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.

(Tech Crunch)   Totally real grassroots organizations spontaneously arise to fight net neutrality. Everything to the left of the word "arise" is a lie   (techcrunch.com) divider line 32
    More: Hero, consumer advocacy group, totally real, grassroots, foundations, Airports Council International, ISPs  
•       •       •

2880 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jun 2014 at 7:11 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-06 06:36:08 PM
Astroturf lobbying.
 
2014-06-06 07:18:07 PM
If I meet any such lobbyists, I hereby pledge to laugh in their faces and chant "I know who bought you, I know who bought you" in childlike, sing-song voice.
 
2014-06-06 07:29:48 PM
WHAR  SOURCE IP WHAR
 
2014-06-06 08:28:04 PM
"This can only do us harm, so I support it!"

Seems legit.
 
2014-06-06 08:51:39 PM
Can't we point some of these crazy college kids with guns towards the lobbyists?
 
2014-06-06 08:53:37 PM

Anonymous Bosch: If I meet any such lobbyists, I hereby pledge to laugh in their faces and chant "I know who bought you, I know who bought you" in childlike, sing-song voice.


Better yet, ask them who let them out of the house without their gimp suit and leash.  Same goes for much of the FCC...and the rest of the government.
 
2014-06-06 09:07:01 PM
It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Do RonPaulFan2016 and OneDirection4Eva sound like a Professional organization?
 
2014-06-06 09:42:58 PM
This been going on like forever. At&t use to do this in Illinois all the damn time.
 
2014-06-06 09:43:32 PM
They aren't 'organizations'?
 
2014-06-06 10:27:38 PM
Are the fracking companies going to sue for copyright infringement?
 
2014-06-06 10:32:10 PM
I'm all for fair business regulation, but the phrase "net neutrality" has really become tainted by some idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
Show me a specific plan that works and I'll get behind it, but just complaining about the present situation isn't doing much to sway me.
 
2014-06-06 10:55:13 PM

serial_crusher: I'm all for fair business regulation, but the phrase "net neutrality" has really become tainted by some idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
Show me a specific plan that works and I'll get behind it, but just complaining about the present situation isn't doing much to sway me.


Specific plan?  How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?  Works fine.  How do I know?  That's what we've been using between the birth of the internet and last year.

Net Neutrality isn't complicated.  The only people who say "its complicated" have been confused by astroturf groups like this and their associated propaganda.
 
2014-06-06 11:22:50 PM

serial_crusher: I'm all for fair business regulation, but the phrase "net neutrality" has really become tainted by some idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
Show me a specific plan that works and I'll get behind it, but just complaining about the present situation isn't doing much to sway me.


Let me put in terms you might be able to understand:

You currently pay to receive "packets" over the "intertubes". Your packets are like little packages and you pay your ISP to "ship" to you, regardless of the source. Now, they want to bill both the sender and receiver for the packet shipped from some sources by claiming the packets you already paid for are clogging their delivery network.

Its like UPS wanting to charge Amazon shipping (in addition to the shipping you pay) because everyone else also buys from them.

Understand?
 
2014-06-07 12:07:35 AM
www.subgenius.com
 
2014-06-07 12:10:00 AM
ISPs astroturfing?  Sort of like when Verizon sent out letters from their customers saying that they consented for Verizon to weasel out of a deal for them to provide broadband service statewide in NJ, only many of the customers never signed, consented to, or even read the letters that Verizon sent out in their names?
 
2014-06-07 12:21:56 AM
Obama has already made up his mind, with his selection of Tom Wheeler.
 
2014-06-07 12:27:14 AM
Just think how much they could save by not doing this stupid shiat! Not to mention that there is no cost difference, to them, between their slowest speed offered, and their fastest, outside of lost sucker profits, and the people they pay to make you think you should pay more for "not less".
 
2014-06-07 12:42:08 AM
I hope this is documented and used against them in hearings.
 
2014-06-07 12:45:40 AM

Nemo's Brother: Obama has already made up his mind, with his selection of Tom Wheeler.


He also appointed Julius Genachowski, who did a great job heading the FCC, and pushed hard for net neutrality along with other consumer-friendly regulations.

The selection of Wheeler to follow him does seem a bit of a 180, though I honestly don't know if it was Obama having a change of heart of just not knowing/caring much about Internet policy.

Unfortunately the vast majority of our elected officials are just completely out of the loop when it comes to technology.  Off of the top of my head I can name two member of Congress, Zoe Lofgren out of CA, and Ron Wyden out of OR, that seem to have a deep understanding of the issues facing digital and information policy as well as a pro-user voting record.  There may be more, but it's a small group.

Technological fluency needs to become a bigger issue in future elections as the Internet and connected devices will play an increasingly large role in everyday life.  I'm not saying they need to have engineering degrees and know how to design the systems themselves, but they need to understand how they work and how policies need to be designed to spur innovation that benefits and protects consumers.

