Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FCC Is Still Tweaking Its Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the under-review dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: You may think, from the pomp accompanying the FCC's vote in December to repeal the 2015 net neutrality rules, that the deed was accomplished. Not so -- in fact, the order hasn't even reached its final form: the Commission is still working on it. But while it may be frustrating, this is business as usual for regulations like this, and concerned advocates should conserve their outrage for when it's really needed. The "Restoring Internet Freedom" rule voted on last month was based on a final draft circulated several weeks before the meeting at which it would be adopted. But as reports at the time noted, significant edits (i.e. not fixing typos) were still going into the draft the day before the FCC voted. Additional citations, changes in wording and more serious adjustments may be underway. It may sound like some serious shenanigans are being pulled, but this is how the sausage was always made, and it's actually one of Chairman Ajit Pai's handful of commendable efforts that the process is, in some ways at least, more open to the public. The question of exactly what is being changed, however, we will have ample time to investigate: The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition.

68 comments

  1. Let wait for actual NN news by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    and see whats in the federal register?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like we waited for the tax cut bill to see what was in it? No, my friend, that will no longer work for us.

    2. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by zifn4b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like we waited for the tax cut bill to see what was in it? No, my friend, that will no longer work for us.

      Doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks. Status quo for legislation is to make last minute revisions to major bills substantially changing them. Trump's doing it. Obama did. Dubya did it. They all do it. It happens regardless of what party is in control of Congress. Business as usual. Get over it.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    3. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by 0pini0nated · · Score: 1

      "...concerned advocates should conserve their outrage for when it's really needed." Really needed = In Pennsylvania USA, I have my calendar marked for November 6, 2018 and November 3, 2020.

    4. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you don't want your representative negotiating on the bills anymore?

    5. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by pots · · Score: 1

      The tax bill that the parent was talking about was not handled the same way. That was kept under wraps until the last minute, so that the public wouldn't find out about it and wouldn't have enough time to organize opposition.

      It's similar to how the TPP was handled, and much of the reason why people got so angry over that. It's not business as usual. (Though I think it's a little less uncommon for an international treaty than it is for a domestic bill.)

    6. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      The tax bill that the parent was talking about was not handled the same way. That was kept under wraps until the last minute, so that the public wouldn't find out about it and wouldn't have enough time to organize opposition.

      It was introduced into the House on 11/02/2017, evidence. You call that the last minute? Explain your claim please.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    7. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by pots · · Score: 1

      Yes. Are you asking for a reference? If you just search for "Republican secret tax bill" you'll find plenty.

    8. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was introduced into the House on 11/02/2017, evidence. You call that the last minute? Explain your claim please.

      That's about a third of the time that the Affordable Care Act had between introduction and signing.
      The version of the tax bill the Senate voted on had hand-written notes. I'd call that rushed.

    9. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by sheph · · Score: 1

      NYtimes? I think he was looking for a credible reference. With a headline like "Republican secret tax bill" I'm sure that will be totally unbiased.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    10. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by sheph · · Score: 1

      The final version of the ACA that they signed was received less than 24 hours before they had to vote on it, and it was 1100+ pages. Nancy Pelosi famously said "you have to sign it so we can find out what's in it" grinning ear to ear.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    11. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by pots · · Score: 1

      So you didn't even read enough of the article to find out what the headline is. Nice.

    12. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Yes. Are you asking for a reference? If you just search for "Republican secret tax bill" you'll find plenty.

      It's not secret if it's advertised in same way that ALL house bills are advertised. It clearly wasn't hidden and still isn't hidden. NYTimes is full of shit. The claim might be something like they didn't advertise it in a "reasonable time" whatever that means but they are not obligated to do anything like that per the US Constitution. I went back and looked through bills like ACA and what you find it ACA was being discussed for far longer than 6 months. It was introduced in the house and then 6 months later it was passed. You and the NYTimes are on a witch hunt for what is standard operating procedure in Congress. Maybe you should learn about the actual process as described by the US Constitution for how legislation is passed before passing your absurd judgment?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    13. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      The final version of the ACA that they signed was received less than 24 hours before they had to vote on it, and it was 1100+ pages. Nancy Pelosi famously said "you have to sign it so we can find out what's in it" grinning ear to ear.

      All we need to know are two things:

      1) How does the legislation process work per the US Constitution?
      2) Was the legislative process of the US Constitution followed?

