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  
•       •       •

19340 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


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest

 
2014-05-15 02:42:46 PM  

MattStafford: qorkfiend: Not directly, but surely you would admit there are differences between the two party platforms on the issue.

I wouldn't.  The parties may use different rhetoric, but their goals (at least in this area) are essentially identical.  Government doesn't like something as free as the internet, they want to control the flow of information.


Strongly disagree. Do you seriously believe that the GOP's policy - namely, let the ISPs do whatever they want - is identical to the Democrats'?
 
2014-05-15 02:43:37 PM  

BullBearMS: The problem is that there is a simple way to make the Internet Service Providers subject to network neutrality regulations. You simply need three votes to classify them as a utility subject to common carrier restrictions in the same way phone companies already are.


So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?

You did read the article, right?

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.
 
2014-05-15 02:47:10 PM  

sprawl15: thanks obama


This time

You are right

Finally

Wake up gun-hugging trailer park Republicans, they're gonna steal your first amendment pron
 
2014-05-15 02:47:17 PM  

sendtodave: qorkfiend: Speaking personally, it would be great if the mobile video startup I work for didn't have to pay through the nose to the service providers in order to get our product off the ground.

Hmm.

Given the option, if google had offered you a job, and this startup had offered you one at the same time, which would you pick?

Not particularly relevant. Google didn't offer me a job.

Or, if google bought this startup, would you go work there?

Sure. Who wouldn't?

What is so innovative about the startup that google can't do teh same thing?

Nothing, except the simple fact that Google's not doing it.

I mean, sure, it's romantic, but most startups aren't genius tinkerers in the garage with a game changing idea.

And?

And the ones that are?  Drop out of Harvard and get millions in seed money.

I think you were are getting more game-changers out of google then myfacebutts kids in garages.

You do realize that all of what you think of as "game-changers" started out as myfacebutts kids in garages, right?

 
2014-05-15 02:48:49 PM  

mr lawson: and yet...that is what was just proposed by the fcc. That is not speculation. It Happened.
I don't doubt you are for N.N.   we all are. (well except for a few fringe).


I don't doubt you are for NN as well. However, you have to understand a few things:

1.) this is not a final vote - it has not "happened". This merely opens the proposal up for public comment and debate.
2.) The "opposition" to this proposal (i.e., the two Republicans who voted to not debate on it) was that the FCC should not regulate the ISP's at all, and they should be free to shape their data however they want with the only oversight coming from a Congress who knows dick about the Internet and isn't about to pass any regulations.
3.) Included with this proposal was the option of regulating the ISP's as common carriers, something that many people are in favor of. This will be voted on at the conclusion of the public commenting period. This is something the Republicans are very much against.
 
2014-05-15 02:50:51 PM  

pippi longstocking: Well unless you can clarify how any website is going to reach me without an ISP then you can go ahead and put that in the common carrier group.


How about "public utility" like the electric or water companies? Or how about a new classification with a different set of rules, since a good bit of things are possible on the Internet that aren't with traditional phone carriers?
 
2014-05-15 02:50:58 PM  

ox45tallboy: You did read the article, right?

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.


And then they ACTUALLY VOTED AND APPROVED (not just considered mine you) To advance the tiered plan to the next step.

Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.
 
2014-05-15 02:51:06 PM  

qorkfiend: You do realize that all of what you think of as "game-changers" started out as myfacebutts kids in garages, right?


It was a different time then.

Now, innovation is "Flappy Bird."
 
2014-05-15 02:51:46 PM  
I saw a headline this morning on Fox: "GOP fights to save internet"

The article then explained the GOP was going to save the internet by fighting regulations and the concept of "net neutrality" which, according to them, is against the free market, and smacks of socialism.

/I'm waiting for Fox's next article "GOP fights to save kids" - by closing schools, letting them starve, and denying them healthcare.
 
2014-05-15 02:52:11 PM  

sendtodave: Lamberts Ho Man: Cable TV sucks.  I don't want the internet to go down that same road, which is what will happen when $$$ = access to the market in the post net neutrality world.

Cable TV sucks because... why?  Because they tier service?  It costs too much for what they consider premium service?



Ok, fair question...
Cable TV sucks because it's a monopoly with a high cost of entry.  So they can charge high prices for crappy service and crappy content and tier service for any marginally non-crappy content so they can charge you even more.  No competition = no innovation, high prices and stagnant quality of content.

While last mile delivery of internet to consumers is effectively a monopoly, or duopoly in most markets, access to the service on the server (content provider) side has had a very low cost of entry and the service afforded to my data pushed out from my $20/month VPS has been the same as that afforded to the big players with their own data centers.  It was a level playing field with a low barrier to entry that has fostered the enormous competition and innovation that has driven the internet forward over the past 20 years and changed our entire way of life.  The only innovative thing the cable company has done in the past 20 years is to end the de facto net neutraility that has been in place since the beginning of the internet.

Cable sucks because you can't afford it?

You had a point there, but decided to go for the ad hominem anyway?
 
2014-05-15 02:52:20 PM  

qorkfiend: Strongly disagree. Do you seriously believe that the GOP's policy - namely, let the ISPs do whatever they want - is identical to the Democrats'?


Again, the rhetoric may be different, but whatever policy either party pursues will have a similar outcome (in my opinion).  The powers that be don't like a free internet, and the powers that be control congress, so one way or another the government will end the free internet.
 
2014-05-15 02:52:20 PM  

ox45tallboy: 3.) Included with this proposal was the option of regulating the ISP's as common carriers, something that many people are in favor of. This will be voted on at the conclusion of the public commenting period.


The way I read it, that was a different proposal. Not the one they voted on.
/might be wrong on this
 
2014-05-15 02:53:32 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: You did read the article, right?

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.

And then they ACTUALLY VOTED AND APPROVED (not just considered mine you) To advance the tiered plan to the next step.

Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.


Then we fight and we'll win and they will fail because we hold all the cards.
 
2014-05-15 02:53:36 PM  

Lamberts Ho Man: Nobody is suggesting that you treat a single family home exactly the way you treat a 500 person corporate building. The latter requires much larger bandwidth and a very different SLA - and they appropriately pay a very different rate for that. Net Neutrality does not impact that in the slightest. To claim otherwise is such a gross misunderstanding of net neutrality that I'm trying hard to decide between troll or shill (cue the "Why Not Both" image)


Actually, that's exactly what they are suggesting.  You should read the more vociferous net neutrality proponents more carefully.  And you should read many of my previous posts in this thread - I've been pointing out that different tiers exist to address this problem and that it addresses it well.  I was replying to Sendtodave, where he was observing the existence of tiers of service I was referencing seems to cause some people to have problems.  If that makes me a shill or troll, then paint me that way.

You can accuse me of going over the top on my analogy - which I'll gladly admit was my goal.
 
2014-05-15 02:54:39 PM  
Yeah, that war on drugs went so well and the war on terror cost us trillions of dollars, I can't wait to see how the war on 4chan turns out
 
2014-05-15 02:55:42 PM  

ox45tallboy: So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?


How retarded do you politics tab party shills think everyone is?

Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of the FCC in the exact same way that Bush did.

They didn't pay any attention to the public outcry when this was first rumored.

They didn't pay any attention to the Senators who said today's vote should be delayed.

Seriously, how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are???
 
2014-05-15 02:56:10 PM  

BullBearMS: MadHatter500: BullBearMS: MadHatter500: That's what the EFF would like Net Neutrality to mean. It isn't what it means in this case. To Google, Netflix, Level 3, Cogent, Verizon, AT&T and Comcast, "Net Neutrality" is "Broadband providers should subsidize the connectivity costs of content providers".

How could them possibly survive under the exact same common carrier restrictions that have always applied to electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies!

You should read my other, admittedly wall of text post about the options that face the broadband companies.  It's not a question of if they'd survive, they just wouldn't like it because the settlement fees they'd be entitled to would be litigated at every turn.  That's the problem with Title II.  It also drives some capital inefficiencies and business structures into the broadband carriers they'd prefer to avoid.  But overall they'd do just fine - only it would cost more for everyone involved.  There are better ways to address the issues at hand.

I'm sorry, but the argument is bullshiat.

The ISP's are already being paid by their customers for data at rates many times higher than in other countries.

If they have to upgrade their network to provide the service their customers are paying for, that's a simple cost of business that Comcast and the ilk should pay for out of their existing profits.

No business should be allowed to leverage their monopoly position to extort money from their competition in this way.