One interesting issue is that a number of Republicans have been switching sides on the net neutrality debate.  A couple of years ago they all seemed to be in lockstep against it based on their archaic 'regulation bad!' attitudes.  Now some are actually crossing the fence as they see how allowing ISPs to pick the winners and losers for Internet services would be extremely damaging to the economy.

Basically, we can't afford to elect any more Louie Gohmerts.
 
2014-06-07 01:15:37 AM

TuteTibiImperes: ISPs astroturfing?  Sort of like when Verizon sent out letters from their customers saying that they consented for Verizon to weasel out of a deal for them to provide broadband service statewide in NJ, only many of the customers never signed, consented to, or even read the letters that Verizon sent out in their names?


Wow. According to that article they increased rates for twenty years, received extra tax breaks and never performed the work they where supposed to. 20 years of additional revenue.

The state should sue the ever living fark out of them and use the proceeds to start municipal broadband.
 
2014-06-07 04:09:05 AM

yukichigai: serial_crusher: I'm all for fair business regulation, but the phrase "net neutrality" has really become tainted by some idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
Show me a specific plan that works and I'll get behind it, but just complaining about the present situation isn't doing much to sway me.

Specific plan?  How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?  Works fine.  How do I know?  That's what we've been using between the birth of the internet and last year.

Net Neutrality isn't complicated.  The only people who say "its complicated" have been confused by astroturf groups like this and their associated propaganda.


How about "ISP's are not allowed to interfere in the choices of their paying customers even if extorting payments from others is highly profitable"?

Also, the account you are talking to IS an astroturf account. He shows up in every thread on the topic to tell us how bad network neutrality is and to defend Comcast, Verizon, and the like.
 
2014-06-07 04:13:05 AM
Remember kids... You need to send in a comment yourself to drown out the voices of the paid astroturfers.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has set up a website to make commenting on network neutrality much faster and simpler.

https://www.dearfcc.org/

Post a comment and share the address with your friends on social media along with a link to John Oliver's epic takedown.
 
2014-06-07 04:17:29 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The selection of Wheeler to follow him does seem a bit of a 180, though I honestly don't know if it was Obama having a change of heart of just not knowing/caring much about Internet policy.

Unfortunately the vast majority of our elected officials are just completely out of the loop when it comes to technology


Stop making bullshiat excuses for the man.

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.

So this public comment period is crucial. You have a chance to tell both Obama and Wheeler what you think, so that the will of the people and not the power of money and predatory interests, is heard.


He doesn't understand the issue? Bullshiat.
 
2014-06-07 07:43:44 AM

Philibuster: Are the fracking companies going to sue for copyright infringement?


How about the libs who were caught pretending to be racists at tea-party rallies?
 
2014-06-07 08:36:02 AM

Alleyoop: Philibuster: Are the fracking companies going to sue for copyright infringement?

How about the libs who were caught pretending to be racists at tea-party rallies?


I'm sure you have citation for that. From a news source whose name has no reference to patriots, "Libs" being idiots, or the word "Fox" in the title, even.

Because what it sounds like is that you're trying to disown the racist idiots of the tea party and claim they're all liberal plants.
 
2014-06-07 09:05:13 AM

Prophet of Loss: You currently pay to receive "packets" over the "intertubes". Your packets are like little packages and you pay your ISP to "ship" to you, regardless of the source. Now, they want to bill both the sender and receiver for the packet shipped from some sources by claiming the packets you already paid for are clogging their delivery network.


Technically I'm already paying both to send and receive packets, as evidenced by the fact that most broadband plans provide asymmetric up/down rates.  The receiving is the important part to me, since I'm mostly a consumer, so I pay a lot of money to receive a lot of data.  It's not unreasonable that a user who sends a lot of data should have to pay for the costs associated with it.

Arguments about keeping pricing fair and standardized make sense, but the complaint about "charging on both ends" is bullshiat.
 
2014-06-07 09:31:39 AM

yukichigai: How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?


How does this play out in practice?  I pay my ISP for 300 megabits up and down.  It's one of the perks of living in a city  where Google has scared AT&T into providing reasonable service.
My Grandma lives out in the country and has some shiatty DSL that's like 768k down and 256k up.  When I make a skype call with my Grandma, the video coming from her looks like shiat and I can't see the fine details on that nice sweater Aunt June knitted for her.  Farking tragic, something needs to be done.

So, since we're talking about my Grandma here, we probably all agree that the solution is for her to pony up the money for a faster pipe that enables her to send the amount of data she wants to send.

But, if we replace "my Grandma" with "Netflix", all of a sudden the story is that I've already paid to receive 300 megs so its up to the other party's ISP to insure that they're able to upload 300 megs * number of users, at no cost to them.

If we were to "treat all data equally regardless of source", we'd have to dig some fiber out to Grandma's house and give her the same upstream capacity we want to give Netflix.  I don't think equality is what you actually want.
 
2014-06-07 11:09:55 AM

serial_crusher: yukichigai: How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?

How does this play out in practice?  I pay my ISP for 300 megabits up and down.  It's one of the perks of living in a city  where Google has scared AT&T into providing reasonable service.
My Grandma lives out in the country and has some shiatty DSL that's like 768k down and 256k up.  When I make a skype call with my Grandma, the video coming from her looks like shiat and I can't see the fine details on that nice sweater Aunt June knitted for her.  Farking tragic, something needs to be done.

So, since we're talking about my Grandma here, we probably all agree that the solution is for her to pony up the money for a faster pipe that enables her to send the amount of data she wants to send.

But, if we replace "my Grandma" with "Netflix", all of a sudden the story is that I've already paid to receive 300 megs so its up to the other party's ISP to insure that they're able to upload 300 megs * number of users, at no cost to them.

If we were to "treat all data equally regardless of source", we'd have to dig some fiber out to Grandma's house and give her the same upstream capacity we want to give Netflix.  I don't think equality is what you actually want.


img.fark.net
/I know it's gonna cost us a lot, but hey, maybe they'll throw in the sprinklers for free.
 
2014-06-07 11:22:59 AM

serial_crusher: yukichigai: How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?

How does this play out in practice?  I pay my ISP for 300 megabits up and down.  It's one of the perks of living in a city  where Google has scared AT&T into providing reasonable service.
My Grandma lives out in the country and has some shiatty DSL that's like 768k down and 256k up.  When I make a skype call with my Grandma, the video coming from her looks like shiat and I can't see the fine details on that nice sweater Aunt June knitted for her.  Farking tragic, something needs to be done.

So, since we're talking about my Grandma here, we probably all agree that the solution is for her to pony up the money for a faster pipe that enables her to send the amount of data she wants to send.

But, if we replace "my Grandma" with "Netflix", all of a sudden the story is that I've already paid to receive 300 megs so its up to the other party's ISP to insure that they're able to upload 300 megs * number of users, at no cost to them.

If we were to "treat all data equally regardless of source", we'd have to dig some fiber out to Grandma's house and give her the same upstream capacity we want to give Netflix.  I don't think equality is what you actually want.


Just so no one else reading this thinks that you are talking about the same thing as everyone else, I'll revise your analogy to actually apply to what we are referring to:

You pay AT&T for 300 down, 50 up.  Your grandmother, with Verizon, pays for 150 down, 25 up.

You do a streaming video chat with your grandmother and it comes out pixelated.  You do a little research, and find out you are only getting 50K each way.  You find out that in order to get the full speed you both paid for, you need to pay Verizon (you are already paying AT&T) for access to a Verizon customer.

Since both AT&T and Verizon are in on this, your grandmother will have to also pay AT&T (even though she is already paying Verizon) for access to AT&T customers.
 
2014-06-07 01:13:48 PM

serial_crusher: yukichigai: How about "ISPs have to treat all data equally regardless of source or content"?

How does this play out in practice?  I pay my ISP for 300 megabits up and down.  It's one of the perks of living in a city  where Google has scared AT&T into providing reasonable service.
My Grandma lives out in the country and has some shiatty DSL that's like 768k down and 256k up.  When I make a skype call with my Grandma, the video coming from her looks like shiat and I can't see the fine details on that nice sweater Aunt June knitted for her.  Farking tragic, something needs to be done.

So, since we're talking about my Grandma here, we probably all agree that the solution is for her to pony up the money for a faster pipe that enables her to send the amount of data she wants to send.

But, if we replace "my Grandma" with "Netflix", all of a sudden the story is that I've already paid to receive 300 megs so its up to the other party's ISP to insure that they're able to upload 300 megs * number of users, at no cost to them.

If we were to "treat all data equally regardless of source", we'd have to dig some fiber out to Grandma's house and give her the same upstream capacity we want to give Netflix.  I don't think equality is what you actually want.


You could not be more wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

tl;dr go fark yourself
 
2014-06-07 05:08:55 PM

serial_crusher: Prophet of Loss: You currently pay to receive "packets" over the "intertubes". Your packets are like little packages and you pay your ISP to "ship" to you, regardless of the source. Now, they want to bill both the sender and receiver for the packet shipped from some sources by claiming the packets you already paid for are clogging their delivery network.

Technically I'm already paying both to send and receive packets, as evidenced by the fact that most broadband plans provide asymmetric up/down rates.  The receiving is the important part to me, since I'm mostly a consumer, so I pay a lot of money to receive a lot of data.  It's not unreasonable that a user who sends a lot of data should have to pay for the costs associated with it.

Arguments about keeping pricing fair and standardized make sense, but the complaint about "charging on both ends" is bullshiat.


You still failed. Thankfully, smarter people than you are actually helping.
 
2014-06-07 05:22:13 PM

Anonymous Bosch: I'm sure you have citation for that. From a news source whose name has no reference to patriots, "Libs" being idiots, or the word "Fox" in the title, even. Because what it sounds like is that you're trying to disown the racist idiots of the tea party and claim they're all liberal plants.


You really need to get out more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd71TEn5E6o&t=2m19s
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report