Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Offers No Data For Latest Claim That Net Neutrality Hurt Small ISPs (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said. On these calls, "one constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment," Pai said. But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service. These expansions happened after the FCC imposed its Title II net neutrality rules. (Title II is the statute that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules and regulate common carriers.)
Shocker.
What small ISPs? The only people who are "small" are resellers as nobody can access the last mile.
Plain and simple.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There is no doubt that allowing telcoms, who are losing money due to cord cutters jettisoning their overpriced premium services, to install toll booths on the Information Highway will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profit through artificial scarcity. Pai is only concerned with the investment returns of the telcoms and could care less about the rights of the American public, the people he is supposed to serve and protect.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
How would having our upstream providers throttling us help? This guy doesn't care about the truth. He is the type to make his truth up as he goes. The net is going to be a huge piece of shit after this.
" But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it."
I guess you think the Native Americans 'discovered they were wrong' and THAT explains their desperation on the Trail of Tears? Try again with your dumb over generalization buddy. This one flies as well as lead balloon.
"...held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country -- from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota..."
Just FYI, for those without a map handy, that covers 8 out of 50 states, all in the midwest:
Montana to Minnesota = Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota.
Oklahoma to Ohio = Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.
Again...just FYI.
Really? Which cable provider is going to undercut the one you have now?
Where is this competition you speak of? I didn't have a choice when I lived in Chicago, I don't have any choice in Los Angeles (TWC) or Boulder (Comcast). I guess I could get a DSL line or satellite if you consider that competition, but neither of those are acceptable for my needs. I had hoped fiber might some day come to the rescue, but it has never been an option in any building I've lived in. My only hope is if Boulder pushes out municipal fiber. If we really had any competition, I'd believe in the possibility of the market to resolve these issues, but I've yet to see any competition in this space.
However, this logic:
they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it
Doesn't hold. You are being far too optimistic if you think that being right and winning are related.
I think him joking about it signals something even worse. Two possibilities 1: He's drinking his own koolaid and genuinely believes at this point Comcast's interests are the interests of the nation and the notion that he could be wrong about this is funny because it's so alien. This type of religious belief in the corporate masters is as dangerous as any other religion running government. Or 2: He is so sold out that he has no decency or shame about the crime he's committing. He's aware that the climate of the Trump administration is so brazenly corrupt that this is acceptable behavior now.
Doesn't change the current question of "is he biased" or "Is he working for the best interest of the consumer." That's obvious. The problem though is the forces that led him to this action, the GOPs religious belief in the gospel of deregulation, and/or blatant corruption, those forces are still at work across all government levels.
I would have never believed that I'd regret telling people about the internet and helping them get on.
Next time we have something nice, no lamers allowed.
Competition? in the ISP market. At best you have 2 choices for a >10mbs connection, more likely your limited to 1 provider. At no point is there any real competition in the broadband market.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Of course he didn't offer any actual facts.
Ajit Pai is a lying sack of shit who came into this process with a pre-determined outcome -- giving the telcos control over the internet to monetize as they see fit.
He's not going to give you facts, he's not going to give you evidence. He's just going to do what he was always going to do ... be a lying sack of shit with the interests of the cable companies/telcos as his primary goal.
You should assume that every trump appointee is going to be a lying sack of shit and not rely on facts or evidence to hand things over to corporations.
CAPTCHA: dictator
Indeed
I hope you go sterile from all your fence sitting. This is just an attempt to reconcile your tribalism with what you know to be true.
Fucking sellout.
Seriously, anonymous coward, you need to take it down about 10 notches. We survived before net neutrality and we'll survive if the two-year-old rules are removed. There is such a thing called "competition" that drives the market, and I fully expect some providers to undercut others. This isn't the end of the world or far, far worse -- according to the rhetoric out there -- the Internet.
Competition? 40% of Americans have but one provider to choose from. The mega-corps will eventually buy up the rest of the market and collude together on tiered internet pricing, much like we saw with cellular services.
