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
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19312 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

876 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 01:29:31 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?"
 
Displayed 50 of 876 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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