So you don't understand economics either - well at least you are consistent - I had you farkied that way already.  Please explain to me why beer has different prices in different places in the world.  Then explain to me why that doesn't also apply to network services.
 
2014-05-15 02:56:15 PM  

BullBearMS: What in the hell are you talking about? Classifying them as a utility is what allows you to impose common carrier restrictions on them. That's how the long standing law on the matter works.

The same restrictions that have always applied to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.


The FCC doesn't regulate electric companies or water companies. Classifying them as a "common carrier" ensures that the FCC would be able to regulate them, but we need to make sure that's the best fit. Since the Internet can do many things that phone and cable TV companies cannot do, we should at least consider a separate classification for them. I'm not saying that the "common carrier" designation isn't the most efficient way of ensuring they are regulated, just that it might be worth considering other options.

BullBearMS: Also, you don't need a debate to classify them as utilities. You just need the three Democrats on the FCC to vote to do it.


Actually, you do need a debate. This is how the FCC works. Do you really want a FCC that arbitrarily takes over regulation of an entire industry, or comes up with all new rules and regulations for industries to follow, or approves mergers and splits without public debate?
 
2014-05-15 02:57:32 PM  

ox45tallboy: pippi longstocking: Well unless you can clarify how any website is going to reach me without an ISP then you can go ahead and put that in the common carrier group.

How about "public utility" like the electric or water companies? Or how about a new classification with a different set of rules, since a good bit of things are possible on the Internet that aren't with traditional phone carriers?


They would then have to provide service to all the farmers in BFE and we would have the internet inundated with farmer talk.
 
2014-05-15 02:59:44 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?

How retarded do you politics tab party shills think everyone is?

Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of the FCC in the exact same way that Bush did.

They didn't pay any attention to the public outcry when this was first rumored.

They didn't pay any attention to the Senators who said today's vote should be delayed.

Seriously, how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are???


You do realize this post addresses none of the questions ox45tallboy asked, right?
 
2014-05-15 02:59:48 PM  

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: You did read the article, right?

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.

And then they ACTUALLY VOTED AND APPROVED (not just considered mine you) To advance the tiered plan to the next step.

Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.


Ah. So you didn't read the article.

FTFA: The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.
 
2014-05-15 03:01:04 PM  
We need another SOPA type coup.  I know there has been code that was put out last week, but that's only for those that have control of their hosting servers.  My site is powered by WordPress and I'm hoping someone puts out a plugin like the blackout one that was made back then.

Does anyone know of such a thing?  We need to fight this and show how unusable the Internet can be if this gets squashed like the FCC, Comcast and Verizon wants it too!

My site is small comared to Fark and the other big guns (~100-150k visitors/month), but I'd be more than willing to do what I can!!
 
2014-05-15 03:01:06 PM  

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

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

And the hell of it is, I look like Archie Bunker!


I think we found Rush Limbaugh's Fark handle.
 
2014-05-15 03:01:50 PM  

ox45tallboy: mr lawson: ox45tallboy: You did read the article, right?

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.

And then they ACTUALLY VOTED AND APPROVED (not just considered mine you) To advance the tiered plan to the next step.

Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.

Ah. So you didn't read the article.

FTFA: The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.


yeah...i read it.
 
2014-05-15 03:02:49 PM  
The hysterical part is listening to what one of the Democrats that Bush appointed to the FCC has to say on the issue:

An Internet controlled and managed for the benefit of the "haves" and that rations the availability of the essential tools of the 21st century to everyone else discriminates against our rights as citizens as much, or more, as our rights as consumers. I believe most of us by now understand that finding jobs, caring for our health, educating our kids and conserving energy are increasingly online activities. But so is finding out what's going on in our nation and the world, sharing our outlooks and opinions and nourishing a more robust civic dialogue. Endowing powerful ISPs and online companies with control over what we see and share on the Net is inimical to the health of our commonweal. If an ISP can favor those who pay the most, can block or slow-down those sites who refuse to play their game, can decide that some good cause or advocacy group they disagree with will be discriminated against, then we have short-circuited both the nourishing potential of the Internet and the rights of citizens to share in a communications revolution that should be, in truth, more about We, the People than it is about the privileged few.

The first step on the road to an online future that serves us all is for the FCC to get its pending proposals right. Classify broadband for the Title II communications it obviously is and prohibit fast-lane, slow-lane divides created for the commercial enrichment of a few. At the same time, the commission must step up to the plate and use the authority it has to preempt state laws that prohibit communities and municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure instead of relying on ISPs that cherry-pick the country when they decide where to build and not build. And let's go on from there to demand that the FCC finally finds the wisdom and the guts to say "No!" to all these never-ending mergers and acquisitions that are monopolizing the market, disadvantaging consumers and short-circuiting our democratic discourse.


Gee, imagine if Obama had kept his word instead of putting the industries biggest lobbyists in charge.
 
2014-05-15 03:02:51 PM  

mr lawson: The way I read it, that was a different proposal. Not the one they voted on.
/might be wrong on this


All part of the same package. The linked article is a bit ambiguous. Fark doesn't do WSJ links, so you'll have to cut and paste (and remove the random spaces), but here's an article that describes it more in-depth:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230362750457955620 0 630931292

Mr. Wheeler's language will also invite comments on whether broadband Internet service should be considered a public utility, which would subject it to greater regulation. The FCC has so far not reclassified broadband as a utility, and providers have fiercely opposed such a move, saying it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.
 
2014-05-15 03:06:04 PM  

ox45tallboy: mr lawson: The way I read it, that was a different proposal. Not the one they voted on.
/might be wrong on this

All part of the same package. The linked article is a bit ambiguous. Fark doesn't do WSJ links, so you'll have to cut and paste (and remove the random spaces), but here's an article that describes it more in-depth:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230362750457955620 0 630931292

Mr. Wheeler's language will also invite comments on whether broadband Internet service should be considered a public utility, which would subject it to greater regulation. The FCC has so far not reclassified broadband as a utility, and providers have fiercely opposed such a move, saying it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.


alright (couldn't read the wsj article), If it was included, that makes it a little better. But would have been much better if they didn't include the tiered plan at all.
 
2014-05-15 03:07:20 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?

How retarded do you politics tab party shills think everyone is?

Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of the FCC in the exact same way that Bush did.

They didn't pay any attention to the public outcry when this was first rumored.

They didn't pay any attention to the Senators who said today's vote should be delayed.

Seriously, how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are???


Wait, are you saying that TFA is giving incorrect information? TFA says that the FCC will be be voting on whether to classify ISP's as public utilities after the time for public comment has expired, and that it was Democrats who advanced this agenda and voted in favor of this happening, and Republicans who voted against it.

That's what the article says. Is it incorrect? Can you cite any sources which provide different information?
 
2014-05-15 03:08:02 PM  

MadHatter500: Lamberts Ho Man: Nobody is suggesting that you treat a single family home exactly the way you treat a 500 person corporate building. The latter requires much larger bandwidth and a very different SLA - and they appropriately pay a very different rate for that. Net Neutrality does not impact that in the slightest. To claim otherwise is such a gross misunderstanding of net neutrality that I'm trying hard to decide between troll or shill (cue the "Why Not Both" image)

Actually, that's exactly what they are suggesting.  You should read the more vociferous net neutrality proponents more carefully.


I'm very interested in that claim - can you provide a reference to somebody that matters on this issue stating that net neutrality means that a 500 person corporate office building should pay the same for their internet connection as a single family home?  Not that exact claim of course, I assume you made that up.  But something like that - that an internet should be unmetered, flat rate, for everybody.  Because that seems to be the concept that you're ascribing to net neutraility with that analogy.

I have read your posts on peering agreements, and asymmetric traffic with interest.  I know this isn't a black or white issue and has got to be far more complicated then the headlines from either side portray.  I just think there's got to be a better way to do this then abandoning the de facto net neutrality that has been in existance.
 
2014-05-15 03:10:57 PM  
It's not surprising that a small handful of dumbasses here want to make this a partisan issue and are arguing LIBS BAD CONS GOOD.

It is surprising how many people who are otherwise pretty well informed seem to be missing one or several bits of info that might make them realize that they are on the wrong side with respect to this particular action, despite the fact that they are generally in agreement about the need for Net Neutrality in general


Vi Hart has a good summary if the basic issues that was current just before this ruling

http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/

Even if you think you know what this discussion is about, you really should go watch this
 
2014-05-15 03:11:07 PM  

ox45tallboy: mr lawson: The way I read it, that was a different proposal. Not the one they voted on.
/might be wrong on this

All part of the same package. The linked article is a bit ambiguous. Fark doesn't do WSJ links, so you'll have to cut and paste (and remove the random spaces), but here's an article that describes it more in-depth:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230362750457955620 0 630931292

Mr. Wheeler's language will also invite comments on whether broadband Internet service should be considered a public utility, which would subject it to greater regulation. The FCC has so far not reclassified broadband as a utility, and providers have fiercely opposed such a move, saying it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.


