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

(Think Progress)   AT&T to US regulators: tell ya what, if you let us merge with Direct TV to become a nigh-monopoly, we'll promise to uphold Net Neutrality* (* special promotional offer. After 3 years, offer expires and we can do whatever the fark we want)   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 44
    More: Fail, governors, mobile network operator, agreement  
•       •       •

1646 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 May 2014 at 9:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-05-19 09:07:44 PM  
right, and Verizon will fiber all the things if we give them lots of money
 
2014-05-19 09:28:33 PM  
Better than what Comcast/time warner is doing
 
2014-05-19 09:39:22 PM  
This headline is funnier than most people will ever comprehend.
 
2014-05-19 09:55:31 PM  
"PROOOMISSE!"

www.potentialmatters.co.uk
 
2014-05-19 10:11:51 PM  
Well they don't cap(they don't know how yet) and they don't throttle you(yet)
 
2014-05-19 10:20:51 PM  
In ten years I expect to be living in a burbclave, the way things are going.
 
2014-05-19 10:35:51 PM  
The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.
 
2014-05-19 10:50:19 PM  
How about no to both of those things?
 
2014-05-19 10:59:21 PM  

Lanadapter: right, and Verizon will fiber all the things if we give them lots of money


You know if you've got some sense and some money you can build you own fiber ring and lease it to comcast. There's a private company here that jumped on that several years ago and currently has the majority of the fiber infrastructure in the area. They'll extend infrastructure to anyone who wants to get on their now 26 mile ring and sells bandwidth to all the ISPs in the area.
 
2014-05-19 11:41:14 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Well they don't cap(they don't know how yet) and they don't throttle you(yet)


www.simpsoncrazy.com
 
2014-05-19 11:49:22 PM  

MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.


I had some concept that that was happening, but that was kind of scary.
 
2014-05-19 11:59:51 PM  

"It's my way or the Information Superhighway,"  extorts announces AT&T

 
2014-05-20 12:04:26 AM  

Tobin_Lam: MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.

I had some concept that that was happening, but that was kind of scary.


Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."
 
2014-05-20 12:06:15 AM  
I'm selfish, I just don't want them to fark with Uverse TV.

If they're just going to push us to Directv, then I'm just going to go back to Charter.
 
2014-05-20 12:09:31 AM  
imghumour.com
 
2014-05-20 12:14:49 AM  
I hope AT&TV buys Facebook next
 
2014-05-20 12:30:35 AM  
Its about time to baby bell those biatches again i reckon
 
2014-05-20 01:45:01 AM  

skinink: In ten years I expect to be living in a burbclave, the way things are going.


Movies
Music
Microcode
 
2014-05-20 01:58:18 AM  

jjorsett: Tobin_Lam: MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.

I had some concept that that was happening, but that was kind of scary.

Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."


Congrats on turning that wikipedia article into an argument against regulations.
 
2014-05-20 02:13:56 AM  

jjorsett: Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."


Actually, keep this in mind the next time a politician (for example Ted Cruz) tells you that we don't need to regulate something. If it weren't for what the FCC is doing right now, net neutrality would already be dead. As it stands, it might not be. They'll vote at the end of the year as to whether or not to regulate the ISP's as common carriers under Title II. If that happens, we'll have net neutrality at least until the next FCC commissioner gets bought off.
 
2014-05-20 02:37:31 AM  

ox45tallboy: jjorsett: Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."

Actually, keep this in mind the next time a politician (for example Ted Cruz) tells you that we don't need to regulate something. If it weren't for what the FCC is doing right now, net neutrality would already be dead. As it stands, it might not be. They'll vote at the end of the year as to whether or not to regulate the ISP's as common carriers under Title II. If that happens, we'll have net neutrality at least until the next FCC commissioner gets bought off.


Google, Netflix, and Amazon all have a big stake in keeping net neutrality. That's why we peons may get to keep it.
 
2014-05-20 02:38:54 AM  
Do you realize that the current formation of AT&T now owns four of the seven "Baby Bells" that the original AT&T ("Ma Bell") was split into after the 1980 ruling? (Two of the other three are owned by Verizon, with the last owned by CenturyLink, which, if this deal goes through, will probably be Verizon's next merger target).

It's happening again, folks...
 
2014-05-20 02:51:11 AM  

IlGreven: Do you realize that the current formation of AT&T now owns four of the seven "Baby Bells" that the original AT&T ("Ma Bell") was split into after the 1980 ruling? (Two of the other three are owned by Verizon, with the last owned by CenturyLink, which, if this deal goes through, will probably be Verizon's next merger target).

