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 199
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19122 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-15 11:45:26 AM  
15 votes:
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.
2014-05-15 11:43:29 AM  
10 votes:
The industry insider that heads the FCC sides with the industry? No way!
2014-05-15 11:45:13 AM  
8 votes:

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.
2014-05-15 11:49:53 AM  
7 votes:
Bend over, America. Here comes the big red, white and blue (and COMCASTIC!) dick in your ass.


//Carlin was right. "They call it the American dream, because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
//FARK YOU COMCAST
2014-05-15 01:38:54 PM  
6 votes:

sharphead: It's beautiful for the ISPs - they don't get targeted and they can charge anyone whatever they want, without increasing rates for their own customers. Business greed strikes again - always out for 100% control so they can monetize it.


And the answer to it is also beautiful, but I can guarantee that nobody (and especially not Netflix and Reed Hastings) have the balls to do it:

Pass the costs on solely to customers using the network in question, and call it what it is. Imagine that when you signed into your Netflix account from Comcast, you were presented with a page that said:


                                                                                           ----------


Comcast Access Package
$10/month or $3 all-day


We see that you are accessing Netflix from Comcast. Unfortunately, Comcast intentionally slows network traffic for Comcast customers who use Netflix, unless we agree to pay them $500,000 per month in access fees, in which case Comcast releases the cap and provides access to the bandwidth that was already available.

It would be unfair to expect our customers on other networks to subsidize Comcast's customers by paying this monthly penalty, so we have decided to charge only those customers using Netflix from a Comcast connection. At the current time, it takes US$10/month to cover Comcast's access charge, based on the number of Netflix users we have with Comcast. If you pay this fee, you will be able to access Netflix from any Comcast connection for a one-month period. If you just want access today, you can instead pay $3 for a daily pass.

Don't like paying this surcharge? You can find a list of alternate broadband services in your area here. You can also contact Comcast to let them know of your satisfaction at 1 (800) 934-6489, or speak to your Congressman and request that new laws be drafted to prevent unnecessary profiteering by internet service providers who want to be paid again to pass traffic from a connection that was already paid for by both Netflix and yourself.


                                                                                           ----------

Can you imagine if they had the balls to implement this, though? It'd be a beautiful thing.
2014-05-15 12:02:30 PM  
6 votes:
FTA: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled. "I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," ... "I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said.   "I would have preferred a delay."

I know what would have provided a delay you daft moron?  Voting No!
2014-05-15 12:05:42 PM  
5 votes:
Coming soon:

geekometry.com

Or more realistically:

images.huffingtonpost.com
2014-05-15 12:04:44 PM  
5 votes:
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.


Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.
2014-05-15 12:03:26 PM  
5 votes:
This country is a joke.
2014-05-15 11:59:28 AM  
5 votes:
TFA: "Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers"

This is why they get the big bucks.  Because they can say shiat like this with a straight face.

Also note: "net neutrality" with a no-block guarantee is *a plan*.  "paid prioritization" is *a proposal*.
Let me give you a free preview of how this is going to work out:  the pro-business parts will go into effect while the pro-consumer parts are still being debated.  The pro-consumer parts will then be fought based on the idea that we can't harm this business that represents X-gajillion dollars of economic activity -- in a slow economy no less. Besides, they'll say, there haven't been any problems yet, so why not just allow business to self-regulate while we hammer out the details?  Which will never be hammered out, nor killed, but just quietly left to collect dust and provide CYA against claims that the FCC isn't doing their job. "B-b-but we have plans!" they'll say.
2014-05-15 11:57:17 AM  
5 votes:

qorkfiend: The industry insider that heads the FCC sides with the industry? No way!


Hey now, just because Tom Wheeler is a former cable company lobbyist deep in the pocket of his former employees it doesn't mean he can't make an objective and unbiased decision on Net Neutrality. I'm sure he considered all the relevant facts and listened closely to public opinion before doing exactly what Comcast told him to do.

It's depressing as all hell that a Net Neutrality protest gets all of a half a dozen people while tens of thousands will march drive their hoverounds through DC to protest  healthcare laws that largely benefit them.
2014-05-15 11:51:30 AM  
5 votes:

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.


According to Wikipedia, all five of the current commissioners were appointed by Obama. Even the Republican ones.

Law states that only three of the commissioners may be of the same political party, so the commission is always split 3-2 in one direction or the other.

So, yes, thanks Obama.
2014-05-15 11:49:41 AM  
5 votes:
Trickle down Internet.
2014-05-15 11:48:17 AM  
5 votes:
The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines

Who got party lines in my FCC?

So much for that whole "public interest" idea.
2014-05-15 11:44:44 AM  
5 votes:
Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?
2014-05-15 11:43:24 AM  
5 votes:
thanks obama
2014-05-15 11:55:54 AM  
4 votes:

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?
2014-05-15 11:51:09 AM  
4 votes:

ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?


It is about to the point where acts of violence are becoming the only thing our representatives and lawmakers pay attention to.

What do we call it to make sure it gets good headlines? Wiregate? Occupy Copper?

Wait... Got it.


Wireghazi.
2014-05-15 11:49:13 AM  
4 votes:

IgG4: From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.


This shiat is a done deal, probably has been for a while.
2014-05-15 11:48:32 AM  
4 votes:
Dear people at the FCC: Fark you. And you, and you, and you.
2014-05-15 11:47:29 AM  
4 votes:
Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.
2014-05-15 11:46:59 AM  
4 votes:
If they can't censor it, they'll make you pay.  Not really a big surprise.
2014-05-15 11:44:03 AM  
4 votes:
Welp, it's been nice knowing ya, internets.
2014-05-15 01:21:26 PM  
3 votes:

meat0918: We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


edge2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com
2014-05-15 12:32:56 PM  
3 votes:

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


Not sure if trolling or serious, but I do pay for my internet access & bandwidth -- and feel consequently entitled to receive what I pay for.  I don't want Comcast/Charter/Cox/etc. deciding which websites I should be allowed to access quickly and which should be slow.
2014-05-15 12:24:49 PM  
3 votes:

The Homer Tax: mod3072: So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!

Are the republicans using their house majority to draft new legislation preventing companies from doing this? The regulatory powers of the regulatory bodies are determined by the laws enacted by the legislature. What are the republicans doing with their house majority to stop this?

Oh, having another Benghazi investigation? Awesome.


The FCC already has all the power they need to regulate the industry, they just refuse to do it. There is no need for legislation, the FCC just needs to step up and do its job. The House Republicans are idiots, but that does not absolve Democrats, especially Obama, from blame for passing these rules. I realize that this is Fark where Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right, but come on. The Republicans may not be taking any action to correct this, but the Democrats are ACTIVELY ENACTING IT. It's now the Republicans' fault because they don't use their majority to override crappy rules enacted by Democrats, but it's not the Democrats' fault for passing the rules in the first place? Would the Senate pass it even if the House acted to overturn the rules? Would Obama sign it? Yes, the Republicans are corrupt, bought-and-paid-for corporate shills who only care about themselves and their rich cronies. The problem is, so are the Democrats, you just refuse to believe it because GO TEAM! I would point out that Obama has appointed insider industry shills to every single regulatory agency in existence, but you'd probably find a way to blame that on Bush.
2014-05-15 12:15:12 PM  
3 votes:

farkingatwork: clkeagle: Coming soon:
[geekometry.com image 520x245]
Or more realistically:
[images.huffingtonpost.com image 501x588]
It's way more simple.
Take your current internet price, multiple it by 3, and that's what you're going to have to pay for what bare minimum shiat you get today. Enjoy!


Nope. Not only will prices go up, but many sites will mysteriously start "timing out" because they haven't worked out a deal with the ISP.

ISP tech services will have canned responses of "Thank you for your question. We are aware that a few websites have been experiencing connectivity issues with our servers. The problem is that there are just too many sites trying to use our bandwidth, and we can only guarantee priority traffic to our Premium Partners. Please contact the administrator of the website in question and encourage them to call our Partner Sales division. Thank you."
2014-05-15 12:14:24 PM  
3 votes:

Lord_Baull: I don't see how this won't hurt website revenues. Can anyone explain the end game here?


The people in power stay in power and continue to make money had over fist. Startups get throttled in the crib so as not to upset any apple carts by providing meaningful competition or innovation.
2014-05-15 12:14:07 PM  
3 votes:
Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.
2014-05-15 12:12:59 PM  
3 votes:
OK assholes we tried playing nice. Now its torch and pitchfork time.
ts3.mm.bing.net
2014-05-15 12:07:26 PM  
3 votes:
I love how ever this becomes a wharrgarbl REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS BUSH OBAMA issue. It's not, Bush, Obama, Republicans, Democrats, they're all in the pockets of the same big business interests that want to make this happen. This is not a partisan issue.
2014-05-15 12:01:00 PM  
3 votes:

Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans giving your money to Reed Hastings. That's the way to protect the little guy.


Who intentionally broke the DVD streaming business to give you a worse selection of content via online streaming? Reed Hastings.

Who ignored the fact that high-def, fast-buffering online streaming is not a sustainable business model at anything remotely close to the cost of the DVD service you used to have? Reed Hastings.

Who is stupid enough to have gone a step further and started streaming 4K content? Reed Hastings.

Who ignored the fact that, by switching to online streaming, his company and customers would find themselves at the mercy of the world's least popular, least ethical media/tech businesses like Comcast and their ilk? Reed Hastings.

Who broke ranks with the rest of the web and voluntarily started paying bribes to Comcast and their ilk, then raised prices for his own customers to cover the cost, in effect becoming the first major net business to vote against net neutrality? Reed Hastings.

The person on whose doorstep you should be crapping is Reed Hastings, and if you sign up for his streaming service, you deserve precisely what you're getting -- shafted.
2014-05-15 11:56:11 AM  
3 votes:
I am going to write President Obama a real paper-and-ink letter encouraging him to replace his entire FCC executive staff. They do not do the bidding of the people, and therefore should be replaced.
2014-05-15 11:54:59 AM  
3 votes:
Lovely. Between this, that shiatstain DMCA that Clinton signed and the NSA buttfarking every tech company in the country I guess America just isn't meant to have a thriving tech industry anymore.
2014-05-15 11:54:01 AM  
3 votes:
...and the rich/poor margin widens even further.
2014-05-15 11:48:44 AM  
3 votes:

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.


Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.
2014-05-15 11:48:35 AM  
3 votes:
Whelp,

We're boned.
2014-05-15 11:48:22 AM  
3 votes:
Time for another total internet blackout in protest.
2014-05-15 11:47:11 AM  
3 votes:

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

2. Ruelmaking authority is subservient to legislative power.

3. Congress can always act and supersede the FCC.

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


Congress can't act. Boehner is letting stupid person Marsha Blackburn spout off how Net Neutrality is socialism and has for like 4 years.
2014-05-15 11:46:28 AM  
3 votes:
Fark is farked
2014-05-15 11:45:53 AM  
3 votes:
I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!

/my cold dead hands
2014-05-15 02:33:56 PM  
2 votes:

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Competition from startups keeps the bigger companies more honest. They grow lethargic and complacent without the threat of competition. Why innovate when your product is the only one available and you're allowed to quash competitors before they become a threat?

/are you seriously arguing that competition is not good for the consumer?
2014-05-15 02:30:15 PM  
2 votes:

sendtodave: How is net neutrality beneficial to you?

Personally, I mean.

Unless you are another Harvard dropout with millions in seed money, why do you care?


Because it keeps the price of services like Netflix low, because any extra money they pay to the ISP's will be passed on to the consumer.

Because it allows the consumer to have a better choice of where to receive high bandwidth content such as BitTorrent, streaming media, or online video games. (Imagine if EA games worked great but Ubisoft games were laggy because EA was paying Verizon/Comcast extra for priority bandwidth. Now imagine this was an exclusive contract like the one EA has for licensing certain professional sports franchises.)

Because it ensures that specialized websites you like to visit that don't have a lot of consumers will still be commercially viable without having to pay extra access fees to be able to supply their content to customers of a specific ISP. You get fed up with Comcast, so you move to AT&T only to find out that your favorite website isn't paying AT&T extra, so the website is slow and laggy.

That's why this is important to the consumers.
2014-05-15 01:37:19 PM  
2 votes:
Here's a question: If this goes through the way ISPs want, what is to stop them from blacklisting sites that host opinions that go against the company? As in, I have Comcast, so what is to stop them from blacklisting any site that hosts articles about the negative aspects of their service/complaints/etc? What is to stop an ISP from taking a blank check... I mean.... "donation"... in order to blacklist websites that host articles that go against that party's political beliefs, or is critical of some of their members?
2014-05-15 01:31:08 PM  
2 votes:
Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.
2014-05-15 01:30:40 PM  
2 votes:

OnlyM3: ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

>>> OnlyM3: The three dims supported killing Net-Neutrality. It's right there in subby's link.

The Republicans do not support the derp derp derp derp derp derp ...

Would you prefer that?
Would I prefer the Net Neutrality rules that existed under bush? Why yes, I would prefer that.

Can we keep those rules w/o that idiot though?

You obama-bots are amusing. Obama appoints a committee that kills Net Neutrality and all you can do is derp bu bu but republicans...


I am trying to engage you in honest discussion here.

I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

I will vote for whomever will ensure that. Who do you suggest that is? I'm serious. You and I agree on net neutrality. Who should we work to get elected to what office?
2014-05-15 01:25:44 PM  
2 votes:

sendtodave: dr_blasto: sendtodave: RickN99: 3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.

Also, the Internet should be free.  As in beer.

And Netflix and google are scrappy underdogs.

Netflix and Google were scrappy underdogs. The previously wide-open internet allowed a couple clowns in their garage to become the powerhouse Google is today.

Get rid of neutrality and there'll be no more of that. Nothing but white-bread, gluten-free sandwiches for everyone.

You mean, companies like Netflix, or Google.


Yes. Exactly that.

Sure, they're stale today. But when they launched they were the shiat. They got big, got old and became a lot like Ween songs now that I write this.

The problem is that without neutrality, we're stuck with the tired old Googles and Netflixes. We won't get the upstart competition to make them change or disappear. They'll be able to keep on keeping on. They will no longer have to worry about some hot shot upending the model and innovating.

Neither will we, unfortunately.
2014-05-15 01:22:17 PM  
2 votes:

Cpl.D: Domestic spying pisses me off. Sabotaging datacenters? That's a new one to me. You got a source?


Bruce Schneier ran down a couple examples a few days ago.

And Cisco's stock took a nasty hit a while back over it as foreign countries abandoned contracts with them.
2014-05-15 12:54:42 PM  
2 votes:
Does this surprise anyone? I mean Americans are stupid lazy ignorant idiots that have handlers not leaders.
2014-05-15 12:49:22 PM  
2 votes:
3 Democrats vote to pass theses rules and the first 150 comments are full of how evil the Republicans are for allowing this to happen.

I love Fark.
2014-05-15 12:47:51 PM  
2 votes:
Do what you want, but you're gonna loose net neutrality because there's too much potential money in it.

Ask anyone who recalls the beginning of cable TV, which was considered amazing, and look at it now. Broken often into tiers to give viewers a ton of channels they don't want if they want to see anything except the most basic TV programming. 'Stealing cable' went from a misdemeanor to a felony. Infomercials flood the stations after midnight and while you might have 500 different channels, there's probably only 100 you actually watch. You might find one show on three different channels you pay for, at the same time.

You can be forced to take 25 sports channels even if you hate sports -- and get to have your favorite program pre-empted for sports games anyhow.

Pretty much cable TV is working to maximize profits at the cost of service -- at least among the biggest providers. Small providers find themselves nearly shut out.

When the internet opened up to the public it was much different than today. A major change has been the ads and tracking cookies which infest your devices. Then came the pop-ups which annoyed the crap out of everyone. Rules required, eventually, that each one needed to have a close button, but then the designers started making that button harder to find.

Redirectors were born, infesting websites and search engines, so when you looked for something, you could be sucked into some other site. Then, the sites which popped up under misleading names that turned out to be small search engines for 'local services'.

Spam came into being and while we've all biatched about it and laws have been created to deal with it, major Spammers make millions -- get caught and tossed in jail -- and another takes their place because no one goes after the companies who pay the Spammer to spam everyone.

Download a blocking program to cut back on tracking and ad cookies -- and watch your system slow down as the thing sorts through thousands of cookies trying to be downloaded on your system. Just setting one up opens your eyes to the huge amount of companies set up to pile garbage onto your system -- and many websites are paid to allow such garbage access.

Then, you need programs to clean out the tracking and ad cookies which often will sit on your system and feed back information or trigger pop ups and slow things down by hogging needed resources.

You have bigger hard drives now. That requires a more powerful CPU to get stuff done rapidly, yet a large amount of reasonably priced laptops and PCs come with low powered versions. Newer devices dump much of your info into 'The Cloud', mainly because storing terabytes on your cell or tablet isn't possible because we can't make a hard drive that small to hold that much.

How long before someone finds a way to hack into the Cloud? They've hacked into everything else.

The Internet is a gold mine for those who can control access to it.

Like Cable TV and most cell phone services, companies have seen the billions to be made by regulating the quality of service to access this global medium.

Texting uses less bandwidth than voice, yet started out more expensive and as people have flocked to it, the cell providers are making billions. It's a cash cow. Especially with teens.

When there is so much money to be made, Big Business will unhesitatingly buy off law makers and incessantly lobby congress to get a piece of the pie.

You get screwed.
2014-05-15 12:38:11 PM  
2 votes:
Son.  I am Disapoint!

NO ONE used this slogan yet?

cdn-static.zdnet.com

That being said.

RIP Internet.

Drew:  What effect will this have on Fark?
2014-05-15 12:29:04 PM  
2 votes:

Lamberts Ho Man: make me some tea: Lamberts Ho Man: I just don't trust that google, zuckerburg, etc. really have our best interest at heart either.

Google and Facebook are beholden to their shareholders. Nothing else. Whenever a company goes IPO it inherently becomes evil. It has no choice but to do so, and even if the founders are still at the helm, their personal opinions are trumped by shareholder interests.

I'm kind of surprised that they're making public noise for net neutrality - it must just be for the PR benefit.  As the established players, who can afford to pay for "fast lane" treatment (hate that term) they stand to benefit.  Screwing startups etc., would serve to cement their current position.  Netflix already realized this.


This is exactly why corporations recently have been taking political sides on issues that are unrelated to their business: it translates to increased consumer activity. They focus-group the hell out of this stuff before they make any moves.

Google may warm your liberal heart by showing support for gay marriage, but make no mistake, they are only doing it for business purposes.
2014-05-15 12:17:40 PM  
2 votes:
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

"I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said.  "I would have preferred a delay.


THEN WHY THE F*CK DID YOU VOTE YES IDIOT????
2014-05-15 12:14:11 PM  
2 votes:
No one's really surprised by this, are they?

It's amusing (well, OK, it's not amusing, it's appalling) that nitwits in Congress are still going on with their Benghazi bullshiat, but no effort whatsoever to do anything about the direct pipeline between corporations and regulatory agencies. Whereby people who used to work in certain industries are then put in charge of the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them. Then, when they leave, they go right back to the companies they used to "regulate," often as board members.

A normal person would think that constitutes an obvious conflict of interest. But people who work for the govt. at the higher levels aren't normal people. They're mostly rich people who work on behalf of other rich people.
2014-05-15 12:02:29 PM  
2 votes:
censorship plain and simple.
2014-05-15 12:00:28 PM  
2 votes:
So the Obama-appointed telecom industry shills voted to protect telecom profits at the expense of the consumer and free expression?? I blame Republicans. DAMN YOU, REPUBLICANS!!!
2014-05-15 11:55:59 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-05-15 11:55:44 AM  
2 votes:
Wow, I remember the "olde days" when dial-up connections were charged by the minute.

Once I went to an "always on" cable-modem almost 15 years ago I never thought I might be going back to that. Hello overage charges.
2014-05-15 11:55:27 AM  
2 votes:
There's simply no other solution than overbuilding. Cities and regions are not allowed to have exclusive franchise agreements (since 1996). Take Google Fiber as a starting block, get Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and anyone else dependent on net progress on board with a 'neutrality-centered' charter.  It's going to be some absolutely ungodly CapEx to make it happen.  It's not going to (directly) be profitable any time in the next decade. Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will flail like a dying fish. But, it's the only possible answer at this point.
2014-05-15 11:53:08 AM  
2 votes:

ikanreed: Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


You're not allowed to sue them now.
Read your TOS.

You have to have your dispute mediated by a company employed by your ISP.
2014-05-15 11:51:10 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-05-15 11:49:35 AM  
2 votes:
Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.

Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?
2014-05-15 11:49:14 AM  
2 votes:

IgG4: From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.


I realize that they have to allow public comments by law, but...it's been made pretty clear how the vast majority of (involved) citizens feel about these rules. And they still proposed them. What's to stop them from simply ignoring all of the feedback from here on, as well?
2014-05-15 11:48:24 AM  
2 votes:

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.


All of these commissioners were appointed by Obama.
2014-05-15 11:47:18 AM  
2 votes:
So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?
2014-05-15 11:47:02 AM  
2 votes:

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?


What promised services? "Up to" whatever speeds you're paying for?
2014-05-15 11:46:53 AM  
2 votes:
fox, hen house, etc.,

www.thedailysheeple.com
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that?
2014-05-15 11:46:45 AM  
2 votes:
From the TFA:  "The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges."

This is just the first step in the process. No need to freak out. Yet.
2014-05-15 11:46:34 AM  
2 votes:

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.


george soros?
2014-05-15 11:45:23 AM  
2 votes:
Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.
m00
2014-05-16 05:28:18 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: 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"?


Every network programmer ever. All you really need is someone who has a CS degree from a good school to understand those concepts. If you want to argue "but they're unqualified to run an Agency" then fine you can at least pick a CTO or COO rather than a CEO.
2014-05-16 03:49:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:35:18 PM  
1 votes:

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.
m00
2014-05-16 11:53:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:01:12 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-16 04:20:18 AM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.


I raped your sister, but I did pull out. Isn't that a step in the right direction?

You shills make me sick.
2014-05-15 07:34:23 PM  
1 votes:

MadHatter500: 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.


I work for a competitor.  RCN.  We got no data bandwidth caps, we give you the speed you pay for, and we don't demand extra fees from Netflix because we keep a local cache of their entire library right on our network.  Funny how a tiny company that's only in 6 major cities can do that while the big names can't.  And we're in Chicago.  Funny how we can deal with all the griped you mentioned and still not have to do traffic shaping and bandwidth throttling and netflix extortion.  It's almost as if the argument you made was based on total horseshiat.

But please, proceed.  Tell me more about how ignorant I am of the situation.
2014-05-15 05:57:28 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: The three Democrats he put in charge have refused to reverse the decision the Bush nominees took, despite Obama damning that decision and campaigning against it.

You've spent the whole tread defending this refusal and broken promise.

Why was it only bad when you could blame it on Bush?


Ah, I see the problem. You're unaware of why this vote actually occurred or what it means.

You see, a few years ago, the ISP's figured they could make a crapload more money with fewer FCC regulations, so they took the FCC to court. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, and said that the way the FCC was regulating the ISP's wasn't going to work. So the chairman of the FCC got together with a bunch of people and created a proposal containing some various ideas on how to regulate the ISP's in such a way that SCOTUS would be happy. This proposal, including several different and in some ways contradictory ideas, was voted on today. Thanks to the Democrats, it passed. For the next 120 days, the public gets to comment on these ideas, and state which would be helpful and which would be harmful to people in their position. After the 120 days is up, the FCC committee will spend a couple of months perusing the comments, and looking to see if there are any other ideas that might work better than the ones that were proposed. Then they will have a vote to see which of these ideas will become rules.

One of these proposed rules is to allow a limited violation of net neutrality principles. Another is to regulate the ISP's as "common carriers". This vote would not be happening if Republicans controlled the FCC.
2014-05-15 05:38:29 PM  
1 votes:

Triple Oak: Media confusion. All I'm seeing is "Three Democrats voted to restrict Neutrality", and very little about Republicans voting to do away with Neutrality all together. It's all appearing as a ruse to anger the low-information voters into a froth, as it is with many other topics that can turn political. It takes only a modicum of research or conversation to see the truth.


