Author Topic: Net Neutrality  (Read 6118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2015, 09:11:32 AM »
My total 10th grade thesis:


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2015, 04:07:49 PM »
Government controlled internet. Gee, what could possibly go wrong??
I dunno, ask Social Security and Medicare recipients.  This tired old refrain about "government is the problem" is not only cliche but fallacy. 

Net neutrality ensures not only today's services, but allows that next great innovation to be "unfettered" (classic conservative connotation) by Comcast or Verizon getting a "piece of the action" and artificially inflating prices.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2015, 04:10:24 PM »
I'd like to know exactly, um, what are the ISP's doing that's restricting us? I mean, I don't see any restriction. I can go wherever the hell I want on the internet and there I am. What exactly is the problem here that needs fixing?
The future needs protecting.  Boil it down to this: do you want the internet to be a public park or a private golf course?

Let's say you create some wonderful web application; why was it ok for thousands of companies to get access but now Verizon gets a piece?

Net neutrality prevents Comcast from setting itself up as "landlord" or a "tollbooth" on the information superhighway.  Fuck them.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2015, 05:23:21 PM »
The future needs protecting.  Boil it down to this: do you want the internet to be a public park or a private golf course?
That might not be a good analogy to win people to your side. I would much rather walk on my golf course (on Mondays when folks aren't playing on it) than go walk at the public park in town. Especially due to the number of homeless (drawn by decent weather and social services) and illegals (drawn by the sanctuary city and free services.) The golf course has less dog crap to accidentally step on also- especially frustrating because the city has put FREE bags and stocks them every 100 yards (or so it seems) on trails and at entrances at the parks- but people still won't use them. Yes, there is a plastic bag ban in stores but the city gives them away for free for dog walkers and STILL many people don't use them. And the creeks on the course isn't full of empty beer cans and the bridge doesn't have homeless people's bags and trash under it- just errant golfballs.

Having said that I'm not totally against the idea of any "neutral" internet rules as, like the city park, the tragedy of the commons will occur there also with any regulations or rules. But not secret ones, that aren't voted upon but are decree "top-->down" on to us. And not ones that, likely, will begin to censor content or political dissent or simply be used to further data-mine and surveillance of the public and, likely result more taxes and "government fees." As the new mantra will be we need to get "access" to everyone and some drifter in Nebraska, or some illegal alien "Dreamer" in East LA is "entitled" to the same speed and service as a businessman that produces things and pays high dollar for a fast connection. Do I like Google or Microsoft or TWC or Comcast? No. But at least there is a competition (now, in the past there wasn't) and I can ditch TWC and get Google Fibre or ditch them all and get satellite. Or just read instead of watching online videos. Or go to the library and get internet access. Who competes with the government when it controls everything? And why shouldn't people pay to get faster online access? Bring out faster speeds since companies will have an incentive to roll out fibre etc? Regardless the internet is not necessary for life like water. (And even there you pay for it and it is controlled by local municipalities or you drill your own well.)

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2015, 01:21:26 PM »
That might not be a good analogy to win people to your side.

Guarantee if you polled one million people about the allocation of space, 985, 999 of them would prefer a public park to a private golf course.  The very idea you challenge that notion speaks to your conservative, top-down limited view of the world.

Quote
I would much rather walk on my golf course (on Mondays when folks aren't playing on it) than go walk at the public park in town.

My point (and Comcast's, Verizon's, et al), exactly.  You can pay for access, ergo you would prefer you and a very limited number of people on a private course.  Great, except where do the rest of the people go?  They all stand in line for hours to use the one swing set?   Especially since we are talking about public land that has heretofore been equally accessible?

Quote
...due to the number of homeless (drawn by decent weather and social services) and illegals (drawn by the sanctuary city and free services.)

Yeah, this doesn't fit my analogy at all, this is just you squeezing in more of your anti-immigrant rant.

Quote
The golf course has less dog crap to accidentally step on also- especially frustrating because the city has put FREE bags and stocks them every 100 yards (or so it seems) on trails and at entrances at the parks- but people still won't use them. Yes, there is a plastic bag ban in stores but the city gives them away for free for dog walkers and STILL many people don't use them.

Okay, now I think you've ventured completely off the reservation here; I really wasn't talking about parks, you know...

Quote
And the creeks on the course isn't full of empty beer cans and the bridge doesn't have homeless people's bags and trash under it- just errant golfballs.

Having what to do with free, fair, and equal access to the internet?!?

Quote
Having said that I'm not totally against the idea of any "neutral" internet rules...

Oh, so arguing for the sake of arguing.  Very Fox News of you.

Quote
... as, like the city park, the tragedy of the commons will occur there also with any regulations or rules. But not secret ones,...

What secret?  It was all over the news. Here:

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-fcc-got-net-neutrality-right-but-the-fight-isnt-over-franken-says/

Quote
... that aren't voted upon but are decree "top-->down" on to us. And not ones that, likely, will begin to censor content or political dissent or simply be used to further data-mine and surveillance of the public

Because that doesn't happen now?

Quote
... and, likely result more taxes and "government fees."

No evidence to support that assertion.

Quote
As the new mantra will be we need to get "access" to everyone and some drifter in Nebraska, or some illegal alien "Dreamer" in East LA is "entitled" to the same speed and service as a businessman that produces things and pays high dollar for a fast connection.

THERE IT IS!

Quote
Do I like Google or Microsoft or TWC or Comcast? No.

Well, you sure seem to advocate a lot on their behalves.

Quote
But at least there is a competition (now, in the past there wasn't) and I can ditch TWC and get Google Fibre or ditch them all and get satellite. Or just read instead of watching online videos. Or go to the library and get internet access. Who competes with the government when it controls everything?

Who would have to?  If the government ensures free and fair access to all, then what is the problem?

Quote
And why shouldn't people pay to get faster online access?

Because it entitles private companies to set speed limits, access, and control over something they do not own.  Why should I have to accept a "landlord" on the internet when I haven't had to for two decades prior?

Quote
Bring out faster speeds since companies will have an incentive to roll out fibre etc? Regardless the internet is not necessary for life like water. (And even there you pay for it and it is controlled by local municipalities or you drill your own well.)

Clearly you do not have to work for a living.  If you did, you would realize there's few businesses now (if any) who do not rely on internet access as a function of business operations.  Our power grid is on the internet.  My store is reliant on the internet now both for customer and wholesaler interaction. 

The idea that a select, self-appointed few would govern the internet based on their profit motive instead of the public interest is abhorrent and ineffective.  Immediately, businesses would see costs rise for access, causing consumers higher pricing (for what? the exact same internet, only slower?)

There's not one thing about the conservative approach to the internet that serves the American people well.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2015, 03:43:21 PM »


Because it entitles private companies to set speed limits, access, and control over something they do not own.  Why should I have to accept a "landlord" on the internet when I haven't had to for two decades prior?

Clearly you do not have to work for a living.  If you did, you would realize there's few businesses now (if any) who do not rely on internet access as a function of business operations.  Our power grid is on the internet.  My store is reliant on the internet now both for customer and wholesaler interaction. 

The idea that a select, self-appointed few would govern the internet based on their profit motive instead of the public interest is abhorrent and ineffective.  Immediately, businesses would see costs rise for access, causing consumers higher pricing (for what? the exact same internet, only slower?)

There's not one thing about the conservative approach to the internet that serves the American people well.
I never said that the "internet wasn't necessary for business", although I imagine maybe some businesses could get away without it- but most certainly need it, but it is not necessary for life of an individual. Not being able to binge-watch Netflix is not a life-or-death problem. A person doesn't "need" internet, like you need water, food, shelter, etc. It has only been around for a few decades and, believe it or not, people survived. I know of no businesses who don't pay for the internet (as well pay for their phone, trash, electricity, gas, lease, etc.) People pay also for access, if not they can get it for free at schools, libraries, churches, or over their "Obama-phone" (I know the program wasn't started by him, it only expanded into cell-phones and increased the fraud.)

I understand your concern about potential "throttling" especially in areas where there is a sole providers but this is no longer, really, the problem as the companies compete against each other, finally. More problematic was the Government/Corporate agreements that allowed certain companies to have monopolies for so long so they did not innovate (governments thought, likely due to corporate donations, that cable was a "natural" monopoly so laws and regs were made them have zero, or very limited competition in exchange for wiring up the area.)

Google, evil company, is digging up a few blocks away just now laying now faster lines to compete/beat with TWC and UVerse. They even started on the poor part of town and wired those schools up first and have some subsidy for those people (although I'm sure the city had some "deal" with them on that.) So those poor (primarily Hispanic and black) people are going to have faster internet than the so-called 1% (evil white-folks) and at a cheaper cost! (Not really- I think there might be only a few real 1%'s here.)

I wouldn't mind a municipality or even a State wiring their area up to fastest internet but let the voters approve it, let people know the costs, fees, regulations, accept public bids, issue a bond, etc and do it. But saying to private companies you must do this or must do this (or face government sanction) isn't fair. And doing regulations behind closed doors and not letting even our elected representatives vote on such far-reaching meddling isn't right. (I know that his how Federal agencies work for the past many decades but it still isn't right.) We haven't even been able to SEE what the new regulations are (yet!)

You say that there will be no taxes or fees (there already are, read the fine print on your cellphone, land-line, cable, or internet bill) or meddling (suggest you read up on the NSA, FBI STINGRAY devices,  for a bit or how the FCC regulates content over broadcast tv and radio frequencies.) And remember my initial point: what happens if another BUSH/CHENEY takes over? You want their government, their "Czars", their appointees to control, censor, or monitor your internet?




Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2015, 02:36:57 PM »
You say that there will be no taxes or fees (there already are, read the fine print on your cellphone, land-line, cable, or internet bill)

No, I said there was no evidence there would be additional taxes or fees, in response to your statement:
 
Quote
Posted by: albrecht
« on: March 03, 2015, 05:23:21 PM » ...likely result more taxes and "government fees."


Quote
...or meddling (suggest you read up on the NSA, FBI STINGRAY devices,  for a bit or how the FCC regulates content over broadcast tv and radio frequencies.) And remember my initial point: what happens if another BUSH/CHENEY takes over? You want their government, their "Czars", their appointees to control, censor, or monitor your internet?

They already have.  They're the ones who ginned it up in the first place ("war on terror"; "patriot act; "narusinsight".)  Most of Snowden's revelations aren't about Obama, they're about BushCheney.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2015, 02:59:13 PM »
ISPs have pondered and actually engaged in throttling/gate keeping it in the past, so I really have a hard time feeling bad about these new regulations or trusting ISPs to do what's right.  People keep saying the new regulations aren't publicized, but wouldn't you just need to go read Title II of the Telecommunications Act?

AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre in 2005:

Quote
Question:  How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (), MSN, Vonage, and others?

Whitacre:  How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?  The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! () or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!

bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-11-06/online-extra-at-sbc-its-all-about-scale-and-scope

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2015, 03:22:54 PM »
ISPs have pondered and actually engaged in throttling/gate keeping it in the past, so I really have a hard time feeling bad about these new regulations or trusting ISPs to do what's right.  People keep saying the new regulations aren't publicized, but wouldn't you just need to go read Title II of the Telecommunications Act?

AT&T CEO Edward Whitacre in 2005:

bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2005-11-06/online-extra-at-sbc-its-all-about-scale-and-scope

And for the sake of entrepreneurs and users for generations to come, we need to end this plantation mentality.  "His pipes"?  Fuck him!  MY airspace, MY groundspace, MY bandwidth! MY taxes used to subsidize the work!  Fucking entitled bastards; they make more than enough to ensure proper maintenance of infrastructure without creating artificial scarcity.  His is a stewardship, not a toll road. Pig fuckers!!!!!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2015, 03:30:11 PM »
And for the sake of entrepreneurs and users for generations to come, we need to end this plantation mentality.  "His pipes"?  Fuck him!  MY airspace, MY groundspace, MY bandwidth! MY taxes used to subsidize the work!  Fucking entitled bastards; they make more than enough to ensure proper maintenance of infrastructure without creating artificial scarcity.  His is a stewardship, not a toll road. Pig fuckers!!!!!

whitacre speaks like some southern plantation owner in 1849.  people should fear THAT guy controlling the internet.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2015, 03:31:01 PM »
And for the sake of entrepreneurs and users for generations to come, we need to end this plantation mentality.  "His pipes"?  Fuck him!  MY airspace, MY groundspace, MY bandwidth! MY taxes used to subsidize the work!  Fucking entitled bastards; they make more than enough to ensure proper maintenance of infrastructure without creating artificial scarcity.  His is a stewardship, not a toll road. Pig fuckers!!!!!

oh, by the way... fuck you, liberal!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2015, 03:31:52 PM »
oh, by the way... fuck you, liberal!
Consider myself duly fucked.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2015, 02:15:46 AM »
I want to pay a premium for the connection I have now, while those who keep paying current prices get their connections throttled to the point that a 14k modem would be a better option.

Anything that keeps the poor away from the kinds of mass information that the internet offers.

Oh, and shut down the libraries and schools... can't have those poor fuckers learning anything if they're not paying for it.

I guess the logical conclusion of Capitalism is burning books to stop people learning shit they're not paying for over and over.


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2015, 03:48:05 PM »
Has any of you seen this "Net Neutrality" legislation?
AFAIK not even the guys in congress who have to vote on it can read it before the vote.
This screams BULLSHIT!
Give the FCC more power, seriously?
Haven't they caused massive financial damage to some radio hosts who dared to use profanity?
Give the government more control over the internet will only increase censorship.
Hell, you might not even be able to run this forum anymore without them meddling in your stuff.


a good show to watch, related to the topic.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #44 on: March 08, 2015, 05:07:31 PM »
an entire thread full of people who don't understand shit

your internet is now uncontrolled as it always was. your ISP cannot charge you extra fees for using things such as netflix and hulu. nothing will change now, and you will never notice.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2015, 05:19:13 PM »
the internet has become a basic human right and should be nationalised like water and and power and healthcare and libraries.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2015, 05:26:43 PM »
access to the internet is now a basic human right for all people.

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,"

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2015, 05:35:15 PM »
the internet has become a basic human right and should be nationalised like water and and power and healthcare and libraries.
While I'm sure these things are in some countries, like North Korea, in most countries things like water, power, libraries, healthcare, etc are controlled by multifaceted conglomeration of agencies (states, counties, cities, MUDs, CO-OPs, etc), private companies, public/private organizations, foundations, charities, and national agencies or even by the people themselves (having your own well and septic tank) but rarely are all of these "totally nationalised" and controlled by the country, except in those august countries like N.Korea. Granted it is a model but not so sure a good one. Better to have many entities involved and not a top-down, command-and-control structure; although one might find some disagreement with those in charge here in the USA.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2015, 12:48:52 AM »
the internet has become a basic human right and should be nationalised like water and and power and healthcare and libraries.

Theres no better way to get rid of net bias than getting the government involved. That way we can look forward to higher prices, lower quality, and less choice.

"You can keep your ISP"

WE WANT THE FAIR AND BALANCED INTERNET AND WE WANT IT NOW!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #49 on: March 09, 2015, 01:01:47 AM »
Theres no better way to get rid of net bias than getting the government involved.

Hence the FCC ensuring net neutrality for years to come.

Quote
That way we can look forward to higher prices, lower quality, and less choice.

Since the massuhs got kicked off the fiber optic plantation, not so much.

Quote
"You can keep your ISP"

Yes, Virginia, and now your ISP can't capriciously throttle back your mbps to let Richie Rich have access to what was rightfully yours.

Quote
WE WANT THE FAIR AND BALANCED INTERNET AND WE WANT IT NOW!

And now you'll have it for years to come. Would you like to join me in thanking President Obama for driving the net neutrality train?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #50 on: March 09, 2015, 12:24:53 PM »
HACK THE MOTHERFUCKING PLANET!!


Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2015, 03:54:01 PM »
Would you like to join me in thanking President Obama for driving the net neutrality train?

I hope it works out like you think it will and everyone benefits. Those who have followed politics for more than a few years have seen these bills before. The government does them for 2 reasons, so they can pat themselves on the back, and make more money for themselves and their corporate contributors. Do you think Obama wrote the bill? Or do you think it was written by his friends in "big internet".

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 restructured the entire telecommunications industry and left virtually all cable subscribers without protection from unrestricted rate hikes. "Since the Act was signed into law, cable rates skyrocketed" that was in 2003.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 2010 - has done nothing to help insure more people. It's driven costs through the roof, put a huge damper on the economy, extended the recession for 6 years and on, and caused millions to lose their doctors and their health insurance.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold" - In 2000 Bush/Gore campaigns combined spent 50 million. 10 years after the BCRA the presidential campaigns combined to spend close to 2 billion, an increase of 4000%.

Those are just a few examples that come to mind. So if you want to run around and celebrate go ahead, it's not going to change anything for the better, thats how government works.



Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2015, 11:23:49 AM »
I hope it works out like you think it will and everyone benefits. Those who have followed politics for more than a few years have seen these bills before. The government does them for 2 reasons, so they can pat themselves on the back, and make more money for themselves and their corporate contributors. Do you think Obama wrote the bill? Or do you think it was written by his friends in "big internet".

I think Obama ran on promising net neutrality, amongst his many other pledges to help the American people.

Quote
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 restructured the entire telecommunications industry and left virtually all cable subscribers without protection from unrestricted rate hikes. "Since the Act was signed into law, cable rates skyrocketed" that was in 2003.

Thanks to Newt Gingrich and Bubba Clinton.  This is what happens when "the South Rises Again".

Quote
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 2010 - has done nothing to help insure more people. It's driven costs through the roof, put a huge damper on the economy, extended the recession for 6 years and on, and caused millions to lose their doctors and their health insurance.

None of these things are true according to:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-na-cbo-health-spending-20150309-story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/09/obamacare-subsidies-cbo_n_6831502.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/09/obamacares-cost-is-falling-as-fewer-receive-coverage-under-health-care-law-cbo-says/

And I will add that I was moved from employer subsidized care to Obamacare; my premium is cheaper and with a smaller deductible.  My employer still gives me a small stipend to help pay for it, but he has saved $15000 a year per employee, on average, and we all have customized coverage. Not the best system, but didn't cost anyone here a job.

Quote
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold" - In 2000 Bush/Gore campaigns combined spent 50 million. 10 years after the BCRA the presidential campaigns combined to spend close to 2 billion, an increase of 4000%.

Really?  You're not going to own the fact that it was your activist conservative court, via Citizens United vs. FEC that gutted McCain-Feingold?!?

Man, you really play fast and loose with reality.  You must an avid CoasttoCoastAm listener and a Falkie-nier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

Quote
Those are just a few examples that come to mind.

Yeah, examples where conservatives were either outright wrong or complicit in a law's failure!!!

Quote
So if you want to run around and celebrate go ahead, it's not going to change anything for the better, thats how government works.

Actually, now I want to grab a handle of Maker's Mark and crawl into a stupor.  How the hell is anyone a conservative?!?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2015, 01:37:31 PM »
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 restructured the entire telecommunications industry and left virtually all cable subscribers without protection from unrestricted rate hikes. "Since the Act was signed into law, cable rates skyrocketed" that was in 2003.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 2010 - has done nothing to help insure more people. It's driven costs through the roof, put a huge damper on the economy, extended the recession for 6 years and on, and caused millions to lose their doctors and their health insurance.

Your examples are a pretty good validation that when govt. gets in ahead of industry interests to regulate privately held "infrastructure" like internet backbones, it usually works to the public benefit. But when legislation is driven by industry pressure, the consumer/employee needs to get out the Vaseline.

It also shows why conservatives should be backing Clinton...Bill C was a cheaply bought Wall St mole who set the ground work for the corporate/bankster rape of American consumers in the 00s and Hillary is also a money-grubber who'll be the second act. The Telecomm Act was written by lobbyists to shield cable, cell and post-Ma Bell phone service from state and fed public utility regs.  The ACA would have been much easier implemented and cheaper if it was a single-payer plan instead of severely hobbled by the insurance lobby thru the Senator-Chairman from United Healthcare.  Even so, the right's constant cries of health care costs exploding are pure BS.  As one who used to have private health policy, I well remember the 20+% yearly premium hikes that are now history.

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2015, 05:49:27 AM »
I think it's grate!  Obama put this tool in the box!

I also thought it was grate that Bush put tools in the box!

As Prezydaint!

This is a good thang!

The next can restrict free speech!

Wooooooooo!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #55 on: December 03, 2016, 06:47:39 PM »
Bumpity?



Nefer...

Net Neutrality
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2017, 11:44:25 PM »
Obvious Communist ideal is obvious...

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2017, 11:50:33 PM »
What does this mean for all of us?

Can someone explain it in layman's terms?

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2017, 11:53:54 PM »


-or-



net gain!?!?!

Re: Net Neutrality
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2017, 12:07:53 AM »

My understanding is that this will allow internet service providers to set up different pathways. If you want full access at a higher speed you will need to pay for it.  There still may be free internet but the providers can censor as they wish and allow paying customers faster, higher quality. The Republicans tried to push this through awhile back but the computer geeks put up a great protest so they backed off. I guess they think now we are so worried about losing our healthcare, our taxes going up along with the deficit and The Bomb dropping on us they can sneak it through

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

The Federal Communications Commission took aim at a signature Obama-era regulation Tuesday, unveiling a plan that would give Internet providers broad powers to determine what websites and online services their customers see and use.

Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers.

The repeal of those rules would be one of the more significant deregulatory efforts by Republicans since President Trump took office. Ajit Pai, who was nominated to head the FCC by Trump in January, has said undoing the net neutrality rules was one of his top priorities, arguing that the regulation stifled innovation and was an example of government overreach.