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

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

19109 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 04:27:13 PM

flynn80: Mobutu: Nothing convinces the oligarchy of the error of their ways but fire and guillotines.

Nothing convinces the gentiles of the error of their ways but by militarized police forces, and weapons confiscation.


I think you spelled peasant wrong.
 
2014-05-15 04:28:14 PM

ox45tallboy: Netflix volunteered to help pay for infrastructure improvements at one ISP, Comcast, to ensure that their content was able to be delivered to Comcast customers in an efficient manner. This was not demanded of Netflix, they chose to do so.


Surely it's entirely coincidental that Netflix customers paying Comcast for service saw their speeds for that one service plummet right after the courts ruled that the FCC couldn't impose restrictions until after they reclassified ISP's as common carriers.

i2.cdn.turner.com

/That's a nice competing video service you have there.
//It would be a shame if anything happened to it
 
2014-05-15 04:32:17 PM

BullBearMS: No they didn't.

They already have the power to regulate ISP's as common carriers. It's been written into the law FOR DECADES.

They don't need to consider anything.

What they voted for was another step towards the creation of internet fast lanes.


Yes, they have that authority. They could vote on it whenever they want.

But can you tell me that that is unequivocally the best option? Telephone companies can't do everything the Internet can, so is it in the best interest of the consumers to only regulate the ISP's as telephone companies? Might there be another proposal out there worth considering?

Don't you think the comments and reasoning against the "tiered service" proposal should be part of the public record, so that it more difficult for the FCC to revoke net neutrality the next time a Republican is the one appointing the FCC commissioners?

Once again, I'm a little confused as to why you're so upset at the Democrats, who voted to consider the position you support, instead of being upset at the Republicans, who voted against even considering it.
 
2014-05-15 04:33:38 PM

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.


The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.
 
2014-05-15 04:33:48 PM

Lamberts Ho Man: 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.


Maybe I'm being obtuse about understanding the wikipedia description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

This covers a lot more than you might think.  In particular the first one - "by user".  Another one that causes all kinds of problems is "site".  "modes of communication" also is problematic.  Heck, even "type of attached equipment" has problems.  The difficulty isn't the reasonable layman's interpretation.  Unfortunately rules that govern services like this get into the technical aspects, and it's what it could be construed to mean, not what it was meant to mean that matters.

So what does "not discriminating or charging differentially by user" actually mean?  That could mean Joe and Alice bought the same service, that me the ISP can't rate limit Alice just because I feel like it.  Or it could mean that Joe in NY can't be charged less than Alice on Fitch road in Montana, even though it's 100 times more costly for me the broadband provider to service Alice.

Let's talk about type of attached equipment.  A reasonable interpretation would be I the broadband provider cannot charge Joe more for attaching a PC to the network than I charge Alice for attaching an XBox.  However how it is written could be twisted to mean that I the broadband carrier can't charge any less for a 1G fiber port than a 10Gig Fiber port.

I'm putting up egregious examples not to declare this will happen, but to highlight the problem with the entire approach.  If you want to know more about the problems feel free to dig into the various references the wikipedia page has - just remember that there is very little actual information about real costs in them - the businesses that don't like the idea of network neutrality have good reasons to hide their costs numbers - negotiated deals with vendors carry some serious NDA clauses that keeps all that information proprietary and locked up tight, plus they really aren't supposed to share that kind of proprietary information with their competitors - the FTC and SEC start talking about anti-trust lawsuits when companies do that kind of thing.

Now I want to move onto a few other things you highlighted.  "unmetered access".  Post after post in this very thread biatches about bandwidth caps, and that going over those caps costs more.  Well, that just so happens to be metered access they are complaining about.  If they can live with metered access, why all the noise?  They clearly do not want the broadband providers to differentiate price between someone consuming 250Gbytes a month (family of 4 that loves to stream) and a building that has 500 people (650mbit/sec offered load 160 hours per month, or 13TB/month).  No caps right?  1G service!

They also have complained about the availability of services in various areas.  Every place should have super fast Internet.  And it should be low cost.  Alice in her cabin in Montana?  Maybe my example wasn't that far fetched after all.