I think I see the problem here...
2014-05-15 05:05:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:33:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:28:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:16:01 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Bullshiat.

If they want to make ISP's public utilities, all they have to do is vote to do so.

It doesn't require new laws.

It doesn't require comments.

It's all been on the books for decades.

All they have to do is vote to do it.

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.


They've taken the first step today to do so. The Republicans voted to not take this first step.

Once again, which more closely aligns with your views:

1.) The Democrats, who voted to consider regulating the ISP's as common carriers and opened the subject to public debate and other proposals for regulation

or

2.) The Republicans, who adamantly oppose any regulation of the ISP's and voted against considering the proposal to classify them as common carriers

I understand that you want an immediate vote, but are you completely, irrevocably convinced that there is no better thing to do than classify the ISP's as common carriers? Might there be another classification, or even a totally new one with a new set of regulations, that might provide a better fit? I'm not saying that such a proposal exists, but would you be willing to listen to such a proposal, and give it consideration?

If so, then maybe you can understand what the public comment and debate time period of new FCC regulations is all about.
2014-05-15 04:08:06 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.

This was, in fact, a concrete step in favor of the classification of ISP's as public utilities, something the Republicans are adamantly against. You should be very happy.


Bullshiat.

If they want to make ISP's public utilities, all they have to do is vote to do so.

It doesn't require new laws.

It doesn't require comments.

It's all been on the books for decades.

All they have to do is vote to do it.

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.
2014-05-15 04:02:22 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: This was a concrete step in the opposite direction.


This was, in fact, a concrete step in favor of the classification of ISP's as public utilities, something the Republicans are adamantly against. You should be very happy.
2014-05-15 04:00:53 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: This vote had nothing to do with reclassifying internet service providers in a way that would force them to obey long standing common carrier provisions.


Actually, it had EVERYTHING to do with this.

From MarketWatch:

Also at issue: reclassifying broadband service as a utility, something Republicans and telecom firms say would add another layer of regulation. Some Democrats, but not all, favor reclassification.

From the Latin Post:

The FCC's new language also puts the option of reclassification of ISPs under Title II of the Telecommunications Act as a stronger fallback option should ISPs begin to play favorites unfairly. Title II reclassification refers to officially calling ISPs a public utility, like electricity or landline telephone services, which would allow for more stringent government regulation and is something that some net neutrality advocates have been arguing should be the first step.

Once again, in addition to considering some regulated violations of net neutrality principles, Democrats voted in favor of considering the regulation of ISP's as common carriers. The Republicans voted against even considering this. Which position are you arguing for? It seems like you're arguing that ISP's should be classified as common carriers, which is something the Democrats voted to consider and the Republicans voted against. Which more closely aligns with your ideas about the way things should work?
2014-05-15 03:54:55 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation


Seriously, stop telling the same lie over and over.

If the Democrats in control of the FCC wanted regulation, the vote would be over reclassifying ISP's so that they would fall under the existing regulations that already apply to the phone companies.

Instead of allowing ISP's to extort money out of people who offer competing services.
2014-05-15 03:45:27 PM  
1 votes:

pippi longstocking: How about banana? How about lamp? Let's call them that too. You know what the evil farks at comcast and timewarner are actually trying to do and yet you support them.


Ummmm... wat?

I support regulation of the industry, at least to the point of Net Neutrality as defined by the EFF, if not further in some ways. The proposal that the Democrats voted in favor of opens the debate for public comment. Part of this proposal includes the idea of classifying the ISP's as common carriers. The Republicans voted against this proposal.

I'm not sure why in the world many people are saying they support the Republicans, who want no regulation at all and would prefer the ISP's are free to carry traffic on their networks as they see fit and demand extra fees from content providers under threat of slowing of their Internet traffic.

Republicans want no regulation. Democrats want regulation, they'd just like to hear public comment on various ideas before enacting any rules.

Which is closer to your ideal scenario?
2014-05-15 03:33:46 PM  
1 votes:

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

Do we assume that little guys are more innovative than providers?


Little guys are almost always more innovative than big guys, because they less overhead and less invested in maintaining their current profit levels - they can take more risks. If a small guy fails, you don't really hear about it, because usually it's only one or two peopl who have lost their shirts. When a big company makes a mistake and the stock price tumbles, you hear all about it because a ton of people own that stock.

Why would Comcast carry Netflix without additional concessions, when they're trying to get their own video-on-demand service going? Why wouldn't they prioritize traffic from their VOD servers at the cost of other people's VOD? The concept of Fiduciary Duty means that CEO's are responsible for only doing what is most profitable, period, no matter how evil it is. If this means that Comcast begins charging others for access to its customers, so be it.
2014-05-15 03:26:25 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Not completely off base.

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

Then I would say that concrete actions have been taken to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised have been taken, regardless of what "comments" they are allowing.
2014-05-15 03:19:30 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

It's also important to note that several of the people who have been insisting I'm providing inaccurate information have stated their preference for classifying ISP's as common carriers, which the Democrats voted in favor of considering and the Republicans against.
2014-05-15 03:15:52 PM  
1 votes:
Call him:
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: 1-202-418-1000

I'll even give you a hand:
I'm calling to urge  FCC Chairman Wheeler to STOP his plan to allow Internet service providers to charge for preferential treatment for the highest bidder.
The internet was built with tax payer dollars and allowing private corporations to determine how we use based on how much money they can make off of it is wrong. The FCC needs to throw out its proposed rules and to preserve real Net Neutrality.
2014-05-15 03:02:49 PM  
1 votes:
The hysterical part is listening to what one of the Democrats that Bush appointed to the FCC has to say on the issue:

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

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


Gee, imagine if Obama had kept his word instead of putting the industries biggest lobbyists in charge.
2014-05-15 02:59:48 PM  
1 votes:

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

FTFA: One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.

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

Basically they just gave lip service to net neutrality.


Ah. So you didn't read the article.

FTFA: The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.
2014-05-15 02:56:15 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

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


Actually, you do need a debate. This is how the FCC works. Do you really want a FCC that arbitrarily takes over regulation of an entire industry, or comes up with all new rules and regulations for industries to follow, or approves mergers and splits without public debate?
2014-05-15 02:50:51 PM  
1 votes:

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


How about "public utility" like the electric or water companies? Or how about a new classification with a different set of rules, since a good bit of things are possible on the Internet that aren't with traditional phone carriers?
2014-05-15 02:48:49 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

1.) this is not a final vote - it has not "happened". This merely opens the proposal up for public comment and debate.
2.) The "opposition" to this proposal (i.e., the two Republicans who voted to not debate on it) was that the FCC should not regulate the ISP's at all, and they should be free to shape their data however they want with the only oversight coming from a Congress who knows dick about the Internet and isn't about to pass any regulations.
3.) Included with this proposal was the option of regulating the ISP's as common carriers, something that many people are in favor of. This will be voted on at the conclusion of the public commenting period. This is something the Republicans are very much against.
2014-05-15 02:43:37 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

You did read the article, right?

FTFA: One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.
2014-05-15 02:34:10 PM  
1 votes:

happydude45: USA Prime Credit Peggy: *sigh*

Oxtallboy doing the lord's work in here. Must be exhausting replying to all these paid republican shills.


He's parroting liberal bullshiat to people who point out facts and truth. Typical


I'm pointing out what actually happened. Most people do not want to go with the Republican plan of declining to regulate and allowing the ISP's to do whatever they want with zero oversight.
2014-05-15 02:32:18 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: An overt lie.

All the commission has to do is classify internet service providers as falling under the existing rules that currently apply to phone companies, electric companies, gas companies, airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxi companies, cruise ships, trucking companies and other freight companies.

Once three commissioners vote to classify them as a common carrier, they can no longer interfere in customer choice.


But is classifying them as a common carrier the best thing to do here? Or should they be classified as a utility instead? Or should they be classified as something else.

Perhaps they haven't been classified as a common carrier because that might not be the best thing to do here. Keep in mind they also voted (also along party lines) to open debate on whether to classify the ISP's as utilities.
2014-05-15 02:26:01 PM  
1 votes:

alice_600: Someguy72: Obama's Reptiloid Master: 1. It's not a final rule.

