Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Backs Out of Planned CES 2018 Appearance (techcrunch.com)
New submitter sdinfoserv writes: Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech since Darl McBride, backed out of a speaking engagement at CES 2018. Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most. Consumer Technology Association head Gary Shapiro announced: "Unfortunately, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is unable to attend CES 2018. We look forward to our next opportunity to host a technology policy discussion with him before a public audience."
Alienating nearly the entire tech doubtlessly has made him many enemies who would love to kick his ass.
Best case scenario, he would only get pelted with rotten tomatoes. I can't imagine why he wouldn't show...
>>Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most.
I'm guessing it's more like he fears for his life at this point. Never underestimate what a group of angry people will do. If society can justify punching out people they disagree with then they can just as easily justify beating the crap out of Pai.
Martin Shkreli increased 5600% the price of critical medication for vulnerable section of the community. He also disrespected the Wu Tang Clan and committed securities fraud - if you value rap groups or high net worth individuals more than human lives. So how is Ajit Pai the most hated person in tech?
Ajit Pai is nothing but a piece of feces that needs to be wiped off of my boot.
An individual in Federal agencies that has broad rule-making powers has unilaterally decided the freedom and business landscape for _the_most_revolutionary_method_of_communication_used_by_humans, and you bring race into this?
Piss off.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve its dignity. - Charles Gates Dawes
like trump, he's a fucking liar, an idiot, and a money grubbing greed head who will suck the cock of anybody or anything to boost his own diminished ego, even if it means selling out his own country and taking a huge SHIT on the Constitution of the United States, a document concerning which he has only ONE fucking job, and he is so grossly incompetent and mentally deficient that he can't even do THAT.
The entire GOP is nothing but a trailer park of white trash fuck stains, a celebration of ignorance that frankly needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Any other questions, trumpflake?
LOL@vword: inferior --- A word that aptly describes every republican who ever lived.
Hyperbole! Right-wingers hate it, when used by anyone but them. #MAGA
I'd genuinely fear for my life the way many people behave about this issue.
Let's see how much love he will amass when pornhub or xtube starts to slow down without a reason.
Also, "Apparently he lacks the spine to justify himself before the group of individuals his decisions affect most."
Maybe he doesn't feel like getting up in front of people who are just going to shit all over him with screaming and insults without listening to a word he says. Quite frankly I wouldn't bother, either.
And I should know!!!
So don't bother following up to discuss whether I'm suggesting that right-wingers are less likely to escalate from discussion to beating the tar out of people or just that they mostly aren't disagreeing with Pai.
Right-wingers don't "beat the tar" out of people they disagree with. They shoot them or run them over.
Prior to 2014 the FCC had the authority. Verizon spending a ton of money in court got the FCC's authority narrowed significantly because ISPs weren't common carriers. But that the FCC could reclassify ISPs under Title II, make them common carriers, and essentially gain back that authority.
Which is what they did. That has now be undone. There was only a brief window of 2014-2015 where ISPs weren't regulated. There is an extensive history of ISPs doing sketchy shit and getting taken to court by the FCC since the early 2000s to get it stopped. They no longer have this authority. This is a brand new world of unregulated internet and it's going to suck.
I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You mean he doesn't want done to him what he did to the rest of us?
the market's not very good right now trying to find someplace to unload crates of rotten tomatoes and eggs....
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Or burn a cross in their yard while wearing a white hood
He knows he'd end up facing an angry mob.... as he should.
Or you just don't understand the far-reaching ramifications.
"Ajit Pai, the most hated person in tech since Darl McBride"
Evidence for this assertion? None.
No evidence? Millions of citizens voiced their disdain and advocated for him NOT to do the very thing he arrogantly went off and did after ignoring every damn one of them.
And then he rubbed it in by making an it's-all-good promotional video so vapidly stupid it makes reality TV look like a Nat Geo documentary.
If you can't see how he earned his moniker, you're as ignorant as he is.
I hope that he doesn't even make it in the history books.... he could be referenced as "some shitty government official"
And then have them arrested for resisting the impact.
You're almost right.
This is a brand new world of the Internet being regulated by ISPs rather than the technical principles which have guided the deployment and development of the Internet since its DARPA days.
Hacks from Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have no interest in the proper functioning of a packet-switching network. They just want to make money off it.
I don't know a single tech person (I live in the bay area) who likes that fuck-wad.
yes, I truly do agree that he's the most hated guy in tech; maybe next to the orange one.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Since this is being touted as an economic issue, I'm more right-wing than anything else... and I could also find a few good reasons to abruptly perform a manual realignment of his septum.
Since the issue has arisen, yes, let's follow up with a discussion of why you'd bother bringing politics into a discussion of a hubristic asshole undermining the democratic process that is the foundation of our country. I do, in fact, disagree with the decision to allow government-sanctioned monopolies to add arbitrary fees, but moreso I disagree with the entire process surrounding the vote.
This isn't a political decision of whether we want a society-focused or a individual-focused government, which is usually the core difference between conservative and liberal ideologies. Rather, this is a very straightforward ruling to let private companies increase profit by harming individuals and other companies, and thanks to the existence of municipal monopolies, the competition that might drive is essentially outlawed across most of the country. If the legality of local monopolies was also on the chopping block, I'd have more concern for the chairman's countenance, but under the current conditions, I must oppose.
The net result is that ISPs are free to extort other businesses, and their position of power is being backed by government enforcement. This is the antithesis of the highly-competitive conservative ideal, and it's also contrary to the community-focused goals of a liberal government. It does, however, align with the goals of a kleptocracy. The politicians get their cushy jobs and revolving doors leading to the decision's benefactors, and those who engage in honest competition are left paying the bill.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
the internet is dead. OMG the world is over.
Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.
Cowardly coward is a coward..
He can't justify his decisions, they're unjustifiable. He is Verizon's stooge, pure and simple. I wonder if the other telecoms are chipping in.
Calling his appearance a discussion is laughably generous. He was going to get curb-stomped, at least figuratively.
The rules are still in effect until some time after the changed rules are published, and they haven't yet done that - despite voting them into effect, they are still editing them. Don't know how that works.
And for how this will effect us - take a look at the very important promises that have been recently removed from the ISPs websites. It is a clear promise to make the life of any current provider of a service on the internet hard, and anyone creating a new service, impossible.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Or perhaps you are just another one of those suffering from confirmation bias, with the inability to assimilate any information no matter how scientific or well thought out that does not apply to your point of view.
once more into the breach
Seems like the only clever thing he's ever done.
is such a fucking pussy.
Of course he's cancelled. He won't be able to do neutral networking amount such a biased crowd.
OP must work for AT&T or Comcast and is trying to keep his job.
Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.
While you may be historically accurate, you omit the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have essentially switched ideologies since the Lyndon Johnson administration, if not earlier.
I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.
In this context, roughly fiat = authoritative.
Parsing it more carefully, I suppose it means a command or decree based merely on authority, without further obligation or justification.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Or maybe he doesn't want to be assassinated by the loony people you find here on Slashdot in droves, that have blown the Network Neutrality regulations vastly out of proportion.
And maybe you need to supply some examples of "the loony people you find here on Slashdot" who have committed assassinations.
None? Thought so.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That sounds like confirmation bias to me.
WRONG.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Those were actually Democrats. Learn your history.
They were socially conservative individuals in the South that voted Democrat (Dixiecrats). They eventually started voting Republican after the Civil Rights Act under LBJ who admitted that he had lost the South for at least a generation.
You need to learn your history, as you failed it miserably.
I suggest you wait 6 years. It's going to take a few years for the current backbone infrastructure to adjust to the new regulatory status. Then expect to see far more siloed services., and far more pernicious monitoring built into the systems that are doing throttling, as part of the package. I'd estimate 3 years as the half life oof the most powerful backbone routers to really see traffic alter.
Gosh, I hope instead of attending in person, he sends a humorous video which will calm the audience carrying torches and pitchforks...
switched ideologies since the Lyndon Johnson administration, if not earlier.
Which makes those ideologies new and unsound because they're so new. Further, what's the indicator that either system is a) better than the other b) a successful ideology to begin with?
You do realize how devastating your comment really is when you take the time to examine it? Most democracies get given one of two choices (others less). And we as a collective spend our waking lives listening to the drivel on the TV or Internet and allow our lives to be ruled by it. Note i said "allow" not "forced".
Yet most of us accept the fines, taxes and whatever shit they throw at us and just call it life. But it's what you say, it's all based on flimsy ideologies which change about a frequently as Lady Gaga's outfits during one of her concerts.
We destroy each other based on these ideologies. We kill each other over them. For what? Money? Land? Gold? Oh no not any more! These days its cryptographically stored barcodes on a group of Linux boxes scattered on a dozen or so servers which we place an unsurmountable amount of value. And we do this because? you guessed it, it's become the latest drivel on the TV or Internet.
So in the spirit of our collective stupidity and continued devolved behavior. I have to agree with you.
Clearly, you don't understand the Wheeler shift to Title II, its impact, and why the change to a free-for-all model clearly sucks. Local monopolies have zero, nothing, nada, zip, and sweet fuck all to do with the decision and any connection or allusion to municipal utilities is a ruse and facade to carrier domination. This was bought and paid for.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Nope, correct. The hoods and crosses belong to another party now (just look at their voting records over the past 4 decades).. Cover your ears and scream la la la all you want, reality calls it like it is.
Millions of citizens
Means nothing. Most people are idiots.
And yet they vote. Does that mean nothing? For better or for worse, I don't.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
When my dog craps on the rug, he goes and hides in shame. I interpret this to be similar. Bad Ajit. Bad.
What the fsck are you talking about, dummy? You have absolutely no sense of context or what?
Y'all can still hold your three minute hate. All you need is a photograph.
the rules have not been changed to exactly what they were pre-title II
you haven't actually explained why title II was a big deal
but if it was the tax issue then thanks for outing yourself as an actual religious libertarian who thinks following a niche narrative is the same as thinking for themselves and there aint much anyone can do for ye.
Hey now. Ajit is not going to let you suck his cock. You can stop gobbling it.
You are delusional if you think Republicans are THE problem, rather than just part of the problem of which Democrats are equally bad. How did eight years of Obama launching wars and mass spying on planet Earth with the NSA work out for you? The entire political system is the problem.
Robert Byrd was a Klan member.
The modern left is rabidly racist against Russians.
Racism is bipartisan.
This reads like nonsense. Why shouldn't Verizon get to send Netflix a bill for clogging their tubes. And why should I care?
stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC
Bullshit. They were classified as Title II by the pressuring of Verizon in court case after court case that the FCC took major ISPs to court over. Like seriously, the FCC IMHO gave ISPs every single chance they could to clean up their act and they just kept saying, "nope, we'll see you in court."
No, sir. No I will not. I will stand here forever, guarding against your toadying ilk that would destroy true freedom
You have zero clues. You lack so much knowledge on this topic, you literally have no clue what the term "freedom" means. You say these words with conviction and all I can say is that I'm glad you believe every word you speak but you have zero clue as to what you are talking about. There's no point in trying to show you where you are wrong, I've come across several zealots like yourself in this discussion and even when shown the court cases, the actions of the ISPs, and piece of evidence after piece of evidence that this claim that the Internet was "working great" before is purely false. It all falls back on the brain dead argument of "well I don't like the government telling me or companies what to do." To which I say, go fuck yourself and your uneducated arguments that lack any resemblance to actual fact.
In short, you've come to the wrong place on the Internet to spew this fiction that the Internet was "awesome and working perfectly" back in the day. Everyone here is well aware of what went down, we were all there. We all understand that once you peel the layers of your argument back it just reveals itself to be one of subjective matter on how you feel governments should work. No one gives a shit about how you FEEL things should work, we all saw ISPs give middle fingers to operators, protocols, networks, and other end nodes on the Internet that they felt just went against their business priorities. And that is the entire point. ISPs aren't created to make a business they're the gateway to the Internet, they are utilities not companies, but they want to convince folks that underneath they're businesses. They can all go suck a big cock with that idea. And then these companies bitch and moan about not being able to roll out because of regulation and how they welcome competition but when cities actually want to treat the gateway to the Internet like it should be treated "a utility" they start getting up in arms and suing the shit out of everyone, every where. That's the failure, that's the core point that people like you don't understand. Being an ISP is not a business. When you think of it like that, then you might as well privatize cops, fire departments, and the army itself. Because whatever made up line in the sand you want to create for why that isn't so, is just some subjective BS that a population of "just you" in that mindset.
To quote: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
(guess who said that....)
This is patently false. The FCC had in fact tried leaving well-enough alone, but, as it turns out, companies were going out of their way to screw their customers no matter how many times that they kept getting caught.
2005 seems packed but only because prior to this there wasn't really much investigating in that field at all. However, major telecoms had spent money they'd been paid for fiber and cable infrastructure - broken promises of fiber in half the homes of America by the early 2000s - on lobbying to deregulate and lower the standards. That's how you had fiber if anywhere at all somewhere in your connection it eventually became fiber, no matter your dialup speeds and broadband bill due to the bottlenecks.
Madison River in 2005. Comcast *SINCE* 2005 but only completely proven in 2007 by the AP and EFF. Telus in Canada blocking entire servers (with hundreds of different websites) just to snuff out leaks about a strike their workers were having. AT&T degrading and/or blocking VOIP traffic that competed with the service it was trying to push in 2007, continuing this practice when Google Voice appeared in '09. Windstream was using injection and browser hijacks on their customers to steal ad revenue from other search engines (a practice copied several times by other ISPs since then). AT&T, Sprint and Verizon vs Google Wallet. Verizon screwing with apps, AT&T as well both on phones and on PCs.
They never stopped. Every time they'd get caught, every time they'd bog down the legal system to keep any rulings from being achieved against them, and Wheeler only finally brought down the hammer with the classification after their lobbying had gotten every other bloody thing struck down, claiming all the while that there didn't need to be any rules on how they act because they were good companies.
The fact that the entire C-level of every last one of these companies hasn't faced the firing squad is a travesty of everything our country was founded on.
Dot boy better catch the next boat back to Streetshiitastan. The turds, the turds, are calling.
An individual in Federal agencies that has broad rule-making powers has unilaterally decided
It was a vote, same as the action that imposed Net Neutrality.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
OMG why is my internet still working ???????? Say it with me libs, Less regulation, free market.
Why would the FCC step in? Didn't you just say yourself that they are trying to let the market settle this? How will a new ISP that respects its customers be able to start up and thrive when they won't be able to get past the tollbooth installed by the ISP that already control the market and don't respect customers? How does that allow for market correction? I guess you think being contrarian to the generally well understood concept that monopolies ruin markets makes you look like you know something that others don't?
Maybe they should interview a chair.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Nobody expected Hillary to lose, eh? You mean except the tens of millions of everyday Americans who rejected her vile, sophist elitism and all she represents.
The real problem is there were TWO vile sophist elitists running for office. Unfortunately, one of those vile sophist elitists was bound to win.
Given the choice between a boring, joyless hag with no ideas in her head and a petulant man-child with 100's of psychotically dumb ideas, people chose the petulant manchild because his psychotically dumb ideas were easy to understand.
Never forget, Donald hates all us peasants as much as Hillary does. He just knows how to inflict his hatred more comprehensively.
Rather than choosing sides in this shitshow, can we just admit that BOTH parties need to be culled?
Trump won 30 of the 51 Presidential Elections in 2016. Why would you think Clinton should have the office when she won less than half of the elections?
The day that everyone has free access to competing providers is the day we no longer need to pursue legislative net neutrality. Unfortunately, many individuals are under the rule of a government mandated monopoly and have no choices for broadband access.
>Why would you think
Like a camper shooting his rocket too early.
Wait till there's something to shoot, buddy.
This entire american "democracy" is a joke.
It's set up to inevitably let the bad guys win.
The founding fathers were either incompetent or malicious, and right now it seems the latter is more likely.
"... stepped into a system that was working perfectly well with some occasional oversight by the FCC.."
Working perfectly well for whom??
Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Corporations and their shills, like Mr. Pai, are not individuals. They should _never_ have a say in law or rule-making. That's the domain of flesh and blood humans with checks and balances to prevent a mob rule.
Ajit Pai is the voice of the 3 wolves in the 'democratic' discourse on what to have for dinner. Fortunately we don't live in a pure democracy.
Now, Piss Off and go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
The bookies were offering something like 7 to 1 on Trump. There's not much more to say.
Ha! I just used my last modpoint on this guy. We're almost out of modpoints for the day just on this thread alone. But I dare you to log in and post that.
Because you pay your ISP for a line with a certain speed, for example 100Mbits down, 10Mbits up.
You as a consumer can decide to use your line for exclusively streaming netflix, or downloading games through steam, or amazon video, or any of the myriad of other services available online. To your ISP it should not matter where you're using the bandwith for.
Thing is most if not all ISP's can't really deliver that 100Mbits down, at least not when everyone in your area is using that full speed. They've oversold their line's capacity to make more money and get by making less investments while still apearing to have fast lines.
This used to work because there was no steam, no netflix, no big reasons for people to use that full 100Mbits except for the few people in an area using peer2peer networks.
With the advent of attractive services on the internet the ISP's are noticing that they're quite behind on investing and upgrading their networks, and they want an extra buck and think they can extort it from parties like netflix (which already pays it's own ISP, so why should it pay yours too?).
That, and most ISP's also have a mixed interest in seeing companies like netflix fail because they often have competing video services. Probably why you saw a netflix tax in the past but not a Steam tax.
Where I come from, rabid dogs are being shot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The older ones here will remember that this scenario is not new. Remember dial-up? In the good ol' days of the internet, landlines used to have flat rates. You could make local calls without being charged by the minute. Why? Because phone companies knew that you wouldn't do that 24/7. Who in their sane mind would be on the phone all the time? Well, except for some old hags who don't have anything better to do, but old hags were few and far between. They could easily oversell 50:1 or even 100:1 (50 phones sharing 1 line) because people simply didn't use the resource as much as they technically could.
Then came the internet and suddenly, being connected 24/7 became increasingly interesting. And that model of overselling phone lines was put under severe stress. To the point where telcos either had to run more cable or see their business fail. Some tried to return to metered lines but the resistance to something like this was immense, mostly because people felt the pain themselves, it cut into their own bottom line (unlike now where the loss of net neutrality mostly hits the other side directly, the content provider).
These unmetered, flat-rate phone lines had a very beneficial effect on the internet in general, though. Unlike in Europe where metered local calls were the norm, the adoption of internet use outside of universities took off in the US almost a decade before anything close to it happened in Europe, where only in areas serviced by cable TV providers you could get affordable internet at home during the 90s. It took well into the 2000s for Europe to catch up, mostly due to the standard of metered local calls (with prices of about 5 bucks an hour, you just couldn't stay online for more than a few minutes to check mail).
The second push, the move towards DSL, came from the telcos that wanted to get people off the overused and severely strained dial-up lines. The idea was that with faster speeds they could start introducing transfer limits, and the plan actually worked (mostly), until they had time to catch up with the hardware roll-out of more cabling and routing.
If phone lines had been metered all the time, the internet would probably still be the pastime of a few university students and people rich enough to not give a shit about 50-100 bucks a day for their hobby.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He's one of those people that are still alive for the sole reason that he's just not worth a second of jail time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Mind if I bookmark this for later use?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Trump won 30 of the 51 Presidential Elections in 2016. Why would you think Clinton should have the office when she won less than half of the elections?
Because she won the popular vote meaning that a majority of the people of the United States wanted her to be president (hint: that's how a functioning democracy should work, majority wins, and this even in a North American republic with representative democracy) When one person has data proving to a mathematical certainty that the majority of the people chose X but you are arguing that is unimportant because the mangled gerrymandered hopelessly antiquated and bribe ridden system spat out Y because Y won a few swing counties in a few swing state that have decided almost every election since WWII and therefore Y is the indisputable choice of the people (and somebody please flush that annoying popular vote down the toilet) you are not arguing a very strong case. The USA needs is a return to a place where the popular vote is represented in the mixture of people that end up in congress and in the person that occupies the White House, and at the moment you do not have that kind of representation in the US, not by a long shot. If you had true representation you'd have a bunch of senators and house members working tirelessly to resurrect the economies of the rust belt states by spending public money on education and modern infrastructure there instead of spending it on giving already super wealthy people even more massive tax breaks. If you had true representation your congress persons would be trying to alleviate poverty in the south and the misery of your urban poor by doing things like raising the minimum wage which incidentally would be more likely to stimulate your consumption driven economy than making the American oligarch class tax free.
Seems like a good decision. Maybe the FCC can make the Internet great again. Ha ha. Almost time for a new Internet.
You can't handle actual historical, completely documented facts so you choose to make up your own it seems.
The parties DID swap ideologies when the civil rights bill was passed, and the racists of the democrat party switched to the welcoming arms of the republican party where they remain to this day, with liars like YOU still trying to frame the democrats for republican actions.
Republicans exploit and use people, period. Republicans also try to scapegoat their behaviour anyone they don't like, especially if they have darker skin tones. Just like YOU have done here.
The democrats voting record on actual freedoms is solid. Republicans? not so much.
Again, typically everything you've claimed is actually opposite to reality...and you're not a very good liar.
I can't believe our leaders expect us to endure the horrors of the Internet as it was before 2015! And, while we are at it, why don't we have "postal neutrality"? I mean, why should some packages be sent faster than others? Should we allow the wealthy to have their packages sent overnight, when poor people can't afford such luxery? I demand postal neutrality, NOW!
Oh look, another lying conservative claiming things complete opposite to reality.
Colour me completely unsurprised. It's what you guys do.
You do realize that everything you are arguing is actually shilling for another set of even larger corporations, don't you?
If anyone cares to hear what the real discussion is about, Pai has given plenty of in-depth interviews explaining the case that the FCC was over-reaching and detailing exactly why the FTC is the appropriate agency to regulate this area.
Your political blinders have allowed you to be manipulated like a little puppet by those other big corporations who own your preferred team.
The whole fight is about regulatory capture. The FCC was being used by one set of companies to control another set of companies. The fact that you FEEL great about which set of companies you shill for in a regulatory proxy battle doesn't exactly recommend your opinions for broad adoption.
Such a shame there are no democracies in the world. The USA is a Federated Republic. Your political theory of "what should be" is flawed right from the first.
read the federalist papers there is a reason we are not democracy but rep dem instead. mob rule is not just rule.
> The internet was going along quite well WAY over six years before network neutrality regulation passed.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (From John Philpot Curran, often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson,)
The difficulty with the loss of network neutrality is not an immediate collapse of infrastructure. It's the economic and social bars to new speech and new endeavors. We can expect throttling of content on a massive scale, and preferential treatment of "preferred partners" to favor their content. _By itself_, I would not see that as so dangerous. But the infrastructure used to improve quality-of-service for that protected content is precisely the same infrastructure that can _filter_ and _monitor_ traffic. The relevant routers to violate network neutrality with are ideal locations for illicit monitoring. ISP's can, and have, violated civil rights with law enforcement installed monitoring. Room 641A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) existed.
"The internet was going along quite well" because the FCC went after any ISP that violated NN. Eventually they codified these decisions into the rules. Pai and the Republicans want to stop going after anyone who violates NN, and have codified the FCC out of the process. Only the FTC will be able to correct transgressions, and they can only act on deceptive practices and antitrust.
No one will be able to prevent shady practices like Comcast throttling, or tethering apps being removed, or competing services being blocked/downgraded.
I have no idea who either of these people are.
but privatised everything is the american dream...
the fucking "tories" are privatising everything in the UK so we can join your american dream..they are utter cunts.
You mean the tens of millions which were less than the millions that voted for her?
To quote: The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
(guess who said that....)
Works as intended. Bug closed.
This is what happens when schools are no longer required to teach civics. (Or apparently history)
It wasn't the lines they were lacking, it was the switch gear. Switch gear was at a 10:1 gear/lines ratio. There simply wasn't enough to give everyone a working connection to anyone else.
The dial-up ISP's also had a gear limitation. You got a dropped connection after some time to allow others to get on the 'net.
Overall, ISP's charging large users more than small users if akin to paying more for a F350 than a KIA Sorento. And paying the higher fuel bill to operate it.
I think it is you that is retarded. Perhaps you would like your other utilities to be able to arbitrarily decide whether to charge you more because reasons. How would you feel if your electric company (You have a choice for which company's lines attach to your house, right?) would arbitrarily decide that the generation provider needs to pay more to use their transmission lines. If you want a green provider, you should pay more, right? You want coal, they pay less. You want natural gas, sorry, they aren't allowed on our transmission lines.
You dumb fucks don't realize THERE IS NO CHOICE for the vast majority of broadband customers. It is a monopoly utility and needs to be regulated as such.
He knows that he will get mercilessly trolled at best, murdered at worst.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Technically the USA is a FEDERAL republic where federal republic is a subset of representative DEMOCRACY. Your statement is flawed right from the first, not a single phrase makes sense.
Representative democracy is by definition not mob rule. If a government fails to represent the majority of opinion for years upon years on the majority of issues history has made it clear that government will eventually cease to exist regardless of type.
It was "working great" for us, just not for the companies and/or telecom cartels.
And don't you dare cite crappy old page layouts, which is just growing pains & naïve presentation skills. I mean the infrastructure & its administration seemed to be "working great" for us the users. In other words, even if it wasn't, these latest moves are not for us it's for them. And that is a fact.
THIS!!!! DNC AND GOP failed the USA. full stop
Wrong. A majority of people in the USA did NOT want her to be President. The majority of people who voted did...but not a majority of people. Trump/Johnson/Stein supporters certainly didn't want her and all the people who didn't vote didn't want any of the candidates.
pelted with rotten tomatoes with muh'Russians printed on them. Don't blame him one bit. The left is destroying everything with their negativity. If they can't be civilized, they don't deserve discourse.
I know what "fiat" means; I just don't know what the poster thinks it means.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wrong. Democrats switched their strategy from suppressing the black vote to winning the black vote by buying them with welfare and food stamps. Robert Byrd, a sitting Democrat Senator well into the 21st century, was a known KKK member. The declassified JFK Assassination files finger Lyndon B Johnson as a KKK member. No Democrats switched to the Republican party, and no Republicans switched to the Democrat party. So how exactly did the hoods and crosses switch party ownership? If you want to see what the Democrats have done for black people in America, look no further than Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago. These three cities have been dominated by Democrats for over four decades, they lead the US in blacks being murdered and have a black unemployment rate that is triple the unemployment rate of the white population of those cities. Planned Parenthood sets up their abortion shops in predominantly black communities and abort black babies at much higher rate than any other race. And then they sell those aborted fetus organs to rich white people. Who supports Planned Parenthood? The Democrats.
You fell for it. You'll be eating these words in 6 years when you're paying double for worse service, in the name of "freedom".
All this commentary about Ajit Pai and not one mention of the giant Reese's candy coffee mug that Pai so ossentatiously flourishes?
Gosh, you'd think that that prop does not establish him as a bona fide "regular guy"! What's a predatory CEO, now fox-in-the-regulatory-henhouse handing out favors to his former (and again future) employer, to do?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Wrong. A majority of people in the USA did NOT want her to be President.
by that reasoning - a majority of the people in the USA did NOT want Trump to be President either.
You're kinda proving my point. :-)
I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.
"Fiat", like "communism", means "something I don't like".
The internet was going along quite well WAY over six years before network neutrality regulation passed.
Six years before the first court case that established the basic principle, nearly everyone at home was still on dialup.
The USA elects the president as a Democratic Republic system. Whoever told you it was a straightup democracy should reread the USA Constitution.
Something *I've been told* I don't like.
That too. Thanks for the correction.
I don't know if there is a real chance that Net Neutrality could be reinstated but I certainly hope that there is a chance, and I also hope to continue to see more articles on Slashdot and other media outlets reminding readers constantly that the repeal of Net Neutrality was an extremely unpopular action. It is unfathomable to me that the current administration allowed this to happen. Even non technical people I know have heard of Net Neutrality and were in favor of it. Apparently, the only group that wanted Net Neutrality were stakeholders in ISPs. In my mind, the repeal of Net Neutrality is associated with the current executive political leadership in the US and is an extreme example of how the current leadership is willing to take any hit to it's reputation so long as that decision allows businesses to turn a higher profit. Please don't misunderstand me, I am all for companies making a profit, what I am against is doing it on the back of consumers by creating more in-explainable surcharges for an existing service or tacking on new random surcharges because I ran one too many google searches.
Everyone knows this. Being a parrot isn't clever. The important bit is that this shouldn't happen, even in a federated republic. A representative democracy is supposed to be... well, representative. And until recently, it had been: a popular vote loser being put into office by the electoral college happened three times in over two hundred years of history, before the 2000 election. Now it's happened twice in under twenty years, and both times it was a GOP candidate.
That is why we've been relegated to the status of "flawed democracy" in the eyes of the rest of the world. Get some new fucking material.
You're kinda proving my point. :-)
Your point is irrelevant.
The original AC responded to the statement "Nobody expected Hillary to lose".
All the AC had to do to refute that claim was demonstrate that a sizable number of people reject hillary, which he did by pointing out at the tens and millions who didn't vote for her (forget voting for Trump, they could vote for 3rd party)
Pointing out that Hillary had more popular vote changes NOTHING that tens of millions still didn't want her and didn't vote for her.
This isn't about who is hated more. This is about whether Hillary is hated by a lot of people. And she was.
A lot of people didn't want Hillary
A lot of people didn't want Trump.
The second statement doesn't make the first one untrue.
Not strictly true. It could be argued that even the people who voted for Trump, or third-party, never actually expected her to lose. Expectation and desire are often entirely separate constructs.
While from a purely semantic stance I'd say it's highly unlikely that "nobody" was expecting it, the counter-argument that people voted for other candidates fails to actually refute the claim in any meaningful sense. Either way, I would also say that the core idea being expressed, that nobody was planning for it, is not only likely, but entirely acceptable, given by the fact that not even Trump was prepared for it.
I don't see you getting all pissed off about cell phone plans, which, by the way, are highly successful at doling out limited bandwidth based on tiered pricing.
Holy shit on a shingle... you're a fucking water-head. You don't realize in the slightest that this was addressed by NN, do you? And yet you banged that keyboard anyway, convinced you were some kind of expert. Jesus... at least most morons know when to keep their ignorant mouths shut.
Clinton New Network was offering 2:1 odds for Clinton. She was a loser from the start.
Too bad you can't bet on elections in the USA, at 7:1 odds I'd thrown down $100.
Did a forcefully appointed Democratic FCC Chairperson sell us out to Verizon, our former employer, as Pai has done? Nope, they have not. False Equivalency.
So many lies, but the 2 biggest would be:
"No Democrats switched to the Republican party, and no Republicans switched to the Democrat party."
Many did, starting with the Dixiecrats in 1948. The ones who rejoined the Democrats eventually (with the exception of Byrd) left after the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
"And then they sell those aborted fetus organs to rich white people."
This has been debunked a hundred times so you need some new "proof". Besides, something that I never get about you racists is why would you NOT want minorities aborting their fetuses? I would imagine if having no minorities is the goal, then there would be 6 clinics in every ghetto. But the concept of a conservative doing anything that makes sense is a pretty uncommon one.
The only reason there is no choice is because.... wait for it.... government says so.
No, really. Most local governments cut deals with cable companies back in the 70's and 80's for monopoly or semi-monopoly rights. This was the deal they cut to get the investment in infrastructure. So competition is outlawed by the government. That is why it is a monopoly. Because the government mandates that it be a monopoly.
Now they come complaining that the only way to fight this level of government-granted corporate control is to give more control to the government. Which is in turn just a way for entrenched mega-corporations to build a bigger moat around their business, keeping competition out.
The real answer is an end to all of it.... which may be coming in the form of space-based internet providers. If it works, wireless and space based tech will supplant the wired monopolies and allow real competition. Plus, if it works, they'll be pulling in such ludicrous amounts of cash globally that they'll be able to run prices way, way down. So let's hope it works.
Slashdot is liberal stronghold. Pro-democrat and pro-Soros/Shillary. Americans like us are for shamed.
TFW your first guess gets confirmed a few days later: "Ajit Pai canceled his scheduled appearance at a major upcoming tech industry trade show after receiving death threats, two agency sources told Recode on Thursday." After a Bernie supporter tried to kill a bunch of Republican politicians and staffers at baseball practice, it should not surprise anyone that people take death threats seriously.
Wow, I cite the NY Times (not exactly a right-wing haven) talking about a scholarly book based on actual voting records and your refutation of all that evidence is... well, nothing at all.
Apparently the point is proven.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
It's a representative democracy, like most in the world.
You can't? Here in the UK you can bet on just about anything. I had a few pounds on Clinton - far shorter than 2:1 odds though.
Corporations and their shills, like Mr. Pai, are not individuals. They should _never_ have a say in law or rule-making.
100% incorrect. People don't lose their rights when then decide to organize as a corporation. Multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions have affirmed this.
The Dixiecrats formed their own party for the 1948 elections. They WENT BACK TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY for the 1952 election after agreeing to pledge loyalty to the party. Nice try liar
Trump losing the popular vote is kind of irrelevant when talking about people who expected Hillary to lose.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Actually, the fed papes specif more than one fed dem for the pol. Hig soc brokers were demanding it from the start of the con cong. Jefferson went against it earl but pro cong membs... well, you know how that went do.
Can a corporation cast a vote?
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells