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.

(Politico)   Guys, don't worry about Ajit Pai dismantling Net Neutrality. We can just have the states regulate telecoms bec-*checks earpiece* what? You mean he's gutting that too? 'State's Rights' only applies to you being a racist dick? Okay, time for revolution   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Followup, net neutrality rules, internet service providers, Network neutrality, FCC, Julius Genachowski, Internet service provider, Wi-Fi, Network neutrality in the United States  
•       •       •

2074 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2017 at 8:25 AM (34 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-22 07:36:54 AM  
Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.
 
2017-11-22 07:38:57 AM  
I can see States providing privacy regulations but it seems like states getting involved in Net Neutrality issues rather directly runs afoul of the interstate commerce clause. It would be nice to preserve Net Neutrality but via the States is the wrong way.
 
2017-11-22 07:52:47 AM  

Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.


I don't see how it isn't already.
 
2017-11-22 07:54:42 AM  

Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.


For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".
 
2017-11-22 08:02:11 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 08:02:12 AM  
Normally I'd point and laugh "You guy's are boned.... Again."  But this farks it up for everyone. Do the f*ck better America, EVERYONE else is getting tired of your shiat.
 
2017-11-22 08:02:54 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".


It worries me to think about what it would be like if something like electricity were only invented in this day and age.

One party would try and make sure everyone has electricity, and the other would pitch shiat fits in the dark with their torches.

/though in this case at least they would know how to make a proper torch and not a store bought tiki torch
 
2017-11-22 08:03:20 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".


it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...
 
2017-11-22 08:04:17 AM  

sno man: Normally I'd point and laugh "You guy's are boned.... Again."  But this farks it up for everyone. Do the f*ck better America, EVERYONE else is getting tired of your shiat.


it may be time for our allies to stage an..."intervention"
 
2017-11-22 08:07:00 AM  

somedude210: sno man: Normally I'd point and laugh "You guy's are boned.... Again."  But this farks it up for everyone. Do the f*ck better America, EVERYONE else is getting tired of your shiat.

it may be time for our allies to stage an..."intervention"


I'm afraid that word no longer means what, or in the case who, you think it means.
 
2017-11-22 08:09:27 AM  

somedude210: it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...


The day after the election I favorited some people in grey who were really happy about Trump winning and gloating and such.  I since removed that because was too depressing to watch them keep supporting trump (and a couple I just had to put on ignore), but there was one guy who made a comment about how, at last, there was someone in the white house who would fight the oligarchs!  He was so excited about it!  And I laughed and laughed and laughed.  Poor dumb farker.  He had no idea what he just bit into and swallowed, but he was certain it wass going to cure this country of everything.  I wonder if he still believes that.
 
2017-11-22 08:11:17 AM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...

The day after the election I favorited some people in grey who were really happy about Trump winning and gloating and such.  I since removed that because was too depressing to watch them keep supporting trump (and a couple I just had to put on ignore), but there was one guy who made a comment about how, at last, there was someone in the white house who would fight the oligarchs!  He was so excited about it!  And I laughed and laughed and laughed.  Poor dumb farker.  He had no idea what he just bit into and swallowed, but he was certain it wass going to cure this country of everything.  I wonder if he still believes that.


I don't believe anyone is that dumb to actually believe that. Anyone that dumb wouldn't actually know what an oligarch is.

/though it seems they will be finding out sooner rather than later
 
2017-11-22 08:18:31 AM  

Gubbo: I don't believe anyone is that dumb to actually believe that. Anyone that dumb wouldn't actually know what an oligarch is.

/though it seems they will be finding out sooner rather than later


They don't even know what "Socialism" or "Communism" is so...who knows?
 
2017-11-22 08:20:16 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: I don't believe anyone is that dumb to actually believe that. Anyone that dumb wouldn't actually know what an oligarch is.

/though it seems they will be finding out sooner rather than later

They don't even know what "Socialism" or "Communism" is so...who knows?


Oh they know that. One of them is Obama and one of them is Bernie. Now which is which is a little trickier, but if you use them interchangeably you'll probably be fine.
 
2017-11-22 08:24:33 AM  
So we are going to be backwards in our measurement system, our health care system, our tax system and now our internet access.
 
2017-11-22 08:30:06 AM  

Nadie_AZ: So we are going to be backwards in our measurement system, our health care system, our tax system and now our internet access.


We're going to have the best internet access!  Want to visit Fox News?  It will load quicker than ever!  Want to visit CNN?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 08:31:16 AM  
But hey, Hills didna inspire us and was just the worst right? No different than Trump right?
 
2017-11-22 08:31:43 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".


