Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash FCC: You know how we said we'd reconsider this net neutrality paid priority thing? We lied   (m.washingtonpost.com) divider line 886
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19186 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

886 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-15 11:43:24 AM  
thanks obama
 
2014-05-15 11:43:29 AM  
The industry insider that heads the FCC sides with the industry? No way!
 
2014-05-15 11:43:59 AM  
Fark!
 
2014-05-15 11:44:03 AM  
Welp, it's been nice knowing ya, internets.
 
2014-05-15 11:44:11 AM  
Cat videos are going to cost a fortune now.
 
2014-05-15 11:44:39 AM  
I'd post an image to express my anger over this, but the website it is hosted on didn't pay their ISP the ransom fee for .jpg files.
 
2014-05-15 11:44:44 AM  
Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?
 
2014-05-15 11:45:13 AM  

sprawl15: thanks obama


From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:23 AM  
Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:26 AM  
1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:35 AM  
This is going to really hurt my Super Karate Monkey Death Car.
 
2014-05-15 11:45:53 AM  
I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!

/my cold dead hands
 
2014-05-15 11:46:24 AM  
This is gonna work out great for the "everyman" of America.

No, really it is.  A whole bunch of the goodness won't get concentrated at the top, leaving everyone else scrapping for the crumbs.

No, not here, not in America.  Never happen.

Guess I better pull my old ham radios out of storage....
 
2014-05-15 11:46:28 AM  
Fark is farked
 
2014-05-15 11:46:34 AM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


george soros?
 
2014-05-15 11:46:45 AM  
From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.
 
2014-05-15 11:46:53 AM  
fox, hen house, etc.,

www.thedailysheeple.com
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
 
2014-05-15 11:46:59 AM  
If they can't censor it, they'll make you pay.  Not really a big surprise.
 
2014-05-15 11:47:02 AM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


etrangermysterieux.files.wordpress.com
"You guessed it: Frank Stallone."
 
2014-05-15 11:47:02 AM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


What promised services? "Up to" whatever speeds you're paying for?
 
2014-05-15 11:47:03 AM  
affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2014-05-15 11:47:11 AM  

sprawl15: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

george soros?


wait, no, bill ayers
 
2014-05-15 11:47:11 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.
 
2014-05-15 11:47:13 AM  
JUST FARKING GREAT!!!!!   I'm sure the ISPs and streaming services won't raise their prices on us too much..........
 
2014-05-15 11:47:18 AM  
So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?
 
2014-05-15 11:47:28 AM  

sprawl15: thanks obama


Quite literally this time.

Hope and change!
 
2014-05-15 11:47:29 AM  
Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.
 
2014-05-15 11:47:55 AM  
Whellllp....time to go download a bunch of pr0n while I still can.
 
2014-05-15 11:47:59 AM  

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!

/my cold dead hands


At that speed, something will be cold & dead, but it won't be your hands...
 
2014-05-15 11:48:00 AM  

bighairyguy: Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.


www.posthastedirect.com
 
2014-05-15 11:48:01 AM  
 
2014-05-15 11:48:02 AM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:03 AM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?



A class action suit has to be the way to do this. If I contract for 30mb/sec. INTERNET access, then that is what they should deliver.Who am I kidding, we the plebes have lost control. Capital has won the battle.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:06 AM  

dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.


The bill can start in the Senate.

The HoR is farked, sure, but that's the fault of gerrymandering.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:09 AM  
So what. I already downloaded all the porn on the internet to my hard drive...
 
2014-05-15 11:48:17 AM  
The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines

Who got party lines in my FCC?

So much for that whole "public interest" idea.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:22 AM  
Time for another total internet blackout in protest.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:24 AM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


All of these commissioners were appointed by Obama.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:32 AM  
Dear people at the FCC: Fark you. And you, and you, and you.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:35 AM  
Whelp,

We're boned.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:44 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:53 AM  
Currently BREAKING NEWS on at least 5 local channels to me? Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges. Mention of something that actually impacts people watching said news? Zero.

Sad day.
 
2014-05-15 11:49:13 AM  

IgG4: From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.


This shiat is a done deal, probably has been for a while.
 
2014-05-15 11:49:14 AM  

IgG4: From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.


I realize that they have to allow public comments by law, but...it's been made pretty clear how the vast majority of (involved) citizens feel about these rules. And they still proposed them. What's to stop them from simply ignoring all of the feedback from here on, as well?
 
2014-05-15 11:49:35 AM  
Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.

Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?
 
2014-05-15 11:49:36 AM  

m1ke: This is going to really hurt my Super Karate Monkey Death Car.


We need more Macho Business Donkey Wrestlers.
 
2014-05-15 11:49:41 AM  
Trickle down Internet.
 
2014-05-15 11:49:50 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


If they don't, vote them out and install new representatives. No one said democracy was going to be easy.
 
2014-05-15 11:49:53 AM  
Bend over, America. Here comes the big red, white and blue (and COMCASTIC!) dick in your ass.


//Carlin was right. "They call it the American dream, because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
//FARK YOU COMCAST
 
2014-05-15 11:49:54 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


This is one time your Fark handle is going to hurt your effort to sway the direction of Republican votes.
 
2014-05-15 11:50:35 AM  

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!

/my cold dead hands


*unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*
Let's fill this bad boy up.
 
2014-05-15 11:50:43 AM  
Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...
 
2014-05-15 11:50:47 AM  
Did you really think any government agency would push for a more open or free internet? Every government in the world has spent the last 5 years trying to control and shape the information on the internet.

This is a logic progression.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:05 AM  

ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?


Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)

The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:09 AM  

ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?


It is about to the point where acts of violence are becoming the only thing our representatives and lawmakers pay attention to.

What do we call it to make sure it gets good headlines? Wiregate? Occupy Copper?

Wait... Got it.


Wireghazi.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:10 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 11:51:10 AM  
Don't worry. Those faster broadband speeds will eventually "trickle down" to the sites that can't afford to pay. Everyone wins, see?
 
2014-05-15 11:51:30 AM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


According to Wikipedia, all five of the current commissioners were appointed by Obama. Even the Republican ones.

Law states that only three of the commissioners may be of the same political party, so the commission is always split 3-2 in one direction or the other.

So, yes, thanks Obama.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:30 AM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


There was a Democratic appointee that said "yes".

So i'm assuming that the pubs said "No" because they wanted to keep the status quo, which was the FCC not saying anything. The dems said "yes" because this forces providers to ahve a "minimum" level of "commercially reasonable" level of service.

The issue is that the it doesn't say "you can't make a fast lane" and it doesn't force the ISPs to be Title II compliant. In this whole debate there is what "net neutrality" actually means, and what the dems and pubs twist "net neutrality" to mean. They based on the twisted version, not on the actual version, otherwise the Dems would've said "fark no" and the pubs saying "hell yes!"
 
2014-05-15 11:51:33 AM  

Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.

Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?


Presumably Thomas Wheeler, chairman of the FCC and former telecommunications industry lobbyist.
 
2014-05-15 11:51:46 AM  

dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.


Elections are in November. Vote accordingly.
 
2014-05-15 11:52:10 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


The problem is (and I think there was an article I read about this yesterday with regards to the supreme court) that congress is full of old farts and technophobes that don't understand the issue and never will. The only thing 90% of congress knows about Net Neutrality is the paragraph on page 16 of the notes that their aid or policy adviser copied off Wikipedia.

This is an issue that was tailor made to be bought by big business since it's not really an emotional issue, most people don't understand it, and they don't care. Even once people start noticing their Netflix or Youtube or WWE Network or whatever slowing to a crawl, do you really think they're going to understand that it's a political issue and not a technological one?
 
2014-05-15 11:52:18 AM  
Fark you right in the a$$ you plutocratic jack holes!
 
2014-05-15 11:52:56 AM  
They also said they would kill Sully last because he such a funny guy.  They lied.
 
2014-05-15 11:53:08 AM  

ikanreed: Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


You're not allowed to sue them now.
Read your TOS.

You have to have your dispute mediated by a company employed by your ISP.
 
2014-05-15 11:53:23 AM  
What is that?  Is that the FCC deciding to do the right thing?
img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-15 11:53:33 AM  
I guess I better bite the pillow because they're going in dry...
 
2014-05-15 11:53:44 AM  
I'm pretty sure I've already downloaded the Internet to my hard disk, so I'm good.

//Seriously, I really need to clean up my hard disk space some day.
 
2014-05-15 11:54:01 AM  
...and the rich/poor margin widens even further.
 
2014-05-15 11:54:47 AM  

Paris1127: Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...


F**k The FCC!
You can have my Netflicks when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!
Keep the Internet free!
 
2014-05-15 11:54:52 AM  

RoxtarRyan: Wait... Got it.

Wireghazi.


Yes! This needs to happen.

This corporate takeover of the internet needs to called "Wireghazi".
 
2014-05-15 11:54:54 AM  
Zuck!  Musk!  Get those damn UAVs airborne and start broadcasting a free internet.
 
2014-05-15 11:54:59 AM  
Lovely. Between this, that shiatstain DMCA that Clinton signed and the NSA buttfarking every tech company in the country I guess America just isn't meant to have a thriving tech industry anymore.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:04 AM  
I can't find the specific language, but the director of our municipal telecom said that they're prohibited by their charter from engaging in anti-neutrality practices. So the only thing we have to worry about is content provider-side extortion.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:05 AM  
I hope they wait until I've finished downloading my car.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:27 AM  
There's simply no other solution than overbuilding. Cities and regions are not allowed to have exclusive franchise agreements (since 1996). Take Google Fiber as a starting block, get Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and anyone else dependent on net progress on board with a 'neutrality-centered' charter.  It's going to be some absolutely ungodly CapEx to make it happen.  It's not going to (directly) be profitable any time in the next decade. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will flail like a dying fish. But, it's the only possible answer at this point.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:28 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.



When's the last time Congress stopped sucking corporate dick?

And if you've been living under a rock, Republicans will continue controlling the House, and according to Nate Silver, will take control of the Senate in November.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:42 AM  
heroeswiki.com

LAME!
 
2014-05-15 11:55:44 AM  
Wow, I remember the "olde days" when dial-up connections were charged by the minute.

Once I went to an "always on" cable-modem almost 15 years ago I never thought I might be going back to that. Hello overage charges.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:54 AM  

gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.


Plus, there is a good chance you as a tax payer paid for that cable.

Last I knew, there is a lot of unused fiber capacity in America because the government paid these companies to lay down a lot of it, and the companies never turned it on.

Rural broadbandification should be what we are doing right now to stimulate the economy.  We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?
 
2014-05-15 11:55:59 AM  

gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)

The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.


In these trying times, we certainly need a much faster way of ejecting morons(sociopaths that sell their soul for chump change in order to funnel more middle class money to the 1%).
You have absolutely no way of determining honesty before election, so one must use the ejection seat that we do not currently have, but need.
And there is the issue of elections being just so much theatre in the first place.
Face it, You, Me, Him are just farked.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:03 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


Congress has only allowed legislation that would hamstring enforcement of regulations for any agency.

What would lead you to believe this is any different? The chairman needs to go, he's representative of just about everything that's wrong. Further to that, the Senate would never appoint a proper chair. Republican filibusters would see to that.

This will only get worse.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:11 AM  

GoldSpider: So when the GOP warns that FCC net neutrality laws will "derail the internet" and "stifle innovation", they were right?


No, because they are evil and therefore never said that.

/even if they said that, they never said that
//LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER HOW AWESOME OBAMA IS
 
2014-05-15 11:56:11 AM  
I am going to write President Obama a real paper-and-ink letter encouraging him to replace his entire FCC executive staff. They do not do the bidding of the people, and therefore should be replaced.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:20 AM  
goddamnitsomuch
 
2014-05-15 11:56:27 AM  

UNC_Samurai: I can't find the specific language, but the director of our municipal telecom said that they're prohibited by their charter from engaging in anti-neutrality practices. So the only thing we have to worry about is content provider-side extortion.


Not necessarily. Depending on who your provider peers with, those peers, might still be able to extort providers which would still impact you.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:31 AM  
Is there any way for the Pro-NN companies to file a lawsuit together? The FCC may still ram it down our throats, but at least we can make them damn well have to prove without a doubt that our government is owned by the Plutocracy. It may even wake up some republican voters.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:43 AM  

kertus: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


A class action suit has to be the way to do this. If I contract for 30mb/sec. INTERNET access, then that is what they should deliver.Who am I kidding, we the plebes have lost control. Capital has won the battle.


You know you CAN contract for 30mb/sec gauranteed right?  It cost a fark load.  Maybe 10x+ more than your plan.  But its out there.
 
2014-05-15 11:56:48 AM  
Granted I got on late, but I watched the chairman's comments live and I didn't get this at all.  Seemed like he went out of his way to suggest that the internet that the consumer pays for would always be open and unfettered.  Guess I'll have to read the NPRM (anyone have a link)?
 
2014-05-15 11:56:50 AM  

Cybernetic: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

According to Wikipedia, all five of the current commissioners were appointed by Obama. Even the Republican ones.

Law states that only three of the commissioners may be of the same political party, so the commission is always split 3-2 in one direction or the other.

So, yes, thanks Obama.


Someone could always think a little differently, but I doubt they would get a seat on the panel.
 
2014-05-15 11:57:16 AM  

snocone: In these trying times, we certainly need a much faster way of ejecting morons(sociopaths that sell their soul for chump change in order to funnel more middle class money to the 1%).


which is why i wholly support safety deregulation for monster truck rallies
 
2014-05-15 11:57:17 AM  

qorkfiend: The industry insider that heads the FCC sides with the industry? No way!


Hey now, just because Tom Wheeler is a former cable company lobbyist deep in the pocket of his former employees it doesn't mean he can't make an objective and unbiased decision on Net Neutrality. I'm sure he considered all the relevant facts and listened closely to public opinion before doing exactly what Comcast told him to do.

It's depressing as all hell that a Net Neutrality protest gets all of a half a dozen people while tens of thousands will march drive their hoverounds through DC to protest  healthcare laws that largely benefit them.
 
2014-05-15 11:57:28 AM  
GET F*CKED
 
2014-05-15 11:57:57 AM  
Obama 2016.
 
2014-05-15 11:58:48 AM  
All I can see with that headline is that stupid puppet gif. Appropriate, considering how many people in Congress and how many people are a part of these commission type groups are just puppets for the businesses.
 
2014-05-15 11:58:51 AM  
Just tell Republicans that this is the result of people appointed by Obama. They'll stop it in no time.
 
2014-05-15 11:58:52 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


I'm not too worried about it. I'm sure that with the truckloads of money Verizon will be making as a result of this, they will chop a few bucks off of my monthly bill.
 
2014-05-15 11:58:58 AM  
Let them have their gold plated fibre cables!

We'll have carrier pigeons with USB drives!
 
2014-05-15 11:59:02 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: The bill can start in the Senate.
The HoR is farked, sure, but that's the fault of gerrymandering.


Either way, everyone in this thread should start typing something to their Democratic representative and/or senator right now. I'm working on one to Senator Harkin.


Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.
Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?


It was an editing mistake... but they probably assume someone interested in the current net neutrality discussion would know who the FCC chairman is.


sprawl15: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama
From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.
george soros?


DRINK!
 
2014-05-15 11:59:20 AM  

acohn: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


When's the last time Congress stopped sucking corporate dick?

And if you've been living under a rock, Republicans will continue controlling the House, and according to Nate Silver, will take control of the Senate in November.


... SCORE
 
2014-05-15 11:59:28 AM  
TFA: "Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers"

This is why they get the big bucks.  Because they can say shiat like this with a straight face.

Also note: "net neutrality" with a no-block guarantee is *a plan*.  "paid prioritization" is *a proposal*.
Let me give you a free preview of how this is going to work out:  the pro-business parts will go into effect while the pro-consumer parts are still being debated.  The pro-consumer parts will then be fought based on the idea that we can't harm this business that represents X-gajillion dollars of economic activity -- in a slow economy no less. Besides, they'll say, there haven't been any problems yet, so why not just allow business to self-regulate while we hammer out the details?  Which will never be hammered out, nor killed, but just quietly left to collect dust and provide CYA against claims that the FCC isn't doing their job. "B-b-but we have plans!" they'll say.
 
2014-05-15 11:59:37 AM  

pkellmey: Someone could always think a little differently, but I doubt they would get a seat on the panel.


"edited by jon huntsman"

oh ok
 
2014-05-15 11:59:54 AM  
Republicans siding with the larger corporations and in turn duking the small businesses?

i45.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-15 11:59:58 AM  

LeroyBourne: *unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*


keep talking dirty
 
2014-05-15 12:00:14 PM  
Ah, the checks cleared.
 
2014-05-15 12:00:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: Trickle down Internet.


yup

Reagan lives on.
 
2014-05-15 12:00:28 PM  
So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!
 
2014-05-15 12:00:47 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Let them have their gold plated fibre cables!

We'll have carrier pigeons with USB drives!


wanderbug.files.wordpress.com

FILL IT WITH TAPES AND GO!
 
2014-05-15 12:00:54 PM  
The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers for rich people.

Anyone who thinks that we schlubs would ever get a glimpse of these higher bandwiths unless we would have to fork over an assload each month is smoking meth.
 
2014-05-15 12:00:54 PM  

LeroyB: Wow, I remember the "olde days" when dial-up connections were charged by the minute.

Once I went to an "always on" cable-modem almost 15 years ago I never thought I might be going back to that. Hello overage charges.


Just one of 20 NEW CHARGES that this will implement.
 
2014-05-15 12:01:00 PM  

Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans giving your money to Reed Hastings. That's the way to protect the little guy.


Who intentionally broke the DVD streaming business to give you a worse selection of content via online streaming? Reed Hastings.

Who ignored the fact that high-def, fast-buffering online streaming is not a sustainable business model at anything remotely close to the cost of the DVD service you used to have? Reed Hastings.

Who is stupid enough to have gone a step further and started streaming 4K content? Reed Hastings.

Who ignored the fact that, by switching to online streaming, his company and customers would find themselves at the mercy of the world's least popular, least ethical media/tech businesses like Comcast and their ilk? Reed Hastings.

Who broke ranks with the rest of the web and voluntarily started paying bribes to Comcast and their ilk, then raised prices for his own customers to cover the cost, in effect becoming the first major net business to vote against net neutrality? Reed Hastings.

The person on whose doorstep you should be crapping is Reed Hastings, and if you sign up for his streaming service, you deserve precisely what you're getting -- shafted.
 
2014-05-15 12:01:04 PM  

kling_klang_bed: Republicans siding with the larger corporations and in turn duking the small businesses?

[i45.photobucket.com image 240x189]


Giving us the vapors!
 
2014-05-15 12:01:06 PM  
*sigh* I get too much use out of this quote lately:

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."--Sid Meier's  Alpha Centauri

/I don't think that game was supposed to be prophetic...
 
2014-05-15 12:01:54 PM  

Anayalator: bighairyguy: Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.

[www.posthastedirect.com image 300x284]


So my crazy old uncle, who's been forwarding me that email since early 2009, was right all along. Figures.
 
2014-05-15 12:01:55 PM  
In other news, Total Fark subscriptions are going up to $5.08 per month.
 
2014-05-15 12:02:05 PM  

Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?


What's wrong with that?  Pay for what you use.

What I don't want, and what this is about, is to have to pay more for a fark MB then for a reddit MB.  Or have the fark MB come in at dial-up speeds because Drew wouldn't roll over for the payola
 
2014-05-15 12:02:29 PM  
censorship plain and simple.
 
2014-05-15 12:02:30 PM  
FTA: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled. "I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," ... "I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said.   "I would have preferred a delay."

I know what would have provided a delay you daft moron?  Voting No!
 
2014-05-15 12:03:02 PM  

mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!


Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:23 PM  

kertus: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


A class action suit has to be the way to do this. If I contract for 30mb/sec. INTERNET access, then that is what they should deliver.Who am I kidding, we the plebes have lost control. Capital has won the battle.


Err, I have 75mb internet access.  I get 75mb to Steam, Amazon, most of the download sites, etc.  Sometimes I don't get that kind of speed.  Why?  Because the person/company hosting the data I want access to decided to go with the cheapest ISP, the cheapest datacenter, or the cheapest CDN that has shiat connectivity.  That's not my fault, it's not even my ISPs fault.  We need to make sure that everyone has the same access to content on the internet, but ensuring that the speed you purchase from your ISP is the same speed that's delivered by a third party service is asinine and has never been the practice as long as the internet as existed.  If I go through 20 hops to get to a destination IP, that means I have potentially 20 different network connections with 20 different parties that needs to ensure connectivity for me at maximum speed.  Not reasonable.  The only reasonable solution is an FCC driven framework for peering agreements and standards.  You can't guarantee speed, but you can at least guarantee equal treatment across the board.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:26 PM  
This country is a joke.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:30 PM  
Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:53 PM  

gweilo8888: The person on whose doorstep you should be crapping is Reed Hastings, and if you sign up for his streaming service, you deserve precisely what you're getting -- shafted.


Right, I mean, everyone knows Netflix is the only streaming service available to consumers. There are no competitors and no innovation in that space.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:53 PM  

gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)

The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.


Won't make a difference. Not with the money politics approved by SCOTUS system we've got not.

Vote out one moron, vote in another moron who got there because the same money put him in.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:57 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Is there any way for the Pro-NN companies to file a lawsuit together? The FCC may still ram it down our throats, but at least we can make them damn well have to prove without a doubt that our government is owned by the Plutocracy. It may even wake up some republican voters.



Wishful thinking.  The GOP will portray themselves as proponents of free enterprise while blaming this on Obama and the democrats (not that the democrats are innocent on this issue), and their retarded base will believe it.
 
2014-05-15 12:03:58 PM  
One mention of the future.
I guess nobody else thinks there will be one.
 
2014-05-15 12:04:44 PM  

clkeagle: Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.
Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?


It was an editing mistake... but they probably assume someone interested in the current net neutrality discussion would know who the FCC chairman is.


My point still stands. With no actual editors, "editing mistakes" happen in almost everything we read. It's a farking joke. If Spell Check doesn't catch it, they don't care.
 
2014-05-15 12:04:44 PM  
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.


Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:20 PM  

The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.


Why would they stop it?  This is what they want.  And the President's own appointee is doing that for them.  They're laughing their asses off.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.


No, Democrats won't return power usurped by their Republican colleagues because they all follow the money. This is why the TSA continues to exist beyond its useful life, along with all the other Bush 43 privacy invasions. The only relief would be for DOJ to dismantle AT&T, Comcast and Charter, and even that will be difficult because Eric Holder is an ineffectual boob, and any successor's appointment will depend on which Senators are paid off by whom.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:39 PM  

medius: LeroyBourne: *unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*

keep talking dirty


Lol.  Everyone needs a name for their nether region hog.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:42 PM  
Coming soon:

geekometry.com

Or more realistically:

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2014-05-15 12:05:57 PM  
Everybody has a price...
 
2014-05-15 12:06:29 PM  

Professor Duck: *sigh* I get too much use out of this quote lately:

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."--Sid Meier's  Alpha Centauri

/I don't think that game was supposed to be prophetic...


You're not the only fan of that game here... and yes, I've seen it getting more and more eerily prophetic as time passes.
 
2014-05-15 12:06:39 PM  

Wadded Beef: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.


img4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-15 12:06:52 PM  

agnosticcomputing.com

"Go pull the plug. Its over."

 
2014-05-15 12:06:55 PM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.


You can have enough porn?
 
NFA
2014-05-15 12:06:55 PM  
What the hell?  My TotalFark renewal just went to $100!!!
 
2014-05-15 12:06:58 PM  
Well, goodbye Fark, it was nice knowing you.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:04 PM  
Just wrote my Senator, again.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:05 PM  

Wadded Beef: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.


I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Republicans:  All action, no thought.
Democrats:  All thought, no action.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:20 PM  

Headso: censorship plain and simple.


Not so plain nor simple.
Poetic, really, the pulblic will pay for censoring themselves.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:26 PM  
I love how ever this becomes a wharrgarbl REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS BUSH OBAMA issue. It's not, Bush, Obama, Republicans, Democrats, they're all in the pockets of the same big business interests that want to make this happen. This is not a partisan issue.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:28 PM  

clkeagle: Coming soon:

[geekometry.com image 520x245]

Or more realistically:

[images.huffingtonpost.com image 501x588]


It's way more simple.

Take your current internet price, multiple it by 3, and that's what you're going to have to pay for what bare minimum shiat you get today. Enjoy!
 
2014-05-15 12:07:29 PM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


Right now?

These are proposed rules,  We have four months to gin up as much public outrage as possible before the Notice of Final rulemaking.   So Comment on these rules and why they suck, submitt those to the FCC and then get everyone you even barely know to do the same.

This was the opening bell, not the final round
 
2014-05-15 12:07:31 PM  

TV's Vinnie: The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers for rich people.

Anyone who thinks that we schlubs would ever get a glimpse of these higher bandwiths unless we would have to fork over an assload each month is smoking meth.


It's already this way as it is.

I had Comcast installed in my house (which I use for work). It was pretty unreliable for awhile. Every time I called up, the CSR tried to sell me "business" service for another $50 a month. So the $39.99 I'm paying guarantees me some semblance of internet, but if I want it to really work as it should (maybe), I have to pay $79.99. Got it.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:43 PM  

BarryTheMasterOfSandwich: This country is a joke.


I'm thoroughly disgusted with what it's become. It's time for a revolution. This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.
 
2014-05-15 12:10:39 PM  

kling_klang_bed: Republicans Corporatists siding with the larger corporations and in turn duking the small businesses?

[i45.photobucket.com image 240x189]


This is really the truth of it.
 
2014-05-15 12:10:43 PM  
www.liveforfilms.com

SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT DOWN FOREVER!

 
2014-05-15 12:10:53 PM  
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask...does this mean Oblackguy is acting as Imperial Emperor in this case, or Spineless Lackey?

/it's so hard to keep up
 
2014-05-15 12:11:05 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.



Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441
 
2014-05-15 12:11:10 PM  

Outlaw2097: Zuck!  Musk!  Get those damn UAVs airborne and start broadcasting a free internet.


And Google fiber - so they can really know everything about you and then the content providers own the network even more then COMCAST does now :/

You're right about one thing - the only thing that will break this is competition.  Our "public servants" surely won't.  I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.
 
2014-05-15 12:11:45 PM  
Wait just a damn minute..

The measure was voted "for" three to two  along party lines. .

The article quotes a democratic commissioner who "voted for it with misgivings."

Which unless I am very bad at maths, means the democrats voted yes for this and the  republicans voted against.

Not that it matters...
 
2014-05-15 12:11:45 PM  

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.


You have a thousand terabytes of porn?!?
 
2014-05-15 12:11:57 PM  

dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.


Get the president to act with an executive order.
 
2014-05-15 12:11:57 PM  
I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?
 
2014-05-15 12:12:25 PM  

spman: I love how ever this becomes a wharrgarbl REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS BUSH OBAMA issue. It's not, Bush, Obama, Republicans, Democrats, they're all in the pockets of the same big business interests that want to make this happen. This is not a partisan issue.


Now just hold on a cotton pickin' minute.
The partisan con job of Divide and Conquer is time honored and well established.
There is no issue that can protect a slut in power like Partisanship.
You sound like an Anarchist.
 
2014-05-15 12:12:42 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.


But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.
 
2014-05-15 12:12:59 PM  
OK assholes we tried playing nice. Now its torch and pitchfork time.
ts3.mm.bing.net
 
2014-05-15 12:12:59 PM  

Mikey1969: clkeagle: Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.
Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?


It was an editing mistake... but they probably assume someone interested in the current net neutrality discussion would know who the FCC chairman is.

My point still stands. With no actual editors, "editing mistakes" happen in almost everything we read. It's a farking joke. If Spell Check doesn't catch it, they don't care.


It cannot be classified as an editing "mistake". The Washington Post made a conscious decision to eliminate proof-readers and copy editors, so now it becomes an editing decision. Or if you're militant like I am, an editing crime.
 
2014-05-15 12:13:34 PM  

skozlaw: UNC_Samurai: I can't find the specific language, but the director of our municipal telecom said that they're prohibited by their charter from engaging in anti-neutrality practices. So the only thing we have to worry about is content provider-side extortion.

Not necessarily. Depending on who your provider peers with, those peers, might still be able to extort providers which would still impact you.


If the city built its own FttH infrastructure, would they be peering with other networks?
 
2014-05-15 12:13:45 PM  

scotchlandia: Wait just a damn minute..

The measure was voted "for" three to two  along party lines. .

The article quotes a democratic commissioner who "voted for it with misgivings."

Which unless I am very bad at maths, means the democrats voted yes for this and the  republicans voted against.

Not that it matters...


HaHa, another fool that thinks voting matters.
So cute.
 
2014-05-15 12:13:51 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.

The bill can start in the Senate.

The HoR is farked, sure, but that's the fault of gerrymandering.


Specifically gerrymandering for minority representation that results in packing Democrats into one or two districts.
 
2014-05-15 12:14:07 PM  
Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.
 
2014-05-15 12:14:11 PM  
No one's really surprised by this, are they?

It's amusing (well, OK, it's not amusing, it's appalling) that nitwits in Congress are still going on with their Benghazi bullshiat, but no effort whatsoever to do anything about the direct pipeline between corporations and regulatory agencies. Whereby people who used to work in certain industries are then put in charge of the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Then, when they leave, they go right back to the companies they used to "regulate," often as board members.

A normal person would think that constitutes an obvious conflict of interest. But people who work for the govt. at the higher levels aren't normal people. They're mostly rich people who work on behalf of other rich people.
 
2014-05-15 12:14:21 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: BarryTheMasterOfSandwich: This country is a joke.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with what it's become. It's time for a revolution. This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.


If we violently overthrow our government over "internet fees" we will look more silly than the guys who violently overthrew their government over a 1% customs tax to pay for the French & Indian war.

/ Oh... nevermind.
 
2014-05-15 12:14:24 PM  

Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?


The people in power stay in power and continue to make money had over fist. Startups get throttled in the crib so as not to upset any apple carts by providing meaningful competition or innovation.
 
2014-05-15 12:14:54 PM  
Sigh.  And here I was with my faint glimmer of hope that just maybe those who are in charge of protecting the interests of the people would put the greater good before their own personal ambitions and financial interests and stop this before we got farked right in the ass yet again.

This is how people become jaded, cynical assholes.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:02 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?

The people in power stay in power and continue to make money had hand over fist. Startups get throttled in the crib so as not to upset any apple carts by providing meaningful competition or innovation.


FTFM
 
2014-05-15 12:15:12 PM  

farkingatwork: clkeagle: Coming soon:
[geekometry.com image 520x245]
Or more realistically:
[images.huffingtonpost.com image 501x588]
It's way more simple.
Take your current internet price, multiple it by 3, and that's what you're going to have to pay for what bare minimum shiat you get today. Enjoy!


Nope. Not only will prices go up, but many sites will mysteriously start "timing out" because they haven't worked out a deal with the ISP.

ISP tech services will have canned responses of "Thank you for your question. We are aware that a few websites have been experiencing connectivity issues with our servers. The problem is that there are just too many sites trying to use our bandwidth, and we can only guarantee priority traffic to our Premium Partners. Please contact the administrator of the website in question and encourage them to call our Partner Sales division. Thank you."
 
2014-05-15 12:15:34 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.


Google and Facebook are beholden to their shareholders. Nothing else. Whenever a company goes IPO it inherently becomes evil. It has no choice but to do so, and even if the founders are still at the helm, their personal opinions are trumped by shareholder interests.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:53 PM  

Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?


5 years.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:59 PM  

Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.


Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!
 
2014-05-15 12:16:42 PM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?



Digging up cables probably isn't the way to go -- they'd just label you a terrorist and throw you in Guantanamo.  ...though, if you knew anything about the way the backbone cables are laid out, it'd probably be very easy to cause a lot of disruption with minimal effort and relatively little risk.  There's a lot of infrastructure in remote places.
 
2014-05-15 12:16:46 PM  

Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.


Is and always has been, Government In Spite of The People.
 
2014-05-15 12:16:47 PM  

bighairyguy: Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.


We'll be OK though, because Bill Gates is going to send us money.
 
2014-05-15 12:17:22 PM  

jshine: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


Digging up cables probably isn't the way to go -- they'd just label you a terrorist and throw you in Guantanamo.  ...though, if you knew anything about the way the backbone cables are laid out, it'd probably be very easy to cause a lot of disruption with minimal effort and relatively little risk.  There's a lot of infrastructure in remote places.


Yea, it didn't work on Gilligan's Island either.
 
2014-05-15 12:17:40 PM  
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

"I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said.  "I would have preferred a delay.


THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU VOTE YES IDIOT????
 
2014-05-15 12:17:57 PM  
Everything is run by bribery and graft in the United States of Avarice, a corrupt banana republic that is no longer part of the civilized world.
 
2014-05-15 12:18:00 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.


You sound like every onion-on-the-belt old man from every generation ever.
 
2014-05-15 12:18:11 PM  
Lesse... gay marriage and cannabis legaization moving forward... on the otherhand lots of shiat like this.

Godammit America, quit forcing this balancing act of epic crazy.
 
2014-05-15 12:18:12 PM  

I alone am best: DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441


Until Ted Cruz actually announces what he is proposing to do (all he says in the article [which is carbon copied from his website, I checked] is that he wants Congress and not the FCC to rule on Net Neutrality), it doesn't say "I am going to continue Net Neutrality" (though if that's what he is proposing, a broken clock is right twice a day).
 
2014-05-15 12:18:19 PM  
Internet 2: Electric Bugaloo
 
2014-05-15 12:18:25 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 12:18:33 PM  

Richard C Stanford: Paris1127: Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...

F**k The FCC!
You can have my Netflicks when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!
Keep the Internet free!


Don't fark with a free and open Internet!
 
2014-05-15 12:18:39 PM  

Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?


If you have a website that can't afford to pay your local ISP the entrance fee, you won't be able to get as many clients/visitors, and it will lower your revenue.
 
2014-05-15 12:19:12 PM  
From the FCC's page:

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business.

 it's clear where the fault lies... yet I'm sure the minority party will do nothing to overturn it.
 
2014-05-15 12:19:24 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

You sound like every onion-on-the-belt old man from every generation ever.


And the hell of it is, I look like Archie Bunker!
 
2014-05-15 12:19:28 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: UrukHaiGuyz: Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?

The people in power stay in power and continue to make money had hand over fist. Startups get throttled in the crib so as not to upset any apple carts by providing meaningful competition or innovation.

FTFM


In essence, just another example of corporate oligarchism.
 
2014-05-15 12:19:32 PM  

Paris1127: Richard C Stanford: Paris1127: Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...

F**k The FCC!
You can have my Netflicks when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!
Keep the Internet free!

Don't fark with a free and open Internet!


Stupid filter... "fark" was supposed to be FCC plus the letter k...
 
2014-05-15 12:19:36 PM  

Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?


So back to block pricing fr ok m dial up days eh?
9.99 for 20hrs*

*basic service, capped at 30gigs of bandy, only available every second Tuesday after 9 pm
 
2014-05-15 12:19:36 PM  

Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.


Duh.

Oh and Comcast is already drooling over it ..

Comcast may roll out data caps for all customers within five years
 
2014-05-15 12:19:36 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: Just wrote my Senator, again.


I will tonight. Again. EFF is a good resource for that.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:09 PM  

The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.


Doing as much as they did to stop Obamacare.

/which to say, everything they can, yet far from enough
//the only power the "House Republican Majority" has is to be a convenient scapegoat to blame for the continuing failure of leftist policies
///just like the sequester, Obama can shut everything down personally, and yet the Republicans still get blamed for making him pitch that temper tantrum with their naysaying
 
2014-05-15 12:20:40 PM  

snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!


No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:45 PM  
To get this to change you'll have to hit 'em where it hurts, right in the pocket book.

I'm thinking we all need to set up a website where folks sign up to show that they will be cutting their internet service if this goes through and has an alternative bill for congress to pass instead that actually has what we want in it. We'll do it in batches: A-C on day 1, D-F day 2, and so forth. So they can see the tide rolling in as it were.

Comcast is the major player here, along with a couple others. If they are flooded with cancellations over this they'll have to change.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:48 PM  

Stone Meadow: Oh yeah, I forgot to ask...does this mean Oblackguy is acting as Imperial Emperor in this case, or Spineless Lackey?

/it's so hard to keep up


Oh, you mean the blatant bowing to corporations and allowing them to write the rules by which they pinkie-swear that they'll abide by, honest, but just to be sure don't actually watch what they're doing?

Yep. Typical socialist redistribution.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:57 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?

So back to block pricing fr ok m dial up days eh?
9.99 for 20hrs*

*basic service, capped at 30gigs of bandy, only available every second Tuesday after 9 pm


Bandwidth, stupid auto correct
 
2014-05-15 12:22:46 PM  

snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!


You sound old.
 
2014-05-15 12:22:59 PM  
This will lead to spending more time with your loved ones, outdoors.

Someone has got to do something!


"Dear congressperson:  This will impact your Ashley Madison usage"
 
2014-05-15 12:23:17 PM  

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!


Aw come on now.....you can't make your hands move that fast.
 
2014-05-15 12:23:20 PM  
Does this mean I have to start using my imagination when I jerk off again?
 
2014-05-15 12:23:26 PM  
It's obvious that the central authorities are bought , so you can keep biatching, or you can push your local municipalities to invest in fiber.
 
2014-05-15 12:23:31 PM  

macdaddy357: Everything is run by bribery and graft in the United States of Avarice, a corrupt banana republic that is no longer part of the civilized world.


You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy
 
2014-05-15 12:23:42 PM  

spman: I love how ever this becomes a wharrgarbl REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS BUSH OBAMA issue. It's not, Bush, Obama, Republicans, Democrats, they're all in the pockets of the same big business interests that want to make this happen. This is not a partisan issue.


That being absolutely true, the guy in charge should not be getting a free pass.  He's the boss, but the buck doesn't stop anywhere near him, apparently.  There should be some anger from both sides of the aisle, but the wagons are permanently circled.
 
2014-05-15 12:23:53 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

You sound like every onion-on-the-belt old man from every generation ever.


For one thing, in my youth, there was no such thing as an internet in the form we use today. So technically, that statement applies to me as well.

/ties onion to belt, as was the style at the time
 
2014-05-15 12:23:59 PM  
Kneel and bow before your corporate masters, filthy plebs.
 
2014-05-15 12:24:49 PM  

The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.


The FCC already has all the power they need to regulate the industry, they just refuse to do it. There is no need for legislation, the FCC just needs to step up and do its job. The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place? Would the Senate pass it even if the House acted to overturn the rules? Would Obama sign it? Yes, the Republicans are corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate shills who only care about themselves and their rich cronies. The problem is, so are the Democrats, you just refuse to believe it because GO TEAM! I would point out that Obama has appointed insider industry shills to every single regulatory agency in existence, but you'd probably find a way to blame that on Bush.
 
2014-05-15 12:25:07 PM  

make me some tea: Lamberts Ho Man: I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.

Google and Facebook are beholden to their shareholders. Nothing else. Whenever a company goes IPO it inherently becomes evil. It has no choice but to do so, and even if the founders are still at the helm, their personal opinions are trumped by shareholder interests.


I'm kind of surprised that they're making public noise for net neutrality - it must just be for the PR benefit.  As the established players, who can afford to pay for "fast lane" treatment (hate that term) they stand to benefit.  Screwing startups etc., would serve to cement their current position.  Netflix already realized this.
 
2014-05-15 12:25:18 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.


They turned in, dropped out, and finally sold out. They failed to realize they were being scammed that the magic beans of trickle down economics only sprouted unaccountable corporate giants that are slowly eating everything they "worked so hard* (snicker) to achieve.
 
2014-05-15 12:25:40 PM  

sparty: From the FCC's page:

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business.

 it's clear where the fault lies... yet I'm sure the minority party will do nothing to overturn it.


Change just one word and it gets better.
"Only one commissioner may be from the same political party" seems kinda catchy.
 
2014-05-15 12:25:55 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You have a thousand terabytes of porn?!?



He had it wetwared.
 
2014-05-15 12:26:34 PM  

GORDON: spman: I love how ever this becomes a wharrgarbl REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS BUSH OBAMA issue. It's not, Bush, Obama, Republicans, Democrats, they're all in the pockets of the same big business interests that want to make this happen. This is not a partisan issue.

That being absolutely true, the guy in charge should not be getting a free pass.  He's the boss, but the buck doesn't stop anywhere near him, apparently.  There should be some anger from both sides of the aisle, but the wagons are permanently circled.


This issue, as well as the NSA surveillance issue, are not partisan at all. They will continue unabated, regardless of which party and politicians are running the show, and there's a simple reason for this: the influence money is projected to whomever is running the show.
 
2014-05-15 12:26:36 PM  
Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.
"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."
 
2014-05-15 12:26:40 PM  

Raging Thespian: Just tell Republicans that this is the result of people appointed by Obama. They'll stop it in no time.


Holy shiat. You are technically correct---the best kind of correct. Could this be an issue to galvanize the TeaBaggers into doing something useful?
 
2014-05-15 12:27:52 PM  
I wonder how long it will take before Netflix, Google, Amazon and Apple start billing the cable companies for every bite of data requested.  This still doesn't help the little guys at all, and customers are generally screwed, but it would be pretty funny to watch this blow up in the face of the cable industry.
 
2014-05-15 12:27:57 PM  
So...uh...that means...you get what you pay for?  HO-LEE-SHYT!!  Bu...bu...bbbut companies with less money cant afford to run super bowl ads.  We need to Harrison Bergeron everyone's ass.
 
2014-05-15 12:27:58 PM  

Carn: Kneel and bow before your corporate masters, filthy plebs.


Not really required, just send money.
 
2014-05-15 12:28:13 PM  

Somacandra: Raging Thespian: Just tell Republicans that this is the result of people appointed by Obama. They'll stop it in no time.

Holy shiat. You are technically correct---the best kind of correct. Could this be an issue to galvanize the TeaBaggers into doing something useful?



Yea, "Obama wants to destroy the internet in a way that hurts small business owners and job creators".  That's a GREAT talking point for Fox News.
 
2014-05-15 12:28:46 PM  
All these American companies should move their internet services to Canada
 
2014-05-15 12:29:04 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: make me some tea: Lamberts Ho Man: I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.

Google and Facebook are beholden to their shareholders. Nothing else. Whenever a company goes IPO it inherently becomes evil. It has no choice but to do so, and even if the founders are still at the helm, their personal opinions are trumped by shareholder interests.

I'm kind of surprised that they're making public noise for net neutrality - it must just be for the PR benefit.  As the established players, who can afford to pay for "fast lane" treatment (hate that term) they stand to benefit.  Screwing startups etc., would serve to cement their current position.  Netflix already realized this.


This is exactly why corporations recently have been taking political sides on issues that are unrelated to their business: it translates to increased consumer activity. They focus-group the hell out of this stuff before they make any moves.

Google may warm your liberal heart by showing support for gay marriage, but make no mistake, they are only doing it for business purposes.
 
2014-05-15 12:29:24 PM  

jshine: Yea, "Obama wants to destroy the internet in a way that hurts small business owners and job creators".  That's a GREAT talking point for Fox News.


Let's start a meme and pass it through out the internet
 
2014-05-15 12:29:39 PM  
I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.
 
2014-05-15 12:29:49 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.


With all due respect, you are fulla zhit.
 
2014-05-15 12:30:24 PM  

mr lawson: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.
"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."


I love Ted Cruz!

OMG WHAT AM I SAYING??? WE'RE THRU THE LOOKING GLASS HERE PEOPLE!!!!
 
2014-05-15 12:31:02 PM  
Long after Russia has bankrupted itself playing Soviet Russia, The ACA has morphed into single-payer or a more viable third-party solution than we had, this will be Obama's lasting legacy.

You cannot say he cares for the average joe when he blatantly appoints lobbyists time and time again.
 
2014-05-15 12:31:05 PM  

Prophet of Loss: UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.

They turned in, dropped out, and finally sold out. They failed to realize they were being scammed that the magic beans of trickle down economics only sprouted unaccountable corporate giants that are slowly eating everything they "worked so hard* (snicker) to achieve.


No more fail to realize, Fool, that you are with this theft of your internet.

Get your ass into the street and get moticed.
 
2014-05-15 12:31:12 PM  

Walker: WE'RE THRU THE LOOKING GLASS HERE PEOPLE!!!!


no shiat...we are thru it.
 
2014-05-15 12:31:37 PM  

snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!


Idiot trolls remain idiot trolls
 
2014-05-15 12:31:43 PM  

mod3072: The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT.


Much as it galls me to admit it, you are indeed correct. On this issue the democrats deserve more of the blame.
 
2014-05-15 12:31:56 PM  
Fair enough, time for every local government to make it a condition of public right-of-way access, eminent domain, easements, franchise rules, BS tax breaks etc. that the provider has to be neutral in how it passes it's traffic
 
2014-05-15 12:32:11 PM  

mr lawson: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.
"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."


If you are gonna put a chicken in every pot, first they need pot.
 
2014-05-15 12:32:21 PM  

sprawl15: thanks obama

 
2014-05-15 12:32:25 PM  

Driedsponge: I wonder how long it will take before Netflix, Google, Amazon and Apple start billing the cable companies for every bite of data requested.  This still doesn't help the little guys at all, and customers are generally screwed, but it would be pretty funny to watch this blow up in the face of the cable industry.


They'd all have to work together for your plan to work. Customers won't cancel their internet service unless they lose access to all of their primary sources of internet usage.
 
2014-05-15 12:32:56 PM  

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


Not sure if trolling or serious, but I do pay for my internet access & bandwidth -- and feel consequently entitled to receive what I pay for.  I don't want Comcast/Charter/Cox/etc. deciding which websites I should be allowed to access quickly and which should be slow.
 
2014-05-15 12:33:15 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


Unfortunately, I doubt that congress could ever make a law to garauntee net neutrality. At best, it would have tons of crazy things bundled into it, and the political process would be exhausting.

And the dispute resolution body the FCC says it will have is a complete joke. The FCC doesn't even bother to enforce the national do-not-call list, and that was an incredibly popular piece of legislation and isn't really that hard to enforce.
 
2014-05-15 12:33:20 PM  

Gunther: mod3072: The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT.

Much as it galls me to admit it, you are indeed correct. On this issue the democrats deserve more of the blame.


And if you vote Republican this year, the Republicans will be the ones actively enacting it.
 
2014-05-15 12:33:28 PM  

happydude45: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

Idiot trolls remain idiot trolls


Pats little pointed head and skritchs between the ears.
 
2014-05-15 12:34:45 PM  

clkeagle: Driedsponge: I wonder how long it will take before Netflix, Google, Amazon and Apple start billing the cable companies for every bite of data requested.  This still doesn't help the little guys at all, and customers are generally screwed, but it would be pretty funny to watch this blow up in the face of the cable industry.

They'd all have to work together for your plan to work. Customers won't cancel their internet service unless they lose access to all of their primary sources of internet usage.


The only groups allowed to work together in this country are those that rent permission.
 
2014-05-15 12:35:26 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: So what. I already downloaded all the porn on the internet to my hard drive...


But as long as narcotics remain addictive, Dads can be abusive and rent needs to be paid then every day will see more to add to the pile.

Spank all you want....they'll make more!
 
2014-05-15 12:35:30 PM  
www.freaksugar.com

www.freaksugar.com

www.freaksugar.com
www.freaksugar.com
 
2014-05-15 12:35:46 PM  

mod3072: The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.

The FCC already has all the power they need to regulate the industry, they just refuse to do it. There is no need for legislation, the FCC just needs to step up and do its job. The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place? Would the Senate pass it even if the House acted to overturn the rules? Would Obama sign it? Yes, the Republicans are corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate shills who only care about themselves and their rich cronies. The problem is, so are the Democrats, you just refuse to believe it because GO TEAM! I would point out that Obama has appointed insider industry shills to every single regulatory agency in existence, but you'd probably find a way to blame that on Bush.


Exactly.

Corporatists. The lot of them.
 
2014-05-15 12:35:46 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You have a thousand terabytes of porn?!?


pffft that's like two weeks worth
 
2014-05-15 12:36:14 PM  

m1ke: This is going to really hurt my Super Karate Monkey Death Car.

 
2014-05-15 12:36:21 PM  

UNC_Samurai: If the city built its own FttH infrastructure, would they be peering with other networks?


It's not necessary, but it would be mildly surprising if there are no peering agreements with established providers in the area.
 
2014-05-15 12:36:36 PM  

Gunther: mod3072: The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT.

Much as it galls me to admit it, you are indeed correct. On this issue the democrats deserve more of the blame.


Only because it is their turn in the barrel.
There is no Partisanship, except for fooling Public.
 
2014-05-15 12:37:06 PM  
Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.
 
2014-05-15 12:37:33 PM  

clkeagle: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The bill can start in the Senate.
The HoR is farked, sure, but that's the fault of gerrymandering.

Either way, everyone in this thread should start typing something to their Democratic representative and/or senator right now. I'm working on one to Senator Harkin.


Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.
Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?

It was an editing mistake... but they probably assume someone interested in the current net neutrality discussion would know who the FCC chairman is.


sprawl15: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama
From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.
george soros?

DRINK!


Might mention in the letters that the people that will be royally pissed are to a large extent educated young voters...
 
2014-05-15 12:38:11 PM  
Now that I won't be able to be passified playing on the internet I can go do stuff like demonstrate against the federal govt, politicians, and the like. Thanks for giving me the time and the reason!
 
2014-05-15 12:38:11 PM  

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.
 
2014-05-15 12:38:11 PM  
Son.  I am Disapoint!

NO ONE used this slogan yet?

cdn-static.zdnet.com

That being said.

RIP Internet.

Drew:  What effect will this have on Fark?
 
2014-05-15 12:38:31 PM  
What, you didn't think we'd just continue to get unlimited, and ever faster service, for the same price, did you?

How does that make sense?
 
2014-05-15 12:38:41 PM  

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


(clicks profile)

You make money by selling your artwork on a personal website, right?

How much of a subscription are you willing to pay every privately-owned ISP in this country to guarantee unthrottled access to your website? If you forget to pay, say, Mediacom or Cox on a given month, are you willing to let all those potential customers see "The connection has timed out" in their browser every time they click your link?
 
2014-05-15 12:39:19 PM  

snocone: happydude45: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

Idiot trolls remain idiot trolls

Pats little pointed head and skritchs between the ears.


Apologies, I meant to direct that to Prophet of Moss
 
2014-05-15 12:39:22 PM  

I alone am best: DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441


You will note outside of Franken very few people of power are actually against this for reasons that help the American People.  They aren't arguing about the rules really.  They are arguing about how gets to make them and get that awesome telecom lobbyist money.  The Dem's want the power to stay with the FCC since they don't have the house and may lose the senate.  The R's want the power to be in congress.

This was never about if we'd get farked.  Its about who gets paid off to ensure we get farked.
 
2014-05-15 12:39:24 PM  

snocone: UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.

With all due respect, you are fulla zhit.


Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
 
2014-05-15 12:39:41 PM  

papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.


If it would have been a GOP Power Play Year, the vote would still be 2/3, just the facemasks would be reversed.
 
2014-05-15 12:39:44 PM  
You assholes keep voting for the fascists.  Enjoy the results.
 
2014-05-15 12:40:03 PM  

I alone am best: DarkSoulNoHope: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441


Ted Cruz wants zero regulation. The problem he and his Republican friends have with the rules is that they simply don't go far enough.

We've subsidized the infrastructure. Now he wants to be sure that we see zero benefits unless we're on the board of one of the already existing major players. He has also advocated for a model where new players cannot make it to market as the existing companies can and will raise the bar for entry so high that it will be impossible to compete with their services.

Their services will not decrease in cost and will not increase in quality. They are guaranteed that no competition will affect their world.
 
2014-05-15 12:40:48 PM  
stuffy:  Now its torch and pitchfork time.

   That's the call of Second Amendment dimwits but they're co-opted into worshiping the power holding them down. 'Tough as Cheney. RAM tough.'
 
2014-05-15 12:40:59 PM  

bighairyguy: Cat videos are going to cost a fortune now.


And that's why i couldn't give a fark about this ruling.
 
2014-05-15 12:41:30 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: bighairyguy: Cat videos are going to cost a fortune now.

And that's why i couldn't give a fark about this ruling.


You will when they block your VR pron.
 
2014-05-15 12:41:49 PM  

PanicMan: EdNortonsTwin: Just wrote my Senator, again.

I will tonight. Again. EFF is a good resource for that.


This thread is getting a lot of comments - take another minute everyone and bug your congress critter.

Sometimes you even get something other than a form letter in return.  Few years back I had a few exchanges with a staffer - which was nice.  It didn't hurt that I imagined her wearing a skimpy nighty when writing back, but that's another story.
 
2014-05-15 12:41:57 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Doing as much as they did to stop Obamacare.


You can keep your ISP?
 
2014-05-15 12:42:40 PM  

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


Poe's law?  You're already paying for it.  Would you pay more for gasoline that was more expensive based on how popular the place you wanted to drive to was?  And with said gasoline charging the place you were going on top of charging you, leading to the destination also charging you more to make up for it?
 
2014-05-15 12:43:22 PM  

mr lawson: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.
"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."


If you look at what he's actually saying, he's advocating for removal of FCC regulation for this and other business decisions by ISP's. In other words instead of the FCC having to approve anything impacting net neutrality, the ISP's could just do this all on their own. It reads as though the ISP's are stuck with the FCC forcing selective carrying down their throats, when in fact they're begging it.

It's bad that the FCC has voted this way, but it would be even worse if there was zero regulation and the ISP's could do as they please.
 
2014-05-15 12:43:32 PM  
28.8kbps used to cost around $10.  3Mbps should cost around $1000.

I think there is some wiggle room between $60 and $1000.
 
2014-05-15 12:43:49 PM  
There seem to be a few more details here.

mod3072: The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place?


The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.

This leaves the political prospects dim, at least until and unless the GOP is completely laughed off the political stage -- which seems to have essentially no chance of happening prior to 2023 at the earliest, and is implausible even then.
 
2014-05-15 12:43:51 PM  

snocone: papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.

If it would have been a GOP Power Play Year, the vote would still be 2/3, just the facemasks would be reversed.


So you're tellin' me vote independent. Or..... don't vote?
 
2014-05-15 12:44:21 PM  

mod3072: The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.

The FCC already has all the power they need to regulate the industry, they just refuse to do it. There is no need for legislation, the FCC just needs to step up and do its job. The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place? Would the Senate pass it even if the House acted to overturn the rules? Would Obama sign it? Yes, the Republicans are corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate shills who only care about themselves and their rich cronies. The problem is, so are the Democrats, you just refuse to believe it because GO TEAM! I would point out that Obama has appointed insider industry shills to every single regulatory agency in existence, but you'd probably find a way to blame that on Bush.


The reason the FCC is revisiting this is because they were smacked down by the courts for their prior rules. Initially, the full-bore net neutrality was the policy.

Time to make ISP common carriers.
 
2014-05-15 12:44:25 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: [affordablehousinginstitute.org image 400x230]


hah, it's also a new track from Austrian Death Machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mBUiyNdkwM
 
2014-05-15 12:44:34 PM  
You know what this calls for, right?

Another day on FARK where 90% of all submissions get greenlit
 
2014-05-15 12:45:10 PM  
Well, that was a surprise.  No, really!  This is my surprised face:

:-|
 
2014-05-15 12:46:14 PM  

DanZero: Another day on FARK where 90% of all submissions get greenlit


YOU GET A GREENLIGHT, YOU GET A GREENLIGHT!!!  GREENLIGHTS FOR EVERYONE!!!
 
2014-05-15 12:46:38 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: UrukHaiGuyz: snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!

No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.

With all due respect, you are fulla zhit.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.


You get all the intellect you deserve, Pud.
 
2014-05-15 12:46:40 PM  

Tatterdemalian: The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.

Doing as much as they did to stop Obamacare.

/which to say, everything they can, yet far from enough
//the only power the "House Republican Majority" has is to be a convenient scapegoat to blame for the continuing failure of leftist policies
///just like the sequester, Obama can shut everything down personally, and yet the Republicans still get blamed for making him pitch that temper tantrum with their naysaying


They have put up 80-something bills to overturn Obamacare. How many votes have they recorded strengthening net neutrality and preventing the cable companies from doing this?

It wouldn't take but a handful of senators to flip to pass this in both houses, then it's on Obama.

Saying "it's pointless so why try" doesn't pass the smell test when they pass pointless bills almost every single day over and over again...
 
2014-05-15 12:46:47 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.


No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.
 
2014-05-15 12:47:17 PM  

make me some tea: Gunther: mod3072: The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT.

Much as it galls me to admit it, you are indeed correct. On this issue the democrats deserve more of the blame.

And if you vote Republican this year, the Republicans will be the ones actively enacting it.


That's most likely true, but that doesn't make it any less silly to try blaming these rules on the Republicans, as many in this thread are doing.
 
2014-05-15 12:47:25 PM  

papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.


The Republicans don't feel that the FCC should have jurisdiction here, and Comcast/Verizon et. al. should be able to do as they please. The Democrats voting for it actually ensures that the FCC maintains the authority to make this decision.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not happy about it at all, and there should have been a better way to make sure the FCC (or at least somebody) has the ability to regulate an essential service like broadband Internet. But I'm trying to look at the bright side here.
 
2014-05-15 12:47:51 PM  
Do what you want, but you're gonna loose net neutrality because there's too much potential money in it.

Ask anyone who recalls the beginning of cable TV, which was considered amazing, and look at it now. Broken often into tiers to give viewers a ton of channels they don't want if they want to see anything except the most basic TV programming. 'Stealing cable' went from a misdemeanor to a felony. Infomercials flood the stations after midnight and while you might have 500 different channels, there's probably only 100 you actually watch. You might find one show on three different channels you pay for, at the same time.

You can be forced to take 25 sports channels even if you hate sports -- and get to have your favorite program pre-empted for sports games anyhow.

Pretty much cable TV is working to maximize profits at the cost of service -- at least among the biggest providers. Small providers find themselves nearly shut out.

When the internet opened up to the public it was much different than today. A major change has been the ads and tracking cookies which infest your devices. Then came the pop-ups which annoyed the crap out of everyone. Rules required, eventually, that each one needed to have a close button, but then the designers started making that button harder to find.

Redirectors were born, infesting websites and search engines, so when you looked for something, you could be sucked into some other site. Then, the sites which popped up under misleading names that turned out to be small search engines for 'local services'.

Spam came into being and while we've all biatched about it and laws have been created to deal with it, major Spammers make millions -- get caught and tossed in jail -- and another takes their place because no one goes after the companies who pay the Spammer to spam everyone.

Download a blocking program to cut back on tracking and ad cookies -- and watch your system slow down as the thing sorts through thousands of cookies trying to be downloaded on your system. Just setting one up opens your eyes to the huge amount of companies set up to pile garbage onto your system -- and many websites are paid to allow such garbage access.

Then, you need programs to clean out the tracking and ad cookies which often will sit on your system and feed back information or trigger pop ups and slow things down by hogging needed resources.

You have bigger hard drives now. That requires a more powerful CPU to get stuff done rapidly, yet a large amount of reasonably priced laptops and PCs come with low powered versions. Newer devices dump much of your info into 'The Cloud', mainly because storing terabytes on your cell or tablet isn't possible because we can't make a hard drive that small to hold that much.

How long before someone finds a way to hack into the Cloud? They've hacked into everything else.

The Internet is a gold mine for those who can control access to it.

Like Cable TV and most cell phone services, companies have seen the billions to be made by regulating the quality of service to access this global medium.

Texting uses less bandwidth than voice, yet started out more expensive and as people have flocked to it, the cell providers are making billions. It's a cash cow. Especially with teens.

When there is so much money to be made, Big Business will unhesitatingly buy off law makers and incessantly lobby congress to get a piece of the pie.

You get screwed.
 
2014-05-15 12:48:12 PM  

dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.


Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?
 
2014-05-15 12:48:18 PM  

kling_klang_bed: Republicans siding with the larger corporations and in turn duking the small businesses?

[i45.photobucket.com image 240x189]


It was actually the other way around.  These were Democrats screwing the people over.  This time, anyway...


Nadie_AZ: kling_klang_bed: Republicans Corporatists siding with the larger corporations and in turn duking the small businesses?

[i45.photobucket.com image 240x189]

This is really the truth of it.


Yeah, well, that, too.
 
2014-05-15 12:48:25 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 12:48:33 PM  

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!


www.charmofthecarolines.com
 
2014-05-15 12:49:09 PM  

papatex: snocone: papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.

If it would have been a GOP Power Play Year, the vote would still be 2/3, just the facemasks would be reversed.

So you're tellin' me vote independent. Or..... don't vote?


If I had an answer that would work, I would be in prison.
 
2014-05-15 12:49:22 PM  
3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.
 
2014-05-15 12:49:47 PM  

DanZero: You know what this calls for, right?
Another day on FARK where 90% of all submissions get greenlit


Nah. Greenlight all of the spam links, but with the type changed to img.fark.net.
 
2014-05-15 12:49:58 PM  

sendtodave: Better Comcast than than the next Mark Zuckerberg, selling another useless bazillion dollar marketing scheme.


i.imgur.com

I am paying my ISP for a service.  I am not paying Facebook for one.
 
2014-05-15 12:50:12 PM  

RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.


Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.
 
2014-05-15 12:50:19 PM  

abb3w: The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.


Exactly. For all the [justified] hype about the Democrats not being restrictive enough, the Republicans don't believe there should be any regulations on the ISP's at all.
 
2014-05-15 12:50:35 PM  
I may start actively campaigning for Bernie Sanders as our next president. He could make a bigger dent in this perspective of change than any other currently presented potential candidate.

I like Obama, but I'm definitely not one of the leg-humpers that the conservatrolls think exist here. Appointing these five people and Wheeler and others were big mistakes. Fortunately I'm not a one-issue voter, so there are upsides here even if they are few and far between.

Both sides are bad, but in our crusade towards oligarchy and anarchy and self-destruction the Republicans are getting us there faster. So many corporate interests, so many "we got 98%" buffoons. All three branches of government are driving us into darkness, the president slowest and the SCOTUS fastest, with the burdening standstill Congress in the middle mostly by non-action.
 
2014-05-15 12:50:39 PM  

ox45tallboy: But I'm trying to look at the bright side here.


Much like this guy here.

;)
 
2014-05-15 12:51:17 PM  
USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...
 
2014-05-15 12:51:25 PM  

Biff_Steel: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

[img.fark.net image 600x865]


Is it me, or is Ann turning into Roger from American Dad?
 
2014-05-15 12:51:32 PM  

sendtodave: Bandwidth isn't like memory. It's a series of cables.


It was an analogy.

How much did a 56k modem cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 50Mbps cable modem cost today?

How much did a 1 Mbps switch cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 100 Gbps switch cost today?
 
2014-05-15 12:51:50 PM  

xanadian: ox45tallboy: But I'm trying to look at the bright side here.

Much like this guy here.

;)


YES
 
2014-05-15 12:52:20 PM  
So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?
 
2014-05-15 12:52:23 PM  

elchip: sendtodave: Better Comcast than than the next Mark Zuckerberg, selling another useless bazillion dollar marketing scheme.

[i.imgur.com image 600x480]

I am paying my ISP for a service.  I am not paying Facebook for one.


Sure.

And you will still get your "up to x" speed.
 
2014-05-15 12:52:24 PM  

abb3w: There seem to be a few more details here.

mod3072: The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place?

The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.

This leaves the political prospects dim, at least until and unless the GOP is completely laughed off the political stage -- which seems to have essentially no chance of happening prior to 2023 at the earliest, and is implausible even then.


Yea, make no mistake - the Republicans aren't for Net Neutrality.  They voted against this because it goes to far for Net Neutrality.
They want to completely unregulate the internet (well except for morality legislation) and let the ISPs do as they please.  You know, free market and all that.
 
2014-05-15 12:52:56 PM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


My plan is to send the vast majority of my job applications overseas when I'm finishing my dissertation and on the market.
 
2014-05-15 12:53:39 PM  

elchip: sendtodave: Bandwidth isn't like memory. It's a series of cables.

It was an analogy.

How much did a 56k modem cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 50Mbps cable modem cost today?

How much did a 1 Mbps switch cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 100 Gbps switch cost today?


How much did a data center cost 20 years ago?

How much did it cost to run cables 20 years ago?

How much does it cost today?
 
2014-05-15 12:53:47 PM  
Interestingly enough, we the consumers, also pay for high-speed internet. If I'm paying Verizon for high-speed access, I expect to get high speed access to all websites, not merely the ones Verizon is managing to double-dip from. We have to be willing to use the gravitas of our collective spending power to force the issue, since our coke-whore government is getting busy under the table.
 
2014-05-15 12:53:58 PM  

meat0918: Rural broadbandification should be what we are doing right now to stimulate the economy. We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


THIS.  I'm in a fringe area and neither cable or DSL came down my street.  I can walk in my front yard and see houses 1000 feet away in either direction than can get broadband via cable or DSL, but I can't get either.  My only option is hughesnet, which sucks big time.  AT&T has been promising Uverse in my area, and if they roll that out, then maybe the switch I'm on will get replaced and I'll get DSL, but I've heard that rumor for the last 4 years or so and it hasn't happened yet.
 
2014-05-15 12:54:42 PM  
Does this surprise anyone? I mean Americans are stupid lazy ignorant idiots that have handlers not leaders.
 
2014-05-15 12:54:49 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: You assholes keep voting for the fascists. Enjoy the results.


Red or Blue they'll both screw you, Eiffel Towering the American people since 1913.
 
2014-05-15 12:54:55 PM  

delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?


Probably not, network protocols are designed to route around damage.
 
2014-05-15 12:54:58 PM  
How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.
 
2014-05-15 12:55:42 PM  

pippi longstocking: Does this surprise anyone? I mean Americans are stupid lazy ignorant idiots that have handlers not leaders.


Our elected managers.
 
2014-05-15 12:55:46 PM  

delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?


I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.
 
2014-05-15 12:56:40 PM  

sparty: From the FCC's page:

The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business.

 it's clear where the fault lies... yet I'm sure the minority party will do nothing to overturn it.


Bush?
 
2014-05-15 12:56:53 PM  

GORDON: There should be some anger from both sides of the aisle, but the wagons are permanently circled.


I wrote him an extremely angry letter. Yeah, I voted for him, but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass from me.
 
2014-05-15 12:57:04 PM  

TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...


In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.
 
2014-05-15 12:57:05 PM  

sendtodave: elchip: sendtodave: Bandwidth isn't like memory. It's a series of cables.

It was an analogy.

How much did a 56k modem cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 50Mbps cable modem cost today?

How much did a 1 Mbps switch cost 20 years ago?  How much does a 100 Gbps switch cost today?

How much did a data center cost 20 years ago?

How much did it cost to run cables 20 years ago?

How much does it cost today?


Either way, I don't get why they have to have "fast lanes."  Aren't the ISPs making enough cash from the tiered Internet plans they sell to the suckers uh I mean public?  And if they're not, they can eke up the cost of a 768kbps connection to $20.95 a month, the 3Mbps to $31.95, etc.

/or whatever it is in your area
//my 33Mbps is $44.95
///and I'm damn glad to have it up here in the sticks
 
2014-05-15 12:57:36 PM  

sendtodave: 28.8kbps used to cost around $10.  3Mbps should cost around $1000.

I think there is some wiggle room between $60 and $1000.


but first you have to buy a $200,000 computer
 
2014-05-15 12:57:38 PM  

untaken_name: How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.


Apparently the other two, and Ted Cruz, are conspiring to let ISPs take full control instead of having this FCC middleman.

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich vote. Both arguments were against the general population.
 
2014-05-15 12:58:01 PM  

sendtodave: How much did a data center cost 20 years ago?

How much did it cost to run cables 20 years ago?

How much does it cost today?


One set of costs is getting cheaper at a fast rate.

Another set of costs is getting more expensive at a slow rate.

I don't know the relative expense of set A compared to set B when it comes to running an ISP.  But we're not talking about all of the ISP's costs continuously going up at a fast rate.

Costs may rise slightly with inflation.  They may fall slightly with cheaper technology.  But we sure as hell don't need to end net neutrality to save ourselves from Facebook.
 
2014-05-15 12:58:39 PM  

Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.


That would be against the terms of service here. Google hasn't move into the commercial market yet in KC as far as I know...
 
2014-05-15 12:58:44 PM  
fark me.  Well, it was fun while it lasted.  Be ready to switch to a darknet soon.
 
2014-05-15 12:58:52 PM  

Triple Oak: untaken_name: How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.

Apparently the other two, and Ted Cruz, are conspiring to let ISPs take full control instead of having this FCC middleman.

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich vote. Both arguments were against the general population.


Yep, and once again, it's all about who is the "lesser evil" at the time.
 
2014-05-15 12:58:56 PM  
Is this strictly a 'murican problem or will I be trickle-down shafted in Canada as well? What about Europeans?
 
2014-05-15 01:00:27 PM  
sdd2000
>>> sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


Ehem... You of course are ignoring the line a bit lower that states...
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes


And fark it. Why "guess" at all? Lets put the cards on the table.

--- A 3 to two vote huh? ---
The agency's two Republican commissioners have opposed from the beginning any attempt to regulate the Internet



You're also ignoring:
* Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler appointed by President Obama (D) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is held by a Democratic party majority .


* During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns


* Tom Wheeler, a Democratic Obama appointee, is pressing new rules at the Federal Communications Commission that would allow an Internet service provider such as Verizon to charge YouTube, for instance, for higher-quality streaming of videos.
You hoped for change... you got it.
 
2014-05-15 01:00:51 PM  

abb3w: There seem to be a few more details here.

mod3072: The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place?

The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.

This leaves the political prospects dim, at least until and unless the GOP is completely laughed off the political stage -- which seems to have essentially no chance of happening prior to 2023 at the earliest, and is implausible even then.


This was my point, I'm not trying to absolve Obama and the democrats, they are to blame for this. I was simply refuting the silly notions that the solution to this for people who favor net neutrality is to for freaking republicans of all people.
 
2014-05-15 01:01:24 PM  

labman: meat0918: Rural broadbandification should be what we are doing right now to stimulate the economy. We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?

THIS.  I'm in a fringe area and neither cable or DSL came down my street.  I can walk in my front yard and see houses 1000 feet away in either direction than can get broadband via cable or DSL, but I can't get either.  My only option is hughesnet, which sucks big time.  AT&T has been promising Uverse in my area, and if they roll that out, then maybe the switch I'm on will get replaced and I'll get DSL, but I've heard that rumor for the last 4 years or so and it hasn't happened yet.


I thought the same thing (only it's closer to a mile for cable from where I'm at, and 1.4 mile for DSL), but on Monday I paid $90 for a 3G device and three months of unlimited service from a local cell phone company. Many times these companies own the towers and lease them to large providers, and have their own small cell network that only works in a small part of your state. It's only 1.5-2Mb/sec, but it's $30 and beats the sh*t out of dialup. Latency isn't bad at about 100 ms, compared to Hughes 500 ms and data caps. It won't handle HD streaming, but standard-res YouTube runs fine.

Seriously, check out your local-only cell phone providers.
 
2014-05-15 01:01:31 PM  
This is not the end. It is the beginning of a new better internet. One that is truly free from greedy hands.
 
2014-05-15 01:02:16 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: abb3w: There seem to be a few more details here.

mod3072: The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place?

The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.

This leaves the political prospects dim, at least until and unless the GOP is completely laughed off the political stage -- which seems to have essentially no chance of happening prior to 2023 at the earliest, and is implausible even then.

Yea, make no mistake - the Republicans aren't for Net Neutrality.  They voted against this because it goes to far for Net Neutrality.
They want to completely unregulate the internet (well except for morality legislation) and let the ISPs do as they please.  You know, free market and all that.


I don't have any illusions about the Republicans being champions of Net Neutrality. There are many, however, who seem to be trying to absolve Democrats of all responsibility for the current state of affairs by passing all of the blame to the other side. The industry will get what they want because they have the money to buy favorable rules.
 
2014-05-15 01:02:21 PM  

clkeagle: Driedsponge: I wonder how long it will take before Netflix, Google, Amazon and Apple start billing the cable companies for every bite of data requested.  This still doesn't help the little guys at all, and customers are generally screwed, but it would be pretty funny to watch this blow up in the face of the cable industry.

They'd all have to work together for your plan to work. Customers won't cancel their internet service unless they lose access to all of their primary sources of internet usage.


They don't even have to bill them.  Just make some noise.  Put some splash screens up or small video intros (for netflix).

If every time a Comcast user watched a netflix video they had 15 seconds of 'Hey we notice you are a Comcast user! We know you pay good money for your internet service, and we do too.  We are dedicated to bringing you a quality streaming experience, and in order to do that Comcast has demanded in addition to our service fees and yours, we pay them money to guarantee our connection to your is highest priority.  While we are against this in principal, in reality we just want you to have the best experience.  This does hurt smaller companies that can't afford it and it does raise the subscription cost we have to charge users like you though.  We hope you will voice your dissatisfaction on us being charged for something we and you have already paid for, and for keeping the internet an extortion free environment.' **splash screen to FCC & Comcast complaint department**

I don't expect anyone to sink their business but some shiat like that could be pretty powerful.  The real issue now is 99.99% of the people don't even understand this stuff.  The people getting farked need to be more active in letting the consumers know they are getting farked.
 
2014-05-15 01:02:38 PM  
FTFA:

One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.

This may not be all bad.
 
2014-05-15 01:02:44 PM  

Cpl.D: fark me.  Well, it was fun while it lasted.  Be ready to switch to a darknet soon.


Darknets would have higher QoS?

Guys, that's all this is.  It's QoS.

Higher network priority for certain data.

VOIP PHONES AREN'T NEUTRAL ENOUGH.
 
2014-05-15 01:03:21 PM  

xanadian: Aren't the ISPs making enough cash from the tiered Internet plans

....

If a legislative opportunity to double-end transport charges is available it's their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholder to screw you dry. Waiting for UPS to make the same argument based on the unfair load Amazon puts on their trucks.
Reason has left the white building....
 
2014-05-15 01:04:02 PM  
Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.
 
2014-05-15 01:04:10 PM  
I found an old article on one aspect of this issue that pissed me completely off:

"Through tax breaks and increased service fees, Verizon and the old Bells reaped an estimated $200 billion since the early 1990s to improve subscriber lines in the United States. And what have American consumers received? The most common DSL Service over the old copper networks tops out at 768 Kbps in most areas-a hundred times slower than routine connections in other countries."
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&ask th isid=186
 
2014-05-15 01:04:16 PM  

Theory Of Null: This is not the end. It is the beginning of a new better internet. One that is truly free from greedy hands.


That doesn't run on their lines?

img.fark.netimg.fark.net
 
2014-05-15 01:04:51 PM  

neenerist: Waiting for UPS to make the same argument based on the unfair load Amazon puts on their trucks.


Brilliant!
 
2014-05-15 01:05:26 PM  

Rik01: Do what you want, but you're gonna loose net neutrality because there's too much potential money in it.

Ask anyone who recalls the beginning of cable TV, which was considered amazing, and look at it now. Broken often into tiers to give viewers a ton of channels they don't want if they want to see anything except the most basic TV programming. 'Stealing cable' went from a misdemeanor to a felony. Infomercials flood the stations after midnight and while you might have 500 different channels, there's probably only 100 you actually watch. You might find one show on three different channels you pay for, at the same time.

You can be forced to take 25 sports channels even if you hate sports -- and get to have your favorite program pre-empted for sports games anyhow.

Pretty much cable TV is working to maximize profits at the cost of service -- at least among the biggest providers. Small providers find themselves nearly shut out.

When the internet opened up to the public it was much different than today. A major change has been the ads and tracking cookies which infest your devices. Then came the pop-ups which annoyed the crap out of everyone. Rules required, eventually, that each one needed to have a close button, but then the designers started making that button harder to find.

Redirectors were born, infesting websites and search engines, so when you looked for something, you could be sucked into some other site. Then, the sites which popped up under misleading names that turned out to be small search engines for 'local services'.

Spam came into being and while we've all biatched about it and laws have been created to deal with it, major Spammers make millions -- get caught and tossed in jail -- and another takes their place because no one goes after the companies who pay the Spammer to spam everyone.

Download a blocking program to cut back on tracking and ad cookies -- and watch your system slow down as the thing sorts through thousands of cookies trying to be down ...


all of this reminds me of reasons why people were dumping cable in the first place

i don't know why companies think they can turn the internet into a vomit toxic dump like cable tv is, and expect people to continue paying for that as well

i mean the monetary value of the internet is based on the ease of access and content creation - basically a constant incentive to bring people back

limiting content creation and ease of access do the opposite, and the internet user is also the most fickle of consumer and will dump anything at the drop of a hat... attempting to brute force people into a box won't work
 
2014-05-15 01:05:41 PM  

Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.

Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?


Yes. That's the exact result. NBC, owned by ComCast will be prioritized traffic on ComCast's backbone network. You'll be able to watch the holy fark out of law and order in full-scale HD 5.1 glory and zero buffering or latency crapola.

Want to watch CBS instead? Well, so long as CBS pays ComCast piles of cash, CBS will get on the fast pipe when CBS packets travel through the ComCast network.

Now, you say you don't have ComCast. Those packets are likely still going to pass through a ComCast ring. The same prioritization happens. You still get crappy CBS video or the alternative, that video costs more because CBS pays the extortion fees. You see the same stuff for a higher cost and no real window as to why it cost more.

It isn't just about cat videos. Netflix is an example of what won't happen after neutrality is eliminated. If ComCast is allowed to purchase TWC and their backbone, then there will be almost zero packets that do not flow through ComCast rings. ZERO.

The end that the likes of comcast want is 100% control of what you watch. They don't want you to watch anything they don't own a license for and that they don't provide advertizing on. The bandwidth and infrastructure isn't where they make money. They're not as interested in making that extortion money from CBS as they are hoping that you'll simply just stop watching CBS videos and watch their shiat instead.
 
2014-05-15 01:05:42 PM  
Farking Canuck
2014-05-15 11:47:29 AM


Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.

3 to 2 vote.

The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link. Not that we expect obama voters to be literate.

The plan is expected to get enough votes Thursday to move forward, with support likely to come from Wheeler's two fellow Democrats on the commission
The agency's two Republican commissioners have opposed from the beginning any attempt to regulate the Internet
 
2014-05-15 01:05:44 PM  

skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.


If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.
 
2014-05-15 01:05:54 PM  

hawcian: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

What promised services? "Up to" whatever speeds you're paying for?


I have a business line with an SLA.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:10 PM  

OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.


Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:13 PM  
IF TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE NOT FREE TO DESTROY THE INTERNET

THEN THE INTERNET IS NOT FREE

WHEN WILL YOU STUPID LIBS REALIZE THIS

NOW YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO READ THE THINGS I HAVE TO SAY

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:06 PM  

TheNewJesus: Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.

That would be against the terms of service here. Google hasn't move into the commercial market yet in KC as far as I know...


Huh, well that seems unwise of them.
It was actually at a Google fiber presentation where I learned about that, but the speaker could have been referring to a city that did fiber on their own.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:25 PM  

untaken_name: How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.


Those three Democrats voted in favor of the FCC being able to regulate ISP's. The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:32 PM  

delciotto: skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.

If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.


My understanding is all the TLD servers are here in the 'States.  We have total DNS control.  So, yeah.  If the pricks get vindictive, they can cause trouble.  I could be wrong, haven't thought about it in a long time.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:48 PM  

sendtodave: elchip: sendtodave: What, you didn't think we'd just continue to get unlimited, and ever faster service, for the same price, did you?

How does that make sense?

How much did 1GB of RAM cost 20 years ago?

How much does 128GB of RAM cost today?

You sad, stupid fark.

Bandwidth isn't like memory.  It's a series of cables.


Well, a little more than a series of cables.  On each end of the cable is a transceiver.  These transceivers are connected to each other via a packet switching mechanism.  The cost per bit per second has been dropping in line with RAM and CPU prices, as both the transceivers and switches follow Moore's law just like memory and CPUs.  This has hit both copper based and fiber based access loops.  In the year 2000, a 1.5mbit/sec local loop (DSL) was generally being billed out at $80/month.  3mbit/sec is now generally $29.  $100/month gets you 50mbits/sec in major markets.  A 622mbit/sec local loop in the year 2000 was usually a $500k build with a monthly recurring charge north of $50k.  A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.  In places where a full fiber broadband infrastructure has been built out (say Google Fiber for this discussion) you get 1G (oversubscribed) for $150/month.  Other carriers are doing 300meg for $300 (Verizon today in FIOS footprint, AT&T in limited places).

Our big problem is inducing capital to deploy these capabilities to a wider footprint, and solving the business model problems that created the net-neutrality fight.
 
2014-05-15 01:07:50 PM  

Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.


Sooo.... you didn't really care about the fact that he unapologetically continued and expanded domestic spying and sabotage programs against Internet traffic and the datacenters that carry it... but now you're mad that it might get a little slower?
 
2014-05-15 01:07:58 PM  
No it isnt. It is due to democrats being concentrated in urban areas. Studies were done show in random district drawings and only 1 or 2 seats shift at most.

Please stop repeating this ignorant talking point.
 
2014-05-15 01:08:01 PM  

The Homer Tax: abb3w: There seem to be a few more details here.

mod3072: The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place?

The Democrats are clearly at fault for voting for these crappy rules. However, from what I can make out from other sources, it sounds like the GOP are opposed because the rules restrict the amount of crappiness more strictly than presently allowed.

This leaves the political prospects dim, at least until and unless the GOP is completely laughed off the political stage -- which seems to have essentially no chance of happening prior to 2023 at the earliest, and is implausible even then.

This was my point, I'm not trying to absolve Obama and the democrats, they are to blame for this. I was simply refuting the silly notions that the solution to this for people who favor net neutrality is to for freaking republicans of all people.


Oh, I agree. Voting for Republicans certainly won't solve the problem. Neither will voting for Democrats.
 
2014-05-15 01:08:05 PM  

ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.


citation needed
 
2014-05-15 01:08:06 PM  
All your porn belong to us.
 
2014-05-15 01:08:32 PM  

sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.

Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.


Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.

Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.
 
2014-05-15 01:09:06 PM  

skozlaw: Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.

Sooo.... you didn't really care about the fact that he unapologetically continued and expanded domestic spying and sabotage programs against Internet traffic and the datacenters that carry it... but now you're mad that it might get a little slower?


Domestic spying pisses me off.  Sabotaging datacenters?  That's a new one to me.  You got a source?
 
2014-05-15 01:09:24 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

Poe's law?  You're already paying for it.  Would you pay more for gasoline that was more expensive based on how popular the place you wanted to drive to was?  And with said gasoline charging the place you were going on top of charging you, leading to the destination also charging you more to make up for it?


Hmmm. Like if BP owned the Illinois Tollway System...
 
2014-05-15 01:09:49 PM  

delciotto: If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.


I'm pretty sure that horse has left the stable.

images.politico.com
 
2014-05-15 01:10:02 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


3. Hahahahaha
 
2014-05-15 01:10:14 PM  

Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.


You'd rather there be no regulation at all? Because that's what the Republicans support. This isn't finalized, it's just moved to public comment. But by voting yes to consider the rules, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC has the authority to regulate the ISP's.

Now we see if they use that authority for the good of the public...
 
2014-05-15 01:10:43 PM  

neenerist: Waiting for UPS to make the same argument based on the unfair load Amazon puts on their trucks.


...which is exactly what will happen the day after FedEx and USPS are gone.
 
2014-05-15 01:11:49 PM  

papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.


Why should you be surprised?  The CEO of Comcast has played golf with the President on Martha's Vineyard, and donated almost 3X as much to Democrat candidates than to Republicans, and practically has a sub office in the West Wing.

Comcast lobbyist David Cohen bundled close to 1.5 million in contributions for the President's re election campaign.

Follow the smell of money.  Every time.

A Richard in the rectum from a red elephant or a blue donkey is still a Richard in the rectum.  There's very little difference between the two in the end.  You really shouldn't be surprised about it ever again.
 
2014-05-15 01:12:06 PM  

Biff_Steel: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This country in no way resembles the nation of my youth.

[img.fark.net image 600x865]


That's funny (I "FUNNY"ed it), but misguided. Ms. Coulter is part of the problem, and is in no way attempting to find a solution. Also, she's getting a little haggard, wouldn't you say?
 
2014-05-15 01:12:26 PM  

OnlyM3: sdd2000
>>> sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

Ehem... You of course are ignoring the line a bit lower that states...
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes

And fark it. Why "guess" at all? Lets put the cards on the table.

--- A 3 to two vote huh? ---
The agency's two Republican commissioners have opposed from the beginning any attempt to regulate the Internet



You're also ignoring:
* Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler appointed by President Obama (D) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is held by a Democratic party majority .


* During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns


* Tom Wheeler, a Democratic Obama appointee, is pressing new rules at the Federal Communications Commission that would allow an Internet service provider such as Verizon to charge YouTube, for instance, for higher-quality streaming of videos.
You hoped for change... you got it.


When they "oppose any attempt to regulate the Internet" you realize that means giving ISPs the authority to do whatever they want with no restrictions, right? Their problem isn't that the regulations are infringing on net neutrality, it's that there are regulations on companies at all.
 
2014-05-15 01:12:39 PM  

ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.


You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet
 
2014-05-15 01:13:04 PM  

snocone: gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Will buy the lawyers a nice Ferrari or three, while you'll get three dollars off your next month's bill if you agree that the cable company did no wrong and can repeat the behavior. (And you'll also have to rub your tummy and pat your head at the same time to get them to send the check, which you'll have to wait six months for. And its costs will be covered with a five-dollar-a-month-in-perpetuity hike in the cost of your cable bill.)

The only answer here is to vote out the morons who put these morons in office, and any morons who think even slightly like they do, and continue to do so for decades, and pray that the people you vote in are less dishonest.

In these trying times, we certainly need a much faster way of ejecting morons(sociopaths that sell their soul for chump change in order to funnel more middle class money to the 1%).
You have absolutely no way of determining honesty before election, so one must use the ejection seat that we do not currently have, but need.
And there is the issue of elections being just so much theatre in the first place.
Face it, You, Me, Him are just farked.


This is the greatest idea I've ever seen on fark. Both sides should support this
 
2014-05-15 01:13:21 PM  

ox45tallboy: Cpl.D: Benghazi is a fabricated issue.  Obamacare, in at least so far, appears to be working.  So far, Obama's not really given me a reason to be pissed off.  But this shiat is beyond the pale.

You'd rather there be no regulation at all? Because that's what the Republicans support. This isn't finalized, it's just moved to public comment. But by voting yes to consider the rules, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC has the authority to regulate the ISP's.

Now we see if they use that authority for the good of the public...


Personally, I'd rather see internet access be regulated like a utility.
 
2014-05-15 01:13:31 PM  

You want to do something it about? Contact your Senator or Reps through EFF. Or send an email to the FCC...https://www.dearfcc.org/


Or donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/

 
2014-05-15 01:13:46 PM  

OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.


The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?
 
2014-05-15 01:14:06 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You can have enough porn?


Simple math, really. Divide hours of porn (180000) by how many hours in the day (24). I have enough to watch 24 hours a day for about 20 years.

I kind of got a hoarding thing going and, next thing I know....
 
2014-05-15 01:14:08 PM  

ardubz: Is this strictly a 'murican problem or will I be trickle-down shafted in Canada as well? What about Europeans?


i'll be curious about what happens internationally as well
 
2014-05-15 01:14:13 PM  

wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.


Usually it's just a backhoe "accident"
 
2014-05-15 01:14:18 PM  

mr lawson: citation needed


Well, leading House republicans wrote a letter yesterday saying as much.

The current status of net neutrality, thanks to the FCC's fark-up in not classifying ISPs as common carriers, is that there is none. There is NOTHING stopping providers right now from throttling connections and demanding protection money from large content providers. People have this whole thing ass-backwards. Right now it's as bad as it can possibly get without being explicitly codified.

In theory, the FCC's changes will bring structure to it, but not fix the problem, which is still bad, but this is not about allowing the providers to throttle and shakedown. They're already allowed to do that.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:22 PM  
The other thing is, correct me if I am wrong, but, Comcast could decide that, well, geez, while they probably can't completely block access to a website legally, but, well, oops if trying to get to "comcastsucks.com" is reduced to the speed of an old 2400 baud C-64 modem.... or anything else they have some objection to.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:33 PM  

Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.


shiat still will go through the same filters and traffic management when it goes through a ComCast switch.

Everything in North America will go through a ComCast switch at some point.
 
2014-05-15 01:14:48 PM  
How did we not see this coming?
 
2014-05-15 01:15:34 PM  

dr_blasto: sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.

Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.

Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.

Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.


You mean, companies like Netflix, or Google.
 
2014-05-15 01:15:40 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: No one's really surprised by this, are they?

It's amusing (well, OK, it's not amusing, it's appalling) that nitwits in Congress are still going on with their Benghazi bullshiat, but no effort whatsoever to do anything about the direct pipeline between corporations and regulatory agencies. Whereby people who used to work in certain industries are then put in charge of the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Then, when they leave, they go right back to the companies they used to "regulate," often as board members.

A normal person would think that constitutes an obvious conflict of interest. But people who work for the govt. at the higher levels aren't normal people. They're mostly rich people who work on behalf of other rich people.


While I'm worried I might contract space herpes for doing so, +1.
 
2014-05-15 01:17:06 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.

citation needed


http://thehill.com/policy/technology/195435-republicans-claim-victor y- in-net-neutrality-ruling

In a statement, Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) - chairmen of the House Commerce Committee and Subcommittee on Communications, respectively - applauded the court's ruling, calling the decision "a victory for jobs and innovation."

"Just as before the commission adopted its net neutrality order, with today's decision American consumers will continue to have access to the Internet and to the content of their choosing without the government playing the role of traffic cop," they said.

House Commerce Committee Vice-Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) called the agency's "egregious" net neutrality rules "socialist regulations."
"This ruling is a historic victory for America's innovators and the free market," she said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the court's decision to strike down the rules was "a win for consumers and broadband innovation."
"I have long opposed efforts that would allow the government to regulate the Internet,"
 
2014-05-15 01:17:57 PM  

Mike_LowELL: IF TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE NOT FREE TO DESTROY THE INTERNET

THEN THE INTERNET IS NOT FREE

WHEN WILL YOU STUPID LIBS REALIZE THIS

NOW YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE TO READ THE THINGS I HAVE TO SAY

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH

U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A.


No price is too high for you, Mike. :)
 
2014-05-15 01:17:59 PM  

SDRR: sprawl15: thanks obama


media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2014-05-15 01:18:04 PM  

kidgenius: sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.

There was a Democratic appointee that said "yes".

So i'm assuming that the pubs said "No" because they wanted to keep the status quo, which was the FCC not saying anything. The dems said "yes" because this forces providers to ahve a "minimum" level of "commercially reasonable" level of service.

The issue is that the it doesn't say "you can't make a fast lane" and it doesn't force the ISPs to be Title II compliant. In this whole debate there is what "net neutrality" actually means, and what the dems and pubs twist "net neutrality" to mean. They based on the twisted version, not on the actual version, otherwise the Dems would've said "fark no" and the pubs saying "hell yes!"


Great spin job.
 
2014-05-15 01:18:49 PM  

MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.


As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.
 
2014-05-15 01:19:42 PM  

Bin_jammin: Currently BREAKING NEWS on at least 5 local channels to me? Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges. Mention of something that actually impacts people watching said news? Zero.

Sad day.


Big media has been subservient to this administrations agenda, why stop now?
 
2014-05-15 01:20:05 PM  
And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers.

oh good, a government agency made a promise.  i guess we don't have to worry about it now.  we all know that huge corporations always follow all the rules government agencies impose on them.

let's pretend that some huge internet service provider decided to screw over their consumers thanks to relaxed net neutrality rules.  how long would it go on before the government told them to stop?  a year?  two years?  we all know there would be court hearings and lawsuits that might last years, and all the while, the internet companies could keep screwing over their customers.  and if they actually got found guilty, what happens then?  a fine of a couple million dollars?  wow, that would sure teach those companies a lesson.  rake in billions in profit by screwing over the customers you have a monopoly over, and maybe after a couple years the government will tell you to stop and give you a slap on the wrist penalty.  i feel safer already.
 
2014-05-15 01:20:12 PM  

OnlyM3: DarkSoulNoHope


Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to
So much stupid, you need a sign
1) The congress is two houses. The Senate is controlled by Democrats.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
4) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
5) This vote was 3 to 2 along party lines (There are 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans).


For the record: are you suggesting that people who support net neutrality vote for Republicans?
 
2014-05-15 01:20:20 PM  
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]


>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true.


Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.
 
2014-05-15 01:20:22 PM  

Cpl.D: delciotto: skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.

If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.

My understanding is all the TLD servers are here in the 'States.  We have total DNS control.  So, yeah.  If the pricks get vindictive, they can cause trouble.  I could be wrong, haven't thought about it in a long time.


so what's the end result of all of this, countries start trying to build their own internet infrastructure? more walled-off networks like China?
 
2014-05-15 01:21:05 PM  
Not a law-talking person, but would the effect of a non-neutral net on interstate commerce give any basis for fighting this in a court?
 
2014-05-15 01:21:26 PM  

meat0918: We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com
 
2014-05-15 01:21:51 PM  

jshine: ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet


Powell was the one that opted out of assigning common carrier status for ISPs and set the stage to even have this fight in the first place.
 
2014-05-15 01:21:54 PM  
Is it a violation of the FARK tos to post twitter handles. Because all three of the unelected appointees who voted for this have them. I for one plan to tweet mention them daily. So that they can't continue to use the tool to pretend they support open internet.
 
2014-05-15 01:21:56 PM  
American "free market" capitalism where the playing field is tilted in the direction of those who paid the most.
Suck it small business.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:01 PM  
Well it seems the the presidential preacher really meant it when he said "Goddamn America" , thanks Obama and Liberal Democrats!
 
2014-05-15 01:22:03 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.

citation needed


Citation provided. Direct quote from Ted Cruz:

"I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

If you don't believe that Ted Cruz speaks for the Republican party position, here's the FCC commissioners themselves:

Republican appointees Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voted against moving forward with the new regulations, saying the proposal reaches beyond the scope of the FCC's responsibilities. Pai said if new regulations are needed, Congress should legislate them.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:16 PM  

TheNewJesus: Sticky Hands: TheNewJesus: USA Inc. Your freedom has been purchased.


We have Google Fiber. It has not changed our lives. However, it has revealed the variety of bottlenecks that already exist. Some sites are simple ALWAYS slower to load. This is only going to create more of those bottlenecks...

In the short term.
In the longer term, many of the businesses will relocate their servers to the cities with the fiber connections.
I seem to remember one of the Google fiber cities had this happening: Business purchasing residential houses to place their servers and host their sites.

That would be against the terms of service here. Google hasn't move into the commercial market yet in KC as far as I know...


Well, here is hoping this spells the end of the Comcast/AT&T rule.

Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc. will hopefully start seriously building their own infrastructure.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:17 PM  

Cpl.D: Domestic spying pisses me off. Sabotaging datacenters? That's a new one to me. You got a source?


Bruce Schneier ran down a couple examples a few days ago.

And Cisco's stock took a nasty hit a while back over it as foreign countries abandoned contracts with them.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:38 PM  

sendtodave: Want guaranteed service and speeds?


Guaranteed doesn't exist. You get "up to" and like it.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:08 PM  
The Homer Tax:

For the record: are you suggesting that people who support net neutrality vote for Republicans?

All the ones that I know do.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:15 PM  

OnlyM3: Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.


This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:41 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.


nah, i can do without the internet

it didn't really make people smarter, or more communicative... really it just provided an insular bubble for people to stick their heads in and avoid the pressures of reality, all while companies tracked and preyed in hopes of making a quick buck

if everybody stopped typing and went outside and read a book, the world would be a better place

i'll start
 
2014-05-15 01:23:50 PM  

Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.

Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?


Yes?  NBC holds tons of contracts with the cable companies.  Did you notice that for the last olympics you needed a cable account to stream the olympics for example?

Not sure where you were going with your post exactly......  But yeah Netflix gets bent over while HULU doesn't (NBC is a major owner of that).  NBC frequently protects the cable companies.

Thats the real problem with all of this shiat, is the massive collusion.  We need to bust up the monopolies and it would sort itself out.

Say for example you take Comcast and make it three companies.

1.  A last mile infrastructure company that can lease out that connectivity.
2.  A cable company
3.  An internet service provider.

Most the shiat we are biatching about instantly goes away since the the last mile company can have any number of ISP's run through it so we get competition, the networks no longer have a reason to kiss the cable companies ass, and the isp company has no reason to protect the cable company, they just want to compete with the other isp's.
 
2014-05-15 01:23:56 PM  

AdamK: Cpl.D: delciotto: skozlaw: delciotto: So this wont effect data that passes through your guy's ass backwards country from other countries, right?

I guess in theory it could, but I have a hard time imagining what path it would have to take for that to happen, barring misconfiguration. Data LEAVING the country but starting here could still be affected, though, if a content provider's network provider decided to make them pay for preferential upstream shaping, but since upstream costs are already mostly associated with speed that doesn't seem real likely either.

If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.

My understanding is all the TLD servers are here in the 'States.  We have total DNS control.  So, yeah.  If the pricks get vindictive, they can cause trouble.  I could be wrong, haven't thought about it in a long time.

so what's the end result of all of this, countries start trying to build their own internet infrastructure? more walled-off networks like China?


As a shiatty an alternative that might be, it could be preferable to what may happen, with the way things are heading.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:05 PM  

CJHardin: JUST FARKING GREAT!!!!!   I'm sure the ISPs and streaming services won't raise their prices on us too much..........


They actually won't.  What will happen though is every 3rd party app that needs higher speeds for streaming or whatever, and might have a monthly cost, like Netflix for instance, will end up charging you MORE because an ISP, say Comcast, is artificially lowering the bandwidth for their service.  So Comcast says... "Netflix, we want you to pay us to deliver your content to our customers over our network." and so netflix has no choice but to pay, and that will turn into increased subscription prices from Netflix - not Comcast.

It's beautiful for the ISPs - they don't get targeted and they can charge anyone whatever they want, without increasing rates for their own customers. Business greed strikes again - always out for 100% control so they can monetize it.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:17 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.


that makes sense.
I mean why would we possibly want to keep up with other countries that are charging a fraction of that.
it's not like vastly lower costs have ever attracted business before.
 
2014-05-15 01:24:31 PM  

Wendy's Chili: meat0918: We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?

[edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com image 850x637]


Wow, thanks!  I wasn't aware that President Obama had appointed these three to the FCC.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 01:24:45 PM  
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

>>> OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.

The Republicans do not support the derp derp derp derp derp derp ...

Would you prefer that?

Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.

Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?

You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...
 
2014-05-15 01:25:26 PM  

shtychkn: dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.

Get the president to act with an executive order.


If I could "get" the president to do anything he would have been far more of a bully and lashed out at the republicans from day 1. Sadly I am not Emma Frost.
 
2014-05-15 01:25:42 PM  

kanesays: You want to do something it about? Contact your Senator or Reps through EFF. Or send an email to the FCC...https://www.dearfcc.org/
Or donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/


QFT.
 
2014-05-15 01:25:44 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.

Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.

Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.

Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.

You mean, companies like Netflix, or Google.


Yes. Exactly that.

Sure, they're stale today. But when they launched they were the shiat. They got big, got old and became a lot like Ween songs now that I write this.

The problem is that without neutrality, we're stuck with the tired old Googles and Netflixes. We won't get the upstart competition to make them change or disappear. They'll be able to keep on keeping on. They will no longer have to worry about some hot shot upending the model and innovating.

Neither will we, unfortunately.
 
2014-05-15 01:26:34 PM  

skozlaw: Cpl.D: Domestic spying pisses me off. Sabotaging datacenters? That's a new one to me. You got a source?

Bruce Schneier ran down a couple examples a few days ago.

And Cisco's stock took a nasty hit a while back over it as foreign countries abandoned contracts with them.


If I didn't have to go to work today, I'd probably start drinking.  This is like one of those magic eye things, only instead of seeing a sailboat, you're seeing yourself get farked even worse.
 
2014-05-15 01:26:46 PM  

Triple Oak: sendtodave: Want guaranteed service and speeds?

Guaranteed doesn't exist. You get "up to" and like it.


It exists at 5K per month, with service contracts.

Your residential Internet might be slower?  Well, it won't be.  But if it is?

You have the option to buy guaranteed service at any time.

/Spoiled kids these days, thinking they deserve 3Mbps
 
2014-05-15 01:27:40 PM  

flynn80: Smeggy Smurf: You assholes keep voting for the fascists. Enjoy the results.

Red or Blue they'll both screw you, Eiffel Towering the American people since 1913.


There is a way to fix it.  It's either shoot the bastards or never vote for either of the parties again.
 
2014-05-15 01:27:48 PM  

Blues_X: I found an old article on one aspect of this issue that pissed me completely off:

"Through tax breaks and increased service fees, Verizon and the old Bells reaped an estimated $200 billion since the early 1990s to improve subscriber lines in the United States. And what have American consumers received? The most common DSL Service over the old copper networks tops out at 768 Kbps in most areas-a hundred times slower than routine connections in other countries."
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&ask th isid=186


You should really dig into that report.  You find that a better description would be "Numbers we've found in various places, when we add them up comes to $200B.  That we've added some of them in multiple times, and didn't bother backing out the money that was offered but refused, and that we moved the goalposts on what was promissed multiple times, totally should still outrage you".  I think the quote you included highlights the problem with that report - comparing the best speed in the entire world with the worst broadband speed available in the US network.  I'm not sure one can be more disingenuous than that.  Couple that with "most" "old" "most" as qualifiers and you see this is not a real study.  Of course the old phone network, category 3 at best wires with 30k foot direct central office runs designed for a 3kHZ signal is going to suck balls at carrying a 3 to 12 Mhz carrier that modern VDSL needs.  And the report never goes back and recognizes that in many of the places it claims investment was not made significantly better broadband is available today - and available from Verizon and those Telcos it likes bashing.

/Verizon can DIAF for other reasons, but this "report" covers none of them.
//They wouldn't even deploy FIOS to townhouse communities that were screaming "SHUT UP AND TAKE OUR MONEY"
///Have 100mbit/sec DOCIS 3 service from the cable company, so merely annoyed I can't buy 300mbit/sec service for $300/month.  I know, first world problems, I have them.
 
2014-05-15 01:28:26 PM  

dr_blasto: some hot shot upending the model and innovating


Innovations like pets.com and myfacetubes.

I'm OK with that.
 
2014-05-15 01:28:38 PM  

jshine: You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet


Well, there wasn't as much to be farked with back then. Comcast is now trying to solidify their hold as the premier content controller in this country. They didn't have the heft back then to propose these sorts of things, since there was enough of the country they didn't control that they could have been shooting themselves in the foot.

Back then, the FCC didn't maintain that they were in charge of setting the rules; the Internet existed under a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that this sort of thing was just Not Done. Now Comcast wants to break these rules, and the FCC is the governmental body in the best position to be in charge of codifying and enforcing them.

You can't compare the current situation with any Bush faced, because no one tried to change the "understood" rules back when he was in office.
 
2014-05-15 01:28:41 PM  
We could all invest in some mesh networking routers. It could help. Something has to be done to break open internet connectivity. It's already expensive and limited to just a few practical carriers in most areas, they don't need more control.
 
2014-05-15 01:29:16 PM  

sendtodave: 3Mbps


Or 30!
 
2014-05-15 01:29:28 PM  
I want to see Level 3 degrade service to comcast and time warner and get THEM to pay up a stupid high amount.
 
2014-05-15 01:29:31 PM  

OnlyM3: They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


Aren't you just the cutest thing. Republicans voted no, but you haven't a clue why. Keep going though, this is fun to watch you yammer.
 
2014-05-15 01:30:35 PM  

Cpl.D: Personally, I'd rather see internet access be regulated like a utility.


That sounds good to me, too. It's only available from a limited number of providers in each area, and it's pretty much necessary for our modern standard of living. And we need some kind of subsidies to get it out to rural areas, or at least enforcement of the way ISP's spend the subsidies they're already getting.
 
2014-05-15 01:30:40 PM  

OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

>>> OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.

The Republicans do not support the derp derp derp derp derp derp ...

Would you prefer that?
Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.

Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?

You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...


I am trying to engage you in honest discussion here.

I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

I will vote for whomever will ensure that. Who do you suggest that is? I'm serious. You and I agree on net neutrality. Who should we work to get elected to what office?
 
2014-05-15 01:31:08 PM  
Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.
 
2014-05-15 01:32:17 PM  

OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

>>> OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.

The Republicans do not support the derp derp derp derp derp derp ...

Would you prefer that?
Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.

Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?

You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...


So....because I'm annoyed with Democrats about this, I should start voting Republican, even though they have publicly announced that they would do far worse?
I take people at their own word, myself.
 
2014-05-15 01:32:53 PM  

OnlyM3: Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.


You really believe that Republicans would regulate the ISP's and enforce net neutrality?

That's actually what you're suggesting?

Huh?
 
2014-05-15 01:32:55 PM  

EyeballKid: Stone Meadow: Oh yeah, I forgot to ask...does this mean Oblackguy is acting as Imperial Emperor in this case, or Spineless Lackey?

/it's so hard to keep up

Oh, you mean the blatant bowing to corporations and allowing them to write the rules by which they pinkie-swear that they'll abide by, honest, but just to be sure don't actually watch what they're doing?

Yep. Typical socialist redistribution.


So...I take it you're going with "Spineless Lackey". ;)
 
2014-05-15 01:33:01 PM  

The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.


Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.
 
2014-05-15 01:33:32 PM  

AngryDragon: I wasn't aware that President Obama had appointed these three to the FCC.


The president always appoints the FCC commissioners.

There are always three from the President's party and two from the other guys.

It only takes three votes to win, so the President's party always wins.
 
2014-05-15 01:34:10 PM  
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?

and
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]
>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true

You'll need to lie longer and harder...
www.upl.co
www.upl.co
 
2014-05-15 01:35:15 PM  

snocone: Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.

Is and always has been, Government In Spite of The People.

"Corporations are people, my friend."
 
2014-05-15 01:36:51 PM  

sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.


I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. "Net Neutrality" is a very specific term where data is treated effectively like a utility. It requires ISPs to be neutral in their handling of data.
 
2014-05-15 01:36:53 PM  

Cdr.Murdock: papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.

Why should you be surprised?  The CEO of Comcast has played golf with the President on Martha's Vineyard, and donated almost 3X as much to Democrat candidates than to Republicans, and practically has a sub office in the West Wing.

Comcast lobbyist David Cohen bundled close to 1.5 million in contributions for the President's re election campaign.

Follow the smell of money.  Every time.

A Richard in the rectum from a red elephant or a blue donkey is still a Richard in the rectum.  There's very little difference between the two in the end.  You really shouldn't be surprised about it ever again.


If I'm get a richard in my rectum from an elephant OR a donkey, you better believe I'm going to be surprised.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:14 PM  

COMALite J: snocone: Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.

Is and always has been, Government In Spite of The People.
"Corporations are people, my friend."


The ones that matter, at least.

They're the rich white landowners of our time.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:19 PM  
Here's a question: If this goes through the way ISPs want, what is to stop them from blacklisting sites that host opinions that go against the company? As in, I have Comcast, so what is to stop them from blacklisting any site that hosts articles about the negative aspects of their service/complaints/etc? What is to stop an ISP from taking a blank check... I mean.... "donation"... in order to blacklist websites that host articles that go against that party's political beliefs, or is critical of some of their members?
 
2014-05-15 01:37:28 PM  

sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.


"Freedom" is a funny word.  In a totally free world, you'd be free to go rob your neighbors homes.  That's a Bad Thing, so laws are passed to be sure you can't.  Those laws protect your neighbors freedom to be secure in their homes.  What you consider to be "freedom" to be depends greatly on your point of view.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:34 PM  

Triple Oak: Apparently the other two, and Ted Cruz, are conspiring to let ISPs take full control instead of having this FCC middleman.

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich vote. Both arguments were against the general population.


Yeah but I get kinda tired of democrats telling me how much they hate big corporations and then doing crap like this. I mean, it's true, there are two sides to the coin. But that implies that they're made of the same metal.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:51 PM  

Headso: This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.


They didn't vote to pass it, just to open it up for public comment as a proposed rule. Had the Republicans gotten their way, they would say the FCC does not have the right to regulate the ISP's. I've already provided links upthread to the statements from the Republicans about why they voted against it.

This actually is a good thing long-term (assuming the final vote is against it) because it ensures the FCC maintains regulatory capacity over the ISP's. They also voted to consider regulation of Internet service as a utility, something the Republicans would have never considered, so it's not as bad as it sounds. Write your Congressman. Write the President who appointed these guys. Write an opinion for the Public Comment period.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:57 PM  

The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.


Success.
 
2014-05-15 01:37:59 PM  

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


I'm charging you $5 per letter to post that. Pay up in full within 24 hours or I'm contacting a collection agency.
 
2014-05-15 01:38:35 PM  

COMALite J: "Corporations are people, my friend."


Horrible, vile, greedy people.
 
2014-05-15 01:38:47 PM  

BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.


You have no farking idea what you're talking about. As usual.

There IS NO NET NEUTRALITY NOW. The FCC failed to classify cable companies and the like as common carriers and has NO AUTHORITY over them under the current rules. There is currently NO REGULATION AT ALL for the vast majority of ISPs as it relates to this subject.

Therefore, a vote against this was a vote for the status quo which is a vote AGAINST network neutrality.

The end result of the rulemaking may or may not be an improvement in this situation, but not going into at all can only have one outcome: no net neutrality at all.
The republicans voted no to guarantee content provider "shakedowns". The democrats voted yes for the possibility of some protections being implemented.
 
2014-05-15 01:38:54 PM  

sharphead: It's beautiful for the ISPs - they don't get targeted and they can charge anyone whatever they want, without increasing rates for their own customers. Business greed strikes again - always out for 100% control so they can monetize it.


And the answer to it is also beautiful, but I can guarantee that nobody (and especially not Netflix and Reed Hastings) have the balls to do it:

Pass the costs on solely to customers using the network in question, and call it what it is. Imagine that when you signed into your Netflix account from Comcast, you were presented with a page that said:


                                                                                           ----------


Comcast Access Package
$10/month or $3 all-day


We see that you are accessing Netflix from Comcast. Unfortunately, Comcast intentionally slows network traffic for Comcast customers who use Netflix, unless we agree to pay them $500,000 per month in access fees, in which case Comcast releases the cap and provides access to the bandwidth that was already available.

It would be unfair to expect our customers on other networks to subsidize Comcast's customers by paying this monthly penalty, so we have decided to charge only those customers using Netflix from a Comcast connection. At the current time, it takes US$10/month to cover Comcast's access charge, based on the number of Netflix users we have with Comcast. If you pay this fee, you will be able to access Netflix from any Comcast connection for a one-month period. If you just want access today, you can instead pay $3 for a daily pass.

Don't like paying this surcharge? You can find a list of alternate broadband services in your area here. You can also contact Comcast to let them know of your satisfaction at 1 (800) 934-6489, or speak to your Congressman and request that new laws be drafted to prevent unnecessary profiteering by internet service providers who want to be paid again to pass traffic from a connection that was already paid for by both Netflix and yourself.


                                                                                           ----------

Can you imagine if they had the balls to implement this, though? It'd be a beautiful thing.
 
2014-05-15 01:39:13 PM  

OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?
and
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]
>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true
You'll need to lie longer and harder...


The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs.

That means they can charge whatever they want for whatever they want and treat data however they want. It's the literal antithesis of "net neutrality."

You understand this, right? I can't tell if you realize that you keep posting links that prove yourself wrong or not.
 
2014-05-15 01:39:23 PM  

OnlyM3: Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.

Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?

You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...


Ummm... what "net neutrality rules" existed under Bush?

And who was in charge of enforcing them?
 
2014-05-15 01:39:27 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.


Agreed, just letting you know the price points for that are going to drop.  In 5 years, in most major US cities, the cost of business grade bandwidth will be $1 per megabit per second per month.  Consumer grade service will be running about $.50 per meg per month or less.  This won't be offered in every location - but if you are in a decent sized town, it will be the norm.

Why everyone gets so bent out of shape over improved price points is beyond me.  But it is amusing to watch the foam.  I guess people really have no concept of historical prices, and certainly no grasp of price/performance.
 
2014-05-15 01:39:44 PM  

RoxtarRyan: ere's a question: If this goes through the way ISPs want, what is to stop them from blacklisting sites that host opinions that go against the company?


Absolutely nothing. This is why the issue of network neutrality is often framed as the digital equivalent of free speech for the internet.
 
2014-05-15 01:39:47 PM  

jshine: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.

"Freedom" is a funny word.  In a totally free world, you'd be free to go rob your neighbors homes.  That's a Bad Thing, so laws are passed to be sure you can't.  Those laws protect your neighbors freedom to be secure in their homes.  What you consider to be "freedom" to be depends greatly on your point of view.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

"Freedom is being able to piss off of your back porch," a wise drunken redneck once told me.
 
2014-05-15 01:41:14 PM  
*sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.
 
2014-05-15 01:41:21 PM  

jshine: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.

"Freedom" is a funny word.  In a totally free world, you'd be free to go rob your neighbors homes.  That's a Bad Thing, so laws are passed to be sure you can't.  Those laws protect your neighbors freedom to be secure in their homes.  What you consider to be "freedom" to be depends greatly on your point of view.


When has the Western concept of freedom ever included allowing property crimes? I'm pretty sure that one man's freedom ends where another man's possessions begin. That is what law does - arbitrate disputes. That's all it does.
 
2014-05-15 01:41:25 PM  

BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.


By voting yes to open the debate for public comment on a proposed regulation, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC will have the authority to make rule changes. The Republicans voted "no" because they don't believe the FCC should have this authority.
 
2014-05-15 01:41:50 PM  

sendtodave: Oh! I get it! "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"


Close.  It means "not regulated by unaccountable ISPs."
 
2014-05-15 01:42:16 PM  

MadHatter500: sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.

Agreed, just letting you know the price points for that are going to drop.  In 5 years, in most major US cities, the cost of business grade bandwidth will be $1 per megabit per second per month.  Consumer grade service will be running about $.50 per meg per month or less.  This won't be offered in every location - but if you are in a decent sized town, it will be the norm.

Why everyone gets so bent out of shape over improved price points is beyond me.  But it is amusing to watch the foam.  I guess people really have no concept of historical prices, and certainly no grasp of price/performance.


But, see, eight there.

"Business grade bandwidth, consumer grade bandwidth."

It seems like the very idea of different "grades," different service tiers, is a problem or something.
 
2014-05-15 01:43:02 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: No price is too high for you, Mike. :)


Every time I post in the Politics Tab, this needs to play in the background.  Make it happen, Drew.
 
2014-05-15 01:43:08 PM  

jaybeezey: Bin_jammin: Currently BREAKING NEWS on at least 5 local channels to me? Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges. Mention of something that actually impacts people watching said news? Zero.

Sad day.

Big media has been subservient to this administrations agenda, why stop now?


Right, but it's news either way, regardless of how it's spun. Aaron Hernandez doesn't affect anyone watching the breaking news at home, but the FCC vote will affect almost everyone.
 
2014-05-15 01:43:30 PM  

sdd2000: sprawl15: thanks obama

From the article: "The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, ..." I will let you guess who appointed the three.


Obama.
 
2014-05-15 01:44:09 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Here's a question: If this goes through the way ISPs want, what is to stop them from blacklisting sites that host opinions that go against the company? As in, I have Comcast, so what is to stop them from blacklisting any site that hosts articles about the negative aspects of their service/complaints/etc? What is to stop an ISP from taking a blank check... I mean.... "donation"... in order to blacklist websites that host articles that go against that party's political beliefs, or is critical of some of their members?


I don't think they can actively censor anything.  Of course, if a particular website didn't bribe, er, pay for higher bandwidth, then certainly they could be "throttled" down to a more acceptable level.  "Censorhip? Us?  Why no, we were just being efficient, that's why that site was throttled to  2 Kb/s.
 
2014-05-15 01:45:14 PM  

OnlyM3: You'll need to lie longer and harder...
[www.upl.co image 736x952]
[www.upl.co image 736x952]


You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

It's been a while since I've seen someone cal me a liar and then offer up proof that what I'm saying is absolutely, unequivocally correct.
 
2014-05-15 01:45:33 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: No one's really surprised by this, are they?

It's amusing (well, OK, it's not amusing, it's appalling) that nitwits in Congress are still going on with their Benghazi bullshiat, but no effort whatsoever to do anything about the direct pipeline between corporations and regulatory agencies. Whereby people who used to work in certain industries are then put in charge of the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Then, when they leave, they go right back to the companies they used to "regulate," often as board members.

A normal person would think that constitutes an obvious conflict of interest. But people who work for the govt. at the higher levels aren't normal people. They're mostly rich people who work on behalf of other rich people.


New Amendment to the Constitution: "No Person shall run for a Public Office or serve in one by Appointment or other placement mechanism if they have had any form of Employment in a Corporation regulated by said office within the last X years, or Advocated or Lobbied for said Corporation within the last X years ."

Or whatever wording would basically mean "you can't work for the FCC if you've worked/advocated/lobbied for Verizon/Comcast/Etc within the last x years", "you can't work in the EPA if you worked/advocated/lobbied for Union Carbide/BP/Exxon/etc within the last x years", "you can't work in the USPTO if you have worked/advocated/lobbied for Apple/Samsung/patent trolls/etc within the last X years", "you can't work in the U.S. Copyright Office if you have worked/advocated/lobbied for MPAA/RIAA/etc in the last X years", and so on.

Obviously candidates for positions like that should still have some form of industry experience so they know what they're doing and in the case of some lawyer related positions it might not be feasible, but they shouldn't have conflicts of interest that get us in the shiat we're in now with the FCC.
 
2014-05-15 01:46:14 PM  

papatex: If I'm get a richard in my rectum from an elephant OR a donkey, you better believe I'm going to be surprised.



This reminds me of my cousin, he had surgery one December, and the pain medicine destroyed his short term memory, so he got to have Christmas over and over and over again.

It must be like that for you all day every day.
 
2014-05-15 01:46:33 PM  

OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?
and
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]
>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true

You'll need to lie longer and harder...
[www.upl.co image 736x952]
[www.upl.co image 736x952]


errr ... not sure your understanding the issue here.  The letter you've posted supports the positions stated above - that the republicans favor an unregulated internet. Net Neutrality is internet regulation.
 
2014-05-15 01:46:40 PM  
fark em. all of them. you know what, I might just run for office, because I don't like the way people are doing things, everyone in congress is corrupt, and we need a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" moment
 
2014-05-15 01:46:49 PM  
The Homer Tax

The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs.
Try getting a big person's help. Maybe then you can get past the first line.

1) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
4) This vote to kill Net Nutrality was 3 to 2 along party lines.
--- The 3 Democrats voted to kill N.N.
--- The 2 Republicans voted not to.

You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.
 
2014-05-15 01:47:18 PM  
"If a network operator slowed the speed of service below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited"

 How do you qualify slower than "up to x?"
 
2014-05-15 01:47:58 PM  

Trance354: fark em. all of them. you know what, I might just run for office, because I don't like the way people are doing things, everyone in congress is corrupt, and we need a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" moment


With hookers.  And blackjack.

/no, you won't
 
2014-05-15 01:48:04 PM  

OnlyM3: The Homer Tax

The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs. Try getting a big person's help. Maybe then you can get past the first line.

1) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
4) This vote to kill Net Nutrality was 3 to 2 along party lines.
--- The 3 Democrats voted to kill N.N.
--- The 2 Republicans voted not to.

You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


All accurate, except #4. Saying this is a vote to "kill Net Neutrality" is a gross mischaracterization.
 
2014-05-15 01:48:25 PM  

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.

By voting yes to open the debate for public comment on a proposed regulation, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC will have the authority to make rule changes. The Republicans voted "no" because they don't believe the FCC should have this authority.


So Obama appointing an industry lobbyist to be in charge of regulating that industry is really a victory for all of us!

Especially when the three Democrats he put in charge do the exact opposite of what he promised over, and over, and over.

BILL MOYERS: Barack Obama told us there would be no compromise on Net neutrality. We heard him say it back in 2007, when he first was running for president.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: To seize this moment we have to ensure free and full exchange of information and that starts with an open Internet. I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose. The InterNet is perhaps the most open network in history and we have to keep it that way.

BILL MOYERS: He said it so many times that defenders of Net neutrality believed him. They believed he would keep his word, would see to it that when private interests set upon the Internet like sharks to blood in the water, its fate would be in the hands of honest brokers who would listen politely to the pleas of the greedy, and then show them the door.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be the infamous revolving door. Last May, President Obama named Tom Wheeler to be FCC chairman. Mr. Wheeler had been one of Obama's top bundlers of campaign cash, both in 2008 and again in 2012, when he raised at least half a million dollars for the President's re-election. Like his proposed rules for the Web, that put him at the front of the line.

What's more, Wheeler had been top gun for both the cable and wireless industries. And however we might try to imagine that he could quickly abandon old habits of service to his employers, that's simply not how Washington works. Business and government are so intertwined there that public officials and corporate retainers are interchangeable parts of what Chief Justice John Roberts might call the "gratitude machine." Round and round they go, and where they stop. Actually they never stop. They just flash their EZ pass as they keep shuttling through that revolving door.

Consider, Daniel Alvarez was a long-time member of a law firm that has advised Comcast. He once wrote to the FCC on behalf of Comcast arguing against Net neutrality rules. He's been hired by Tom Wheeler.

Philip Verveer also worked for Comcast and the wireless and cable trade associations. He's now Tom Wheeler's senior counselor. Attorney Brendan Carr worked for Verizon and the telecom industry's trade association, which lobbied against Net neutrality. Now Brendan Carr is an adviser to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who used to be a top lawyer for Verizon.

To be fair, Tom Wheeler has brought media reformers into the FCC, too, and has been telling us that we don't understand. We're the victims of misinformation about these proposed new rules. That he is still for Net neutrality. Possibly, but the public's no chump and as you can see from just those few examples I've recounted for you from the reporting of intrepid journalist Lee Fang, these new rules are not the product of immaculate conception.
 
2014-05-15 01:49:06 PM  

Argonreality: New Amendment to the Constitution: "No Person shall run for a Public Office or serve in one by Appointment or other placement mechanism if they have had any form of Employment in a Corporation regulated by said office within the last X years, or Advocated or Lobbied for said Corporation within the last X years ."


You make an excellent point, and I understand where you're coming from, but do you think that will result in effective regulation? Do you want Ted Stevens regulating the "series of tubes"?
 
2014-05-15 01:49:16 PM  
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

Ummm... what "net neutrality rules" existed under Bush?

And who was in charge of enforcing them?

How much was Verizon charging Netflix under bush?

Your claim that this vote reversing policy is actually a good thing?
 
2014-05-15 01:49:28 PM  
Let's all calm down for just a moment and reflect on how well the FCC regulates things like the television, radio, and cellular spectrum. You don't see any giant companies screwing customers in THOSE industries, do you? So why would it happen with ISPs?
 
2014-05-15 01:49:46 PM  

ox45tallboy: Headso: This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.

They didn't vote to pass it, just to open it up for public comment as a proposed rule. Had the Republicans gotten their way, they would say the FCC does not have the right to regulate the ISP's. I've already provided links upthread to the statements from the Republicans about why they voted against it.

This actually is a good thing long-term (assuming the final vote is against it) because it ensures the FCC maintains regulatory capacity over the ISP's. They also voted to consider regulation of Internet service as a utility, something the Republicans would have never considered, so it's not as bad as it sounds. Write your Congressman. Write the President who appointed these guys. Write an opinion for the Public Comment period.


why was this the proposed rule that they voted for and not something that actually benefited the consumer? I agree with the last part of your post that people should write their elected officials but I'd also add that people should make this as embarrassing for the democrats as a whole as possible because shaming them in the court of public opinion is just as good if not better than some letter an intern will "read" and then throw in the trash.
 
2014-05-15 01:50:01 PM  

ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?


Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!
 
2014-05-15 01:50:16 PM  

MadHatter500: Blues_X: I found an old article on one aspect of this issue that pissed me completely off:

"Through tax breaks and increased service fees, Verizon and the old Bells reaped an estimated $200 billion since the early 1990s to improve subscriber lines in the United States. And what have American consumers received? The most common DSL Service over the old copper networks tops out at 768 Kbps in most areas-a hundred times slower than routine connections in other countries."
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&ask th isid=186

You should really dig into that report.  You find that a better description would be "Numbers we've found in various places, when we add them up comes to $200B.  That we've added some of them in multiple times, and didn't bother backing out the money that was offered but refused, and that we moved the goalposts on what was promissed multiple times, totally should still outrage you".  I think the quote you included highlights the problem with that report - comparing the best speed in the entire world with the worst broadband speed available in the US network.  I'm not sure one can be more disingenuous than that.  Couple that with "most" "old" "most" as qualifiers and you see this is not a real study.  Of course the old phone network, category 3 at best wires with 30k foot direct central office runs designed for a 3kHZ signal is going to suck balls at carrying a 3 to 12 Mhz carrier that modern VDSL needs.  And the report never goes back and recognizes that in many of the places it claims investment was not made significantly better broadband is available today - and available from Verizon and those Telcos it likes bashing.

/Verizon can DIAF for other reasons, but this "report" covers none of them.
//They wouldn't even deploy FIOS to townhouse communities that were screaming "SHUT UP AND TAKE OUR MONEY"
///Have 100mbit/sec DOCIS 3 service from the cable company, so merely annoyed I can't buy 300mbit/sec service for $300/m ...



They were paid to deploy fiber optic throughout the country, which hasn't yet happened. Not sure how you go from there to "that article is all wrong".
 
2014-05-15 01:51:31 PM  

OnlyM3: The Homer Tax

The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs. Try getting a big person's help. Maybe then you can get past the first line.

1) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
4) This vote to kill Net Nutrality was 3 to 2 along party lines.
--- The 3 Democrats voted to kill N.N.
--- The 2 Republicans voted not to.

You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


Again - is it your proposal that we express our disatisfaction with one group of people by supporting another that is even worse/ are you in fact, proposing anything? Do you actually have anything to say at all?
 
2014-05-15 01:51:41 PM  

OnlyM3: The Homer Tax

The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs. Try getting a big person's help. Maybe then you can get past the first line.

1) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
4) This vote to kill Net Nutrality was 3 to 2 along party lines.
--- The 3 Democrats voted to kill N.N.
--- The 2 Republicans voted not to.

You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


This wasn't a "vote to kill net neutrality." Net neutrality necessitates government regulation. This was a vote for "not enough regulation" (the democrat position) vs "no regulation" (the GOP position).
 
2014-05-15 01:51:52 PM  
The three Democrats in the group are unhappy but wanted some kind of regulation (why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me). The two Republicans, along with the obstructionists in Congress, want no regulation at all. This is the US equivalent of Ukraine's "join Russia or allow Russia to take over" vote: we were all going to lose this vote. Now comes a very tense waiting game while the four months of deliberation pass. I say don't stop the pressure, call the FCC over and over and let your voice be heard.
 
2014-05-15 01:52:04 PM  

OnlyM3: You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


1.) This was not a vote to kill net neutrality, merely to open a public comment period on proposed new regulations.
2.) The Democrats voted yes to consider this regulation and open public comment on it
3.) The Republicans voted no because they don't believe the FCC should regulate net neutrality at all

You yourself have offered evidence of the Republican party position, to wit a letter signed by Republican leadership urging the FCC to not regulate the ISP's at all.
 
2014-05-15 01:52:56 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!


You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.
 
2014-05-15 01:53:59 PM  
Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.
 
2014-05-15 01:54:41 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!


We should hold them responsible. If you support net neutrality, the answer isn't voting for republicans, it's voting for better democrats.
 
2014-05-15 01:55:03 PM  

The Homer Tax: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. "Net Neutrality" is a very specific term where data is treated effectively like a utility. It requires ISPs to be neutral in their handling of data.


That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean.  It isn't what it means in this case.  To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".

This arose out of a the problems with the settlement free peering business model the Internet started with.  It turns out the rules for that are too simple and it can be gamed, where specialized carriers that only host content can get subsidized by those that serve broadband providers.

When you actually know what the fight is about, "net neutrality" that is being argued out in the FCC isn't that interesting.  The issues you are worrying about are orthogonal to the topic and vote taking place today.  You only conflate them because you don't have all the information.

Now the topics you are concerned with are interesting - and there are many instances in the world where those principles the EFF laid out are being violated, but for the most part they are non-controversial here in the US.  That isn't to say you should be complacent - just this particular skirmish doesn't involve those topics.
 
2014-05-15 01:55:41 PM  

jso2897: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.


So at least they lie to us, before they sell us out?
 
2014-05-15 01:55:57 PM  
Good.  This internet will become cable TV and those in the know will be off to the next good thing.
 
2014-05-15 01:56:21 PM  

Sticky Hands: papatex: If I'm get a richard in my rectum from an elephant OR a donkey, you better believe I'm going to be surprised.


This reminds me of my cousin, he had surgery one December, and the pain medicine destroyed his short term memory, so he got to have Christmas over and over and over again.

It must be like that for you all day every day.


If you say so, big guy.
 
2014-05-15 01:57:30 PM  

BullBearMS: BILL MOYERS: He said it so many times that defenders of Net neutrality believed him. They believed he would keep his word, would see to it that when private interests set upon the Internet like sharks to blood in the water, its fate would be in the hands of honest brokers who would listen politely to the pleas of the greedy, and then show them the door.


Yes, we can!


... But we won't.
 
2014-05-15 01:57:31 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.


The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.
 
2014-05-15 01:57:54 PM  
Congress is bought and paid for, both sides of the aisle, with very very few exceptions.  Don't vote for establishment candidates, regardless of what they're proposing.  If at any point in time the media treats someone as though they have a legitimate chance, or starts giving them favorable coverage, run the other farking way.  Vote for the Ron Pauls and the Ralph Naders and the Bernie Sandersesses.
 
2014-05-15 01:58:10 PM  

sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.


I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.
 
2014-05-15 01:58:34 PM  

OnlyM3: The Homer Tax

The very first line of your letter says the GOP opposes "any regulations" on ISPs. Try getting a big person's help. Maybe then you can get past the first line.

1) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) is a big time democrat fund raiser.
2) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was appointed by Democrat BHO
3) Tom Wheeler (FCC chair) was confirmed by Senate Democrats who control the Senate.
4) This vote to kill Net Nutrality was 3 to 2 along party lines.
--- The 3 Democrats voted to kill N.N.
--- The 2 Republicans voted not to.

You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


The democrats voted to prolong debate on an imperfect proposal which would leave internet regulation in the hands of the FCC and has some slight scent of net neutrality.

The republicans voted to end debate and accept the status quo, which is no net neutraility ever since Verizon vs. FCC (http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-court-case-d ec oded).

The ass-pain here is that chairman wheeler's proposal should have been stronger in favor of net neutrality, not the weak sauce it currently is.  The democratic vote today was about as pro net neutrality as it could get, given the circumstances.
 
2014-05-15 01:58:37 PM  

BafflerMeal: Lesse... gay marriage and cannabis legaization moving forward... on the otherhand lots of shiat like this.

Godammit America, quit forcing this balancing act of epic crazy.


Which is why I think arguments for armed uprising are batshiat crazy as well.  Because people fighting against crap like this will inevitably be fighting -- briefly, of course -- right next to the guy who doesn't give one fark about stuff like Government Censorship but rose up because everyone else did and thinks "This is my chance to shoot gays and Ni-*BONG*"
 
2014-05-15 01:58:38 PM  

Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.


Why did they denounce it? Did they denounce it because they support net neutrality, or because they want no regulations on ISPs at all?
 
2014-05-15 01:59:08 PM  

MadHatter500: That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean. It isn't what it means in this case. To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".


How could them possibly survive under the exact same common carrier restrictions that have always applied to electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies!
 
2014-05-15 01:59:12 PM  

BullBearMS: jso2897: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.

So at least they lie to us, before they sell us out?


Or, just possibly, there are actual differences in their stances, and as deplorable as the Democrats' stance might be, it remains superior to the alternatives?
 
2014-05-15 02:01:09 PM  

neenerist: stuffy:  Now its torch and pitchfork time.

That's the call of Second Amendment dimwits but they're co-opted into worshiping the power holding them down. 'Tough as Cheney. RAM tough.'


*snerk* only libtards like you still think Cheney is relevant.  

bhcompy: Sometimes I don't get that kind of speed.  Why?  Because the person/company hosting the data I want access to decided to go with the cheapest ISP, the cheapest datacenter, or the cheapest CDN that has shiat connectivity.


Or a cable has been cut, they're over-saturated, etc...

Still, I think the GP meant that he could reach 30MBit, even if it took multiple connections to multiple sites.  Downloading on steam while streaming netflix while somebody else in the household is watching Hulu, youtube, etc...
 
2014-05-15 02:02:04 PM  
Seriously, this isn't a democrat/republican issue.  Anyone trying to make it into that is actively hurting the people's cause.
 
2014-05-15 02:02:33 PM  

ox45tallboy: jshine: You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet

Well, there wasn't as much to be farked with back then. Comcast is now trying to solidify their hold as the premier content controller in this country. They didn't have the heft back then to propose these sorts of things, since there was enough of the country they didn't control that they could have been shooting themselves in the foot.

Back then, the FCC didn't maintain that they were in charge of setting the rules; the Internet existed under a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that this sort of thing was just Not Done. Now Comcast wants to break these rules, and the FCC is the governmental body in the best position to be in charge of codifying and enforcing them.

You can't compare the current situation with any Bush faced, because no one tried to change the "understood" rules back when he was in office.


It IS about content control and not necessarily access or bandwidth.

Michael Powell, GW Bush's FCC chair, is laughing all the way to the bank when we have one of those memory-hole issues wherein the Bush administration was all net-user friendly and didn't cowtow to the behemoth providers.

Of course, they cowtowed more than the current guys. They opted for zero regulation. There's likely a good reason Powell became NCTA chair. He earned it, it wasn't because his dad was Sec. State.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/cable-lobbyist-who-once-led- th e-fcc-is-glad-he-didnt-regulate-the-internet/
 
2014-05-15 02:02:53 PM  

jst3p: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.

I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.


The ambiguity is the success.

Admitting anything would remove that ambiguity.
 
2014-05-15 02:02:59 PM  

dababler: shtychkn: dababler: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

4. The solution is therefore that we stop electing Republicans to Congress, or at least any Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) who supports anything less than treating ISPs as common carriers.

Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.

Get the president to act with an executive order.

If I could "get" the president to do anything he would have been far more of a bully and lashed out at the republicans from day 1. Sadly I am not Emma Frost.


Well thanks for letting the country down.
 
2014-05-15 02:04:29 PM  

paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.


So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.
 
2014-05-15 02:05:48 PM  
The head of the FCC says he won't allow for a gatekeeper but that's exactly what he's allowing.  And the gatekeeper is Ben Franklin.  Flash enough Benjamins and the gate is thrown wide open or closed upon demand.  Whiel their at iot perhaps the FCC should be looking into why downloads speeds in other countries are faster and cheaper.
 
2014-05-15 02:06:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: Argonreality: New Amendment to the Constitution: "No Person shall run for a Public Office or serve in one by Appointment or other placement mechanism if they have had any form of Employment in a Corporation regulated by said office within the last X years, or Advocated or Lobbied for said Corporation within the last X years ."

You make an excellent point, and I understand where you're coming from, but do you think that will result in effective regulation? Do you want Ted Stevens regulating the "series of tubes"?


It was more or less a 5-10 minute contemplation on wording for a hypothetical amendment, and my initial thought for the time period was something like 2-3 years, similar to most corporate NDAs so it's reasonable to enforce avoidance of conflict of interest while also trying to avoid Ted Stevens levels of derp.
 
2014-05-15 02:07:56 PM  
Come on people! Did you really think we'd win?
 
2014-05-15 02:08:12 PM  

BullBearMS: So Obama appointing an industry lobbyist to be in charge of regulating that industry is really a victory for all of us!

Especially when the three Democrats he put in charge do the exact opposite of what he promised over, and over, and over.


The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's. The stated Republican position, and the reason the Republican commissioners voted against this proposal, is that the FCC should not be able to regulate the ISP's and they should be free to violate net neutrality on their whim.

This is not a final vote, this merely opens up the proposal for debate - and ensures that the FCC will be able to regulate the ISP's in the future.
 
2014-05-15 02:09:22 PM  

MattStafford: Seriously, this isn't a democrat/republican issue.  Anyone trying to make it into that is actively hurting the people's cause.


Not directly, but surely you would admit there are differences between the two party platforms on the issue.
 
2014-05-15 02:09:36 PM  

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: jso2897: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.

So at least they lie to us, before they sell us out?

Or, just possibly, there are actual differences in their stances, and as deplorable as the Democrats' stance might be, it remains superior to the alternatives?


Electing corporate whores with a D after their name is preferable to the other corporate whores, because at least they lie to us first?

Perhaps you should watch this video where Obama swears he will only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand on network neutrality.

Instead he put a big money fundraising industry lobbyist in charge.
 
2014-05-15 02:09:46 PM  

Headso: why was this the proposed rule that they voted for and not something that actually benefited the consumer? I agree with the last part of your post that people should write their elected officials but I'd also add that people should make this as embarrassing for the democrats as a whole as possible because shaming them in the court of public opinion is just as good if not better than some letter an intern will "read" and then throw in the trash.


This is not a final decision. This opens up the floor for public comment and debate, something the Republicans did not want to happen, as they don't believe the ISP's should be regulated and should be free to shape their data traffic however they want.
 
2014-05-15 02:10:27 PM  
FCC approves  NetNeutering (tm)-  government allows internet companies to advertise and bill  maximum download speeds with no minimum guarantees.  FCC should allow higher speeds for companies that will pay but not to slow down others that do not pay. If you have a 25Mps service and a movie streaming service pays the fee, ISPs should provide faster than 25Mps delivery for that- but not below the tier a subscriber is paying for.

I still like when the government required cable companies to pay local stations to carry the over the air stations, Comcast just passed the fee onto the subscribers.
 
2014-05-15 02:10:31 PM  

BullBearMS: Electing corporate whores with a D after their name is preferable to the other corporate whores, because at least they lie to us first?


Electing corporate whores with a D after their name is preferable to the other corporate whores, because they have a more palatable approach to the issue. Is this really that hard to understand?
 
2014-05-15 02:11:00 PM  

BullBearMS: Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!


This is not a final decision. Had they voted to not consider the motion, there is no regulation in place that would disallow what Comcast wants to do, and they would have done it anyhow.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:09 PM  

wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.


Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:43 PM  

dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.


Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.
 
2014-05-15 02:11:57 PM  

ox45tallboy: The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's.


No. They didn't

If they wanted to have the ability to regulate the ISP's they would classify them as a common carrier.

Something it only takes the three existing Democrats on the commission to do.
 
2014-05-15 02:12:31 PM  

Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me


Because by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.
 
2014-05-15 02:12:43 PM  

sendtodave: jst3p: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.

I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.

The ambiguity is the success.

Admitting anything would remove that ambiguity.


Sometimes trolls inadvertently help explain a sometimes complex subject.
 
2014-05-15 02:13:55 PM  

alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.


How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?
 
2014-05-15 02:14:07 PM  

sendtodave: MadHatter500: sendtodave: MadHatter500: A 1Gig local loop (business grade) is now $50k install, $5k/month recurring charges, and dropping.

As consumer speeds increase, and they demand reliability, the residential prices should reflect that.

I mean, I was just going for $1000 per month for residential service, but $5000 is OK, too.

Want guaranteed service and speeds?  Pay for it.

Agreed, just letting you know the price points for that are going to drop.  In 5 years, in most major US cities, the cost of business grade bandwidth will be $1 per megabit per second per month.  Consumer grade service will be running about $.50 per meg per month or less.  This won't be offered in every location - but if you are in a decent sized town, it will be the norm.

Why everyone gets so bent out of shape over improved price points is beyond me.  But it is amusing to watch the foam.  I guess people really have no concept of historical prices, and certainly no grasp of price/performance.

But, see, eight there.

"Business grade bandwidth, consumer grade bandwidth."

It seems like the very idea of different "grades," different service tiers, is a problem or something.


This is certainly seems to be foremost in some people's mind.  I'm sure the ISPs would gladly take their money at the higher price point and abolish the consumer grade service that provides services to the vast majority of the population at a lower price.  I'm also certain that 99.999% the 100M households that would have to pay more to meet their need for such egalitarianism would not be happy with the new arrangement.

For those having a problem following this - an analogy about what we're talking about:

The one size fits all rules that some people are pushing for doesn't work in any industry.  If it was applied to cars, everyone would have to buy some kind of crazy combination of RV/Bus/Tractor Trailer.  Vehicle registrations would be thousands of dollars a year and only one grade of fuel would be available - alcohol dragster fuel because those same vehicles would be able to do the quarter mile in 3.5 seconds.  They'd cost a $1m+ a piece and requires you to have a complete engine rebuild every week.

It is just as crazy to try to force every network service to be the same.  A single family house looks very different than a 500 person corporate building from the perspective of the network.  They want to go different places, they run different applications and have completely different offered load profiles.  Insisting they be treated the same is stupid.
 
2014-05-15 02:14:32 PM  

dr_blasto: sendtodave: jst3p: sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.

Success.

I guess admitting you are a troll is better than admitting you are an idiot.

The ambiguity is the success.

Admitting anything would remove that ambiguity.

Sometimes trolls inadvertently help explain a sometimes complex subject.


Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they do...

/fartnoise
 
2014-05-15 02:14:48 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's.


No. They didn't

If they wanted to have the ability to regulate the ISP's they would classify them as a common carrier.


It's either/or? There's no middle ground? Interesting.
 
2014-05-15 02:15:08 PM  

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

This is not a final decision. Had they voted to not consider the motion, there is no regulation in place that would disallow what Comcast wants to do, and they would have done it anyhow.


An overt lie.

All the commission has to do is classify internet service providers as falling under the existing rules that currently apply to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.

Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.
 
2014-05-15 02:15:13 PM  

USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.


He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical
 
2014-05-15 02:15:30 PM  

sendtodave: alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.

How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?


Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.
 
2014-05-15 02:16:16 PM  

Someguy72: The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.


Republicans were denouncing this move because they don't believe the FCC should regulate the ISP's at all, and the ISP's should be free to shape their data traffic however they want and charge whatever the market will bear for the privilege of carrying data.

Once again, this vote was only to open the proposal for consideration and public comment, not to put it into effect.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:33 PM  
By definition ISPs are common carriers, how can you argue they are not? The only reason they haven't been firmly classified is money, politics, and 'Muricans.

God I hate you all, seriously I do, nothing funny about a society of idiots.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:39 PM  

qorkfiend: sendtodave: alice_600: wyltoknow: ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

Digging up cables...pretty sure thats a federal offense.

Boycotts would be better. In fact we need a day when all the internet shuts down in protest I mean ALL OF THE INTERNET.  We shutdown every day till we get neutrality back. So stack up on your porn,cat videos and gets some stamps. cause it's gonna be rough sails if we have to go that far and I get the feeling we might have to.

How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?

Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.


Startups are so last decade.
 
2014-05-15 02:17:58 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.

Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.



Well seeing as several tech companies did start out in garages...  (or college dorms)
 
2014-05-15 02:18:17 PM  

Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.


And the problem with your train of thought is that most of these guys in Washington are old farts who aren't in the internet business to begin with. They have other people handle everything internet for them. So quit thinking these guys know what the internet really is capable of doing.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:15 PM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.

Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.


This is a barrier to entry thing.

Capitalism doesn't self-manage, no matter how many invisible hands there are.

Raise the bar for entry and innovation can only come from the labs of big companies or governments and not from garages.

If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great. If you want giant media corporations to control what is available to be seen, then great: net neutrality isn't for you.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:29 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.

You have a thousand terabytes of porn?!?


All saved on SSD, Solid Sock Drive
 
2014-05-15 02:19:41 PM  

Argonreality: It was more or less a 5-10 minute contemplation on wording for a hypothetical amendment, and my initial thought for the time period was something like 2-3 years, similar to most corporate NDAs so it's reasonable to enforce avoidance of conflict of interest while also trying to avoid Ted Stevens levels of derp.


I'd be happier for a regulation stating that people like FCC commissioners can't resign and take really high-paying jobs for companies for whom they just approved a multi-billion dollar merger.
 
2014-05-15 02:19:41 PM  

BullBearMS: MadHatter500: That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean. It isn't what it means in this case. To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".

How could them possibly survive under the exact same common carrier restrictions that have always applied to electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies!


You should read my other, admittedly wall of text post about the options that face the broadband companies.  It's not a question of if they'd survive, they just wouldn't like it because the settlement fees they'd be entitled to would be litigated at every turn.  That's the problem with Title II.  It also drives some capital inefficiencies and business structures into the broadband carriers they'd prefer to avoid.  But overall they'd do just fine - only it would cost more for everyone involved.  There are better ways to address the issues at hand.
 
2014-05-15 02:21:11 PM  

dr_blasto: If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great.


By "law and order," do you actually mean less chaotic, or is that a comment on how everything on TV anymore is "Law and Order?"
 
2014-05-15 02:21:39 PM  
I already don't get the advertised speed from my ISP. Will this change anything?

/ cocks
// my ISP I mean
 
2014-05-15 02:22:18 PM  

ox45tallboy: Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me

Because by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.


Thank goodness the politics tab trolls are here to tell us why Obama's betrayal is not a betrayal at all!

The problem is that there is a simple way to make the Internet Service Providers subject to network neutrality regulations. You simply need three votes to classify them as a utility subject to common carrier restrictions in the same way phone companies already are.

The FCC had tried to impose so-called "common carrier" regulations on broadband providers without officially classifying them as utilities subject to those types of rules, and the court rejected that sleight of hand.

What happens now is entirely dependent on whether the FCC's new chairman, Tom Wheeler, has the courage to stand up and finally say the right words - that broadband access is a telecommunications service that should be regulated just like landline phones. He need only convince two additional FCC commissioners to agree with him, and the argument is simple: consumers already perceive internet service as a utility, and it's advertised only on the commodity basis of speed and price.