The problem with your rhetoric against Republicans is it is Democrats who are the majority in current FCC.  Please stop your biased hatred when you don't know what you are talking about.  It's also Republicans in Congress who were denouncing this move this morning.

And the problem with your train of thought is that most of these guys in Washington are old farts who aren't in the internet business to begin with. They have other people handle everything internet for them. So quit thinking these guys know what the internet really is capable of doing.


LOL

"These guys" are industry lobbyists.

cdn.arstechnica.net

Washington, DC, has long had a revolving door through which government officials exit to become lobbyists, and lobbyists enter to become government officials.

Regulators being led by former executives from the industries they're supposed to regulate and industry groups being led by their former regulators sounds like it should be the stuff of fiction. But the Federal Communications Commission has once again proven that this phenomenon is quite real.

The CTIA Wireless Association today announced that Meredith Attwell Baker-a former FCC Commissioner and former Comcast employee-will become its president and CEO on June 2, replacing Steve Largent, a former member of Congress (and former NFL player).

Largent himself became the cellular lobby's leader when he replaced Tom Wheeler-who is now the chairman of the FCC. Wheeler is also the former president and CEO of the NCTA (National Cable & Telecommunications Association), which... wait for it... is now led by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

To sum up, 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.

There's more. Baker, the new CTIA CEO, was also an employee of the CTIA before her stint as an FCC commissioner. She was a director of congressional affairs at CTIA from 1998 to 2000, and she started working for the government in 2004 when she joined the Department of Commerce. She was appointed to the FCC in 2009, voted in favor of Comcast's purchase of NBCUniversal in January 2011, and then left the government to become senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast-NBCUniversal in May 2011.
2014-05-15 02:22:18 PM  
1 votes:

ox45tallboy: Triple Oak: why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me

Because by opening the floor to debate, they've pretty much ensured that they (the FCC) will have jurisdiction to regulate the ISP's.


Thank goodness the politics tab trolls are here to tell us why Obama's betrayal is not a betrayal at all!

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

The FCC had tried to impose so-called "common carrier" regulations on broadband providers without officially classifying them as utilities subject to those types of rules, and the court rejected that sleight of hand.

What happens now is entirely dependent on whether the FCC's new chairman, Tom Wheeler, has the courage to stand up and finally say the right words - that broadband access is a telecommunications service that should be regulated just like landline phones. He need only convince two additional FCC commissioners to agree with him, and the argument is simple: consumers already perceive internet service as a utility, and it's advertised only on the commodity basis of speed and price.
2014-05-15 02:19:15 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: dr_blasto: paygun: Maybe we should just make the government bigger and give them more power.  It worked for healthcare.

So far, it has.

Regulation is limiting the power of corporations. Perhaps we should have unregulated, unfettered capitalism again since that's always worked out really well.

Net neutrality is necessary to reign in capitalism!  In order to allow for capitalism!

Underdogs don't compete on level playing fields.  That's why they're called underdogs.  Really, this is just another barrier to entry argument, it seems.

And there seems to be an assumption that innovation comes from garages, and not from large scale players like google.  Or the government.


This is a barrier to entry thing.

Capitalism doesn't self-manage, no matter how many invisible hands there are.

Raise the bar for entry and innovation can only come from the labs of big companies or governments and not from garages.

If you want nothing but an internet full of cats and law and order, this is great. If you want giant media corporations to control what is available to be seen, then great: net neutrality isn't for you.
2014-05-15 02:17:33 PM  
1 votes:
By definition ISPs are common carriers, how can you argue they are not? The only reason they haven't been firmly classified is money, politics, and 'Muricans.

God I hate you all, seriously I do, nothing funny about a society of idiots.
2014-05-15 02:09:46 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: why was this the proposed rule that they voted for and not something that actually benefited the consumer? I agree with the last part of your post that people should write their elected officials but I'd also add that people should make this as embarrassing for the democrats as a whole as possible because shaming them in the court of public opinion is just as good if not better than some letter an intern will "read" and then throw in the trash.


This is not a final decision. This opens up the floor for public comment and debate, something the Republicans did not want to happen, as they don't believe the ISP's should be regulated and should be free to shape their data traffic however they want.
2014-05-15 02:08:12 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: So Obama appointing an industry lobbyist to be in charge of regulating that industry is really a victory for all of us!

Especially when the three Democrats he put in charge do the exact opposite of what he promised over, and over, and over.


The FCC voted in favor of having the ability to regulate the ISP's. The stated Republican position, and the reason the Republican commissioners voted against this proposal, is that the FCC should not be able to regulate the ISP's and they should be free to violate net neutrality on their whim.

This is not a final vote, this merely opens up the proposal for debate - and ensures that the FCC will be able to regulate the ISP's in the future.
2014-05-15 01:59:12 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: jso2897: BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

Well, thank goodness we elected the liar who said he was opposed to that!

We certainly shouldn't hold them responsible for lying to us!

You're right - we should punish them by voting for people who openly boast of being even worse.

So at least they lie to us, before they sell us out?


Or, just possibly, there are actual differences in their stances, and as deplorable as the Democrats' stance might be, it remains superior to the alternatives?
2014-05-15 01:57:54 PM  
1 votes:
Congress is bought and paid for, both sides of the aisle, with very very few exceptions.  Don't vote for establishment candidates, regardless of what they're proposing.  If at any point in time the media treats someone as though they have a legitimate chance, or starts giving them favorable coverage, run the other farking way.  Vote for the Ron Pauls and the Ralph Naders and the Bernie Sandersesses.
2014-05-15 01:55:57 PM  
1 votes:
Good.  This internet will become cable TV and those in the know will be off to the next good thing.
2014-05-15 01:52:04 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: You'll have to talk longer and louder to change those stubborn facts.


1.) This was not a vote to kill net neutrality, merely to open a public comment period on proposed new regulations.
2.) The Democrats voted yes to consider this regulation and open public comment on it
3.) The Republicans voted no because they don't believe the FCC should regulate net neutrality at all

You yourself have offered evidence of the Republican party position, to wit a letter signed by Republican leadership urging the FCC to not regulate the ISP's at all.
2014-05-15 01:51:52 PM  
1 votes:
The three Democrats in the group are unhappy but wanted some kind of regulation (why they didn't vote either way or had one person abstain is beyond me). The two Republicans, along with the obstructionists in Congress, want no regulation at all. This is the US equivalent of Ukraine's "join Russia or allow Russia to take over" vote: we were all going to lose this vote. Now comes a very tense waiting game while the four months of deliberation pass. I say don't stop the pressure, call the FCC over and over and let your voice be heard.
2014-05-15 01:45:14 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: You'll need to lie longer and harder...
[www.upl.co image 736x952]
[www.upl.co image 736x952]


You do realize you just posted a letter proving exactly what I'm saying? That the Republicans oppose any and all regulation of the ISP's by the FCC, and they (the ISP's) should be free to tier their networks however they want (and charge content providers for priority service)?

It's been a while since I've seen someone cal me a liar and then offer up proof that what I'm saying is absolutely, unequivocally correct.
2014-05-15 01:41:25 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.


By voting yes to open the debate for public comment on a proposed regulation, the Democrats have ensured that the FCC will have the authority to make rule changes. The Republicans voted "no" because they don't believe the FCC should have this authority.
2014-05-15 01:38:47 PM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Holy shiat. Obama promises to only appoint FCC commissioners who will take a stand for network neutrality.

He appoints three Democrats to head the FCC who refuse to keep that promise and destroy the concept of network neutrality instead.

Therefore, herp, derp, the problem is Republicans.


You have no farking idea what you're talking about. As usual.

There IS NO NET NEUTRALITY NOW. The FCC failed to classify cable companies and the like as common carriers and has NO AUTHORITY over them under the current rules. There is currently NO REGULATION AT ALL for the vast majority of ISPs as it relates to this subject.

Therefore, a vote against this was a vote for the status quo which is a vote AGAINST network neutrality.

The end result of the rulemaking may or may not be an improvement in this situation, but not going into at all can only have one outcome: no net neutrality at all.
The republicans voted no to guarantee content provider "shakedowns". The democrats voted yes for the possibility of some protections being implemented.
2014-05-15 01:37:59 PM  
1 votes:

Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.


I'm charging you $5 per letter to post that. Pay up in full within 24 hours or I'm contacting a collection agency.
2014-05-15 01:37:51 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.


