Slashdot Mirror
Why Is the Internet Association Rewarding a Pro-NSA Net-Neutrality Opponent?
First time accepted submitter erier2003 writes The decision to give a major award to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is curious given McCarthy's many questionable stances on Internet-freedom issues. For one thing, the California congressman is an avowed opponent of net neutrality. In May 2014, as the Federal Communications Commission debated new net neutrality rules, McCarthy—then the House Majority Whip, the chamber's third-highest-ranking member—signed a House GOP letter to the FCC warning that Title II regulation represented "a counterproductive effort to even further regulate the Internet."
I don't know anything about this "Internet Association", but given that the name really doesn't mean anything at all, if they are anti-net-neutrality then maybe they're pro-network-business, and as such they're trying to profit from both ends?
Just a guess. After all, I can name any organization anything that I want, even if that name is Orwellian doublespeak for exactly the opposite of what it sounds like it should be.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What with all the politics today?
why more government control of the Internet is a good thing. Their kind rejects any government control as a bad thing. It isn't. Look at how much things have improved since the Democrats got their way and gave the FCC a lot more power.
Welcome to Orwell's world, where statist enforcement is called "freedom".
Such opposition to the government's attempts to force ISPs to do certain things alone makes one a freedom-fighter in my book.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Internet Association -- which counts tech giants like Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Reddit, and Twitter among its members...
Because these companies have no interest in internet freedom as it pertains to their cattle but as it pertains to fourth quarter earnings. The internet based on these companies is a cash-in-hand libertarian pelvic thrust of states that dont see a red-cent of sales tax on anything from a website, keep their warrantless surveillance quiet, and rubberstamp their patents with a smile. This isnt an award, so much as a dollop of warm grease on an open republican wheel. this group quietly gave an award to McCarthy, the second most powerful House Republican after Speaker John Boehner, because they have a PAC that hasnt donated yet and are making it known to anyone looking for upcoming election year bucks.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Maybe this is some sort of new cutting edge format sitcom, this is just the first episode.
Is it because they're whores and will do anything for loose change? That's pretty much my standard answer for any headline in the format "Why is blank blanking?"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Wait a bit, let people [ed. especially here] celebrate their "total internet freedom" [ed. nothing gonna really change, it's just a placebo] for a few years, and then implement full Title II regulation.
Directed at Rep. McCarthy.
Seriously why not just have our political process switch to largest angry mob with torches.
"The Internet Association represents America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users." - Their members are companies that would hurt without Net Neutrality.
Why honor them? Perhaps because net neutrality proponents are high-demand Internet users who want to stick everyone else with the cost of their service. That means raising the bills of people who can hardly afford to pay more and meaning that some won't be able to afford broadband.
A better question might be who is the Internet Association? They certainly aren't part of the internet's governing bodies. Why should we give two cents for what they think or who they give awards to?
Who cares what it is called when it paves the way for new taxes. The 1% doesn't pay their fair share of the Internet. We need to make that happen. Giving the FCC more control of the Internet and adding a pile (one estimate I read was nearly 500k pages) of new regulation via their reclassification makes it more expensive to run an ISP. That is a good thing. We want to punish Comcast and their ilk. We need to make it horrifically expensive to do anything.
The IA is just doing business the Old Fashion way (after a few rounds of 'Old Fashion's).
Next year, instead of the "award" they will send over a buxom prostitute with her XXX size bra and thongie panties stuffed with Benjamins.
Ha ha
Perhaps you ought to re-read some of Orwell's works...
The problem in Orwell's world of 1984 isn't the "statist enforcement", but rather that the state enforces rules for the purpose of oppressing the majority of the population. Ingsoc's rules and systems are not in themselves harmful. In fact, several times throughout the book, some of the most vile mechanisms are described only as the result of rumors.
Here in the real world, there is no absolute freedom. There is only what you want to do and what others want you to do. When those desires are opposed, someone's freedom will be impeded. If you want to kill me, and I want to live, we turn to the state (as an embodiment of the consensus of the submitting population) to decide who will be able to fulfill their desires. If you want to build a networking monopoly and charge high rates for access to popular web sites, and I want cheap access to everything, we again turn to the state, who has now declared a preference for cases like this.
While reading, be sure to note how the Inner Party is not subject to most of the oppressive rules of the system. They are not subject to the state; the state is subject to their whims.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because it has been such a horrible thing for phone service.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
There is nothing about internet taxes or content control that benefits anyone except the ruling class. They're the ones who will get to do the controlling.
Do you have a link to the FCC regulations in their entirety? I've been trying to read them, I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
The people who praise 'Internet Neutrality' make me sick. 'Patriot Act' or whatever, give it a sweet name and get you some real thinkers to make the case for you. Anyone have a copy of this legislation by mandate in search of a problem?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
I hate to comment without knowing the facts.
You must be new here.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are you going to claim, US policy regarding AT&T's government-backed monopoly was a success?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Because the NSA has photographs from the last Internet Association post trade show party.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is such a bullshit line. "The wealthy get to use it more and no taxes!" Really? So the "wealthy" don't pay for Internet? At all? Not a single penny? Well, in terms of tax, no, because we don't tax that usage. And we shouldn't. It is a service, you pay for it if you want it.
The concern is that companies that run the Internet services get to decide what they want on it, of course in malevolent designs. But the government, on the other hand, is benevolent, and it wants the Internet to be free as in speech and maybe one day as in beer. The same government that leverages its own various alphabet departments against you in menacing ways, but no, we can trust it to handle the Internet, right? Because the government never over-steps its boundaries and always listens to and respects the rights of its people.
We imposed limits on our government a long time ago for a reason.
Yes, this exactly. The golden age of the expansion of the commercial/consumer internet was when it was primarily run over the phone lines - dialup and DSL. The low barrier to entry allowed tons of new ISPs to enter the market, offering basic unlimited service for a flat rate. The incumbents at the time - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and their ilk, were by and large ridiculously overpriced, not to mention did not offer any unlimited plans, with time-based metering. (To be fair they did offer additional services, but over time most people realized there were more/better free alternatives elsewhere on the open internet.)
Pretty soon everyone could get online, because everyone - even in rural areas - had landline phone service (not to mention electricity). Service was slow compared to today, but it was a limit of the current technology rather than any unwillingness of companies to invest or build out in a given area. Upgrades occured, up until about the point that dialup and DSL hit a wall where it was no longer feasible under current technology to increase bandwidth using the (government mandated Title II Unbundled) telephone lines.
Instead, most people were forced to switch to (proprietary bundled) cable lines to get high speed internet. Only recently have fiber lines been available for some lucky few, and most of us are still stuck at the mercy of our cable company. In the meantime, competition has all but disappeared, rates have shot up and service has become legendarily bad for many people.
So explain to me again why Title II is so horrible, because I'm really just not seeing it.
This is the interesting part, too. Back in the early 1900s the government nationalized AT&T for a while. During that time quality and satisfaction tanked. When it was released back in to corporate ownership, the government just chose to regulate the shit out of it as a government controlled monopoly. During that time there were still problems but its rating and raking went up considerably. Then the government decided to break up its unfair monopoly, which it had supported for decades. A lot of things changed afterward.
So now there is no private monopoly in phone service, though arguably in areas serviced by only one provider, but heavily regulated with requirements like network sharing, fees, and taxes. The cable companies, however, enjoy pretty much unregulated and nearly unopposed monolithic rule. ComCast and its ilk are likely to become this century's government supported monopoly, but with far fewer regulations and requirements. ComCast does not have to share its network, is not beholden to the same level of service requirement as phone systems, even though it sells phone service (which does not even have to promise connectivity to 9-1-1, just that you can be located if you call.)
And as much as ComCast is universally hated, why don't people actually link its behavior to the fact that the government encourages its bad behavior by ignoring it and ignoring the people who complain about it? At least in the perspective that you think it's the government's place to take care of your problems rather than choosing alternate access methods.
I would go to dial-up if the only other option was ComCast.
I was recently reading a very interesting article about paid Russian trolls. They'll go to all the small-town Russian blogs and post the same types of rants. But they don't just post pro-gov't rants. They've got this whole cast of characters and script where one person makes a seemingly-well-reasoned pro-gov't argument, while the anti-gov't "villain" will respond with something ridiculous or completely off-point.
It's not enough to make your side seem strong, you also have to make your opponents look foolish.
So when I see a seemingly-well-reasoned-but-wrong "government regulation is bad" argument followed by a "higher taxes and more expensive ISPs are good" argument - both by Anonymous Cowards - I think Soviet Russia. You guys are the worst kind of scum.
Last post!
To bad we didn't impose the same limits on corporations. But then again, what do you expect from a country founded by people who'd be the equivalent of Donald Trump today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.
The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.
Well, it was a success in that just about everybody in the US had access to a landline. Of course, Bell was vastly overpaid.
What internet taxes and content control? I hope your not talking about net neutrality, because this is entirely unrelated. Stuff like this has been going on long before net neutrality.
I work inside one of these companies. They are scared shitless to become 'the dumb pipe'. It is why they fought/fighting tooth and nail against title II.
The ISP service itself is still the same. The wires though are and have always been title II. They just obfuscate that fact. Look no further than how they split up their business and how they were cherry picking things. Now they are all under II because the owners of the wires and the ISPs are one in the same. Someone like earthlink can still enjoy title I protection.
In the next few years you will see the companies divesting themselves of their ISP wireline physical operations. For example you are seeing companies like Verizoin selling off FIOS slowly in particular areas. They should be building. But they are running headlong to get rid of it and keep only 'services'. They do not want to be 'dumb pipes'.
except its not in soviet russia. its right here in the USA, paid for by public relations agents.
Except for a few spurts and a few people admittedly on the fringe of the party will we see anyone tackle the real issues.
Just like conspiracy theories will talk about mass internment camps being set up by FEMA, but no one wants to talk about the mass internment camps that are very real actual prisons and some of the silly things that get people sent to jail for very long sentances, and the very low burden of proof that a good chunk of these people didn't even do the petty crimes they are accused for for such long jail times.
No one wants to talk about the kangroo court systems, corrupt law enforcement agencies, private prisons, all of which is plainly obvious.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
The people that complain about the new net neutrality rules are either corporate telco shills or just misinformed idiots.
I'd say if they don't want to be in that business line, then by all means they should sell it off. Running a regulated natural monopoly business like "being the dumb pipe" is a boring line of business, but it's also a reliable line of business. You won't make ridiculous profits in it, but you'll probably make steady (if small) profits. It's why we still have companies that run the power lines and water pipes and such. Better to have the companies that want to be in those lines of business take over.
And if significant infrastructure upgrades require investments of government/tax dollars... well, I'm perfectly okay with that too. I'd much rather have high speed fiber internet laid down in my county rather than, say, a new sports stadium.
Don't say anything, because the internet was already tapped and regulated before title 2. The only thing title 2 did was prevent comcast from adding additional private regulations.
There is really no diffrence from the government dictating rules and comcast doing it, and the only person who really looses out is comcast, and only in their ability to fuck with the end user.
I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.
I'm seen you post some flaming Fourth Reich Cunty Bullshit in my time, but never this fucked up. You really too too fucking stupid to understand that government control means you're all dead? At what point does a hammer have to be slammed into your stupid fucktarded head before you realize this? Hmm? Stalin's Hammer didn't do it. The Gestapo's hammer didn't do it. At what point do you fucking learn to read and stop being a useful idiot to the cunts of the world?
Welcome to Orwell's world, where statist enforcement is called "freedom".
Obvious astroturfer is obvious.
Are 4chan, reddit, imgur, and cheezeburger part of this association?
Then it does not represent the internet.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I believe that empirical evidence shows that not disallowing the Feds to do something is synonymous with allowing them to do it.
In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was constructed on that premise.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Prior to deregulation in the 80's and the breakup of AT&T, the iPhone would have been illegal.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yeah, take a look at how the Western Electric telephone morphed and advanced over those 5 decades. At one point It went from a dial to buttons. Now look at how far cell phones have advanced in one decade and continue to stand by your statement.
Don't forget to be equally outraged when it is flipped around, and a weak supporting argument for mainstream pro-government policies is followed by low-taxes anti-government attacks.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
The people that complain about the new net neutrality rules are either corporate telco shills or just misinformed idiots.
Or both.
If you think Ingsoc's rules and systems were not themselves harmful, maybe _you_ ought to reread it. You completely missed the point, that the stupid rules and blind obedience were 'the point'.
Make rules for everything, every detail and free thinking will never occur to 'them' (people like yourself).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
you're going to have to bring up some citations, because when the government gave AT&T a monopoly, they might have done some shitty things, and blocked some innovation, but the quality of service was second to none. They had a phrase called "five nines" to describe their uptime. To date, no other information system can match the 99.999% reliability of Ma Bell. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was always there. No exceptions. They also pushed innovation and gave back to the community. UNIX for example was given away for Free when they had a monopoly. They didn't care, they just wrote it off. AT&T Bell Labs was the envy of the fucking world, and the state of the art for electronic engineering for 5 fucking decades.
I'd like to see actual sources to back up the usual rhetoric, because your information is lacking.
Bullshit. You picked up the phone and the dial tone was not "always there," it was only there 99.999% of the time. In the 80s when the SF quake happened, so many people in my city (not even in California) were calling to check on relatives, most people were getting the "fast busy" signal when they picked up their phones, because the system was swamped. It was probably 4 hours before we could make local calls reliably again.
Five nines might be really good. But it isn't always.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy accidentally released an internal policy paper concerning a new Net Neutrality talking point.
"Our political contributors don't like Net Neutrality and find that their profits are not high enough. The citizens must be forced to pay more. Framing Net Neutrality as an issue of over-regulation allows us to portray Title II regulation and the FCC as a grasping government department, both over-reaching their mandate and holding back network upgrades. The framing proposed is an obvious canard but our opponents are too stupid to realize that and will be diverted to try and disprove the point. Then all we have to do is to accuse them of being in cahoots with the FCC, as Tax and Spend Liberals."
Damn right I'll be outraged. This type of astroturfing hurts both sides of the argument by preventing an actual exchange of ideas. It's FUD designed to reduce the credibility of any claims, making it harder for an uninformed person to become informed.
Last post!
The Bill of Rights is actually fairly clear that the only legal powers of the Federal Government are those explicitly granted (I.e. Enumerated Powers) to it by the Constitution, and that anything not otherwise prohibited is reserved for individual States to excercise.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10... the "or to the people" part and just assume everything not theirs is purview of the states.
Compared to AT&T's pre-government-backed monopoly, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Except that the government has kind of ignored the last part of Amendment 10..
I would argue it's pretty much ignored it in it's entirety. Then again, the Government (and the courts) seems to be good at ignoring the rest of the document as well.
Actually no they do not. The new rules do not disallow taxes but that is not the same thing, and there is NOTHING in the rules that allow content control.
The people that complain about the new net neutrality rules are either corporate telco shills or just misinformed idiots.
Or both.
Never thought of it that way, but the possibility that these shills actually believing their own lies isn't that far fetched is it. Something about repeating lies often enough and then starting to believe them is also a known quote.