Slashdot Mirror


FCC Plans December Vote To Kill Net Neutrality Rules (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The U.S. Federal Communications Commission under its Republican chairman plans to vote in December to kill the net neutrality rules passed during the Obama era, said two people briefed on the plans. Chairman Ajit Pai in April proposed gutting the rules that he blamed for depressing investment in broadband, and said he intended to "finish the job" this year. The chairman has decided to put his proposal to a vote at the FCC next month, said the people. The agency's monthly meeting is to be held Dec. 14. The people asked not to be identified because the plan hasn't been made public. It's not clear what language Pai will offer to replace the rules that passed with only Democratic votes at the FCC in 2015. He has proposed that the FCC end the designation of broadband companies such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. as common carriers. That would remove the legal authority that underpins the net neutrality rules. One of the people said Pai may call for vacating the rules except for portions that mandate internet service providers inform customers about their practices. The current regulations forbid broadband providers from blocking or slowing web traffic, or from charging higher fees in return for quicker passage over their networks.

116 comments

  1. Call your congressman by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    Mine is pro net neutrality already.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Call your congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We're Sorry your Dual Citizen Congressman is in Tel Aviv right now, please leave a message after the beep

    2. Re:Call your congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the congress people are for or against already. You think someone calling your congressman to approve the repeal wouls work? It's the same everywhere else.

    3. Re:Call your congressman by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      Better yet, if your congress critter is voting to repeal Net Neutrality, then the next time he or she is up for reelection, vote for their opponent.

    4. Re:Call your congressman by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

      I think it is just the FCC changing definitions... nothing to do with congress voting on anything. Congress already vested authority to do this sort of thing to the Executive Branch via the FCC. Or am I misunderstanding how this works.

    5. Re:Call your congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you promised a donation larger than the cable company lobbyist, then yes, I think it would work.

    6. Re:Call your congressman by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You got be a little more 'GRRR' than that, let them know, not only will you vote against them, you will actively support their opponent, with donations, street signs, stickers and you will spread far and wide, that they sold out the digital rights of the people to communicate and profitability of millions of companies sold down the river to serve a tiny handful of companies. Tell everyone how they turned the digital highway, into a clamped down pot hole infested toll road, with never ending billboards with speakers that scream at you to buy junk and cameras that spy on everything you do. Don't forget to remind them again and again and again, across all forums and digital venues, let them know and make sure they know, how you fell. Don't forget to have fun doing it, a wry sense of humour http://www.lifedaily.com/6-sig... will serve you better than anger, of course that they are fearful of losing their spot in the corruption trough and fuming as a result is great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Call your congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately your congressman can't control how the FCC votes. This is nothing short of a coup by ISPs. The arguments I've heard against net neutrality are painfully ignorant. I don't have to use Facebook and I can use DuckDuckGo or some other search provider, but my ISP sees ALL my traffic and my options are extremely limited. SSL helps a little, but you can't block the IP address you're contacting unless you use TOR (which they could also throttle).

  2. Here's hoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's hoping that these decisions can be reversed completely and quickly when this absurd administration is left amidst the most shamed corners of the history books.

    I'm sure Ajit Pai will sit comfortable and rich when it's all over though - happy in the thought of the damage he did to industries and people everywhere.

  3. I can hardly wait for the promos by speedlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "put your business first on the internet" "your website will load just as fast as your competitors" "make sure your potential customers don't die of old age waiting for your site to load" This wonderful package is available for only XX99.99 more than your current package. Call Today !!! bastards

    1. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Damn! where are my mod points!

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Since you have Comcast Plebian, you'll need to pay $5 a month for slashdot mod point access.

    3. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by mi · · Score: 2

      It worked for Yellow Pages, why is wrong for Internet providers?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by green1 · · Score: 1

      Yellow pages is hardly a thriving business at this point...

    5. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by mi · · Score: 1

      Yellow pages is hardly a thriving business at this point...

      That may be a reason for business not to do it. But it does not answer the question of why it is wrong — immoral, unethical — and ought to remain illegal.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re: I can hardly wait for the promos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF you can't figure that out by your lonesome, then fuck off, you don't belong here.

    7. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by grimr · · Score: 1

      Because Yellow Pages were given to you free but you pay for your internet service.