They didn't vote to pass it, just to open it up for public comment as a proposed rule. Had the Republicans gotten their way, they would say the FCC does not have the right to regulate the ISP's. I've already provided links upthread to the statements from the Republicans about why they voted against it.

This actually is a good thing long-term (assuming the final vote is against it) because it ensures the FCC maintains regulatory capacity over the ISP's. They also voted to consider regulation of Internet service as a utility, something the Republicans would have never considered, so it's not as bad as it sounds. Write your Congressman. Write the President who appointed these guys. Write an opinion for the Public Comment period.
2014-05-15 01:37:28 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.


"Freedom" is a funny word.  In a totally free world, you'd be free to go rob your neighbors homes.  That's a Bad Thing, so laws are passed to be sure you can't.  Those laws protect your neighbors freedom to be secure in their homes.  What you consider to be "freedom" to be depends greatly on your point of view.
2014-05-15 01:37:14 PM  
1 votes:

COMALite J: snocone: Walker: Un-f*cking-believable.

The entire country and both Democrats AND Republicans were against this, and it still gets passed. So much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's for corporations....and has been for a while.

Is and always has been, Government In Spite of The People.
"Corporations are people, my friend."


The ones that matter, at least.

They're the rich white landowners of our time.
2014-05-15 01:36:51 PM  
1 votes:

sendtodave: The Homer Tax: I want full net neutrality. I want ISPs to be forced to treat a byte of data like a byte of data. For data to be treated like electricity, gas, or water.

Oh!  I get it!  "Neutral" is code for "highly regulated!"

I thought it alluded to freedom.


I honestly can't tell if you're trolling. "Net Neutrality" is a very specific term where data is treated effectively like a utility. It requires ISPs to be neutral in their handling of data.
2014-05-15 01:34:10 PM  
1 votes:
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]

The Republicans do not support the FCC having this authority at all. In other words, under Republican control there would be no public comment period or regulatory oversight, there would be the ISP's doing whatever they want with absolutely no regulation at all.

Would you prefer that?

and
ox45tallboy [TotalFark]
>>> OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.

Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true

You'll need to lie longer and harder...
www.upl.co
www.upl.co
2014-05-15 01:30:35 PM  
1 votes:

Cpl.D: Personally, I'd rather see internet access be regulated like a utility.


That sounds good to me, too. It's only available from a limited number of providers in each area, and it's pretty much necessary for our modern standard of living. And we need some kind of subsidies to get it out to rural areas, or at least enforcement of the way ISP's spend the subsidies they're already getting.
2014-05-15 01:29:28 PM  
1 votes:
I want to see Level 3 degrade service to comcast and time warner and get THEM to pay up a stupid high amount.
2014-05-15 01:28:41 PM  
1 votes:
We could all invest in some mesh networking routers. It could help. Something has to be done to break open internet connectivity. It's already expensive and limited to just a few practical carriers in most areas, they don't need more control.
2014-05-15 01:28:38 PM  
1 votes:

jshine: You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet


Well, there wasn't as much to be farked with back then. Comcast is now trying to solidify their hold as the premier content controller in this country. They didn't have the heft back then to propose these sorts of things, since there was enough of the country they didn't control that they could have been shooting themselves in the foot.

Back then, the FCC didn't maintain that they were in charge of setting the rules; the Internet existed under a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that this sort of thing was just Not Done. Now Comcast wants to break these rules, and the FCC is the governmental body in the best position to be in charge of codifying and enforcing them.

You can't compare the current situation with any Bush faced, because no one tried to change the "understood" rules back when he was in office.
2014-05-15 01:23:50 PM  
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.

Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?


Yes?  NBC holds tons of contracts with the cable companies.  Did you notice that for the last olympics you needed a cable account to stream the olympics for example?

Not sure where you were going with your post exactly......  But yeah Netflix gets bent over while HULU doesn't (NBC is a major owner of that).  NBC frequently protects the cable companies.

Thats the real problem with all of this shiat, is the massive collusion.  We need to bust up the monopolies and it would sort itself out.

Say for example you take Comcast and make it three companies.

1.  A last mile infrastructure company that can lease out that connectivity.
2.  A cable company
3.  An internet service provider.

Most the shiat we are biatching about instantly goes away since the the last mile company can have any number of ISP's run through it so we get competition, the networks no longer have a reason to kiss the cable companies ass, and the isp company has no reason to protect the cable company, they just want to compete with the other isp's.
2014-05-15 01:23:15 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: Sorry, your hero Goebbels is dead. No matter how often or loudly you tell your lies, the fact is the Democrat fundraiser appointed by obama(D) and confirmed by the Democrat controlled senate pushed to kill Net Neutrality and the two other democrats on the committee voted with him.

They were opposed by the only 2 Republicans on the committee.


//Net neutrality survived bush, but won't survive obama.


This is true and instead of farking apologizing for them and blaming republicans the real solution is to shiat on democrats in this case as they so rightly deserve. The democrats deserve as much shiat as they can get for this, it's an embarrassment.
2014-05-15 01:22:03 PM  
1 votes:

mr lawson: ox45tallboy: The Republicans voted against it because they don't think the FCC, or anyone for that matter, should have the ability to regulate ISP's and enforce any kind of net neutrality rules.

citation needed


Citation provided. Direct quote from Ted Cruz:

"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 don't believe that Ted Cruz speaks for the Republican party position, here's the FCC commissioners themselves:

Republican appointees Ajit Pai and Michael O'Reilly voted against moving forward with the new regulations, saying the proposal reaches beyond the scope of the FCC's responsibilities. Pai said if new regulations are needed, Congress should legislate them.
2014-05-15 01:21:56 PM  
1 votes:
American "free market" capitalism where the playing field is tilted in the direction of those who paid the most.
Suck it small business.
2014-05-15 01:21:54 PM  
1 votes:
Is it a violation of the FARK tos to post twitter handles. Because all three of the unelected appointees who voted for this have them. I for one plan to tweet mention them daily. So that they can't continue to use the tool to pretend they support open internet.
2014-05-15 01:21:51 PM  
1 votes:

jshine: ox45tallboy: If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

You mean like the 8 years when Bush II controlled the FCC?

/ I hated the guy for other reasons, but at least he didn't fark with the internet


Powell was the one that opted out of assigning common carrier status for ISPs and set the stage to even have this fight in the first place.
2014-05-15 01:20:05 PM  
1 votes:
And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers.

oh good, a government agency made a promise.  i guess we don't have to worry about it now.  we all know that huge corporations always follow all the rules government agencies impose on them.

let's pretend that some huge internet service provider decided to screw over their consumers thanks to relaxed net neutrality rules.  how long would it go on before the government told them to stop?  a year?  two years?  we all know there would be court hearings and lawsuits that might last years, and all the while, the internet companies could keep screwing over their customers.  and if they actually got found guilty, what happens then?  a fine of a couple million dollars?  wow, that would sure teach those companies a lesson.  rake in billions in profit by screwing over the customers you have a monopoly over, and maybe after a couple years the government will tell you to stop and give you a slap on the wrist penalty.  i feel safer already.
2014-05-15 01:14:22 PM  
1 votes:
The other thing is, correct me if I am wrong, but, Comcast could decide that, well, geez, while they probably can't completely block access to a website legally, but, well, oops if trying to get to "comcastsucks.com" is reduced to the speed of an old 2400 baud C-64 modem.... or anything else they have some objection to.
2014-05-15 01:14:18 PM  
1 votes:

mr lawson: citation needed


Well, leading House republicans wrote a letter yesterday saying as much.

The current status of net neutrality, thanks to the FCC's fark-up in not classifying ISPs as common carriers, is that there is none. There is NOTHING stopping providers right now from throttling connections and demanding protection money from large content providers. People have this whole thing ass-backwards. Right now it's as bad as it can possibly get without being explicitly codified.

In theory, the FCC's changes will bring structure to it, but not fix the problem, which is still bad, but this is not about allowing the providers to throttle and shakedown. They're already allowed to do that.
2014-05-15 01:09:49 PM  
1 votes:

delciotto: If external data does get slowed, I can see a lot of other countries getting really pissed off at the states real fast.