Would more regulation cause innovation and investment to collapse?  Because it seems that the argument against letting them do whatever what they want is that it would cause innovation and investment to collapse.

Do we assume that little guys are more innovative than providers?
 
2014-05-15 03:11:33 PM  

BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are


I think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.
 
2014-05-15 03:11:37 PM  

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?

How retarded do you politics tab party shills think everyone is?

Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of the FCC in the exact same way that Bush did.

They didn't pay any attention to the public outcry when this was first rumored.

They didn't pay any attention to the Senators who said today's vote should be delayed.

Seriously, how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are???

You do realize this post addresses none of the questions ox45tallboy asked, right?


Perhaps if a few more of you party shills that normally infest the politics tab come to main and tell us all that Obama selling us out is a great victory?
 
2014-05-15 03:12:29 PM  

BullBearMS: Gee, imagine if Obama had kept his word instead of putting the industries biggest lobbyists in charge.


Sure, that'd be great. However, he didn't do that, so how about instead of complaining about what Obama should have done, we address the situation that we actually have?
 
2014-05-15 03:14:08 PM  
This is my surprised font.
 
2014-05-15 03:14:24 PM  

dr_blasto: They would then have to provide service to all the farmers in BFE and we would have the internet inundated with farmer talk.


i.telegraph.co.uk
"Mooooo-ooooooo!"



You laugh but my sister and her husband work on an agricultural research facility, and my brother-in-law uses his iPad on a daily basis to update things like grass height and stool consistency. I joke that my sister milks cows for a living, but she's actually been instrumental in performing research that resulted in FDA approval of a drug that helped save quite a few dairy cows, keeping milk, butter. and cheese prices low for everyone. Without the Internet, that researcxh might not have been possible.
 
2014-05-15 03:15:24 PM  

Triple Oak: BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are

I think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.


I think he's actually arguing that a) the Democratic commissioners are as industry-friendly as the GOP commissioners, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we got an industry-friendly proposal and b) the current proposal doesn't go far enough towards ensuring a neutral network.
 
2014-05-15 03:15:52 PM  
Call him:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: 1-202-418-1000

I'll even give you a hand:
I'm calling to urge  FCC Chairman Wheeler to STOP his plan to allow Internet service providers to charge for preferential treatment for the highest bidder.
The internet was built with tax payer dollars and allowing private corporations to determine how we use based on how much money they can make off of it is wrong. The FCC needs to throw out its proposed rules and to preserve real Net Neutrality.
 
2014-05-15 03:17:07 PM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

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


Jail. Jail. Lawyers win.
 
2014-05-15 03:17:44 PM  

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

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

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

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

This is an issue that was tailor made to be bought by big business since it's not really an emotional issue, most people don't understand it, and they don't care. Even once people start noticing their Netflix or Youtube or WWE Network or whatever slowing to a crawl, do you really think they're going to understand that it's a political issue and not a technological one?


This is true enough, but the real problem is our government doesn't give a damn about what we think. Thus the Princeton Study coming out this fall making the argument as meticulously as possible that what rich folks and corps want gets done by our legislatures, while what everyone else wants gets ignored.
 
2014-05-15 03:18:38 PM  

Triple Oak: BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are

I think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.


By arguing that ISP's should be regulated just like phone companies and face common carrier restrictions?

Damn, I'm tricky.
 
2014-05-15 03:19:30 PM  

qorkfiend: You do realize this post addresses none of the questions ox45tallboy asked, right?


People feel that the Democrats have done a bad thing, and I can understand why they feel that way. Articles such as the one we're commenting on are spun so that the Democrats are placed in the worst possible light, because that automatically makes the Republicans look better. But saying that one prefers the Republican position because they oppose the actions of the Democrats, without considering what the Republican position actually is, is not the way to achieve the goal of maintaining net neutrality.

It's also important to note that several of the people who have been insisting I'm providing inaccurate information have stated their preference for classifying ISP's as common carriers, which the Democrats voted in favor of considering and the Republicans against.
 
2014-05-15 03:19:42 PM  

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: Gee, imagine if Obama had kept his word instead of putting the industries biggest lobbyists in charge.

Sure, that'd be great. However, he didn't do that, so how about instead of complaining about what Obama should have done, we address the situation that we actually have?


How about you go back to the politics tab and whine about people holding Obama responsible for his actions over there?
 
2014-05-15 03:20:09 PM  

moefuggenbrew: 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?

Jail. Jail. Lawyers win.


Jail for boycotts?  I don't get that one.

I know I proposed an extreme idea first, but it's helpful to remember that extreme options aren't strictly off the table, when deciding how to respond to things.
 
2014-05-15 03:20:42 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: So you're saying that the FCC should vote on whether to do that, right? Or maybe they should open it up for public comment and debate first, just to see if anyone else has any other good ideas, but then hold a vote?

How retarded do you politics tab party shills think everyone is?

Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of the FCC in the exact same way that Bush did.

They didn't pay any attention to the public outcry when this was first rumored.

They didn't pay any attention to the Senators who said today's vote should be delayed.

Seriously, how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are???

You do realize this post addresses none of the questions ox45tallboy asked, right?

Perhaps if a few more of you party shills that normally infest the politics tab come to main and tell us all that Obama selling us out is a great victory?


Who's been claiming this is a great victory? I see a lot of people opposed to the vote, a lot of confusion about net neutrality in general and the consequences of today's vote in particular, and ox45tallboy pointing out that the "yes" vote today simply means "Ok, let's get some public comments on this" and isn't the FCC's last word on the issue.
 
2014-05-15 03:20:48 PM  

BullBearMS: Triple Oak: BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are

I think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.

By arguing that ISP's should be regulated just like phone companies and face common carrier restrictions?

Damn, I'm tricky.


TROLLS SHILLS TRICKSIES.
 
2014-05-15 03:23:38 PM  

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: Gee, imagine if Obama had kept his word instead of putting the industries biggest lobbyists in charge.

Sure, that'd be great. However, he didn't do that, so how about instead of complaining about what Obama should have done, we address the situation that we actually have?

How about you go back to the politics tab and whine about people holding Obama responsible for his actions over there?


Are we not on the politics tab?

You do realize that "holding Obama responsible for his actions" by supporting the GOP's position actually ensures a worse outcome and lessens the probability that your proposal - a true neutral network - will be the result? You do realize that the Democratic commissioners voting "yes" are closer to your proposal than the GOP commissioners voting "no", right? And yet it seems you would have preferred a vote that would move us even further away from your position.
 
2014-05-15 03:24:15 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.

img.fark.net
"WHAT DO WE WANT!!!!?? WHARBLGHARBL!!!! WHEN DO WE WANT IT!!!??? NOW!
 
2014-05-15 03:25:23 PM  

mr lawson: alright (couldn't read the wsj article), If it was included, that makes it a little better. But would have been much better if they didn't include the tiered plan at all.


I'd like it better, too, but that's not what was on the table. On the plus side, this does make the public comments and debate about the tiered plan part of the public record, and the ISP's can't sue and say the FCC doesn't have the right to regulate them or failed to give them a proper hearing.

It would be best if the debate was opened and then the final measure was downvoted, because then no one can say it wasn't properly considered, and the ISP's have their best chance at explaining how this would benefit the consumer. (Hint: it doesn't, but it's kind of like having to listen to states defend gay marriage amendments - you've got to hear them out before you say, no, that doesn't work)

Don't forget that there are many other parts to this proposal, including consideration of labeling ISP's as "common carriers". The Republicans voted to not consider that at all.
 
2014-05-15 03:26:25 PM  

qorkfiend: Triple Oak: BullBearMS: how retarded do you politics tab party shills think people are

I think you and the other trolls shills are very retarded. You arguing the Republican points of unregulated ISPs proves my point.

I think he's actually arguing that a) the Democratic commissioners are as industry-friendly as the GOP commissioners, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we got an industry-friendly proposal and b) the current proposal doesn't go far enough towards ensuring a neutral network.


Not completely off base.

I would say that the fact that Obama put industry lobbyists in charge of regulation proves that the industry owns the Democratic leadership as well as the FCC.

Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.
 
Displayed 50 of 876 comments


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest


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