It's happening again, folks...


I think Verizon would rather eat Cox
 
2014-05-20 02:52:34 AM  

EvilEgg: Google, Netflix, and Amazon all have a big stake in keeping net neutrality. That's why we peons may get to keep it.


Are any of them offering high-paid cushy jobs to the commissioners who vote their way? Because that appears to be Comcast's modus operandi.
 
2014-05-20 03:46:14 AM  

lewismarktwo: skinink: In ten years I expect to be living in a burbclave, the way things are going.

Movies
Music
Microcode


You can always deliver pizza and live on the edge.
 
2014-05-20 04:15:26 AM  

ox45tallboy: jjorsett: Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."

Actually, keep this in mind the next time a politician (for example Ted Cruz) tells you that we don't need to regulate something. If it weren't for what the FCC is doing right now, net neutrality would already be dead. As it stands, it might not be. They'll vote at the end of the year as to whether or not to regulate the ISP's as common carriers under Title II. If that happens, we'll have net neutrality at least until the next FCC commissioner gets bought off.


Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.
 
2014-05-20 04:30:56 AM  

jjorsett: ox45tallboy: jjorsett: Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."

Actually, keep this in mind the next time a politician (for example Ted Cruz) tells you that we don't need to regulate something. If it weren't for what the FCC is doing right now, net neutrality would already be dead. As it stands, it might not be. They'll vote at the end of the year as to whether or not to regulate the ISP's as common carriers under Title II. If that happens, we'll have net neutrality at least until the next FCC commissioner gets bought off.

Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.


I can't tell whether this person is for or against net neutrality.
 
2014-05-20 05:29:56 AM  

OgreMagi: lewismarktwo: skinink: In ten years I expect to be living in a burbclave, the way things are going.

Movies
Music
Microcode

You can always deliver pizza and live on the edge.


screw you! My phone gets unlimited edge data!
 
2014-05-20 06:00:32 AM  
Telecoms should not be allowed to operate as for profit entities.

Again and again, information has proven to be too important to be left in the hand of profiteering assholes.
 
2014-05-20 06:21:52 AM  

jjorsett: Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.


I wonder who people think has been regulating ISP's since the Clinton Administration. I'm pretty sure its the same people that Comcast is currently petitioning to be allowed to violate Net Neutrality principles. It might also be the same governmental organization to whom AT&T is "offering" to uphold Net Neutrality if their merger is approved.
 
2014-05-20 07:01:55 AM  
cf.juggle-images.com
 
2014-05-20 07:05:54 AM  

FreetardoRivera: I can't tell whether this person is for or against net neutrality.


Basically, he's arguing that free market forces will stop anyone from attempting to violate net neutrality unless they can show value added to such behavior but once government comes in and polices them to stop net neutrality the corruption that government regulation brings will pervert the process and lead to firms stopping net neutrality (also the government will begin putting burdensome and arbitrary rules on personal use of interwebs because government regulations exist primarily because that's the only way public sector employees can get their rocks off is by controlling freedom loving Real Americans according to these jokers.)

Because as we all know, ISPs are in a field of perfect competition where dozens of firms laying competing fiber in the same city/county/state/region makes any practical sense and where there is transparent pricing and listing of services to allow apples-to-apples comparison shopping to find the best service for you. Free markets work 100% of the time to give everyone maximum benefit with no negative externalities as long as government doesn't regulate any step of the process.
 
2014-05-20 07:09:44 AM  

Grungehamster: FreetardoRivera: I can't tell whether this person is for or against net neutrality.

Basically, he's arguing that free market forces will stop anyone from attempting to violate net neutrality unless they can show value added to such behavior but once government comes in and polices them to stop enforce net neutrality


FTFM.
 
2014-05-20 07:41:47 AM  

MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.


Agreed.
 
2014-05-20 07:50:18 AM  

jjorsett: Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.


So basically what you're trying to sell us is:

1. That the FCC doesn't already regulate the internet.
2. That if the FCC prevents the telcoms from screwing everybody, the FCC will screw them in exactly the same way somehow
3. That we should just let the telcoms do it because government = bad.
 
hej
2014-05-20 07:54:46 AM  
Is that the "bad for innovation" net neutrality, or the "our networks can't possibly support it" net neutrality?

And holy fark, I thought subby was joking about the whole "for first three years" bit.
 
2014-05-20 08:18:09 AM  

jjorsett: Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.


Nothing in that paragraph actually says anything worthwhile. It's just a murky insinuation that what the FCC is doing (no part of which you ever reference) is going to have a negative effect (that you don't specify) at a point in time that you won't pin down.