I'm pretty sure that horse has left the stable.

images.politico.com
2014-05-15 01:06:10 PM  
1 votes:

OnlyM3: You hoped for change... you got it.


Republicans oppose this because they don't want any regulation of the ISP's at all. If Republicans were in charge, there wouldn't even be a vote - the ISP's would have been tiering network access for content providers for the past several years already.

The idea that Republicans support regulations which would prevent the ISP's from doing this is simply not true.
2014-05-15 01:05:41 PM  
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: dr_blasto: Nadie_AZ: Deftoons: I am fine with this.  Internet is a service and just like anything else, you pay more to get more.  I don't feel entitled to it.

The thing is you will pay more keep your current speeds. Or slower.

No.

Your existing service is likely to remain unchanged. You will just end up paying a lot more for some content or that content will become unbearably slow so as to devalue it entirely. Strangely, whatever terribly boring stuff NBC produces will alway be of very high quality with little delay.

Ah yes. Sorry.
So Netflix will be tiered for speed and NBCflix will be cheaper and faster?


Yes. That's the exact result. NBC, owned by ComCast will be prioritized traffic on ComCast's backbone network. You'll be able to watch the holy fark out of law and order in full-scale HD 5.1 glory and zero buffering or latency crapola.

Want to watch CBS instead? Well, so long as CBS pays ComCast piles of cash, CBS will get on the fast pipe when CBS packets travel through the ComCast network.

Now, you say you don't have ComCast. Those packets are likely still going to pass through a ComCast ring. The same prioritization happens. You still get crappy CBS video or the alternative, that video costs more because CBS pays the extortion fees. You see the same stuff for a higher cost and no real window as to why it cost more.

It isn't just about cat videos. Netflix is an example of what won't happen after neutrality is eliminated. If ComCast is allowed to purchase TWC and their backbone, then there will be almost zero packets that do not flow through ComCast rings. ZERO.

The end that the likes of comcast want is 100% control of what you watch. They don't want you to watch anything they don't own a license for and that they don't provide advertizing on. The bandwidth and infrastructure isn't where they make money. They're not as interested in making that extortion money from CBS as they are hoping that you'll simply just stop watching CBS videos and watch their shiat instead.
2014-05-15 01:03:21 PM  
1 votes:

xanadian: Aren't the ISPs making enough cash from the tiered Internet plans

....

If a legislative opportunity to double-end transport charges is available it's their fiduciary responsibility to the stockholder to screw you dry. Waiting for UPS to make the same argument based on the unfair load Amazon puts on their trucks.
Reason has left the white building....
2014-05-15 01:00:27 PM  
1 votes:
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.


Ehem... You of course are ignoring the line a bit lower that states...
Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes


And fark it. Why "guess" at all? Lets put the cards on the table.

--- A 3 to two vote huh? ---
The agency's two Republican commissioners have opposed from the beginning any attempt to regulate the Internet



You're also ignoring:
* Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler appointed by President Obama (D) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is held by a Democratic party majority .


* During Barack Obama's presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over $500,000 USD for both of Obama's campaigns


* Tom Wheeler, a Democratic Obama appointee, is pressing new rules at the Federal Communications Commission that would allow an Internet service provider such as Verizon to charge YouTube, for instance, for higher-quality streaming of videos.
You hoped for change... you got it.
2014-05-15 12:57:38 PM  
1 votes:

untaken_name: How strange. 3 democrats voted to give the internet to big business. What a shocker.


Apparently the other two, and Ted Cruz, are conspiring to let ISPs take full control instead of having this FCC middleman.

Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich vote. Both arguments were against the general population.
2014-05-15 12:54:49 PM  
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: You assholes keep voting for the fascists. Enjoy the results.


Red or Blue they'll both screw you, Eiffel Towering the American people since 1913.
2014-05-15 12:53:47 PM  
1 votes:
Interestingly enough, we the consumers, also pay for high-speed internet. If I'm paying Verizon for high-speed access, I expect to get high speed access to all websites, not merely the ones Verizon is managing to double-dip from. We have to be willing to use the gravitas of our collective spending power to force the issue, since our coke-whore government is getting busy under the table.
2014-05-15 12:51:25 PM  
1 votes:

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

[img.fark.net image 600x865]


Is it me, or is Ann turning into Roger from American Dad?
2014-05-15 12:48:33 PM  
1 votes:

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!


www.charmofthecarolines.com
2014-05-15 12:47:25 PM  
1 votes:

papatex: Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.


The Republicans don't feel that the FCC should have jurisdiction here, and Comcast/Verizon et. al. should be able to do as they please. The Democrats voting for it actually ensures that the FCC maintains the authority to make this decision.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not happy about it at all, and there should have been a better way to make sure the FCC (or at least somebody) has the ability to regulate an essential service like broadband Internet. But I'm trying to look at the bright side here.
2014-05-15 12:43:22 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-15 12:39:44 PM  
1 votes:
You assholes keep voting for the fascists.  Enjoy the results.
2014-05-15 12:39:22 PM  
1 votes:

I alone am best: DarkSoulNoHope: 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.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.


Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441


You will note outside of Franken very few people of power are actually against this for reasons that help the American People.  They aren't arguing about the rules really.  They are arguing about how gets to make them and get that awesome telecom lobbyist money.  The Dem's want the power to stay with the FCC since they don't have the house and may lose the senate.  The R's want the power to be in congress.

This was never about if we'd get farked.  Its about who gets paid off to ensure we get farked.
2014-05-15 12:37:06 PM  
1 votes:
Surprisingly all 3 democrats voted for it, both republicans against it.

It's a mad mad world.
2014-05-15 12:31:56 PM  
1 votes:
Fair enough, time for every local government to make it a condition of public right-of-way access, eminent domain, easements, franchise rules, BS tax breaks etc. that the provider has to be neutral in how it passes it's traffic
2014-05-15 12:28:46 PM  
1 votes:
All these American companies should move their internet services to Canada
2014-05-15 12:27:58 PM  
1 votes:

Carn: Kneel and bow before your corporate masters, filthy plebs.


Not really required, just send money.
2014-05-15 12:26:36 PM  
1 votes:
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."
2014-05-15 12:23:59 PM  
1 votes:
Kneel and bow before your corporate masters, filthy plebs.
2014-05-15 12:23:26 PM  
1 votes:
It's obvious that the central authorities are bought , so you can keep biatching, or you can push your local municipalities to invest in fiber.
2014-05-15 12:20:40 PM  
1 votes:

snocone: Prophet of Loss: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.

But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.

Another effort at Dividing and Conquering, or are you just misinformed?

Your fantasy "Boomers" ended the Vietnem War.
Whatcha all done lately?
Riot in Chicago? NO!
Occupy Kent State and elect martyrs, Hell NO!


No offense to the ideological protesters of the Vietnam War, but it's a f*ckload easier to get people in the streets if they're worried about being drafted. You guys got sold on the most crackpot economic bullsh*t theory, and bought it because of greed. We're still suffering through the effects of Reaganomics, and trends don't look good.
2014-05-15 12:19:36 PM  
1 votes:

Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?


So back to block pricing fr ok m dial up days eh?
9.99 for 20hrs*

*basic service, capped at 30gigs of bandy, only available every second Tuesday after 9 pm
2014-05-15 12:18:33 PM  
1 votes:

Richard C Stanford: Paris1127: Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...

F**k The FCC!
You can have my Netflicks when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!
Keep the Internet free!


Don't fark with a free and open Internet!
2014-05-15 12:18:11 PM  
1 votes:
Lesse... gay marriage and cannabis legaization moving forward... on the otherhand lots of shiat like this.

Godammit America, quit forcing this balancing act of epic crazy.
2014-05-15 12:15:53 PM  
1 votes:

Professor Duck: So, how long until we're charged by the Mb for service?


5 years.
2014-05-15 12:14:54 PM  
1 votes:
Sigh.  And here I was with my faint glimmer of hope that just maybe those who are in charge of protecting the interests of the people would put the greater good before their own personal ambitions and financial interests and stop this before we got farked right in the ass yet again.

This is how people become jaded, cynical assholes.
2014-05-15 12:12:42 PM  
1 votes:

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: It's time for a revolution.


But it won't happen ... at least until the Boomers die off. That generation holds on to the "MERICA, FARK YA!" delusion with a fervor unmatched by their justifiably cynical children and their completely farked (got our sonny, screw you!) grandchildren. For now, our corporate masters are solidifying their Oligarchy with little resistance and much fanfare.
2014-05-15 12:11:45 PM  
1 votes:
Wait just a damn minute..

The measure was voted "for" three to two  along party lines. .

The article quotes a democratic commissioner who "voted for it with misgivings."

Which unless I am very bad at maths, means the democrats voted yes for this and the  republicans voted against.

Not that it matters...
2014-05-15 12:11:05 PM  
1 votes:

DarkSoulNoHope: 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.

Do you really think the Republican led Congress is going to try to change the rules to keep ISPs from making more and more profit? Especially since most (if not all) of those Republican congressmen/women (Democrats too) are lobbied to support these profits through legislation.



Super DERP A++ Would read again.

http://washingtonexaminer.co m/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adve nture-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441
2014-05-15 12:07:05 PM  
1 votes:

Wadded Beef: Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

Or you could have voted "no" you spineless twit.


I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Republicans:  All action, no thought.
Democrats:  All thought, no action.
2014-05-15 12:06:58 PM  
1 votes:
Well, goodbye Fark, it was nice knowing you.
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 12:06:55 PM  
1 votes:
What the hell?  My TotalFark renewal just went to $100!!!
2014-05-15 12:06:55 PM  
1 votes:

Hi! I can lick my own eyebrows: Thank FSM that I have enough porn downloaded to last two lifetimes.


You can have enough porn?
2014-05-15 12:06:52 PM  
1 votes:

agnosticcomputing.com

"Go pull the plug. Its over."

2014-05-15 12:05:28 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Keep voting in republicans. That's the way to protect the little guy.


No, Democrats won't return power usurped by their Republican colleagues because they all follow the money. This is why the TSA continues to exist beyond its useful life, along with all the other Bush 43 privacy invasions. The only relief would be for DOJ to dismantle AT&T, Comcast and Charter, and even that will be difficult because Eric Holder is an ineffectual boob, and any successor's appointment will depend on which Senators are paid off by whom.
2014-05-15 12:03:53 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Won't make a difference. Not with the money politics approved by SCOTUS system we've got not.

Vote out one moron, vote in another moron who got there because the same money put him in.
2014-05-15 12:03:23 PM  
1 votes:

kertus: 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?


A class action suit has to be the way to do this. If I contract for 30mb/sec. INTERNET access, then that is what they should deliver.Who am I kidding, we the plebes have lost control. Capital has won the battle.


Err, I have 75mb internet access.  I get 75mb to Steam, Amazon, most of the download sites, etc.  Sometimes I don't get that kind of speed.  Why?  Because the person/company hosting the data I want access to decided to go with the cheapest ISP, the cheapest datacenter, or the cheapest CDN that has shiat connectivity.  That's not my fault, it's not even my ISPs fault.  We need to make sure that everyone has the same access to content on the internet, but ensuring that the speed you purchase from your ISP is the same speed that's delivered by a third party service is asinine and has never been the practice as long as the internet as existed.  If I go through 20 hops to get to a destination IP, that means I have potentially 20 different network connections with 20 different parties that needs to ensure connectivity for me at maximum speed.  Not reasonable.  The only reasonable solution is an FCC driven framework for peering agreements and standards.  You can't guarantee speed, but you can at least guarantee equal treatment across the board.
2014-05-15 12:01:55 PM  
1 votes:
In other news, Total Fark subscriptions are going up to $5.08 per month.
2014-05-15 12:01:06 PM  
1 votes:
*sigh* I get too much use out of this quote lately:

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."--Sid Meier's  Alpha Centauri

/I don't think that game was supposed to be prophetic...
2014-05-15 12:00:54 PM  
1 votes:

LeroyB: Wow, I remember the "olde days" when dial-up connections were charged by the minute.

Once I went to an "always on" cable-modem almost 15 years ago I never thought I might be going back to that. Hello overage charges.


Just one of 20 NEW CHARGES that this will implement.
2014-05-15 11:59:58 AM  
1 votes:

LeroyBourne: *unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*


keep talking dirty
2014-05-15 11:58:51 AM  
1 votes:
Just tell Republicans that this is the result of people appointed by Obama. They'll stop it in no time.
2014-05-15 11:58:48 AM  
1 votes:
All I can see with that headline is that stupid puppet gif. Appropriate, considering how many people in Congress and how many people are a part of these commission type groups are just puppets for the businesses.
2014-05-15 11:57:57 AM  
1 votes:
Obama 2016.
2014-05-15 11:55:28 AM  
1 votes:

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.



When's the last time Congress stopped sucking corporate dick?

And if you've been living under a rock, Republicans will continue controlling the House, and according to Nate Silver, will take control of the Senate in November.
2014-05-15 11:54:54 AM  
1 votes:
Zuck!  Musk!  Get those damn UAVs airborne and start broadcasting a free internet.
2014-05-15 11:51:33 AM  
1 votes:

Mikey1969: Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.

Who the fark is "Wheeler"? The word appears once on the page, right in the quote I posted above. Do they even require an 8th grade education to write for the Washington Post, or can my dog get a job there?


Presumably Thomas Wheeler, chairman of the FCC and former telecommunications industry lobbyist.
2014-05-15 11:51:30 AM  
1 votes:

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.


There was a Democratic appointee that said "yes".

So i'm assuming that the pubs said "No" because they wanted to keep the status quo, which was the FCC not saying anything. The dems said "yes" because this forces providers to ahve a "minimum" level of "commercially reasonable" level of service.

The issue is that the it doesn't say "you can't make a fast lane" and it doesn't force the ISPs to be Title II compliant. In this whole debate there is what "net neutrality" actually means, and what the dems and pubs twist "net neutrality" to mean. They based on the twisted version, not on the actual version, otherwise the Dems would've said "fark no" and the pubs saying "hell yes!"
2014-05-15 11:51:05 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-05-15 11:50:47 AM  
1 votes:
Did you really think any government agency would push for a more open or free internet? Every government in the world has spent the last 5 years trying to control and shape the information on the internet.

This is a logic progression.
2014-05-15 11:50:43 AM  
1 votes:
Fark needs to think of some revolutionary slogans for a free internet... Live Stream or Die? The Internet will not be televised? I'm really bad at this...
2014-05-15 11:50:35 AM  
1 votes:

medius: I will not jerk off to dial up speeds again!

/my cold dead hands


*unloads my 2 terabyte external hard-drive*
Let's fill this bad boy up.
2014-05-15 11:49:54 AM  
1 votes:

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.


This is one time your Fark handle is going to hurt your effort to sway the direction of Republican votes.
2014-05-15 11:48:53 AM  
1 votes:
Currently BREAKING NEWS on at least 5 local channels to me? Aaron Hernandez indicted on two more murder charges. Mention of something that actually impacts people watching said news? Zero.

Sad day.
2014-05-15 11:48:00 AM  
1 votes:

bighairyguy: Oh, and you now have to pay internet postage for all your emails too.


www.posthastedirect.com
2014-05-15 11:47:55 AM  
1 votes:
Whellllp....time to go download a bunch of pr0n while I still can.
2014-05-15 11:47:28 AM  
1 votes:

sprawl15: thanks obama


Quite literally this time.

Hope and change!
2014-05-15 11:47:13 AM  
1 votes:
JUST FARKING GREAT!!!!!   I'm sure the ISPs and streaming services won't raise their prices on us too much..........
2014-05-15 11:47:03 AM  
1 votes:
affordablehousinginstitute.org
2014-05-15 11:47:02 AM  
1 votes:

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.


etrangermysterieux.files.wordpress.com
"You guessed it: Frank Stallone."
2014-05-15 11:46:24 AM  
1 votes:
This is gonna work out great for the "everyman" of America.

No, really it is.  A whole bunch of the goodness won't get concentrated at the top, leaving everyone else scrapping for the crumbs.

No, not here, not in America.  Never happen.

Guess I better pull my old ham radios out of storage....
2014-05-15 11:44:39 AM  
1 votes:
I'd post an image to express my anger over this, but the website it is hosted on didn't pay their ISP the ransom fee for .jpg files.
 
Displayed 199 of 199 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report