Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23 (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23 (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday February 22, 2018 @03:42AM from the end-of-an-era dept.

The Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules will be no more in two months, as the agency takes the final step in removing the regulation from its rule book. From a report: The date -- April 23 -- was revealed today after the Federal Communication Commission's order revoking net neutrality was published in the Federal Register. You can read the full order here. The publication means that a new fight around net neutrality is about to begin. States and other parties will be able to sue over the rules -- some have already gotten started -- and a battle in Congress will kick off over a vote to reverse the order entirely. While that fight likely won't get far in Congress since Republicans by and large oppose net neutrality and control both chambers, there will likely be a long and heated legal battle around the corner for the FCC's new policy. The FCC's new rules are really a lack of rules. Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.

237 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Already begun by 110010001000 · 2018-02-22 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny

If you start seeing nginx errors on your favorite websites, you will know you have been affected.
1. Re:Already begun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  I don't get the joke...
2. Re:Already begun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Are you also noticing that your comments are taking a long time to show up on https://slashdot.org/~110010001000?
3. Re:Already begun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Have you not been getting random "504 Gateway Errors" on /. this week?
4. Re:Already begun by 110010001000 · 2018-02-22 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. But that is caused by Russian hackers, not net neutrality.
5. Re:Already begun by bobbied · 2018-02-22 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  MSDGA!
  Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6. Re:Already begun by XxtraLarGe · 2018-02-22 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...
  Again implies that it was great previously...
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
7. Re:Already begun by jellomizer · 2018-02-22 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  During its hay-day back in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Slashdot was a big name on the Tech-Blogs and many message boards were based on Slashcode. The user level moderation was a huge feature....
  What happened?
  Well slashcode didn't really get as well updated compared to others, there was a big fight about a beta version (so its style and influence diminished) However I expect the nature of technology had changed, moving from personal big equipment. Large Desktop towers filled to the brim with the latest add-ins, having people hack devices. With people making big old New Economy Tech workers money. Where an upper middle class salary was given to anyone who could use export their Word Documents to HTML and call them a web-developer.
  Then the bubble popped and the popular technology is too closed down to tinker with, and the ones who had survived have gotten more conservative with our money and bitter about the new technology. Thus moved Slashdot deeper into its current trollish area.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
8. Re:Already begun by chispito · 2018-02-22 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  If you start seeing nginx errors on your favorite websites, you will know you have been affected.
  Bravo.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
9. Re: Already begun by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Actually a lot of people left after W. Richard Stevens passed away. They saw how disrespectful everyone was. Especially when they realized his son was probably reading all the insulting messages.
  Perhaps with a quick search on Slashdot you can see for yourself.
Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
1. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting.
  I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting. That means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
2. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 04:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
  Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law. There might be something to address there and that has the potential to "do something" more so than any gun ban that we hear paraded by media.
  Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
3. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves! NOTHING is going to prevent the next shooting, but handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
  It confuses me that some of our lawmakers are saying that laws are pointless.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
4. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Archfeld · 2018-02-22 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The last 2 shootings would have been prevented if the FBI would just follow through with the existing laws and procedures. That is the saddest part of a tragic situation. What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues. If the individual doing the shooting has been reported to the FBI but they fail to follow though how is that going to help anyone ?
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
5. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 04:42 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
  Good thing that is already against the law. Oh you mean that the FBI and law enforcement are failing to enforce existing law? Yes, it would be common-sense to think that the government should properly enforce the laws on the books. It would also be common-sense to get the government to enforce existing laws before proposing new ones. If the government is failing at enforcing existing common sense law how are they going to properly enforce any other common sense solution you come up with?
6. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:45 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
  Nothing will stop the next shooting; there will be another. But that doesn't mean that trying won't help. The Florida shooter did not use a bump stock (correct me if I'm wrong.) That was the last shooting. The Mandalay Bay shooter did use a bump stock. It seems likely that the damage he did would have been reduced if he hadn't had one. So, banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the last shooting, but seems like a reasonable idea. Nobody's hunting deer with a bump stock. I don't need a bump stock to defend my home from an intruder.
  
  Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict.
  Yes with a 'but'. I'm not allowed to own a gun because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
  
  Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
  I'll agree with you there. It's not like guns are new to the US.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
7. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  ...passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
  American boys/men are going ape shit and murdering people. What IS the underlying issue?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
8. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict. At least we know that the FBI and law enforcement are doing a shit job enforcing existing law.
  What was it? Reported to the FBI 39 times, to local police some times as well, expelled for threats of violence, taken to mental institutions repeatedly but turned away every time. Did I miss any?
  If I was more conspiratorial, I'd think the FBI had decided to ignore this guy and hope they can spin whatever he ended up doing in a way to get more funding and/or further degrade the 4th Amendment.
9. Re:Throw out the Republicans by bobbied · 2018-02-22 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  They are not pointless, Just ineffective.
  The sad truths about the next shooter (and there will be another):
  1. Has already purchased the weapon they will use.
  2. Is already known to law enforcement.
  3. COULD have been stopped, but was overlooked as a risk.
  So enact your laws, just accept the fact that gun control laws are not going to be enough either in the short or long terms. We have got to do more than just control the sale and position of firearms.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:54 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Good thing that is already against the law.
  Every media report I've seen said that the rifle was purchased legally. Are they mistaken? I don't claim to be an expert on gun law.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
11. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Banning a bumpstock is about trying to get to the same existing law we have i.e. fully automatic weapons are banned that nearly everyone agree with. You aren't banning the gun that encroaches on the rights of law biding citizens.
  
  because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
  I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should? There are ways to reclaim rights after committing a crime. I would have to look into specifics for guns and specific for state law. It's like felony voting, Some allow it. Some don't. Some allow that right to be given back. You have demonstrated that common sense laws are already on the books.
  It is already illegal for a "deranged violent teen" from purchasing a gun.
12. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  The solution, of course, is to let Elon Musk take over all the ISPs. Because he can do no wrong with public money.
13. Re:Throw out the Republicans by myth24601 · 2018-02-22 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  The percentage of murders committed by males has always been much higher than females. I doubt that it has changed much even as the overall murder rate has been trending down for years.
  
  --
  No matter where you go, there you are.
14. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up, liberal idiot. I'm voting the republicans even MORE because of amazing freedom for the internet we regular americans are getting now.
15. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should?
  No record worse than a couple of traffic tickets. See here.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
16. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:02 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The FBI and law enforcement failed to act on reports of the shooters behavior and that behavior and record was not reported on the background check. There is possibility to strengthen that legislation and language but that isn't adding new regulations but addressing the pitfalls of existing regulation.
  As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun. That doesn't mean the background checks adequately flag it. So, yes it was "legal" in the sense he passed a background check. No in the sense that the background check should have been able to account for those red flags. IOW, addressing current law is a better solution than adding new controversial gun bans to prevent a shooting like this and the one in Texas.
  If the push was for strengthening that law. It woudln't be controversial. The NRA woudln't stop it. Because we already all agree on it.
17. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Congress gave up trying to ban bumpstocks after the 3dprinter model for one was published to the Internet. They are wise enough to not do somthing that will irritate a bunch of people and do very little.
18. Re:Throw out the Republicans by dryeo · 2018-02-22 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you need more FBI agents. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of agents vs citizens will allow vetting of everyone. Can always expand the definition of mentally ill to voted for the wrong party and create some camps to keep them in while about it. Perhaps call them gulags and locate them in Alaska.
  It would be worth it to preserve the freedoms of Americans and its not like you can't borrow more money to pay for it.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
19. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's a failure of addressing certain records in a background check. Is it a violation of your 4th amendment if your history of mental illness show up in a routine background check? I am going to guess there might be some HIPAA laws there to protect your privacy which make the issue more complicated in that regard.
  I don't want to lose my right to a gun just because I used some anti-depressants. Or because I at one point was suffering depression and decided to ask for outside help. Mental health already has a bad stigma. Not all mental health issues deserve a loss of constitutional rights just as not everyone suffering mental illness need be locked in a padded cell in a straight jacket.
20. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  When a sale violates no laws, that sale is legal.
21. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I see. I think a lot of the laws around pot are dumb but the federal law in question seems like a "common sense" that we hear so much about.
  "unlawful user and/or addict of any controlled substance".
  Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
22. Re:Throw out the Republicans by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-22 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  Conflating gun laws with lower crime; if that were true Chicago would be much better than what it is, broken windows anyone?
  West Palm Beach, Florida has a higher murder rate than Chicago. So do Dayton, Ohio, Savannah, Georgia and 22 other US cities.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
23. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
  Or an alcoholic?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
24. Re:Throw out the Republicans by sheph · 2018-02-22 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Is it legal to shoot innocent people? If laws were to stop this sort of thing from happening you'd think the existing laws would be adequate.
  
  --
  I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
25. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ho hum.
  So your response to all of these violent, gun-related, deaths is this:
  1) Everyone in America should be ALLOWED to have a gun. and we need a special reason to DENY it. (ALLOW/DENY)
  2) It's up to law enforcement to decide who should and should not have a gun. Create a BLACKLIST from >400,000,000 people.
  3) After people have a gun it's up to law enforcement to monitor millions of guns in use. ACTIVE monitoring of all guns.
  Wouldn't it be easier to turn it around?
  1) DENY gun purchases unless there is a specific reason to ALLOW them (DENY/ALLOW)
  2) Create a BLACKLIST of the gun OWNERS with the serial numbers of all the guns attached to the user until transferred (just like a car)
  3) PASSIVELY monitor the BLACKLIST of people who own guns by tracing the serial numbers of guns used in crimes back to the registered owner. They are complicit unless they can show documentation that the gun was legally transferred. MAKE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAMNED GUNS.
26. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  -.- ... What is a controlled substance?
  You say you want common sense laws and now you are going beyond common sense because you are now ignoring legal definitions to make a flippant point. Do you want to argue about which substance is "controlled" or do you want to discuss what is common sense gun law?
27. Re:Throw out the Republicans by pastafazou · 2018-02-22 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  Fact: the rifle was purchased legally because he passed a background check.
  Fact: in 2016 he was taken to a mental health facility for examination. The mental health facility did not report this to the feds' NICS system. Had they done so, it would have shown up on his background check, and he would not have been able to buy the gun.
  Fact: The NRA has been advocating making it mandatory for states to report criminal and mental health records to the federal government.
28. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  West Palm Beach, Florida has a higher murder rate than Chicago.
  Looking at West Palm Beach shows that you are full of shit.
  WPB:
  https://www.neighborhoodscout....
  http://www.areavibes.com/west+...
  10 reported murders.
  Chicago:
  https://www.neighborhoodscout....
  http://www.areavibes.com/chica...
  765 reported murders.
29. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that keeping guns out of the hands of drunks makes MUCH more sense than keeping it away from pot smokers. A history of DUIs should be weighted MUCH more heavily than having a medical marijuana patient card. Why does the definition of "controlled" change what's dangerous?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
30. Re:Throw out the Republicans by pastafazou · 2018-02-22 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't want to lose my right to a gun just because I used some anti-depressants. Or because I at one point was suffering depression and decided to ask for outside help. Mental health already has a bad stigma. Not all mental health issues deserve a loss of constitutional rights just as not everyone suffering mental illness need be locked in a padded cell in a straight jacket.
  Sure, not everyone who suffers mental illness is a risk to others. But there should definitely be a barrier to anyone with a history of mental illness being able to buy a gun without additional verification and followup being performed.
31. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  I dont know whats more pathetuc: That you're so ignorant you think gu s man you free, or your insult to the dead children by playing politics with their bodies.
  Fuck you.
  Canada doesnt have this gun problem.
  Australia doesnt have this gun problem.
  Europe doesnt have this gun problem. ...butt their just morans with gun control right?
  Fuck you NRA stooge.
32. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  The underlying issue is that Florida law allows victims to drop domestic violence charges. Had those charges not been dropped, he never would have been able to legally buy a guy.
33. Re:Throw out the Republicans by tbannist · 2018-02-22 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves!
  Why wait until then? Let's start handing them semi-automatic pistols when they enrol in kindergarten.
  This message has been approved by your friendly local neighbourhood NRA dealers.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
34. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Is it legal to shoot innocent people?
  It is in Texas. If you think someone stole something and they are walking away, you can shoot them in the back with no warning. The fact that you are wrong and the person in innocent doesn't matter.
  
  Lost of stand-your-ground laws are written based on what the shooter believes, not based on what is true. This legalizes mistakenly shooting the innocent.
35. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Let's start handing them semi-automatic pistols when they enrol in kindergarten.
  Only 2 guns for the whole class. They need to learn sharing.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
36. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
  Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
  If the government classifies a drug should that classification be used in determining purchase of a gun?
  If there are problems with that classification process should that classification be ignored?
  https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/c...
  You are not making a point. You are being pedantic. It's annoying. I am done.
37. Re:Throw out the Republicans by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-22 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Um, murder rate means how many murders per 100,000 people, not the total number of murders. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Fox News.
  http://fox6now.com/2016/11/02/...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
38. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:03 · Score: 0
  American boys/men are going ape shit and murdering people. What IS the underlying issue?
  On February 14, 2018:
  
  Fifty-five to one-hundred-twenty million gun owners did not commit mass murder.
  Laws forbidding weapons in school didn't work.
  Laws forbidding the unlicensed carry of firearms didn't work.
  A background check didn't prevent deaths.
  School security didn't stop the attack.
  Since at least 2012:
  
  Police did not arrest a disturbed person for multiple acts of violence, threats, harassment, peeping, and weapons violations.
  Police did not 'Baker Act' a "weird" "psycho", making him a prohibited person unable to lawfully purchase a gun.
  A school did not press criminal charges against a person who broke multiple laws against weapons, destruction of property and assault.
  Enforce the laws that are already in place. Stop screaming for preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior-restraint laws, or more restrictive registration and licensing requirements, which the US Supreme Court has already ruled that criminals don't have to comply with (look it up; it's part of your protection from self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment)
39. Re:Throw out the Republicans by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-22 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, the latest shooter had a brush with law enforcement about 10 weeks ago, over brandishing firearms and threatening to shoot people. But the police in Broward County decided to let him off the hook because he had a tough life. Imagine if they actually had done what the law required (at least arrest, and conduct an investigation about ownership of the firearms), there might be 17 more children alive today.
  But hey, let's not worry about warning signs like threatening to shoot people, let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
40. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you comrade, here is your 50 kopeyki. Your service to Mother Russia is greatly appreciated!
41. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I think the point is that whatever shows up in the background check there should be some kind of Whole-Person concept much like we do with a security clearance. Spotting red flags is one part in determining the "whole person" as a risk to themselves or others.
42. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  The FBI and law enforcement failed to act on reports of the shooters behavior and that behavior and record was not reported on the background check. There is possibility to strengthen that legislation and language but that isn't adding new regulations but addressing the pitfalls of existing regulation.
  The same thing back with that nightclub shooting, that guy had even been reported to the police buy staff at a gun store who had refused to sell to him because they felt suspicious about him yet the police didn't even look into it.
43. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  ...let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
  What about "that means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent" made you think I was focused on guns? Guns have been all over the US for far longer than this barrage of mass shootings. Some gun limitations (I'm thinking Mandalay Bay bump stock) could reduce the level of success the shooters have, but as long as people are deciding to commit mass murder there will continue to be mass murders.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
44. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  1) Yes because it is a constitutional right. I have the same thoughts on speech or any constitutional right. Everyone in America should be ALLOWED to say what they want and we need a special reason to DENY (gag orders).
  2) The law should be well defined whenever it authorizes the government to restrict liberty.
  3) It's up for law enforcement to follow through on any valid report and act appropriately for any infraction. Just as the courts only act when harm has been done the government only acts on reasonable reports. The government isn't free to take your rights without reason.
  Personally, I don't care about what is easier for the government. I care about what is constitutional, moral. and what allows for the most freedom of the citizens.
45. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  And you're making the point that once the word "controlled" is introduced, all common sense goes out the window. Thank you for being done. This has gotten annoying.
  
  Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
  Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
  Who cares? The word "controlled" is not magic. A history of DUIs should contribute MUCH more to being precluded from gun ownership than a history of pot smoking. Same with legal opioid abuse. I don't give a shit which drug is "controlled" or "scheduled". I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
46. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
  Hmmm. If only there were a way to classify drugs that the government and law makers could use as a starting point to address irresponsibility because it would be common sense to say X classification is potentially irresponsible. HMMMMMM. I WONDER WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE. So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
  No no. even if that classification did exist better to have our own list because my super genius common sense says it would be easier to go through every drug and have redundant classification. Alcohol should be Super Common Sense Bad Drug #23432 because I don't like DEA and I wanna smoke pot!!!!!!!!
47. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Buying a guy is already illegal in the US and has been for like 150 years (politicians excepted.) I understand that Nevada has places where you can rent one.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
48. Re:Throw out the Republicans by sexconker · 2018-02-22 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun.
  The second amendment says otherwise.
49. Re:Throw out the Republicans by chispito · 2018-02-22 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
  Since Republicans are wrong on all major issues, it's a wonder it hasn't happened already.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
50. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Enforcing the laws that are already in place sounds great... except Trump repealed the ones that prevented mentally ill people from owning guns and the NRA has constantly opposed all existing regulation, no matter how sane.
51. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anon-Admin · 2018-02-22 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Footnote: It's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy handgun ammunition. The .223 ammo used by the AR15 is classified as handgun ammunition.
52. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Damn it, I thought you said you were done...
  
  So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
  I said nothing of the sort. I said that where a drug lands on the Fed's "schedule" is unimportant to its relation to responsible gun use. That's not what the schedule is for. If habitual drunks are a bigger danger concerning guns than pot smokers (they are) then habitual alcohol abuse should be considered with more weight than pot smoking. I think I've said this more than once. Making alcohol Schedule 1 makes about as much sense as making weed Schedule 1 (none). I would be less resistant to defining alcoholism as a preclusive mental illness. Considering a drug's schedule when deciding on allowing a gun purchase makes little sense; considering a person's abuse (e.g. history of DUIs) makes a lot of sense. I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
53. Re:Throw out the Republicans by greythax · 2018-02-22 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective? Just a reminder, if you're answer is tort, then you are probably conceding that this has to happen AT LEAST one more time before the deterrent is effective.
54. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Fact: the rifle was purchased legally because he passed a background check.
  When purchasing a gun, the buyer fills ATF 4473 Firearms Transaction Record. Question F asks 'Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?' If the buyer answers yes, no transfer. If the buyer answers no but the answer is truly yes, they have falsified the form and have purchased the gun illegally regardless if they pass the phone in background check.
55. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anon-Admin · 2018-02-22 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Fact: He lied on his form 4473 for the gun purchase. Specifically to question 11f, which is illegal and makes that an illegal gun purchase.
  Laws do not prevent crime, laws simply punish those who commit an act that violates sed law.
56. Re:Throw out the Republicans by greythax · 2018-02-22 07:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
  Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
57. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anon-Admin · 2018-02-22 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Children and guns are a bad idea. Your average firearm is too unwieldy for a typical child to operate in a safe and effective manner.
  Children are much better suited to crew served weapons. The simi-stationary mortar or heavy machine gun relies less on physical strength and builds teamwork.
58. Re: Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  You're talking about the USA.
  We did give kids guns decades ago, there were no mass shootings.
  Some families still do this. Their kids don't shoot people.
59. Re:Throw out the Republicans by greythax · 2018-02-22 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Also, Chigago's gun laws have been neutered considerably over the last 4 years. City laws are never going to matter when you can drive 20 minutes outside town to get a gun. Any actual restrictions would have to be enacted on the national level to have an effect.
60. Re:Throw out the Republicans by greythax · 2018-02-22 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Lol, from your own site...
61. Re: Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  In regards to the LV shooter, it's likely the damage to life would have been worse if he took aimed deliberate shots, even with a bolt action hunting rifle. For one, it wouldn't have alerted the crowd as quickly. Two, the distance he was shooting was close enough to call out individuals with reliability.
  At any rate, the puzzling thing is that if this guy had been planning this for so long, he could have applied for, and been cleared to own an actual belt fed machine gun, which would have allowed much more concentrated, accurate and higher volume of fire.
  The hardest hurdle to the common man is to come up with the cash, and just in the value of weapons and accessories he had in that room, it wouldn't have been an issue, discounting the fact that he was a millionaire.
62. Re:Throw out the Republicans by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-22 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I believe before we start figuring out how to "dig deeper" we should try doing what we said we'd do in the first place. If the police had done what the existing laws said - it probably would have stopped this latest shooting. More laws and regulations do nothing if they're followed about as well as existing laws and regulations are followed...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
63. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  what your suggestion is for a course of action that will compel law enforcement and the FBI to act before another one of these happens, and not just assign blame afterwards. How can one strengthen that law to the point where it would be effective?
  I am not exactly sure what your asking but proper penalties for any agency that does not file the appropriate records to the appropriate bureaucracy that handles any requests for a background associated with such sales or any agency that fails to appropriately act on those records. Are you asking for what is a proper penalty, if we should have a penalty or who is liable for a penalty to incentivize proper record keeping? Or are you asking about auditing any process, agency, and transfers of liability to apply appropriate criminal charges in failure to follow the law?
  A review of the process for submitting, maintaining, and requesting records for background checks would help in addressing the transfers of liability between the different government agencies and personnel. We do random "audits" for the TSA why not for the FBI for background checks.
64. Re:Throw out the Republicans by pastafazou · 2018-02-22 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing illegal purchase due to technicality versus black market illegal. The fact is, he went through the legal process to legally buy the gun, and that's how he obtained it. The fact that he lied on the form doesn't change the fact that he purchased it through a legitimate dealer. This is where mandatory reporting of mental illness and criminal activity to the NICS system would help. It removes the ability of the buyer to lie on the form and get a gun when they shouldn't be able to.
65. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  The Mandalay Bay shooter did use a bump stock. It seems likely that the damage he did would have been reduced if he hadn't had one.
  
  I take it you don't know much about using a rifle. Even the larger global militaries have fled from giving troops full autos because of how ineffective they are in combat conditions. But don't let the people who actually study combat effectiveness sway you or anything.
  
  And bump stocks are even less effective than select fire weapons, especially at the distances involved.
66. Re:Throw out the Republicans by pastafazou · 2018-02-22 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  He went to a legal reseller and went through the process of obtaining a gun legally versus buying a black market gun. If the only barrier to being able to obtain a gun relies on the buyer willfully telling the truth about their mental and criminal history, then that's a failed security implementation, and there SHOULD be new laws enacted to fix this.
67. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  usa > Canada || Australia || europe.
  kthxbye.
68. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-22 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  mentally deranged teenager
  He was an adult. And also a Teenager. Saying "Teenager" makes it sound like he was 13 and not 19 (six years, and legal status change different).
  IF you want to raise the age to purchase guns, then say so. AND I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
69. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  What we don't need is more political grandstanding and passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
  Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
  Completely and utterly false. To get alcohol all you have to do is walk into a store and show your ID and pay for it, any store, gas station, restaurant, pretty much anywhere. Anybody can buy alcohol, no matter how insane or their criminal record.
  To get a gun you have to fill out 30 minutes of paperwork and go through a 3 day waiting period and background check, and only at very very specific and limited stores. If it comes back as good you can then pick the weapon up. If you are crazy or have a criminal record, you cannot buy a gun.
  It is insane that somebody would seriously think it is easier to get a gun than alcohol, even though alcohol is far more dangerous and kills way more people than guns.
70. Re:Throw out the Republicans by ABEND · 2018-02-22 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Republican politicians are paid not to understand that utilities such as Comcast and Verizon were heavily subsidized by taxpayers to create the foundation of their service, and hence need to be regulated so that they don't just do whatever the heck they want to make the most coin for themselves.
  And of course it's the same with gun control, with the NRA; with climate change, with the fossil fuel industries; and with food safety, with big agriculture.
  Not saying Democratic politicians are more ethical, but their traditional big money interest (organized labor) is frankly dying anyway.
  The Democrats are now very well funded by big money (remember Hillary's versus Trump's campaign chests?). Think Google/Alphabet or Amazon (Washington Post). The days of labor vs. capital are long gone.
  Since you strayed into "gun control," how many millions of people have been killed by U.S. citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment right to self-defense? Now how many millions of people have been killed by guns wielded by soldiers in the employ of governments? Was the U.S. "Civil War" started by people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights or, was it caused by inflammatory propaganda and refusal of political factions to compromise?
  We don't need "gun control." We need propaganda control. Before we even consider regulating internet framework providers, we should be regulating internet content providers. We need to be sure we are not being driven towards a real civil war by wealthy propagandists.
  
  --
  In all seriousness:
71. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  Rubbish, see Australia. About one mass shooting per year until until the worst ever; then no more guns, no more mass shootings.
72. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
  Why do you feel like these things should coincide? Driving? Working? Renting a car? Running for president?
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
73. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  So long as the FBI sits on its hands and fails to protect us....events like these will keep happening...and the public response will be to give even more power to the FBI.
  So....when one is rewarded for failure, why would one bother succeeding?
74. Re:Throw out the Republicans by flargleblarg · 2018-02-22 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting.
  Dude. It was sold to Apple in 1998.
75. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  "You're" means "you are". "Your" means belonging to you. You're welcome.
76. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is far easier to enforce "Don't sell this person a gun" than it is to enforce "Don't misuse that gun in your closet."
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
77. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  You're right. Why try?
  Wow. Are you an olympic athlete? Because the leap required to go from "the things we are trying now are ineffective" to "you must want us to do absolutely nothing" is simply astronomical.
  
  Congratulations on being part of the reason we can never have a fruitful discussion about the issues.
78. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Ahh yes, when actual statistics aren't in your favor, find your favorite cherry picked ones! Classical right wing strategy.
79. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Merk42 · 2018-02-22 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  1) Yes because it is a constitutional right.
  It's a right "of the people to keep and bear Arms"*, so we'll just say that means only non-lethal weapons.
  
  Oh? Don't like that the defintion changed? OK, well then we'll make "bare arms" mean exclusively the 200+ year old muskets and rifles of the time.
  