Now I want to move onto something you closed with - Defacto network neutrality.  We actually don't have it today.  Applications and sites are discriminated against all the time.  Pick a bad carrier to host your content, you get terrible performance.  The design of the Internet protocols themselves (TCP in particular) favors bulk file transfer over all other applications.  You can't get QoS for interactive or real time applications reliably between any random two points.  VoIP calls on the Internet suffer horrible call quality metrics.  The broadband carriers are saying "Hey, you know we can help with that?"  The only response they get in the network neutrality debate is "Well if you would just give us more free bandwidth that wouldn't be a problem".  The broadband carriers then look at their already big capital budgets and go "oh screw that, we'd go broke.  Fine, live with your sucky performance".  They don't even get past the "must be free" discussion and actually talk about what such services would look like because the network neutrality crowd shows up and makes the discussion impossible.  I reference this thread that's 600+ messages of 1% signal to noise.

Sorry to get slightly exasperated with my fellow farkers there at the end, but it does get tedious after a while listening to the hyperventilating.
 
2014-05-15 04:35:32 PM

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.

The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.


I didn't say they voted to do it. I said they voted to open for public comment a proposal that would regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Your position would be a lot more defensible if you didn't have to lie about what other people are saying.
 
2014-05-15 04:35:50 PM

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


Or their heads will explode from the paradox you just created...
 
2014-05-15 04:35:50 PM

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

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

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


But the Dems might at least then recognise that pulling shiat like this costs them elections.
 
2014-05-15 04:38:39 PM

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

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

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

But the Dems might at least then recognise that pulling shiat like this costs them elections.


Or, much more likely, they'd "moderate" their position by moving to the right, in order to try and attract votes from the people who are voting. But yeah, we'll have taught the Democrats a lesson! That'll be such a relief when the GOP opens up the internet to whatever farkery your ISP wants to get up to.
 
2014-05-15 04:39:56 PM

MadHatter500: I'm putting up egregious examples not to declare this will happen, but to highlight the problem with the entire approach.


no, you're posting that you're totally confused by a wikipedia entry because you're too lazy to look up actual relevant legal language

i've not seen such a large wall of text say so little since i stopped clicking on american thinker articles
 
2014-05-15 04:40:23 PM

BullBearMS: Surely it's entirely coincidental that Netflix customers paying Comcast for service saw their speeds for that one service plummet right after the courts ruled that the FCC couldn't impose restrictions until after they reclassified ISP's as common carriers.

/That's a nice competing video service you have there.
//It would be a shame if anything happened to it


Dude, I'm in favor of regulating the ISP's. So are the Democrats. That's why I'm supporting them here. Had the vote went the way of the Republicans, there would be no regulation of the ISP's whatsoever and they'd do whatever they felt like to maximize their profits. I haven't heard any public statement from the Democratic FCC commissioners as to which individual position given in this proposal each one supports, only statements from the Republican commissioners who are not in favor of any of these regulations - and DEFINITELY not in favor of classifying the ISP's as common carriers.

If you're in favor of classifying the ISP's as common carriers, guess what? Thanks to the Democrats, you, as a member of the public, can make public comments on this matter! There is a lot of public support of this, and it stands a good chance of passing! Keep in mind that if the Republicans had had their way, there wouldn't even be a vote on it.
 
2014-05-15 04:40:41 PM

qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.

The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.

I didn't say they voted to do it. I said they voted to open for public comment a proposal that would regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Your position would be a lot more defensible if you didn't have to lie about what other people are saying.


It doesn't require public comment. The law on this matter has been on the books for decades.

It only takes three votes.

Obama appointed three Democrats.

If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now.
 
2014-05-15 04:41:38 PM

ox45tallboy: Keep in mind that if the Republicans had had their way, there wouldn't even be a vote on it.


We're almost 700 posts deep and he hasn't gotten this part yet. I doubt it'll ever happen.
 
2014-05-15 04:42:30 PM

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

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

Boycotts?

Don't work and never have.

Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?

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

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

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

This is the greatest idea I've ever seen on fark. Both sides should support this


My vision is weekly 69 minutes in Prime Time. Reveiw the action by Federal Tithangers and phone/text voting decides.
Review every Uncle Sugar Deal on rotation at least monthly while the pinheads still remember it.
I am all for actual "real" reality TV.
 
2014-05-15 04:44:01 PM

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: BullBearMS: qorkfiend: Why am I not surprised that you grossly mischaracterize views that differ from your own are not based in fact and are presented by one of Fark's most prolific politics tab party shills?

Not based in fact? Don't make me laugh. ox45tallboy as repeatedly provided links and other supporting information (which you appear to be deliberately ignoring), whereas you have yet to present any factual information regarding your position and how voting down today's proposal would have advanced it.

The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?

Now ISP's are subject to the same common carrier regulations as phone companies?

Stop lying about this.

I didn't say they voted to do it. I said they voted to open for public comment a proposal that would regulate ISPs as common carriers.

Your position would be a lot more defensible if you didn't have to lie about what other people are saying.

It doesn't require public comment. The law on this matter has been on the books for decades.

It only takes three votes.

Obama appointed three Democrats.

If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now.


And? I never claimed otherwise. I simply stated the fact that the vote the FCC took today opens up their proposal, including a proposal to regulate the ISPs as common carriers, to public comment, and that a final vote will be held in the future.
 
2014-05-15 04:45:02 PM

BullBearMS: The FCC voted to regulate ISP's under Section II of the existing Telecommunications act?


YES, the FCC has now advanced this idea to the next step. They voted along party lines to consider this, among other proposals. Democrats voted for this, Republicans voted against it. It is now up for public comment for the next 120 days. The final vote on whether or not to do this is at the end of the year.
 
2014-05-15 04:45:59 PM

qorkfiend: ox45tallboy: Keep in mind that if the Republicans had had their way, there wouldn't even be a vote on it.

We're almost 700 posts deep and he hasn't gotten this part yet. I doubt it'll ever happen.


He shold be told the the GOP concept of "less government" is actually lessening all that "voting" crap.
 
2014-05-15 04:49:03 PM

ox45tallboy: Dude, I'm in favor of regulating the ISP's. So are the Democrats. That's why I'm supporting them here.


How many times do people have to point out to you that if the Democrats favored regulating the ISP's then they have full authority to do so?

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.


Obama lied and then he sold us out.

No matter how hard you try to spin this.
 
2014-05-15 04:50:14 PM

BullBearMS: It doesn't require public comment. The law on this matter has been on the books for decades.

It only takes three votes.

Obama appointed three Democrats.

If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now.


They didn't have any need of doing it until the recent Supreme Court ruling - cable ISP's were regulated as cable companies, while phone ISP's were regulated like phone companies - until the SCOTUS ruling only a few months ago.

This is a big thing, and, including the time available for public comment, we'll have a final vote it on it less than a year from the time SCOTUS said the FCC needed to rethink it. That's not bad for something that affects this many consumers. I'm definitely not in favor of the FCC making a huge sweeping regulatory change overnight.
 
2014-05-15 04:50:18 PM

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

Or their heads will explode from the paradox you just created...


So you're saying there's no downside.
 
2014-05-15 04:55:56 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.


It sure as hell wasn't Obama because they haven't let any of his appointments through.

Not that I'm really on his side either, because honestly he doesn't give a shiat about freedom or liberty at all. He seems to have this idea that people who are "good citizens" deserve freedom or the benefits of whatever largesse he feels like dishing out, but everyone else can pretty much fark off and die.

He appears to be slightly more benevolent than the Republicans but not really because his idea of what comprises a "good citizen" isn't very flexible. It's based on a narrower set of ideals than any Republican ever dreamed of. There's not much room for second chances or redemption in Obama's world. You fark up, tough shiat.

He's like the Starship Troopers version of a President. I was skeptical when he ran and the longer he's in office, the less I really like him.
 
2014-05-15 04:56:31 PM

BullBearMS: How many times do people have to point out to you that if the Democrats favored regulating the ISP's then they have full authority to do so?


What do you think happened today? The heroic Republicans desperate for more regulations to put those mean nasty ISP's in their place were thwarted by those dastardly Democrats and their 3/2 majority looking to allow the ISP's to run roughshod over the consumers?

Really?

I understand that you think the vote to classify the ISP's as common carriers should have been held the day after SCOTUS told the FCC to rethink this whole thing, but aren't you glad there's at least going to be a vote on it, with every member of the public who wants to able to express his opinion on what this vote matters to him as a consumer, or as a business owner?

If the FCC was a 3/2 Republican majority, we wouldn't even be having the vote later this year. You should be somewhat happy that the vote you want is definitely going to occur now, even if it's not occurring as fast as you would like.
 
2014-05-15 04:56:59 PM

ox45tallboy: mr lawson: Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

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

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

It's bad that the FCC has voted this way, but it would be even worse if there was zero regulation and the ISP's could do as they please.


I remember a couple of years back, the Right was trying to frame Net Neutrality as somehow a government overreach (wut), and so this would be consistent with that position, albeit framed in different code, since they completely lost the argument at the time. Remember SOPA? Good times. It's back, btw.
 
2014-05-15 04:57:04 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.


Most of what you're doing is calling everyone else liars, saying that Obama supporters are shills, posting blocks of words in links that appear to be either the same link repeated or some other blog, and turning the whole thing into politics (on the politics tab, that's usually appropriate).

Here's the truth: 3 D's voted to have some regulation, 2 R's voted to have no regulation (and have the approval of Boehner and Cruz). Both choices suck, but the one that was considered sucks less. There's still work to be done (lots of places online still lobbying to call the FCC and request Title II), but the elected Republicans are actively trying (now, especially with Cruz's proposal) to "make the government small enough to drown in the bathtub" by taking away all FCC powers and letting the ISP's do whatever they want.  THAT'S BAD. The conversation is not final and will continue to be discussed, all the while confusion will run rampant on the details of what's happening.

If you're arguing for any of that, maybe try to articulate and format better so we can see your point. Otherwise, you're arguing in favor of politics and letting carriers like Comcast control all functions of the internet, its accessibility and its availability. And you're wrong for thinking that's a good idea.

/I said it before, but the vote today was "join Russia" or "let Russia take over" for Crimea, neither of which is viable for the people
 
2014-05-15 04:57:27 PM

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Dude, I'm in favor of regulating the ISP's. So are the Democrats. That's why I'm supporting them here.

How many times do people have to point out to you that if the Democrats favored regulating the ISP's then they have full authority to do so?

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 ...


Voting with the GOP would have entirely removed all consideration for your own favored policy. Voting with the Democrats keeps it alive. No matter how hard to you try to spin this.

The optimal solution is to vote with the GOP and simply crush your own policy, rather than go through the process.

My god, man. Do you even listen to yourself, or think about anything other than "This is what I want to happen, and if it doesn't happen right now, it's completely worthless"?
 
2014-05-15 04:57:51 PM

MadHatter500: The only response they get in the network neutrality debate is "Well if you would just give us more free bandwidth that wouldn't be a problem". The broadband carriers then look at their already big capital budgets and go "oh screw that, we'd go broke. Fine, live with your sucky performance".


Damned shame they were given tax dollars to improve their networks, didn't, pocketed the money, and then oversold the nodes on their network and then used traffic shaping techniques to make it look like their networks somehow suck less.  And it's funny that you're pretending like asking a provider to keep their networks in good working order would somehow make them go out of business.  Almost every other provider in the other countries of the world don't seem to have this problem.  So why do we?  American Excellence (tm) perhaps?
 
2014-05-15 04:58:43 PM

qorkfiend: Do you even listen to yourself, or think about anything other than "This is what I want to happen, and if it doesn't happen right now, it's completely worthless"?


there's a reason they're the only 'legitimate' poster on my ignore list
 
2014-05-15 04:58:56 PM

Hermione_Granger: It sure as hell wasn't Obama because they haven't let any of his appointments through.


It was Obama, and all 5 commissioners are his appointments. Two of the commissioners are Republicans because (by law) the FCC can't have more than three commissioners from the same party.
 
2014-05-15 04:59:52 PM

sprawl15: MadHatter500: I'm putting up egregious examples not to declare this will happen, but to highlight the problem with the entire approach.

no, you're posting that you're totally confused by a wikipedia entry because you're too lazy to look up actual relevant legal language

i've not seen such a large wall of text say so little since i stopped clicking on american thinker articles


And yet this thread and other threads on network neutrality is filled with examples of exactly what you think I exaggerate.  But you do deserve a participation award and a pat on the head.  I'm sorry that sufficient information to understand the problem made your head hurt.
 
2014-05-15 04:59:55 PM

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: It doesn't require public comment. The law on this matter has been on the books for decades.

It only takes three votes.

Obama appointed three Democrats.

If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now.

They didn't have any need of doing it until the recent Supreme Court ruling - cable ISP's were regulated as cable companies, while phone ISP's were regulated like phone companies - until the SCOTUS ruling only a few months ago.

This is a big thing, and, including the time available for public comment, we'll have a final vote it on it less than a year from the time SCOTUS said the FCC needed to rethink it. That's not bad for something that affects this many consumers. I'm definitely not in favor of the FCC making a huge sweeping regulatory change overnight.


Bullshiat yet again.

There is no regulatory change. The regulations have existed for decades.

No new laws are needed. No new regulations are needed.

There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.

If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.

The Democrats have not fixed this, not because they lack the authority to do what they promised, but because they refuse to use the authority they already have.

Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house has that effect.
 
2014-05-15 04:59:57 PM

MontanaDave: 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.


"When you call me that, smile!"

-the Virginian
 
2014-05-15 05:01:00 PM
That's ok, I downloaded the internet last night to be safe.
 
2014-05-15 05:01:59 PM

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: It doesn't require public comment. The law on this matter has been on the books for decades.

It only takes three votes.

Obama appointed three Democrats.

If they wanted to do this, they would have done it by now.

They didn't have any need of doing it until the recent Supreme Court ruling - cable ISP's were regulated as cable companies, while phone ISP's were regulated like phone companies - until the SCOTUS ruling only a few months ago.

This is a big thing, and, including the time available for public comment, we'll have a final vote it on it less than a year from the time SCOTUS said the FCC needed to rethink it. That's not bad for something that affects this many consumers. I'm definitely not in favor of the FCC making a huge sweeping regulatory change overnight.

Bullshiat yet again.

There is no regulatory change. The regulations have existed for decades.

No new laws are needed. No new regulations are needed.

There is a simple fix for this mess. It does not require any new laws from Congress. It already has the support of the Supreme Court.

If the FCC actually wants to ensure net neutrality, it will have do something that every regulator in every other developed country did a long time ago. (It will also turn Verizon litigiously apoplectic.) It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services. Doing so would solve everything.

The Democrats have not fixed this, not because they lack the authority to do what they promised, but because they refuse to use the authority they already have.

Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house has that effect.


Still doesn't change the facts about today's vote, namely that the 3 Democrats voted to consider net neutrality and the 2 Republicans voted against it.
 
2014-05-15 05:02:55 PM
O love all of the Obama loves trying to convince everyone that it's all the Republican's fault when Obama appointed every last member of the FCC board as well as the director.
 
2014-05-15 05:03:38 PM

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Dude, I'm in favor of regulating the ISP's. So are the Democrats. That's why I'm supporting them here.

How many times do people have to point out to you that if the Democrats favored regulating the ISP's then they have full authority to do so?

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 ...


Don't be fooled. Obama gives a shiat about Net Neutrality like a fish cares that it's raining. He's a corporate whore same as Bush II, Clinton, Bush, Reagan...
 
2014-05-15 05:04:28 PM

zepher: O love all of the Obama loves trying to convince everyone that it's all the Republican's fault when Obama appointed every last member of the FCC board as well as the director.


Something tells me you don't quite understand what actually happened today. It's ok, you can admit it. No one will think less of you.
 
2014-05-15 05:04:29 PM

qorkfiend: My god, man. Do you even listen to yourself, or think about anything other than "This is what I want to happen, and if it doesn't happen right now, it's completely worthless"?


Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.

If only you could get a few more politics tab guys in here, I'm sure you could make us all believe it.
 
2014-05-15 05:05:04 PM

BullBearMS: qorkfiend: My god, man. Do you even listen to yourself, or think about anything other than "This is what I want to happen, and if it doesn't happen right now, it's completely worthless"?

Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.

If only you could get a few more politics tab guys in here, I'm sure you could make us all believe it.


You're harping on this "great victory" line like you're trying to convince yourself of something.
 
2014-05-15 05:08:14 PM

BullBearMS: Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.


I don't even know what someone gets out of apologizing for the democrats in this case, if anything that will help them pick the option that farks over consumers.
 
2014-05-15 05:08:50 PM
the frog is almost done boiling.  This is a symptom, not an issue.
 
2014-05-15 05:13:48 PM

Triple Oak: lots of places online still lobbying to call the FCC and request Title II


Just to clarify, this was also included in the proposal and is currently up for public comment and debate and will be voted on at the end of the year.
 
2014-05-15 05:14:09 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.


well, theres at least ONE thing wrong with this comment.
 
2014-05-15 05:15:02 PM

Headso: BullBearMS: Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.

I don't even know what someone gets out of apologizing for the democrats in this case, if anything that will help them pick the option that farks over consumers.


I personally am not apologizing for them, but looking at the options I would have voted the same way. Having no regulation, the Republican offer, would be worse. At least by saying there should be some regulation, we are still having this discussion.
 
2014-05-15 05:15:14 PM

MadHatter500: And yet this thread and other threads on network neutrality is filled with examples of exactly what you think I exaggerate.


what i said you exaggerated was the fainting spell from discovering that wikipedia's brief description of a topic is not legally rigorous

though i will grant that it could not be an exaggeration and maybe you really are that dumb, but i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just being intentionally thick to make a transparently facile point
 
2014-05-15 05:15:54 PM

Headso: BullBearMS: Yes. When Obama betrays the base and sells us out to his wealthy masters, it's a great victory.

I don't even know what someone gets out of apologizing for the democrats in this case, if anything that will help them pick the option that farks over consumers.


Why do you think people are "getting" something, instead of recognizing that the outcome of today's vote was the superior of the two available options? The vote today wasn't a choice between the Democrats' proposal and full-blown net neutrality, it was between the Democrats' proposal and a rain of glowing debris.
 
2014-05-15 05:17:29 PM

ox45tallboy: Triple Oak: lots of places online still lobbying to call the FCC and request Title II

Just to clarify, this was also included in the proposal and is currently up for public comment and debate and will be voted on at the end of the year.


Yep, a couple recent stories from Wheeler have confirmed that it's still in the discussion. Currently on reddit r/politics, there are posts every day talking about the people who are calling the FCC, what buttons to push for the prompts, and what to say to the representative that answers. One sentence, encouraging Title II. Many stories of polite and frustrated phone reps taking the information. They keep saying send emails, but you can't CRTL+DELETE phone call after phone call the way you can delete emails.
 
2014-05-15 05:20:04 PM

BullBearMS: Bullshiat yet again.

There is no regulatory change. The regulations have existed for decades.

No new laws are needed. No new regulations are needed.


wat

Exactly what you want (classifying the ISP's under Title II as "common carriers") is up for debate and will be voted on by the end of the year. Are you only upset because they didn't do this as soon as SCOTUS told them they had to find a different way to regulate the ISP's?

Do you really want a FCC that makes huge decisions affecting hundreds of millions of consumers without even consulting the public?

BullBearMS: It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services.


Hmmm... who was in charge back then?

BullBearMS: Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house has that effect.


I sympathize with this position, and the "revolving door" we've seen in the past with the chairman of the FCC stepping down to take a highly pad position at a company after a merger approval is unacceptable, but would you rather put someone who has no experience with the industry in charge of regulating it? Do you want someone like Senator Ted "series of tubes" Stevens making rules for the ISP's?
 
2014-05-15 05:20:30 PM

qorkfiend: today's vote was the superior of the two available options?


Sure, because keeping your promise was off the table right from the start. Just like the Public Option.

Let's pretend the Democrats don't control the FCC and that the FCC doesn't already have the authority to fix this.
 
2014-05-15 05:22:27 PM

ox45tallboy: Exactly what you want (classifying the ISP's under Title II as "common carriers") is up for debate


It doesn't require debate.

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: It has to unmake the mistake it made in 2002, when it failed to classify cable Internet providers as telecommunications services.

Hmmm... who was in charge back then?



So why are you making excuses for it now?
 
2014-05-15 05:23:30 PM

Cpl.D: MadHatter500: The only response they get in the network neutrality debate is "Well if you would just give us more free bandwidth that wouldn't be a problem". The broadband carriers then look at their already big capital budgets and go "oh screw that, we'd go broke. Fine, live with your sucky performance".

Damned shame they were given tax dollars to improve their networks, didn't, pocketed the money, and then oversold the nodes on their network and then used traffic shaping techniques to make it look like their networks somehow suck less.  And it's funny that you're pretending like asking a provider to keep their networks in good working order would somehow make them go out of business.  Almost every other provider in the other countries of the world don't seem to have this problem.  So why do we?  American Excellence (tm) perhaps?


If you think it is so cheap to run a broadband network, and the carriers are rolling in so much stolen money and gouge their customers, why haven't you started a competing carrier?   Should be easy, shouldn't it?  Please, proceed - I'm absolutely certain the existing carriers would love another voice biatching to the local boards of public utility about how farking expensive it is to deal with the god damn public right of ways.  And the home owners associations that will not allow new trenches to be dug for new fiber, and sure as hell won't allow utility poles.  Nope - none of that costs farking money and the greedy carriers just hog it all.  No drunk driver ever crashes into those poles and disrupts service, no backhoe installing a new storm drain ever digs up buried cable.  No lightning strike ever blows out remote terminal equipment.  All you have to do is install it once and it never fails again, and every new feature that comes out will work on any piece of equipment ever deployed.  Carriers never pay for service contracts on all that gear - the vendors give updates for free.  And clearly the damn electricity to run and cool all that equipment is free too.  No property taxes ever get levied against a central office!  Oh no it's all god damn free!

You are so ignorant of reality you deserve to think you've been ripped off.  Enjoy your misery.
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report