Net Neutrality

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Join Outcry Against Trash’s Net Neutrality Repeal

On the eve of a Federal Communications Commission vote to repeal net neutrality rules,

some congressional Republicans are suddenly pivoting against the Trump administration and joining the outcry against the move —

just as a new poll shows the

vast majority of GOP voters want the rules preserved. (Repugs listen only to the dictates of the oligarchy's $Bs)

http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-join-outcry-trumps-net-neutrality-repeal/ (http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-join-outcry-trumps-net-neutrality-repeal/)

Repugs repealing net neutrality would typically not cost them any votes at an election-losing level.

[DMC]

Echo...echo...echo...echo....

[spurraider21]

Echo...echo...echo...echo....
passive aggressive posts, not taking a stance

[Reck]

They just voted 3-2 in favor of getting rid of it.

Let the lawsuits begin.

[rjv]

Let the lawsuits begin.

[boutons_deux]

NY attorney general identifies 2,000,000 fraudulent net neutrality comments, urges FCC to delay vote (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/13/1724044/-NY-attorney-general-identifies-2-000-000-fraudulent-net-neutrality-comments-urges-FCC-to-delay-vote)

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/13/1724044/-NY-attorney-general-identifies-2-000-000-fraudulent-net-neutrality-comments-urges-FCC-to-delay-vote?detail=emaildkre

but of course, Pai + 2 Repugs only listen to oligarchy's dictates.

[spurraider21]

:lol libcucks triggered by increased prices

[Spurminator]

Let's not rush to judgment and assume that Telecom companies will suddenly start being consumer-unfriendly.

[boutons_deux]

Let's not rush to judgment and assume that Telecom companies will suddenly start being consumer-unfriendly.

They are "friendly" now? :lol

USA already pays higher prices for lower speeds that any other industrial country.

Their objective in purchasing/dictating the repeal of net neutrality is to protect/increase their profits, and guess who furnishes those profits?

The changes hurting customers won't be sudden, or really obvious, but they are absolutely inevitable, sooner or later.

=============
This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the world

"Even though the Internet was invented in the United States,

Americans pay the most in the world for broadband access.

And it’s not exactly blazing fast.

For an Internet connection of 25 megabits per second,

New Yorkers pay about $55 — nearly double that of what residents in London, Seoul, and Bucharest, Romania, pay.

And residents in cities such as

Hong Kong, Seoul, Tokyo and Paris get connections nearly eight times faster."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive

That's broadband.

Much the same is true for mobile data prices/speeds.

Just another way the oligarchy's "free market capitalism" fucks Americans.

[Chucho]

:lol libcucks triggered by increased prices

:lol They'll just find a way to use someone else's money to pay for it.

[spurraider21]

some shit nobody reads


:rolleyes
Your complete lack of a sarcasm detector is starting to lead me to believe you think the Borowitz articles really are real.

[Spurminator]

:rolleyes
Your complete lack of a sarcasm detector is starting to lead me to believe you think the Borowitz articles really are real.

boutons, I hope the ISPs ban you.

[spurraider21]

:lol

[Chucho]

boutons, I hope the ISPs ban you.

:lmao

[boutons_deux]

you rural-type ignorant rightwingnutjob assholes don't care how much, deep, or often the Repugs fuck you, you always masochistically support the Repugs religiously.

[Chucho]

you rural-type ignorant rightwingnutjob assholes don't care how much, deep, or often the Repugs fuck you, you always masochistically support the Repugs religiously.

:lmao

[spurraider21]

boutons, I hope the ISPs ban you.
i'd be willing to put up with increased prices if they did so

[baseline bum]

i'd be willing to put up with increased prices if they did so

At least those fuckers can't charge for the ignore feature tbh

[Trill Clinton]

941117257723404288

[spurraider21]

941117257723404288
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271580&p=9218969

[hater]

Back to the old days where nigs would beat off to extremely pixlatd vids or halfway loaded jpgs :lmao

“I can see her forehead! Oh shit couldnt hold it”

[hater]

Good ol days :]

[Reck]

Senators already mobilizing.

941403963693453312

[DMC]

:cry "muh inernet"

[Pavlov]

DMC takes another bold stand!

[rjv]

so much irony here.

[Dex]

Honestly, the fact that a decision this far-reaching can come down to 3 fucking assholes (or 6 lined pockets) is mind boggling itself.

[spurraider21]

conservative activist commissioners

[boutons_deux]

conservative activist commissioners

oligarchy whores, legal corruption, those 3 will certainly have well-paid post-FCC remuneration

[rjv]

what bears watching as well is the FTC's appeal of the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court's ruling regarding Section 5 of the FTC act in how it relates to regulating authority and Title II. and it should be mentioned that Obama did not relent on Title II until public pressure mounted and he then decided to get Wheeler to embrace neutrality.

[boutons_deux]

Ajit Pai just handed Republicans a bag of shit

Killing net neutrality isn't just bad policy, it's bad politics

repeal virtually every open internet and net neutrality rule on the books, reclassify broadband service in a way that prevents further rules from being implemented, and

hands consumer protection to another government agency that’s never dealt with these issues before.

Pai did this regardless of the millions of Americans who flooded the government asking for these protections to remain;

regardless of the tens of thousands of fake comments that overwhelmed the FCC’s systems and prompted 12 states attorneys general across the country to demand further investigation; and

regardless of the thousands of online businesses telling the FCC that their very survival is threatened by ISPs picking winners and losers.

He also did it knowing lawsuits would be instantly incoming; the first ones are already here.

Most importantly, Pai also gutted net neutrality without ever trying to make the case for it being a good idea.

But Pai has never sat down and seriously engaged his critics to make a persuasive case that changing these enormously popular rules will somehow increase competition, lower prices, or increase service levels for the vast majority of Americans who have but one or two choices for broadband service.

He has never said that he’s actually opposed to blocking or throttling and identified a mechanism under his new rules by which those activities would be even slightly limited

The public hates the repeal of net neutrality: 83 percent of people in thisWashington Post poll support net neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.605c4dbec652) when it’s explained to them,

including 3 out of 4 Republicans.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777500/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-republican-politics-whoops

Pai can act "regardless" of Americans and politics, immune to the citizenry, because he's vaccinated by the oligarchy against any taint from Americans.

[Pavlov]

Yeah, the Republicans already motivated the blacks in Alabama more than Obama did -- now they're poking at all the millennials in the country with this issue.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, the Republicans already motivated the blacks in Alabama more than Obama did -- now they're poking at all the millennials in the country with this issue.

If the lawsuits don't get the nn repeal stayed, I bet BigISP will wait until after the mid-terms to start the serious queering and fleecing.

[baseline bum]

Honestly, the fact that a decision this far-reaching can come down to 3 fucking assholes (or 6 lined pockets) is mind boggling itself.

Citizens United was decided by 5 assholes.

[Chris]

Net Neutrality is, in theory, regulations requiring ISPs to treat people fairly. This gets really technical, but that's the abbreviated version. Some people say this is what the current, Obama-led legislation does, while others say that this is crony capitalism. Many of the ISPs and Internet companies the regulations affected openly endorsed net neutrality, making some even more suspicious that it was crony capitalism.

Additionally, while many believe Net Neutrality protects our liberties, does nothing to compel social media websites like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter to respect its users' constitutional right to free speech. This is a major criticism among conservatives.


For the first 15 years of the internet, you could do anything you wanted on it. You could access anything you wanted on it. It was wide open. It grew and it created multibillionaires left and right. There was nothing wrong with it except the left didn't have their hands on it. Here comes Obama with net neutrality."

[Chris]

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/giphy.gif

[spurraider21]

chris doesnt know anything about what net neutrality does except obama

[vy65]

:cry "muh inernet"

What a principled, well thought out, and articulate defense of the net neutrality opposition. Thanks so much for giving me another perspective and a lot to think about.

[hater]

Citizens United was decided by 5 assholes.

1 trillion iraq war was decided by 2

[Chris]

chris doesnt know anything about what net neutrality does except obama

21 with the bads per par. SAD!

[hater]

Only hope is new technologies will keep these corporations spinning and they wont be able to keep up

Internet

Social media

Bitcoin

Satellite internet

Etc

Etc

Fuck these corporations hope they all rot to hell

[Chris]

CNN Implodes Over Net Neutrality, Claims Exact Opposite Of What FCC chairman Ajit Pai Said


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 today on a measure that would repeal the Obama-era net neutrality protections set in place in 2015 — a move that catapulted CNN into meltdown mode.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai issued a statement following the vote that highlighted the absurdity of the media’s rhetoric over the net neutrality debate:

It’s difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’ve heard from Title II supporters. And as the debate has gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So let’s be clear. Returning to the legal framework that governed the Internet from President Clinton’s pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the Internet. It is not going to end the Internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesn’t demonstrate their absurdity, our Internet experience before 2015, and our experience tomorrow, once this order passes, will prove them so.

Pai noted that “the internet wasn’t broken in 2015” and that there was no reason or need for net neutrality when it was put in place by the Obama administration in 2015.

Despite Pai’s clear and reasonable comments — which included: "It is not going to end the Internet as we know it" — CNN’s top story was: “End of the internet as we know it"

941384709510111232

CNN's "report," which definitely took more of a pro-net neutrality stance, also made highly misleading statements about the public's interest being in favor of net neutrality.

CNN wrote:

The repeal vote comes more than six months after the FCC kicked off the lengthy process to roll back the net neutrality protections. It received millions of comments during a review period, with the majority supporting the current protections.

This claim that the FCC received "millions" of pro-net neutrality comments during the review period is extremely misleading, as a study from the Pew Research Center found that nearly all of those comments were fake.

NPR reports:

It seems like a lot of Americans are interested in the net-neutrality debate. Some 22 million public comments have been filed with the Federal Communications Commission on the issue of whether all web traffic should be treated equally. ...

But, it turns out, much of that public input is not what it appears.

The Pew Research Center took a close look at the comments. Associate Director Aaron Smith said several things popped out. Maybe the biggest, 94 percent of the comments "were submitted multiple times, and in some cases those comments were submitted many hundreds of thousands of times."​

So in other words, almost all of the comments seem to have been parts of organized campaigns to influence the FCC commissioners to vote one way or the other.

The report from the Pew Research Center further noted that on nine separate occasions, more than 75,000 comments were submitted all at the exact same second, which they concluded was an organized campaign that contained “false or misleading personal information.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24700/cnn-implodes-over-net-neutrality-claims-exact-opposite-ryan-saavedra

[Pavlov]

Why do the rules have to change, Chris?

