Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Will Be Repealed Monday Unless Congress Takes Action (arstechnica.com)
With net neutrality rules scheduled to be repealed on Monday, Senate Democrats are calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to schedule a vote that could preserve the broadband regulations. From a report: The US Senate voted on May 16 to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, but a House vote -- and President Trump's signature -- is still needed. Today, the entire Senate Democratic Caucus wrote a letter to Ryan urging him to allow a vote on the House floor. "The rules that this resolution would restore were enacted by the FCC in 2015 to prevent broadband providers from blocking, slowing down, prioritizing, or otherwise unfairly discriminating against Internet traffic that flows across their networks," the letter said. "Without these protections, broadband providers can decide what content gets through to consumers at what speeds and could use this power to discriminate against their competitors or other content." The letter was spearheaded by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
He'll do whatever his leash-holders say. He's a bitch.
He's been elected and for the 8 years he will do nothing as usual.
Seeing as how reublicans are currently obessed with helping Moscow Donald get away with treason, I wouldn't expect them to stop Russia's sabotage of our internet.
Whatever happens the person who can influence Trump to keep net neutrality intact must make sure to be the last to talk to him before he decides. That usually seems to do the trick.
-- Cheers!
That when you lick a butthoal you lick it for life!
Yawn.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Instead of relying on the FCC using a shakey legal foundation to enforce net neutrality, Congress should pass an actual law laying out exactly what should and shouldn't occur, and assign an agency to oversee. The problem with the approach from the past few years is the FCC or FTC trying to assume this responsibility without Congress having specifically authorized it. Congress never passed laws granting the FCC to authorize ISPs under Title II, etc.
Congress should pass comprehensive net neutrality regulations and lay out exactly what needs to happen, and assign responsibilities. There's too much hemming and hawing over the FCC rather than going through the legislative process. I believe people should stop asking the FCC to change it's mind since the FCC (not backed by legislation to oversee NN) can just change it's mind in the future when the next administration comes in. Legislation is the right approach to this, not bureaucracies.
I know there are many /.ers that will flame me for this, and trust me, I certainly don't blindly love everything my state does. But they absolutely got it right with this decision.
And isn't running again. He'll take the heat for the rest of the party by not allowing a vote. I'm sure he'll be well rewarded. And in a few years when we've all forgotten he'll be back to run for president.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Everyone understands the explosive growth of the internet until the previous administration, out of the blue, unilaterally, and WITHOUT THE POPULOUS VOTING, said "Let's change it."
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
A single political party, of either side, wants to radically change something as successful as the Internet immediately and unilaterally and that strikes no one as being odd?
Net neutrality is as neutral as the affordable care act is affordable.
Net neutrality is a bad idea. The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible.
When any political party seeks to change something fundamentally as net neutrality would change the Internet, the people need to ask "Why and why now?"
Sure, the bad analogies sound good, but bad analogies always do.
Simple proof:
Last time anyone in Congress cared about Net Neutrality, they proposed a law. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that. (I lost count, I know I'm missing some, but not sure how many)
This time, they are proposing "give someone else the blame, while we take the credit." This is very different from actually caring about Net Neutrality.
Weird how that's always hidden from sight.
Seems like they repealed it 3 or 4 times now.
First off, this never should have been part of the FCC. The last thing we need is an agency who decides what can be on network TV (remember Janet Jackson?) to be anywhere NEAR this issue. It's not a big step from regulating what companies can or can't do to regulating what can be put on the web.
Second, this should have either been a narrowly specified law, or at the very least under the jurisdiction of the FTC instead.
That said (and this is a separate issue), the first congress critter than figures out how to give us a lot of choice in network providers for local areas instead of being locked into whatever deal local governments set up years and years ago, would be a hero. I hate only a choice between high priced cable Internet and crappy DSL.
I think you have it backwards. > The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible. The net has always been neutral. Corporations want to eliminate the neutrality, so government is intervening to allow that. If you want to keep government out, then you should support neutrality, and be against this repeal.
Just so.
Note that one good thing about Trump as President is that it MIGHT make Congress stop abdicating its responsibilities to the Executive Branch. They've given the Executive the power to wage war, and entirely too damn much power to (effectively) make laws over the last half century or so. About time they reclaimed some of the Legislative powers they've given away....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Contact your state representatives and have NN enacted at the state level.
Except of you read what net neutrality does instead of the talking points, you would know its much more than bandwidth being 'neutral'.
Sadly, no one wants to read it. There is a reason the document is over 300 pages long.
It's interesting that you separated legislation from bureaucracy somehow there without... the reality of that. The only difference would be where the bill for oversight went, not how much it would cost or effective it might be or not.
Those details would be neutered when Republican open-lobbying-season directly allows Telecoms to author the legislation provisions themselves anyhow. Let's face it, they are 100% disinterested in fixing anything whatsoever here.
Why take a position when their self-deluded constituency doesn't even have the intellectual capacity to understand the issue, lest of all hold them accountable and demand it? It's whatever Fox News mind-programs them for, 100%.
"Corporations are just cowboys like you or me, who can regulate Freedom but God Almighty?"
If you actually even halfway expect them to do their jobs to improve or regulate the internet, I have nothing but bellies full of laughter for you. Legislation from Republicans regulating something effectively in 2018, lol.
That's a fucking knee slapper. Carry on.
Well that's how democracy works. We elect representatives to pass legislation. If they don't pass legislation, then that might reflect the actual wishes of the voters. New reps can be elected (and will be in a few months), and those priorities can change.
Just because legislation isn't passed doesn't mean you can subvert the legislative process with unelected bureaucracies assumed responsibilties that aren't theirs.
Drug legalization is happening across this country NOT by bureaucracies or Supreme Court decisions, but by the legislative process. That's the way it should happen in a republic.
Unless Congress Takes Action
And abandon their long-term strategy of not doing anything or being responsible representatives (or even adults)?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download)
Created in FreePascal/Lazarus 1.8.2 using GTK3 on OpenGL 3.1 via KDE Plasma desktop on Kubuntu 18.04 plus patches.
(Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any SINGLE solution (99% of threats = hostnames vs. IP address (that most firewalls use)) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!)
Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" competitors slowing you, hosts speed you up 2 ways (adblocks + hardcodes u spend most time @) vs. competition loaded w/ bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + their overheads (messagepass ('souled-out' to advertiser addons) + filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation.
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy - it's much better vs. the Windows model on many fronts (speed & efficiency, mostly (plus a new "merge" feature))... apk
The Wheeler net neutrality was a stupid, trash idea and good that it is gone. If Congress wants to pass a law then do application neutrality or something similar to that instead of net neutrality.
It comes down to this for me. Who do I hate worse, Google and Facebook, or ATT & Verizon? I gonna go with Google and Facebook. ATT and Verizon should not be prohibited from getting into the analytics and advertisements game. Plus they should be able to offer their customers tiered access to the internet based on their needs.
This is what I keep trying to say to everyone, but they won't have it.
Hopefully you'll have better luck getting past the "AJIT PAI IS EVIL" and "TRUMP IS A RACIST" walls.
Godspeed sir.
Spend 100 years using speech to persuade then short circuit it at the last moment by having a judge decide the will of the people has changed rather than elected representatives.
I have a soft spot in my heart for taking freedom by force if necessary, or even available, and judicial rulings like for gay rights pass that test.
I have much less sympathy for judicial activism that increases the power of government to begin controlling things in new or unanticipated (by Congress) areas.
Both sides seem to think it one way or the other for both, but I submit my position is most in keeping with the Constitution, that the People retain freedom, except where the government is clearly granted powers.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Just for the record, access to the internet more than doubled from December 2008 to December 2016.
We could appoint media tsars to block copyrighted media for the MPAA and RIAA. What a great idea goy.
Except of you read what net neutrality does instead of the talking points, you would know its much more than bandwidth being 'neutral'.
Sadly, no one wants to read it. There is a reason the document is over 300 pages long.
Why don't you tell us then, Nostradamus? Tell us about the horrors contained in that vast, 300-page tome.
BS spamming APK is on a rampage today.
Must be because he lost so much yesterday.
When you are such a failure that you have to resort to spamming slashdot to advertise a trivial little worthless program you know you are loser.
What is next, posts about bump stocks, a Jewish cabal, Zontar the Mindless, and conspiracie theories involving the Vatican and Hillary Clinton?
Or instead are you going to whine about being modded down and then call everyone ne'er-do-wells?
It won't help. NN is doomed. Doomed, I say!
While there are some minor inconsistencies with net neutrality the biggest one is lack of innovation and artificial scarcity of bandwidth.
Corporations just aren't encouraged to invest in their infrastructure with net neutrality.
Your a Moran.
Listen to this Fox News talking point out itself as thoughtless partisan faggot trash, lol. Trump will die in prison, Democrats will take back both houses, and your shit will be back to being retarded propaganda nickel efforts on the internet.
Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017
(APK's work), I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon February 11 2016
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015
I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015
I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017
I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017
*Want MORE?
Ask...
APK
P.S.=> See subject: Best part is this Linux 64-bit model is 10x faster & more efficient (does 2x the work in 1/2 the time, literally).. apk
That is essentially the problem. The way things like this are supposed to happen is that a few local governments get an idea so they pass a law mandating net neutrality. After some time to gauge the results of the law, a few states take notice and say "this looks like a good idea" and pass their own laws. And after more time to gauge how this affects the states, the Federal government takes notice and says "maybe we should make this a national law." These incremental steps, gradually expanding the reach of a law, allow us to properly gauge the law's effect and make modifications to it if problems should arise, before it affects the entire nation.
Instead, Tom Wheeler short-circuited the entire process and unilaterally declared that net neutrality must be the law of the land. Net neutrality isn't the only possible solution to this problem. The problem is actually government-created - local governments granted service monopolies to cable companies. These companies, assured that their customers cannot flee to another ISP, then intentionally degrade online services like Netflix to extort payments from Netflix to restore service.
The way it should work is some areas try net neutrality, some areas try rescinding these government-granted monopolies and allow multiple ISPs to compete, some areas try some different solution that we haven't yet thought of. Let these different solutions play out for a few years. Then we can study actual empirical data, and decide what's best for the entire country. And only then do we pass a national law with a solution to the problem.
The knee-jerk reaction method used to get net neutrality implemented via the FCC is totally the wrong way for government to operate. Heavy-handed decisions like this without first exploring possible solutions is what nearly saddled us with GSM. The original GSM spec was built on TDMA - each phone takes turns talking to the tower. Europe mandated GSM, and most of the rest of the world followed. The U.S. refused to require it, which allowed a competing service based on CDMA to develop. When phones started being used more for data than talking, suddenly the achilles heel of TDMA reared up. TDMA requires each phone to get a full timeslice even if it has little or no data to transmit. This wastes a huge amount of bandwidth. CDMA on the other hand allows all phones to transmit at the same time (they see each others' transmissions as noise, thus reducing the signal-to-noise ratio), and bandwidth is automatically allocated in proportion to how much each phone is transmitting. No wasted bandwidth. Within a year GSM threw in the towel, licensed CDMA, and added wideband CDMA to the GSM spec for data services. If the U.S. had gone along with the "sensible" decision by bureaucrats to impose GSM, then CDMA wouldn't have happened, and our cellular data speeds today would probably down around 1 Mbps. And many of the services we enjoy on our phones today wouldn't yet exist.
The Internet is doing damn fine as it is.
No, it fucking isn't. Right now, me and our company have exactly two ways to connect to the Internet (AT&T & SpectrumTimeWarner). Both are awful. They're trying to merge, so then we'd have exactly *one* for-profit company to purchase Internet access through. The Internet is not doing damn fine, and we desperately need some strong regulation in place to keep it from becoming AOL v2.
I don't respond to AC's.
The problem with that is with Republicans in charge, any net neutrality law would contain even more loopholes than the old FCC version. We saw that with Marsha Blackburn's bill. On top of that, relying on this or on inaction is a strategy of those opposed to it; they claim they're not opposed but want legislative action to decide it, but know that won't happen or won't be actual NN. While comprehensive net neutrality from Congress would be the better solution, enacting the FCC rules until that happens ensures bad practices won't get a foothold for the years it takes a bill to pass.
tl;dr Those opposing FCC regs until Congress acts are generally trying to see NN killed without admitting it.
Can you name one industry where the government has not needed to intervene to ensure companies act in the best interest of the public?
I sure as hell can't. Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency. Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity? Gov regulated (though often local monopolies). Gas/Water? Also Gov regulated. What happens when a Corporation isn't held accountable? You get another Ma Bell, exactly what we are seeing with Comcast, Google, Time Warner, and others.
I don't believe for a second that ANY corporation won't screw people over given the opportunity. Without net neutrality we *could* end up paying for "Social Media" internet packages to speed up access to FaceBook, or "Streaming" packages to get faster access to Netflix or Hulu. I'd rather pay my ISP for a one-size-fits-all x mbps, NOT a-la-carte based on my browsing habits.
I don't understand, I thought they had until January of next year to convince the House to vote in favor of it?
"The Internet is doing damn fine as it is. It became ubiquitous without net neutrality. Keep the government out as much as possible."
Yes, let's keep the government out of DARPA project.
You and Rudy can trade scaly handjobs in prison, but you faggot traitors will not decide what America will do for any significant length of time. Mueller will fuck holes into your face for the truth to soak in, you feckless cunt nazi trash.
We're going to round you faggot nazis up and burn you like the reich did books, and there's nothing you incel faggots can do about it.
Yes, but before Net Neutrality, remember when ISPs blocked VOIP, P2P, and video services that competed with their own? Why do you want to radically change things and return back to that world?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Let's face it, you live off the largess that blue states provide to red state hick retards like an allowance - only kids have to be well behaved to get an allowance in real life, you unreasonably spoiled clueless red state incel beggar.
Don't like it? Move back to Moscow, Incel Ivan. America doesn't need whiny faggot next-gen e-GOP chatbot crybabies. See if Turkmenistan is hiring, check Belarus. GTFO traitor, get off the blue state welfare anytime.
Sayonara Seniorita Incel GOP!
No, you're going to sit in your bedroom with your twenty year old air conditioner and ten year old HP special from Walmart, furiously posting away because you're just so mad that not only did your mom by the wrong kind of tendies last time she was at the store, her boyfriend will never be your real father.
Shut up, faggot. Go back to /pol/ and STAY THERE, or we'll have to use the hose on you again.
Cars keep getting more power, faster, new materials, new bells and whistles - and they are kept accountable by a Gov agency.
Safety is. Cars aren't. The government, ARBITRARILY mind you, just set unreachable CAFE standards. Just set them to what they wanted. You think your powerful and faster car with more bells and whistles will hit those standards? Nope. It'll be a one ton box of tissues that gets crumpled when a car from the 70's hits it. The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Televisions got more popular to the point where each home often has more than one, all content via radio/satellite/cable is regulated by the Gov. Electricity?
Do you think TV technology is where is is due to government FCC regulations? Are you kidding me? The FCC has little if anything to due with the explosive growth of the TV. Do you honestly think government regulations are why a 60" 4K TV is $500 now? Really?
Gas/Water? Also Gov regulated.
When hooked up to government supplies. Sure there are some safety standards for wells & septic tanks, but not like what you're suggesting. Government run utilities should have government regulation. But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time? Or citizens drink tap water in Detroit? Or Puerto Rico have power? I'll not point out the common political party that has been in power for decades.
You get another Ma Bell, exactly what we are seeing with Comcast, Google, Time Warner, and others.
You obviously don't remember Ma Bell. Tell you what. Sure, things are cheaper now, but you go ask someone who was around when Ma Bell was around and they were under government regulation as well. They were required to spend a certain amount of service and maintenance. You won't find anyone who complained of their service then. Sure, things are better now, but not if you're talkign about service.
Without net neutrality we *could* end up paying for "Social Media" internet packages to speed up access to FaceBook, or "Streaming" packages to get faster access to Netflix or Hulu. I'd rather pay my ISP for a one-size-fits-all x mbps, NOT a-la-carte based on my browsing habits.
Wait a sec... You mean people could actually have to pay for what they use? Whaaaa? Why that's crazy talk.
What people want is competition. Net neutrality isn't competition. It's a "ok govt, you control everything and I'll shut up as long as I can stream every fucking thing I want right now." That sounds fine. But then the prices go up for everyone with everything. It always happens.
I agree with you, and I'll be happy if they manage to head this off, but chances are the Internet will have to take the damage the ISPs and others are willing to deal to it before enough of the average citizenry screams bloody murder to their congresscritters on both sides of the aisle and forces them to change things. Either that or the Internet will become totally unusable, and like anything else people will just lose interest and go do something else instead. What too many people either don't remember or are too young to have been around for, is when there was no such thing as "The Internet". Life went on just fine without it being around, and life can go on just fine without it. If it becomes unusable or inaccessible due to being too expensive, then everything will move away from it. If they make 'walled gardens' of access levels, and people don't think it's worth it, they won't pay, and whatever is behind those 'walls' will go away. If it comes down to the point where the only things the Internet is good for is accessing government services and email, unless you want to pay through the nose, then people are going to say screw this and find another way. Won't be the first or last time something got ruined because too many people got too greedy. Who knows, if it comes to that, maybe someone will create "Internet 2.0" that's totally separate, and everyone will move to that instead. Or maybe we just go back to not bothering with it. Either way life will go on, nobody's going to die, the sky isn't going to fall.
It became ubiquitous without net neutrality.
Actually it is the other way around.
The "net was always neutral", until some fucktards tried to charge extra or prohibit things, and then suddenly "net neutrality" became a term.
Luckily I live in countries, mostly Europe, 1/3rd - soon 2/3rds, in Asia, where we do not need the term "net neutrality" because no idiot comes to the idea he could block certain traffic and charge extra to unblock it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Everything bad that happened during Obama's eight years was George Bush's doing.
The problem is actually government-created - local governments granted service monopolies to cable companies.
Can you name one such municipality? I honestly don't know of any, but if you know of one, I'd be happy to hear about it. Most of the time I've found that the reason why there is only one provider in a market is because another provider simply doesn't want to compete. They'd have to build out all the infrastructure and then convince everyone who had cable TV/internet/whatever to switch.
I know for a fact in Columbus, OH there is no service monopoly for cable because I can switch providers. Anyone can provide service here so long as they sign a franchise agreement. We have a grand total of two providers (Spectrum and WOW). Do you think Comcast doesn't build out infrastructure here because they aren't allowed or because they think it's a bad business proposition?
I think that the majority party have show themselves to be completely craven towards Trump. They are not going to rein in Trump and his administration unless a revelation (perhaps from Mueller) forces their hands.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Exactly my feeling. Let's actually create legislation that deals with our current infrastructure.
> Congress should pass an actual law
That is the correct solution instead of what Obama did which was to order the FCC to create more government regulations, barriers to entry, and more expensive to interpret rules. He should have instead taken action when the Democrats had the supermajority in the Senate, majority in the House, and the White House. By not doing so, he showed he doesn't think this is an important issue.
Even though Obama hurt small businesses with his oppressive regulations, he was still right because of his intent.
As someone that works for a small ISP "barriers to entry" is correct. Obama add more rules and regulations that weren't clearly defined so we had to hire an expensive law firm. Because of how ridiculous and vague Obama's rules were, we had to spend a lot of money to try to divine his intention.
Where do you get your "facts" from? Fox news?
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/...
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
I would add you to my foes list, because your posts are clearly devoid of facts, but unfortunately /. only allows 200 friends and foes and my foes list is already full of people who have drink the Fox news/Breitbart cool-aid.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The internet became ubiquitous WITH net neutrality, which was enforced at the beginning by two factors: the telecoms that owned the last mile were regulated by Title II as common carries for the phone service they provided, and internet piggybacked on that phone service; and because internet was piggybacking on phone services, ISPs did not own the last mile but rather offered a service on top of it, so it was much much easier to start a competing ISP without having to run new line, and that competition forced them to behave.
With the advent of phone companies themselves, and cable companies, BECOMING the ISPs, you suddenly had regional duopolies directly offering something that was not phone service and so not regulated by Title II. Then they started doing away with the until-then-defacto net neutral practices. Then laws started being passed saying they can't do that, and those laws were overturned because internet service was not categorized under Title II, so the FCC went ahead and made it that way, which it should have been all along. And now that's been reversed in turn, and this bill is just Congress ordering them to put it back.
TL;DR: This bill is Congress ordering the FCC to classify ISPs the same way that phone companies were always classified and thus how the dial-up internet was classified in the beginning, to make sure that things stay the way they always were and not how the new-ish local monopolies want to make them.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The small ISP I worked for in Seattle closed because of the Obama rules because they were so unclear as to the intent. Laws Congress passes are typically terrible, but laws the President dictates are worse since they don't go through a committee vote or a floor vote.
Man, you really are sensitive. Just providing some context to the crazy you're putting out there.
and rarely work
You're simply thinking too small
: .. with 60%, they could force measures without allowing democrats to even voice their oppinions
.which means voting with the party as opposed to with the best interests of people who voted for you. Or you have to establish yourself as a power broker yourself. Which means garnering support of the financial backers who will supply you power in office.
....
You're asking whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that a single political party would have control over a specific issue.
Shouldn't you instead be asking whether there is a much deeper and more fundamental problem with the political system when it's possible for a single political party to make unilateral decisions on anything.
Newt Gingrich is possibly one of the greatest American patriots of all time. This is a man who loves America more than almost anyone else and he doesn't even need a reason to do so. He simply knows that since he was ejected from a vagina following a clearly misplaced penile ejaculation in such a manor as to place him on the American team, it is the best country in the world NO MATTER WHAT. And he loves the country and all it stands for so much that he campaigned for president while bragging that he spent his entire political career trying to completely undermine the American democracy by eliminating checks and balances. (For reference see transcripts of his performance in the republican primaries)
America is in a state today where the country came dangerously close to
58% Republican in the house
A republican appointed majority in the judiciary branch (though supremes usually walk very close to center as it's too easy to block appointments)
55% Senate, 51% is enough to pass almost anything, but 60% would leave democrats entirely without a voice.
A republic president... though it was Trump and he's basically an independent who simply realized it was easier to force his way through the republican ranks than the democrats.
I don't really care whether the government is red or blue. I care that the government can be red or blue. America is failing miserably because the health and well being of the country has become a sport with two teams and players are picked like players for a football team.
American politics are based on power. If you're going to run for office, you need to do it as republican or democrat. This is why Bernie Sanders, a perpetual independent signed on with the democrats during the previous election. To run of office, you need the support and sponsorship of a party or you'll be unheard and not stand a chance. You have to join one of two teams and the only way you'll garner support from one team or another is if you join the team. Even Trump has to play by the republic rule book within certain limits.
The problem is, to get into office, you have to agree to kneel and deal as the power brokers say..
And the result is that the American system can no longer be "by the people" or "for the people". Instead is "by the parties" and "for the people controlling/funding the parties".
So... while you're claiming red or blue... you should consider finding some religion to have a deity to pray to for someone to weaken the red or blue power vacuums because both parties are run by people who think winning is about leaving at least half the American people completely and totally unrepresented.
That said... Net Neutrality became an issue because America is too damn big geographically and has way too few people per square mile in most parts of the country outside of the urban centers. There are government sanctioned monopolies that are granted to individual companies such as Comcast. The same people who complain that the government should stay out of their homes are the same people who wouldn't have Internet access or possibly even running water if it weren't for the government intervening and supporting them. These people if they have anything that
i wuz gonna try this, i could "of" but then I realized it wasn't relevant to anything I do or use *shrug*
You actually read that article, yes? That article doesn't say what you think it says.
Oh and BTW, you realize exactly how slanted this little nugget is right? "At the time, the federal government, California and the states that follow its standards, and the automakers were all on the same page."
Obama unilaterally decreeing that all cars have to have 50 mpg by 2025 is like the federal govt decreeing "all phones have to have 30 hours of continuous battery life by 2025." It's capricious and you are extremely naive if you think there are no consequences to such actions.
You really are a sucker for misinformation, aren't you.
My mistake. On the same day, not the same time. As if that makes the gallon limit any better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/31/california-drought-jerry-brown-sets-permanent-water-conservation-rules-with-new-laws/
Please call Kim Kardashian!
See subject: To tell you the ABSOLUTE truth from my heart - IF you would @ least show me you[ve done the same w/ our peers speaking well of your work (non-existent, only 'chatter' & FOOLS chatter, fool (u))? I'd respect you a bit - but NO, you have to "hide" behind your unidentifiable do-nothing ZERO "ne'er-do-well" bullshit instead (as it's "the best ya got" & it shows you're PITIFUL).
* I pity you wasting your life as you have... & I do understand your motivations (petty) - you WISH you were me but losers like YOU? LOL, I love you keep WASTING YOUR LIFE doing ZERO (all you know) - you're NOT in MY way or competition (thanks).
APK
P.S.=> There's winners (me) & LOSER (u) - all a matter of choice, will, & effort (which you have NONE in the 2 latter, obviously (or education & REAL skills in the art & science of computing))... apk
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
Mostly False, sucker.
I may have been wrong, perhaps, you don't get your "facts" from Fox news, instead, it's Zero Hedge.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The only way your reading is correct is if you discount some of what it says because it is "slanted".
Try this one:
https://www.cbtnews.com/why-th...
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
They quoted us $190 per hour. We should have paid that considering their strong influence with Obama.
Take the hint, guy.
It became ubiquitous by ceasing to be a closed DARPA project. Get a clue.
You're lying. Their quote to us was nearly $900 per hour. Either you're lying or you don't remember their quote correctly.
So you replied with misleading info, then I replied with the truthful info, and you took offense.
Nice.
Well, I did cite the ultraconservative "Mercury News."
BTW, I didn't say "illegal." You did.
You read your article correct?
CA is pushing for their standards. Automakers are currently sticking with the more stringent standards until things are settled. You are foolish if you think automakers are willingly going along with 50 mpg standard in 7 years because they want to. You see the cars that are being built now, yes? Do you honestly think buyers and automakers would prefer to buy and sell, respectively, the equivalent of the Ford Focus?