      If it turns out #2 was not followed then said legislation would be unconstitutional and could be challenged in the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter what the NYTimes OPINION is. It matters what is legal per the laws of the land. If the NY Times doesn't like the laws of the land they can do one of three things:

      1) Challenge it in the Supreme Court
      2) STFU
      3) Move out of the country

      --
      We'll make great pets
    14. Re:Let wait for actual NN news by pots · · Score: 1

      but they are not obligated to do anything like that per the US Constitution

      No one has claimed that they did something illegal.

      I think you may have missed the point here. Yes, the ACA was introduced and then discussed for six months before it was passed. Thus, people had six months to scrutinize it in detail before the vote. It was a large and important bill, with much to go over. This is the expected procedure.

      For the tax bill that we're discussing, it was introduced in the house and then voted on two weeks later. It was introduced in the senate (with many amendments) and then voted on two days later. This is not enough time. That is the problem.

  2. Open to the public? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 2

    it's actually one of Chairman Ajit Pai's handful of commendable efforts that the process is, in some ways at least, more open to the public

    It may have been open to the public, but there were massive numbers of fake responses posted condemning the hackjob "net neutrality" regulation. All this implementation did was create an opportunity to skew the perception of what the public wanted through a misinformation campaign. We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn.

    1. Re:Open to the public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Half a million Russian email addresses were used citing legitimate US identities who were not the submitters of the comment. Chairman Pai refused to investigate even these, or help State Attorneys investigate the identity fraud for people in their state. Adjit has said he is not filtering identifiable fake comments and is considering the substance.

      What's the betting, he colluded with telcos to skew the submissions hiring Trump's foreign troll/hack friends?

    2. Re:Open to the public? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more to gain from excising societal neoplasms such as yourself, lest they mutate further. I kid, of course, but basically STFU.

    3. Re:Open to the public? by magzteel · · Score: 1

      Half a million Russian email addresses were used citing legitimate US identities who were not the submitters of the comment. Chairman Pai refused to investigate even these, or help State Attorneys investigate the identity fraud for people in their state. Adjit has said he is not filtering identifiable fake comments and is considering the substance.

      What's the betting, he colluded with telcos to skew the submissions hiring Trump's foreign troll/hack friends?

      Who would waste time investigating forged email addresses? I get spam constantly. I also own a domain and I get flooded with bounced emails using my domain as a return address. There's no point in wasting time on it

    4. Re:Open to the public? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn.

      I'm not sure there's as much advantage there as you might think. As I've mentioned before, a law can be overturned by a similarly small handful of judges, and once overturned is the status quo for the foreseeable future. As it stands, the FCC commissioners' staggered terms effectively create a horizon of a few years before the pendulum could just as well swing back the other direction, just as it did here. That uncertainty itself is likely to keep businesses from making fundamental changes to their models based on the current rules.

  3. Simple: Just Remove All Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Industry and the invisible hand of the free market will decide what is acceptable and at what cost. If you do not want the privilege of having internet fast lanes, simply choose an ISP that serves your needs better. If there is a market for something, it will be provided.

    1. Re:Simple: Just Remove All Regulations by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Does this includes regulations against angry customers going to to their headquarters and shooting up the place?
      Of course not.
      The point of regulations is to setup a set of rules used across the industry to make sure there is a degree of fairness between the provider and the consumer.
      In high infrastructure industries such as ISP the choices for the consumer is limited. Thus in many areas choosing an alternative is not an option. In such areas where there is a near monopoly democratic government regulations are needed in order to help keep the general public to have a say in what is acceptable or not. Otherwise there will be a gap in the supply vs demand curve. Where there is a demand for services not offered, or price outside the range of the demand. Which in general causes black market activities. Which being difficult to manage because both sides are in the wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Simple: Just Remove All Regulations by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      You can simply choose a more expensive plastics provider that does not pollute the air and water -- and somehow -- magically -- you'll be able to breathe and drink again!

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. Bad advice by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

    Concerned advocates should conserve their outrage for when it's really needed.

    So... don't contact your congressional representatives now when your voice might stand out and be heard? Wait until the last minute flood so that your comments can be drowned out more easily by the anti-neutrality bot spam?

    I'm sure that'll work well for everyone.

    1. Re:Bad advice by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      We should all just STFU and let Trump and his cadre of profiteering cronies rape America back to the 1950's.

    2. Re:Bad advice by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      So... don't contact your congressional representatives now when your voice might stand out and be heard? Wait until the last minute flood so that your comments can be drowned out more easily by the anti-neutrality bot spam?

      I'm sure that'll work well for everyone.

      You must be new here. Whining on slashdot is the most effective way to usher positive change into our government, duh! Because government officials are avid readers of slashdot.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    3. Re:Bad advice by zifn4b · · Score: 0

      We should all just STFU and let Trump and his cadre of profiteering cronies rape America back to the 1950's.

      That's cute that you think Trump was the start of it all. The real beginning goes all the way back to the Reagan administration and it was a bi-partisan effort. Read the works of Chris Hedges for more information. Globalization was the ultimate slap in the face pushed forth by folks like the US Chamber of Commerce under the guise of progressivism. You bought it hook, line and sinker. We were promised cheaper goods AND better jobs. We got the cheaper goods but better jobs? Precisely the opposite. Bi-partisan economists agree about this, they just disagree about what to do about it.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    4. Re:Bad advice by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      1920s , actually.

      The 1950s were a time when the middle class was relatively well off and wealth disparity had dropped sharply from it's height in the late 20s. Everything Trump and his cronies are doing is to benefit the 1% and increase that disparity by taking everything they can away from the rest of society.

    5. Re:Bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1% are about to be all that's left of humanity. The rest of us is redundant and there is no way to care for all the soon to be made useless people.

  5. "Open to the public" by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    It's visible to the public, not "open". If it were open, we'd have some say in it (which means it wouldn't be happening.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:"Open to the public" by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      It's visible to the public, not "open". If it were open, we'd have some say in it (which means it wouldn't be happening.)

      Oh gee, you need the truth spoon fed to you instead of seeking it out yourself? You do realize that's precisely what the propaganda pushers expect and use as the means to distort the truth right?

      --
      We'll make great pets
  6. There's no hurry, Ajit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should hold off – and see what happens after the elections in November. That's the new normal according to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan.

  7. Blind voting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did I understand correctly that they actually voted to agree with something which can still thoroughly change? That's the equivalent of having someone sign a check and filling in the amount due after the fact.

  8. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

    "The rules will soon be entered into the federal register, at which point they both come into effect and come under intense scrutiny and legal opposition."

    Bit late to do anything about them if they are already in effect at that point.

    I think that's the entire point of the protests.

  9. NetNeutrality is a Joke. Roll Back to the 1990s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NetNeutrality is a joke and should be eliminated. It is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to regulating the Internet for speech and later government intervention when the government deems certain communications "anti-republic."

    It should be banished and sent to the bin.

    NetNeutrality is trying to put the genie of "content providers" and "delivery providers" owning the same pipes back in the bottle. It won't happen. Congress needs to break up and eliminate THAT collusion and outlaw it or assign that independent third companies with no interest in the Content-cross-delivery realm.

    TL;DR: We need to roll back the Internet mergers and buyouts.

    1. Re:NetNeutrality is a Joke. Roll Back to the 1990s by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I agree we need it not to be a hack regulation, but most of what you are saying is legitimately nonsense. We need a law that actually follows the rules of real net neutrality, not a regulation that 3 people can overturn.

  10. APK proves he is a retard again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here we have that retard APK spamming his same shit again and again.
    Let's put his retarded argument in terms that will show how dumb he actually is and that he might actually understand.
    APK: "Road neutrality, as everyone understands it, is unfair because it allows anyone to legally drive on the roads but it doe nothing about what the newspapers' editorial board decides to print in their papers. I Alexander Peter Kowalski am such a retard that I want government to tell newspaper publishers what they can and can't publish to ensure fairness."

    That sounds about like what he is saying.
    Kind of makes him sound like the liberal SJWs that he bitches about all the time doesn't it.
    Then there is the fact that he is also a whiny little bitch because his abusive spamming posts get deleted or down modded.
    Why can't he just keep to his mad ravings about bump stocks and the pope, how Alex Jones is a god among men, and how there is a secrete Jewish cabal led by George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and Google trying to turn him into a gay antifa member.

  11. Freedom is slavery by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Ignorance is strength. Ajit Pai is an impartial regulator. Welcome to the new Administration.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. LOL! Outta 'downmodpoints' unidentifiable ac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Roads/highways != the web (apples to orange illogic-logic attempt on your part) & I don't talk bumpstocks, vatican @ all - lay off the drugs/booze fool!

    * It's no secret Suckerberg, Soros, & Google's Brin/Schmidt (who had to step down from his post @ Google, right up there w/ their exec that overdosed on heroin w/ a hooker) = jews either!

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly, I've never said Alex Jones is a 'god' - however, he does do decent work (w/ visible factual concrete backing for much of what he speaks of (better than CNN's Anderson Cooper's 'greenscreen disappearing nose' OR saying Soros didn't do work for Nazi's selling his own jew people's belongings) BUT Jones IS a 'controlled asset' who steers clear of certain material (3.4 million dollars on the line = why on his end))... apk

  13. It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > We still need real net neutrality in law, not a regulation that three people can overturn

    I commend you for having the courage to say that here, to agree completely with exactly what chairman Pai has been saying.

    1. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Not exactly what he has been saying. I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.

    2. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      what chairman Pai has been saying.

      Pai is a liar, so what he says means little. This is a case in point -- he says this like it's a good reason to get rid of NN rules, even though he could easily keep them in place until such legislation is passed.

      He doesn't give a shit about process or what's best for the American people. What he cares about is giving a huge gift to the major telecoms.

    3. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > even though he could illegally keep them in place

      FTFY

    4. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Plus, he and his defenders constantly argue that ISP's won't do any of the bad things that they will now be allowed to do - because 'the market' will prevent it. Well, if that's the case, then why change the regulations that prevent it?

      If there's something specific that they're willing to admit to wanting to do, present it to the FCC for approval. 'Trust us' is hardly a way to make policy - especially when you seem to be justifying the change by arguing that the status quo is just fine...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That's not "fixing it" so much as "breaking it" unless you have some sort of actual proof that the FCC acted illegally.

    6. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, even though I would never sell you a watermelon claiming it was a bowling ball, we still need regulations against selling watermelons as bowling balls?

    7. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      I would be fine with the regulation staying in place until a law replaced it.

      You have a 6" water pipe in your basement. It cracks. Water spews forth. It's a high priority thing to get fixed. You buy some of this FlexWrap tape, wrap the pipe, and the water leak stops. This is a temporary fix, but now that it is in place the priority of the real fix drops a couple of notches as you start dealing with other issues.

      That's what the FCC regulations are. They're a temporary fix that removes the impetus to have a long-term real solution.

      Look no further than continuing resolutions for another perfect example. The congress could do its job and pass a budget, or it could procrastinate by passing a CR and then the problem isn't as high a priority anymore. Woops, CR is running out? Pass another.

      Sometimes removing the crutches is the better course of action, since it forces a solution to be found.

    8. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I understand the concept, and hope it works. I just don't give the do-nothings in congress a break for stuff like that, or letting bridges and levies degrade to the point of failure. Stuff like that isn't acceptable, but I hope the gamble pays off in this case.

    9. Re:It's dangerous to agree with the FCC here by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Okay, well say there was a watermelon/bowling ball regulation in place - and prior to that, there were beginnings of watermelon salesmen pushing bowling ball-ish features. You might make the argument that such a regulation was not needed - but you'd be lying...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  14. Thanks for proving my point retard APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for proving my point that you are in fact a retard APK.
    When someone calls out your BS you always decide to go full retard.
    Also I never have mod points (no account) and even if I did I wouldn't waste them on you as it is good for people to see that you are a retard, racist, anti-semite, raving loon, and piss poor security expert.
    Now go and pretend that you have some support and respond unsigned as AC like you often do because you hate it when people point out the endless failings of Alexander Peter Kowalski.
    I know maybe instead you will claim that I am whipslash, arth1, martinez, or any number of other people because you have such a weak mind and can't believe that your detractors who can back up their claims are legion.

  15. More like deciding to go somewhere, then see map by raymorris · · Score: 1

    A better analogy is probably that it's like they decide to go to the hobby shop, then they get on Google maps to find the exact route to take.

    They decided they don't have the legal authority to enforce the 2015 regulations, then studied what they *can* legally do and decided on a general approach. Now they are finishing up the details of what their regulations will be under the current law, while awaiting Congress passing a NN law (or not).

  16. Re:Obama's OLD NetNeutrality = a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You dumbass, if security were actually thought about, the first three layers of OSI would be the only ones to exist, as they are the only ones that matter.

    Take your bullshit thinking elsewhere, this site isn't for you, child.

  17. Re:Obama's OLD NetNeutrality = a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Neutrality at the physical/transport layers is what really matters.

    As long as the traffic can flow freely, the people can circumvent censorship---if they care to.

  18. Net Neutrality Must Die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a terrible idea written by a terrible power grab attempt by a terrible administration.

    Get off my Internet you socialist scum.

    1. Re:Net Neutrality Must Die by magzteel · · Score: 1

      It is a terrible idea written by a terrible power grab attempt by a terrible administration.

      Get off my Internet you socialist scum.

      This is the exact opposite of a power grab.

  19. The subject headline by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Dear Slashdot,

    On this article, you only needed to keep the first five words of the headline. The remaining words do not add any clarity.

    Just sayin'

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  20. APK continues to prove he is a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, Arth1 spanked your retarded ass.
    He had pointed out earlier how malware doesn't need to store all host names and gave an example showing how trivial it is.
    You however didn't want to believe that your shitware was so easily circumvented and doubled down on the retard.
    Arth1 was being nice given that your software would have to enumerate all subdomains and all possiable host names in each and get them into hosts for it to not be easily defeated.
    So lets take the simple case where you are trying to block all hosts in a single domain with no sub domains like apk-is-a-retard.com
    Looking at what is allowable for host names it looks like they can be up to 63 characters wtih a to z, 0 to 9, and some - and the first one has to be either a letter or number.
    Now for some fairly simple math that is likely beyond your retarded mind to comprehend.
    That gives us about 36x37^62 possible host names or about 6x10^98.
    That is just one domain with no sub-domains and only using 63 character long host names but we could have shorter names so there are even more possible host names but it is a close enough number.
    So as you can see your work fails horribly and I stand by my mathematically provable statement that your shitware can't even block 1/(1x10^100) of possible names.
    By the way that means that even with 100 decimal places all your efforts even in ideal circumstances reduce the attack surface by a value that easily rounds to 0.
    For your weak feeble mind that means it provides no real security.
    To prove me wrong please point me to how one could have a hosts file with over 6x10^98 entries with each one being at least 74 bytes long given that the high estimate for the number of atoms in the universe is 1x10^82, as after all you are the one making claims that I and other have disproved many times.
    At one bit per atom you still come up short by about 18 orders of magnitude even in my toy example.
    Also I have never said that whipslash didn't delete your posts, only that you are a whiny little bitch about it.
    Your bet is actually more of the mentally ill individual on the street corner type of things which is probably a bit too close to the truth for you.
    Again Alexander Peter Kowalski is proven to be a retard.

  21. LOL! You're so retarded you can't read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & dumbo my method worked vs. the botnet in question READ AGAIN STUPID -> https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ & it didn't use DGA stupid & even IF it did? Arth1 would still be DEAD WRONG as a malware maker can't store that many domain names IF I can't either stupid!

    * As I said to him? Your "theoretical horseshit" doesn't MATTER where it counted & my work/method has stopped DOZENS of botnets in stories here via the same method - not your bullshit...

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm not whining about whipdouche deleting my posts - I can post them again & just like the film "Dr. Strange" (vs. Dormammu nears its termination)? I can keep him @ it forever (or his cronies running them DRY of 'downmodpoints' easily) as I have NO POSTING LIMITS here unlike most ac's stupid... apk

  22. Retard APK got spanked, now he shit posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retard APK got spanked hard above so now he goes and shit posts some more.
    I guess that is to be expected from a retarded shit head like Alexander Peter Kowalski.
    Poor little retard doesn't know what actual proof is.
    Also poor Alexander Peter Kowalski doesn't' know how to write a cogent statement.
    You must really like proving how much of a retard you can be.

  23. Was easy swatting a retard like you here... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: & REALITY crushing your "phantasyland" bs in what I do stalls the botnet in question https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11559309&cid=55857689/ as I have dozens of botnets & 100's of malwares noted in articles here on /. ALONE via hosts files!

    * Thank-you for proving MY point for me allowing me to use R E A L I T Y vs. your deluded stupidity... lol!

    (Lastly my captcha = SUPERIOR - which I am vs. "your kind", the 'inferior ones', lol! I am & have been ACTIVELY helping others go faster + safer online, not trolling like "your kind", useless fools, does!)

    APK

    P.S.=> No 'small wonder' you 'hide' behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts vs. me - you're looking for * A N Y T H I N G * I might 'slip up on' vs. you doing that - guess what? I've YET to do that vs. "your kind" (anonymous do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" do nothing zeros like you)... apk

  24. Obama's OLD NetNeutrality = a sham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only covered the bottom 3 MEDIA layers of the OSI model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model#Description_of_OSI_layers/ but not content providers up in the FINAL TOP layer(s)!

    Thus, so they could censor or delete anything they don't like & promote their own BULLSHIT instead - yes, that includes /. or Google, YouTube + FakeBook! WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE WAS USED ON THIS VERY POST 3x that I POSTED IT HERE ON THIS PAGE https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11559309&cid=55854785/ + https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11559309&cid=55854893/ & https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11559309&cid=55857739/ as Google the sponsor here doesn't LIKE TRUTH or FACTS that adversely affect THEIR bogus agenda!

    * Under OLD "net neutrality", content providers (like /., facebook, YouTube + google) are notorious for this to promote "their own agenda"!

    (Especially these latter 2 ala facebook's "political arm" of bots trolling for them https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/12/21/2033245/how-facebooks-political-unit-enables-the-dark-art-of-digital-propaganda/ ).

    I am ALL for everyone travelling @ the SAME EQUAL SPEED based on what you pay your ISP for - that's potentially NOW not the case.

    It was abused before too:

    E.G. - Comcast throttled NetFlix vs. THEIR COMPETING OFFERING to outcompete it - THAT IS LAME, LOW & WRONG (f'ing cheating is more like it).

    (As /. does for OpenSORES, Google YouTube or Facebook + SJW material more often than not as the content here vs. the past being solely on tech almost)

    &

    THIS YEAR, whipslash & his moderators here have been DELETING POSTS https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11509041&cid=55776597/ when it's widely KNOWN & SAID w/ SLASHDOT BRAGGING "but, But, BUT... /. doesn't DELETE posts" - bullshit. /. is NOT what it once was... period.

    Now, I am also ALL for everyone being able to FREELY SPEAK (by all means)!

    HOWEVER as you can see with proofs above?

    "The downmod OR delete truncheon gets used in lieu of conversation" where discussion, facts & logic would ultimately triumph otherwise!

    (No, instead, the "banhammer" is used! That's bullshit & denies freedom of speech (a basic principle of U.S. Society + an inalienable right & THEY ARE HOSTED IN THE USA)).

    AGAIN & MOST IMPORTANT - See the Facebook link again https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/12/21/2033245/how-facebooks-political-unit-enables-the-dark-art-of-digital-propaganda/

    Just to see HOW IT WAS USED AGAINST YOU & TO STOP THEIR CRAP BEING EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT IS (censoring anything that exposed their CROOKED AGENDA)

    APK

    P.S.=> The OLD net neutrality was done by some SNEAKY BASTARDS using 1/2 truths & NOT telling ALL THE FACTS of how it worked - now, above, YOU HAVE FACTS & SOLID VERIFIABLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of how it actually "worked" (worked against you to promote bogus agendas unfairly is more like it)... apk

  25. Nobody believes a dishonorable sneak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's what you are behind unidentifiable anonymous posts lying. Arth1? I burnt him https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11532533&cid=55833641/ letting him DO IT TO HIMSELF in a tech blunder.

    Whipslash IS deleting posts (not only mine) & verifiable proof of it is on my diskdrives in screenshots (undeniable & he RAN when I bet him on it publicly) https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11509041&cid=55776597/ despite /.'s KNOWN 'bragging' of "but, But, BUT /. DOESN'T EVER DELETE POSTS" (bullshit they don't).

    Martinez? I don't even KNOW that user here!

    APK

    P.S.=> The BIG difference between myself & 'your kind'? I backup my statements w/ concrete, undeniable & VERIFIABLE facts - you? LOL - you're like CNN - pure bullshit spouted, no substance & EASILY shown lying... apk

  26. Pai is a tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, Pai is a tool. Verizon's tool to be exact. 1000:1 that he ends up working at Verizon with million dollar signing bonuses, stock options galore, and golden parachute big enough to land the space station back to earth. Welcome to banana republic 101, where the US shows the world how legalized graft and the revolving door between unelected officials and private industry gets done what 99% of the population does not want.