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  
•       •       •

19228 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

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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