[Chris]

Liberal Netflix is 'disappointed':lmao

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25299456_2010121962348212_2654858978608556740_n.jp g?oh=d2c347061380c558ffc2a91b3c01be0b&oe=5A8C4E0C

[Spurtacular]

Honestly, the fact that a decision this far-reaching can come down to 3 fucking assholes (or 6 lined pockets) is mind boggling itself.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao Obama-Era Net Neutrality
:lmao #CNNIsFakeNews
:lmao Obama tried to end net neutrality.

[dabom]

The lowest common fucking denominator. :lol

[Reck]

Chris Is Disney still evil?

[BanditHiro]

Only hope is new technologies will keep these corporations spinning and they wont be able to keep up

Internet

Social media

Bitcoin

Satellite internet

Etc

Etc

Fuck these corporations hope they all rot to hell

well technically the pendulum will swing back and we will have a brand new FCC who will put back said protections and we will do this song and dance until Congress passes a law about it.

[Chris]

Chris Is Disney still evil?

1.) Do your own research.

2.) You're not intelligent enough to be passive aggressive and funny. Stop.

[Spurtacular]

Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656) Is Disney still evil?

:lmao Attack Disney; attack Tranny Nation!

[Spurtacular]

1.) Do your own research.

2.) You're not intelligent enough to be passive aggressive and funny. Stop.

:lmao Today's tranny.

[Reck]

1.) Do your own research.

2.) You're not intelligent enough to be passive aggressive and funny. Stop.

Just checking back to see if you still think they're evil as they have bought a big chunk of Fox. Is Fox now tainted?

[Chris]

:lmao Today's tranny.

His body his choice :lol

[Chris]

Just checking back to see if you still think they're evil as they have bought a big chunk of Fox. Is Fox now tainted?

All MSM is tainted. I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I've posted this chart several times which now needs an update.

http://thewei.com/kimi/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-09-14-at-11.44.50-PM.jpg

[Spurminator]

All MSM is tainted. I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I've posted this chart several times which now needs an update.

http://thewei.com/kimi/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-09-14-at-11.44.50-PM.jpg

Good to know you're on record against media consolidation.

[Spurminator]

Our Senator, ladies and gentlemen.

941489723901665280

[Chris]

Cruz

[monosylab1k]

All MSM is tainted. I've never claimed otherwise. In fact, I've posted this chart several times which now needs an update.

http://thewei.com/kimi/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2015-09-14-at-11.44.50-PM.jpg

So why do you still watch Disney owned ESPN?

[AaronY]

:lmao Today's tranny.


His body his choice :lol
Please tell me these two are gonna start teaming up

[boutons_deux]

THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS FROM THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY MEETING

1:"Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefitted from a free and open internet. This is not because the government imposed utility style regulation. It didn’t. This is not because the FCC had a rule regulating internet conduct. It had none. Instead through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, including the first six years of the Obama administration, the FCC abided by a 20-year bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate internet access.”—Commissioner Carr

internet service providers abided by neutrality principles before the rules were adopted. As we’ve written before (https://www.wired.com/story/what-an-internet-analyst-got-wrong-about-net-neutrality/), that’s not entirely accurate.
The FCC first outlined protections for internet users in a 2005 policy statement, and then created a more robust set of rules in 2010. Rolling back Title II protections for broadband doesn’t restore the internet to some glorious past in which broadband providers operated unfettered.

It ushers the internet into a brave new world in which the FCC is hopeless to stop future attempts to prioritize or suppress certain kinds of traffic.

2:"I sincerely doubt that legitimate businesses are willing to subject themselves to a PR nightmare for attempting to engage in blocking, throttling, or improper discrimination. It is simply not worth the reputational cost and potential loss of business."—Commissioner O’Rielly

We’re here to tell him: Businesses try to maximize profits whenever they sniff demand.

the “PR nightmare” is temporary, and consumers either adjust to the new pricing arrangement or defer the service altogether.

O’Rielly doubts internet service providers would take advantage of those same market forces. Ah, innocence.

3:"I, for one, see great value in the prioritization of telemedicine and autonomous car technology over cat videos...Consider that each autonomous vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four terabytes of data a day, much of which will be carried by wireless networks. It’s hard to imagine that some prioritization of traffic won’t be necessary, further undermining attempts to ban such practices."—Commissioner O’Rielly"

You know who else believed telemedicine services should be prioritized over cat videos? The 2015 FCC that passed the net neutrality order.

the 2015 rules specifically noted that “telemedicine services might alternatively be structured as ‘non-BIAS data services,’ which are beyond the reach of the open Internet rules.”

4:“After a two year detour, one that has seen investment, decline, broadband deployments put on hold and innovative new offerings shelved, it’s great to see the FCC returning to this proven regulatory approach.”—Commissioner Carr

This is the central justification for the FCC’s decision. But it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as we’ve detailed before (https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/). Many internet service providers increased their investments after the 2015 rules passed.

5: “Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected.”—Chairman Pai

the FTC only has the authority to pursue individual businesses for unfair or anticompetitive actions. It can’t issue industry-wide rules, such as a ban on blocking lawful content. In many cases, she says, the agency might be unable to use antitrust law against broadband providers that give preferential treatment to their own content or to that of partners.

6: "How does a company decide to restrict someone’s accounts or block their tweets because it thinks their views are inflammatory or wrong? How does a company decide to demonetize videos from political advocates without any notice?...You don’t have any insight into any of these decisions, and neither do I, but these are very real actual threats to an open internet."—Chairman Pai

Pai is suggesting that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are really to blame for the internet's decline, because they determine what people see online and have no obligation to tell people why they're seeing it

In a world without net neutrality—where we'll be in late February, after Thursday's rules take effect—internet service providers will decide whether it'll cost you.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest-whoppers-from-the-fccs-net-neutrality-meeting/

You Pai-suckers have no idea how bad Internet will get.

[boutons_deux]

Goddam, Chris is stupid piece of sheeple shit.

[Brazil]

How in hell being user you can be in favor of net neutrality being revoked tbh ? :lol

dat repug coon gene tbh

:lmao

:cry meh let's protect big companies earnings :cry

[Xevious]

How in hell being user you can be in favor of net neutrality being revoked tbh ? :lol

dat repug coon gene tbh

:lmao

:cry meh let's protect big companies earnings :cry
As I said before, anything even remotely associated with Obama must be destroyed in their eyes, even if it goes against their best interest.

[boutons_deux]

The ISPs are gonna charge content providers toll fees to carry their content, even auction to highest bidder (losers in the slow lanes, if not blocked completely).

Then the content providers gonna raise the prices to consumers, and "last mile" ISPs gonna implement data volume caps, penalties, slowdowns.

aka rentier capitalism, where the networks are the new "land" rented to content providers and consumers.

Now BIgISP has motivation to keep the "land" scarce (restricted bandwidth investments)

This is exactly why BigISP paid whore Pai and his 2 accomplices to kill net neutrality behind an avalanche of lies.

John Oliver pointed out that even under Title II, BigISP colluded to block access to Google Pay until Title II enforcement broke the collusion.

Now the FTC won't be able to stop such crap.

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump Jr. Blames Obama for His Father’s FCC Chair Destroying the Internet

As the public outcry against the Republican attack on the Internet grows,

Donald Trump, Jr decided to blame President Obama for his daddy's FCC chair voting to destroy Net Neutrality rules put into place by... Obama.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/12/14/donald-trump-jr-blames-obama-fathers-fcc-chair-destroying-internet.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/12/14/donald-trump-jr-blames-obama-fathers-fcc-chair-destroying-internet.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

Obama forced Repug FCC whores to destroy internet.

Goddamn, all the Trashes are fucking stupid (Kushner, too)

[baseline bum]

I can't understand why you're so happy to kill net neutrality, Chris, after how much you have sang the praises of Playstation Vue's streaming service in the other thread. Killing off net neutrality was done specifically to go after services like Playstation Vue, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV, and so on that threaten the profits of the cable monopolies. You think Spectrum isn't going to jack up your rate for using a service directly competing with their cable TV service once the lawsuits are all settled?

[boutons_deux]

I can't understand why you're so happy to kill net neutrality, Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656),

simple, understand that Chris is a stupid right wing sheeple who masochistically tolerates, even likes being screwed by the oligarchy, because whatever the oligarchy does, Chris and his ilk support it, blindly.

and I can't understand why you even bother to engage with rightwingnutjobs like Chris,etc. They have nothing, so they bring nothing.

[Spurminator]

I can't understand why you're so happy to kill net neutrality, Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), after how much you have sang the praises of Playstation Vue's streaming service in the other thread. Killing off net neutrality was done specifically to go after services like Playstation Vue, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV, and so on that threaten the profits of the cable monopolies. You think Spectrum isn't going to jack up your rate for using a service directly competing with their cable TV service once the lawsuits are all settled?

Chris doesn't have convictions, he has memes.

Even the meme factories he gets his material from are against this repeal.

[DMC]

How in hell being user you can be in favor of net neutrality being revoked tbh ? :lol

dat repug coon gene tbh

:lmao

:cry meh let's protect big companies earnings :cry
:lol

[Brazil]

I can't understand why you're so happy to kill net neutrality, Chris (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656), after how much you have sang the praises of Playstation Vue's streaming service in the other thread. Killing off net neutrality was done specifically to go after services like Playstation Vue, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV, and so on that threaten the profits of the cable monopolies. You think Spectrum isn't going to jack up your rate for using a service directly competing with their cable TV service once the lawsuits are all settled?


simple, understand that Chris is a stupid right wing sheeple who masochistically tolerates, even likes being screwed by the oligarchy, because whatever the oligarchy does, Chris and his ilk support it, blindly.

and I can't understand why you even bother to engage with rightwingnutjobs like Chris,etc. They have nothing, so they bring nothing.


Chris doesn't have convictions, he has memes.

Even the meme factories he gets his material from are against this repeal.

in one word he is a coon

[DMC]

You do realize the word "coon" is a negative connotation toward black people, right?

:lol

[TimDunkem]

You do realize the word "coon" is a negative connotation toward black people, right?

:lol


Give them 100 million, in a year they'll just have a better house to sell drugs from.

[Brazil]

You do realize the word "coon" is a negative connotation toward black people, right?

:lol

not shit sherlock :lol

[DarrinS]

So, does this mean we’re going back to 2400 baud phone modem and bbs?

Hard to tell with all the hysteria.

[Chris]

So, does this mean we’re going back to 2400 baud phone modem and bbs?

Hard to tell with all the hysteria.

It means disgruntled Liberals will have to pay another 99 cents for their shitty streaming services :lol

[Spurminator]

So, does this mean we’re going back to 2400 baud phone modem and bbs?

Hard to tell with all the hysteria.

No we're just potentially making internet service like cable TV subscriptions that are so popular these days.

But you're right, it's not as important an issue as mouthy 19 year olds protesting at Berkeley.

[Chris]

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25446448_1408802289246597_6099001354678742642_n.pn g?oh=bca6338e769f13980e93443ed1520197&oe=5ABD6767

^Mono and Reck

[Spurminator]

In summary, a wildly popular order signed in 2015 as a response to telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers has been defeated 3-2 in a closed door committee along party lines despite a wave of public opposition and no real reason to do so other than as a legislative favor for telecom companies who are hemorrhaging subscribers to Netflix, Hulu, etc., and the only thing some people can say about it is, "Y'all are seriously overreacting."

[Chris]

^"wildly popular" :lol

"telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers" (how dare they be allowed to make business decisions in an open and free market!)

"no real reason" :lol

[Wild Cobra]

What is it with all this fear mongering?

Content providers pay for specific bandwidths of communications just like users do. Can you imagine the legal battles if Comcast actually started to throttle Nextflix?

[boutons_deux]

What is it with all this fear mongering?

Content providers pay for specific bandwidths of communications just like users do. Can you imagine the legal battles if Comcast actually started to throttle Nextflix?

bandwidth is MB/sec, sold like this:

http://he.net/ip_transit.html?p=&t=&m=p&k=backbone%20capacity&gclid=CjwKCAiApdPRBRAdEiwA84bo35cB65TeJw029pHcEWvj Lrw2qTx6bdVONEUTCfsDXgeW3Ozjr2S8bhoCF_AQAvD_BwE

... without measuring data volume, my guess is now that backbone operators will start charging for data rate and data volume.

The two main points of killing net neutrality, why the ISPs have spent $100Ms buying legislators, is to make more money and with no regulation.

Consumers prices on all Internet access will go up ASAP. And your access to tor or comcastsucks.com, or any other sources BigISP doesn't like, will be heavily throttled or blocked.

FCC had to intervene to block BigISP from blocking Google Pay WITH Title II. Now such blocking is legal, or at least effectively beyond the capability of understaffed, underfunded FTC.

BigISP now has every motivation NOT to invest in more bandwidth, to keep supply below demand, to push up bandwith/data prices.

[Wild Cobra]

You have it backwards. Net neutrality regulations will raise rates and make service poorer.

There are reasons the packet types are treated differently. It is by necessity to provide smooth services with minimal complaints. As our demand for more and more bandwidth increases, Tier 1 to Tier 3 providers will have glitchy services by nature on streaming, and real time necessities, or cost so much more money in aggressive installations of expensive equipment. Millions of miles more of fiber optic cables.

Forget those nice fancy online shoot'em up games when the ping times dramatically increase.

Unless both end users can buy the level of service they need and can afford, prices will go through the roof, or always be bad. Probably a little of both.

[Pavlov]

^"wildly popular" :lol

"telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers" (how dare they be allowed to make business decisions in an open and free market!)

"no real reason" :lolWhy did they change the policy, Chris?

[boutons_deux]

Why did they change the policy, Chris?

unfair question, the response, if any, will be hilarious.

[ElNono]

You have it backwards. Net neutrality regulations will raise rates and make service poorer.

There are reasons the packet types are treated differently. It is by necessity to provide smooth services with minimal complaints. As our demand for more and more bandwidth increases, Tier 1 to Tier 3 providers will have glitchy services by nature on streaming, and real time necessities, or cost so much more money in aggressive installations of expensive equipment. Millions of miles more of fiber optic cables.

Forget those nice fancy online shoot'em up games when the ping times dramatically increase.

Unless both end users can buy the level of service they need and can afford, prices will go through the roof, or always be bad. Probably a little of both.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, per par. It's all about ISPs and the last mile, you didn't hear a peep from Level 3, etc backbone providers about lack of capacity and truth is capacity has been larger AND substantially cheaper over the last few years (easy to look up, and if you work with those people you would already know this). Plenty of dark fiber still to tap.

ISPs pay for bandwidth, and so does the users, Netflix, Google, and everyone else. Why should the ISP be the gatekeeper in that arrangement? The only reason is that they're the only ones with a captive audience, and the ones that won't guarantee service performance to maximize profits.

The fact is, the only ones doing packet filtering and prioritization are the ISPs because they've neglected to upgrade their infrastructure, and you don't see any of them bleeding cash, they're fucking rolling on it.

protip: if you wanna make a better anti-regulation argument, go for the 'why does most ISPs are government granted monopolies?' But that discussion isn't on the table, and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, tbh.

[Chris]

5_kc6XT8Gq8

[Pavlov]

5_kc6XT8Gq8Why did the policy have to change, Chris?

[DMC]

Why did the policy have to change, Chris?

Because you decided to run Hillary. Blame yourself.

[Pavlov]

Hillary*ding*

Holidays got you down?

[DMC]

*ding*

Holidays got you down?

Everything on this political forum boils down to a simple fact: You lost. You lost because you ran a loser. Your loser lost before. You ran her anyhow. You cheated your own best hope out of any shot at the office, now you have to live with what you've done yet you pretend you were cheated out of it.

But deflect away, CD. It's all you have left.

[Pavlov]

Everything on this political forum boils down to a simple fact: You lost. You lost because you ran a loser. Your loser lost before. You ran her anyhow. You cheated your own best hope out of any shot at the office, now you have to live with what you've done yet you pretend you were cheated out of it.

But deflect away, CD. It's all you have left.:lol

Is this what you're on about?

It sure does insulate you from any actual discussion. Your own safe space.

[DMC]

:lol

Is this what you're on about?

It sure does insulate you from any actual discussion. Your own safe space.

:lol like you've ever had an actual discussion here with your line of questioning and narrative schtick

[Pavlov]

:lol like you've ever had an actual discussion here with your line of questioning and narrative schtickIt's OK, man. Now we know you never will. Be safe.

[ElNono]

I had to google Ben Shapiro, tbh... no idea who he was... makes sense now...

[dabom]

*ding*

Holidays got you down?

:lol

[koriwhat]

I had to google Ben Shapiro, tbh... no idea who he was... makes sense now...

he's a white supremacist jew. lmao

[DMC]

It's OK, man. Now we know you never will. Be safe.

:lol "we"

[DMC]

:lol

You coming out of retirement tbh?

[DMC]

I had to google Ben Shapiro, tbh... no idea who he was... makes sense now...

He's a fast talking little fucker.

Some of his points are good, but people make convenient points, not good points. Ben is one of the lesser evils on the right however. He's no where near as blindly partisan as the Rush Limbaugh types.

[Spurminator]

Everything on this political forum boils down to a simple fact: You lost.

It really doesn't though. Apparently it's the only thing you're confident in having any conviction about, so you keep going back to it. You must be a big hit at parties

[DMC]

It really doesn't though.

Sure it does

See how that works?

I didn't even need some throw-away twitter line.

[Pavlov]

:lol "we"You just told us yourself.

Don't you remember? :lol

[Spurminator]

Sure it does

See how that works?

I didn't even need some throw-away twitter line.

Somehow this forum managed to function for 12 years before Dingery Clinton was a Presidential nominee. Maybe that's why you weren't around? Couldn't handle other topics?

It all makes sense now. Maybe read up on some other stuff before inserting yourself into every discussion with your retarded tangents. It's not very polite :nope.

[DMC]

You just told us.

Don't you remember? :lol

:lol "us"

Would that you you and Chumpdumper?

[Pavlov]

:lol "us"

Would that you you and Chumpdumper?No, you told everyone in the forum.

It's the only thing you ever committed to here.

lol

[DMC]

Somehow this forum managed to function for 12 years before Dingery Clinton was a Presidential nominee. Maybe that's why you weren't around? Couldn't handle other topics?

It all makes sense now. Maybe read up on some other stuff before inserting yourself into every discussion with your retarded tangents. It's rude.

12 years but for some reason you felt the need to create an alt and shit in your own threads. What if I inserted myself into every discussion using an alt, like you did? Would that make my main account less culpable?

:lol

[DMC]

No, you told everyone in the forum.

It's the only thing you ever committed to here.

lol

Do you represent the forum?

[Pavlov]

Do you represent the forum?Has nothing to do with what you told the entire forum.

I guess you can delete it or flip flop. It's your prerogative.

Until then, lol.

[Spurminator]

12 years but for some reason you felt the need to create an alt and shit in your own threads. What if I inserted myself into every discussion using an alt, like you did? Would that make my main account less culpable?

:lol

See, it's just weird how you aways change the subject like this to things that you imagine to be insulting. "Oh yeah? Hillary lost." "Oh yeah? You have an alt." "Oh yeah? Your dog died." It's not the look of an emotionally stable, confident person.

[DMC]

See, it's just weird how you aways change the subject like this to things that you imagine to be insulting. "Oh yeah? Hillary lost." "Oh yeah? You have an alt." "Oh yeah? Your dog died." It's not the look of an emotionally stable, confident person.

You mean like when you butted in to the conversation I was having with Aaron, insisiting that I am defensive because perhaps I am uneducated when the entire point of the conversation was that the vote wasn't decided by degree vs non-degree but from Aaron's own article:

"But voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity."

You didn't even catch up, you just stepped in and tried to troll me and got your shit pushed in, again. Seems to be a trend with you, needing every shit poster on the forum to come to your rescue so you try that with others.

[DMC]

Has nothing to do with what you told the entire forum.

I guess you can delete it or flip flop. It's your prerogative.

Until then, lol.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't represent the entire forum"

Didn't think so. Why should I care what you think?

[Pavlov]

I'll take that as a "No, I don't represent the entire forum"Irrelevant to your own words. They represent themselves.


Why should I care what you think?They're your words, not mine. Don't piss yourself over it. Delete them or flip-flop if they bother you.

[DMC]

Irrelevant to your own words. They represent themselves.

They're your words, not mine. Don't piss yourself over it. Delete them or flip-flop if they bother you.

All this yapping you've done and you've not really said anything. What are you going to do about it?

[Pavlov]

All this yapping you've done and you've not really said anything.I didn't have to say anything -- they're your words.
What are you going to do about it?I don't have to do anything about it. You are what you say you are. :lol

[DMC]

II don't have to do anything about it.

Exactly.

[Pavlov]

Exactly.Thanks for agreeing with me. :lmao

[DMC]

Thanks for agreeing with me. :lmao

Respond to me if you crave cock.

[ElNono]

He's a fast talking little fucker.

Some of his points are good, but people make convenient points, not good points. Ben is one of the lesser evils on the right however. He's no where near as blindly partisan as the Rush Limbaugh types.

I'll buy that for a dollar... I wouldn't necessary say Jimmy Kimmel is any authority to talk about Net Neutrality either, tbh... that's why videos like that are largely a waste of time, IMO.

[koriwhat]

jimmy kimmel is a fraud to the max... why people even watch that hack is beyond me. fuck that beta loser kimmel.

[Chris]

jimmy kimmel is a fraud to the max... why people even watch that hack is beyond me. fuck that beta loser kimmel.

Just another cog in the propaganda machine. There's actual science to support that your brain is more willing to accept information when you are laughing or in a jovial mood. Kimmel uses this to push the agenda. Avoid at all costs :tu

[spurraider21]

He's a fast talking little fucker.

Some of his points are good, but people make convenient points, not good points. Ben is one of the lesser evils on the right however. He's no where near as blindly partisan as the Rush Limbaugh types.
agree with that. listen to his podcast on occasion. his college lectures are cringeworthy tho imo

[DarrinS]

jimmy kimmel is a fraud to the max... why people even watch that hack is beyond me. fuck that beta loser kimmel.

Don’t be too harsh. Dude went from Vanna White role on Win Ben Stein’s Money, then was co-host of The Man Show with Adam Carolla, and is now is a political moral compass, giving sober political commentary on his own late night talk show.

He’s progressed a lot from these days


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IQer38s8hM

[Pavlov]

:lol Darrin's email lists tried to call that sexual harassment.

[DMC]

agree with that. listen to his podcast on occasion. his college lectures are cringeworthy tho imo

That's because he, like a few others who travel around giving these speeches, have canned answers for questions he knows he's going to get. Even the late, great Christopher Hitchens had that flaw, and you could hear the same responses from debate to debate, and the problem with his claims were often obvious. His opponents though, like him, never cared for the debate. They were all salesmen for their points, which is the same with Ben. They don't talk from a "let's explore this" perspective, but from "here's the canned response, now let me get in these other points I wanted to make while I have air time".

[Chris]

Ben pretty much destroys anyone who tries to debate him.

[DarrinS]

:lol Darrin's email lists tried to call that sexual harassment.

What email list? The internet?

[DMC]

Ben pretty much destroys anyone who tries to debate him.

He talks over people. It's a tactic used by people like Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher and others. When you have the mic, you're in charge. You learn how to say the zinger then move on. It doesn't make you right.

[Pavlov]

What email list? The internet?Sure, your internet. Only reason you know that video exists.

[Chris]

He talks over people. It's a tactic used by people like Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher and others. When you have the mic, you're in charge. You learn how to say the zinger then move on. It doesn't make you right.

Post one debate where he talks over someone. I've always seen him to be quite cordial unless provoked and even then maintains his cool under duress.

[ElNono]

He talks over people. It's a tactic used by people like Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher and others. When you have the mic, you're in charge. You learn how to say the zinger then move on. It doesn't make you right.

Also much easier to debate when your opponent can't answer... see posted video :lol

[Chris]

Also much easier to debate when your opponent can't answer... see posted video :lol

Kimmel has no interest in debating anyone...see posted video :lol

(he would get destroyed and humiliated like Cenk Uygar)

[DarrinS]

Sure, your internet. Only reason you know that video exists.

I have my own internet. That’s awesome.

[Pavlov]

I have my own internet. That’s awesome.:lol you get so pissy when you can't deny something like how you know of that video.

That's awesome.

[Spurminator]

You mean like when you butted in to the conversation I was having with Aaron, insisiting that I am defensive because perhaps I am uneducated when the entire point of the conversation was that the vote wasn't decided by degree vs non-degree but from Aaron's own article:

"But voters who agreed with the statement “people like me don't have any say about what the government does” were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer Trump. This feeling of powerlessness and voicelessness was a much better predictor of Trump support than age, race, college attainment, income, attitudes towards Muslims, illegal immigrants, or Hispanic identity."

I wasn't responding to Aaron's graph, I was responding to your silly post about how college degrees don't mean anything because Hillary lost. Don't act like the conversation was about aspects of the graph that were brought up 4 pages later. That's disingenuous.


You didn't even catch up, you just stepped in and tried to troll me and got your shit pushed in, again. Seems to be a trend with you, needing every shit poster on the forum to come to your rescue so you try that with others.

Only one of us seems to notice or care who "comes to my rescue" in here. Another weird thing that bothers you for no good reason.

[Chris]

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/25299453_1410438502416309_446658028429512340_n.jpg ?oh=3cc50c21c341e33db6854691799f4fed&oe=5AC22771

[spurraider21]

That’s one incoherent post

[DMC]

I wasn't responding to Aaron's graph, I was responding to your silly post about how college degrees don't mean anything because Hillary lost. Don't act like the conversation was about aspects of the graph that were brought up 4 pages later. That's disingenuous.


Which isn't what I said or the conversation we were having. You just couldn't help yourself. Of course degrees matter. I've said so many times here (unless its queer studies then probably not).


Only one of us seems to notice or care who "comes to my rescue" in here. Another weird thing that bothers you for no good reason.
It's not like there's open registration here. It's the same few jackwads and you know it because you're one of them.

[Pavlov]

That’s one incoherent post:lol

[Chris]

That’s one incoherent post

The G stands for Google. :tu Going grammar nazi on a meme - SAD!

[Pavlov]

The G stands for Google. :tu Going grammar nazi on a meme - SAD!Yeah but what is the meme actually saying?

Explain it for us.

[Chris]

Yeah but what is the meme actually saying?

Explain it for us.

No.

[Pavlov]

No.:lmao

I doubt the meme maker could explain it either.

[Chucho]

I don't understand how someone can think we are "going to get our freedom" back with net neutrality gone. It was never gone.

I'm a firm believer private businesses have the very right to not be forced to make things they don't want- the whole gay wedding cake issue.

Publicly held companies have stock holders and Boards and have to operate as the majority commands.

Both types of businesses shouldn't have the Government dictate how they operate and whom they serve so long they operate within the law. If you the patron doesn't like it don't patronize the business.

Getting "freedom" back that wasn't really gone is a shit argument. The internet started sucking when social media gave everyone a huge boost of self-importance. That was way before Net Nuetrality.

[Xevious]

I don't understand how someone can think we are "going to get our freedom" back with net neutrality gone. It was never gone.

I'm a firm believer private businesses have the very right to not be forced to make things they don't want- the whole gay wedding cake issue.

Publicly held companies have stock holders and Boards and have to operate as the majority commands.

Both types of businesses shouldn't have the Government dictate how they operate and whom they serve so long they operate within the law. If you the patron doesn't like it don't patronize the business.

Getting "freedom" back that wasn't really gone is a shit argument. The internet started sucking when social media gave everyone a huge boost of self-importance. That was way before Net Nuetrality.
And therein lies the problem. Most of us have two, sometimes only one ISP to chose from any more. While we can chose not to partake in streaming services, social media, etc... refusing interet service altogether is really not even an option anymore. You can't even hardly apply for a job or pay bills without internet service. These monopolies have our money regardless of what they do.

[Chucho]

And therein lies the problem. Most of us have two, sometimes only one ISP to chose from any more. While we can chose not to partake in streaming services, social media, etc... refusing interet service altogether is really not even an option anymore. You can't even hardly apply for a job or pay bills without internet service. These monopolies have our money regardless of what they do.

Correct. But I was talking about the "we lost our freedom (of speech)" with net neutrality. Don't like the way FB censors you? Post your self-indulgence on other social networks. Mad that a baker won't decorate your cake with queer decorations? Go buy your cake where someone will.

I didn't mean Iss8. Net neutrality kept them in check from stealing our monies faster than they wanted to. I don't understand how people thijnk it stifled their "freedom".

[ElNono]

And therein lies the problem. Most of us have two, sometimes only one ISP to chose from any more. While we can chose not to partake in streaming services, social media, etc... refusing interet service altogether is really not even an option anymore. You can't even hardly apply for a job or pay bills without internet service. These monopolies have our money regardless of what they do.

Exactly. The internet got so ubiquitous and socially important at many levels that: 1) we're not going back and 2) there's a compelling state interest in access.

This isn't new either. When the telephone was king, Ma Bell eventually had to be broken up (after 30+ years of anti-trust litigation). These companies are handed monopolies in exchange to providing subsidized access on non-profitable markets (thus the state fulfilling the access interest), but they don't want to be regulated like the monopolies/duopolies they are. And they fiercely fight any attempt at competition (look at the the cascade of lawsuits to prevent Google fiber accessing poles). That's why it's somewhat incomprehensible to watch free-market conservatives supporting market-altering monopolies/duopolies that do everything in their power to actually prevent a free-market, tbh...

Then again, the reality is that if you left it to the free market, a lot of areas would not have internet access, and would be severely disadvantaged. So this whole thing is a lot more complex than a few politicized soundbites. Just like health and education, it's a very important topic looking at the future of the country. From being a services economy, to competitiveness, anything that puts barriers to entry is ridiculous. And for what? A few more bucks?

Fortunately, the competition IS fierce in the mobile market, and I'm hoping that tech advances there will just make this thing a non issue in the long run.

[Xevious]

Fortunately, the competition IS fierce in the mobile market, and I'm hoping that tech advances there will just make this thing a non issue in the long run.
I had the same thought. The wired home internet connection may be going the way of the landline telephone eventually.

[boutons_deux]

It doesn't matter whether access is wired or mobile, prices are going up, paid prioritization is ASAP, some sites will be blocked

for wireless to the home to replace wired, $10Bs in investment in towers will be needed, since tower congestion for mobile-only is already a problem

killing Title II and passing enforcement to toothless, under-resourced FTC is the BigISP dream, even beyond what they paid PAi to do. They were shocked when he did it.

[AaronY]

It doesn't matter whether access is wired or mobile, prices are going up, paid prioritization is ASAP, some site will be blocked

for wireless to the home to replace wired, $10Bs in investment in towers will be needed, since tower congestion for mobile-only is already a problem

killing Title II and passing enforcement to toothless, under-resourced FTC is the BigISP dream, even beyond what they paid PAi to do. They were shocked when he did it.
Man, we're really doomed huh, boo?

[Xevious]

Man, we're really doomed huh, boo?

:lol

[boutons_deux]

We're all fucked and unfuckable, and the fucking is getting a lot worse.

[Chris]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jBipMHCUXjo/hqdefault.jpg

[Pavlov]

There's no way Chris understands any of this.

[Chris]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jBipMHCUXjo/hqdefault.jpg

[boutons_deux]

There's no way Chris understands any of this.

that's what the very sophisticated oligarchy and its storm troopers of accountants, lawyers, technocrats know, and are counting on, successfully.

They've managed to build a $3T/year gateway to health care, and the sheeple, totally helpless, just accept it.

And the sheeple eat shit, and too much of it, for decades, and end up overweight, obese, cancer, CVD, diabetes, kidney failures, Alzheimer's.

The oligarchy increases the water temperature very slowly, so the frogs don't revolt. Actually, armed revolution is impossible due to the militarized police/surveilance state's overwhelming power.

[Chris]

941984701085925376
942460828242063361
942475067224571904
942516056547102725
942517697765658624

[ElNono]

It's unfortunate that Teddy gets into these discussions, tbh, they completely destroy his credibility... the Internet was invented by government (and I'm far from a government apologist, but imagine that, your tax dollars actually did work!).

Furthermore, the FCC was already regulating the internet way before 2015... see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Fact is, the internet was always regulated by the FCC under Title I...

[Spurminator]

Ted just doing his bidding for his bidders.

[ElNono]

Oh look!, 2005, the FCC regulating the internet!

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

[ElNono]

There's actually no era when the internet was 'deregulated'. There was always regulation on the net... the question is what level of regulation...

[ElNono]

Ted just doing his bidding for his bidders.

Well, it's politics... Ted has to fall for it, but you don't. The sad part is that he votes the laws, but you don't.

[pgardn]

Good discussion.

[Th'Pusher]

It's unfortunate that Teddy gets into these discussions, tbh, they completely destroy his credibility... the Internet was invented by government (and I'm far from a government apologist, but imagine that, your tax dollars actually did work!).

Furthermore, the FCC was already regulating the internet way before 2015... see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Fact is, the internet was always regulated by the FCC under Title I...

Do you think Ted has any credibility? Honest question, tbh.

[daslicer]

For those of you who were Pro-Net Neutrality repeal what are the benefits of this repeal?

[Spurminator]

Ted's always kept the discussion super dumbed-down. Back in 2015 he was pushing this video in opposition to the Obama net neutrality plan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNTNqNizFs

[ElNono]

Do you think Ted has any credibility? Honest question, tbh.

some people think he does, he wouldn't hold the office he has otherwise

[Spurtacular]

There's actually no era when the internet was 'deregulated'. There was always regulation on the net... the question is what level of regulation...

What compelling reason is there for the government to get their grubby hands on the internet?

[Pavlov]

What compelling reason is there for the government to get their grubby hands on the internet?The government created the internet and already regulates it.

What compelling reason is there to let ISPs dictate all your internet traffic?

[Spurtacular]

The government created the internet

The commercial internet was very much facilitated by private companies. Again, I ask what is the compelling reason for them to regulate it. What do you think is broken that it needs to be changed?

[Pavlov]

The commercial internet was very much facilitated by private companies. Again, I ask what is the compelling reason for them to regulate it. What do you think is broken that it needs to be changed?Nothing is broken. That's why I don't want it to be changed. Changing will break it.

What compelling reason is there to let ISPs dictate all your internet traffic?

[Spurtacular]

What compelling reason is there to let ISPs dictate all your internet traffic?

They have profit motives, whereas govt. workers can be inefficient all they want. This ain't hard shit, bro. Stop being a shill.

[Spurtacular]

Nothing is broken. That's why I don't want it to be changed. Changing will break it.

So, you want the FCC to stay out of it, then.

[Pavlov]

They have profit motives, whereas govt. workers can be inefficient all they want. This ain't hard shit, bro. Stop being a shill.You didn't answer the question.

What compelling reason is there to let ISPs dictate all your internet traffic?

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question.

What compelling reason is there to let ISPs dictate all your internet traffic?

Oh, silly me. I figured profit motives was self explanatory. Competition creates quality, bro.

[ElNono]

What compelling reason is there for the government to get their grubby hands on the internet?

Well, they always did. As Scott put concisely in a post or two earlier in the thread (page 1 or 2), the ISPs are what is known as Natural Monopolies, and as such, they're strictly regulated due to the fact that they're a government sanctioned monopoly/duopoly.

Other than that, the government obviously has a compelling interest in access (just like they did for telephones, and still do for healthcare, etc), as the availability or lack of availability of those services can put huge portions of the population at an advantage/disadvantage.

Let's be clear, however, that government, even now after these changes, continues to regulate the internet (in this case under Title 1, which has much less bite than Title II).

[Pavlov]

Oh, silly me. I figured profit motives was self explanatory. Competition creates quality, bro.How is there competition for monopoly ISPs?

How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster competition?

[Spurtacular]

Well, they always did. As Scott put concisely in a post or two earlier in the thread (page 1 or 2), the ISPs are what is known as Natural Monopolies, and as such, they're strictly regulated due to the fact that they're a government sanctioned monopoly/duopoly.

Other than that, the government obviously has a compelling interest in access (just like they did for telephones, and still do for healthcare, etc), as the availability or lack of availability of those services can put huge portions of the population at an advantage/disadvantage.

Let's be clear, however, that government, even now after these changes, continues to regulate the internet (in this case under Title 1, which has much less bite than Title II).

And why do you think that the govt. continues to go against consumer demand (IE the constituency) and go against net neutrality?

[Xevious]

Oh, silly me. I figured profit motives was self explanatory. Competition creates quality, bro.
That has already been established... there is no competition among ISPs. You get whatever the fuck you get depending on where you live

[Spurtacular]

How is there competition for monopoly ISPs?

How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster competition?

So, you want the FCC to stay out of it, then. You never denied that.

[Pavlov]

So, you want the FCC to stay out of it, then. You never denied that.The FCC has never been out of it and I clearly stated I don't want the current policy to change.

How is there competition for monopoly ISPs?

How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster competition?

[Spurtacular]

That has already been established... there is no competition among ISPs. You get whatever the fuck you get depending on where you live

Yes, but the ISPs have to simply provide the service without strings. Destroying net neutrality will create tier pricing designed to enrich corporations with economies of scale and destroy smaller businesses. The ISP monopoly bull shit is just that; bull shit.

[Pavlov]

Yes, but the ISPs have to simply provide the service without strings. Destroying net neutrality will create tier pricing designed to enrich corporations with economies of scale and destroy smaller businesses. The ISP monopoly bull shit is just that; bull shit.OK, you're making zero sense.

[Spurtacular]

The FCC has never been out of it and I clearly stated I don't want the current policy to change.

How is there competition for monopoly ISPs?

How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster competition?

Stop being an ignorant bitch for once in your fucking life. FCC been stepping up their game with no compelling reason other than to take control.


On February 26, 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, thus subjecting it to Title II regulation, although several exemptions were also created. The reclassification was done in order to give the FCC a legal basis for imposing net neutrality rules (see below), after earlier attempts to impose such rules on an "information service" had been overturned in court.

[Spurtacular]

OK, you're making zero sense.

I can accept that simple economic concepts make zero sense to you.

[Pavlov]

Stop being an ignorant bitch for once in your fucking life.:lmao

And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?

[Pavlov]

I can accept that simple economic concepts make zero sense to you.Prove to me you understand these simple economic concepts:

How is there competition for monopoly ISPs?

How does a monopoly's dictating all your internet traffic foster competition?

[ElNono]

And why do you think that the govt. continues to go against consumer demand (IE the constituency) and go against net neutrality?

Politics. Doesn't really take a genius to see that the political fight here is between ISPs and service providers, both of which have extremely large lobbying war chests.

That why when this thread started (back in 2014?), I mentioned that we're going to get to some hybrid bullshit that basically fucks the consumers (us) in the ass.

Did you hear any mention of actual free-market solutions, like rescinding the monopolies/duopolies? I haven't. That could've been a reasonable solution to this.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao

And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?

Yea, the govt. has no designs. Stop mentally jacking off.

[Pavlov]

Yea, the govt. has no designs. Stop mentally jacking off.And what has happened in the almost two years since that regulation was put in place?

What happened to your internet personally?

Mine did not change at all as far as access to content. Speeds got faster.

[Spurtacular]

Politics. Doesn't really take a genius to see that the political fight here is between ISPs and service providers, both of which have extremely large lobbying war chests.

That why when this thread started (back in 2014?), I mentioned that we're going to get to some hybrid bullshit that basically fucks the consumers (us) in the ass.

Did you hear any mention of actual free-market solutions, like rescinding the monopolies/duopolies? I haven't. That could've been a reasonable solution to this.

My initial understanding is that the physical fiber-optic networks created the monopolies/duopolies. Has that changed?

[Xevious]

Yes, but the ISPs have to simply provide the service without strings. Destroying net neutrality will create tier pricing designed to enrich corporations with economies of scale and destroy smaller businesses. The ISP monopoly bull shit is just that; bull shit.
So you agree that this will harm small business. How is that benificial to anyone and how would that promote competition?

[ElNono]

Yes, but the ISPs have to simply provide the service without strings. Destroying net neutrality will create tier pricing designed to enrich corporations with economies of scale and destroy smaller businesses. The ISP monopoly bull shit is just that; bull shit.

And companies respond to shareholders, which means they have a fiduciary duty to try to exploit as much of their government granted monopoly power as necessary. That's why you're never going to see 'no regulation' as long as those monopolies/duopolies exist. True deregulation means ending those monopolies. BUT, ending those deals will also mean rural america will likely be disconnected, because it's likely not a profitable market. And thus comes the big conundrum about compelling state interest vs profit motive.

The thing is, we can have this conversation, but politicos won't have it. They won't touch Comcast, Verizon, etc with a 10 foot pole.

[Pavlov]

My initial understanding is that the physical fiber-optic networks created the monopolies/duopolies. Has that changed?https://i.imgur.com/lC5T68a.gif

[Spurtacular]

And companies respond to shareholders, which means they have a fiduciary duty to try to exploit as much of their government granted monopoly power as necessary. That's why you're never going to see 'no regulation' as long as those monopolies/duopolies exist. True deregulation means ending those monopolies. BUT, ending those deals will also mean rural america will likely be disconnected, because it's likely not a profitable market. And thus comes the big conundrum about compelling state interest vs profit motive.

The thing is, we can have this conversation, but politicos won't have it. They won't touch Comcast, Verizon, etc with a 10 foot pole.

I think your idea about rural markets not being profitable is probably wrong or otherwise overstated. But you put forth some interesting concepts there. How do you consider these to be govt. granted monopolies at this point?

[ElNono]

My initial understanding is that the physical fiber-optic networks created the monopolies/duopolies. Has that changed?

Nope, the monopolies/duopolies were created because while on a big metropolis, the cost of wiring what's known as 'the last mile' (from the local hub to the home) was economically sound, the state had a compelling interest that the whole country received services (this dates back to the phone lines, and the infrastructure that demanded), and so to subsidize companies for deploying on non-economic advantageous areas, two things were granted: 1) a monopoly over a certain area, which would cover the ROI for the massive infrastructure deployment, and 2) a Universal Service Fund paid by phone users.

Again, this dates back to regulations from the 60's.

