The Hypocrisy of AT&T’s “Internet Bill of Rights”

>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/hypocrisy-atts-internet-bill-rights

Do not fall for any internet bill of rights BS

We do not need the government to change anything about the internet!

>https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-name-of-every-senator-who-voted-against-net-n-1826085987

>A surprising thing happened on Wednesday: The Senate did something good.

>Not only did it pass a resolution to save net neutrality but more Republicans than expected actually voted in favor of the resolution. But there were still a lot of senators who disagree with the overwhelming majority of their constituents, and I guess they don’t care.

>>1453861

>58204802B92838x-ZjA378402-12

Wikileaks Weiner Laptop Insurance File Key?

>>1453809

NO

see >>1453879

>>1453809

You made this again, for the 18th time?

Why, because no one is dumb enough to fall for this BS the first 17 times?

How many times are you gonna make this petition?

Btw its upto 19 now..

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-1

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-2

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-3

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-4

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-5

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-6

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-7

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-8

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-9

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-10

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-11

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-12

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-13

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-14

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-15

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-16

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-17

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-19

>>1453929

You completely missed the point.

That nothing to do with AT&T bill of rights was what Q is talking about, but still dumbasses are pushing for government control over the internet..

He says in the very next line, what (((they))) want, think about it..

The internet must be regulated to prevent censorship & narrative push.

>>1453974

Q all but mentioned the net neutrality vote coming up, and the shills jumped on the band wagon to push the 'internet bill of rights' petition instead of paying attention to

"In a vote of 52 to 47, senators voted on Wednesday to overturn the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)'s 2017 'Restoring Internet Freedom Order,' which walked back net neutrality rules set forth under President Obama by the 2015 'Open Internet Order.' "

>https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2018/05/17/senate-votes-to-save-net-neutrality-rules-amid-public-outcry-and-an-uphill-battle/#31be8edf5c9b

>>1454003

By restoring net neutrality

The bill that passed today still needs to be passed by the house, is anyone reading the links im posting lol

>The nonprofit group Fight for the Future explained in a Medium post, "In the House, [proponents] need 218 lawmakers to sign on to a 'discharge petition' in order to force a vote past leadership to the floor … [meaning] all the Democrats, and about 25 Republicans, to support the CRA." At the same time, they added, "This vote is historic. And the fact that three Republican Senators ended up supporting it is a huge deal."

>>1454013

So, what's your opinion on the vote restoring net neutrality that I been linking in all my above posts that you are completely ignoring?

Ya think that might have something to do with it?

>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/16/611598361/senate-approves-overturning-fccs-net-neutrality-repeal

>>1454027

Ah, so lets not pay any attention to what is happening in the house and senate and lets focus on petitios, that change nothing.

Here's something to ask yourself, when is the last time any of the millions of petitions on WH.gov done anything accept ask you to verify your all your personal info, so they can track you?

>>1454052

IBOR is what ATT is trying to replace net neutrality with.

>http://variety.com/2018/digital/news/att-net-neutrality-internet-bill-of-rights-1202674949/

That got shot down today, when the senate repealed what we had, and replaced it with net neutrality, now it goes to the house..

See what the fake news is saying about what happened today, they are pushing for IBOR

>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/isps-and-ajit-pai-are-really-sad-about-senates-vote-for-net-neutrality/

>>1454064

This is what the whole IBOR crowd pushed for last time and got: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/fcc-reverses-open-internet-order-governing-net-neutrality.html

Not one out of millions of petitions during trump has done anything. Its time to stop shilling

>>1454075

>(1)

Nice try shill

Net neutrality is what is keeping the internet open and free/.

>Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[4] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content. This is sometimes enforced through government mandate.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

I can't believe how many shills are on this board, I'm used to /pol/ where there's some active moderation…

>>1454124

Keep shilling your petition, surely there's 100000 people out there that will sign this one, this time, and when it does get enough votes, it will sit there while nothing comes of it just like all these have

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

>>1454140

>don't respond to disinfo

Fine don't block em

Although, I will not let any of you be misled..

>>1454148

Heh I just looked on there and found a petition that actually got some signatures, 273000+

lmao, I'm done with you shill..

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-repeal-net-neutrality

>>1454146

Obviously I clicked on the wrong post, the reply was meant for the shill, not you duh

>>1454129

This reply was for you btw

>>1454138

I had clicked on the wrong post b4

>>1454212

Have any proof to back that up, the republicans were offered millions to push a IBOR type bill instead of a open and free internet, which we have now. The telecoms are pushing this throttling bill hard, that will throttle consertivitive sites to a crawl if you don't pay more to access them..

Have you read anything I posted, there's plenty of research and links in all the articles I posted..

https://gizmodo.com/senate-votes-to-save-net-neutrality-proving-shame-stil-1826054197

>Republican Senator Roger Wicker also voiced his opposition and expressed hope that senators would instead vote for watered-down legislation that Senator John Thune, a Republican who has received nearly $1 million in donations from the telecom industry, introduced on the floor today.

At least read up on what the alternative is..

>Other Democrats spoke at length about how important net neutrality is for local news, emergency response, rural users, and the economically poor, as well as small businesses.

>>1454245

>replying to myself

Look at my ID everyone, I voted for Trump, but I stand for a free and open internet, not some stupid bill that lobbyist paid either party millions to pass, The Democrats stood up for all of us today on something important.

>>1454323

That's the conclusion I came up with.

