Posted on 10/13/2020 9:55:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
My sons are convinced this is the work of the devil. The fact that nothing bad has happened is irrelevant. It’s coming.
Bfl
Back in 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) which provided a framework for protecting an open internet while paving the way for better, faster, and cheaper internet access for all consumers. Shortly after the proposals were approved, CNN famously proclaimed the decision was the end of the internet as we know it. John Olivers segment on Last Week Tonight covering RIFO led 150,000 Americans to file comments opposing the new rules.
The previous rules, which were imposed just two years before, required internet services to be treated in the same regulatory manner as a 1930s-style public utilities (referred to as Title II regulations) and required Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all internet traffic the same. Classifying ISPs under Title II regulations also allowed the federal government to supervise their rates and practices, force them to provide service and ban practices that it decides are unjust or unreasonable.
Unjust or unreasonable, y'know, like the partisan media is 24/7 under such regulation.
.....Despite CNNs apocalyptic claims and the substantial grassroots campaign satire comedians unleashed, three years after the proposals were released the internet is not only still functioning, but it is more accessible than ever......
As AT&T has been blocking conservative websites for me the last three days. Only conservative sites... Tested. This morning they are blocking the FR and even my own domain.
Yes, giving common carriers and ISPs this kind of power over content access was just absolutely fantastic... And this is just the beginning.
The internet is fine.
It is the World Wide Web layer that needs to be replaced or a new protocol established to compete with it.
I'm on AT&T. Nothing like that for me.
Don't use AT&T's DNS servers.
You are exactly right, if I had a choice. You wrongfully assume I have 20 other options for access available to me. In my rural location there is absolutely no other affordable option at all. It is a choice of access, or no access at all.
And I am not alone in this country with this situation. A large percentage of this country have no alternative option away from liberal owned carriers who are now and will be censoring without remorse because they now can legally.
Should I have to move in order to have more options other than the monopoly of AT&T in my location? Or should AT&T not censor content as a general equal service provider?
The act was repealed with the false assumption that we can trust the service providers to be fair. And that there is always a different option available universally to everyone.
That the one size idea and concept fits all. This ignorant assumption was and is WRONG in the real world.
Of course you do, you have not been personally restricted yet as I have. The FR is not restricted, MY access to it has been personally restricted.
It is not the FR that is restricted, it is MY access to the FR that has been selectively restricted. It’s coming for you too.
“It is the World Wide Web layer that needs to be replaced”
Or maybe back to only bulletin boards (BBS), emaíl, email lists and FTP?
Even Archie, and USENET too!
If some good programmers can create a browser that interfaces with those to make them less archaic, and more useful to the layperson, it should work just as well as the web.
Best description of net neutrality I ever saw: Obamacare for the internet.
Nuff said.
Try using a VPN. I am using the free version of Proton, works very well.
Oh, guess I do not understand.
“Even Archie, and USENET too!”
USENET is active as Google Groups. Anyone with a gmail address can create a group, and the newsgroups of the past are available too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.