[Pavlov]

I think your idea about rural markets not being profitable is probably wrong or otherwise overstated. But you put forth some interesting concepts there. How do you consider these to be govt. granted monopolies at this point?http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jerry-Seinfeld-WTF.gif

[Spurtacular]

Nope, the monopolies/duopolies were created because while on a big metropolis, the cost of wiring what's known as 'the last mile' (from the local hub to the home) was economically sound, the state had a compelling interest that the whole country received services (this dates back to the phone lines, and the infrastructure that demanded), and so to subsidize companies for deploying on non-economic advantageous areas, two things were granted: 1) a monopoly over a certain area, which would cover the ROI for the massive infrastructure deployment, and 2) a Universal Service Fund paid by phone users.

Again, this dates back to regulations from the 60's.

Yes, much of the upgrading of phone lines went hand and hand with the cable installation. But again, the very nature of the physical network is what created the natural monopolies/duopolies. I don't know if upgrades in technology has rendered that untrue or not. Have you an opinion/insight on that?

[ElNono]

I think your idea about rural markets not being profitable is probably wrong or otherwise overstated. But you put forth some interesting concepts there. How do you consider these to be govt. granted monopolies at this point?

Well, the landscape has certainly changed. In the past, you either received a copper line or you had to use very expensive microwave/satellite communications. Nowadays, you could provision more distant areas with cell service, and/or the possibly upcoming low earth orbit network.

If there's anything relatively positive about this development, is that it'll probably force other solutions to make the current monopolies irrelevant. But I don't expect the monopolists to just lay down. So we'll see how things develop. It's clear that if we continue to have the same actors, we're going to continue to be screwed as consumers. The FCC is supposed to be the entity that actually fights for the consumer, but you know, too politicized now.

[Spurtacular]

Well, the landscape has certainly changed. In the past, you either received a copper line or you had to use very expensive microwave/satellite communications. Nowadays, you could provision more distant areas with cell service, and/or the possibly upcoming low earth orbit network.

If there's anything relatively positive about this development, is that it'll probably force other solutions to make the current monopolies irrelevant. But I don't expect the monopolists to just lay down. So we'll see how things develop. It's clear that if we continue to have the same actors, we're going to continue to be screwed as consumers. The FCC is supposed to be the entity that actually fights for the consumer, but you know, too politicized now.

I don't think they see it that way at all. Nor do I think that people see the FCC that way whatsoever at this point. I think they are basically a corporation looking to enrich various entities. They're essentially sanctioned mafia.

[ElNono]

Yes, much of the upgrading of phone lines went hand and hand with the cable installation. But again, the very nature of the physical network is what created the natural monopolies/duopolies. I don't know if upgrades in technology has rendered that untrue or not. Have you an opinion/insight on that?

I do. Basically, a lot of the high speed backbone network was actually created by the government. Lots of 'dark fiber' are still available, but they go from city to city, they're not meant to be rerouted to a rural area, unless an ISP actually deploys. But this is why backbone providers don't have an issue with 'more bandwidth'. There's plenty of bandwidth on the backbone (heck, some universities have been running the fabled Internet II at much higher speeds for a while now). Furthermore, the actual costs to ISPs to tap into these networks has only gotten cheaper (technological advances tend to do that on a competitive market).

So the problem here is the captive audience. The 'last mile'. What's the incentive for ISPs to upgrade their networks? None. They can offer subpar service because they don't have to compete. Furthermore, because they're gatekeepers, they get to dictate the terms of what goes in that last mile.

Now, I don't want to paint ISPs necessarily as the bad guys, but the reality is that they're abusing a power that was granted to them, and no other than the entity that granted that power can stop that. That's the government. If you really want to remove the government from the internet, you have to remove the monopolies/duopolies (which the government granted). The problem is, and this is no bull, it does take a lot money to drop a wire (fiber now) to a remote city of 2000 people. Market says that even if you're slightly profitable on that area, it makes no sense to put forth the investment and maintenance on such areas, when you can make 1000x more on a metropolis. And so that people will get screwed. So it's always a balancing act.

[ElNono]

I don't think they see it that way at all. Nor do I think that people see the FCC that way whatsoever at this point. I think they are basically a corporation looking to enrich various entities. They're essentially sanctioned mafia.

Well, like I said, 'supposed to', and it did for a long time. Heck, Tom Wheeler, who was the previous commish and set forth the Title II regulation, was a former NCTA lobbyist and was pretty impressive he actually took that step (although he was familiar with the dynamics of the industry, and he never offered to undo monopolies).

[spurraider21]

For those of you who were Pro-Net Neutrality repeal what are the benefits of this repeal?
FREEDOM

[daslicer]

FREEDOM

:lol

[Brazil]

FREEDOM

or Make earnings of big corporations great again

[DMC]

FREEDOM

diYAc7gB-0A

[DMC]

the GOP figures that liberals use the internet much more than conservatives do, so to pay for tax breaks, they want to charge the liberals to post crap in the internet.

[boutons_deux]

After the death of net neutrality, what will the internet look like?

Negotiating internet access will feel a lot like negotiating your television cable or cellphone bill.

You'll be forced to untangle various packages relating to different sites and services you might use,

pay for ISP-branded content you probably don't care about, and

get that sinking feeling at the beginning of every month that,

one way or another, you're overpaying.

Instead of simply worrying about how much internet you use or how fast you need it to be, you're going to have to worry about what kind of internet you use.

Premium sites like Netflix and YouTube will likely cost more,

you'll be nickel-and-dimed for the use of free apps like iMessage and FaceTime, and

unfettered access to the full internet will be more expensive.

Start-ups, facing even higher barriers of entry, will be forced to spend money partnering with telecom companies. Fewer of them will survive.

And the start-ups that do survive will spend an unnecessarily high amount of their income paying to survive.

This is great news for established companies like

Facebook and Google that will always be able to afford internet tolls. They will cement their already dominant position against newer but better sites and services.

Decentralized services like bitcoin might never reach critical mass, since they have no corporate backing to pay the internet tolls, and will be automatically relegated to the slow lane of the internet from the get go.

Telecoms may also exert influence on political speech — like in 2007 when

Verizon prevented Naral Pro-Choice from using text messages to sign up new supporters,

citing their right to block "controversial or unsavory" content.

Verizon felt entitled to manipulate its cellphone network — its private infrastructure.

By 2020, telecoms may also feel entitled to keep their internet customers from accessing certain types of political speech on the public net.

Eventually the changes will give way to a

race to the bottom: ISPs will charge more and more to access the most valuable external services

and only those incumbents with enough cash will be able to reach their users.

Everyone else, including

start-ups, nonprofits, academics and regular people running their own websites, will be relegated to the undifferentiated trough of slow-lane internet traffic.

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-benenson-net-neutrality-future-20171218-story.html#testnws=politicsnow&track=_newsletter_politics-now___________20171219

[boutons_deux]

Comcast Is Pushing For a Flimsy Net Neutrality Law it Knows Telecom Lobbyists Will Write

large ISPs still need to find a way to prevent any future FCCs from simply reinstating the rules.

That’s why the same giant ISPs that backed the FCC’s assault on net neutrality are now pushing for a “legislative solution” in Congress.

The goal:

they want a law that contains so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless, yet prevents the FCC from crafting any real, tough laws down the road.

And they know that with this incarnation of Congress so awash in campaign contributions (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/11/16746230/net-neutrality-fcc-isp-congress-campaign-contribution), that big telecom lawyers will be the ones writing it.

It would likely ban most of the more heavy-handed abuses Comcast knows it couldn’t get away with anyway, ranging from the outright blocking of websites and services, to the blatant throttling of the company’s competitors.

Comcast long ago gave up on such efforts to instead focus on more subtle, clever abuses of a lack of competition in the broadband space.

a Comcast-approved law wouldn’t cover all of the areas where net neutrality violations are actually currently occurring, whether that’s Comcast’s use of arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7wjw/why-comcasts-data-caps-arent-about-fairness) (and zero rating of its own content (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7nyx/comcast-hit-with-fcc-zero-rating-complaint-over-stream-tv)), or the interconnection shenanigans we witnessed when ISPs let peering points congest to drive up costs (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml) for content and transit companies.

There’s a universe of ways that companies like Comcast can hide this anti-competitive behavior behind faux-technical jargon

Comcast blocked its broadband customers for using Roku or their Playstation to watch HBO Go for no coherent reason (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140305/14254626446/comcast-still-blocking-hbo-go-roku-now-playstation-3-incapable-explaining-why.shtml), or

how it applied arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps under the guise of fairness (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7wjw/why-comcasts-data-caps-arent-about-fairness), with the real goal of making using competing services more expensive.

The solution being offered here won’t be real net neutrality, but an effort to codify federal apathy to a lack of broadband competition into law. With the express purpose of preventing tough, real rules down the road.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvw8k5/comcast-fcc-net-neutrality-law?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1219&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1219+CID_c6788629c309507a6b574d5f66f006ae&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more

[boutons_deux]

Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False

The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet was refuted by an Inspector General investigation whose findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote.

We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process"


This statement kicked the Obama-is-taking-over-the-internet talking point into overdrive

(fringe conservative groups had already been calling net neutrality “Marxist” (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4mzax/net-neutrality-is-marxist-according-to-this-koch-backed-astroturf-group) in emails to Republican mailing lists).

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbympa/net-neutrality-fcc-inspector-general-report?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter +-+1219&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1219+CID_c6788629c309507a6b574d5f66f006ae&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vbympa/net-neutrality-fcc-inspector-general-report?utm_campaign=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter +-+1219&utm_content=Motherboard+Premium+Newsletter+-+1219+CID_c6788629c309507a6b574d5f66f006ae&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor&utm_term=Read+more)

[boutons_deux]

comcast whore Blackburn doing BigISP dirty work, she's pocketed $600K from the telecom industry

The Republican net neutrality bill doesn't save net neutrality

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced a bill in response to the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16776154/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-results-rules-repealed), but supporters of net neutrality aren’t happy with it.

The Open Internet Preservation Act (http://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NN_02_xml.pdf) :lol

would prevent blocking or degrading the quality of legal web traffic,

but would also ban the FCC from making any rules that go beyond those two requirements.

It would override any state net neutrality laws,

like those recently proposed (https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/15/16780564/net-neutrality-is-dead-what-happens-next) for California and Washington.

And it firmly defines broadband as an “information service,” which would mean it couldn’t be regulated more strictly as a Title II service, as it was under the newly repealed Open Internet Order.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/19/16797778/congress-open-internet-preservation-act-marsha-blackburn-net-neutrality-bill

[boutons_deux]

This is one of the many ways the oligarchy buys and FAKES NEWS

NAACP Fought Net Neutrality Until Last Week, Now Suddenly Supports The Idea

For years now we've pointed out how one of the telecom industry's sleazier lobbying tricks involves paying minority groups (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170213/14460536703/comcast-att-are-paying-minority-groups-to-support-killing-net-neutrality.shtml) to parrot awful tech policy positions.

