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  
•       •       •

19316 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 | Show all

 
2014-05-16 04:50:05 AM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


No, this is the big government that you asked for. You ignored what I said about an Oligarchy. Who the fark do you think enables that?
 
2014-05-16 05:11:18 AM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


There is a reason why even beautiful ideas(I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind) like Communism, tribalism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Socialism, and everything else we can think of will always lead to crap like this.

It's not that  any one wasn't done right, they will all never be done right.
It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in
People are easily corrupted
Our leaders are easily corrupted
Throughout they always have been
This is nothing new
All leaders. All parties
If you think otherwise
You really are a fool

Now here is the funny thing...

This is the way it has always been
And will always be
No matter the tard utopian ideas you hear on Fark

pigs always become pigs.
 
2014-05-16 05:14:21 AM  

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?


Our options are to contribute substantial funds (bribes) to political campaigns or cancel your cable subscription.

That's it.
 
2014-05-16 07:23:20 AM  

muck4doo: Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.

There is a reason why even beautiful ideas(I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind) like Communism, tribalism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Socialism, and everything else we can think of will always lead to crap like this.

It's not that  any one wasn't done right, they will all never be done right.
It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in
People are easily corrupted
Our leaders are easily corrupted
Throughout they always have been
This is nothing new
All leaders. All parties
If you think otherwise
You really are a fool

Now here is the funny thing...

This is the way it has always been
And will always be
No matter the tard utopian ideas you hear on Fark

pigs always become pigs.


So what's your solution, sparky? 'Smaller government' is a nice bumper sticker phrase, but besides 'Let poor people starve in the streets en masse and let corporations do whatever they want', I don't hear many specifics.
 
2014-05-16 09:17:43 AM  

meat0918: 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.

Plus, there is a good chance you as a tax payer paid for that cable.

Last I knew, there is a lot of unused fiber capacity in America because the government paid these companies to lay down a lot of it, and the companies never turned it on.

Rural broadbandification should be what we are doing right now to stimulate the economy.  We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


I know I'm late to the party but listen, electricity is one thing.  A free flow of uncontrolled information is QUITE another citizen...
 
2014-05-16 10:59:38 AM  

muck4doo: I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind

It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in


SMALLER GUBMINT JUST BECAUSE!

/*monte
//the other conservatives aren't the bad guys... what a fantastic argument
 
2014-05-16 11:01:12 AM  

muck4doo: No, this is the big government that you asked for.


No, it isn't. Again, people are upset due to a LACK of regulation, what you're saying is nonsense. You seem utterly ignorant of... well, pretty much everything you're talking about.

muck4doo: You ignored what I said about an Oligarchy. Who the fark do you think enables that?


A government that isn't able to effectively police corporations.
 
m00
2014-05-16 11:17:06 AM  

Dalrint: Would you want to go down in history as the man that screwed that up?


Winners write the history books, and in this case the Internet is the history book. And absent Net Neutrality, it's written by the telecoms in a very literal sense. Did Edison go down in the history books as the man who screwed up Tesla's inventions? Did Christopher Columbus go down in history as the man who quite literally started slavery in the New World?

ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.


The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."
 
2014-05-16 11:24:52 AM  

m00: ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.

The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."


No, Republicans are evil and Democrats are good.  Get with the narrative
 
2014-05-16 11:43:37 AM  

ox45tallboy: Headso: 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.

What is there to apologize about? The FCC voted to consider how to go about regulating the ISP's. The Republicans voted against regulating them at all.

Which party do you think is more in favor of farking over the consumers to benefit big business?


So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals
 
m00
2014-05-16 11:53:56 AM  

bhcompy: No, Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. Get with the narrative


The reality is that for the last few election cycles, the RNC supported some really awful candidates with some really awful policy proposals. Which isn't to say the DNC supports consistently supports great candidates. Even looking at national-level figures, I am no fan of Pelosi -- I think she's a snake who supports lobbyists over constituents. Harry Reid is a tool who would sell out his own mother. Kerry and Clinton are at best career politicians that care more about prestige than governing. But Rick Perry? Mitt Romney? Ted Cruz? Boehner? These are walking SNL parodies -- they are cartoonishly bad. I mean, when you watch SNL doing a skit about a Republican, it falls flat because it's less absurd than reality.

Which is not to say there aren't good people who get elected in the Republican Party. There's only two major parties: if a decent percent gets elected he's going to be elected to one of them. In some districts you pretty much have no choice, if you want to represent that district you have to be the specific party that gerrymandering dictates. But for some reason the GOP loves to give their crazies national prominence, which is really unfortunate.

But none of this means Wheeler is a good guy. He's not. He's chairman of the FCC because he was a huge Obama booster. Wheeler is an advocate for the industry that his agency is supposed to regulate. He is not a friend of Net Neutrality. If he rules on making the telecoms a common carrier, it will only be because his patrons (the Obama administration) make it very clear that's the marching order. Actually if we really want Net Neutrality, Clinton has to make it clear that not only is she going to be the next president but Wheeler will be out on his ass if he doesn't do this. That's how patronage works.
 
2014-05-16 02:26:05 PM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


Actually, right this second, because of the court ruling in January, ISP's are regulated as either cell phone providers, telcos, or cable companies. The proposal includes the idea of moving them to Title II "common carrier" status, which means there will be even MORE regulation than what there is now.

Theoretically, the ISP's could do whatever traffic shaping they wanted at the moment without asking the FCC for permission. This is why Netflix just paid Comcast a good chunk of change to upgrade their infrastructure in some areas. The stuff that passed yesterday addresses this.

In other words, yesterday's vote was a step towards MORE regulation, not less.
 
2014-05-16 02:29:19 PM  

m00: ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.


The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."


Well, you're right that it doesn't mean he's not evil. He's probably pro-gay marriage and pro-better access to health care. But being an industry man, he's likely probably pro-industry as well.

Keep in mind that each of the commissioners must be approved by Congress, and this is the Congress that filibustered EVERYONE Obama nominates for anything. He probably had to nominate someone with industry ties just to get him voted on.
 
2014-05-16 02:36:29 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals


Please read any of my other posts.

This is NOT a rule that has been enacted. It was part of a proposal for several new rules, including one that regulates the ISP's like "common carriers", and has now moved to the "public comment" phase. Some of the proposed rules will become law, some will become nothing.

Many people are saying that they know for a fact that Comcast will get what it wants at the end of the year. I'm not so sure. If they do, I'll be as pissed as everyone else. But it's not healthy to get pissed off over something that hasn't even happened yet, especially considering the public commenting the FCC is getting already.

The movement of ISP's to Title II regulation seems to have almost unanimous approval. I say that's probably the best thing to do, but I would like to hear from anyone else that has any other ideas of how best to regulate them - preferably regulate them even more. It's far more likely to pass at the end of the year than the violation of net neutrality principles.
 
2014-05-16 02:43:02 PM  

m00: But none of this means Wheeler is a good guy. He's not. He's chairman of the FCC because he was a huge Obama booster. Wheeler is an advocate for the industry that his agency is supposed to regulate. He is not a friend of Net Neutrality. If he rules on making the telecoms a common carrier, it will only be because his patrons (the Obama administration) make it very clear that's the marching order. Actually if we really want Net Neutrality, Clinton has to make it clear that not only is she going to be the next president but Wheeler will be out on his ass if he doesn't do this. That's how patronage works.


Do you know what happened to the last swing vote FCC Commissioner who approved something very controversial that hurt consumers?
 
2014-05-16 02:49:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals

Please read any of my other posts.

This is NOT a rule that has been enacted. It was part of a proposal for several new rules, including one that regulates the ISP's like "common carriers", and has now moved to the "public comment" phase. Some of the proposed rules will become law, some will become nothing.

Many people are saying that they know for a fact that Comcast will get what it wants at the end of the year. I'm not so sure. If they do, I'll be as pissed as everyone else. But it's not healthy to get pissed off over something that hasn't even happened yet, especially considering the public commenting the FCC is getting already.