  * it also mentions "A well regulated Militia" yet regulation is always seen as a bad word.
80. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Merk42 · 2018-02-22 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  well, mixed up bear/bare in the second one..
81. Re:Throw out the Republicans by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-02-22 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect you were so focused on your too-clever jab (pro tip: Milwaukee local channel Fox6 != Fox News) that you skimmed over the very first line of your article:
  
  This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
  Had you read on a bit more, you would have observed that the rankings in your article were based on 2015 statistics. Chicago's murder rate went up 65% in 2016, representing 22% of the country-wide increase in murders. That spiked it into the top 10 with bedfellows like New Orleans and Detroit.
82. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Like the underlying issue that it is easier to get a deadly weapon in this country than it is to get alcohol?
  I can't remember the last time I had to have a background check to buy a beer, but I sure do remember getting one when I bought my last gun. Or are you lumping knives and baseball bats in the "deadly weapon" category to weaken your gun control argument?
  How many "deadly weapons" do you want to ban or make harder to buy? Should there be background checks before a kid can buy a baseball bat or lug wrench or camping knife?
  Getting a gun already has legal limitations, and "assault rifles" are already heavily licensed. Ban bump stocks? Well, you better ban files because I understand that all it takes to convert a semi AR-15 into a full auto is a file.
  Why do you think that more laws will solve a problem that existing laws can't seem to manage to prevent?
83. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks to an former Canadian PM, bare arms have been in the news too.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
84. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  To get alcohol all you have to do is walk into a store and show your ID and pay for it,
  Some of us don't even need to show an ID. But we do to buy a gun.
  
  It is insane that somebody would seriously think it is easier to get a gun than alcohol,
  This is what you get when emotion demands "do something" and that morphs into "do anything" because the reasonable somethings we already have aren't enough to provide perfect safety to a completely unarmed group.
85. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  "You're" means "you are." "Your" means "belonging to you." You're welcome.
86. Re:Throw out the Republicans by gnick · 2018-02-22 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you don't know much about using a rifle.
  You'd be right. I've fired, I'm guessing, a couple dozen firearms but do not own one nor am I an expert. I assumed that the shooter knew what he was doing and it seemed intuitive that, when firing into a dense crowd, the rate of fire would affect the victim count more than precision.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
87. Re:Throw out the Republicans by greythax · 2018-02-22 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one. So, if this is going to be our tepid response, we are probably just suggesting that this is going to happen again, and if the pattern holds, it will happen pretty soon.
  I think part of the reason we keep having these is that we seem to be content to assign blame. Everyone chooses their scapegoat, and then nothing actually happens.
  It's just so frustrating that people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights.
88. Re: Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Fact: You can't have your right to own a gun taken away unless a court orders you committed.
  Anyone can be "analyized" based on false accusations or an overly zealous social worker. Only a court has the power to deny a citizen the right to own a gun.
89. Re:Throw out the Republicans by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious what penalties will be sufficient to ensure that this sort of oversight can't happen again. I really can't think of one.
  What is the punishment for a store-owner that sells a gun to someone that fails a background check?
  
  people refuse to be as uncompromising about safety of children as they are about their second amendment rights
  We have had decades of compromise. Where do you think the existing gun laws came from? Guns have been apart of the US since the beginning. Violence has been declining to all time lows. If there has been an uptick mass shootings perhaps it is not the gun and more about society and the an underlying issue it is struggling with.
90. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  You have a strange idea of the term "underlying issue".
  When victims withdraw allegations, charges are pretty much always dropped, because willing witnesses are much more useful than compelled ones. If you didn't allow that to happen, there's a good chance that victims would be more reluctant to come forward in the first place, so many more incidents would go unreported.
  You could say with just as much sense that the "underlying issue" is the adversarial legal system, which gives power to roles like "prosecutor" and "victim". Or that it's the Florida law that doesn't consider dropped charges as part of a background check. Or that it's the fact that "Florida law" is a thing at all, it's not set at the federal level. Or that it's the Second Amendment.
  Bottom line, a lot of things came together to create this incident - as always. To pick on any one as "the underlying issue" is just silly.
91. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is what's got me steaming. When will we have gender parity in active shooters? Why can't we get more women interested in this career?
92. Re: Throw out the Republicans by guruevi · 2018-02-22 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  The question is why 3 keeps happening. I'm pretty sure that if you levied taxes on owning guns, the IRS would instantly get a very accurate list of all gun owners in the US, legal and illegal imports etc.
  The fact that the FBI continues to admit "proper procedures weren't followed" at every single shooting indicate either unwillingness or malice. The fact that there is more pressure to abolish basic rights to protect against an oppressive government than abolishing the ineffective agencies that are a result of it shows that nobody wants to solve the problem constiutionally.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
93. Re: Throw out the Republicans by guruevi · 2018-02-22 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  At the distance, the larger angle the gun deflects, the wider your pattern is going to spread. You can hit one, maybe two people before your gun is spraying bullets in the air or ground around the target.
  We don't give military snipers a machine gun either.
  Most people think Rambo mowing down the enemy when they hear about machine guns but the freaking things are very difficult to aim especially if you're not experienced and trained on the weapon.
  One of last years' shootings also had an automatic weapon, many people would have died if they had a short burst or single action rifle and in close combat range the thing is completely unwieldy.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
94. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  Hillary lost, GET OVER IT! Also your precious civil war and second amendment were both about slavery no matter how much you scream state's rights.
95. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  You're gonna lose your guns one way or another. It's time. The enforment argument, the mental health argument, and whatever bullshit you guys pull out of your ass means nothing anymore. Twist in the wind, meatbag.
96. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  Wow that is a huge brush you have there.
97. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-23 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  well, By that same measure (Per Capita) the US isn't even in the top ten Western Countries for mass shootings. Plenty of places that have strict gun control are.
  https://crimeresearch.org/2015...
  Not that it matters, only hysteria created by the Politicians, Media (if it bleeds it leads) and useful idiots who think the "AR" in AR-15 means "Assault Rifle".
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
98. Re:Throw out the Republicans by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  What is there to investigate? He's in America and has a gun. Constitution says its A OK. Now run along.
99. Re:Throw out the Republicans by PopeRatzo · 2018-02-23 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  [crimeresearch.org]
  The "Crime Prevention Research Center" is John Lott's organization and their data has been shown to be complete bunk. For those of you who are not familiar with the name, John Lott is the guy who writes books about how "More Guns = Less Crime". But it turns out that the only statistics that support his thesis are the ones that he generates with his own fabricated data.
  https://www.scientificamerican...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
thank you so much for this by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 03:54 · Score: 0

governments always knows whats best for public, let the shit begins!
Bill ISPs ? by psergiu · 2018-02-22 03:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the ISPs are no longer Common Carriers, can i bill AT&T for the use of my land for their buried cable and distribution box in my front yard given that i'm not their customer ?
$10/day/feet sounds reasonable :)

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
1. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Ogive17 · 2018-02-22 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds good until they show up and just rip out the line.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
2. Re:Bill ISPs ? by MikeDataLink · 2018-02-22 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  If only I had mod points! +1 Insightful!
  