That's why you'll often see groups like the "Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership" support competition-killing mergers (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140221/09525626310/comcast-paying-minority-rights-groups-to-parrot-merger-support.shtml) or oppose consumer-centric policies like more cable box competition (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160204/12294833522/comcast-using-minority-astroturf-groups-to-argue-cable-set-top-box-competition-hurts-diversity.shtml) or increased wireless competition.

This quid pro quo is never put into writing, so when these groups are asked why they're supporting policies that undermine their constituents, they can deny it with a wave of breathless indigence.

But this tactic remains very real, and very harmful all the same.

It played a huge role in ginning up bogus support for the attack on net neutrality (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170213/14460536703/comcast-att-are-paying-minority-groups-to-support-killing-net-neutrality.shtml).

AT&T and Comcast have co-opted countless minority groups in this fashion, with a lot of it coordinated through a telecom-funded organization dubbed the Multicultural Media, Telecom & Internet Council (MMTC).

In short:

if you want to keep the funding flowing, it's expected that you'll parrot telecom industry policies, even if they harm your constituents.

This has been a problem for years (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/31/net-neutrality-naacp-verizon_n_5630074.html) that nobody much likes to talk about.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171218/13023938832/naacp-fought-net-neutrality-until-last-week-now-suddenly-supports-idea.shtml

and with the ADDITIONAL $100Bs flowing to the oligarchy for the oligarchy's tax cut scam, buying influence, legislators, judges, anybody, will be relatively much cheaper, mere rounding error.

[Chris]

Outstanding journalism here



dYVgIGL1E34

[Pavlov]

Still convinced Chris has no idea what the issues are here.

[Chris]

Pooplov with another poop post :lol

[Pavlov]

Pooplov with another poop post :lolYou haven't proved me wrong.

[boutons_deux]

22 States Sue FCC For Axing Net Neutrality

The legal battle against the Federal Communications Commission has just begun.

Schneiderman is leading the multistate lawsuit, backed by a coalition of attorneys general from 20 other states ―

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington ―

and the District of Columbia.

The attorneys general, all of whom are Democrats, claim that the FCC broke federal law when it reversed the net neutrality rules.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/attorneys-general-sue-fcc-net-neutrality_us_5a5e84c3e4b00a7f171b815a?utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=__TheMorningEmail__011718&utm_content=__TheMorningEmail__011718+CID_4780dbee a4b26093d4872beef42e9d57&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=HuffPost&ncid=newsltushpmgnews__TheMorningEmail__011718

otoh, Repug whores are paid to support BigISP screwing their rural/redneck/dirt-scratcher/trailer-park base.

[boutons_deux]

More Mayors Sign Pledge to Protect Net Neutrality, Refusing to Do Business with Internet Providers That Don't

Mayors and local leaders who have signed the pledge as of Monday morning:

Mayor Bill de Blasio — New York, New York
Mayor Steve Adler — Austin, Texas
Mayor Ted Wheeler — Portland, Oregon
Mayor Ron Nirenberg — San Antonio, Texas
Mayor Sly James — Kansas City, Missouri
Mayor Mark Farrell — San Francisco, California
Mayor Catherine E. Pugh — Baltimore, Maryland
Mayor Barney Seney — Putnam, Connecticut
Mayor Paul Soglin — Madison, Wisconsin
Mayor Sam Liccardo — San Jose, California
Mayor Jacob Frey — Minneapolis, Minnesota
County Board of Supervisors Chair Zach Friend — Santa Cruz County, California

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/03/12/more-mayors-sign-pledge-protect-net-neutrality-refusing-do-business-internet

[boutons_deux]

Comcast 'blocks' an encrypted email service: Yet another reminder why net neutrality matters

For about twelve hours earlier this month, encrypted email service Tutanota (https://tutanota.com/) seemed to fall off the face of the internet for Comcast customers.

But as soon as users switched to another non-Comcast internet connection, the site appeared as normal

It's not the first time Comcast customers have been blocked from accessing popular sites. Last year, the company purposefully blocked access to internet behemoth Archive.org for more than 13 hours (https://blog.archive.org/2017/06/05/comcasts-blocking-and-un-blocking-of-archive-org-what-we-know-so-far/).
In recent weeks, there have been several more site blocking issues.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/comcast-customers-blocked-encrypted-email-service-net-neutrality-repeal/

[boutons_deux]

Could California Effectively Restore Net Neutrality for the Entire Country?

In the absence of federal open-internet protections, states across the country are starting to pass their own laws

If the legislation passes, California would follow Washington, which was the first state to pass its own (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/business/net-neutrality-washington-state.html) network neutrality policy at the beginning of the month.

Governors in New York, Montana, and Hawaii have issued executive orders that bar (https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/new-york-and-montana-have-a-new-trick-to-protect-network-neutrality.html) state offices from doing any business with internet providers that don’t adhere to basic network neutrality protections,

California’s might be the most significant—not just for the bill’s toughness and the state’s huge population, but also because it’s the home of the world’s largest internet giants.

beyond banning internet providers from blocking or throttling access to websites,

would also bar them from engaging in another discriminatory process called “zero rating (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is-why-you-should-care),”

which is when an internet providers privileges some websites and apps over others by not counting their usage against monthly data caps.

The new California proposal would also bar internet providers from meddling with or unreasonably neglecting network management and interconnection agreements (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/peering-soft-underbelly-net-neutrality) that would downgrade how certain websites are able to connect to their networks, a practice all kinds of internet providers have engaged in over the years.

Barbara van Schewick, a law professor at Stanford University who specializes in internet regulation,

doesn’t believe the the FCC’s pre-emption clause will hold water.

According to case law “the FCC can only prevent the states from adopting net neutrality protections if the FCC has authority to adopt net neutrality protections itself,”

https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/could-california-effectively-restore-net-neutrality.html

[boutons_deux]

probably a harbinger of ISP hard ball

Comcast won’t give new speed boost to Internet users who don’t buy TV service

Comcast keeps losing TV subscribers, but it has a new way to fight cord cutting.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/comcast-wont-give-new-speed-boost-to-internet-users-who-dont-buy-tv-service/

[boutons_deux]

Senate Democrats plan to force vote on net neutrality May 9th

They've got enough signatures to file the petition.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/30/senate-democrats-force-vote-net-neutrality-may-9th/

[boutons_deux]

The Senate’s Big Vote to Save Net Neutrality and Embarrass Republicans Is This Week (https://gizmodo.com/the-senate-s-big-vote-to-save-net-neutrality-and-embarr-1826007202)

Senate Democrats announced today that they’ll force a vote to keep net neutrality protections in place on Wednesday, May 16.

Support in the chamber is just one vote shy of passing the resolution, but Democrats see a win no matter what the outcome.

The net neutrality rules the FCC overturned prevented internet service providers from blocking or throttling online content. It also prevents ISPs from creating “fast lanes” for content providers that are willing to pay more to have their sites and services delivered at greater speeds to customers, which critics say effectively puts everyone else in a “slow lane.”

Senate Democrats have been rallying around an effort to maintain the Title II protections through the Congressional Review Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act),

which Congress can use to overturn federal regulations with a simple-majority vote.

At this point, 49 Democrats and Republican Senator Susan Collins have jumped on board

—meaning that if all senators are present for the vote, just one more Republican will need to flip.

In a statement sent to Gizmodo, Senator Ed Markey wrote, “May 16 will be the most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate, and I call on my Republican colleagues to join this movement and stand on the right side of digital history.”

https://gizmodo.com/the-senate-s-big-vote-to-save-net-neutrality-and-embarr-1826007202?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29

[boutons_deux]

Net neutrality, according the Pai's calendar, is finished at midnight, tonight.

Ryan has time to pass cuts to CHIP, but no time to vote on net neutrality.

[boutons_deux]

Pai and his FCC is just another oligarchy shit bag

FCC Emails Show Agency Spread Lies to Bolster Dubious DDoS Attack Claims (https://gizmodo.com/fcc-emails-show-agency-spread-lies-to-bolster-dubious-d-1826535344)

As it wrestled with accusations about a fake cyberattack last spring, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) purposely misled several news organizations, choosing to feed journalists false information, while at the same time discouraging them from challenging the agency’s official story.

Internal emails reviewed by Gizmodo lay bare

the agency’s efforts to counter rife speculation that senior officials manufactured a cyberattack,

allegedly

to explain away technical problems plaguing the FCC’s comment system

amid its high-profile collection of public comments on a controversial and since-passed proposal to overturn federal net neutrality rules.

The FCC has been unwilling or unable to produce any evidence an attack occurred

—not to the reporters who’ve requested and even sued over it, and not to U.S. lawmakers who’ve demanded to see it. Instead, the agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story with the aid of friendly and easily duped reporters, chiefly by spreading word of an earlier cyberattack that its own security staff say never happened.

The FCC’s system was overwhelmed on the night of May 7, 2017,

after comedian John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, directed his audience to flood the agency with comments supporting net neutrality.

In the immediate aftermath, the agency claimed the comment system had been deliberately impaired due to a series of distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS).

Net neutrality supporters, however, accused (http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/160454924113/fccs-claim-that-site-was-hacked-during-john) the agency of fabricating the attack to absolve itself from failing to keep the system online.
The system similarly crashed after Oliver ordered his viewers to the FCC website in 2014. The FCC, at the time led by Democrat Tom Wheeler, determined that the comment system had been affected by a surge of internet traffic.

The issue was compounded, sources told Gizmodo, by a weakness in the system’s out-of-date software.

Importantly, the agency never blamed a malicious attack for the system’s downtime in 2014—not in any official statement.

But in May 2017,

under the Trump-appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, at least two FCC officials quietly pushed a fallacious account of the 2014 incident, attempting to persuade reporters that the comment system had long been the target of DDoS attacks.

“There *was* a DDoS event right after the [John Oliver] video in 2014,” one official told reporters at FedScoop, according to emails reviewed by Gizmodo.

https://gizmodo.com/fcc-emails-show-agency-spread-lies-to-bolster-dubious-d-1826535344

============

FCC’s 2019 Budget Shrinks To $333 Million; Fee Cuts Planned.

http://www.insideradio.com/free/fcc-s-budget-shrinks-to-million-fee-cuts-planned/article_296bbe96-108f-11e8-ab86-f7675854b12f.html

So the FCC commenting system will not, never?, be hardened against "attacks" by John Olivers's viewers. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Net neutrality is officially repealed. Here’s what happens next.

Net neutrality can still be saved, but the window of opportunity just got smaller.

Basically, very little has changed since last month, when Congress’s last-ditch attempt to cancel the repeal under the Congressional Review Act (https://www.vox.com/2018/5/16/17360318/net-neutrality-senate-vote-result) (CRA) made headlines.