The movement of ISP's to Title II regulation seems to have almost unanimous approval. I say that's probably the best thing to do, but I would like to hear from anyone else that has any other ideas of how best to regulate them - preferably regulate them even more. It's far more likely to pass at the end of the year than the violation of net neutrality principles.


Oh, I'm not taking an adversarial position with what you said. Just demonstrating what it looks like from my point of view. We're gonna get farked, now it's just about who gets to watch, and who is directing this particular porno.
 
2014-05-16 02:56:18 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Oh, I'm not taking an adversarial position with what you said. Just demonstrating what it looks like from my point of view. We're gonna get farked, now it's just about who gets to watch, and who is directing this particular porno.


I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.
 
2014-05-16 03:11:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.


I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.
 
2014-05-16 03:28:20 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.


The only controversial thing he's done (so far) that I'm aware of has been to bring a violation of Net Neutrality principles to the public comment phase. It has not been approved. He has not voted to approve this, merely to move it to the public comment phase. It might actually be in everyone's best interest that this happened, because the public comments will all be on the record and it will be far more difficult for a future Republican-led FCC to create a rule that violates Net Neutrality if this is voted down. If he does vote in favor of this violation of Net Neutrality becoming a rule, I'll agree that he needs to go. But that hasn't happened yet.

If you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate. But this by itself isn't really that bad, especially considering the same proposal also put the reclassification of ISP's to Title II designation into the public comment phase prior to approval. I know, to us, that's a no-brainer and any competent person would have done it, but that to me means he's not incompetent.
 
2014-05-16 03:35:18 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not.


He literally worked for fifteen years as the industries chief lobbyist.

I'm pretty sure there is zero doubt that he is in the industrie's pocket and Obama put him in charge of regulating his own industry.

/After he raised millions of dollars for Obama first, of course.
 
2014-05-16 03:36:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: f you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.


Now you're defending regulatory capture too?

Obama shills are hysterical.
 
2014-05-16 03:41:35 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: f you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.

Now you're defending regulatory capture too?

Obama shills are hysterical.


Wow, I know you want to be enraged, but I'm not seeing what there is to be enraged about here.

Are you one of the people that would rather see Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in charge of the FCC? If not, please describe your optimum candidate for FCC commissioner. Seriously. I want to know what you think would be the premier qualifications of the perfect candidate to head the FCC.
 
2014-05-16 03:45:45 PM  

ox45tallboy: If you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.


Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are, Tom Wheeler is sympathetic to corporate profits, when he should be totally deaf to any ISP's bottom-line (sorry about the run-on sentence. Yeesh.). That is not where his concerns are mandated to be, but he's very much in tune with it. When he's finally tossed from his FCC sinecure, he'll be welcomed back into the industry fold with open arms and a fat paycheck. I say he's corrupt, and I'd tell him to his face, except we walk on different streets.
 
2014-05-16 03:49:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Wow, I know you want to be enraged, but I'm not seeing what there is to be enraged about here.


The FCC being owned by the industry it supposedly regulates is nothing to worry about at all?

cdn.arstechnica.net

The top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.
 
2014-05-16 03:51:54 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are


I'm sure our resident Obama shill doesn't think putting a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of the Department of Justice right after the banks he represented destroyed the global economy is a problem.

/or his refusal to prosecute the fraudulent banks
 
2014-05-16 03:55:37 PM  
 
2014-05-16 03:59:44 PM  

BullBearMS: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are

I'm sure our resident Obama shill doesn't think putting a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of the Department of Justice right after the banks he represented destroyed the global economy is a problem.

/or his refusal to prosecute the fraudulent banks


I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.
 
2014-05-16 04:08:56 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are, Tom Wheeler is sympathetic to corporate profits, when he should be totally deaf to any ISP's bottom-line (sorry about the run-on sentence. Yeesh.). That is not where his concerns are mandated to be, but he's very much in tune with it. When he's finally tossed from his FCC sinecure, he'll be welcomed back into the industry fold with open arms and a fat paycheck. I say he's corrupt, and I'd tell him to his face, except we walk on different streets.


Once again, what action has he taken that indicates he is in the pocket of the telco's? I know his history, I understand his background, I just am not seeing anything that he's actually done that makes him evil.

Yes, he did put forward a proposal that included a section on okaying a Net Neutrality violation. But that has not been approved yet. I want to know some action he has taken, some vote he has made, some decision that makes him "unfit" to be the chair of the FCC. I mean, if I wanted to be sure the Republicans couldn't undo Net Neutrality the next time one is in office, I'd put this forward as well so there's public commentary and precedent of it being voted down. I'll say he's a bad FCC chair and needs to be replaced once he's voted to approve this violation of Net Neutrality, but otherwise, I'm not seeing what action he's taken as chair of the FCC that makes him unfit for the job.
 
2014-05-16 04:09:21 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: 'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one.


Which party controls the Justice Department and has refused to criminally prosecute the massive endemic fraud that destroyed the economy?

It doesn't matter if you label the issue as partisan or not.

They aren't even bothering to try to make this look like a legitimate Democracy that follows the rule of law any more.
 
2014-05-16 04:13:05 PM  

BullBearMS: The FCC being owned by the industry it supposedly regulates is nothing to worry about at all?


Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have? Would you put Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in charge of regulating the Internet?

The "revolving door" is obviously a concern, and it should be addressed. We need regulations to keep FCC commissioners from approving huge mergers that hurt the consumer and then resigning to take a BS job with the company whose merger they just approved. But if you think we're going to get an FCC that understands what the hell they're regulating without picking people who have risen to the top in the industry, well, that's just not going to happen.
 
2014-05-16 04:14:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not seeing what action he's taken as chair of the FCC that makes him unfit for the job.


ox45tallboy: Yes, he did put forward a proposal that included a section on okaying a Net Neutrality violation.


You don't see the problem when a Democrat goes against everything they swore they stood for?

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.
 
2014-05-16 04:15:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have?


Not being the chief lobbyist for the industry seems like a bare minimum, oh pathetic shill.
 
2014-05-16 04:17:01 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.


Actually, this is definitely a partisan issue. Google your favorite leader from either party with the words "net neutrality" and you can easily see how far apart the party line is on either issue. The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated. The Republicans want no regulation at all. This is why the Republican commissioners voted against advancing the proposal yesterday - they do not believe the FCC should be able to regulate the ISP's.

These are the best Republicans Obama could find. People whose believe their job is to say that they shouldn't do their job. At least the Democratic commissioners are trying to do something.
 
2014-05-16 04:18:30 PM  

BullBearMS: You don't see the problem when a Democrat goes against everything they swore they stood for?


If you wanted to be sure that the next FCC commission could not undo anything you've done on keeping Net Neutrality, how would you go about doing it?

And how does that differ from what Wheeler has done?
 
2014-05-16 04:20:35 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have?

Not being the chief lobbyist for the industry seems like a bare minimum, oh pathetic shill.


Hmmm... no response, just calling me "shill" as if that validates anything you've said.

Once again, what are your ideal qualifications for the head of the FCC? What's your ideal resume?
 
2014-05-16 04:21:46 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: ox45tallboy: I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.

I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.


I assure you that he is aware of it, I'm sure that his bank account/pension fund/stock portfolio reflects it.
 
2014-05-16 04:24:07 PM  

ox45tallboy: The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated.


No matter how many times you tell this lie, it won't be true.

If the Democrats wanted the ISP's to be regulated, they have all the power they need to do so right now.

It only takes three FCC votes to return ISP's to the same regulated status they had before Bush changed it.

You just keep on defending the Bush position though, oh pathetic Obama shill.
 
2014-05-16 04:31:33 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated.

No matter how many times you tell this lie, it won't be true.

If the Democrats wanted the ISP's to be regulated, they have all the power they need to do so right now.

It only takes three FCC votes to return ISP's to the same regulated status they had before Bush changed it.

You just keep on defending the Bush position though, oh pathetic Obama shill.