If you told the addicted masses today that every one of them would have to pay a $10/month surcharge just to access social media platforms, 99% of them would pay it. Ajit Pai (token corporate shill whore) knows this. Those that will benefit the most from dissolving NN know this. And you're delusional if you think the past even remotely applies now. It doesn't. The only repeat offense here is empty promises of infrastructure expansion will remain empty. Billions will go towards the ISP executive staff and no further, just as it did before. Greed is the only voice that is heard today.
Will change happen overnight? No. Death by 1,000 cuts is always the best approach. That way the ignorant masses don't notice until it's far too late to do anything to reverse a bad decision made by Too Big To Fail.
He's a nerd sellout who is trying to reconcile with his need to root for the same team as his BBQ friends.
A weak worm
Estate taxes are bad. Whether you're a farmer or a multi-billionaire the principal remains the same. You earned it. Paid income tax on what you earned. Paid taxes on all your assets year after year. Why should your children not be able to inherit that when you die without the government sticking their grubby hands in the pie? Especially when they perpetually waste money like it grows on trees? They can't appropriately manage what they have why should I give them more? Now I'm not disputing your stance on net neutrality. I think Ajit is absolutely sold out to the telcom industry and his analogy about mom and pop ISPs is bogus. But that has nothing to do with estate taxes.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
At this point, the only thing I can hope for is that the RIAA and MPAA start going around suing ISPs after Net Neutrality is abolished. If Net Neutrality doesn't exist then the ISPs are no longer a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Not to nitpick/derail too much, but how did modern evangelicals lose the spirit of folks like Aquinas?
One can have a scientific mindset, while still have faith. They aren't automatically mutual exclusive.
People are still confused about net neutrality... but let's stop crying about it so that in 10 years when we have to watch porn metered by the minute through AOL cableboxes... we can look back fondly on slashdot's twilight and remember that that all the articles were about bitcoins and sexual harassment.
So what exactly about your post keeps you from signing in to show us your username?
Probably because you don't have a username.
Google for Brett Glass and Lariat.
Yes, yes. Anyone who's not screaming that the sky is falling is a Russian operative or a shill for the far right.
Unless your farmer has >$5M in assets, the estate tax does not apply to him. And the reason behind the estate tax is to avoid the increasing accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. Whether or not the government is incompetent at handling the cash is besides the point.
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Actually, we have several in the Boston area, and they're constantly cutting rates and offering faster speeds.
Hopefully, competition will come to where you live soon, too.
Ummm. It's not a "death tax." It is not money that is double taxed. It's a tax against the income your benificiaries receive. You can't give infinite money to your children when you are alive without them paying taxes on it, because it's income to them. Just like game show or lottery winnings. There should be no difference in the transfer of assets to children after you are dead. They should pay taxes on those assets at standard rates without getting a basis adjustment at the time of your death. Which brings the purchase price of all assets their value at your death, rather than the actual price you paid for them.
The term "Death Tax" is a complete lie. It's just a "reduced" income tax to those receiving the assets.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
I challenge you to explain why we're going to be ok?
It always sounds smart to be the naysayer whenever someone says the sky is falling, because usually you're right but this time you're not. Think of every time our society regressed. There was always some ignorant guy like you telling people to chill out.
We had natural net neutrality before and last time they tried to violate it we had 4chan sending pizzas to houses, hacking emails, and prank calling guys like Pai until they gave up. Net neutrality was codified because some companies were in a panic about netflix and started rolling out evil plans. Now it'd being de-codified so that they can proceed with their previous evil rollout.
Ps your dumb
Ps I fucked ur mom
You've given zero reason to place any degree of faith in government, and you misunderstand the nature of understanding. Yes, the amount of total data, laws, and models we have is very much incomplete, but we're "Good Enough" for us to understand things like social power dynamics and patterns of corruption.
In fact, a major component of the US government's structure is a built-in distrust for elected officials.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Must be nice. In my apartment complex, "someone" (cough AT&T techs cough) long ago physically cut all the coaxial cables off in EACH cable box. So we have ONE choice, you can have a DSL line or you can suck wind. For awhile AT&T had an "exclusivity contract" here, but now that the actual physical connections have been destroyed I suppose they don't need that any longer. The apartment complex was told it would cost over $150,000K to re-run all the cable; plus it would be a sunk cost as they wouldn't make any profit from doing this.