There is an election coming up in America. I suggest Google returns "Democrat" sites on Republican queries, and "Republican" sites on Democrat queries. And have a banner add explaining why net neutrality is important.
Yawn wake me up when the internet goes back to what it was pre 2015. Nothing will happen. The internet will still work. You'll still be able to download your pr0n. your 0 days and waste your life away on Facebook. Living in your parents basement won't change.
Have you looked much into Google's Nashville lawsuit (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/att-and-comcast-finalize-court-victory-over-nashville-and-google-fiber/)? From what I recall the monopoly is more implicit due to intense bureaucracy around attaching wires to poles. Whatever you want to call it, rents are being sought and granted.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
Federal law trumps state law.
Net neutrality will be repealed on Monday, and it will be glorious!
I hope everyone who supported it cries themselves to sleep for the next year.
they don't want a law.
they want it under the thumb of the FCC. an agency with rules that can change anytime for no reason.
an agency that gets a new leader with each new president.
this should tip you off...
MIT proved that. Our entire political system (the Senate & Electoral colleges in particular but gerrymandering and how our voting system makes voter suppression easy) is built from the ground up to protect the interests of wealthy land owners. This isn't a popular thing to say because, well, it goes against deeply ingrained mental conditioning you got when you were a kid. It's hard to get past the lies you're told before your brain is well formed enough to know what a lie is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Contact your state representatives and have NN enacted at the state level.
Yes. Please do. It'll make my state more competitive against yours.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
US states, cities and communities will be able to escape federal NN rules keeping them on paper insulated wireline monopoly networks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Their legal foundation was rock solid. This was after years of litigation already, and the neutrality regulations passed in 2015 were the result of all of that. Some of the earlier regulations, where they tried to enforce neutrality without classifying as title 2, those were rejected. But when the court rejected those, the court said specifically that all the FCC needed to do was reclassify. As they did in 2015. And then after that the 2015 rules were challenged and were upheld by the court.
As for your suggestion that Congress should pass a law instead of the FCC doing it... any such law would need to empower some sort of committee or government body to oversee enforcement, and to ensure that the law kept pace with technology. Oh wait, I'm describing the FCC.
No faggot Incel nazi, you are.
Nobody wants to be ruled by a council. That's way too slow and ineffective. They all want to be ruled by a "benevolent leader". Someone who can just Get Things Done.
At least, until they don't agree with the leader. Too late, hosers!
The only hope of having any form of net neutrality is a change in American politics.
It's dead Jim....
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
It does strike me as odd... that you think nothing has changed since the explosive growth of the internet and now.
In other news we don't need to worry about posting speed limits because cars aren't fast enough to actually be of danger when driven at top speed through the city centre.
See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download)
Created in FreePascal/Lazarus 1.8.2 using GTK3 on OpenGL 3.1 via KDE Plasma desktop on Kubuntu 18.04 plus patches.
(Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any SINGLE solution (99% of threats = hostnames vs. IP address (that most firewalls use)) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!)
Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" competitors slowing you, hosts speed you up 2 ways (adblocks + hardcodes u spend most time @) vs. competition loaded w/ bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + their overheads (messagepass ('souled-out' to advertiser addons) + filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation.
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy - it's much better vs. the Windows model on many fronts (speed & efficiency, mostly (plus a new merge feature))... apk
Prove it (you can't) & ask Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes IF he not only hosts but also recommends my work-> services@it-mate.co.uk by email!
* I've also got his statement of it on his forums @ his website (where you trolls harassed him as well & NOW you have to register & login there to do so & see it - used to be you could read it freely before you losers started your crap)
APK
P.S.=> You're a JEALOUS JOWIE do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" loser & you KNOW it (everyone else does) as you stalk/harass me all over this forum - IF I ever get ahold of you in real life? You're done... apk
See subject & keep blowing your abused "downmodpoints" (I'll just repost as I did here again) https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12204726&cid=56749754/ & you LOSE like always, loser.
APK
P.S.=> "Big Man" harassing & stalking me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous do-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" posts eh? IF I ever find you in REAL LIFE? You're f'ing done... apk
Safety is. Cars aren't. ...The car industry is FIGHTING the government's capriciousness.
Cars are subject to a lot of regulations - Emissions standards, Mileage requirements, safety, dimensions (there are maximum widths and lengths), Lights (brightness, signals, colors, etc...). The current fight is the mileage requirements, but industry will always fight change.
Do you honestly think government regulations are why a 60" 4K TV is $500 now? Really?