Exactly what has the FCC proposed that you're against?
 
2014-05-20 08:32:36 AM  
I just have one question: can anyone explain how an ISP is an information system and not a common carrier? Here is the NCTA's defense of why not treating ISPs as common carriers (essentially boils down to "more people use the internet since our designation changed than did before; we're probably responsible for part of that change and common carrier systems gets rid of innovation which is why your electricity, water, and home phone is much less reliable than your internet service") but their own explanation of the difference between the two betrays an issue with their logic:

"Telecommunications services" transmit a user's information from one designated point to another without changing the form or content of that information.  For example, a phone call transmits the user's voice from one point to another without changing the content of the voice message, similar to the way a shipping company would deliver a package that you hand to it.  "Information services," on the other hand, offer a user the capability to create, store, or process information.  Once that information is created, it might be transmitted via telecommunications, but the creation of the message would be done via information service.  Telecommunications services, such as traditional phone service, were subject to common carrier rules.  Information services were not.

Broadband internet by those definitions is subject to common carrier rules. Fiber by its very nature is a method of relaying data from point A to point B, but it does not create the data (software does that), store the data (servers do that), or process the data (software again.)

That's not to say that a telecom company can't offer information services as part of their wares: they often offer you an e-mail address for example, and that mailbox is an information service. The problem is that it doesn't stop the fact that when someone uses the internet the ISP is simply relaying data packets without modifying the contents. Can anyone explain based on the telecom lobbying group's own logic how they don't meet the exact definition of a common carrier?
 
2014-05-20 09:02:05 AM  

FreetardoRivera: jjorsett: ox45tallboy: jjorsett: Keep that in mind next time some politician tells you that we need to regulate something. Like the internet, for example. There's nothing a  mono/oligo/polist likes better than a regulator it can cozy up to and say, for example, "Psst. See those Uber guys horning in on our territory over there? They're hurting our business and besides, they're taunting you and making faces. Go get 'em."

Actually, keep this in mind the next time a politician (for example Ted Cruz) tells you that we don't need to regulate something. If it weren't for what the FCC is doing right now, net neutrality would already be dead. As it stands, it might not be. They'll vote at the end of the year as to whether or not to regulate the ISP's as common carriers under Title II. If that happens, we'll have net neutrality at least until the next FCC commissioner gets bought off.

Once the FCC has its tentacles around such a prize as the internet, do you seriously think it's going to just sit there and admire it? Once empowered, the temptation (and political pressure) to meddle will be overwhelming. Granting the FCC the right to oversee the internet will seriously damage what has been wrought and what has let the internet blossom into what it has become.

I can't tell whether this person is for or against net neutrality.


I'm not him, but I agree with him. I've always been against "net neutrality" as it's called for the past 5 or 6 years because of exactly what's happening now. I believe it should be an FTC matter and not an FCC matter. Companies colluding to raise the barrier of entry into the market should be an anti-trust FTC matter, whereas telling the FCC they have free reign of the Internet is just a little too scary to me partly because of how that power can be used and partly because of regulatory capture. So that makes me for net neutrality, just not the thing that's being advocated now. Though right now I'll take what I can get.
 
2014-05-20 09:20:32 AM  

steamingpile: Better than what Comcast/time warner is doing


Yeah, if the FCC lets either of those mergers go through, we're farked.

Grungehamster: I just have one question: can anyone explain how an ISP is an information system and not a common carrier?


Because the Bush admin wanted an excuse not to regulate them.
 
2014-05-20 09:30:52 AM  

MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.


Well then I guess it's a very good thing that the FCC doesn't make the final call on either of these deals.  The DOJ does.  I seriously doubt either will be passed, especially after they shot down the AT&T + T-Mobile deal.
 
2014-05-20 09:35:58 AM  

hej: Is that the "bad for innovation" net neutrality, or the "our networks can't possibly support it" net neutrality?

And holy fark, I thought subby was joking about the whole "for first three years" bit.


Which is totally a coincidence, btw... there's no way it would take them roughly 3 years to get the tech and infrastructure in place to actually start charging for tiered internet.
 
2014-05-20 09:57:24 AM  

MadCat221: The AT&T/DirecTV merger will happen, just like Comcast/Time-Warner merger will, and Net Neutrality will perish as well, because the FCC is a captured regulatory agency.

Regulatory Capture is a word that needs to be used more often.


Nice link. So the EPA can't regulate fracking because of Dick Cheney? Farking fark...
 
2014-05-20 10:06:39 AM  
Seriously... How is this not the worlds most obvious scam, ever?
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report