It also has a lot to do with silencing the voice of the people.  With the ISP's in charge of what you can and can't access, it will end up being harder & harder for people to gather, collaborate and deal with issues that affect them.

Which makes a lot of sense.  Pai and crew want to see the internet in the US be a lot like it is in places like China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
 
2017-11-22 08:32:33 AM  
I had somebody tell me that gutting net neutrality was a good thing, yesterday, because it allows those poor, fledging, telecom companies to innovate.

I'll never understand how people put the needs of random multi-billion dollar companies before their own. Personally, when telecoms cry poverty, saying they need more money to do stuff, I'd rather ask why they deliver us a more expensive and inferior service compared to every other developed nation who have these regulations, and more, in place.
 
2017-11-22 08:33:15 AM  

Nadie_AZ: So we are going to be backwards in our measurement system, our health care system, our tax system and now our internet access.


Republicans want to roll back our government to the late 19th/early 20th century, when robber barons had free reign and people who weren't wealthy white males knew their place.

They don't care that the Gilded Age ended with a massive global economic catastrophe; they figure their wealth will shield them, or that at least they'll be dead before the shiat gets to them. All they care about is making as much money as possible, never mind that they already have more than they could actually SPEND in several lifetimes.

This form of "capitalism" needs to die.
 
2017-11-22 08:33:47 AM  
Ajit Pai:

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 08:34:23 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: I don't believe anyone is that dumb to actually believe that. Anyone that dumb wouldn't actually know what an oligarch is.

/though it seems they will be finding out sooner rather than later

They don't even know what "Socialism" or "Communism" is so...who knows?


That's easy. Socialism and communism are all the things they don't like.
 
2017-11-22 08:35:24 AM  
Obvious.

Thanks, third-party voters and non-voters. All of this is done with your tacit acceptance. Maybe next time you'll figure out that actions have consequences.
 
2017-11-22 08:35:30 AM  
Over 20 states already have laws on the books that forbid public (municipal, etc.) ISPs. The FCC, under Tom Wheeler, voted to block those laws in 2015, but the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states.

Why, yes, most of the states against public ISP's are red states. How did you know?

/don't expect the states to save you
 
2017-11-22 08:38:10 AM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Over 20 states already have laws on the books that forbid public (municipal, etc.) ISPs. The FCC, under Tom Wheeler, voted to block those laws in 2015, but the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states.

Why, yes, most of the states against public ISP's are red states. How did you know?

/don't expect the states to save you


Wheeler's NN ruling was helping rural communities with broadband access. This change will be like having power companies buy off states who were getting electricity run into rural areas via the TVA, back in the 30s, 40s and even 50s.
 
2017-11-22 08:38:41 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".


It's because FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.  Sure would be nice if the FTC would actually enforce anti-trust laws in each county where a telecom has exclusive rights.
 
2017-11-22 08:40:49 AM  

wademh: I can see States providing privacy regulations but it seems like states getting involved in Net Neutrality issues rather directly runs afoul of the interstate commerce clause. It would be nice to preserve Net Neutrality but via the States is the wrong way.


I agree that states shouldn't have to be responsible for handling this, but there are a few reasons why I think it's the way forward:

1) The federal government has now failed us in the fight, leaving the individual states as the last line of defense.  It's not ideal, but it's all we have left.
2) Many states are already fighting some of this battle with regards to regulation of municipal broadband and internet sales tax collection, so at least on some levels, states already have been granted the power to enforce their own rules on internet companies and providers.
3) Consumer protection laws are usually handled at a state-level already.  So states do have a legal avenue to fight this that way as well.
 
2017-11-22 08:40:53 AM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...

The day after the election I favorited some people in grey who were really happy about Trump winning and gloating and such.  I since removed that because was too depressing to watch them keep supporting trump (and a couple I just had to put on ignore), but there was one guy who made a comment about how, at last, there was someone in the white house who would fight the oligarchs!  He was so excited about it!  And I laughed and laughed and laughed.  Poor dumb farker.  He had no idea what he just bit into and swallowed, but he was certain it wass going to cure this country of everything.  I wonder if he still believes that.


Are you serious?  There was some idiot touting the benefits of electing an oligarch to fight the oligarchy?  Are you trying to get me to start ay drinking before dawn even breaks?
 
2017-11-22 08:42:56 AM  

somedude210: Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".

it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...


I have been saying this for a while.

The FCC terminating the policy regarding allowing TV and radio to be under local controls, allowing the Sinclair company to buy up so many broadcast rights and dictate what content to show on these local stations, Fox News being the "official news" outlet for the White House, the allowing of the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, and the dismantling of net neutrality rules all point to the creation of a state media where propaganda can be distributed as efficiently as possible and quiet dissidents as quickly as possible.
Does that sound like a the land of the free?  No. What country does that sound the most like?   It sounds like an oligarchy or a totalitarian government much like Russia or China.
 
2017-11-22 08:45:20 AM  
This could be a real disaster, but seriously WTF can any of us do about it?  Even the commenting period was rigged!
 
2017-11-22 08:46:38 AM  
Is this a surprise? They didn't care about states rights when Massachusetts let the gays marry. Dubya floated the idea of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
 
2017-11-22 08:47:02 AM  

wademh: I can see States providing privacy regulations but it seems like states getting involved in Net Neutrality issues rather directly runs afoul of the interstate commerce clause. It would be nice to preserve Net Neutrality but via the States is the wrong way.


Well, like everything else these days, it seems we will need a state to go ahead and pass their own Neutrality laws and take it to the Supreme Court.  I mean, you're absolutely right as far as I am concerned, but everything is up for renegotiation.
 
2017-11-22 08:47:30 AM  

Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.


I've said it before on here, but of all the places I've lived, Chattanooga, TN had by far the best internet. The local power utility ran fiber as part of creating a smart grid and sold internet as a by-product of that. It was fast, cheap, reliable, and the one time I had to call customer service, I got someone in an office downtown who was both extremely competent and able to discuss my issue with the guy sitting beside him running the rack.

And, again, this was in Tennessee, not Berkley or something. This should absolutely be a model for every city in the US. But it won't because corporations make too much money selling you shiatty cable service.
 
2017-11-22 08:47:37 AM  

harleyquinnical: Are you serious? There was some idiot touting the benefits of electing an oligarch to fight the oligarchy? Are you trying to get me to start ay drinking before dawn even breaks?


Oh, don't say that like you weren't going to anyway. ;)  The only question now is is it a scotch day or a tequila day?  Rum or Gin? Vodka or Burbon?
 
2017-11-22 08:47:48 AM  
Ajit Pai is taking his marching orders, but even he would be dumb not to think he's being sent on a suicide mission.
 
2017-11-22 08:48:21 AM  

Chalnoth: somedude210: Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".

it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...

I have been saying this for a while.

The FCC terminating the policy regarding allowing TV and radio to be under local controls, allowing the Sinclair company to buy up so many broadcast rights and dictate what content to show on these local stations, Fox News being the "official news" outlet for the White House, the allowing of the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, and the dismantling of net neutrality rules all point to the creation of a state media where propaganda can be distributed as efficiently as possible and quiet dissidents as quickly as possible.
Does that sound like a the land of the free?  No. What country does that sound the most like?   It sounds like an oligarchy or a totalitarian government much like Russia or China.


Minor quibble: the DOJ is suing to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger.
 
2017-11-22 08:48:30 AM  
Personally, I wouldn't mind having the people who normally read tags like dailykoz, fivethirtyeight, and CNN be charged a little bit more for digesting that kind of fake news. Plus, this would probably go a long way to prevent websites from embedding auto-playing video feeds, which I approve of.
 
2017-11-22 08:49:15 AM  

GoldSpider: This could be a real disaster, but seriously WTF can any of us do about it?  Even the commenting period was rigged!


Not vote for people who would let this happen to begin with. All of this stems from assuming Republicans wouldn't actually be as bad as they said they were (in fact they are actually worse).

And that largely might mean swallowing your pride or the purest reflection of your personal ideology and voting for a Democrat, just to keep things from getting worse and trying to repair the damage.

As much as people hate it, sometimes the world gives you the choice of infected glass shards or unseasoned tofu.

Unless your aim is to "heighten the contradictions" to the point everything just implodes...
 
2017-11-22 08:50:03 AM  

sno man: Normally I'd point and laugh "You guy's are boned.... Again."  But this farks it up for everyone. Do the f*ck better America, EVERYONE else is getting tired of your shiat.


Unfortunately a majority of voters went for the Orange gibbon rather tha...  What?  He lost the vote but won the election because of some archaic bull that is as outdated as white leisure suits?  Well, fark me.
 
2017-11-22 08:50:50 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-22 08:51:00 AM  
Growing a few tomatoes in your own garden and eating them yourself is interested commerce, so it's kind of hard to make a case that the Internet isn't.
 
2017-11-22 08:51:10 AM  

somedude210: [img.fark.net image 425x683][View Full Size image _x_]


I think we NEED the change, but I don't think we're hungry enough, or oppressed enough to do anything about it, other than maybe legislative change. There is no life or death scenario, or enemy to fight. "Government" isn't the enemy. And, depressingly, we're seeing people dismiss pedophilia in the name of "but party before country."

This past year has been truly depressing and I'm trying to do what I can to enact change. It's hard to keep the faith.
 
2017-11-22 08:51:13 AM  

snowshovel: Personally, I wouldn't mind having the people who normally read tags like dailykoz, fivethirtyeight, and CNN be charged a little bit more for digesting that kind of fake news. Plus, this would probably go a long way to prevent websites from embedding auto-playing video feeds, which I approve of.


1) Your websites are objectively worse; so shove it

2) They will do WORSE by you now, because who is going to stop them? I mean, I know you won't because you are the one who will scream "Thank you sir may I have another" when they slap your ass with that spiked paddle.
 
2017-11-22 08:51:25 AM  

MattytheMouse: I had somebody tell me that gutting net neutrality was a good thing, yesterday, because it allows those poor, fledging, telecom companies to innovate.

I'll never understand how people put the needs of random multi-billion dollar companies before their own. Personally, when telecoms cry poverty, saying they need more money to do stuff, I'd rather ask why they deliver us a more expensive and inferior service compared to every other developed nation who have these regulations, and more, in place.


I've had some success arguing it this way. Really focus on the idea that everyone involved has already paid the ISPs money.

Look, you already paid for internet access right? The websites you are visiting also are already paying right? So since both of you are already paying ISPs for access, why should you have to pay more for less service? It basically turns the internet into a protection racket. Pay the ISPs whatever they demand or it will be a shame when your store front burns to the ground err..  we throttle the shiat out of your access. You like Netflix? You want to pay $80 dollars a month for Netflix on top of whatever extortionist feed the ISPs collects? That's where this is headed with the end of net neutrality.

Then after you explain all that the mouth breather wipes the drool of his chin and says something about all regulations are evil and ma free markets and you die a little more inside.
 
2017-11-22 08:53:10 AM  
States, don't regulate telecoms, deregulate your cities. Remove all exclusivity contracts and let the free market decide.
 
2017-11-22 08:53:23 AM  

Ambivalence: Gubbo: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I don't see how it isn't already.

For the same reason Net Neutrality is on the chopping block, it's more profitable for private corporations for it NOT to be.  They are literally rigging the system to allow them to offer the shiattiest product for the highest prices because "freedom".


Hey I may be paying more for the internet, but at least it's not a TAX! I'll pay more for everything so long as it's not TAXES! I HATE TAXES! Good thing the party in power is the one that wants to lower them for people in my tax bracket of under $90,000 A year.
 
2017-11-22 08:53:41 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ambivalence: Time to make internet access a public utility, and regulated like a public utility.

I've said it before on here, but of all the places I've lived, Chattanooga, TN had by far the best internet. The local power utility ran fiber as part of creating a smart grid and sold internet as a by-product of that. It was fast, cheap, reliable, and the one time I had to call customer service, I got someone in an office downtown who was both extremely competent and able to discuss my issue with the guy sitting beside him running the rack.

And, again, this was in Tennessee, not Berkley or something. This should absolutely be a model for every city in the US. But it won't because corporations make too much money selling you shiatty cable service.


Chattanooga is actually a model for how every city should handle internet access. Unfortunately the Right doesn't normally like for government to compete with private companies. Just in case it proves that sometimes government can do a better job when they aren't focused solely on the bottom line.
 
2017-11-22 08:54:01 AM  

qorkfiend: Minor quibble: the DOJ is suing to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger.


Not actually, they're suing to require Time Warner to sell off CNN as part of the merger deal because they hurt the president's fee fees.
 
2017-11-22 08:55:41 AM  

Ambivalence: somedude210: it's also a coordinated effort to mold America into Russia with an oligarchy.

/i miss the soviets...

The day after the election I favorited some people in grey who were really happy about Trump winning and gloating and such.  I since removed that because was too depressing to watch them keep supporting trump (and a couple I just had to put on ignore), but there was one guy who made a comment about how, at last, there was someone in the white house who would fight the oligarchs!  He was so excited about it!  And I laughed and laughed and laughed.  Poor dumb farker.  He had no idea what he just bit into and swallowed, but he was certain it wass going to cure this country of everything.  I wonder if he still believes that.


"Oligarchs?" You sure he didn't mean Jews?
 
2017-11-22 08:56:05 AM  

BlueDWarrior: Not vote for people who would let this happen to begin with. All of this stems from assuming Republicans wouldn't actually be as bad as they said they were (in fact they are actually worse).


I don't think anyone here on FarkPol votes Republican.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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