Q mentioned to make noise, that NK news was fake (MSM) and Twitter news was real. The part about free speech manipulation, was going up for vote soon (Today) in the Senate, and he mentioned the #internetbillofrights hashtag. Those lobbyists paying millions to push their Bill over repealing net neutrality, have the barrative control, but we can test their limitations by providing links and calling out all the lies they are spreading everywhere.

It all made sense to me, but the shills here want to post opinions and slide the thread with a hundred posts about a petition, instead of focusing on why the politicians that were bought & paid for voted the way they did.. Its all about midterms.. So Q said start a tweet storm back in March.

Click on my ID and scroll up, I posted links to back up everything I have said, and still there's a shill army replying to all my posts with no links to anything, using every text book accusation to discredit me, while not providing one source to anything they said.

Open >pic related

and follow along as you read what I said here..

>>1454381

The EFF is on our side, the FCC isn't..

>>1454391

I think your a little late on this petiton thing anyways, as today the senate voted on the internet, and its on its way to the house now.

The Q post you keep talking about was from back in march. Did you see what the republicans came up with after they took millions of bribes from AT&T etc? It's what Q was talking about I'm pretty sure of

https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/996788510924341248

>>1454398

Link?

No, the eff is for a open and free internet for everyone, follow the links I posted on here, its all been explained extensively.

>>1454391

Here I fixed your artwork for ya

>https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution

>>1454425

That was all debunked, didn't you read any of the articles I posed at all?

>https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/

>>1454437

I misunderstood you when you said 'just' posted an article, that is an old article.

Eff is on our side.

They are against all the big isp companys that are trying to do away with the free and open internet by paying millions to members of the senate to buy their votes, which didn't work, the senate voted against that today.

Now Q said, 'not AT&T' as he was trying to direct our attention on how the lobbyist controlled the narrative in the msm, but not on twitter, where we could point out how the bill they were trying to pass today disguised as a internet bill of rights, was anything but.

I don't know if anyone looked into it back then, but I posted all the articles about it above.

I thought you were talking about this article

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/senate-voted-stand-net-neutrality-now-tell-house-do-same

>The Senate has voted to restore the 2015 Open Internet Order and reject the FCC’s attempt to gut net neutrality. This is a great first step, but now the fight moves to the House of Representatives.

>The final Senate vote was 52 to 47 in favor. That puts a bare majority of the Senate in step with the 86% of Americans who oppose the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality protections.

>Net neutrality means that the company that controls your access to the Internet should not also control what you see and how quickly you see it once you’re there. We pay our ISPs plenty of money for Internet access, they shouldn’t have the ability to block or throttle any application or website we choose to use or visit. And they shouldn’t get to charge extra to deliver some content faster while slowing down others or get to prioritize their own content over that of competitors.

>The 2015 Open Internet Order was a great victory in banning blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization by ISPs. But under Chariman Ajit Pai, the FCC undid that good work by repealing the order and abandoning any responsibility for oversight. And it did so despite the huge number of Americans calling on it not to and despite the incorrect assumptions about how the Internet works that underlie its reasoning. The so-called “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” does nothing of the kind, and it’s good to see the Senate acting to stop the FCC.

>Despite the fact that millions of Americans of all stripes want to keep net neutrality, the number of House members supporting the Congressional Review Act (CRA) there languishes below the 218 number needed to pass. The Senate has led the way; now it’s time for the House of Representatives to step up especially as net neutrality is set to expire in June.

>You can see where your representatives stand here and then give them a call telling them to use the Congressional Review Act to save the Open Internet Order.

>>1454495

70%?

>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Chair Ajit Pai says the agency's net-neutrality rules are discouraging investment, leaving consumers with fewer, and less robust, choices for internet service, and potentially widening the digital divide. Broadband providers' own financial reports tell a different story.

>In its proposal to repeal the rules, which were enacted in 2015, the FCC cites industry-funded studies concluding that investment in internet infrastructure declined 3 percent in 2015 and another 2 percent in 2016. The proposal also claims that internet providers delayed new offerings, such as home-wireless plans or streaming video services.

>But the nation's largest internet provider actually increased its spending during this period, as did several other companies. Others cut spending, but said the drops stemmed from completion of longer-term plans. The shifts highlight the challenge of determining the cause and effect of spending changes, which reflect corporate need, technological change, cost-saving innovation, and shareholder pressures, as well as regulations.

>There’s another consideration as well. The FCC says repealing the net-neutrality rules will remove “regulatory uncertainty” for broadband providers, and encourage them to boost spending. But the proposal will increase uncertainty for other internet companies, most notably small content providers, who may face stiff fees to distribute their work—and in some cases may not even try.

>>1454573

So why did you just post 3 sentences and not the whole paragraph? Here's the rest.

>Bowles wants the FCC to rescind the rules, and wants Congress to approve a replacement that does not rely on Title II. But she says that simply exempting small providers like Aristotle from the Title II rules would have been an acceptable compromise. In fact, she argued for that solution before Congress.

>Internet providers large and small say they worry that the 2015 rules are too vague and could allow the FCC to someday regulate internet pricing. But those concerns could be addressed without scrapping the rules entirely. That would leave intact the protections internet content creators have grown accused to expect. By throwing out these rules without waiting for Congress to step in with a replacement, Pai’s FCC will do what he has accused his predecessor of doing: create an environment of uncertainty.

The ACLU put up a petition thingy too

https://action.aclu.org/send-message/save-net-neutrality