Simply prove it. Please because simply everyone thinks the opposite. Simply
Simply all the proven facts show that we'll be developing telepathy and the internet will be obsolete soon, this is the simple truth as trends show. Where are you hearing this stuff? You seem to be dumb with lots of firmly held misconceptions.
Yes the majority of extremely stupid loud people are actually paid shills. It's a fact, it's simply what the trend shows.
I'm sorry if you're actually stupid and someone mistook you for a shill sir.
.. If only it were a joke.
I'm definitely on one side of the fence bashing those on the other. You obviously either don't understand what I said, or don't like getting bashed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The complex owner should be suing AT&T for damages if they destroyed $150k worth of equipment. Unless destruction of that equipment was part of the original exclusivity contract of course (which it might have been you never know..)
Everybody's tired of this, it's not just you. A lot of the outrage here stems from the fact that most of us thought this bullshit was over two years ago.
Ah quite... So you are now realizing that a government that rules though this kind of regulation is a danger to all. Rules should not be made this way, with faceless nameless "administrators" who are not elected make (or unmake) such significant rules.
Only NOW you are upset? Yea, cry me a river. It was good enough when you where getting your way, but now it's a corrupt system? Please.
This is the "I have a phone and a pen" legacy, which is getting rolled back the very way it was created, behind the scenes by unnamed unelected bureaucrats that are accountable to their appointers, but not the people. This kind of government and the rules it has created should go away. Congress should undo this mess they have made.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Oh dang I have a bit of egg on my face. Still you're doing a little fence sitting here.
The crazies are actually the best thing. Somewhere there is a total fucking nut on disability who hasn't left his house in years. He's been sitting there watching days of our lives, dragon ball Z, and spanking it to my little pony over bittorrent. Safe and sound where we never have to deal with him.
I hope one such person gives that smug fuck a creampai to the face in public for closing his psychic bond to twilight sparkle. Terry Davis. Paging terry davis the internet needs a hero!
Where there is a lack of faith, the fault is in the beheld, not the beholder.
You do know that broadband providers are entering new markets all the time, right? You may not have had as many choices 10, 5 or 3 years ago, but you will have more as time goes on. That's simply the trend.
I moved into my current apartment in Los Angeles (90025) less than six months ago (but checked again just now to see if anything had changed). No (serious) choice here. I can go with TWC ("Spectrum" now) or DSL/satellite ("Up to 25Mbs!"). You could technically say there's competition, but 6Mbs-25Mbs is not going to work for us.
I doubt there's many family farms that even have a positive net value, let alone a high enough taxable estate to meet the limit.
Regarding the normal millionaires, think of it as a "pitchforks and torches" tax. The level of wealth held by the very small minority who would pay the estate tax only exists because of the social stability and protection the government provides. Without that stability and protection, they would have been deposed by pitchforks and torches long before they could reach that level of wealth. This tax helps reduce the appeal of pitchforks and torches, and is actually a generous deal.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There are tons of them. Try going to one of the broadcast network's streaming services (such as AMC or USA), and try to watch one of the full episodes of a show. To do that, you have to prove you have some kind of cable subscription. There are the big ones listed up top (Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dish, etc.), but you can look at the full list. It's a VERY long list. Sure, a few are only TV only, but the vast majority are also ISPs. And, yes, most of them are small ISPs.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
IKR. We never got to see the raw data that the EPA was trying to use for their power grab, either.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
We are all the same person meeting in the wrong order.
Find well reasoned, detailed analysis in other posts.
People get desperate when something important to them is threatened. It does not follow that their desperation is a sign that they don't have reason to be desperate. A good place to start: Cui bono?
This is not a good argument. You can't elect every public official, there are 22 million public employees in the united states. How many of those are managerial-level, with decision-making power? You're intending to have elections for all of those? It's perfectly reasonable for congress to delegate responsibility for tasks which they can't handle, either because they don't have the time or because they don't have the expertise. That is what they have done here and, for the most part, that is what they do every time they handle anything.
Further, by framing it this way you're implying that this as a failure of government. The FCC is working exactly as intended: these commissioners were nominated by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican senate. For some reason, Network Neutrality has become a partisan issue and Republicans are on the side of wanting to kill it. So this result is a predictable one, as a consequence of last year's election.
Congress can overrule the FCC any time they want. The Senate also could have rejected Pai's nomination, or the other commissioners, if they didn't want to see net neutrality killed. It's not like this is a surprise, we knew that Pai was going to do this and they knew that Pai was going to do this too. So the grandparent is spot-on here: if we're looking for people to blame for this, it starts with the commissioners, but it's also the people who appointed them (the president and senators), then the people who appointed them (the voters), then the people who are really in charge of all of this (the ISPs).
Why should dead people be able to transfer money to other people tax-free when living people can't?
Ezekiel 23:20
Because they haven't earned it and paid taxes on it?
It's not really difficult. It might sound like it's being double-taxed but it isn't, because what is taxed isn't actually money, it's movements of money. This is exactly the same as if you go to bar and buy a beer; the owner pays tax on his profits, and when he spends the rest on a new garage that's income for a builder and he gets taxed on it and so on with whoever he spends it with. The fact that your salary was taxed in the first place is irrelevant.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not to nitpick/derail too much, but how did modern evangelicals lose the spirit of folks like Aquinas?
I would argue that modern evangelical religion in the American sense is not really a religious movement, but a scam to seperate suckers from their money, and it seems to work pretty well on the whole.
This is the true downside of Trump as President: it's not HIM, it's all his cronies who have come to power to help themselves to the levers of power to suit themselves and their greedy pals.
It will take some time to undo all the damage that they are doing at many levels and across many disciplines.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
don't be foolish. the incumbents will do everything in their power to prevent competition from springing up.
Netflix would never have gotten off the ground if Comcast was floating their own video on demand service, and allowed to fuck up a competitors traffic. The reason we have the internet as we know (knew?) it is because it was actually open, and all these fun services were allowed to compete in an open space.
It's really quite masterful, almost to the caliber of the 'the big lie' -- you take legislation that is absolutely paid for, written by, and coveted by telecoms, get some former telecom stooge to head the regulatory agency; and then have the fucking audacity to sell it to the public as 'fostering competition'.
Seriously?
But this puts the cart before the horse. Congress shouldn't have to intervene to avert the miscarriage of regulation by the likes of the FCC. Congress should have to actually pass laws that the FCC is tasked with administrating. Sure the FCC can write prospective bills for Congress to pass and serve as the subject matter experts for congress and the executive branch to consult with, but congress should be passing these as laws using the constitutional prescribed means.
What happened is Congress got lazy and to full of themselves. They turned the likes of the FCC from administrators of the rules to the writers of the rules so congress didn't have to bother. All the FCC does now is publish in the federal register and voilà, it's the law of the land in 90 or 180 days. What SHOULD happen is the FCC should be tasked with maybe authoring and serving as technical advisers on bills, which congress debates and passes or not and the president signs into law or not.
At least that's how it USED to work, back in the days the constitution was taking seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Congress does pass laws which the FCC is tasked with administering - they passed a law giving the FCC the task of classifying services. They also passed a law giving the FCC the task of administering common carrier rules for telecommunication services. When the FCC classified ISPs as telecommunication services, and then required them to act as common carriers, they were carrying out these two tasks.
Now this new president and congress don't want net neutrality, so they nominated and confirmed commissioners who would reclassify ISPs. This is all working exactly as intended. There are no rogue agents here, no bureaucrats striking out on their own. And even if there were, congress always has the final say.
No, but people claiming that the US ISP market is driven by competition are either shills or delusional.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Cry me a goddamn river if Net Neutrality is the fucking "government overreach" that concerns you.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Not to nitpick/derail too much, but how did modern evangelicals lose the spirit of folks like Aquinas?
When they wholeheartedly bought into the Spirit of Roy Moore.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
IKR. We never got to see the raw data that the EPA was trying to use for their power grab, either.
Or the cancelled baksheesh checks either. Logic and common sense cannot stand up to a good old fashioned bribe.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I sure wasn't on AOL. I thought that was a disaster, and basically worthless.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Yes, that's my point. Congress abrogated their responsibility to make laws. They got lazy. Now we have a process that side steps the founders intent and it's resulting in a mess of regulations which are oppressive and unnecessarily complex.
Congress needs to undo this and clean up their mess.... Eventually the states may take care this if congress doesn't, but I don't think having to use the article 5 constitutional amendment process is the best way to fix this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who's crying.. I'm getting my way here.. ;)
I'm just not naïve enough to not understand that what goes around, comes around. Someday the shoe will be on the other party who can have it their way too. I want this fixed, permanently, and that takes congressional action, so this is fixed and takes more than another party appointing new commissioners to get their way again.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ajit Pai is a man on a mission. Always thinking about his future, post FCC. I imagine him looking himself in the mirror each morning, adjusting his tie and mumbling "what do I need to say and believe today"?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Ajit Pai, as many in this administration, is just trying to co-opt the narrative and build some alternate reality that agrees with his own agenda. It's just sad that some people still listens to their garbage.
Well now that's some unnecessary vitriol. Someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?
And no actual human beings don't require "proof." Courts require "evidence," which is not the same as proof. Actual human beings frequently don't even require that -- if they did, religion wouldn't (and couldn't) be a thing. We're pretty good at believing whatever the hell we want to believe, regardless of evidence never mind proof.
I think a lot of people don't think that should matter for family. Dad gives kid allowance money. No tax paid. Dad buys car or pays rent for kid over 18. No tax paid on that. Parents pay tens of thousands for college, kid doesn't pay tax. I don't know any of your rules, I'm Canadian and not from a wealthy family. Are assets and cash taxed differently?
I don't know how I can say this more clearly: Congress made the law. They didn't abrogate shit, they specified - "Here is what a telecommunications service is. Here are the restrictions on it. We're going to call these 'common carrier' restrictions, and they come with some benefits too." and "We are delegating the responsibility of determining what a telecommunications service is to this panel of experts. They know way more about this than we do and can (supposedly) do a better job in this regard. They will also apply and enforce our rules which, let me be clear, are our rules. Which we made, and did not abrogate."
I don't know why you're trying to drag the founders into this. They didn't make the FCC, but they did plenty of delegating. That's how you govern.
What do you want fixed? The existence of executive orders? Net neutrality upsets you somehow? I'm not American, I don't understand how this is a partisan issue.
Do you not like the Internet?
The only reasons I heard to oppose Net Neutrality would be summed up something like:
The Internet is a 30 year old experiment which must end in its current form because
- it is a tool for foreign propaganda (Russia, China ISIS)
- It is a tool for foreign agents to attack citizens' computers
- it is a tool for crime against American corporations and for criminals to collude, communicate and evade detection
- it is a tool for corporations to surveil people's private lives
- it is a tool for evading state taxes
- it is a tool for pornography, violence and morally depraved activities
- It is killing American businesses such as content distribution and the free press
- it is a tool which hurts the American entertainment industry because of mass piracy
Apparently removing Net Neutrality will give the telcos the ability to restrict usage so arbitrarily and severely that you'll only be able to see what the American corporate silos want you to see. No more free exchange of ideas, but instead it is a tool for a "consumer" to purchase "content", and for the dying "content distributors" to charge for access to "consumers".
I'm trying really hard to understand if there's some logic behind this. Is this world, where the Internet as we know it is dead and the pipes running into your house simply carry a better selection of what was available on TV thirty years ago, what you want?
Net neutrality and the Internet itself are like a dream come true. The Internet was built on net neutrality and the lack of laws protecting it was threatening its very existence in the U.S.. The arguments supporting it is in every online innovation made in the past three decades, including this dumb website we're on.
Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding your comment that you're "gettting my way here ;)"
That's an interesting fact that gives the idea that is inspired by Obama quite the element of truthiness to it. Of course it was coined by Colbert in response to Bush and the tendency to ignore facts by his supporters.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's called taxes dumbshit.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
A rope?
ADSL works over wet string, but it doesn't mean that a rope is the best way to get broadband internet access, neutral or not.
I think it's to do with the notion of the nuclear family. They are one entity. Everybody contributes toward the family in their own way and everybody shares in the rewards. Dad's just the collector.
In a family that earns just enough to live comfortably, the wife might stay at home and bring up the kids to release the husband to engage in work that optimizes the family income. It would be a long stretch to say the money the wife spends is a second income.
Yes there's obviously a difference between that and filthy rich, but there must be a transition point somewhere.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Net Neutrality is not what the name implies... It was passed along partisan lines and will be repealed on partisan lines.
I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. But that's just my opinion based on my reading of the rules.
But the political debate here is how the rule making of federal agencies is done, outside of the constitutional mandated legislative process, bypassing Congress and the president's responsibility. This legal construct created by Congress and the President does two things. First it makes creating rules easy and quick. Congress doesn't have to act, pass a bill for the president to sign anymore, the agency just publishes the rules and they become the law of the land without any congressional review or presidential signature. Second, anything that can be quickly done, can be quickly undone. This leads to uncertainty and confusion where the population finds it hard to know and understand what the law of the land actually is.
I also realize that while my political views are currently benefitting from the current political power structure, days will come when this isn't true. I believe that we *should* get this fixed; that we should return to having congress writing bills and the president agreeing or not to sign them. We should slow this whole process down, make congress actually do their job and I think the country and both parties will benefit. I also realize that few see it this way.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Are you not hearing what I'm saying then? Yes, congress did this, they abrogated their responsibility, by delegating to these government agencies.
You may not like my choice of words or my implication that Congress *shouldn't* have done this in my view, but that doesn't change what they did.
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility. Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way. Net Neutrality *should* have been made into law by being a bill passed by both houses of congress that was signed by the president, not a rule created by the politically appointed commissioners over at the FCC.
And I don't agree that congress cannot directly manage the law making. Sure, you'd be slower to get laws in place, but you'd also be more likely to have a more limited and understandable set of rules for everybody if our elected representatives where actually doing what the constitution says they should be doing. I recall why this country got started, it wasn't just about taxation or throwing tea into Boston harbor. I think we've forgotten from where we came and why our republic was designed as it was. But I wax poetic now..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Til trying to avert a deadly catastrophe using a 30 year old law is a 'power grab'.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I'll give you the reason Thomas Jefferson gave when he first proposed an estate tax: to protect America from the tendency of society to develop aristocracies.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You don't deserve a vote when you give up without doing an actual fucking thing that exerted energy.
I agree with your premise about US government. Politicians have proven they are untrustworthy and there is little reason to put our faith in government. Driven primarily by greed they rarely do what's in our best interest. Laws are concrete and written down. Very convoluted and subject to interpretation but the text is there if you have time to wade through it. Modeling is only as good as the assumptions that go into it and modeling human behaviors or expectations would be a fruitless endeavor anyway. Predict how two given people are going to respond to any issue. The answer may depend on what they had for breakfast and the difference between Monday or Tuesday in addition to a myriad of other inconsequential factors. However, if it were true that we understand well enough why do these problems persist? We have control over who we put in office. We're one of the few democracies in the world capable of choosing who our leadership is. Yet we let these things continue to happen. Why? I believe it is because we fail to come together for the common good of man. We can't even agree on what that is or should look like. We fight over silly things like race, gender, religion, political party ideals that are never realized in practice anyway on either side, and any other thing the powers that be can think of to keep us from focusing on the real problems. Never changing each others minds just feeling smug and superior because we think that we're right. We are being played for a bunch of chumps and these folks in power laugh all the way to the bank. Show me the scientific model that cuts through that dichotomy to create a better tomorrow.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility.
Okay. They didn't give up any authority, they hired a subordinate. Having a subordinate does not mean that they are not in charge. Also, if you have a responsibility to get something done, then ordering your lackey to do it is not evading that responsibility. It can potentially be a lazy approach, I won't argue with that, but it isn't necessarily lazy. If you are a manager then it is your job to determine whether your various tasks are best served by doing them yourself or by delegating them to those people whom you manage.
... I don't think I can keep going with this. There's only so many ways I can say the same thing: Congress made the laws. They did it in the constitutionally prescribed way. All that the FCC did was determine, "Here is how the law (which congress made) applies to this particular instance." The net neutrality rules are not laws, the laws are the U.S. Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is the job of the FCC to determine how those laws apply.
This part though: "Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way."
There are, literally, millions of public servants who do the same thing every day:
V: "Hello, my name is Verizon. I am here at the DMV because I would like a driver's license."
D: "Okay Verizon, I can help you with that... Hm... After looking into this, it seems that you are not a human. Rather, you are a multinational corporation. I'm sorry, I can only give driver's licenses to humans."
V: "Hey now, the law says that corporations are people. That means that I, a corporate person, can have a driver's license."
D: "The law says that corporations are people in some respects. It does not say that corporations can have driver's licenses."
V: "I don't think that you should make that determination, I would like congress to decide whether I can have a driver's license."
D: "It's not a federal law."
V: "Fine. The state legislature then. They should determine whether each individual person can have a driver's license. On a case-by-case basis."
D: "That isn't how it works. The state legislature makes some laws about that, and then it's my job to determine how those laws apply to each person who comes in here asking for a driver's license."
V: "So... what? You're the driver's license god then? You can choose who gets a driver's license and who doesn't, and I can't do shit about it? There's no appeal? I want to talk to your manager."
D: "I'm the manager at this location. But no, of course there's an appeal. If you think that I'm not applying the law correctly, then you can sue. And then the court will decide whether I'm upholding the law as the legislature wrote it, or whether I've made a mistake. Don't you remember how you did that in 2010, when the FCC made a decision about network neutrality that you didn't like? And you remember how the court agreed with you, that the FCC had applied the law incorrectly? So the FCC had to go back and change it? You remember that Verizon? Same thing here. I don't think you're eligible for a driver's license, based on the law that the state legislature made, but if you disagree then you can sue and we'll see what the court has to say about it."
Sounds like you're just butt-hurt that it's not you. I'm glad you brought up Donald Trump. He took that inheritance and did something with it. He built things, put people to work, created wealth for others. Maybe not you, but perhaps you should look outside yourself. That doesn't happen for someone of low moral character, or minimal acumen. People like that are usually homeless talking about all the money they used to have. Who do you work for? Are you self employed? Get to where you are without any help from anyone else? Doubtful. Chances are you have what you have because of others who are wealthier than you are. Instead of hating on the rich because they took the initiative to get off their behind why don't you put forth your best efforts to become one of them? Because without the rich most the country would be unemployed and the government would have no money to take care of you.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
While I get your political stance, is there anything specifically which makes you say: “I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. ”
It seems to have been immediately effective against throttling, censorship and stabilizing to business.
I pay taxes on my income, then I pay my lawn guy, who pays tax on his income. Same diff.
Cheap storage VM.
There is an annual exclusion. You can gift up to $15k without any taxes (which are owed by the giver). A married couple could give a child up to $30k in 2018.
Cheap storage VM.
First, the "You are a common carrier" but not really status the FCC tries to define. They are cutting the legislative baby in half, when it's not necessary, in an attempt to appease all sides. They keep in place an ISP's responsibility to filter specific types of traffic (things like child porn and such) while trying to claim that the ISP may not filter or throttle speeds for specific services. Such compromises don't help anybody.
Second, the exception of VPN services might be assumed to exempt VPN providers from the non-filtering of content rules. Thus the FCC gave an easy out for ISP's who which to packet filter.
Third, "providers" of data services will have higher costs to meet all the requirements newly levied on them. Such costs will be passed on to customers.
Fourth, the grievance process, where complaints about violations of the NN rules is hugely complex for the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the staff or infrastructure for this, so I figure the complaint process will be pretty much non-existent. Sure, you can file a complaint, but good luck getting the FCC to look at it, much less deal with it.
That's just a start of a few specifics. Go read the 400 pages here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Paragraph 304, 305 are pretty clear, they even highlight the point:
Does it say anywhere that they're "responsible" to filter it? Has it come up in the past few years as an issue?
It really doesn't look like a bad document, and it is very clear in paragraph 75 why it should exist.
What makes you think you should have a right to what others have earned? Seriously, you guys need to get off of Slashdot and go create something for yourself. And then come back and talk about how the government should have the right to take it from you and give it to someone who hasn't worked for it.
Exactly! That's why I refuse to use any of the systems (highways, legal frameworks, education, social security, etc. ) that others have created. It's just me and my strong back, that's how I made my millions!
Nobody in this world operates alone. Supporting the system that allows us to succeed is a necessary condition for future success.