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

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.

Comments

Already begun

[110010001000]

If you start seeing nginx errors on your favorite websites, you will know you have been affected.

Re:Already begun

[110010001000]

Yes. But that is caused by Russian hackers, not net neutrality.

Re:Already begun

[bobbied]

MSDGA!

Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...

Re:Already begun

[XxtraLarGe]

Make SlashDot Great Again! Before it's too late...

Again implies that it was great previously...

Re:Already begun

[jellomizer]

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.

Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Archfeld]

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 ?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[bobbied]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[myth24601]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[dryeo]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

When a sale violates no laws, that sale is legal.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?

Or an alcoholic?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

-.- ... 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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[PopeRatzo]

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/...

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

...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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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!!!!!!!!

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[sexconker]

As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun.

The second amendment says otherwise.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[chispito]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anon-Admin]

Footnote: It's illegal for anyone under 21 to buy handgun ammunition. The .223 ammo used by the AR15 is classified as handgun ammunition.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[greythax]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anon-Admin]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[greythax]

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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Anon-Admin]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[greythax]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[greythax]

Lol, from your own site...

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[LynnwoodRooster]

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...

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[pastafazou]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Archangel Michael]

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).

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[ABEND]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[flargleblarg]

I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting.

Dude. It was sold to Apple in 1998.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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."

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Merk42]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Merk42]

well, mixed up bear/bare in the second one..

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[SlaveToTheGrind]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Obfuscant]

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?

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

Thanks to an former Canadian PM, bare arms have been in the news too.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[gnick]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[greythax]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[penandpaper]

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.

Re: Throw out the Republicans

[guruevi]

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.

Re: Throw out the Republicans

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[Archangel Michael]

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".

Re:Throw out the Republicans

[PopeRatzo]

[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...

Bill ISPs ?

[psergiu]

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 :)

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[Ogive17]

Sounds good until they show up and just rip out the line.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[MikeDataLink]

If only I had mod points! +1 Insightful!

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[penandpaper]

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).

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re: Bill ISPs ?

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[penandpaper]

No it's not. It's uninformed drivel. It's about as insightful as a potato.

Easement does not require common carrier status.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[Khyber]

Then they get fucked for trespass to chattels.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[fedos]

That's because we had Net Neutrality before 2015, you bloody idiot.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[Killall -9 Bash]

The problem was Netflix was demanding free bandwidth ("peering") from Comcast, who, uncharacteristically, wasn't the asshole in that exchange.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[pastafazou]

AT&T is still a telephone provider, and thus a common carrier.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[tbannist]

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.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[fedos]

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.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[fedos]

Sorry to hear that you're a credulous moron.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[fropenn]

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////}

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[sjames]

The peering would have saved Comcast money.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[Killall -9 Bash]

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 Neutrallity®" 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.

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[tbannist]

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?

Re:Bill ISPs ?

[Killall -9 Bash]

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.

Regulatory Capture ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[The Real Dr John]

Anonymous Coward tries to make a joke.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[ranton]

I really cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[gnick]

...the healthiest citizens...

That should have given it away.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[duke_cheetah2003]

lowest crime rates

The 16,000 people shot dead in the USA by a gun in 2017 would very much like to dispute that.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[Khyber]

Don't forget the half a million killed by cigarettes every year!

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[penandpaper]

Put me in a padded cell and lock the door! I am scared of life. Protect me bubble wrap.

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[Khyber]

"Protect me bubble wrap."

You say while it suffocates you!

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[greythax]

Wait, aren't you guys always the ones trying to convince us you need your guns to protect yourselves from the big scary world?

Re:Regulatory Capture ...

[penandpaper]

I am multiple people, yes.

Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23"

[TFlan91]

"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

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:Mini poll

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mini poll

[chispito]

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.

So let me make sure I understand...

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

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

[djbckr]

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.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[Khyber]

Considering several high-profile online multiplayer games download and update via torrents, good luck with that.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[Gilgaron]

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.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[Khyber]

"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.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[chispito]

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.

Re:Magnet/BitTorrent

[Trogre]

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.

Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23"

[ichthus]

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?

Bad Headline

[Zmobie]

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.

Only Federal Rules Die. Let the states regulate NN

[schwit1]

The GOP says it supports state's rights. Time for them to put up or shut up.

Disingenous and stupid arguments

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Disingenous and stupid arguments

[Obfuscant]

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.

Vote in your primary

[rsilvergun]

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.

We're reading it wrong.

[fahrbot-bot]

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

Re:We're reading it wrong.

[atrimtab]

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.

Mod Parent Up

[rsilvergun]

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

Couldn't he just buy 5.56 NATO?

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:Couldn't he just buy 5.56 NATO?

[Archangel Michael]

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!!!

Re:Can Someone Clearly Explain Why This Matters?

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23"

[LynnwoodRooster]

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

Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix

[Eravnrekaree]

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,

Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix

[fropenn]

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?

Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

Re:Benefits those of us who don't use Netflix

[Obfuscant]

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

[rsilvergun]

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

Let Me Guess...

[careysub]

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.

Re:Only Federal Rules Die. Let the states regulate

[Obfuscant]

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:Can Someone Clearly Explain Why This Matters?

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:" Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23"

[BlueStrat]

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