You really are deluded aren't you.  You do realize that Bush appointed the person who enacted the currently expiring net neutrality regulations in 2004 right?  You really are a partisan hack.  You always have been since I've joined this forum.
 
2014-05-16 04:35:16 PM  

ox45tallboy: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.

Actually, this is definitely a partisan issue. Google your favorite leader from either party with the words "net neutrality" and you can easily see how far apart the party line is on either issue. The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated. The Republicans want no regulation at all. This is why the Republican commissioners voted against advancing the proposal yesterday - they do not believe the FCC should be able to regulate the ISP's.

These are the best Republicans Obama could find. People whose believe their job is to say that they shouldn't do their job. At least the Democratic commissioners are trying to do something.


I was talking about the SEC being a non-partisan issue, not the FCC. I should have been clearer. My bad.

ox45tallboy: Once again, what action has he taken that indicates he is in the pocket of the telco's?


Pretty much every single thing he did before becoming head of the FCC. He never should have been within sniffing distance of that job. He's not un-qualified, he's dis-qualified. He's the proverbial fox in the hen-house. And he's in charge of it!

/to quote Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings", he's the 'Balrog in the woodpile'

CJHardin: I assure you that he is aware of it, I'm sure that his bank account/pension fund/stock portfolio reflects it.


Heh, yeah I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, whether he deserves it or not. I must be close to the truth, because I'm being attacked on both sides (not by you). :)
 
2014-05-16 04:37:09 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I must be close to the truth, because I'm being attacked on both sides


Substitute "questioned" for "attacked". Better choice of words. No one's attacking anyone here. I love you all.
 
2014-05-16 04:39:57 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I must be close to the truth, because I'm being attacked on both sides

Substitute "questioned" for "attacked". Better choice of words. No one's attacking anyone here. I love you all.


I bet you do!  Where in fact do you put that unauthorized finger, huh!?!

/lulz
 
2014-05-16 04:40:43 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: ox45tallboy: Once again, what action has he taken that indicates he is in the pocket of the telco's?


Pretty much every single thing he did before becoming head of the FCC. He never should have been within sniffing distance of that job. He's not un-qualified, he's dis-qualified. He's the proverbial fox in the hen-house. And he's in charge of it!

/to quote Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings", he's the 'Balrog in the woodpile'


Once again, please cite anything he's done as head of the FCC. I know he's only held the job for about 6 months, but surely in that length of time he's done something despicably evil. I want to know why I should hate him. Anything specific?
 
2014-05-16 04:41:47 PM  

CJHardin: You do realize that Bush appointed the person who enacted the currently expiring net neutrality regulations in 2004 right?


Stop lying.

Nothing has expired.

ISP's always fell under Title II of the Telecommunications act. Bush's nominees changed their classification to Title I.

Obama campaigned against this and swore he would fix the problem.

Instead of fixing the problem as he promised, which would piss off the big money donors, they tried to claim they could regulate ISP's without reclassifying them.

The courts struck this down, saying that they could not regulate ISP's unless they fixed the problem Bush caused and put them back under Title II of the Telecommunications act where they belonged.

All the three Democrats in charge of the FCC have to do is hold a vote.

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.
 
2014-05-16 04:47:05 PM  

BullBearMS: No matter how many times you tell this lie, it won't be true.

If the Democrats wanted the ISP's to be regulated, they have all the power they need to do so right now.

It only takes three FCC votes to return ISP's to the same regulated status they had before Bush changed it.

You just keep on defending the Bush position though, oh pathetic Obama shill.


No matter how many times you say that the Democrats can wave a magic wand and *poof* the ISP's will be regulated, it's simply not true. The APA says they have to have a public comment phase. We are now in that phase and a final vote will be held at the end of the year as to whether to regulate the ISP's as Title II "common carriers", This is the way things work. I'm sorry that you don't understand it, but I've provided you several links backing up everything I've said, and you've only responded with "nuh-uh" and namecalling. If you don't think I'm providing you with accurate information, then I suggest you find an alternate source.
 