  --
  Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
3. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  That's 2018 /typo.
  Strat
4. Re:Bill ISPs ? by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of easements?
  You don't have to be a customer for someone to be able to use your land for a specific purpose. You don't have to be common carrier to have an easement claim. I have had wire buried in my neighbors yard. I didn't have to ask. They didn't have a right to stop me or the company laying the wire. If they destroy the wire the police can be called for destruction of property by the owner of the wire (telecom).
5. Re:Bill ISPs ? by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-22 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Geez, people! Chill! It's not like the internet prior to 2015 under Obama was some hellish totalitarian/dystopian nightmare.
  Maybe because NN rules were put in place, because some ISP were definitely becoming... unfair, for lack of a better word.
  Guess we'll find out soon enough. Hope you enjoy paying to access your favorite websites. Roll out the walled gardens, it's coming. Unless lawmakers come up with some new regulations, you can bet your panties ISP's will run and run hard with their new found freedom. They going to want to entrench non-neutrality practices as quickly as possible to make it that much more difficult to reverse. Once they are entrenched, they can bellyache how new regulations will wreck their business model, stifling any hopes of restoring neutrality.
6. Re: Bill ISPs ? by guruevi · 2018-02-22 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, hence why this whole debate is largely overblown.
  With the Obama NN rules, providers got to legally zero rate traffic (eg TMobile/Netflix fast lane) which was effectively at the expense of smaller data generators that couldn't afford the fees, the customer would get charged more for using non-Netflix services.
  Now the carriers have to once again choose between prioritizing paid traffic and losing common carrier status.
  The fact that TWC/Charter/Verizon let their POP at the IX run at 100% capacity hasn't changed before or after any NN rules.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
7. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Dude easements read about them.
8. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  There's like 100x more competition now.
9. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Roll out the walled gardens, it's coming.
  OH MY GOD!! We're going back to CompuServe, AOL, The Microsoft Network, GEnie, and bulletin boards?!?!
  Let me know when that happens. My email address is ...uunet!camco!rosedale!dcb
10. Re:Bill ISPs ? by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not. It's uninformed drivel. It's about as insightful as a potato.
  Easement does not require common carrier status.
11. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Khyber · 2018-02-22 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Then they get fucked for trespass to chattels.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
12. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Cut out the middleman. Get yourself a pickaxe and go to town.
13. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Geez, people! Chill! It's not like the internet prior to 2015 under Obama was some hellish totalitarian/dystopian nightmare.
  Maybe because NN rules were put in place, because some ISP were definitely becoming... unfair, for lack of a better word.
  As I recall, the issue was NETFLIX not streaming well on one ISP's network... At least that's what all the hubbub was in the PR campaign for NN back then. Funny thing though was that the issue was resolved before NN came into being as a regulation.....
  You fell for the propaganda...
14. Re:Bill ISPs ? by fedos · 2018-02-22 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's because we had Net Neutrality before 2015, you bloody idiot.
15. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2018-02-22 05:40 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The problem was Netflix was demanding free bandwidth ("peering") from Comcast, who, uncharacteristically, wasn't the asshole in that exchange.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
16. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Rules is the keyword in your post. Obama and the DNC did not support NN. They didn't want it. I know because my brother lobbied for it for his national church organization. The DNC wouldn't allow it to come to a vote when they had the supermajority in the Senate, majority in the House, and the White House. They could have very easily passed a law that couldn't easily be undone. The decision was made by us to intentionally not do that.
  This is the same issue with DACA, the nonenforcement of laws wrt to illegals in a certain age group. Obama hated it, so he didn't push for a law to protect them. Instead, he wrote an illegal EO he knew the courts would throw out. Now, it looks like DACA is going to end, because Trump isn't comfortable enforcing an illegal EO. Again, we could have passed a law that would be hard to undo, because we didn't support it, we made the decision not to.
17. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  That's because we had Net Neutrality before 2015, you bloody idiot.
  You make a claim and call OP a bloody idiot, but yet provide no cite for your claim?
  OP is not the idiot here.
18. Re:Bill ISPs ? by pastafazou · 2018-02-22 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  AT&T is still a telephone provider, and thus a common carrier.
19. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's because we had Net Neutrality before 2015, you bloody idiot.
  If that were true then the Obama FCC wouldn't have needed to enact NN in the first place.
  If you're looking for the bloody idiot, look in a mirror. It'll be that moron staring back at you with that vacant "lights are on but nobody's home" look on his face.
20. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, an ISP can't just force someone to grant them an easement.
21. Re:Bill ISPs ? by tbannist · 2018-02-22 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  The problem was Netflix was demanding free bandwidth ("peering") from Comcast, who, uncharacteristically, wasn't the asshole in that exchange.
  Sorry, but you should realize if you are saying that Comcast wasn't the asshole, then you're probably wrong.
  Netflix wasn't demanding anything from anyone. Comcast was demanding that Netflix pay them a bribe to do the job they are paid to do by their actual customers.
  My god, this should be common sense. People pay Comcast to deliver internet service to them. Netflix charges it's customers to send them the movies and shows they ask for. Netflix pays it's ISP to send that data. Comcast's customers are already paying Comcast to receive that data. The asshole is the one who refuses to do what's he's being paid to do, unless other people agree to pay him extra to do it. Clearly, the asshole is Comcast.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
22. Re:Bill ISPs ? by fedos · 2018-02-22 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The FCC was enforcing Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs. In 2014 the DC District Court ruled that the FCC could not regulate ISPs unless they first classified them as Title II Common Carriers, which meant the Net Neutrality regulations would be void. This was the 2015 fight: to get the FCC to reclassify ISPs.
  You'd know all this if you were'n't a bloody idiot.
23. Re:Bill ISPs ? by fedos · 2018-02-22 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to hear that you're a credulous moron.
24. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:33 · Score: 0
  
  The FCC was enforcing Net Neutrality regulations on ISPs. In 2014 the DC District Court ruled that the FCC could not regulate ISPs unless they first classified them as Title II Common Carriers [wikipedia.org], which meant the Net Neutrality regulations would be void. This was the 2015 fight: to get the FCC to reclassify ISPs.
  Which means there were no NN regulations until 2015.
  You still need to do some mirror-gazing idiot-wise.
25. Re:Bill ISPs ? by fropenn · 2018-02-22 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, like that wo{////the rest of this post is only available to Comcast subscribers - Login to your Comcast account or pay $0.05 to view the rest of this comment////}
26. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect, Netflix wanted to put in a CDN node to solve this problem for Comcast, and that shithole company said no, give us money instead.
27. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  How do you reconcile the hypocrisy of your conservatism regarding using imminent domain to invade a neighbor's yard? I have a hard time imagining you wouldn't be bitching up a storm if that neighbor decided to tear up your yard.
28. Re:Bill ISPs ? by sjames · 2018-02-23 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  The peering would have saved Comcast money.
29. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2018-02-26 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  You do not understand how the internet works.
  
  Normally, there are 3rd (4th, 5th) parties between sender and receiver. What Netflix wanted, FOR FREE, was a direct connection with unlimited bandwidth. Comcast said "no", then "Net NeutrallityÂ®" happened.
  
  You DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE INTERNET WORKS.
  
  Comcast wasn't stopping them from sending you your GOT episodes. All they were making Netflix do is pay for their traffic, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE (including you).
  
  Maybe you envision a communist utopia where data is free, and comcast should happily carry data for free, because that would mean a faster connection for you.... And then all the CDNs go out of business, all the tier 2 and 3 providers go out of business, and now you're wondering why your 21st century interwebs is back to 1995 speed.
  
  Learn how the internet works, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. I don't care which, just pick one.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
30. Re:Bill ISPs ? by tbannist · 2018-02-26 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  You do not understand how the internet works.
  Ha. Pot-Kettle-Black.
  
  Comcast wasn't stopping them from sending you your GOT episodes. All they were making Netflix do is pay for their traffic, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE (including you).
  Moron. I just finished explaining that to you. How does it feel when you make Derek Zoolander look smart? People pay ISPs to transfer data, ISPs pay for connections to their upstream providers. Netflix can't send too much data to Comcast because Comcast's customers are already paying Comcast to receive that data. What Comcast did was classic extortion, of the same kind that the old robber barons or the mafia used to do, where they would "tax" anyone that wants to use "their roads", for their own protection, of course.
  You clearly don't understand anything, so why don't you go back to your little sandbox and play like a good child while the adults talk?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
31. Re:Bill ISPs ? by Killall+-9+Bash · 2018-02-26 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get it. Netflix at NO point needs, ever needed, or ever will need, a direct connection to Comcast.... Just like you don't need a direct connection to Netflix.
  
  Netflix has ISPs (CDNs) which they pay SHIT TONS of money to. They wanted peering with comcast to SAVE MONEY, not make the service better or cheaper for you. This would not benefit Comcast one bit, so they said no.
  
  Question: Has Comcast's decision to NOT peer with Netflix prevented you from watching any videos? DERP.
  
  Learn what this fight is about. That way you won't be one of the dumbshits protesting about things you can't possibly comprehend.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:00 · Score: 1

This is pretty much the epitome of regulatory capture ... a paid shill for the telecom companies is giving the telecom companies exactly what they want ... the freedom to be even bigger, greedier assholes.
The FCC is basically handing the keys to the kingdom to the big telcos, and lying his fucking face off by pretending he's giving 'freedom' to anything but huge companies at the expense of consumers.
Enjoy your shithole of a country as it descends further into an oligarchy. If you think this will help anybody but corporations, you are delusional.
1. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  Shithole of a country? What are you talking about?
  America collectively has some of the best infrastructure, public transit, education, lowest crime rates, lowest poverty and wealth inequality rates, the healthiest economy, a strong and stable social safety net unparalleled in the G7, the healthiest citizens who all have access to the best healthcare, top notch labor rights, the strongest military, and a world-wide reverence that no other country really enjoys.
  Prove me wrong idiot
2. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by The+Real+Dr+John · 2018-02-22 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous Coward tries to make a joke.
  
  --
  A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
3. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by ranton · 2018-02-22 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I really cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
4. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  You didn't prove me wrong.
5. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by gnick · 2018-02-22 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...the healthiest citizens...
  That should have given it away.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
6. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by duke_cheetah2003 · 2018-02-22 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  lowest crime rates
  The 16,000 people shot dead in the USA by a gun in 2017 would very much like to dispute that.
7. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  This is pretty much the epitome of regulatory capture .
  I think the best/clearest example would be government employee unions. Everything else pales in comparison
8. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:46 · Score: 0
  
  And the 39,000+ killed by the most dangerous of items we have, automobiles!! Time to ban autos!!
9. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Khyber · 2018-02-22 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the half a million killed by cigarettes every year!
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
10. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  16,000 out of 321,000,000
  nice try
11. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 05:17 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Put me in a padded cell and lock the door! I am scared of life. Protect me bubble wrap.
12. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  nor me
13. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Really, where you live 5 year olds can drive ? I guess that make sense because in your state 1 year olds can by guns.
  Try 16000 out of 112,000,000
  posted anonymously to so people will not loose my mods
14. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  In what way do you think I was being sarcastic?
15. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Poor attempt at obfuscation. Many criminals using guns are not adults. They are bangers using illegal firearms. And if you're going to arbitrarily remove underage persons from your statistics, are you removing underage victims as well?
16. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Khyber · 2018-02-22 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Protect me bubble wrap."
  You say while it suffocates you!
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
17. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  America collectively has some of the best infrastructure, public transit, education, lowest crime rates, lowest poverty and wealth inequality rates, the healthiest economy, a strong and stable social safety net unparalleled in the G7, the healthiest citizens who all have access to the best healthcare, top notch labor rights, the strongest military, and a world-wide reverence that no other country really enjoys.
  Prove me wrong idiot
  You could look up the facts yourself with minimal effort instead of making laughably baseless assertions divorced from reality.
  US ranks on the order of 120th of all nations in terms of crime rate. Basically most of Europe, Asia, Australia all have lower crime rates than the US. Countries with higher rates tend to be usual basket cases .. Russia and friends, central America, most of Africa and shitty island countries.
  US also unsurprisingly pulls up the rear in terms of gini coefficient ranking on the order of 120th of all nations in terms of wealth inequality and 30th in life expectancy.
  In terms of poverty it ranks on the order of 50th in percentage of population below poverty line. Most of Europe is better off.
18. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by greythax · 2018-02-22 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, aren't you guys always the ones trying to convince us you need your guns to protect yourselves from the big scary world?
19. Re:Regulatory Capture ... by penandpaper · 2018-02-22 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I am multiple people, yes.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:03 · Score: 0

This.
America isn't the entire world. The rest of us will continue as normal.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by TFlan91 · 2018-02-22 04:04 · Score: 1

"And the overwhelmingly vast majority of people will not notice any difference whatsoever and wouldn't know it happened unless somebody told them."
If by that you mean people who don't look at their ever creeping upwards cable bill, sure.
Mini poll by rsilvergun · 2018-02-22 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  If the Democrats were attempting to push legislation, I'd be willing to take a look at them. But everything I've seen from them is pointless outrage over the repeal of what was never a law to begin with. Read the constitution, assholes, laws come from Congress, not from the president. Obama's rule change was unlawful, Trump's repealing it just restores the status quo.
  If you want me to vote for you, then show me the bill you will pass if/when you retake the House.
2. Re:Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  laws come from Congress, not from the president
  That's too confusing. It would be a lot more convenient if the president made all of the laws like in other more civilized places.
3. Re:Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  If the Democrats were attempting to push legislation, I'd be willing to take a look at them....
  Cool.
  Sounds like you should look at them.
4. Re:Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  No. Net Neutrality is a non-issue that somehow became partisan. We did not have it for decades, abuses were fined, and the internet exploded to what it is today. Now people are trying to revise history within a generation to pretend that the internet is founded on Net Neutrality when it never was nor is it necessary just to make this about the big bad conservatives.
  I'm sick of this tsunami of culture that insists you mist be more and more politically left every year, damn the facts, or be exiled and endlessly harassed.
5. Re:Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Lay off the meth, dude. It's destroyed your ability to accurately perceive reality.
6. Re:Mini poll by chispito · 2018-02-22 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Is this going to change how anyone votes? Will you be voting against a candidate because of this? Will you vote in a party primary? Will you vote in other elections you otherwise wouldn't (like mid terms) or be voting for the first time in years?
  No, because even if you do buy into the rhetoric that the sky is falling, this has to be one of the least consequential reasons to suddenly become a single-issue voter.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
7. Re: Mini poll by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, this will change how I vote.
  I've voted republican by default unless I had a reason not to in the past. Until Republicans restore net neutrality the opposite will be true due to Democrats openly by and large stating they oppose the repeal. So, if Republicans want my vote back they had best get on board fast, because if Democrats restore net neutrality then Republicans may loose my vote entirely.
So let me make sure I understand... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · 2018-02-22 04:16 · Score: 1

The last mile to my home: *RAGETROLLFACE* RRRRRAWWWWRRR MUH INTERNETZ!!
PaaS/IaaS/SaaS/APIs: Tell us what to do and we'll go Galt on you/It's our property, just build your own multi-billion dollar platform.
Considering the fact that we have muncipalities in banjo territory building their own ISPs, makes you kinda wonder if the real area where the net needed to be neutral wasn't further up the stack...
Magnet/BitTorrent by djbckr · 2018-02-22 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

I see this as an excuse for Comcast and their ilk to block Magnet and BitTorrent traffic. Watch that be one of the first things to quit working.
1. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Khyber · 2018-02-22 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Considering several high-profile online multiplayer games download and update via torrents, good luck with that.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
2. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Considering several high-profile online multiplayer games download and update via torrents, good luck with that.
  Absent any regulations, your options will be limited to ... suck it up princess ... and signing a document saying you promise not to use it for anything related to copyright infringement and pay extra.
  You think the telcos give a flying fuck about your game? Half of them are the content creators who think any form of technology should be regulated by them on the remote chance it could be used for copyright infringement.
  Do you not grasp that consumers are about to get royally fucked with this change, and that all the power and 'rights' are now in the hands of the assholes who run these companies? There is no consumer friendly version here, just greedy corporations cut loose from pesky things which limited their bad behaviour.
3. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Gilgaron · 2018-02-22 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's the whole point, they'll get paid off by EA Origin and tell Steam to get bent or whatever. If they were only mucking with stuff no one cared about there's nothing for them to gain from it.
4. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Khyber · 2018-02-22 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  "Absent any regulations, your options will be limited to ... suck it up princess ... and signing a document saying you promise not to use it for anything related to copyright infringement and pay extra."
  Ahh, that'd be tortious interference of contract between me and the companies I'm legally paying. No.
  "Do you not grasp that consumers are about to get royally fucked with this change"
  Do you not grasp that consumers won't get fucked by this change if they bothered to read and understand the fucking law, which you apparently do not?
  Protip: Plenty of old laws and settled case precedent actually negate new laws. Take your fucking ass to school, or a library, and read a goddamned law book.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
5. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by chispito · 2018-02-22 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's the whole point, they'll get paid off by EA Origin and tell Steam to get bent or whatever. If they were only mucking with stuff no one cared about there's nothing for them to gain from it.
  I think Steam is all direct download.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
6. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  BitTorrent traffic is not endpoint based, it is port based. Net Neutrality is about eliminating endpoint discrimination.
  For instance, "Sorry that your Netflix is streaming so poorly! For only $19.95 per month you can use our similar ________ service. It just works better!"
7. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Trogre · 2018-02-22 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  From the language they've used previously, I'm betting they'll go further and whitelist places you are allowed to visit, rather than bother with chasing individual places they don't want you going.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
8. Re:Magnet/BitTorrent by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Just use a VPN. Oh wait, and make sure to turn off the VPN when you want to use sites like Netflix, because they block VPNs. Net neutrality? Did we ever really have that?
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:30 · Score: 0

"And the overwhelmingly vast majority of people will not notice any difference whatsoever and wouldn't know it happened unless somebody told them."
If by that you mean people who don't look at their ever creeping upwards cable bill, sure.
More likely, I think, is we'll start seeing deals with preferred partners. Cable companies will in some way limit things (monthly data caps, or slow lanes for non-preferred sites, whatever) but will advertise with their service the preferred sites (Google, Netflix, Facebook, and whatever large company high traffic site there is who are willing and able to pay) are exempt! What a deal! With Comcast Google and Facebook don't count against your data usage! And people will look at that and figure, hey, those are the sites I use most, it is a good deal! Take that package, move on with life, and, essentially, not notice, but it will sure make new competitors to established players have a harder time...
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by ichthus · 2018-02-22 04:30 · Score: 1

If by that you mean people who don't look at their ever creeping upwards cable bill, sure.
What does net neutrality have to do with that?

--
sig: sauer
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:37 · Score: 0

Yea? You think the 13 root dns servers are equally distributed throughout the world, all in the hands of freedom loving progressive nations? You think an executive order from our chief idiot couldn't make things miserable for you?
Will anyone notice by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:41 · Score: 0

The ersatz net neutrality rules never really took effect. And the Internet got along just fine without them since, well, forever. This is a whole lot of hand-wringing over nothing.
Ding Dong! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 04:42 · Score: 0

The witch is dead!
Bad Headline by Zmobie · 2018-02-22 04:58 · Score: 1

This story is misleading on the date. The congressional review act allows them to repeal the rule within 60 LEGISLATIVE days of Congress receiving the rule (days the chambers are in session), not calendar. The rule can go into effect within 60 calendar days depending on certain criteria, but the review act should be duly noted.
The Will of the People by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:09 · Score: 0

Through Congressional and Presidential elections, legitimate American citizens overwhelmingly support this.
CAPTCHA: congress
You Get What You Vote For by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:10 · Score: 0

Many of my conservative friends always tell me "both parties are all the same" and that they support a "free market". They do not support this move and one asked me, "Do you think the next administration will reverse this?" I replied, "If they're not Republicans."
You've got a deficit-ballooning tax cut mostly aimed for the rich and now you have a repeal of net neutrality, both of which were not very popular amongst people of both parties, particularly NN.
The "they're all the same" argument needs to go.
Vote out the current GOP. :-)
If net neutrality wanted to live.. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:14 · Score: 0

it should have armed itself!
Wait, wha . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:16 · Score: 0

But everything I've seen from them is pointless outrage over the repeal of what was never a law to begin with. Read the constitution, assholes, laws come from Congress, not from the president. Obama's rule change was unlawful . . .
It was a rule change, and laws come from congress, not the President, and it's unlawful, but it was never a law to begin with?
Please stop. You're making me dizzy.
Stupid Americans, those were CRISIS ACTORS by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:21 · Score: 0

Qanon
https://twitter.com/hashtag/QA...
Qanon
https://twitter.com/hashtag/QA...
'Crisis actors' YouTube video of David Hogg removed after it tops 'trending'
They're calling for more crisis actors in Houston. Wonder what for?
Need 16 actors for a mass casualty event to take place, exact address will be given on 3/2/18 and event will be held on 3/4/18.
#CrisisActor call for EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRILL ON 3/18/18 IN #DALLAS #TEXAS!
Do not report to these hospitals on your own - please go directly to the Majestic Theater for your assignment
archive.fo/7p1UM
HOUSTON: Be safe, and donâ(TM)t do anything u may need a Medical center for March 4th!
Crisis actors
1. Re:Stupid Americans, those were CRISIS ACTORS by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  I am no longer intrigued by your ideas, and would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.
Moving at the speed of government I guess. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:50 · Score: 0

Not only were the regulations the previous administration enacted never in effect, this administration revoked the never in effect regulations months ago; and they're still not 'removed'. "Government, getting things done... sometime."
Only Federal Rules Die. Let the states regulate NN by schwit1 · 2018-02-22 05:53 · Score: 3

The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.
Stop Lying by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 05:56 · Score: 0

Most of those are suicides. Stop lying.
Disingenous and stupid arguments by sjbe · 2018-02-22 05:57 · Score: 1

Between the two parties the democrats take the cake on uninformed
Maybe but I'll take honestly uninformed over the disingenuously lying and/or crazy any day of the week. And the gun lobby is both disingenuous and crazy.

Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting
So what? That's like arguing that we shouldn't have traffic laws because people still commit traffic violations. That's a straw man argument.

Trying to ban a gun that isn't responsible for 99% of gun deaths.
So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose? Claiming you need an AR15 for "self defense" is ridiculous. Pretending you are going to use it to "protect your rights" even more so. Just because controlling hand guns is tougher politically doesn't mean we shouldn't control weapons with no purpose other than to facilitate mass murder.

Conflating gun laws with lower crime
You say this and are calling democrats uninformed? There is VAST evidence that reducing numbers of guns available results in reduced gun crime. Pretending that more guns available doesn't result in more guns used for crimes is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life. When you can show me rates of gun violence in the US that are lower than countries that have stricter gun control then we can have this debate. Until then spare me this absurdity.

Here's a thought, how about push for the government to enforce the existing laws before you start pushing new ones.
Because the existing laws aren't enough. And even if "fully enforced" the existing laws will never solve the problems of violence in this country. We have far too many people (mostly on the political right) who have completely lost any sense of rationality when it comes to guns or regulations surrounding them.
1. Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments by BlueStrat · 2018-02-22 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose? Claiming you need an AR15 for "self defense" is ridiculous.
  The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to make certain that civilians were allowed to own standard-issue military firearms of the day so that they could be called on as the unorganized militia if needed or to resist the government if it goes rogue, and to protect one's home and family as every individual is a first-responder, police are second-responders.
  The average mass-shooter is finished within 2-4 minutes. The fastest average police response times in the US are at least 5 minutes-plus, and typically more usually in the 8-15 minute range. The average mass-shooter stops his slaughter and shoots himself at the first indication of an armed defender.
  The #metoo people should support the 2ndA as a firearm gives a woman an equalizer against the greater average size and strength of men versus the average woman.
  Amend the Constitution if you want to change the Constitutional civil right for an individual to own a firearm. Trying to circumvent the BoR for any reason is a bad, bad idea, as the same methods used to circumvent the parts you don't like can (and will) be used to circumvent the ones you hold dear.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments by WaffleMonster · 2018-02-22 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  There is VAST evidence that reducing numbers of guns available results in reduced gun crime.
  These arguments have always pissed me off because the metric itself is obviously bullshit and completely meaningless.
  What people in the real world care about is NOT getting killed or injured not so much HOW they are killed or injured.
  If your going to conduct or cite a study that says less guns results in reduced crime or reduced death or injury then god bless make THAT argument.
  Saying less guns result in less gun crimes is no different than saying less Fords results in reduced death or injury involving Fords. Well no shit Sherlock.
3. Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's like arguing that we shouldn't have traffic laws because people still commit traffic violations. That's a straw man argument.
  Nobody is saying we should have no gun laws. They are saying that adding more laws to the ones that already don't work is not going to work, either, and only limits what law-abiding citizens can do. Criminals will ignore them tomorrow just like they ignore them today.
  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "More laws" over and over isn't working; expecting different results is insanity.
  
  Because the existing laws aren't enough.
  The existing laws already prohibit every one of the school shootings in the last twenty years. How can they not be enough, if your goal is to stop school shootings?
  
  So we shouldn't ban guns that no civilian needs any legitimate purpose?
  Who died and put you in charge of deciding what purposes other people can find for owning a gun? You don't think you need one, therefore nobody should be allowed to have one. Epic fail.
some things are more predictable than others by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:00 · Score: 0

"Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict"
Really? I seem to recall something recently in the news about a youtube comment *reported to the fbi* about a specific individual who stated an intent to become 'a professional school shooter' or something like that, then (many?months?) later did that. The FBI claimed to be 'unable to identify the commenter', who apparently, attributed their comment on youtube *with their real name*.
I mean, I sympathize with the logic of your comment. But your timing on leveraging that bit of logic is a bit off this month.
What we can predict is that the same 'soft targets' we all talked about after 9/11 over a decade ago will probably go through the minds of future wannabe mass murderers. Home theaters and home schooling make sense. I prefer those mitigation strategies to the full on Orwell, not that I'm optimistic about my preferences winning out during my lifetime.
One key word to remember, that may help to bridge this comment back to on-topic- "Chokepoints"
so now by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:04 · Score: 0

the power that google and facebook held now has to be shared. Those who paid the most in lobbying to make sure they stayed on top before, are now back with the ISPs in deciding who gets what and how fast. People believing the hype that it was somehow "neutral" before, worry me.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:05 · Score: 0

Hysterics is what. When logic fails, jump into hysterics and wave your hands rapidly for distraction.
Vote in your primary by rsilvergun · 2018-02-22 06:10 · Score: 1

the Dems are chock full of right wing Corporate "Blue Dog" Dems (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc, etc). It's a consequence of the crap Bill Clinton did to forge an alliance of socially liberal, economically right wing people to win the presidency (and pass the "Sheldon Primary"). They need to be purged from positions of power and replaced by the Justice Democrat wing of the party if we want to see traction on these kinds of policies.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Vote in your primary by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yeah, because "purging an entire wing of the party" is exactly how to build Democratic strength.
  Good grief, do you people even listen to yourselves?
Can Someone Clearly Explain Why This Matters? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:11 · Score: 0

Honest question here. If the Internet and all its benefits wasn't killed off by whatever Net Neutrality rules were set to counter, why will their removal have different effects?
Net Neutrality formally became FCC policy in February 2015, three years ago this month. Why didn't the sky fall by January 2015 or any time before that in the state of non-enforced-net-neutrality policy?
What do net neutrality supporters expect to happen with these rules lifted? Where and when were these outcomes manifest pre-February 2015?
1. Re:Can Someone Clearly Explain Why This Matters? by WaffleMonster · 2018-02-22 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Honest question here. If the Internet and all its benefits wasn't killed off by whatever Net Neutrality rules were set to counter, why will their removal have different effects?
  The problem as I see it is couched in continuation of nonstop aggregation of the service provider market now well into its second decade coupled with imminent collapse of cable television.
  We are starting to see not just mega consolidation of mega ISPs but vertical integration as ISP and their parent corporations control and seek to leverage massive and growing content portfolios.
  Personally I would love to see NN without Title II or basically all ISPs more than some arbitrary number of subs broken up into little bite sized pieces or forbidden from providing content and network access. I would love for third parties to manage the last mile access walled off and separate from ISPs. I would literally favor anything that meaningfully addressed or enabled competition over NN legislation.
  Yet in the absence of these things speaking for myself I just don't see how the current situation is sustainable how we can expect ISPs not to leverage their positions without government intervention to moderate the influence of what are essentially defacto monopolies. If your a corporation obligated to your shareholders to make money why the hell would you elect not to leverage your position? It seems malpractice not to peddle your content to your more or less "captive" audience and do so on more favorable terms.
2. Re:Can Someone Clearly Explain Why This Matters? by AHuxley · 2018-02-22 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  For the people with a lot of paper insulated wireline networks, the lack of restrictive federal NN rules is not good news.
  Community and business networks will not have to prove to the federal government that they are NN complaint.
  The new networks ability to enter the marketplace is lower and they can be more innovative and competitive.
  Federal NN rules held back innovative new network products and services.
  With less federal NN rules communities, towns, states can buy into competitive new networking solutions all over the USA.
  No having to select from a list of federally approved paper insulated wireline NN ready providers.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
We're reading it wrong. by fahrbot-bot · 2018-02-22 06:11 · Score: 1

Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
And the FCC's intention is disclosed in the document title, we're just reading it wrong. They're restoring freedom to the ISPs and corporations, not consumers. Bribes, kickbacks and revolving-door jobs for the people in charge of the FCC are more valuable than their tax-payer funded jobs. /cynical

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:We're reading it wrong. by atrimtab · 2018-02-22 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
  And the FCC's intention is disclosed in the document title, we're just reading it wrong. They're restoring freedom to the ISPs and corporations, not consumers. Bribes, kickbacks and revolving-door jobs for the people in charge of the FCC are more valuable than their tax-payer funded jobs. /cynical
  Correct. It's just like the mislabeling of the term "Free Market." Which is held up as wonderful by the naive and gullible.
  In reality this is a mythical (though less every day) place from the past where there are no regulations, anything goes, and there are no regulators to stop pollution, theft, graft, unfair marketing practices, customer harm, fraud, pollution, etc. And negative externalities have no consequence to parties causing them. A land where profits are private and consequences/externalities are social.
  Basically, its a call for the nostalgia of the good ol' 19th century.
  
  --
  Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
spectrum is already by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:38 · Score: 0

Screwing me.every bill a different price and never what they say it will be.
Never had an issue now or when it was Time Warner. Bill has always been what they said.
3 years now and only cable in my area I guess I have to leave.
I have 100 down and HBO CIN etc. at 167.00 now they want 204.00 even though they said 187.00
I will get basic and 5 down elsewhere.
I cant say I have had anything good sense the Spectrum change.
Obama's Net Sellout allowed that by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:40 · Score: 0

That was completely allowed under Obama's "network neutrality". Try again.
Solution in search of a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 06:46 · Score: 0

Nobody has concrete evidence to show that abuses were happening before NN rules existed just conjecture and hearsay. It is worth pointing out that the internet has grown in popularity mostly under a regime of light regulation and now we're convinced that that approach wasn't working. It's not in the ISP's best business interest to throttle one form of traffic over another. If and when there is an actual problem, then perhaps we can revisit.
Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:00 · Score: 0

Repealing Net Neutrality, the action no citizen (except C-level telecomm executives) asked for, wanted, or needs!
Mod Parent Up by rsilvergun · 2018-02-22 07:01 · Score: 1

I've been on this site for 20 years and seen this happening in realtime.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Couldn't he just buy 5.56 NATO? by rsilvergun · 2018-02-22 07:09 · Score: 2

I believe it's classified as rifle ammo and would most likely fire in his (legally bought) AR-15. I could be wrong though. But if the ammo was purchased illegally why isn't the dealer in prison? Laws don't really matter if they're not enforced...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Couldn't he just buy 5.56 NATO? by Archangel+Michael · 2018-02-23 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Laws don't really matter if they're not enforced
  It is more than that. In this case, if people simply did their job, none of it would have happened, and even if it did happen, would have ended sooner. There is a bunch of "fail" in this story, but ... BLAME THE GUN!!!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-02-22 07:44 · Score: 1

You mean to like how it was back before mid-2015? And has been ever since?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Rise of mesh networking by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 07:50 · Score: 0

I'll CJDNS you guys later.
Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-22 08:12 · Score: 1

One of issues cited by cable providers is the explosive growth in Netflix and other streaming use. The existing system was never designed for this high bandwidth use. It was assumed people would get most video from the cable companies own service and that cable modem would be mostly for static content and short pieces of video, with brief bursts, not continuous high bandwidth streams and so on. So the growth in netflix, in order for cable companies to be able to keep up with demand, and to prevent congestion, would have to make very expensive investments in new infrastructure, which would have to be passed on to subscribers. This can hit subscribers who don't use these streaming services as well. So the idea is to cause Netflix to have to help fund these upgrades and that therefore the netflix subscribers would have to help pay for the upgrades, which actually helps those of us who don't heavily use video streaming services, since we won't have to pay for the expensive upgrades to make Netflix, which we don't use, work properly. Should I have to pay a 20-50% higher cable bill so some netflix user can run HD streams 24/7,
1. Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix by fropenn · 2018-02-22 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  Why does it matter if it's Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, online gaming, or downloading photos or audio books? The people who want faster (and more) internet access already pay more. The companies that receive more requests for their content already pay more.
  
  Net neutrality is an issue of fairness and greed. Without net neutrality Comcast can make Netflix run slowly for their customers because Comcast would prefer you purchase their crappy cable TV package instead. And since Comcast has a monopoly in many places, if Netflix wants to stay open, they have to pay the extortion fee to Comcast if they want to keep those customers which would be in addition to the fees they (and their customers) already pay!
  
  Further, let's say you want to start your own video streaming business, say NerdFlix. You don't have the big budget that Netflix has, so you can't afford to pay the extortion fee to Comcast. As a result, your videos take 30 minutes to load vs 10 seconds for Netflix. How many subscribers do you think you'll get?
2. Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix by Eravnrekaree · 2018-02-22 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Its true they could offer some tiers that are for burst use and some that are for continuous streaming. The burst plan would allow for burst downloads but would have a throttle algorithm, while a continuous bandwidth plan would be more expensive but have no throttle. The burst plans are for people that dont do a lot of streaming but want downloads and page loads to run fast. None of this requires any destination based rules that would discriminate against one site or another, and would not require an obnoxious download cap.
3. Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  The existing system was never designed for this high bandwidth use.
  Those who do not know history tend to repeat it.
  When the telephone network was designed, it was engineered based on assumptions about call volumes and lengths. Each central office had X long distance trunks to the next higher switch. Each CO had Y "first selectors" and dial-tone generators, based on an assumption of Z% of customers trying to make phone calls at the same time. It would have cost a fortune to provide 100% capacity service, so they didn't. It was pretty routine on days like Mother's Day, when lots of people all want to call Mom at the same time, for customers not to get a dialtone immediately when they picked up the phone, or to get a redial busy (rapid tone) when calling long distance.
  And then modems and BBS systems got common. People started breaking the assumptions on a regular basis, and in significant numbers. They dialed into the BBS and spent hours downloading things. They automated calls to pick up messages and email, or to use UUCP. The capacity planning got screwed up.
  Telcos tried creating a higher-price tier "data line" and people screamed. "I paid to be able to make calls 100% of the time! You can't DO THAT!"
  Fast forward to the Internet and streaming video. The parallel is clear. 100% capacity costs a lot of money, but people expect it without paying the money. In the cell phone context, it costs money to bring in COWs to supplement fixed capacity during periods of high demand. Who pays for that?
One more thing by rsilvergun · 2018-02-22 09:14 · Score: 1

Cabelas lists .223 ammo as rifle ammo, so this is all a moot point.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Let Me Guess... by careysub · 2018-02-22 10:02 · Score: 1

The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
And if they don't? I guessing that then that nothing happens.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:Only Federal Rules Die. Let the states regulate by Obfuscant · 2018-02-22 10:29 · Score: 1

The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.
Yes, because having your local city council regulating what is essentially an international network is going to work SO well. Or even state level regulation.
Our local city council passed a resolution opposing the last Gulf war. See how well that worked out? Very productive use of city taxpayer money.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by BlueStrat · 2018-02-22 16:00 · Score: 1

You mean to like how it was back before mid-2015? And has been ever since?
Shh! Those were the "Internet Dark Ages" before we became "enlightened".
We don't talk about that here. It's against doctrine.
The internet was born fully-formed in 7 days as we see it today under Title-II 6,000 years ago..err, ah...in mid-2015.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 04:03 · Score: 0

Lets just remind everyone you have been told all this before, but are too stupid to realise https://slashdot.org/comments.... It can't go back, stop pretending it can.
Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 04:24 · Score: 0

No surprise you would jump on the moron train with lynwood. What changed in 2015 genius? Tells us, it aught to be good for a laugh.
More Do-Nothing Isms by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-23 07:24 · Score: 0

"Nothing can be done! We've tried everything except the obvious! Children dying in mass shootings is just collateral damage! Look at the squirrel!"
You people remind me of a Doctor's lament.
"Oh Doctor, I'll do anything to lose weight. Please Help Me!"
"OK, here's a diet and exercise plan."
"I meant, anything but diet and exercise!"
The analogy holds.