Comments on: Here’s why the Obama FCC Internet regulations don’t protect net neutrality https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:55:44 +0000 hourly 1 By: open a binance account https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-139131 Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:55:44 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76159#comment-139131 Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you. https://accounts.binance.com/ro/register-person?ref=HX1JLA6Z

]]> By: binance US-registrera https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-139103 Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:31:47 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76159#comment-139103 I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.

]]> By: Brett Glass https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-125123 Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:12:00 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76159#comment-125123 This article portrays the FCC regulations as a power grab — which is correct — but fails to mention the malign influence of Google’s corporate lobbyists (several of whom were “embedded” within the FCC) on the White House, the FCC, and hence the text and legal theories of the regulations. The article also fails to note that the regulations are simply illegal — according to the plain language of 47 USC 230 — but only got a pass when challenged in the DC Circuit due to the judges’ politics and egregious conflicts of interest. Why?

The infographic posted to the right of the article is also the false and misleading product of Google lobbyists. No ISP has ever proposed such a scheme; it was entirely made up by lobbyists as a bogeyman with which to frighten Internet users. Yet, the article never mentions this; why?

]]>