The measure passed in the Senate, but it’s extremely unlikely to pass in the House, where canceling the repeal is deeply unpopular with the majority of Republicans despite the fact that

over 80 percent of Americans support net neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.5026b044275b).
In fact, since Congress only has 60 days to review the law (starting from April 23, 2018),

it’s possible the House could just stall and refuse to vote on the CRA at all until the time limit expires.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17448680/fight-to-save-net-neutrality-repealed-what-next

[boutons_deux]

I expect whore Ryan will stall n/n to death, no vote

again, Repugs don't GAF about what Americans want, but only about what the oligarchy pays for.

[boutons_deux]

Bill to save net neutrality is 46 votes short in US House172 Democrats signed petition to force vote, but they need 218 signatures.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/bill-to-save-net-neutrality-is-46-votes-short-in-us-house/
Repugs gonna let net neutrality die, and oligarchy's gonna screw us all out of $Bs more in internet speeds, volume caps, premium services, on-demand viewing, etc.

Do you FCC supporters really think ATT, Verizon, etc want to kill n/n for any other reason than to fleece us more?

[boutons_deux]

(Catholic asshole Kavanaugh is against net neutrality)

Trump's FCC wants to force consumers to pay FCC $225 to review complaints against telecoms (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/11/1779702/-Trump-s-FCC-wants-to-force-consumers-to-pay-225-to-review-complaints-against-telecoms)

On Thursday, Pai and his Republican-majority FCC will vote to do away with reviewing the free “informal” complaint system. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/ajit-pais-fcc-wants-to-stop-reviewing-your-complaints-unless-you-pay-225/?amp=1)


The FCC accepts two types of complaints: informal ones and formal ones.

It costs nothing to file an informal complaint and

$225 to file a formal one;

given that, consumers almost always file informal complaints.

Besides the filing fee, formal complaints kick off a court-like proceeding (http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=100098X1555750&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fconsumercomplaints.fcc.gov%2Fhc% 2Fen-us%2Farticles%2F205082880-Filing-a-Complaint-Questions-and-Answers%23question_15&sref=rss) in which the parties appear before the FCC and file numerous documents to address legal issues.

It isn't an easy process for consumers to go through.


Pai wants to argue that this will “streamline” the process.

Because the “process” he and his Party’s overlords are involved in has to do with silencing the public while solidifying a plutocratic power structure.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/11/1779702/-Trump-s-FCC-wants-to-force-consumers-to-pay-225-to-review-complaints-against-telecoms

[Winehole23]

duopoly pricing power:


"[I]n recent years, the nation's two largest telco ISPs, AT&T and Verizon, have eliminated their cheaper rate tiers for low and mid-speed Internet access, except at the very slowest levels," the NDIA wrote. "Each company now charges essentially identical monthly prices—$63-$65 a month after first-year discounts have ended—for home wireline broadband connections at almost any speed up to 100/100 Mbps fiber service."


The exceptions are for Verizon DSL service with download speeds of 768kbps or less and for AT&T service with download speeds from 768kbps to 5Mbps. For those extremely slow services, "the two companies charge $10 a month less," or $50 a month, the NDIA wrote.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/50-a-month-for-1mbps-how-att-and-verizon-rip-off-dsl-customers/

[Winehole23]

Tens of millions (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/comcast-or-charter-is-the-only-25mbps-choice-for-68-million-americans/) of people in the AT&T and Verizon service territories can only buy slow DSL Internet from the companies, yet they often have to pay the same price as fiber customers who get some of the fastest broadband speeds in the US.

[Winehole23]

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to vacate a 2016 appeals court ruling that had upheld Obama era “net neutrality” rules that barred internet service providers from blocking, throttling or prioritizing content.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-vacate-obama-era-internet-rules-idUSKBN1KO2OF

[boutons_deux]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-vacate-obama-era-internet-rules-idUSKBN1KO2OF

net neutrality, It's Road Kill

[boutons_deux]

FCC admits it was never actually hacked

The FCC has come clean on the fact that a purported hack of its comment system last year never actually took place, after a report from its inspector general found a lack of evidence supporting the idea.

Chairman Ajit Pai

blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration :lol

for providing “inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people.”

the FCC has continuously upheld the idea that it was under attack and has never publicly walked it back.

At any time in the last year, especially after Bray had departed,

it would have been, if not simple, then at least more simple than maintaining its complex act of knowledgelessness,

to say that the CIO had made an error and there was no attack. Nothing like that has escaped the mouth of Chairman Pai.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/06/fcc-admits-it-was-never-actually-hacked/

[boutons_deux]

70 State-Level Bills That Would Protect Consumer Privacy

In 2018 alone, the telecom lobby has killed or stalled a whole host of legislation that would prevent ISPs from selling your data.

ISP privacy laws create a formidable alliance between tech companies and telecom corporations: “Every internet company is on the same side in privacy bills. They don’t want them. It’ll hurt their bottom line.”

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5nbk3/judge-upholds-subpoena-for-personal-information-of-white-supremacists-on-discord

The unstoppable oligarchy buys, and gets, whatever the fuck it wants, and it wants citizens raped for profit in every orifice

[Chris]

1029441836534951936

:tu

[boutons_deux]

Here's a fucking racist brownie going after redskins

Court Rejects Ajit Pai's Bid To Reduce Broadband Subsidies For Tribal Areas

been busy slowly-but-surely gutting programs (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180709/09483340203/ajit-pais-cure-digital-divide-looks-suspiciously-like-giant-middle-finger.shtml) designed to help bring broadband to the nation's less affluent areas.

One of Pai's core policies has been a relentless attack on the FCC's Lifeline program (https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers).

Lifeline was

created under the Reagan administration and

expanded under the George W. Bush administration, and

provides low-income households with a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use

to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one).

The FCC under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.

this program had broad, bipartisan support and was never deemed even remotely controversial. But ever since Trump and Pai stumbled into town, the current FCC has slowly waged war on the program.

a U.S. Appeals court issued a stay order (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4754989/Tribal-Pai-Stay-Order.pdf) (pdf) freezing Pai's efforts to kill Tribal broadband subsidies, the court arguing that Tribal organizations and smaller wireless carriers are likely to win their court challenge against the recent FCC changes.

Pai had taken aim at the program's use in tribal areas under purely ideological grounds

(ie: government can never do good

and should be gutted from all oversight of natural monopolies),

insisting his agency was purely concerned about potential fraud in the program.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180813/10070540417/court-rejects-ajit-pais-bid-to-reduce-broadband-subsidies-tribal-areas.shtml

More evidence why the oligarchy is stuffing the Federal judiciary with their whore politicians in robes.

[Chris]

My internet speeds have been terrific. Obama tried to ruin the internet in addition to the United States.

[leemajors]

My internet speeds have been terrific. Obama tried to ruin the internet in addition to the United States.

My internet speeds jumped by a factor of ten during the obama admin. they're not offering anything faster than gigabit.

[boutons_deux]

Grandecom has upped my speed from 50 Mb/s to 100+, unannounced and same price.

I guess trying to dissuade cord cutters (I "cord cut" my TV over cable)

[boutons_deux]

People Still Don't Like Their Cable Companies, CR's Latest Telecom Survey Finds

Larger cable providers once again take a beating for perceived value—even when it comes to bundled plans

If there's one big takeaway from this year's survey, it's that

it pays to haggle

—and most of our survey respondents do. Seventy percent said they tried to negotiate a better deal at some point, and

the overwhelming majority—

80 percent—were able to get one or more perks, including a new or extended promotional rate and outright price cuts.

Top-rated EPB, a municipal broadband service (https://www.consumerreports.org/municipal-broadband/are-city-owned-municipal-broadband-networks-better/) run as a public utility in Chattanooga, Tenn., was one of the few bright spots for internet service.

It was the only company to receive a top mark for value. It also got top marks for speed and reliability.

Google Fiber was a close second in the ratings, the only other company to get a favorable mark for value.

https://www.consumerreports.org/phone-tv-internet-bundles/people-still-dont-like-their-cable-companies-telecom-survey/

[Winehole23]

speed isn't the only thing that matters.

throttling, bundling and monopoly pricing apparently cut no ice with Trumpalos like Chris.

[Winehole23]

http://i.imgur.com/o428Hqk.jpg?fb (https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1964087_-ARCHIVED-THREAD----Gorsuch-calls-Trump-comments-about-judges--disheartening-and-demoralizing-.html&page=5)

[Spurminator]

speed isn't the only thing that matters.

throttling, bundling and monopoly pricing apparently cut no ice with Trumpalos like Chris.

Not until ISPs start blocking or throttling sites like InfoWars. He'll still find a way to blame Obama though.

[ElNono]

speed isn't the only thing that matters.

throttling, bundling and monopoly pricing apparently cut no ice with Trumpalos like Chris.

Plus anecdotes are as good as anybody else's...

[boutons_deux]

'Complete Joke': Democrats Ripped for Totally Failing to Grill FCC Chair Ajit Pai Over Net Neutrality Cyberattack Lies

"There were many opportunities to talk about how the FCC misled the press and mistreated reporters. That should have been the story of this hearing, but they didn't make Pai sweat nearly enough."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/16/complete-joke-democrats-ripped-totally-failing-grill-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-over-net

This is why America is fucked and unfuckable, with the feckless Dems being at passively complicit by letting the oligarchy rape America, and offering no serious resistance to the Repugs.

Pelosi? Schumer? :lol GMAFB

[boutons_deux]

Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

The old team is back together, filing a brief that asksthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reverse the reversal. Together,

the AGs represent states totaling 165 million people — more than half of the U.S. population.

The list includes a number of populous states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/21/twenty-two-states-ask-appeals-court-to-bring-back-net-neutrality/



Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutralityTwenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

[ElNono]

Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire

Verizon Wireless' throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules.

"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."

Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

[Winehole23]

get em Santa Clara FD

[boutons_deux]

Comcast/Charter lobby asks FTC to preempt state broadband regulations

As FTC reexamines enforcement, broadband lobby asks for hands-off approach.

broadband lobby groups are now asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to avoid imposing stricter regulations on the industry.

the FTC can only punish ISPs if they make net neutrality promises and then fail to keep them— :lol

ISPs could avoid FTC punishment simply by not making net neutrality promises. :lol

cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that

"there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory burdens." :lol

The FTC should let "market forces" prevent bad behavior :lol

and avoid specific net neutrality or privacy regulation for the broadband industry, the lobby group said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/comcastcharter-lobby-asks-ftc-to-preempt-state-broadband-regulations/

top rule: if ain't illegal and is profitable, BigCorp will "bad behavior" the customer to the max, with impunity.