel like a lot of the media coverage of nominees has fallen off.

[Lustful Bride]

Most citizens are too complacent for this to become a reality. Most don't even know how they're being disenfranchised or they don't have enough direct contact with it to care.

The sudden swift in power to put more Dems in charge, and the recent election of multiple LGBTQA+ candidates speaks to the contrary :)

Are you talking about in the US? Because if so, this statement is a bit too broad-brush. There are manymanymany areas where voter registration is in full swing and where outreach is at a fever pitch. We probably won’t see Aussie-style compulsory voting anytime soon but there is more than one area where volunteers are fighting like hell to get voter turnout up and to get voter education more accessible, and the stats show it’s working.

+1

Though I don't think Compulsory voting might work for the US. Each country is different and what works for one may have the opposite results in another. As with many things people suggest should happen in the US (Lower drinking age, allowing red light districts, etc) I always feel that people are too hasty in wanting to apply other laws to a place which has developed differently for most of its history. Its like wanting to put a square peg into a round hole because it fits well into another hole. :P

[Trigon]

I think its about time that I chime in: There appears to be no evidence that the backlash against Ajit Pai's attempts to repeal it is having any effect. Furthermore, the FCC voting process already appears to be compromised with fake anti-net neutrality comments.


Will it get through? Most likely the answer appears to be a firm yes. As an expat living abroad, this is just too painful to watch, though I will not suffer any consequences from this. The rest of the world has weaker net neutrality laws to be sure, but there is doesn't appear to be the same risk of corporate monopolization/url] that you would otherwise have in the United States. Probably since out here there are other mechanisms and consumer protection laws that would otherwise prevent such an unequal playing field in the first place...

I feel like I'm on a lifeboat, watching the Titanic.

[Verasaille]

As much as the liberals are trying to wake people up, the people who support removing net neutrality are going to regret ignoring this.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffPost/videos/559134087764076/

[Trieste]

As much as the liberals are trying to wake people up, the people who support removing net neutrality are going to regret ignoring this.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffPost/videos/559134087764076/

*tries to watch video on internet connection that's been slow as fuck the last several days, sighs as video pauses to buffer several times every second*

Right, because it's the internet companies that are suffering.  >:(

[Verasaille]

If regulations are in effect keeping the little start up companies from entering the market, then the only way out of this pickle is to set up state sponsored internet like utilities, where the big companies are made to provide service to the rural areas that do not currently have it. This would of course make government involved in the industry, which a lot of people do not want. It would be better if everyone could get internet speeds of the highest broadband, but that takes time, as the big companies have to expand in areas that do not have a lot of people.

So to those of you who don't get good service have to make that choice. You either live in a more populated area where there is a high speed connection possible, or you pay the price for expensive satellite coverage, if it is available. It all comes down to the choices we make in where we live. And yes I know sometimes you have no choice but to live where you can afford to live.

Right now I wish there was a way I could move to Canada!

[Trieste]

Yeah, I live in a metro area that is renowned for really good internet service, and mine still sucks a fair amount. The consumer choice in the US right now is not 'not suck' or 'suck', it's 'sucks' and 'sucks more'. I would say that the Internet really needs to be a public utility at this point, except that there is so much corruption in utility management around here that I'm afraid it would make things worse, not better. We literally have people from the corporation commission being indicted on corruption and bribery charges, and in another county citizens are suing their local utility company for fraudulent rate hikes (approved by that same corporation commission, I might add).

The corruption in general is tiresome and needs to go. I feel like the US just assumes that corruption is something that happens as a side effect of government and business - but it isn't. I, for one, would like better.

[Verasaille]

I know it varies around the country. Unfortunately I think that corruption is a human condition we have to constantly fight. Very sad to think that humanity has sunk so low to be this way. Not that everyone is corrupt, but even as Christians have to admit, in the bible it even says we all have sinned. There is no such thing as innocence, except maybe in the very young. That does not mean we should ignore it. We should all try to be better.

On the other hand, I do believe that everyone is capable of acting in a morally responsible and compassionate way. It is a matter of choice. I know I am a long ways from perfect! Sorry if I am offending anyone, not intended.

As for internet service, I have it fairly good, but I have to pay dearly for it. If the prices go up, I will be forced to drop it. As will many others. It would be bad for business to cut so much of the population out of the internet, but if the idea of Capitalism is to take advantage of need and provide for that and profit from it, then I guess they will find out how many people actually 'need' internet service.