Nope, that's a result of mass production and decreasing materials cost. Television broadcast is regulated for things like language/content, as well as the frequencies that those signals are broadcast. The gov doesn't really do a hell of a lot here that I'm aware of.
When hooked up to government supplies. Sure there are some safety standards for wells & septic tanks, but not like what you're suggesting. Government run utilities should have government regulation. But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time? Or citizens drink tap water in Detroit? Or Puerto Rico have power? I'll not point out the common political party that has been in power for decades.
No, not when attached to Government supplies. Utility prices are managed by local governments, which is why city counsels are involved whenever there is a rate change. There are municipal approvals and zoning requirements for pipe laying, connectivity and access. The quality of the water supply isn't a directly partisan issue - it's likely due to a failure of oversight or established regulations.
Wait a sec... You mean people could actually have to pay for what they use? Whaaaa? Why that's crazy talk.
This isn't about Comcast's idea of paying per-byte - though they would love to see that. Currently ISP's charge for an up-to download rate with some combining that with a "bytes per month". This has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality.
What people want is competition. Net neutrality isn't competition.
Net neutrality IS about competition for content over-the-wire. It is anti-competitive when a consumer is bound to only that ISP's media offerings and must pay extra just to see a competitors content. Without net neutrality, Comcast can throttle or block EVERYTHING.
The closest analogue I can think of is Apples refusal to use standard connectors and charging extra for assorted adapters - if Apple was able to remotely limit the speed and control your use of said adapters and could charge extra with each use.
Everything you posted is misleading. Net Neutrality was the de facto law of the land until Verizon and Comcast started throttling Netflix traffic in 2014. That led to the FCC, acting in accordance with the Telecom Act of 1934, to implement regulations making Net Neutrality the de jure law of the land. Everything you have posted here is FUD.
When hooked up to government supplies. Sure there are some safety standards for wells & septic tanks, but not like what you're suggesting. Government run utilities should have government regulation. But if that is so great, why can't people in CA shower and wash clothes at the same time? Or citizens drink tap water in Detroit? Or Puerto Rico have power? I'll not point out the common political party that has been in power for decades.
That would be because of private companies running utilities. Why is it everytime a right winger tries to make a point, they inevitably use one that always traces back to a fuck up by private industry? It's like sadism in debate form; you come prepared to have your ass handed to you by reality.
You obviously don't remember Ma Bell. Tell you what. Sure, things are cheaper now, but you go ask someone who was around when Ma Bell was around and they were under government regulation as well. They were required to spend a certain amount of service and maintenance. You won't find anyone who complained of their service then. Sure, things are better now, but not if you're talkign about service.
Look kid, you clearly weren't alive during this time. I can't think of a single person that didn't complain of the service. They got broken up specifically for that reason. Go ask your parents when you get out of high school, they'll teach you.
Wait a sec... You mean people could actually have to pay for what they use? Whaaaa? Why that's crazy talk.
What people want is competition. Net neutrality isn't competition. It's a "ok govt, you control everything and I'll shut up as long as I can stream every fucking thing I want right now." That sounds fine. But then the prices go up for everyone with everything. It always happens.
I like the way the internet works now. I can pay X amount for Y bandwidth and use it for whatever I want. What you are suggesting is akin to automobile drivers paying different prices for gas to drive to different cities, plus an additional fee to use air conditioning, plus an additional fee per rotation of each tire, ad nauseum. AKA the libertarian paradise.
Nobody who has graduated high school (or who doesn't own the things they're trying to deregulate) wants that. Imagine if your kids asked you to pay an extra $100 a month per social networking account so they could do what they do today. Do you really want to spend $1200 a month JUST on internet access for social media? History has proven that private industry will always, and without a single exception in all of human history fuck over their customers at the first opportunity. Once you graduate high school you should read some real history and understand why intelligent people do not trust private industry at all.
"Congress should pass an actual law laying out exactly what should and shouldn't occur, and assign an agency to oversee"
Perhaps some sort of Federal Communications Commission?
This is preposterous. Congress doesn't have time or interest in monitoring every little rule that goes into a country. That's why they create the EPA, the FCC, etc etc etc. There's nothing wrong with Congress passing a law creating an agency to enforce the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, etc etc etc. HOW they do so, what little regulations get created to do so, Congress gives that agency the authorization to do so.
Congress shouldn't be debating stream water temperatures in the pacific northwest. They can barely get their own job done.
People saying what you've said are just trying to destroy the federal government.