2014-05-16 04:48:22 PM  

BullBearMS: CJHardin: You do realize that Bush appointed the person who enacted the currently expiring net neutrality regulations in 2004 right?

Stop lying.

Nothing has expired.

ISP's always fell under Title II of the Telecommunications act. Bush's nominees changed their classification to Title I.

Obama campaigned against this and swore he would fix the problem.

Instead of fixing the problem as he promised, which would piss off the big money donors, they tried to claim they could regulate ISP's without reclassifying them.

The courts struck this down, saying that they could not regulate ISP's unless they fixed the problem Bush caused and put them back under Title II of the Telecommunications act where they belonged.

All the three Democrats in charge of the FCC have to do is hold a vote.

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.


Explain where I'm lying.  There is going to be a vote, right after the public commenting portion.  You really are pedantic aren't you?

So what you are saying is that the Bush administration messed this whole thing up from where the Clinton administration had it right, and now we need to have President Obama fix the Bush issues.  Good to hear.  Partisan hack.
 
2014-05-16 04:49:55 PM  

ox45tallboy: Once again, please cite anything he's done as head of the FCC. I know he's only held the job for about 6 months, but surely in that length of time he's done something despicably evil. I want to know why I should hate him. Anything specific?


Just as I don't think anyone who's been the head of the CIA should be president, I think that anyone who has worked for the industry that he's supposed to regulate should be disqualified. If he's done nothing wrong in the first six months, that doesn't mean that the next six months will pan out similarly.

However, the fact that he's even considering this issue is more than enough for me. Because it's a crooked corrupt concept. It should be dismissed out-of-hand. This guy Wheeler should be standing on his desk with a megaphone shouting "NOT ON MY WATCH!" Because it's the right thing to do. You don't "consider" corruption. You nip it in the bud.
 
2014-05-16 04:50:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: No matter how many times you say that the Democrats can wave a magic wand and *poof* the ISP's will be regulated, it's simply not true. The APA says they have to have a public comment phase


Yet another lie.

This is not a change. This is returning the law to it's prior state, before Bush farked it up.

The problem is that Obama is just as for sale as Bush.

You keep pretending that putting the ISP's back under Title II of the Telecommunications act instead of creating "Internet Fast Lanes" is what was proposed here, oh pathetic Obama shill.
 
2014-05-16 04:51:38 PM  

BullBearMS: All the three Democrats in charge of the FCC have to do is hold a vote.


Sigh.

No, it's not. They have to hold a vote to move this proposed change in to the "public comment" phase. THEN, after public comment and debate, they can hold a vote to designate the ISP's as Title II "common carriers". It's called the APA. Talk to Franklin Roosevelt if you don't like it, but I personally think its a great piece of legislation that makes regulatory bodies like the FCC work for the people.

Guess what they voted in favor of doing yesterday? Go ahead, guess. I'll give you a hint, I've told you the answer at least ten times in this thread.
 
2014-05-16 04:51:43 PM  

CJHardin: Explain where I'm lying.


What has "expired"?
 
2014-05-16 04:55:56 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Just as I don't think anyone who's been the head of the CIA should be president, I think that anyone who has worked for the industry that he's supposed to regulate should be disqualified. If he's done nothing wrong in the first six months, that doesn't mean that the next six months will pan out similarly.


Okay, I understand where you're coming from. But what other work experience might someone have and still be able to grasp such technical concepts as "traffic shaping" and "peerage agreement"?

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: However, the fact that he's even considering this issue is more than enough for me. Because it's a crooked corrupt concept. It should be dismissed out-of-hand. This guy Wheeler should be standing on his desk with a megaphone shouting "NOT ON MY WATCH!" Because it's the right thing to do. You don't "consider" corruption. You nip it in the bud.


Okay, so if he refuses to consider it, guess what happens the first time the FCC is appointed by a Republican?

By considering this, and allowing for public comment, it makes it far less likely that this kind of Net Neutrality violation will be struck down by future commissions.
 
Displayed 50 of 876 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report