Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday unveiled plans to repeal a landmark 2015 order that barred internet service providers from blocking or slowing down consumer access to web content, and said the regulator will prevent states and cities from adopting similar protections. FCC chief Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump in January, said the commission will vote at a Dec. 14 meeting on his plan to rescind the so-called net neutrality rules championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama that treated internet service providers like public utilities. The rules barred broadband providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging consumers more for certain content.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I suspect your Amazon/Netflix subscription will go from $10 to $40 as video content providers will be squeezed out of the market by the tel-comm community. Another reason why I may support blocking the AT&T and TWC merger. When AT&T has a preferred interest in what video content you pay to watch they could easily put Netflix and Amazon out of the online streaming business on their platforms by offering a 'cheaper' streaming option.

#1 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Trump, a Republican, expressed his opposition to net neutrality in 2014 before the regulations were even implemented, calling it a "power grab" by Obama."

Please explain how that was a "power grab." In reality, this is a money grab. This is just like the beginning of cable TV, they will divide up the internet and charge fees to access the various "channels" which we can access for free right now. IT is also an information grab, the corporations that sell us access will have the ability to censor what we get to view much as Fox News does (as well as other corporate networks). Proof? How much air time have you seen dedicated to even discussing this major change in the media which we use to get information. How much do you want to bet that Rush Limbaugh will be accessible for free while Free Speech TV will be on a channel you have to pay for just as on CAble TV Fox News comes with basic while MSNBC you have to pay an additional fee for expanded basic. Our government created the internet, we use it to access information unavailble from corporate sites, we use it to communicate right here on DR. This is a suppression of the first amendment and you know as well as I do that if a similar rule was proposed to regulate the 2nd amendment the righties would go crazy but for the first amendment they are silent because their right wing heroes will be availble to them for free just like they are on cable TV. But be complacent, don't get outraged. YOu will rue the day when you sat silent as they censored the internet and divided it up into parts so they can rob you blind for access down the road.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 - Danni

Which is why the AT&T and TWC merger should be opposed. As well as this net neutrality move.

#3 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 12:28 PM | Reply

"Which is why the AT&T and TWC merger should be opposed. As well as this net neutrality move."

I would definitely agree.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 01:13 PM | Reply

FCC chair to push for complete repeal of net neutrality

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai will reportedly seek to completely repeal net neutrality rules put in place under former President Obama, according to a Monday report.

Sources close to the matter tell Politico that Pai will seek to completely remove the net neutrality rules, which reclassified internet service providers (ISPs) as telecommunications companies and required them to treat all web traffic equally.

thehill.com

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-21 01:23 PM | Reply

I really, really really hate these --------.

I can't find a single redeeming characteristics in any of their miserable existences.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Good job trumpers.

This ones on you. Once you give corporations power and control, they never give it back.

But the parties are exactly the same, right dummies?

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


 

Another aspect of this besides ISPs charging site owners more to carry their content...

It sets up a scenario where ISPs can treat the Internet websites in the same manner as cable companies treat channels.

Oh, you want to access amazon.com, well you have to subscribe to the premium access tier to do that, amazon. com access is not included in the basic access tier.

Most of the US does not have a competitive environment for ISPs, so they can get away with a lot of consumer abuse (cf. Comcast).

 

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 01:58 PM | Reply

But but but the parties are the same! ...right?

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 02:08 PM | Reply

Thread needs JeffJ to explain why he supports repeal of Net Neutrality.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:16 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement


 

The Trump administration knows how bad this is for consumers. That is why they unveiled their plans during Thanksgiving week, when most people are otherwise occupied.

 

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 02:34 PM | Reply

Another liberal freebe bites the dust.

#12 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 03:21 PM | Reply

Another liberal freebe bites the dust.

#12 | Posted by Ray

Says the guy too dumb to even know what net neutrality is.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Air is free, it must be a liberal plot. How much do you pay for gravity Ray?

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 03:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

As millions flocked to the web for the first time in the 1990s, President Clinton and a Republican Congress decided "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet." In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government called for an internet "unfettered by Federal or State regulation." The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history.

Encouraged by light-touch regulation, private companies invested over $1.5 trillion in nearly two decades to build out American communications networks. Without having to ask anyone's permission, innovators everywhere used the internet's open platform to start companies that have transformed how billions of people live and work.

But that changed in 2014. Just days after a poor midterm election result, President Obama publicly pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reject the longstanding consensus on a market-based approach to the internet. He instead urged the agency to impose upon internet service providers a creaky regulatory framework called "Title II," which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly. A few months later, the FCC followed President Obama's instructions on a party-line vote. I voted "no," but the agency's majority chose micromanagement over markets.

This burdensome regulation has failed consumers and businesses alike. In the two years after the FCC's decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6% -- the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. If the current rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband.

The effect has been particularly serious for smaller internet service providers. They don't have the time, money or lawyers to cut through a thicket of complex rules. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that generally operate in rural America, found that more than 80% of its members "incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules." They aren't alone. Other small companies have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail upgrades to their fiber networks.

The uncertainty surrounding the FCC's onerous rules has also slowed the introduction of new services. One major company reported that it put on hold a project to build out its out-of-home Wi-Fi network partly because it wasn't sure if the FCC would approve of its business model. Nineteen municipal internet service providers -- that is, city-owned nonprofits -- told the this past May that they "often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action."


I created a duplicate thread not realizing we already had one going.

Here is the source for my blockquote:

www.wsj.com

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 03:36 PM | Reply

www.wsj.com

#15 | Posted by JeffJ

Oh wahhhh yeah rupert murdoch's paper is so worried about the startup businesses and poor people. They're not trying to help rich powerful sociopathic corporations dominate the market and ripoff consumers at all!

Same stupid argument they use when trying to deregulate banks, or block climate change legislation. All of a sudden they're SO concerned about the poor and little businesses!

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 03:45 PM | Reply

"Nineteen municipal internet service providers -- that is, city-owned nonprofits -- told the this past May that they "often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action."

And who would complain? Oh yeah, corporate internet service providers who generally have monopolies in the areas they serve and don't want competition from municipal internet servers. Ajit Pi is doing the bidding of the big internet service providers who are going to change the model to that similar to cable TV and now charge us all for services we now take for granted, the will have censorship abilities and will be able to destroy internet companies like Netflix so that their own movie channels will be the only one's that you can get through them. Europeans are, once again, laughing at the stupid Americans.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 03:47 PM | Reply

Air is free, it must be a liberal plot. How much do you pay for gravity Ray?
#14 | POSTED BY DANNI

Bandwidth is not free. It's an issue over who pays.

#18 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 03:49 PM | Reply

Air is free, it must be a liberal plot. How much do you pay for gravity Ray?

Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 03:31 PM | Reply

I "Pay" a lot for gravity.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 03:52 PM | Reply

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai will reveal plans to his fellow commissioners on Tuesday to fully dismantle the agency's Obama-era net neutrality regulations, people familiar with the plans said, in a major victory for the telecom industry in the long-running policy debate.

The commission will vote on the proposal in December, some seven months after it laid the groundwork for scuttling the rules that require internet service providers like Comcast or AT&T to treat web traffic equally.

President Donald Trump-appointed Pai's plan would jettison rules that prohibit internet service providers from blocking or slowing web traffic or creating so-called paid internet fast lanes, the people familiar with the changes said.


www.politico.com
I think it's a step in the right direction.

#20 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 03:54 PM | Reply

#18 - Ray

This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content prioritizaion.

#21 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 03:56 PM | Reply

"Bandwidth is not free. It's an issue over who pays."

We pay for bandwidth, this isn't really about bandwidth. It's about being able to charge you for more "channels" just like cable TV. We already have an unlimited number of channels, this is taking what our government created and selling it back to us. You wait we'll be paying double what we are now within a couple of years.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 03:57 PM | Reply

The internet was just fine until Obama decided that it needed regulating, and this action puts the onus on Congress to set the rules rather than having them entered by fiat when the FCC or POTUS feels like it.

If you want net neutrality restored, email your congressperson and demand that they make it into law as opposed to a couple of hundred pages in the CFR that can be changed with a stroke of the pen.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-21 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here in S. Florida, all of the liberal talk radio stations were bought up by big corporations and their content replaced with conservatives. And don't claim it was because of ratings, the highest rated radio talk program ever in S. Florida was a liberal talker. Now the same thing is going to happen online, they are going to close down voices who disagree with the oligarchs just as they do in Russia and China. And you fools think this is good.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The internet was just fine until Obama decided that it needed regulating, and this action puts the onus on Congress to set the rules rather than having them entered by fiat when the FCC or POTUS feels like it."

It kept if free for quite a few years but now the party is over, the oligarchs will have their way, the people will see what they are allowed to see by the oligarchs. Let Freedumb ring!

#25 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:00 PM | Reply

Danni,

The internet has grown at an unprecedented pace with virtually zero regulation. All undoing this rule change will result in is the same set of conditions that allowed the internet to flourish beyond any expectations.

Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 04:01 PM | Reply

#23 RofC

What are the negatives of net neutrality regulation?

#27 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:01 PM | Reply

Trumptilians ruin everything

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-21 04:03 PM | Reply

The internet has grown at an unprecedented pace with virtually zero regulation. All undoing this rule change will result in is the same set of conditions that allowed the internet to flourish beyond any expectations.

Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ

You want to see it broken? Wait til a couple corporations control the whole thing, and can slow down any traffic that doesn't go through their own sites.

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 04:04 PM | Reply

This isn't about bandwidth. It's about content prioritizaion.
#21 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

That's doubletalk.

We pay for bandwidth, this isn't really about bandwidth. It's about being able to charge you for more "channels" just like cable TV.

Same doubletalk.

Pay for what you use. It's not complicated.

#30 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:05 PM | Reply

You want to see it broken? Wait til a couple corporations control the whole thing, and can slow down any traffic that doesn't go through their own sites.

#29 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

If that ever happens, you'll see me clamoring for regulations.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 04:05 PM | Reply

What are the negatives of net neutrality regulation?

#27 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

See #15

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 04:06 PM | Reply

"The internet has grown at an unprecedented pace with virtually zero regulation. All undoing this rule change will result in is the same set of conditions that allowed the internet to flourish beyond any expectations. "

Jeff, I remember the debate when cable TV was being first sold across the nation. There were all sorts of ads on TV and radio telling us not to start paying for what we were already getting for free. And don't pretend we couldn't have had enough channels because we had the UHF band hardly tapped at all back then. Well, the cable companies won, now how much does the average American family pay for cable TV? I just had mine disconnected because it reached $200.00 per month. I now use internet more but losing net neutrality will make that much more expensive. That's why they want to do this, they see the cable market beginning to be deserted by people like me and they want to keep the same income stream. And they want to control the political messages that we have access to. I'd love to know RCADE's position, we could just find that Drudge Retort is unavailable very soon. But I'll bet you on this, "Town Hall" will mysteriously still be available.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:07 PM | Reply

I think it's a step in the right direction.

#20 | Posted by Ray

Which means intelligent people would realize it's a disaster.

You think the telecoms are fighting to make LESS money and provide BETTER service?

Name an industry that improved when a fewer players got to dominate the market and write the rules.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 04:07 PM | Reply

---creating so-called paid internet fast lanes,

The more bandwidth you consume the more you pay. What other product is exempt from that sound economic principle?

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-11-21 04:07 PM | Reply

#30 Ray

You already pay for what you use. It's called bandwidth speed.

#36 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:08 PM | Reply

The internet was just fine until Obama decided that it needed regulating, and this action puts the onus on Congress to set the rules rather than having them entered by fiat when the FCC or POTUS feels like it.
#23 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Now your ISP gets to regulate what you get to see.

Hows that working with cable tv? Oh yes, everyone REALLY loves it...

#37 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 04:09 PM | Reply

The more bandwidth you consume the more you pay. What other product is exempt from that sound economic principle?

#35 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You moron.

That's not what this is about. Why do you even post here?

It's about ISPs being able to slow down your bandwidth for any content they want.

Liberal ISP? Fox News and Breitbart take 3 hours to load.

ISP wants you to only watch their cable tv? Hulu and Netflix load too slowly to watch.

Welcome to the new internet, dummy.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 04:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Internet content is not water

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-21 04:11 PM | Reply

You want to see it broken? Wait til a couple corporations control the whole thing, and can slow down any traffic that doesn't go through their own sites.
#29 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Paranoia runs deep.

It makes no business sense to do that to paying customers.

#40 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:13 PM | Reply

When I was a kid we used to laugh about the idea that someday we'd have to buy water at the store instead of drink it from our taps. Today, most people buy bottled water and think nothing of it. The water is almost always just filtered tap water from the same municipal taps that supply tap water to your house. Americans are definitely not getting smarter. The support for Ajit Pi and the end of net neutrality is the latest example of the collective stupidity of Americans.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:14 PM | Reply

"It makes no business sense to do that to paying customers."

It does if you want to see that content, then you'll agree to pay them more so you can.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:15 PM | Reply

Paranoia runs deep.

It makes no business sense to do that to paying customers.

Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:13 PM | Reply

That's funny coming from our resident anarchist.

#43 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 04:16 PM | Reply

32 - JeffJ

That argument is bogus and flailing. You're going to squash competition amount millions of companies because one industry has complicated regulations? An innovative new broadband startup can get all the funding they need if they have a viable product. Running a business is hard. Suck it. Internet has become a utility and the lack of access is rural counties is a weak argument. Broadband companies aren't expanding to those customers because the cost/benefit isn't there for them.

#44 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:17 PM | Reply

You already pay for what you use. It's called bandwidth speed.
#36 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

Higher bandwidth costs more. I pay for higher bandwidth. Downloads are faster. And there are fewer interruptions to streaming movies.

I suspect they'll offer a tiered system.

#45 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:18 PM | Reply

#49 Ray

Go do some homework. People will generally wait less than a few seconds for content before moving on. You're blind to the effects even a slight change in access speeds to content drive consumers.

#46 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:19 PM | Reply

That's funny coming from our resident anarchist.
#43 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I don't see the connection. The government model doesn't work and can't be made to work. That's logic, not paranoia.

#47 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:20 PM | Reply

" Internet has become a utility and the lack of access is rural counties is a weak argument."

It is a utility by FCC regulation, now they are going to take away our protection that we get because it is a utility. Now a liberal talker like Thom Hartmann may not be able to offer his show for free to millions of Americans over the internet. That makes the oligarchs happy. We are rapidly turning our free nation into a different kind of nation based on the models of China and Russia. I'm sure if Trump would be honest he'd tell us that too much freedom is not good for us.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:20 PM | Reply

Net neutrality fixed a non-existent problem and created a slew of new problems.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 04:20 PM | Reply

" The government model doesn't work and can't be made to work. That's logic, not paranoia."

It is working, you are using the internet right now, freely as in free speech, to post on a web site which may not be here after net neutrality goes away. But hey, we can all go over to Town Hall.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:21 PM | Reply

#45 Ray

You just admitted you pay for what you use. You are agreeing with me.

#51 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:22 PM | Reply

It is a utility by FCC regulation, now they are going to take away our protection that we get because it is a utility. Now a liberal talker like Thom Hartmann may not be able to offer his show for free to millions of Americans over the internet.

Was he able to do that prior to net neutrality being instilled in '15?

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 04:22 PM | Reply

"Net neutrality fixed a non-existent problem and created a slew of new problems."

Imaginary problems for internet companies who want to force us to pay them more for less service.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:23 PM | Reply


Did Net Neutrality Kill Broadband Investment Like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon Said It Would?
consumerist.com

...Last year, when the FCC was preparing to vote on the new Open Internet Order (aka "net neutrality") and its reclassification of broadband Internet as a vital utility, virtually the entire telecom and cable industry claimed this change would ruin investment and slow innovation. But a look at the year-end financial figures for the biggest naysayers casts a lot of doubt on these dire predictions.


It's an interesting article which contrasts the dire projections the industry made about Title II regulation, and the actual comments by those same companies after Title II.


For example, AT&T before:

..."Reclassification would mire the industry in years of uncertainty and litigation, and it would abruptly stall the virtuous circle of investment and innovation that has propelled the United States to the forefront of the broadband revolution."...

AT&T after:

..."We're investing aggressively in the network architecture that is going to give us a competitive advantage in cost ... and I have seen few opportunities over my career to drive down the cost to deliver service like this. We're also on track to deliver at least $2.5 billion in DirecTV synergies by 2018, and we continue to invest in spectrum."...


Similar quotes for Charter, Comcast, Time Warner Cable... The article exposes the abject hypocrisy of the companies involved in objecting to Net Neutrality.

#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 04:23 PM | Reply

"Was he able to do that prior to net neutrality being instilled in '15?"

The internet providers were preparing to put the internet on the cable TV model back then, Obama and the FCC prevented them from being able to.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 04:24 PM | Reply

#52 - JeffJ

Hypothetical. TWC creates its own streaming service and offers it in competition with Netflix. What do you think is going to happen to Netflix consumers with DirectTV if TWC and AT&T merge if net neutrality is deregulated?

#56 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 04:26 PM | Reply


Another interesting article, this one from 2014

ISPs Tell Investors Title II Won't Hurt Them In The Slightest
www.dslreports.com

...While it's clear Title II won't really harm investment, the company continues to claim the opposite. At least until this week, when company CFO Fran Shammo failed to get the memo. Speaking at this week's UBS investor conference, Shammo was asked this by a UBS investment analyst:

Obviously there's a lot of commentary coming out of Washington about this move to Title II. Obviously Verizon has been one of the more of a stiffer opponents of any sort of increased regulation, especially on the Wireless side. What's your view of that potential occurrence down in Washington and does it affect your view on the attractiveness of investing further in the United States?

Shammo's reply:

I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest. I mean we're going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.


#57 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 04:27 PM | Reply

Go do some homework. People will generally wait less than a few seconds for content before moving on. You're blind to the effects even a slight change in access speeds to content drive consumers.
#46 | POSTED BY GAVASTER

You have a point. The charges may go to the website operators based on consumed bandwidth. The more I think about it, it will probably drive away a lot of independents in the alternate media. That might be one of the underlying reasons for the change.

#58 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:31 PM | Reply

" The government model doesn't work and can't be made to work. That's logic, not paranoia."
It is working, you are using the internet right now, freely as in free speech, to post on a web site which may not be here after net neutrality goes away. But hey, we can all go over to Town Hall.
#50 | POSTED BY DANNI

Give me a break! We're supposed to be grateful because they allow us to complain about how corrupt and incompetent they are.

#59 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:34 PM | Reply

It'll be great. I look forward to it.

#60 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-21 04:35 PM | Reply

Imaginary problems for internet companies who want to force us to pay them more for less service.
#53 | POSTED BY DANNI

That's a good description for how government operates.

#61 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Paranoia runs deep.

It makes no business sense to do that to paying customers.

#40 | Posted by Ray

It makes more money for them because you use their sites which run faster instead of their competitors which they slow down.

God you are stupid.

#62 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

lifehacker.com
What the End of Net Neutrality Means for You

Slower Speeds (Or Worse) For Some of Your Favorite Sites
Higher Prices
Cable-Style Internet Bundles

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 04:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Portuguese non-neutral ISP shows us what our Trumpian internet will look like
boingboing.net

... Since 2006, Net Neutrality activists have been warning that a non-Neutral internet will be an invitation to ISPs to create "plans" where you have to choose which established services you can access, shutting out new entrants to the market and allowing the companies with the deepest pockets to permanently dominate the internet.

The fanciful graphics depicting this neutracidal apocalypse have been made and remade in the years since.

But these aren't just design fiction: the Portuguese non-neutral ISP MEO has mistaken a warning for a suggestion, and offers a series of "plans" for its mobile data service where you pay €5 to access a handful of messaging services, €5 more to use social media; and €5 more for video-streaming services. ...


 

#64 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 04:49 PM | Reply

"The more bandwidth you consume the more you pay. What other product is exempt from that sound economic principle?"

I don't pay extra to read more sections of the newspaper.

Pants in a size 40 don't cost more than a size 28.

My health insurance premium doesn't go up or down based upon how many trips I make to the doctor.

(This is of course ignoring the fact that every major ISP has a monthly bandwidth cap in the first place.)

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 04:54 PM | Reply

"Don't fix it if it ain't broken."

It's funny you don't think your ISP should be required to deliver the web page you asked for.

Do you also think it's brokem that the phone company can't get say a penny a call from Domino's if they see you calling Pizza Hut and just connect you to Domino's instead?

Because that's what you're "fixing."

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JeffJ & Ray

Here's how minor a change would have to be in place to drastically alter the internet landscape.

www.bbc.com

"According to research from digital performance measurement firm Dynatrace, just a half second difference in page load times can make a 10% difference in sales for an online retailer."

Let that sink in for a minute

#67 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#35 ... The more bandwidth you consume the more you pay. What other product is exempt from that sound economic principle? ...

That sound economic principle holds true when there is a cost to create the product. But the ISPs are merely transit for a product that is created by others.

Consider that Netflix pays Comcast to allow Netflix's product on the Comcast network, even though Comcast's customers are already paying Comcast for access to Netflix. Comcast is paid from both ends, the entity supplying the data and the entity consuming the data.

Additionally, on the Comcast network, the Netflix product is subject to Comcast's monthly data cap, yet Comcast's own on-demand product is not subject to the monthly data cap.

That's just one example of abuse that will only get worse.

#68 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It makes more money for them because you use their sites which run faster instead of their competitors which they slow down.

I'm trying to make sense of that statement.

If say Netflix movies are constantly breaking up. So I cancel my Netflix subscription and switch to Amazon. What's the problem?

God you are stupid.

Do you really think I give a ---- what you think!

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:06 PM | Reply

Correction from way earlier...

#3 | Posted by gavaster

Time Warener is merging with Charter Cable to form Spectrum Communications

#70 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-21 05:09 PM | Reply

#70 - Gal

Thanks for the correction. The logical analysis remains the same. TWc not TWC.

#71 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:13 PM | Reply

#69 | Posted by Ray

You still don't understand huh? The economics are obvious as are the end results. I may have studied economics but this is pretty straightforward - this only benefits ISPs.

#72 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-21 05:15 PM | Reply

Additionally, on the Comcast network, the Netflix product is subject to Comcast's monthly data cap, yet Comcast's own on-demand product is not subject to the monthly data cap.
That's just one example of abuse that will only get worse.
#68 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The monthly data cap is fee based. Comcast pays for its operating costs internally. So what's the problem?

#73 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:17 PM | Reply

"If say Netflix movies are constantly breaking up. So I cancel my Netflix subscription and switch to Amazon. What's the problem?"

The ISP can slow the Amazon movies too, they will probably end up letting you stream movies from the ISP for one price and from anyone else for a higher price. That will allow them to monopolize streaming and then charge even more once they do.

#74 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 05:20 PM | Reply


@#73 ... So what's the problem? ...

Comcast can artificially prevent, even kill, competition.

#75 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:23 PM | Reply

You still don't understand huh? The economics are obvious as are the end results. I may have studied economics but this is pretty straightforward - this only benefits ISPs.
#72 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

However this pans out, the business of business is to maximize profits. I think we can agree on that.
What I don't know at this point is if the regulations are one sided. If there are no regulations, then market forces come into play.

As a consumer, the impact on me is negligible.

#76 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:24 PM | Reply

Comcast can artificially prevent, even kill, competition.
#75 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The competition is too powerful to kill. The way these things work, the majors act in collusion. They divide up the market among themselves.

#77 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:28 PM | Reply


@#76 ... If there are no regulations, then market forces come into play. ...

Market forces come into play only if there is adequate competition.

Most of the US does not have adequate competition in the broadband marketspace. ISPs actively lobby. and actually write the laws to be passed. that prevent competition from appearing in the areas they serve.

#78 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:28 PM | Reply

Net neutrality prevents ISPs from erecting toll booths on the internet. When neutrality goes away the ISP will add tolls that the consumer will pay for on top of their monthly subscription. That is why net neutrality is good for consumers and small service innovators.

#79 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-21 05:29 PM | Reply

I wish I was a Congressman who could ask Ajit Pi questions with him under oath. I'd love to ask him if he plans to leave the FCC in a few years and take a very high paying job in the telecommunications industry and I'd ask him to sign a pledge not to if he claims he wont. He is going to make a big pile of money for selling out consumers for the benefit of the ISPs.

#80 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#77 ... The competition is too powerful to kill. ...

I'm not surprised that is your opinion.

However, I saw what was happening to Netflix on Comcast's network before Netflix started to pay Comcast. It was all but unwatchable.

#81 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:31 PM | Reply

The ISP can slow the Amazon movies too, they will probably end up letting you stream movies from the ISP for one price and from anyone else for a higher price. That will allow them to monopolize streaming and then charge even more once they do.
#74 | POSTED BY DANNI

See #77

I take a wait and see attitude.

#82 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:32 PM | Reply

"What I don't know at this point is if the regulations are one sided. If there are no regulations, then market forces come into play."

What utter nonsense. Without regulations it is just a race to create monopolies.

#83 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 05:35 PM | Reply

#82 - RAY

You mean disrupt the market then wait and see if greed has any effect.

#84 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:36 PM | Reply

"I take a wait and see attitude."

I hope you don't do that at railroad crossings. there is a freight train heading for you right now and you are just goint to sit and wait. Brilliant.!

#85 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 05:36 PM | Reply

However, I saw what was happening to Netflix on Comcast's network before Netflix started to pay Comcast. It was all but unwatchable.
#81 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Can I assume Netflix took the hint and paid up.

The last time I saw the statistics, Netflix was consuming a major proportion of all bandwidth. Some porn websites are up there too.

#86 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:37 PM | Reply

#82 - RAY

Take a stroll through your neighborhood market and let me know what the store brand prices are in comparison to name brands. I have this same problem in the industry I'm currently selling in. There are markets within driving distance of my office I can't go to because my supplier is my competitor.

#87 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:39 PM | Reply

"They divide up the market among themselves."

Conservative hero Robert Bork divided up the market.

You and JeffJ don't even know how we got cable TV in the first place.

(Hint: it was via massive government regulation.)

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 05:40 PM | Reply

#86 - Ray

Exactly. Suppliers and consumers are already paying up. Home and business MB/GB/TB speeds, cell phone GB per month usage, etc. The system works as is. Don't break it if it's working. There is no need to deregulate.

#89 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:42 PM | Reply

I hope you don't do that at railroad crossings. there is a freight train heading for you right now and you are just goint to sit and wait. Brilliant.!
#85 | POSTED BY DANNI

Sounds like you are presuming I can gain some control by complaining over things of which I have no control.

Cablevision costs me $118 per month for high speed bandwith and telephone. No big deal.

#90 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:46 PM | Reply


@#86 ... Can I assume Netflix took the hint and paid up. ...

So you agree it is OK to apparently artificially slow traffic in order to get more money from a website?

#91 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:47 PM | Reply

If say Netflix movies are constantly breaking up. So I cancel my Netflix subscription and switch to Amazon. What's the problem?

God you are stupid.

Do you really think I give a ---- what you think!

#69 | Posted by Ray

The problem is amazon doesn't have the same shows. So you're letting your internet provider determine what you get to watch.

Dumber and dumber ray. Dumber and dumber.

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 05:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Cablevision costs me $118 per month for high speed bandwith and telephone. No big deal.

#90 | Posted by Ray

Ray is happy to get raped by corporations all day. He thinks the only alternative is worldwide totalitarian government.

#93 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#89 ... There is no need to deregulate. ...

Sometimes I wonder if, since such large swaths of the US have little broadband competition, that internet access should be considered an Essential Facility, with all the meaning that phrase carries with it. It worked back in the days when only one railroad company served a town....

Of course, that's even stricter than Title II....

#94 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 05:50 PM | Reply

"Cablevision costs me $118 per month for high speed bandwith and telephone. No big deal."

Mine got up over $200 and I've talked to quite a few people about our provider which is Comcast. All of us would call up, negotiate a lower price usually by giving up some channels then in about 3 months our bills started creeping back up and unasked for channels started appearing on our bills. I can honestly say I had HBO and Showtime which I had agreed to but then one day Cinemax is available and I checked it's on my bill too and I never ordered it. Just about everyone dealing with Comcast has experienced this phenomenon.

#95 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 05:51 PM | Reply

www.businessinsider.com Netflix is paying 2.5 cents per movie.

time.com Netflix delivered 42.5Billion movies

To math that all out, Netflix is paying somewhere north of a billion dollars a year for internet access.

www.cbsnews.com Americans average internet bill is $47/month

www.statista.com There are 94.5 million internet subscribers.

Again, to math that all out. It takes 24% of all residential consumers, 22.5 million, to pay as much as Netflix for internet. I think Netflix is paying it's fair share.

(I know the years are a mixed bag but the numbers stay roughly the same)

#96 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-21 05:54 PM | Reply

You and JeffJ don't even know how we got cable TV in the first place.
(Hint: it was via massive government regulation.)
#88 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

What they all have in common is that they hate free market competition. We don't see the infighting that goes on behind closed doors. Regulations are their way of 'taming' the market. It's their way of making consumers pay the highest prices they can extract. It's one of the reasons why the middle class is shrinking.

#97 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 05:58 PM | Reply

Ray is happy to get raped by corporations all day. He thinks the only alternative is worldwide totalitarian government.
#93 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I see you are off your meds again.

#98 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:02 PM | Reply

026.) Furthermore, if you spend all day complaining about government intrusion on an information system financed by the government itself ... you might be a Libertarian.

100 Signs You Might Be a Libertarian...
internetisinamerica.blogspot.com

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-21 06:07 PM | Reply

@#97> What they all have in common is that they hate free market competition. ...

You must be talking about the ISPs and their extensive lobbying, lawsuits and law writing to prevent competition from cropping up in the areas they "serve."

#100 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 06:09 PM | Reply

Mine got up over $200 and I've talked to quite a few people about our provider which is Comcast.
#95 | POSTED BY DANNI

That's serious money. I cancelled television. But when I add what I pay for Netflix and Amazon, it comes close to that.

Cablevision give me access to the basic channels for free. Only because I was insistent about returning the cable box. They don't want it back.

#101 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:12 PM | Reply


@#97> It's their way of making consumers pay the highest prices they can extract.

OK, now I know you were talking about the ISPs.

#102 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 06:14 PM | Reply

You must be talking about the ISPs and their extensive lobbying, lawsuits and law writing to prevent competition from cropping up in the areas they "serve."
#100 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Yes. It's like cattle ranchers fighting over grazing land.

#103 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:14 PM | Reply


@#103> It's like cattle ranchers fighting over grazing land

Except the cattle ranchers do not affect my access to websites.

#104 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 06:27 PM | Reply

if you spend all day complaining about government intrusion on an information system financed by the government itself ... you might be a Libertarian.
#99 | POSTED BY CORKY

Financed by government? That's a crock. Government is financed by taxpayers. By force!

It is what it is. I've adapted. If you think government protects you, you are dreaming.

#105 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:28 PM | Reply

"What they all have in common is that they hate free market competition."

If it were up to the market we wouldn't have cable TV at all.

Franchise areas are exclusive markets created by government. The government is why we have cable TV. This is a thing you and JeffJ really ought to try and wrap your head around.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 06:28 PM | Reply

"Financed by government? That's a crock. Government is financed by taxpayers. By force!"

That's like saying Jerry Jones didn't finance his stadium, Cowboys fans did.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 06:30 PM | Reply

If it were up to the market we wouldn't have cable TV at all.

Yeah I know. And Al Gore invented the internet too.

Franchise areas are exclusive markets created by government.

They are known as cartels, government granted monopolies.

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:30 PM | Reply

"If you think government protects you, you are dreaming."

You're arguing for government to remove an existing protection.

Do you somehow not think that's what you're arguing for?

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They are known as cartels, government granted monopolies."

So then why do you think market forces will work? It's set up to be insulated from market forces.

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 06:33 PM | Reply

That's like saying Jerry Jones didn't finance his stadium, Cowboys fans did.
#107 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

There are a few stadiums financed by the owners. The rest were paid for by taxpayers, most of who don't watch sports.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:34 PM | Reply

You're arguing for government to remove an existing protection.
Do you somehow not think that's what you're arguing for?
#109 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Government operates though deception, coercion, larceny and murder. And you are okay with that.

#112 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:38 PM | Reply

- Government is financed by taxpayers. By force!

009.) If your most frequently used word on a daily basis is "coercion" ... you might be a Libertarian.

038.) If your idea of police brutality is a parking citation ... you might be a Libertarian.

040.) If you think waiting in line at the DMV makes you a political prisoner ... you might be a Libertarian.

076.) If you think businesses would have naturally phased out Asbestos and exploding car parts on their own... you might be a Libertarian.

Just sayin'.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-21 06:38 PM | Reply

Government operates though deception, coercion, larceny and murder. And you are okay with that.
#112 | Posted by Ray

Government is our agreed upon societal oversight you whackadoodle.

#114 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-21 06:40 PM | Reply


@#108> And Al Gore invented the internet too.

Al Gore and the Internet
amsterdam.nettime.org

... Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people
who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of
time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role.
He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as
we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still
in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided
intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential
benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he
sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in
areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural
disasters and other crises....


#115 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So then why do you think market forces will work? It's set up to be insulated from market forces.
#110 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I can tell the term "market forces" is an abstraction to you.

The term refers to consumers. Individuals like you and me who spend our earnings on things we want and need.

There are about 300 million consumers in this country alone. And they all buy things as individuals. No two are alike. And whatever they are in the market for, they want the best value for their money.

Big Business can't control consumers without the help of Big Government.

Without realizing it, you are defending a business practice that acts against your interests.

#116 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:53 PM | Reply

"Government operates though deception, coercion, larceny and murder. And you are okay with that."

You are too, when the deceivers, coercers, larceners, and murderers repeal regulations on business.

You have spent this whole thread explaining why Trump's deceivers, coercers, larceners, and murderers at the FCC are doing the right thing.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Government is financed by taxpayers. By force!"

What a load of malarkey. That is because this is a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People.

No one is forcing you to live here. You are welcome to move to another country.

Or you could stay and support and vote for someone who doesn't claim they will cut your taxes while actually raising them on you but lowering them for the wealthy.

#118 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-21 06:56 PM | Reply

That is There are taxes because this is a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People.

#119 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-21 06:58 PM | Reply

"There are about 300 million consumers in this country alone. And they all buy things as individuals. No two are alike. And whatever they are in the market for, they want the best value for their money."

Falacy, they all do want the same thing when it comes to the internet. They want speed and free access to any site on the net that they want to go to. Ajit Pi wants to give ISPs the right to take away speed and access and force customers to go to the sites they choose or pay a higher price. That will give them more profits and, even more importantly, political power to control information just as Fox News does. We'll all be able to afford Sean Hannity but probably not Free Speech TV. So the next time a President wants to take us into an unnecessary war there will be no voices available to most consumers to tell them why it is a huge mistake.

#120 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 06:59 PM | Reply

#115 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The internet is like the Bible. There is always something to support what you want to believe.

If I recall correctly, Netscape was the first to develop a browser for the consumer market. The internet was originally a military project designed for emergencies.

#121 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:05 PM | Reply

"The internet is like the Bible. There is always something to support what you want to believe."

Yeah, here in the U.S. while we have had net neutrality. Take that away and it will become more like China and Russia where someone else decides where you are allowed to go, what you are allowed to see but it won't be government it will be the corporations owned by the Oligarchs. If the Koch brothers don't want you to read the truth about global warming then they can, if not totally prevent you from doing so, they can make you pay a lot more to do so. Most folks won't pay so most folks won't know the real truth any more.

#122 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 07:11 PM | Reply

Danni

Falacy, they all do want the same thing when it comes to the internet. They want speed and free access to any site on the net that they want to go to.

You repeated what I said in different words - "best value for the money". Since they they won't be offered high speed access for nothing, they'll have to make individual choices.

So the next time a President wants to take us into an unnecessary war there will be no voices available to most consumers to tell them why it is a huge mistake.

Government censorship is on the rise. That's for sure. This is what governments do when the public loses trust.

#123 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:17 PM | Reply


@#121 The internet is like the Bible. There is always something to support what you want to believe...

In this instance, it is not necessarily what I "want" to believe. It is a USENET message from the two people who designed the TCP/IP protocol stack (among other things), while working on the ARPANET project.

So, yeah, I would put a high level of confidence in what they say about the early days of the Internet and who had significant involvement.

#124 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 07:29 PM | Reply

#122 | POSTED BY DANNI

I think you are entirely too pessimistic. They are doing fine by maintaining an illusion of normalcy.

Most folks won't pay so most folks won't know the real truth any more.

I would argue that pro-government, pro-corporate sources have the web thoroughly blanketed. If Americans knew truth and had respect for it, this government would not have grown to cancerous proportions.

#125 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:29 PM | Reply

So, yeah, I would put a high level of confidence in what they say about the early days of the Internet and who had significant involvement.
#124 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

You lose me with Al Gore. That's been a running joke for years.

#126 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:31 PM | Reply

#123 Ray

I am honestly not sure you understand how the internet works....

#127 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 07:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Government is financed by taxpayers. By force!"
What a load of malarkey. That is because this is a Government Of the People, By the People and For the People.
#118 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

You have to be gullible to believe that --------.

No one is forcing you to live here. You are welcome to move to another country.
Or you could stay and support and vote for someone who doesn't claim they will cut your taxes while actually raising them on you but lowering them for the wealthy.

Government operates though deception, coercion, larceny and murder. Nothing I would want to support.

#128 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:36 PM | Reply

I am honestly not sure you understand how the internet works....
#127 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I know a little html. What does that comment have to do with #123?

#129 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:40 PM | Reply

#128 Ray

So do corporations but 1,000 times worse. And you want to hand over full control over what you can access to them.

Brilliant.

#130 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Government censorship is on the rise. That's for sure. This is what governments do when the public loses trust."

This won't be government censorship it will censorship by corporate oligarchs who profit from wars.

#131 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 07:43 PM | Reply

You are too, when the deceivers, coercers, larceners, and murderers repeal regulations on business.
#117 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You won't find me defending Big Business. I apply that standard universally.

You have spent this whole thread explaining why Trump's deceivers, coercers, larceners, and murderers at the FCC are doing the right thing.

They are doing what's right for them. We're pawns. I just don't think it will work out as the pessimistics think.

#132 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:45 PM | Reply

html is the code for the web but it doesn't have anything to do with control of the net. Russians and Ukrainians are some of the best hackers in the world but most Russians and Ukrainians do not have free access to the internet. Soon, we won't either.

#133 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 07:46 PM | Reply

"If Americans knew truth and had respect for it..." - #125 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-11-21 07:29 PM

So says the person who believes that a pig farmer knows more about science than, well, scientists.

#134 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 07:47 PM | Reply

"Government operates though deception, coercion, larceny and murder. Nothing I would want to support."

And yet here you are, supporting the government's proposed regulatory change.

I guess changes to society that come about through government deception, coercion, larceny and murder are okay by you.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 07:48 PM | Reply

So do corporations but 1,000 times worse. And you want to hand over full control over what you can access to them.
Brilliant.
#130 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

If it were up to me, I want high speed access for free. But what I want counts for nothing.

I think of the situation as a collaborative effort between government and business. The word "pawns" is apt for us mortals.

#136 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:50 PM | Reply

"You won't find me defending Big Business."

You defend repeal of Net Neutrality, which means you defend Big Business.

This proposed FCC diktat is being described as a win for the telecoms; you're aware of that, right?

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 07:51 PM | Reply

I just realized I erred in my post above, to the best of my knowledge, Ukrainians do enjoy freedom to surf the net as they want to. Russians not so much.

#138 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 07:51 PM | Reply

So says the person who believes that a pig farmer knows more about science than, well, scientists.
#134 | POSTED BY HANS

LMAO. A pig farmer knows about health than you.

#139 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:51 PM | Reply

"A pig farmer knows about health than you." - #139 | Posted by a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120701143809/http://encyclopediadramatica.se/
The_Drudge_Retort#Raystradamus" target="_blank">Raystradamus
at 2017-11-21 07:51 PM

A claim I never made.

Unlike you.

You, who relies on a pig farmer for your "proof."

#140 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 07:53 PM | Reply

#136 Ray

Wow. That has nothing to do with it.

It's about what you have access to. Now companies can shut down your access to anything they want.

What about that do you not understand?

#141 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 07:54 PM | Reply

You defend repeal of Net Neutrality, which means you defend Big Business.
This proposed FCC diktat is being described as a win for the telecoms; you're aware of that, right?
#137 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You really twisted that around. I'm not among the gloom and doom pesssimists like you.

#142 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:56 PM | Reply

"What about that do you not understand?" - #141 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 07:54 PM

For ray the default position is "everything."

#143 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 07:56 PM | Reply

Hans

Stay on topic.

#144 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 07:57 PM | Reply

"I'm not among the gloom and doom pesssimists like you." - #142 | Posted by Raystradamus at 2017-11-21 07:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Now Comes the Part Where We Throw Our Heads Back and Laugh!

"Drought conditions are prevailing all around the globe. Water is arguably in more serious shortage than any other natural resource. There's a good chance of higher food prices ahead as nations bid for dwindling food stocks." - -- Raystradamus, on the coming apocalypse

#145 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 07:59 PM | Reply

#142 Ray

No. You are among the "hopes and prayers" crowd.

#146 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 07:59 PM | Reply

It's about what you have access to. Now companies can shut down your access to anything they want.
What about that do you not understand?
#141 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I don't share that opinion.

#147 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 08:01 PM | Reply


FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws
arstechnica.com

Double win for ISPs: No more net neutrality, and state laws will be preempted.

In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.

This detail was revealed by senior FCC officials in a phone briefing with reporters today, and it is a victory for broadband providers that asked for widespread preemption of state laws. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposed order finds that state and local laws must be preempted if they conflict with the US government's policy of deregulating broadband Inte...


I thought Republicans were in favor of states' rights?

#148 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 08:02 PM | Reply

- I'm not among the gloom and doom pesssimists like you.

I see you are giving comedy a shot. Good for you!

The only one more gloomier and doomier than you around here is Nullifidian.

#149 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-21 08:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#147 Ray

It's not opinion. It's literally what Net Neutrality is.

Maybe you aren't smart enough to be here if you don't know what the topic is.

#150 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 08:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"Maybe you aren't smart enough to be here if you don't know what the topic is." - #150 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 08:04 PM

Unfortunately, I have but one Newsworthy flag to give this excellent post.

#151 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 08:07 PM | Reply


NY AG Investigating Bogus Net Neutrality Support at FCC
www.dslreports.com

For much of the year we've noted how the FCC's proceeding to kill net neutrality rules has seen more than its fair share of dubious and fraudulent behavior. From the FCC's decision to apparently make up a DDOS attack to downplay public opposition to its plan, to a wave of fake, bot-crafted comments providing phony support for the attack, the odor eminating from the entire proceeding is substantial, and will likely play a starring role in the inevitable lawuits that will be filed against the FCC when it votes to kill the rules in December.

Even with dead people mysteriously supporting the agency's plan, the FCC has refused to lift a finger to crack down on the fraud. Nor has it been willing to help anybody trying to investigate which individual or organization is responsible.

Today, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office has been investigating the net neutrality comment fraud for the last six months. And in a letter sent to FCC boss Ajit Pai, he points out that the agency has ignored nine requests for data from the AG's office during that period.

"Such conduct likely violates state law  -- yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed," notes Schneiderman. We reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including you, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC's Inspector General. We offered to keep the requested records confidential, as we had done when my office and the FCC shared information and documents as part of past investigative work."...


#152 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-21 08:08 PM | Reply

Corky

It's fair that we see things you don't see. When I see them, they are easy to avoid or profit from. That's my position.

You can ignore me. Make fun of me. That's okay.

#153 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 08:14 PM | Reply

Maybe you aren't smart enough to be here if you don't know what the topic is.
#150 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Maybe I don't care what you think.

#154 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 08:16 PM | Reply

Maybe I don't care what you think.

#154 | Posted by Ray

Ray's too dumb to care.

#155 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 08:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Make fun of me. That's okay." - #153 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 08:14 PM

Making fun of you is a cottage industry around here, supported by your ample willingness to openly humiliate yourself.

But, your acquiescence to let us make fun of you?

That's mighty white of you, Raystradamus.

#156 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-21 08:20 PM | Reply

#154 Ray

Let me get this straight. You don't know what net neutrality is but you are cheerleading it's destruction anyway because Obama put it in place and Trump is getting rid of it?

There are no words to describe how stupid you are.

#157 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 08:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let me get this straight. You don't know what net neutrality is but you are cheerleading it's destruction anyway because Obama put it in place and Trump is getting rid of it?

There are no words to describe how stupid you are.

Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 08:43 PM | Reply

The DOW will fall to 1,400

#158 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 08:45 PM | Reply

"You really twisted that around."

No I really didn't Ray.
You support this government (of crooks, but I repeat myself) abolishibg Net Neutrality.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 08:46 PM | Reply

Jesus Christ! You people sound like a pack of snarling dogs.

#160 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 09:00 PM | Reply

So. Anyone other than JeffJ and Ray want Net Neutrality repealed?

RCade maybe you could redirect their user logins to a malware site to give them a taste of what they want. That would be funny.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ray has added nothing to this discussion.

Thanks for wasting my time.

#162 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-21 09:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jesus Christ! You people sound like a pack of snarling dogs.

#160 | Posted by Ray

You need a safe space, snowflake?

If you can't win a debate against dogs...

#163 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 09:30 PM | Reply

"10 Countries with the Fastest Internet Speed in the World"

nomadcapitalist.com

You'll be glad that America at least gets 10th.

#164 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:40 PM | Reply

Not only should they get rid of net neutrality, the internet originators of every site from useless blogs to banking sites should be taxed heavily.

#165 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-21 09:44 PM | Reply

Tell you what, we who oppose the end of net neurtrality won't help our cause by insulting those who don't understand our reasons for opposing it. Across the Democratic Party and progressives in general we are owning up to the fact that our own insistence that we know better than anyone else is harming our own cause. I honestly believe that had we approached Ray from a better direction we might have an ally instead of an opponent. Democrats and progressives need to learn to be less judgenmental and disdainful and better at supporting our own arguments in ways that any normal person wouldn't see as assaults on their own ideas.

#166 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:46 PM | Reply

Ooh we're up to three people for repeal now. None of whom have any technological savvy!

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 09:49 PM | Reply

This is a movement now among Democrats and Progressives, insults don't convert people. We need to listen. We need to understand really why they believe as they do. Only then can we offer them a better alternative and expect them to be willing to listen to it. The more time we spend listening to them the more time we can expect them to listen to us.

#168 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:56 PM | Reply

BTW, on a seperate note. I gave up cable and got one of those digital anteannas. One of the only channels I can get is channel 10 here in S. Florida which is ABC so I am watching Dancing with the Stars.....Fan F*****g tastic! Most incredible show I've ever watched. I lost my ability to be progressive snobbish about TV shows and learned something.

#169 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:59 PM | Reply

You'll be glad that America at least gets 10th.

For it's size, that's pretty impressive for an average. The others are small areas where it's easier to install infrastructure to cover everything.

I'd imagine NYC or LA could compete in average speed with Hong Kong. If you have to average in Wyoming and the Dakotas, probably not so much.

#170 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-21 10:00 PM | Reply

And it is live! Actually live! It's great! don't deprive yourself from enjoying it because you have a stick up your butt.

#171 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 10:02 PM | Reply

"For it's size, that's pretty impressive for an average."

Size matters but still, we are the richest country in the world and we can't figure out how to get internet to all of our citizens, well then we can't figure out how to fix our roads. Oh yeah, we'd need to tax someone to pay for it. Enabling our rural communities to have internet would end up being a brilliant investment. It would eventually be seen as the brilliance of Dwight D. Eisenhower building the interstate highway system.

#172 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 10:06 PM | Reply

What about that do you not understand?

#141 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Pretty much everything. Ray is an old fool. When it finally dawns on him that he can't get to his favorite porn site anymore it will be too late and he will whine that the government deceived him again.

We stopped the FCC from bowing to lobbyists in 2014. We could do it again. Time to write letters and raise our voices in protest again.

And anyone who is near enough should be camping on the FCCs doorstep. Like they did last time.

Freedom requires continued vigilance.

#173 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-21 10:26 PM | Reply

we are the richest country in the world and we can't figure out how to get internet to all of our citizens

You can, you just don't want to. It's expensive. Thermopolis, Wyoming can have the same internet speed as NYC, but either the residents will have to pay $20,000 per month to have it, or the residents of NYC will have to chuck in another $20 per month to help out.

Neither of those things will happen.

#174 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-21 10:31 PM | Reply

My point exactly. There are very few things in life that are free. Free usually means someone gets something at someone else's expense. But what I can't understand is why peogressives are not in favor of taxing the hell out of the internet. RCade along with every other site originator would have to pay $$$$ every time somebody logged into his site. We would have enough money to pay off the National debt, cure cancer, pay for free planetary health care, and buy another form of energy.

#175 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-21 10:51 PM | Reply

But what I can't understand is why peogressives are not in favor of taxing the hell out of the internet.

I would not rule out the possibility that you are an idiot.

#176 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-21 10:56 PM | Reply

What? You don't believe everybody should pay their fair share?

#177 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-21 11:31 PM | Reply

You want to see it broken? Wait til a couple corporations control the whole thing, and can slow down any traffic that doesn't go through their own sites.

#29 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY
If that ever happens, you'll see me clamoring for regulations.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It already did. See netflix-comcast dispute.

#178 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-11-21 11:36 PM | Reply

People will reduce their web usage to what they can afford and get away from all the B'S. Personally, I think the internet could be a/the solution to a lot of problems. But I also firmly believe that it is responsible for a lot of our problems. And I do believe that it's about time for keyboard commandos or all stripes to start paying like everybody else.

#179 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-21 11:46 PM | Reply

Bogey, basically nothing about your rant is related to Net Neutrality.

Would you like to learn more?

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 11:53 PM | Reply

#160 Ray

It's just that unlike you we both care for our country and actually have some semblance of a clue what's going on.

#181 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-21 11:54 PM | Reply

Ray: "Higher bandwidth costs more. I pay for higher bandwidth. Downloads are faster. And there are fewer interruptions to streaming movies."

You don't seem to understand that the speed between you and your ISP doesn't mean ---- if the points between them and the content providers are being throttled. That's what net neutrality prevents, and without it you won't have access to most content on the internet that you do now.

#182 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-22 12:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

People will reduce their web usage to what they can afford and get away from all the B'S. Personally, I think the internet could be a/the solution to a lot of problems. But I also firmly believe that it is responsible for a lot of our problems. And I do believe that it's about time for keyboard commandos or all stripes to start paying like everybody else.

#179 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

Seriously?

This isn't about bandwidth. Jesus Christ. How many times does this need to be said?

IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW GOD DAMN MUCH INTERNET YOU USE
IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW GOD DAMN MUCH INTERNET YOU USE
IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW GOD DAMN MUCH INTERNET YOU USE

It's about limiting your access to what your ISP chooses. They could, for instance, slow down your access to Amazon to a crawl so it becomes unusable and thereby force you to use their online shopping site. They could do the same to your Conservative news websites and force you to read MSNBC if you want to read the news online.

This is what Net Neutrality is. Net Neutrality forces them to treat all websites equally rather than slowing your access down to make particular sites harder to use.

IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW GOD DAMN MUCH INTERNET YOU USE

#183 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 12:12 AM | Reply

Time Warener is merging with Charter Cable to form Spectrum Communications

#70 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

Time Warner Cable merged with Charter to form Spectrum last year. Time Warner Cable has been a separate company from Time Warner Corp. for years. Time Warner Cable was strictly an ISP (which was previously part of Time Warner Corp.) Time Warner Corp is a content and publishing company that owns CNN, TBS, TNT, HBO, Cinemax, and almost every magazine in existence. Time Warner Cable was spun off after the the dust settled from the disastrous purchase of Time Warner by AOL back in 2000/2001 (full disclosure: I worked there from shortly after the AOL merger until shortly before the Charter merger).

#184 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-22 12:26 AM | Reply

#183

A valiant effort.

But.

I doubt it will have any effect.

#185 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-22 12:28 AM | Reply

#183
A valiant effort.
But.
I doubt it will have any effect.
#185 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

After a while, you reach the inevitable conclusion: Republicans are very very stupid people.

#186 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 12:32 AM | Reply

If that ever happens, you'll see me clamoring for regulations.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How much led did you eat as a child before you started clamoring for regulations?

#187 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-22 12:34 AM | Reply

Stop,

I fear that it is you who simply doesn't get it. It is their company. They should run it how they see fit. Aka..how the market will bare. If there is a need for another product or product line, with faster speeds, more or different content, then it will come to be. You seem to be of the mindset that businesses should be forced at gunpoint to give you what you want when you want at the price you want. They are not. They are in the business of providing jobs for those they employ and a profit for those who invest in them.

#188 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-22 12:38 AM | Reply

Republicans are very very stupid people.

Absolutely.

The sad thing is, the Republican morons who post here are on the smarter side of the spectrum.

You should read the idiocity posted by Republicans on conservative websites.

#189 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-22 12:38 AM | Reply

#188 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355 AT 2017-11-22 12:38 AM | FLAG: Republicans are very very stupid people.

#190 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-22 12:40 AM | Reply

"If there is a need for another product or product line, with faster speeds, more or different content, then it will come to be."

"If there is a need"

"Need."

If the Internet is a need, then it needs to be regulated like electricy and water and cable and the telephone.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 12:47 AM | Reply

Just believe that everybody should pay their fair share for the services they desire. I guess that makes me a democrat.

#192 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-22 12:48 AM | Reply

#188 - Bogeyman

You're naive.

#193 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-22 12:49 AM | Reply

By the way. Who says that Hollywood or the News agencies have to sell a program to Comcast or anyone else anyway. I mean how many Bentleys do Weinsteins employees need anyway? Are those programs being sold for a profit or something?

#194 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-22 12:52 AM | Reply

You know, as much as I loathe censorship and seeing posts get "dumped", if would be delicious irony to see that happen to the morons/trolls here arguing against content based neutrality over internet networks.

#195 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-22 01:14 AM | Reply

"Just believe that everybody should pay their fair share for the services they desire."

Not even related to Net Neutrality.

#196 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 02:53 AM | Reply

For those who claim the internet was fine before Net Neutrality regs, i have a question:

Why do we have to wait for disaster to strike before coming up with a solution? My house is fine today. And yet i go through the hassle/cost of insurance in case something terrible happens. It's called foresight. Why the ---- would you side with a telecom company over consumers?

#197 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-22 07:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you want to see what America would be like if it ditched net neutrality, just look at Portugal

#198 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-22 08:00 AM | Reply

i guess the right wing is excited to be paying extra for their fake news internet plan.

"pay for what you use"

You are an idiot and don't understand how data works.. go get an education fool.

#199 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-22 09:16 AM | Reply

In the network, all data is transmitted as "packets" of bits. ISPs are in the "packet delivery" business. They deliver data to people who subscribe to their service. It is not their business who the packets belong to, where they came from, where they are going, or what they contain.

Just like it is none of a telco's business who you are talking to on the phone. They don't get to charge you more to talk to, say, Amazon than they charge you to talk to your mother. Or to give you a lower quality line if Amazon doesn't pay them extra for the privilege of being able to talk to you. That is all net neutrality is about. Why should the ISP get to charge you more for some packets than for others? Should email packets cost more or should they cost less than, say, YouTube packets? Should video packets cost more than audio or text packets? How about packets downloading digital files (like software)? How about voice packets? I was working at a major telecom company when the "internet boom" hit, and as we used to say, "packets is packets".

Or maybe you think telephone companies should charge you differently depending on who you are talking to, or for that matter, what you are saying to each other. That's what net neutrality prevents. It has nothing to do with "bandwidth".

#200 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-22 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It is not their business who the packets belong to, where they came from, where they are going, or what they contain.

#200 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2017-11-22 09:58 AM | FLAG:

If we're going to limit services to people based on politics for DNS and hosting, then throttling their bandwidth is par for the course.

#201 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-22 10:07 AM | Reply

I mean, obviously everybody that expects a free & open Internet are a bunch of Nazi coddlers.

#202 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-22 10:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"In the network, all data is transmitted as "packets" of bits. ISPs are in the "packet delivery" business."

yay you can google.

but thats not what i mean... i mean in terms of usage.
there is no finite source like water or electricity.

the only limitation is how much throughput you have based on the pipe.

which is why its LEGAL for the ISP to charge more if you want a bigger pipe. Which makes sense.. but charging per gig is bull crap .. so yea go get an education

#203 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-22 10:27 AM | Reply

read what you said again, i think you were agreeing with me. if so, sorry

#204 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-22 10:29 AM | Reply

this anti net neutrality gets me so upset... cause there is NO REASON to get rid of it.

and idiots that say the internet was fine before obama's regulation are stupid. obama didn't "regulate".. he protected it from the thieves who want total control .. the internet is still relatively new and it was only safe before because ISP's didn't take the time to steal the power yet.. like they've done in the cable tv industry.

#205 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-22 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

For the idiots...

WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS NOT:

User downloads movies and software via a torrent engine and thereby consumes tons of bandwidth. 10,000 times what their neighbors use. This costs the ISP more money.

ISPs, with no changes to net neutrality, can cap usage and charge more for usage beyond the cap if they put it in their agreements.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this.

#206 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 11:23 AM | Reply

the only limitation is how much throughput you have based on the pipe.
which is why its LEGAL for the ISP to charge more if you want a bigger pipe. Which makes sense.. but charging per gig is bull crap .. so yea go get an education

#203 | POSTED BY KLIFFERD

But it is the receiver (subscriber) who decides how much bandwidth they want to pay for. I don't have a problem with that. It's their throttling traffic from sources depending on the ISP's agenda that I have a problem with.

#207 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-22 11:24 AM | Reply

WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS:

Today, the FCC gets rid of Net Neutrality.

Tomorrow, George Soros buys controlling shares in the majority of American ISPs.

Friday, the ISPs announce they will have only two internet subscription plans going forward.

Basic Plan - $20 per month
-Unlimited usage
-Fast speeds
-But Conservative news sites take 5 hours to load

Conservative News Plan - $1,000 per month
-100 mb of usage
-Slow speeds
-But Conservative news sites take only 10 minutes to load

#208 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 11:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I honestly believe that had we approached Ray from a better direction we might have an ally instead of an opponent. Democrats and progressives need to learn to be less judgenmental and disdainful and better at supporting our own arguments in ways that any normal person wouldn't see as assaults on their own ideas.

#166 | Posted by danni

I admire your optimism Danni, but you're talking about a guy who thinks NO government can EVER work, that both parties are exactly the same, and that there is no point in voting. He doesn't just think it, it's his religion. Total nihilism.

You're never going to reach someone like that. His simple brain needs simple solutions, and it's not capable of the higher functions needed to see how dumb his policy proposals are.

The best we can do is call idiots idiots, and stop treating them like their ignorance deserves as much time and respect as an expert's opinion. This is the fox news disease.

#209 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 11:30 AM | Reply

"If we're going to limit services to people based on politics for DNS and hosting, then throttling their bandwidth is par for the course."

So you're just sliding the slippery slope argument all the way down, and that's a good argument to you?

We limit print based on a political definition of pornography, so I guess denying other print services is par for the course too.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In this day and age where the internet is the primary source of information for an ever increasing percentage of the population, ending Net Neutrality is nothing short of censorship.

#211 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-22 03:28 PM | Reply

As soon as you point out what Net Neutrality actually is and how Trump is screwing us, all the idiot Conservatives disappear.

#212 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 03:28 PM | Reply

As soon as you point out what Net Neutrality actually is and how Trump is screwing us, all the idiot Conservatives disappear.

#212 | Posted by Sycophant

That's because all their brains are capable of is "obama BAAAAD!"

If obama enacted net neutrality, then racists and idiot foxwatchers want to end it, screwing themselves in the process.

#213 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 04:03 PM | Reply

Now that the government is giving free internet and phones to the poor, it's pretty well being recognized as a necessity of life.

Making everyone pay to access sites will just be another way to tap into the Middle Class.

#214 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-22 04:32 PM | Reply

But it is the receiver (subscriber) who decides how much bandwidth they want to pay for. I don't have a problem with that. It's their throttling traffic from sources depending on the ISP's agenda that I have a problem with.

#207 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2017-11-22 11:24 AM

That's te whole point. Comcast can say "You want our Millions of customers to be able to access your site quickly you have to pay us $RANSOM to include it in our basic package. If not your site will only be available to people who buy the $600/month all internet package.

The Amazons and Walmarts of the world will pay up but the independent businessman with a self made website will lose the ability to market their company merely by having a website.

If people can get to Amazon in the blink of an eye most wont choose to wait 10 minutes for joeschmoeswidgets.com to load

#215 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-22 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Making everyone pay to access sites will just be another way to tap into the Middle Class.
#214 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

That's where the money is until there is no more middle clase. It likely will cost more.

Throttling political websites is a distinct possiblity. As for the rest, it's all bread and circuses.

#216 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 04:46 PM | Reply

Throttling political websites is a distinct possiblity. As for the rest, it's all bread and circuses.

#216 | Posted by Ray

Simple Ray is just fine with republicans helping corporations screw everyone. Anything that isn't total war against the concept of government is too complex for Simple Ray to understand.

#217 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 04:52 PM | Reply

We're having this discussion on an Internet that's a level playing field. All traffic is treated the same whether it comes from giant corporations or one-man businesses like mine.

When net neutrality ends, the big corporations will control everything. They will find a way to keep their traffic flowing, but the rest of us will fade away.

The net will be just like cable. We'll be paying for things that we used to all take for granted. And the information providers will all be weaker and weaker while the big corporations grow stronger and stronger.

Any Internet user who is for this is a ------- idiot. I should charge you $10 a month to keep using this site while everyone else gets it free. That's what you want the Internet to become.

#218 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-22 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I hope net neutrality wins out, but if it doesn't I'll be looking for funding to start a new broadband service. I can't think of a better way to further tip the scales towards big business and screwing the average Joe. Tech boom of the 90's? Kiss those days goodbye.

#219 | Posted by gavaster at 2017-11-22 05:01 PM | Reply

"Throttling political websites is a distinct possiblity."

^
This is Ray's way of explaining why he still supports repeal.

#220 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 05:01 PM | Reply

Even if the people manage to keep repubs from destroying the internet today, this is one of those things they'll keep trying to do every time we put them in power. Rich evil donors will get richer from it, so repubs will keep trying to do it.

Same reason they're about the take money from the middle class and give it to the rich.

#221 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 05:03 PM | Reply

Simple Ray is just fine with republicans helping corporations screw everyone. Anything that isn't total war against the concept of government is too complex for Simple Ray to understand.
#217 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's where you're wrong. Both parties are in collusion with the corporate cartels.

They have a common enemy: free market competition. It's much easier for them to control the consumer market than to deal with fickle consumers.

I know government much more than you can imagine. It's been a life study.

#222 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 05:16 PM | Reply

This is Ray's way of explaining why he still supports repeal.
#220 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I've been very clear from the beginning. I don't support anything government does.
My position is to get a sense of where this is going.
One constant is higher corporate profits.
I believe the only sites at risk of being throttled are alternate news websites that run contrary to the political narrative.
The powers-that-be like entertainment websites like Netflix because they keep the masses distracted. I see a chance service will improve.
Beyond that, we'll just have to see how it turns out.

#223 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 05:24 PM | Reply

That's where you're wrong. Both parties are in collusion with the corporate cartels.

They have a common enemy: free market competition. It's much easier for them to control the consumer market than to deal with fickle consumers.

I know government much more than you can imagine. It's been a life study.

#222 | Posted by Ray

You know ONE thing - both parties are captured by corporate interests.

You're wrong about everything else.

They are not EQUALLY controlled by corporate interests, therefore it is in YOUR best interest to vote for the party that is LESS controlled by corporate interests.

And your conclusion that all government is always evil and cannot be improved or improve people's lives is childish.

That's why you're simple. You take one piece of data, and you think that's all you need to know. Then you sit around and whine.

#224 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 05:26 PM | Reply

"The powers-that-be like entertainment websites like Netflix because they keep the masses distracted."

Same way that Nero kept the ignorant masses happy in Rome, right?

#225 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-22 05:34 PM | Reply

"They are not EQUALLY controlled by corporate interests, therefore it is in YOUR best interest to vote for the party that is LESS controlled by corporate interests."

Which one do you think that would be, Speaks?

www.opensecrets.org

#226 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-22 05:48 PM | Reply

They are not EQUALLY controlled by corporate interests, therefore it is in YOUR best interest to vote for the party that is LESS controlled by corporate interests.
#224 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Evil is evil.

And your conclusion that all government is always evil and cannot be improved or improve people's lives is childish.

How does the State improve people's lives by enriching corporate interests by the crimes of deceit, coercion, larceny and murder?
You have a moral blindness. The State is not your friend. It's your enemy as much as mine.

#227 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 05:54 PM | Reply

People who have totally given up on government of, by, and for the People are throwing out the Constitutional baby with the dirty political bathwater.

It is a nihilistic, defeatist point of view that is also self-defeating. As bad as the government collusion with corporate and wealthy interests is, fixing the problem by educating the public to the realities is a much better solution than doing just what those interest want... giving up.

#228 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-22 05:59 PM | Reply

Which one do you think that would be, Speaks?

www.opensecrets.org

#226 | Posted by jestgettinalong

uhhhh the one that isn't endangering all life on earth to protect polluter's profits.

The one that isn't making it harder to sue banks when they screw people.

The one that isn't trying to ruin the internet so providers can make more money.

It's not hard to figure out if you're not retarded.

#229 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 06:01 PM | Reply

Evil is evil.

#227 | Posted by Ray

This is why you're Simple Ray. Pouting like a baby because he isn't offered the PERFECT choice.

If he can't be disease free, then he sees no difference between a flu and AIDS.

#230 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I believe the only sites at risk of being throttled are alternate news websites that run contrary to the political narrative."

A court case could and should be made that ending net neutrality is infringing on freedom of the press. Literally millions of Americans really only have access to the truth about many issues online so if your internet provider decides to throttle those sites then, in effect, they have prevented you from having access to the truth about many issues. You speak of that as if it is hardly important, the founding fathers would totally disagree with you. The internet today is what "Common Sense" was in 1776, and the Republicans are the Tories of today who are more interested in preserving their than defending the liberties fought for and died for.

#231 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-22 06:23 PM | Reply

"preserving their than defending the liberties fought for and died for."

Should have been: preserving their advantages (monopolies) than defending the liberties fought for and died for.

#232 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-22 06:25 PM | Reply

It is a nihilistic, defeatist point of view that is also self-defeating. As bad as the government collusion with corporate and wealthy interests is, fixing the problem by educating the public to the realities is a much better solution than doing just what those interest want... giving up.
#228 | POSTED BY CORKY

I challenge you to draw from history one empire that didn't collapse from the weight of debt, corruption and war. They always overextend themselves until they collapse or are conquered.
Here's some who collapsed: Greece, Rome, Spain, England, France, Holy Roman, Venice, Soviet Union, Egypt, Sumeria, Constantinople, Ottoman ...

This country is getting by on debt and money printing. It can't last.

giving up

There's a saying in Proverbs: "A prudent man sees danger and gets out of the way. The simple go on ahead and suffer for it." Which do you want to be, Corky?

#233 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is why you're Simple Ray. Pouting like a baby because he isn't offered the PERFECT choice.
#230 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

People who occupy positons of power are sociopathic. That's how they they got there.

Try removing the stripes from a tiger. See how far you get.

#234 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 06:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It will be interesting to see how this plays out now that no company has a monopoly in my area. When this was first discussed I had one option for broadband TWC, if they had throttled sites or offered tiered service then I would have been up the creek.

Now however I have 3 options Spectrum, AT&T and Google so if anyone of them tries to throttle or offer tiered service I can switch to one who doesn't. It makes it much less likely that one of them would try it. Of course the majority of the country is still in the same boat I was 3 years ago so I guess we will see what happens.

Read your user agreements carefully if you pay for a certain speed there should be a minimum guarantee and if so keep an eye on sites and see if the company is keeping their min. guarantee up. If not I foresee some major class action suits. Of course what will probably happen is you will get an email with an "updated" TOS. The update will remove the min. guarantee and protect the company from suits.

#235 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-22 06:48 PM | Reply

"People who have totally given up on government of, by, and for the People are throwing out the Constitutional baby with the dirty political bathwater."

Personally, I think the previous administration was throwing out the Constitution and keeping the dirty bath water.

#236 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-22 06:48 PM | Reply

A court case could and should be made that ending net neutrality is infringing on freedom of the press.
#231 | POSTED BY DANNI

I don't see that happening. If it did, I can safely predict the courts would side with the regulators.

You speak of that as if it is hardly important,

I see it as symptomatic of larger issues. Less freedom and more tyranny.

The internet today is what "Common Sense" was in 1776, Not much different than today.

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

#237 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 06:49 PM | Reply

So are we saying that 'the Internet" is a officially a utility now? If so, time for a little regulation there RCade. Let's start with licensing and move on to content. And then there are those pesky regulators that will change every election cycle to redefine the parameters (see Lois Lerner). And then my favorite, TAXING it. Since the world needs "free" healthcare, lets tax the internet just enough to pay for it. Or maybe education like the lotteries do? (LOL). You see. You are going to have to pay for it one way or the other. You want a free and open internet, you get status quo. You want to control how a private business operates, you get what will probably be slower speeds for all and much more limited selection. AKA...worse service than you have now. But hey. At least it will cost more.

#238 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-22 07:01 PM | Reply

You want a free and open internet, you get status quo.

For years it worked great, then Comcast decided they needed higher profits and began experimenting with throttling sites and here we are.

Blame Comcast for taking the free and open internet and trying to impose corporate regulation on it. Without their first shot none of the other rounds would have ever been fired.

#239 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-22 07:04 PM | Reply

People who occupy positons of power are sociopathic. That's how they they got there.

Try removing the stripes from a tiger. See how far you get.

#234 | Posted by Ray

So what's Simple Ray's solution? No power for anybody! No structure! No society! A simple solution from a simple mind.

In fact, the Simplest solution is for everyone to all just jump off a bridge since humans are all inherently flawed. Show us the strength of your convictions Simple Ray. You first.

#240 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 07:05 PM | Reply

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
#237 | Posted by Ray

Here's an assignment Simple Ray:

List all the countries without governments. Now, or throughout history. If you're so sure that this is the way to go, let's see your evidence.

#241 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 07:07 PM | Reply

Only dummkopts support ending net neutrality.

#242 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-22 07:10 PM | Reply

So what's Simple Ray's solution?

We'll have to see what happens after it crashes and burns. As of now, we have a culture accustomed to things the way they are. Change has to start from the ground. Change from the top is impossible. No government in history ever volunteered to reduce its criminal ways.

#243 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:14 PM | Reply

We'll have to see what happens after it crashes and burns. As of now, we have a culture accustomed to things the way they are. Change has to start from the ground. Change from the top is impossible. No government in history ever volunteered to reduce its criminal ways.

Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:14 PM | Reply

I can think of 1,400 reasons why it won't crash.

#244 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-22 07:15 PM | Reply

#233 | POSTED BY RAY

Who was intimidated by the wealthy interests and gave up long ago.

There is a saying of Jesus, repeated throughout the texts: "Take courage, be not afraid!".

Or if you prefer, there is Paul "Muad Dib" Atreides: "Fear is the mind-killer."

Stop making excuses about past empires and rolling over and showing the enemy your belly.

Stand up for a change, instead of lying down.

#245 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-22 07:22 PM | Reply

List all the countries without governments. Now, or throughout history. If you're so sure that this is the way to go, let's see your evidence.
#241 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

There are none. I don't see an anarchic or libertarian society ever happening.

Just because my personal philosophy is anarchic and libertarian doesn't mean I think it's a real possiblity for society.

Look at this from a cyclic point of view. This country has been expanding for 230 years. It's been in a contraction phase since about the late 70s. I think the contraction will noticeably accelerate before this decade is over.

#246 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:24 PM | Reply

#245 | POSTED BY CORKY

Fear? What are you smoking?

So you can't answer my question. The problem of taming government is unsolvable.

#247 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:28 PM | Reply

So you can't answer my question. The problem of taming government is unsolvable.

Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:28 PM | Reply

You don't vote so why do you care or more importantly. Why should we listen to you anyways????

#248 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-22 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#244 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You're ten years out of date.

I see a stock market that could easily double before this decade is over. I think the dollar will get stronger and interest rates will remain low.

#249 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:31 PM | Reply

You don't vote so why do you care or more importantly. Why should we listen to you anyways????
#248 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That's up to you. I know my views seem far out. But you have nothing to lose by reading them.

#250 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:34 PM | Reply

#239 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

I found a book that addresses MS. The author had it.

Wahl's Protocol

#251 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:37 PM | Reply

"I see a stock market that could easily double before this decade is over."

Is this the same vision that saw Dow 1400?

#252 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-22 07:41 PM | Reply

Is this the same vision that saw Dow 1400?

If you really want to know, I pulled it out of my ass.

#253 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:47 PM | Reply

If you really want to know, I pulled it out of my ass.

Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 07:47 PM | Reply

So THAT'S where the smell came from. Good to know.

#254 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-22 07:49 PM | Reply

We're having this discussion on an Internet that's a level playing field. All traffic is treated the same whether it comes from giant corporations or one-man businesses like mine. - Rcade

This isn't true, some data sources don't go towards your DATA cap.

My complaint is if the provider is using the people's airwaves it should be neutral. If it's cable then it should be available for other corps to lay cable, if not it should be neutral.

#255 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-22 07:49 PM | Reply

- I pulled it out of my ass.

Where all your BS originates.

The problem of going to the moon was insolvable... until it wasn't.

You are just afraid to admit that when enough people learn that their vote can actually count, crackpots like you will be exposed as agents of the controlling interests; preaching defeatism like the good little sycophants they are.

#256 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-22 08:10 PM | Reply

The problem of going to the moon was insolvable... until it wasn't.

That's a bad analogy. The problem will eventually solve itself. But it can't be solved voluntarily.

You are just afraid to admit that when enough people learn that their vote can actually count,

Count for what? The candidates (including Trump) are vetted. You get to choose who they choose for you. That's as good as no choice at all.
Elections are designed to make you think you have a say. It's a scam.

preaching defeatism

That's from your perspective. Not mine.

#257 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 08:23 PM | Reply

-are vetted.

What a horrible example Trump is... the GOP did everything they could to stop him until they couldn't.

But hey, a paranoid conspiracy theorist like you who "thinks" there is a room somewhere that all these things are decided by people with funny hats... or by aliens... is still a useful tool of the creators of real problems we have with too much influence in government by moneyed interests.

You just make things worse by yelling, "Wolf!" every time the moon comes out.

#258 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-22 08:29 PM | Reply

My complaint is if the provider is using the people's airwaves it should be neutral. If it's cable then it should be available for other corps to lay cable, if not it should be neutral.
#255 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

And that has literally NOTHING TO DO with Net Neutrality.

#259 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 08:46 PM | Reply

How does the State improve people's lives by enriching corporate interests by the crimes of deceit, coercion, larceny and murder?
You have a moral blindness. The State is not your friend. It's your enemy as much as mine.

#227 | POSTED BY RAY

And neither are corporations.

Net Neutrality means neither can decide what you can and can't look at.

#260 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 08:47 PM | Reply

So you can't answer my question. The problem of taming government is unsolvable.

#247 | POSTED BY RAY

Net Neutrality literally has nothing to do with government control...

#261 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 08:48 PM | Reply

Corky - You're just throwing stuff at me that makes no sense.

I've been a free thinker all my life. All I ever wanted out of government is to be left alone to live my own life.

It gives me a perspective you don't have. And I can't imagine changing your perspective.

#262 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 08:52 PM | Reply

And neither are corporations.
#260 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Agree. I've written elsewhere they are in collusion with government.

Net Neutrality means neither can decide what you can and can't look at.

Not openly. YouTube cut a lot of politically troublesome websites out of advertising revenue. Facebook and Twitter have been censoring.

With the revisions, I could see those powers of censorship broadened. I don't see sports and entertainment websites at risk.

#263 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 09:11 PM | Reply

"I've been a free stupid thinker all my life." - #262 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 08:52 PM

Reality.

And not from a pig farmer.

#264 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-22 10:14 PM | Reply

"I see you are off your meds again." - #98 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-21 06:02 PM

Off his meds?

Considering your pig farmer told you medications (and their source, "Big Pharma") are bad, why do you think that's an insult, Raystradamus?

#265 | Posted by Hans at 2017-11-22 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If not I foresee some major class action suits. Of course what will probably happen is you will get an email with an "updated" TOS. The update will remove the min. guarantee and protect the company from suits.

#235 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-22 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're years too late. Go back and read those agreements again: They've already exempted themselves from class-action or even individual suits. It called the "mandatory arbitration clause," and it's in just about every user agreement you have - credit cards, bank accounts, phone service, cable service, and just about anything else that isn't a straight purchase of goods for cash.

The only protections we as consumers had against these mandatory arbitration clauses were from the Consumer Protection Bureau, but those protections have now been neutered by the Republican Congress. For more information on these clauses and the negative effect they have had on consumers, you can read the thorough report here: 2015 CFPB Arbitration Report

Back on the thread topic, the repeal of net neutrality is a similar gift to the largest corporations. Anyone who has been following this saga would know most of the small ISPs along with most content providers, argued for installing the Title II regulations on ISPs and for maintaining them once they were in place. Unlike what Ajit Pai and the large ISPs have argued, strong regulation of ISPs had actually been in place until 2004. Local Loop Unbundling had been required until USTA v. FCC removed the FCC's ability to enforce it. As last-mile connectivity moved from phone lines (via dial-up and DSL) to cable, this local-loop unbundling was becoming less useful for preventing the large ISPs from forcing out competition anyway. It wasn't long after the last regulatory hurdle had been removed that the cable companies were caught in anti-consumer behaviors. in 2007, Comcast was found to have been blocking or severely limiting BitTorrent traffic since at least 2005. This affected not only the music and video file sharers on the network, but also those who were attempting to share Linux distributions and game clients (like from Blizzard) that depended on BitTorrent to send patches. You can read a good summary of the history on Wikipedia here

Anyone who thinks the market can solve everything really hasn't studied history or economics at all. Last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly much like electrical power, water, or sewer. There are simply too many physical barriers to entry to allow real competition: How many wires can you really have running down a street. The cost of installation is also prohibitive. When such barriers exist, government regulation or outright government provision is the only way to prevent monopoly rent-seeking behavior from companies.

#266 | Posted by StatsPlease at 2017-11-22 11:18 PM | Reply

#266

Good summary of the history of the Net Neutrality battle.

I just looked and you are right my TOS has a mandatory arbitration clause, not only that it has this lovely gem "NEITHER GOOGLE FIBER NOR ITS SUPPLIERS OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE SERVICES,"

So basically I am paying them each month in the hope that they actually provide something, with neither a guarantee of service or a remedy should they provide jack and ----.

Now like I said in #235 I am one of the rare people who has 3 different lines covering last mile I have watched my neighborhood get wired and we have 2 fiber and 1 coax line running under our front yard so should one service fail to deliver I have two other options. I do know that is rare which is one of the main reasons for the need for net neutrality.

Libertarians (I am one) argue that if you are dissatisfied you can always switch and the market will correct, however in the case of broadband for the vast majority of Americans there is no ability to switch so the market has been distorted. You see that in the consistently poor customer service ratings of cable companies. Comcast is routinely ranked worst customer service in the US so why would people put up with it if they had a choice. They wouldn't, which proves that comcast, and others, can pretty much do as they like and not lose customers. Now I find out that thanks to mandatory arbitration and TOS that "make no specific promises" and people still feel they don't need regulation.

#267 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-23 06:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh and just for the record I have been super happy with google fiber so far. We have had only one down time in 7 months and they credited me for 3x the period I was down without me even asking.

As of this point I have not noticed any sign of anything untoward with the service and every time I do a speed test I appear to be at full speed, something I could never say about TWC. I am just pointing out that the language for them to start doing tiered service or throttling of certain sites is already in the TOS, not that I think they are doing it.

#268 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-23 06:38 AM | Reply

The inability to switch is a local regulatory issue. I have 4 options, I use consolidated fiber. It's great.

#269 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-23 07:54 AM | Reply

"Comcast is routinely ranked worst customer service in the US so why would people put up with it if they had a choice."

So, hey!, let's give them even more power by ending net neutrality. Your position seems rather altered by the fact that you do have choices which most Americans don't have. Your identification as a Libertarian is down right laughable.

#270 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 07:58 AM | Reply

Danni,

I have consistently been on the side of net neutrality. Just because I am a libertarian does not mean I am against net neutrality.

A direct quote from me however in the case of broadband for the vast majority of Americans there is no ability to switch so the market has been distorted. The government distorted the market when it gave companies monopolies way back in the 70's and 80's if the companies will not voluntarily support a free and open internet like they did for 20 years then the only choice in a monopoly environment is regulation.

You will notice that the republicans who are all for doing away with net neutrality because "regulations are bad" have no issue with the regulations that give the monopoly power to companies in the first place. That is where my libertarian stance differs. Either regulate the monopolies or remove the regulations that allow the monopoly. I see advantages to both sides. The republican stance of removing regulations on net neutrality while allowing regulations ensuring monopoly is nothing more than a corporate give away.

Some times I think you forget that libertarian does not automatically mean corporatarian. I am a libertarian who belies in maximum freedom for the individual, corporations are not individuals. They can reduce individual liberty just as, if not more effectively than government. Especially when corporations are allowed to run the government.

#271 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-23 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#271, "I am a libertarian who belies in maximum freedom for the individual, corporations are not individuals. They can reduce individual liberty just as, if not more effectively than government. Especially when corporations are allowed to run the government."

QFT.

#272 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-23 10:39 AM | Reply

I see a great deal of discussion on the technical and legal aspects of Net Neutrality.

How about the social impact?

Things have changed tremendously the last decade. The internet has become the primary (only for many) way to find out new things and stay up on current news, events and opinions.

Today the internet is more akin to radio than cable.

The difference is radio travels via airwaves and the internet travels via a system that must be maintained.

What we are discussing is essentially implementing radio frequency jamming.

Is it any more acceptable to limit our access to readily available information over the internet than radio waves?

A great deal of power is put in the hands of whoever controls information.

I am concerned ending Net Neutrality is a power grab for nefarious reasons.

#273 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2017-11-23 11:09 AM | Reply

"I am concerned ending Net Neutrality is a power grab for nefarious reasons."

You are not alone. Of course it is.

#274 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 11:15 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort