There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

FCC to reintroduce rules protecting net neutrality

The US government aims to restore sweeping regulations for high-speed internet providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, reviving “net neutrality” rules for the broadband industry — and an ongoing debate about the internet’s future.

The proposed rules from the Federal Communications Commission will designate internet service — both the wired kind found in homes and businesses as well as mobile data on cellphones — as “essential telecommunications” akin to traditional telephone services, said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. The rules would ban internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing down access to websites and online content.

In addition to the prohibitions on blocking and throttling internet traffic, the draft rules also seek to prevent ISPs from selectively speeding up service to favored websites or to those that agree to pay extra fees, Rosenworcel said, a move designed to prevent the emergence of “fast lanes” on the web that could give some websites a paid advantage over others.

With Tuesday’s proposal, the FCC aims to restore Obama-era regulations that the FCC under Republican leadership rolled back during the Trump administration.

Fredselfish ,
@Fredselfish@lemmy.world avatar

We need eshine in law because Trump our the next R president will just throw this out and we will be back to square one.

thepianistfroggollum ,

We really need a constitutional amendment at this point, but good luck getting enough states to agree on anything.

dukethorion ,
@dukethorion@lemmy.world avatar

The Constitution is designed to restrict the federal government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. It is not to be changed every time someone wants a law (good or bad) and can’t get it pushed through the right way.

thepianistfroggollum ,

Ah, I guess Prohibition and ending slavery were just restricting the federal government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens.

Of course, that statement is incorrect because the constitution is not just a limit on the government’s power. It’s the blueprint on which our entire system of government is founded, and declaring the internet as an unrestricted public utility is absolutely a reasonable reason to convene a constitutional convention.

But, making any changes to the constitution is impossible right now. The Democratic states could call one to amend the constitution to ban the government from forcing children to watch their puppies get drowned, and within hours Fox News would be espousing murdering puppies.

dukethorion ,
@dukethorion@lemmy.world avatar

You should visit Convention of States website and see how long conservatives have been calling for such a convention. Here’s a hint, 34 states are required to pass resolutions calling for the convention. 38 must agree to ratify any amendment.

Prohibition didn’t belong in the Constitution to begin with.

The thirteenth amendment had the effect that states could not legalize slavery after it had been abolished by Lincoln. That is a restriction on government. What I said is still accurate.

dukethorion ,
@dukethorion@lemmy.world avatar

I see I got down voted by the Living Document crowd.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •