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   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 886
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19238 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (1 year 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report