      Here's a better example than Yellow Pages. You set up an account with FedEx and have all deliveries to your address charged to your account instead of to the shipper. Then you start calling a bunch of businesses and start ordering stuff.

      Now FedEx starts going to those businesses and telling them "Pay us money or your shipments will take longer to customers where you're not paying the delivery charge".

      Since they have no other choice to ship to you they do that and start charging you more money to cover it. So now you're paying twice for the delivery. Now wouldn't you be furious at this?

    8. Re: I can hardly wait for the promos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism has no ethics so your argument is moot, all hail capitalism.

    9. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Yellow Pages are FUCKING ADVERTISING!

    10. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone could create a different Yellow pages.
      Starting a new ISP is not as easy or $$$.
      Plus the current ISPs fight like hell to keep others out of their market.

      They are treating the internet like another cable channel and it's not.
      You want Hulu?
      Sorry, that will be extra to access, but here at ComTrash provide nearly the same shows with our own package.

    11. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by mi · · Score: 1

      Because Yellow Pages were given to you free but you pay for your internet service.

      Wha?..

      You — a business — paid for your telephone service. For the customers to be able to call you. And your number was listed in the phone book.

      To be listed prominently you had to pay the phone book publisher extra — the phone company itself.

      Now FedEx starts going to those businesses and telling them [...]

      The only thing stopping FedEx from quadrupling their fees every week is the fear of competition.

      Since they have no other choice to ship to you

      They do have a choice — there is UPS, there is USPS, and a bunch of smaller guys ready to offer themselves as the alternative.

      What you are about to say is that yes, but ISPs are monopolies!.. Yes, in some places of the country they are — thanks to the Statists like you. Your "solution", to solve a government-created problem with more government intervention is not only laughable, it is also dangerous to our freedoms. You aren't merely wrong — your belief in the right to tell others, what they can and can not do with their equipment makes you a bad person. An asshole...

      Now wouldn't you be furious at this?

      You sound like you believe, that anyone in the (bogus) scenario you described — the shipper, the recipient, the delivery company — owe anybody anything. Nobody does. You can pop your lid off in fury, but FedEx still does not owe you a delivery, that was not paid for at the price they choose to set.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't what Net Neutrality is about. This is the line of bull propagated by over-the-top service providers like Netflix and YouTube who want free use of unlimited INTERNET BACKBONE infrastructure. Net Neutrality has nothing to to with the scenario in the original poster's comment. But there are a lot of powerful freeloaders who would like you to think it is. Net Neutrality is bad policy that was instituted as a payback to a lot of Obama's Silicon Valley campaign donors who want unlimited bandwidth at the backbone providers' expense.

    13. Re:I can hardly wait for the promos by grimr · · Score: 1

      You — a business — paid for your telephone service. For the customers to be able to call you. And your number was listed in the phone book.

      Yes, but the person who wants access to that information gets it for free. That's not the situation with internet access as both parties are paying.

      To be listed prominently you had to pay the phone book publisher extra — the phone company itself.

      That's more in line with SEO so bad analogy there.

      The only thing stopping FedEx from quadrupling their fees every week is the fear of competition.

      That's the point. There's competition and all of them have equal access to the road network. With the internet there's usually only two choices which is phone company and cable company.

      They do have a choice — there is UPS, there is USPS, and a bunch of smaller guys ready to offer themselves as the alternative.

      The big ISPs are all doing the same thing. The little ISPs are either resellers of the big ISPs or have to use the last mile of the big ISPs.

      What you are about to say is that yes, but ISPs are monopolies!.. Yes, in some places of the country they are — thanks to the Statists like you.

      I'm not a Statist. But I do think the government should be involved when massive companies are screwing over the consumers.

      Your "solution", to solve a government-created problem [wired.com] with more government intervention is not only laughable, it is also dangerous to our freedoms.

      Bullshit. All the small towns that want to run their own internet to their residents get squashed by the big ISPs using the same government that you claim shouldn't be involved.

      As for freedom, small town should have the freedom to build their own internet infrastructure. Yet government regulations prevent it in a lot of jurisdictions.

      The big ISPs want it both ways. As long as it's in their favour they're either for or against government interference.

      As for government intervention, we should abolish copyright and patents by your logic. No government interference as you want. But we can't do that or inovation and competition will be adversely affected. The big companies will squash all the little companies. Yet you think that same protection for the internet is not needed even though we have proof that the big ISPs are doing this to be anti competitive.

      your belief in the right to tell others, what they can and can not do with their equipment

      With some of their equipment on public land paid for by government subsidies. But that's not what I was arguing about.

      I paid for access to the internet. All of the internet at a certain speed. I don't see any of the big ISPs advertising that the speed I'm paying for is going to be artificially slowed down based on the fact that I want data from a company that's competing with my ISPs other business unit.

      So damn right I want the government to interfere when my ISP is trying to defraud me.

      makes you a bad person. An asshole...

      Ah, so having an opinion different from yours makes me a bad person and an asshole. If that's what you call Freedom you can keep it.

      You sound like you believe, that anyone in the (bogus) scenario you described — the shipper, the recipient, the delivery company — owe anybody anything. Nobody does. You can pop your lid off in fury, but FedEx still does not owe you a delivery, that was not paid for at the price they choose to set.

      What the fuck are you talking about? It's not bogus. It was paid ay the EXACT price they set, by the recipient. If the now ask for extra from the shipper above that set price they are committing theft and/or fraud.

      They set a price for the delivery from A to B to be $X. If I as recipient paid

  4. Not Common Carriers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... so responsible for every byte that traverses their network, right?

    So if a terrorist sends a threat using an AT&T cell phone, that means AT&T management goes to gitmo, right?

    1. Re:Not Common Carriers... by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      That would be a "nope." They're all on the Comcast tip and the carriers expect the best of both worlds; no common carrier obligations and no liability either.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  5. Um, where? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... gutting the rules that he blamed for depressing investment in broadband.

    Things are depressing alright, but I don't think it's in investment. But, maybe, with fewer burdensome regulations, carriers will pass any savings onto their customers. [ See, now you don't know whether to mod me informative or funny. :-) ]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Um, where? by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't take away basic civil rights to placate megacorporations into improving their service.

      If you do it once they'll use that trick to get what they want every time.

      "If you don't do X we won't invest in broadband. If you don't do Y we won't invest in broadband."

      And so on.

    2. Re:Um, where? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't take away basic civil rights to placate megacorporations into improving their service. If you do it once they'll use that trick to get what they want every time. "If you don't do X we won't invest in broadband. If you don't do Y we won't invest in broadband." And so on.

      Exactly. Don't negotiate with terrorists or corporations.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Um, where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Basic civil rights" Some children need to go outside once in awhile.

    4. Re:Um, where? by geekmux · · Score: 2

      You don't take away basic civil rights to placate megacorporations...

      Someone should probably tell our elected officials that.

      About thirty fucking years ago.

    5. Re:Um, where? by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Elected"

      In large, strong quotes.

    6. Re:Um, where? by WillgasM · · Score: 1

      AT&T wanted to expand their network and asked the government if they wanted to go halfsies. The government agreed, but told AT&T they would have to play fair and couldn't use their new network to fuck people over. AT&T promptly lost interest and blames the government for their loss of interest.

    7. Re:Um, where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am very angry. I'm angry that Bobby Newport would hold this town hostage and threaten to leave if you don't give him what he wants. It's despicable. Corporations are not allowed to dictate what a city needs. That power belongs to the people. Bobby Newport and his daddy would like you to think it belongs to them. I love this town. And when you love something, you don't threaten it. You don't punish it. You fight for it. You take care of it. You put it first."

    8. Re:Um, where? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      If you do it once they'll use that trick to get what they want every time.

      They've been doing that since forever you and americans don't seem very informed on this issue. You guys are up to your ass in free market fairy tales down there.

      Elites respond to Crisis of democracy - aka double down and propaganda and misinformation

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

      Testing theories of representative government

      https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

      Our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

      The Citibank memo

      Citigroup memo

      Manufacturing consent:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

      https://vimeo.com/39566117

      US distribution of wealth

      https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    9. Re:Um, where? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's code for that:

      "Elected"

    10. Re:Um, where? by ChocoIncognito · · Score: 1

      Well quoted. I don't have the power to mod your post up, though :(

    11. Re:Um, where? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      But is this not what America wanted? Is this not what Americans voted for?

      An administration that puts corporations and the rich before everyone else. That's what America wanted. It wasn't some secret or some bait and switch. Any idiot with at least a handful of functioning brain cell could figure out what was going to happen if Trump got elected, and Trump has not failed to deliver.

      You voted for this. You got it. No use bitching about it. Maybe next time consider the consequences of electing an asshole like Trump before voting.

      --
      ~X~
    12. Re:Um, where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some Americans voted for It. A minority of Americans voted for It. Most voted against It. Most are still fighting against It. But, you are correct in that It is in power due to apathy.

    13. Re:Um, where? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Funny, definitely!
      As if Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast aren't already loaded. They have more than enough resources with which to "invest", but they choose not to. Removing the regulations will only serve the shortsighted shareholders further.
      I was stunned one time, a few years back, when we got a call because our payment was late; at the time, the economy was lousy and I was having to deal with some furlough days on top of that; but the rep actually had the gall to try to shame me, suggesting poor, wittle, Comcast would struggle without my payment because times were hard. Unfrigginbelievable.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:Um, where? by keefus_a · · Score: 2

      No. It's not what the majority of America wanted. Nor is it what the majority of Americans voted for.

    15. Re:Um, where? by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're aware of this but your vote doesn't matter in the US.

      Take a look at the current battle with the FCC.

      There was overwhelming, undeniable objection to the FCC's reversal of net neutrality rules.

      And the FCC be like ":D whatevs".

  6. Now, bad news every day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when the U.S. had a healthier government.

    1. Re: Now, bad news every day. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a lot older than me.

  7. You got who you voted for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And his equally corrupt cronies. And it's not like he pulled a turncoat like Obama. Let's fleece America first.

    1. Re:You got who you voted for by log0n · · Score: 1

      No we didn't.

    2. Re:You got who you voted for by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Correct. In America, if the popular vote runs too close, the electoral college gives the crown to the moron. Twice now.
      You might not have liked Hillary, but guaranteed she wouldn't have put Ajit "corporate bitch/tool" Pai in charge of the FCC.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:You got who you voted for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't like the rules of the game? There are ways to fix it. Whining about the winning condition after the game is won doesn't help your case.

    4. Re: You got who you voted for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama nominated Ajit Paid, and a Democratic Senate confirmed him. You bet your ass Hillary would have done the same damn thing. She's deeper in bed with the corporations than Trump is.

  8. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weak trolling is weak.

  9. A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....but the technically correct one if not very popular.

    Most of that infrastructure was built by and is owned by private companies. If they become "public byways" then that means they're owned by the government, and hence the companies are technically due compensation for the takings.

    Personally I think they should be, but that's a different discussion.

    Ferret

    1. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah tha “private” infrastructure built on public lands and subsidized with public money.

    2. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      and by law completely subject to regulation... IF we choose to exercise it. Our man Mr. Pai chooses not to, let whoever do whatever, and thus we are fucked.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    3. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, tha [sic] "public" lands stolen from indigenous people and subsidized with money stolen from private citizens.

    4. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Some of it, yes, but the bulk of it was built privately. I agree it's not easy to dig that data up (the carriers are remarkably reluctant to provide that type of information).

      Downvoting the truth doesn't change the truth, but I see there's a bit of a popularity contest going on.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    5. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      > and by law completely subject to regulation... IF we choose to exercise it. Our man Mr. Pai chooses > not to, let whoever do whatever, and thus we are fucked.

      And I said as much, basically. The FCC could change the rules, but I would have to side with the telecoms in such a lawsuit (which would inevitable happen). The bulk of that infrastructure is privately built, privately maintained, privately owned. If Verizon wants to block out anything from AT&T they're the owners--it's been a gentleman's agreement for the most part all this time.

      To repeat: Personally I think the FCC and the telecos should work out some kind of annual compensation for what is arguably a 'taking' under the Constitution. This type of infrastructure is rather different than that originally envisioned.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    6. Re:A Controversial Position to be Sure... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      The Stone Age tribes lost, the Iron Age tribes won. Can't do anything about it now, and if you knew history you'd know there were thousand/I> of similar massacres over the millennia. You only whine about this one because it is more recent.

      Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand anyway, and is just deliberate misdirection.

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  10. congestion breaks interwebs by js290 · · Score: 0

    Net neutrality is great and all until you have congestion, then the interwebs breaks to hell & back.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:congestion breaks interwebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you build a fatter pipe. DUH! That's the way it's supposed to work. You build the infrastructure for the traffic, not the other way around.

    2. Re:congestion breaks interwebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is mostly a separate issue that keeps being presented as the same one. A blanket statement that all traffic must be equal in all ways does not allow for traffic shaping purely for network performance or congestion reasons, but the door should not be opened for "premium" access and features that have nothing to do with operational stability or maintaining network quality but are purely a moneygrab. Fixing one without addressing the other would be a problem, and the chairman is not working in that direction.

  11. Greed will triumph over good. by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's how the USA (currently) operates.

    1. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw the little guy, is how the USA currently works. (Little guy, makes anywhere UNDER a million a year). The Internet should be a Common Carrier, just like the Phone service (Landlines).

    2. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF they lose common carrier status then are they then responsible for copyright infringement on their networks?

    3. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Oh gawd I hope so. And not just for something that most of us here tend to agree is a minor issue, but how about any and all criminal activity that occurs? Make them [the carriers] legally and criminally liable for all cases of kiddie porn, for example.

    4. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common carrier status grants a liability exemption, but it's not the only way they can become exempt.

      For example, in a hypothetical world where the ISPs are also the owners of the media companies that make up the MPAA, they might choose to enter into an agreement where they don't hold eachother liable when someone on their networks infringe on one of their member's copyrights. Good thing we don't live in a messed up world like that... right?

    5. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently? When did they not?

    6. Re:Greed will triumph over good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently?

      Really? If the US government has always been corrupt and incompetent, then no amount of politicking and people-power can change that.

      ... did they not?

      When the 'new deal' made the government responsible for a shrinking labour market. When Kennedy, through misbegotten pride more than good sense, made the fledgling space industry, a priority. When Nixon (usually seen as a bad guy) made trade with China and clean air, a priority.

      The US government used to ask "Who do I protect?". There was plenty of greed but government ensured the wealth was spread among the people. Now US government asks "Who can privatize this?". What happens next isn't important.

  12. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weak trolling is weak.

    The harsh truth, is never weak.

  13. Lack of investment in broadband by cmaurand · · Score: 1

    has more to do with greed than anything else. fiber won't get installed, unless it gets forced by governments at this point. Don't expect Telecom which lobbies congress nearly as hard as the healthcare industry to fight any kind of legislation that might protect consumers from them.

  14. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Norway is more socialist than the US and has a much higher quality of life.

  15. Hey Ajit Pai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YOU, you shit-for-brains yesman.

  16. Vote or "Vote"... by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Is he putting it to a legitimate vote, or putting it to a "vote"?

    1. Re:Vote or "Vote"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vote is legitimate. One vote against, two votes for, along party lines.
      It's entirely legitimate but entirely stacked, because he already knows the positions of the only people who can cast a vote.

  17. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

    Maybe. But this was very weak.

  18. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Wow. "NET NEUTRALITY = WE LIVE IN VENEZUELA" seems to actually be a talking point for far right corporate cheerleaders.

    It caters to that very important demographic who believe corporations are our friends, any government regulation is the enemy, and also give a flying fuck about other countries.

    The proper name for that demographic BTW is "Seton Motley and also possibly Ann Coulter?"

    Anyway, how applicable is Venezuela to the United States? They also has/had rampant corruption, extremely unequal distribution of wealth, an uninformed electorate, an insane leader... with a cult-like following...

    uh...

    hmm...

  19. this will suck by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    the internet should be a utility like electricity or water, not a commodity, make the internet as fast as practical but it should be a utility

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  20. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are you supposed to reach your end game otherwise???

    Captcha: rabies

  21. Re: MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is right though. 30 years with no regulation. Don't fix what is not broken. If your isp is fuckinv you then switch, if you cant then start your own isp. Lots of people do it.

  22. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember when I got "@home" broadband; it was such a startling change from 56k dialup. Then there was 1.5Mbit asymmetric DSL, and then more cable-based broadband. I remember Napster, and downloading music 24/7 for *weeks*, and all the filesharing sites that were under the radar for a while. I remember being able to look up all sorts of stuff I never knew existed, and most of all, playing all the versions of DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Warcraft 2, and a plethora of other games, online, against total strangers, until the wee hours of the morning. Fun, fun, fun.

    No matter. The Internet has been going to shit for a while now, and some piece of crap like Ajit Pai is dead set to pound the last nail into it's coffin. Sure, after Trump and his administration are all tossed out of office and/or convicted of some crime or other, we'll get someone else in the Whitehouse that will start to clean up the mess, but it'll take years, if not decades, to repair all the damage done to everything, all over the Country, and once the ISPs and other asshole corporations get their hooks into the Internet the way they've always wanted to, we may never be able to get things back on track again.

    Well, guess when the end comes, I'll have more time to read..

    1. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      I'm still looking for a thoughtful, non-hyperbolic answer to my oft-repeated question on this subject: why is there any rational reason to think the sky is suddenly going to fall when this simply rolls us back to the status quo as it existed in 2015, less than two years ago?

    2. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Net neutrality rules existed as unwritten agreements made between engineers for a long time. They only needed to become law because ISP's started breaking them in the name of profit.

    3. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I'll answer your question with a question for you to ponder: What makes you think this isn't just the beginning?

    4. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still looking for a thoughtful, non-hyperbolic answer to my oft-repeated question on this subject: why is there any rational reason to think the sky is suddenly going to fall when this simply rolls us back to the status quo as it existed in 2015, less than two years ago?

      You seem to think the obvious is hyperbolic, so I don't expect you'll get any answer you'll accept.

      That neutrality change 2 years ago didn't just sprout up one day in a fit of divine power without justification of existing provable harm.

    5. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. I asked if there was a rational reason to think the sky would suddenly fall by reverting back to the 2015 status quo, and you replied by essentially asking how I know there's not a boogeyman under my bed.

      My search continues for someone who can actually point to a meaningful, real-world problem rather than the byproduct of an over-fertile, paranoid imagination.

    6. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake.. you won't find what you want predictively using those parameters, you'll only find historical data later.
      Try this instead: Look at the trend of Ajit Pai's overall policy decisions, and who constitutes the current FCC board and their political leanings, and add in the obvious intent of this upcoming vote to roll back Net Neutrality rules. Now take into consideration what, historically speaking, ISPs have wanted, what they've demonstrated they're willing to do to their customers in the pursuit of more profit. What do you think is going to happen, based on all the above (and other relevant) trends?
      ..or, I could have just said what I said in the first place: What makes you think this isn't just the beginning?

    7. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 0

      you won't find what you want predictively using those parameters, you'll only find historical data later.

      At least you admit you're seeking to fix a non-existent problem. For bonus points, reflect a bit on why it might not be the smartest thing in the world to allow the administrative state to seize control of an entire industry based solely on fear-mongering and FUD.

      What makes you think this isn't just the beginning?

      Because this isn't the beginning of anything. It's simply rolling back the state of regulation to what it was in 2015, before Wheeler's land grab. Your irrational paranoia isn't allowing you to see that.

    8. Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're clearly and objectively an idiot, or a shill, or both, and need to shut up and get the fuck out.

  23. This is what us techies get by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for abandoning the blue collar guys to their fate while chanting 'update your skills'. They voted an administration into office who couldn't care less about them or us, but they really didn't have anything to lose. They're picking us workers apart. Putting us against each other and laughing all the way to the bank.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is what us techies get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the hell is happening to my country? This is a simple utility. It replaced utilities that were already regulated.

      This is like your electric company charging you extra if you want to make coffee, or use your toaster. This is insane.

      Is this really what the People of the United States of America want?

    2. Re: This is what us techies get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is what the big broadband companies want. And they have the money to make it happen. We don't.

    3. Re:This is what us techies get by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Electric companies charge you more if you use electricity at certain times of the year or at certain times of the day. They charge you higher rates if you use more. They also charge absurd delivery fees, and these can vary based on where the electrons you're getting are coming from.

      Yeah, it's bullshit. But it's not unusual.

    4. Re:This is what us techies get by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not like people weren't warning about this decades ago.

      "What the commission is concerned about are the unskilled workers in our society in an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities open to them. When immigrants are less well-educated and less-skilled, they may pose economic hardships to the most vulnerable of Americans, particularly those who are unemployed or under-employed."

      Barbara Jordan, civil rights icon and first black woman elected to Congress from the South.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:This is what us techies get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they charge more across the board regardless of how you use the electricity. They don't charge you more for using Walmart brand 15 watt light bulbs than they do if you decide to use GE brand 15 watt light bulbs. They charge a base rate for all use equally be it for your TV, your lightbulbs or your Beowulf Cluster of Furbies. Your cost may change by how much you use over all but not by how you use it.

  24. Re: MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Lots of people do it"

    Yea because starting an ISP is an simple as making milkshakes.

    You are a fucking idiot/troll.

  25. Re: MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is dumb like you

  26. Maybe by jmccue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    maybe Google and other tech companies will put money where their mouth is and finally create their own ISP with cheap rates and real 1G speed, eliminating the pro-NN people.

  27. Wait... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    ...if there isn't any investment in broadband, why am I not still using DSL and an Edge-network flip phone?

    1. Re:Wait... by DarkMagician07 · · Score: 1

      Because you live in an area where that is feasible. Rural communities, in many areas, still don't have anything better than 56k dialup or slow DSL. There are still areas that I drive in where no cell service exists. Companies only put money where populations are, and therefore can skip other areas because the "average" coverage for the state, county, or region is enough.

      This is why you see municipal broadband taking off in areas where it can (e.g. Colorado). The big telco/cable monopolies don't want to run wire where they think it won't be profitable within a very short time, so they just neglect that area.

      I'd like to see more communities nullify the monopoly deals that a large provider has and be allowed to set up their own networks. There's no reason the PUD in my area couldn't offer broadband, except for the fact that CenturyLink and Comcast have agreements with too many cities in the area and it gives them monopolies in coverage.

  28. Re:Why did you allow the FCC into the CAT 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you just bend over and take it up the ass from corporations, how typical of the lunatic fringe right winger.
    Go back to fucking your mom and let the adults talk shit for brains.

  29. Turning the internet into comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how is turning the internet into comcast a good idea? Has anyone even looked at what the politicians were doing in the name of net-neutrality?

  30. They want jobs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    good paying ones at that. And ones they can already do. Nobody's gonna feed, house and cloth them while they retrain and they're too tired from a 40-60 hour work week to add retraining for a new career on top of that. And that's before they start taking care of the kids they had before everything went overseas.

    If you want bad stuff like this to stop happening you have to vote for a country where _everyone_ is taken care of no matter what. We've got the money to do it, but most folks don't want to. For one thing it means you're gonna have some folks who just fuck off all day and still get paid enough to do alright. And that really pisses people who go to shit jobs just to do alright off. There's an old line I think was from Clerks: I may not live well but at least I don't have to work hard to do it...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. Re: MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, have you started an ISP? Don't tell other people to do stuff you haven't done yourself.

  32. Re: MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And its nothing like the U.S. in terms of diversity and population size.

  33. Re: Why did you allow the FCC into the CAT 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may well indeed be an adult, but you read as though you're crazy.

  34. and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and yet, Cox just raised my cable internet bill by 7%, after a similar increase the previous year.

  35. dont follow chinamerika! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pai is a idiot.
    my computer monitor is bulging at the st0pidity of this person.
    the inter net is NOT cable -tv network which it self is an abomination.
    luckily for idiot president nominee, most of the peopel dont understand the internet.
    it's the hole or area, or playground wherw anything goes and doesnt matter and doesnt hurt in any physical manner unless you allowe it to.
    this pai move is a plain sell out of the spirit of the internet. wow-way my ass! nortel!

  36. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Define higher quality of life.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  37. Press the issue by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Arrest the cable companies for fraud. If they tell me they're selling me X bits per second for a certain price, then break my connection to Netflix unless Netflix gives them a cut of the money I give Netflix, that's fraud.

    Let's see how far they get being forced to put in blinking lights on the top of your contract, "The price we charge is not the full price we extract from your wallet. We will actually slow down your connection to Netflix unless Netflix gives us some of the money you give Netflix. That amount comes to $2.50 out of your ever-increasing Netflix payment."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  38. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    > Norway is more socialist than the US and has a much higher quality of life.

    Really? I don't see anybody here moving there.....maybe our crappy internet hasn't gotten the updated news yet?

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  39. Re:MOAH GUBMINT IS MOAH BETTA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice strawman. He didn't say Americans wanted or were going to move to Norway. He said that Norway is socialist and has a higher quality of life. Perhaps you would like to challenge what he said instead of trying to pretend he said something else.

    Also, have you actually done any research on the emigration statistics of Americans?