Verizon Is Killing Tumblr's Fight For Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In 2014, Tumblr was on the front lines of the battle for net neutrality. The company stood alongside Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net's day of action. Tumblr CEO David Karp was also part of a group of New York tech CEOs that met with then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler in Brooklyn that summer, while the FCC was fielding public comment on new Title II rules. President Obama invited Karp to the White House to discuss various issues around public education, and in February 2015 The Wall Street Journal reported that it was the influence of Karp and a small group of liberal tech CEOs that swayed Obama toward a philosophy of internet as public utility. But three years later, as the battle for net neutrality heats up once again, Tumblr has been uncharacteristically silent. The last mention of net neutrality on Tumblr's staff blog -- which frequently posts about political issues from civil rights to climate change to gun control to student loan debt -- was in June 2016. And Tumblr is not listed as a participating tech company for Battle for the Net's next day of action, coming up in three weeks. One reason for Karp and Tumblr's silence? Last week Verizon completed its acquisition of Tumblr parent company Yahoo, kicking off the subsequent merger of Yahoo and AOL to create a new company called Oath. As one of the world's largest ISPs, Verizon is notorious for challenging the principles of net neutrality -- it sued the FCC in an effort to overturn net neutrality rules in 2011, and its general counsel Kathy Grillo published a note this April complimenting new FCC chairman Ajit Pai's plan to weaken telecommunication regulations.

Comments

Ajit Pai is ex Verizon Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Pai is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

Re:Ajit Pai is ex Verizon Lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely fails to mention that Ajit Paid is an ex Verizon Lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

This is what happens

[rsilvergun]

When you let a small group of people buy everything. It's why wealth inequality is such a problem. Money is power, and we're giving it all to .1%.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

"giving?"

You're giving money away? Can I have some?

I've never given money to Amazon. I've bought things from them, but never gave them any money?

I wonder? Why are people giving so much money away?

Re:This is what happens

[nine-times]

Many of us are voting for elected officials who push policies to remove regulations and cut taxes on the richest people and businesses. It's a policy of granting wide latitude and control to people who already have immense economic power. It's a policy of wealth redistribution, but redistributing wealth from the public and the middle class, and pouring all the money we can into a tiny group of people.

Whether you like the word "giving", we're setting up a system that moves money to the top 1%, and not really getting anything in return.

Re:This is what happens

[Cmdln Daco]

I hope there are plenty of phones on Mars to sanitize, so they won't grow bored with life.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

Cutting taxes is not giving. And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Re:This is what happens

[GameboyRMH]

Cutting taxes is not giving.

Well then raising taxes is not taking :-)

Re:This is what happens

[nine-times]

This is a classic straw man when talking about taxes on the wealthy. Nobody is talking about taxing the top 0.01% at 100%. Nobody is talking about taxing *only* the top 0.01%. Nobody is talking about violence.

But tax money is used to build infrastructure, provide security, and maintain a stable society. If you do those things off the backs of the middle class and don't ask the rich to pay their fair share, it is "giving". If those rich people don't want to contribute, then fine, let's take away the protections they derive from our society. Let them try to build a product without an educated and healthy workforce. Let them try to sell that product without customers. Let their businesses survive without infrastructure. Let them try to hold onto their money without government protected banks. Let's do that for a while, and see how it turns out.

Billionaires shouldn't be paying a lower effective tax rate than someone making $100k/year,

Re:This is what happens

[rbrander]

They don't have a choice. When the government is influenced into passing a legal framework that devolves the market down to an oligopoly, people can hand them money, or not be able to make a phone call and find work.

Proponents of "market freedom" are often only offering the free choice of "Your money or your life" and calling that "freedom".

Re:This is what happens

[Duhavid]

Indeed, cutting taxes is not giving.

But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".

And it does not change the point made.  The wealthy are changing legislation to grant themselves more power and lower taxes.

If they were being taxed at rates live 60's/70's England ( like the 90% rates I understand they had ), I would argue their rates should be lowered.
But, they are not.
And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis.
There is no democracy involved, no discussion, no consideration of other viewpoints, no thought of outcomes, just power and the exercise thereof.
( and I dont think democracy should descend into "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner", that is not right either )

When they get their crybaby way, either services are cut ( but  not in their neighborhoods ) or others have to step up and pay more, or the deficit spending they like to rail against is done ( which is just a special case of the above two scenarios, but moved to the future and multiplied )

Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*".  Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*"..
Important note, the wealthy are a component of the people.  They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else.  Not more, and not less.

Re:This is what happens

[Cajun Hell]

And the neat thing about Mars, is that whatever people go there, will decide to not allow political corruption. Because they'll be too cool for that sort of thing.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting taxes is not giving.

It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

They double-dip, you know.

And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Or we could do this.

You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you read what's happening in Kansas? They followed the plan of handouts to the rich. How's that worked out for them?

Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade about CT if you want, KS is still a failure. It's a logjam due to partisan politics.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

Simple solution to all the FUD and BS

Flat tax (or extremely limited deductions) on earned income.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

No handing of money here. You're buying a service.

Oh, you're talking about government enforced monopolies, you think they're bad. Libertarians and free-market types agree with you.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

Of and buy the people doesn't mean the government takes from some to give to others now does it?

Re:This is what happens

[Obfuscant]

But not everyone who thinks that what is going on is on board with "kill the rich and take all their money".

Nobody said they did. It's called "reductio ad absurdum." Take an argument to an extreme to show why it is absurd.

People DO say: "the rich should pay more" when they talk about solving government financial problems. That argument is false, because EVEN IF you took ALL the money from the rich (taxed at 100% of income and wealth), and then removed them from the welfare roles as a new cost by killing them, you couldn't solve the government financial problems. That means there has to be a different answer, if there is one. See how that works?

And, right now, they are forcing this, not from a "this is unfair to us", but from a "I want to keep more, the rest of you have no say" basis.

And the ones who want to tax them more are doing so from a "this is unfair" basis, as well. "They should pay their fair share..." Well, "fair" is such a wonderful subjective term, isn't it? You think it is fair if they pay 60% of their income, perhaps. I think it is fair if they pay 35% -- because 35% of A LOT is much more than 35% of what I pay on. They're already paying a large percentage of the total tax bill. I think that's fair. YMMV.

Our government is supposed to be "of/by/for *the people*". Not "of/by/for *the wealthy*"..

When you realize that an almost majority of the people pay no income tax at all, ...

They should have the same rights/say/power as anyone else.

Then tax them at the same rate as everyone else. This shows data for 2016. The top 1% had 22% of the income and paid 34% of their income in taxes. The average tax as percentage of income for all was 31%. That looks like it's about the same rate, within some margin of error. Isn't that fair? Remember before you say "no", that 34% of $1.7 million (the average income of the top 1%) is a lot more than 31% of $81,000 (the average income of the 60th through 80th percentile of taxpayers.) And consider that the top 1% already pays almost a full quarter of all taxes.

Re:This is what happens

[kwbauer]

"Well then raising taxes is not taking." Shows what a total idiot GameboyRMH is.

When I earn money, that money is mine. Anything the government requires me to give under threat of violence and imprisonment is taking. Taking less is still taking. It does not become giving until the taking is less than zero, like what happens with those at the bottom. And yes, if the government ceases to give them money then it is not taking anything from them.

Seriously! Where did this asinine idea that every damn thing belongs to "the government" and we should be grateful for every little crumb they let us keep come from. No wonder people are so enamored with the idea of Communism.

Re:This is what happens

[GameboyRMH]

Taking less is still taking. It does not become giving until the taking is less than zero, like what happens with those at the bottom.

Which is getting close to my point. People at the top receive more from government than they pay in taxes, overall similar to those at the very bottom. They benefit from plenty of workers who went to public schools and pay them peanuts. They benefit greatly from public roads and register their supercars in Montana. They run money through foreign tax havens at every opportunity. So yes, cutting their taxes even more is "giving."

Re:This is what happens

[nine-times]

Yes, limiting deductions and removing loopholes would help to solve the problem.

However, it's worth noting that conversations about a "flat tax" often conflate two different issues. Sometimes when people are talking about a "flat tax", they're talking about removing (or severely limiting) deductions, and just taxing people a set percentage of income. Even then, it's complicated. Are the tax rates for corporate taxed and capital gains also taxed? If not, you may be opening some loopholes already.

However, some people are not advocating a "flat tax" in that sense, but instead they're suggesting that income tax be made "flat" in terms of being non-progressive. That is, every American pay the same percentage in income tax, and there are no income brackets.

Some people will argue in favor of a no-deductions tax structure, but are fine with progressive taxes. Some will argue in favor of a no-tax-bracket structure, but are fine with deductions. Some people want a no-deductions and no-tax-bracket structure. And all of these groups use the term "flat tax" to describe what they're advocating for.

So I don't necessarily have a problem with a no-deductions tax structure, assuming experts/economists think it through and don't find too many adverse effects. However, a no-tax-bracket system that allows for deductions is really a way to give the wealthiest people a huge tax cut without calling them "a tax cut".

Re:This is what happens

[quantaman]

Cutting taxes is not giving.

Taking less then.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months.

Really? They control 12% of the wealth in the US.

Either way that misses the point. The issue is that society is structured so that wealth accumulates. The wealthier you are the faster you'll accumulate more wealth, taxes aren't the only issue, but they're part of it

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

So you're playing the bait and switch of talking about government budgets.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you seen what US Republicans are doing right now? They're so obsessed with giving rich people a tax cut they're willing to destroy the health care market.

Re:This is what happens

[GLMDesigns]

Take a look at the total wealth and see if you get to 2 trillion dollars. Then ask yourself how many months the US government will run on that confiscated money.

Here's something you need to realize - higher taxes != more tax revenue.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[Z80a]

It's the best system available sadly.
But it only works when it is still a competitive market, rather than an empire.

Separation of Business and State

[Anonymous Coward]

When you form your society around a coercive organization (that is, around "government"), then what you'll get is coercion and thus empire.

Greed is innovative when you forbid coercion; it's nasty when you build on top of coercion.

There should be a separation of business and state.

Re:Separation of Business and State

[Duhavid]

Amen!

So succinctly put.

Re:Separation of Business and State

[Cmdln Daco]

Umm, the warlords are the government in Somalia. It's ludicrous that people constantly cite Somalia as a place with no government. In fact, the warlord-led government of Somalia is only a degree more coercive than the regulatory mess that people get gleeful about imposing.

Re:Separation of Business and State

[Green Mountain Bot]

When you form your society around a coercive organization (that is, around "government"), then what you'll get is coercion and thus empire.

What do you think happens to the power vacuum that results when you DON'T have a government? The ultimate law of nature is "Might Makes Right". You can abolish government, but you can't abolish that law of nature. Absent government of, for, and by the people, you end up with government of, for, and by the most brutal and ruthless among us.

Re:Separation of Business and State

[Green Mountain Bot]

Yes, the warlords are the government in Somalia. That's because nature abhors a vacuum, and the absence of a functional government creates a power vacuum that is filled by the most brutal and ruthless people. You can eliminate functional government, but be aware that the alternative isn't the absence of government. The alternative is a reversion to Might Makes Right.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[PopeRatzo]

I have Verizon shares. They are paying a 5% dividend yield which is pretty awesome for 2017. Greed is good!

That $0.58 per share you're going to get on July 6 is eaten up by higher prices and the increased costs of no net neutrality, but fantasies can keep you warm at night.

What side are we on?

[houghi]

On one side there was "Amazon, Kickstarter, Etsy, Vimeo, Reddit, and Netflix during Battle for the Net's day of action" on the other side the other companies.

So who where the people defending the public? The companies having the same interest as the public does not mean they are on the same side. It is merely correlation.

Or: The enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend. (And that is why you should vote for something, not against something)

Duh. Why else would they buy Yahoo?

[kaizendojo]

Been saying this since the acquisition was announced. Buying Yahoo gives them yet another series of 'mouthpieces' from which to spout their anti Net Neutrality propaganda.

Boycott Verizon

[GameboyRMH]

For anyone who doesn't know, Verizon is the arch-enemy of net neutrality. Most of the corporate (and even government, hi Ajit!) opposition to net neutrality today can be traced back to them. If you're a Verizon customer, switch if you're able to.

I realize you might not be able to switch because the wonderful free market of the USA often has de facto telecom monopolies ruling certain regions, but if you can, do.

Re:Boycott Verizon

[JestersGrind]

I did exactly this about two weeks ago. I dropped Verizon as my family's mobile provider and joined T-mobile who is pro net neutrality. I encourage anyone who is their customer to do the same. They are truly an evil company. I've been very pleased with T-Mobile so far and should have made the switch a long time ago. Vote with your wallets. That's the only thing they understand.

Re:Boycott Verizon

[ayesnymous]

I tried T-Mobile and would have stayed with them if they didn't have zero reception at my office. Verizon has better overall coverage in my area, even though in a lot of places it's slower than T-Mobile was.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[PopeRatzo]

And the fantasy of Net Netrality making it magically any better and keeping costs down should do the same.

OK...

At some threshold someone will come along that CAN undercut Verizon on costs and will ream them hard when they do. Hell, all it'd take is having largely the same level of coverage and be 25% cheaper and they'd put Verizon OUT OF BUSINESS.

Now who's engaging in fantasy?

Are you a member of the 1%

[rsilvergun]

then sure. I guess I will. Not by choice mind you, but while the programs that help me (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc, etc) get cut and eliminated and all hope for single payer health care or even pre-existing coverage gets wiped away in closed door meetings anyone from the 1% gets massive tax cuts and zero cuts to the loopholes and subsidies they know and love. Meanwhile we keep electing the same bunch of yahoos every bloody year (serously, how does Ted Cruz, a Senator not a House member, get reelected?). Then there's the 30 years of declining and/or stagnant wages...

What the hell else do you call it besides giving it away when we're not even making a perfunctory attempt to take it back?

Re:Are you a member of the 1%

[GLMDesigns]

Be prepared to be further disappointed if you're outraged at Ted Cruz. Time for you to move to Canada.

Re entitlements - hmmm. You really think they're being slashed? Really?


You could be creating your heaven in your state. Taxing higher, more entitlements. Instead you're trying to make it country wide.

Prove me wrong. Make it work in your state. Then, instead of fighting you, I'll join you.

Yep

[XSportSeeker]

Don't expect a Netflix-like move on this one guys (bluntly say they don't care, then do a full reversal when people get pissed about it). If anything, the only thing Verizon probably cares and expects right now from Tumblr is for them not to support net neutrality. At possible threat of shutting it down. Which is a good sample of what is happening if net neutrality ends, only on a larger scale.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[110010001000]

Net neutrality is going away no matter what. I doubt it is going to cost me $9000 extra every quarter.

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[PopeRatzo]

Net neutrality is going away no matter what. I doubt it is going to cost me $9000 extra every quarter.

It doesn't have to. Verizon's stock price going down 20% in the past year will do that for you. You got a 5% dividend and the share price dropped 20%. WINNING!

Re:How's that capitalism going for you, US?

[Z80a]

As any system, you do need to come up with systems to deal with the weaknesses of it.
Also not having a government mandated monopoly system like patents quite help a bit, at least not how it is implemented currently, where you can pull a intel and use it to block any sort of competition with a massive warchest, or where you don't even need to actually manufacture anything.

Now the fixes for the weaknesses of socialism/communism are quite more drastic.

Yeah

[rsilvergun]

by inflation. They're not getting adjusted. And then there's things like Food Stamps & housing programs. I don't use them directly, but they pump money into a sector of the economy that spends 100% of their income. Putting more money in Warren Buffetts pocket doesn't help me. He doesn't spend it. I need it in the hands of folks who spend so they can buy what I'm selling. I need a vibrant middle class.

And don't get me started on cuts to education, especially college. Anyone who tells you that college costs too much because dorms are nicer is lying through their teeth or has been listening to somebody who is. We slashed federal subsidies for public universities in the 90s (thanks Clinton) and it's more than quadrupled the out of pocket cost. Of couse the companies don't care because they can just use the H1-B visa program to get the talent they need cheap while complaining about dumb Americans.

Re:Yeah

[GLMDesigns]

College is over priced because it gets money pumped into it for useless classes; every changing textbooks.

You can cut the cost of college by getting rid of the useless fluff and the extracurricular activities that you pay for.

No money should go to athletics from the general fund. (As for example)
No money should to clubs of any kind from the general fund.

Take a look at the "support" staff for colleges and compare them to the 1950s. Hmmm. That costs money. Get rid of remedial education in colleges. Pass the muthaf**king skill tests before you get admitted. If you were a bad high school student then you need to go take remedial classes elsewhere. (So that expense still exists but is part of the general budget. For society as a whole that is not a savings.)