Democrats Will Introduce Bill To Bring Back Net Neutrality (thehill.com)

Should of done it this way in the first place by ASCIIxTended · 2019-03-04 13:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Should have been law in the first place, not policy decided by 5 unelected guys in a closed room. Trump himself even said so much.

Now, the problem with the Democrats doing it is the bill will probably be 5000 pages long and include all kinds of other bullshit having nothing to do with net neutrality.

--
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'

Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:31 · Score: 1, Informative

Should have been law in the first place, not policy decided by 5 unelected guys in a closed room. Trump himself even said so much.
Citation required. And last I heard, Trump has over 9000 verifiable lies in a little over 800 days in office. Jesus, if Trump said something in between the ten lies he told that day, how would anyone have known whether it was another like or an accidental truth that slipped out?

Now, the problem with the Democrats doing it is the bill will probably be 5000 pages long and include all kinds of other bullshit having nothing to do with net neutrality.
You mean like the Tax Cut? The one that gave all the cuts to the top 1%? How many pages was that? And nobody got to see it even before it was brought to a vote? Yeah Pot, go ahead, call Kettles black.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by ASCIIxTended · 2019-03-04 15:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

You mean like the Tax Cut? The one that gave all the cuts to the top 1%? How many pages was that? And nobody got to see it even before it was brought to a vote? Yeah Pot, go ahead, call Kettles black.
My paycheck grew, so whatever was in the tax cuts worked for me.

--
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by WaffleMonster · 2019-03-04 17:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

My paycheck grew, so whatever was in the tax cuts worked for me.
The clown and his circus fucked with withholdings to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap. LOL suckers.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Gilgaron · 2019-03-05 00:34 · Score: 1

Your paycheck is affected by your withholdings more than the tax rate, if your payroll department is good you will get a similar refund to last year if your withholdings were the same. If they took too long to adjust the tables, you'll likely owe. Once you do your taxes, you can calculate your effective tax rate if it isn't already in your software. Mine went up about half a percent from last year.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 02:59 · Score: 1

to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.

Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap
Why would you want a return? That means you had the government take too much money. That means you coudn't use that money or save that money and earn some kind of interest in a savings account (any interest rate is better than what the government gives) or invest it (any return is better than what the government gives). Why would you let any institution hold your money for nothing?
People that were upset about a "smaller return" probably didn't pay attention to their paycheck and their effective tax rates. For me, I paid less taxes and I made more income. Doubling standard deductions for most people is going to be huge.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 05:50 · Score: 1

That's because people have had less withheld throughout the year. Your refund doesn't tell the whole story in what your total taxes were. In truth, only about 9% of wage-earners will have a higher (total annual) tax bill.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bu...

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by HiThere · 2019-03-05 06:04 · Score: 1

The Republicans being different from the Democrats doesn't mean that if one is bad the other is good. They represent different power blocks. Neither represents the citizenry, because elections are too expensive. The House is more representative than the Senate, because it's cheaper to run for Representative. (Except in places like Rhode Island and Vermont, where the state's small. *THEN* it becomes a timeliness factor.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:13 · Score: 1

Congress gave the FCC power to make rules. Including rules on net neutrality.
If you want to strip the FCC of that power, what's the point of having an FCC?
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:41 · Score: 1

So, what you've just told all of us is that you don't understand tax witholdings and returns.
I don't think I would have told that.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 08:45 · Score: 1

Your paycheck is affected by your withholdings more than the tax rate,
Withholding is directly affected by the tax rate. You can choose to withhold more, of course, if you want to loan your money to the government at zero interest.

if your payroll department is good you will get a similar refund to last year

If your payroll department is really good you will get no refund. Getting a refund, while it is psychologically satisfying, means you are losing money in the long run. It may seem like you are "sticking it to the man" by getting the IRS to send you a check -- HA HA! Bite me suckers!-- but it's really not a smart way to manage your money.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 08:49 · Score: 1

If you want to strip the FCC of that power, what's the point of having an FCC?
So they aren't busy making rules that have nothing to do with technical standards or coordinating the use of limited resources like radio frequencies. So the FTC can make the rules regarding trade issues.
Don't jump the gun and assume this new NN law is going to be a solution to any perceived problems. It's very likely that you'll find that the law that Pelosi doesn't want you reading to see what it contains will contain things like California's NN law that defines broadband Internet to be anything except dialup. Is that the kind of technical law you like?
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 09:52 · Score: 1

It's very likely that you'll find that the law that Pelosi doesn't want you reading to see what it contains will contain things like California's NN law that defines broadband Internet to be anything except dialup. Is that the kind of technical law you like?
Hmmm...it sounds like you think it would be better Net Neutrality regulations were made by a technically-savvy body with open rule-making policies.
Like the FCC.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 09:55 · Score: 1

When you start putting words in my mouth, I stop talking to you. You don't need me if all you want to do is make up stuff you want me to have said.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 10:17 · Score: 2

When you start putting words in my mouth, I stop talking to you.
You do realize that the text indented with the little vertical line is a quote, right?
You decried rules being made by non-experts, in secret. There's an alternative where a technically-savvy entity could make those rules, and they are required to do so in public. Which would fix exactly what you described as bad. But they're bad because......well, you didn't really bother to say. (The FTC does not have the FCC's required level of public rule-making, btw. Which would make them seem a bad alternative if public rule-making is important).
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by luminousone11 · 2019-03-05 10:49 · Score: 1

It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.
They increased the standard deduction, while dumping both personal exemptions, and the elderly(or medicare) exemption.

Yes your standard deduction went from $6,000~ to $12,000~(for single adult), but you lost the $4,000 personal exemption. And remember that the personal exemption is off the top before anything else, It won't lower the value of other deductions like the standard deduction does.

The base tax bracket went from 10% to 12% as well, Along side the lose of many many deductions in general, the SALT (State and Local tax deduction), a deduction put into place to avoid double taxation, the $10,000 cap doesnt effect the lower middle class, its most certainly is a hit to anyone living somewhere with high property values, and higher taxes.

Among the few positive things in the tax bill, the increase in the child tax credits, and making large chunks of those credits rebatable, its another step towards a basic income guarantee.

Neutral changes include things like the mortgage interest deduction changes, you can only deduct interest from a single primary residence and the cap from dropped from $1,000,000 to $750,000. This provision was mostly a fuck you to California and New York, and a few other "high tax states". The only proper change to the mortgage deduction would be to convert it to a one time use home purchase credit. This deduction is very very expensive, and as such could easily allow a $70,000-90,000 dollar home purchase credit per person(so double that for couples)(between 500,000 and 700,000 of these per year).

The vast majority of people got screwed by tax deform.

And once you start to look at secondary effects it gets worse. The corporate tax cut is creating a horrid situation for workers in "marginal profit" places, Workers(mostly in rural area's) now have to compete with the marginal expense of relocating the capital from that small town walmart to some magic wall-street instrument. When given the choice of paying a $1.00 to an employee in rural Alabama and maybe having a $1.10 at the end of the year after overhead for a $0.10 cent profit, they can just remove that dollar and pay it out as profit for a maybe $0.97 cent profit right now. Unless of course you are Amazon then its a $1.03 profit right now......

It is no surprise that walmart closed 100+ locations shortly after tax deform passed, And they are not the only example that I can site.

A bit of equity allocation adjustment is good and healthy in the long term, but equity isn't being reallocated, its being sold for temporary profit for a minority of people, at the cost of the wider economy. Its also accelerating the failure of economies in rural towns and cities across the country.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 11:44 · Score: 1

You do realize that the text indented with the little vertical line is a quote, right?
Now you are being an arrogant ass who tries to put words in my mouth. I replied to your comment that had no "little vertical line", which you do realize is stuff that YOU said, not me, right?
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Gilgaron · 2019-03-06 00:36 · Score: 1

Payroll doesn't set my number of withholdings, I do, but yes if they do a good job educating me then I get a minimal refund.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by jeff4747 · 2019-03-06 04:28 · Score: 1

I understand it can be difficult when you discover you believe two contradictory positions. But the fact that your arguments are contradictory does not mean I'm "putting words in your mouth". That's just your attempt to avoid the conflict.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-06 07:03 · Score: 1

Payroll doesn't set my number of withholdings, I do
And they will give you advice on what the best number is.

but yes if they do a good job educating me then I get a minimal refund.
If they do a good job you will get no refund. Why do you believe it is better for the government to borrow your money at zero interest instead of you having it where you can use it? The best withholding is what leaves you paying some amount when you file, but less than what would trigger a penalty.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by Obfuscant · 2019-03-06 07:05 · Score: 1

does not mean I'm "putting words in your mouth". That's just your attempt to avoid the conflict.
A conflict you created when you tried putting the word "secret" into my mouth. Your word, not mine. Now bugger off, troll.
Re:Should of done it this way in the first place by WaffleMonster · 2019-03-06 21:10 · Score: 1

It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.
Of course tax rates influence withholdings yet this is not the entire story.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/n...

Why would you want a return? That means you had the government take too much money. That means you coudn't use that money or save that money and earn some kind of interest in a savings account (any interest rate is better than what the government gives) or invest it (any return is better than what the government gives). Why would you let any institution hold your money for nothing?
While I tend to agree with this sentiment it's irrelevant WRT my comments.
The point is not every extra dollar in pay check is due to lower taxes. They lowered the margins on withholdings. You can have any opinion you want on the merits of it. My point is only that it occurred.

Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Net Neutrality has something like 80% + positive support among voters. Trump is already having the GOP Senate OVERRIDE his emergency order, if he picks another losing position before the election like vetoing what people want he's just risking more of the moderates he desperately needs having another irrefutable example that he's all swamp, in the pocket of big money and not doing his job of protecting them. Not all Republican voters are completely stupid. Just most.

Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games. The Democrats don't want to fix immigration because they'd give up one of their talking points. A talking point they've heavily invested in and that they believe gives them ownership of an entire demographic. Fixing things just isn't good for elections.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-03-04 14:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Using Obama as an excuse to defend any and every action by Trump is not working.
I voted against Obama twice. I suspect die-hard Trump supporters were too busy watching reality TV in 2008 and 2012 to even know there was an election.
And while Obama did have his pen and phone, Trump is signing EOs at a faster pace and Obama never signed an EO or declared a national emergency just to bypass the power of Congress to control the purse strings.

which allows Trump to do that and more

Oh really? So, eventually you expect us to devolve into a dictatorship where we still "officially" have a Constitution and separation of powers, but in practice we don't at all.

you called us racist instead.
Nobody called anyone a racist (excepting internet trolls) just for criticizing Obama, but the fact is there was a lot of racism directed towards him and there still is.

Except he's the devil the voters know...
Interesting. I've heard many Trump supporters say he was the devil we DIDN'T know in 2016 and that's why they voted for him. They knew what to expect from the career politicians so they gambled on Trump. Except some of us knew who Trump was too and I don't mean from his TV show either. That's why we voted against him.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by rtb61 · 2019-03-04 15:26 · Score: 1

It's a trap, the bill is not meant to pass, the whole idea is to run the bill as a distraction for two years. Forget all other corporate favoriting over the majority economic policies, this will be a distraction. Of course they will block it and of course it will hang around for two years, pay attention to this and forget everything else sheeple, that is the game. You have to remember what Trump did only favoured a hand full of companies and made thing worse for every other company, like 99.99% of companies are worse off without net neutrality.
The establishment wanted to lock in corporate censorship of the entire internet, shit that puts the worst authoritarian government to shame, the motivators nothing more that greed, ego and some pretty sick lusts.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 15:53 · Score: 1

Are you talking about those republican sf bay area corporations? H1B?
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-04 16:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nobody called anyone a racist (excepting internet trolls) just for criticizing Obama
I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
Forgive me, but Obama and the media were happy to pull the racism card on anything.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Cmdln+Daco · 2019-03-04 17:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do we have to put up with this crapflooding forever? Can't a few choice keywords like 'faggot' and maybe 'traitor' trigger an automatic downmod? This is pure unadulterated crapflooding, and extremely uninteresting to need to skip over.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Cmdln+Daco · 2019-03-04 17:11 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yet another reason to laud President Trump. He is doing an excellent job of totally trashing "executive overreach" in the Federal Government. By the time he leaves office the wings of the Executive branch will be severely clipped, and the precedent will stand. We couldn't be more fortunate as Americans that it is happening. Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc. should never have had the power they wielded in the past.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Cmdln+Daco · 2019-03-04 17:13 · Score: 1, Interesting

Double down on your zealous ignorance, motherfucker. Yes. Play with your poop some more. Thats a good crapflooder. Keep it up.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Never really used it??? Try 364+291+276 times!
# - President - Total Executive Orders - Order Number Range - Years in Office - Executive Orders Per Year - Period
41 George H. W. Bush 166 12668–12833 4 41.5 January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
42 Bill Clinton 364 12834–13197 8 45.5 January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
43 George W. Bush 291 13198–13488 8 36.4 January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
44 Barack Obama 276 13489–13764 8 34.6 January 20, 2009 – January 20, 2017
45 Donald Trump 97[1] 13765 and above 2.12 45.8 January 20, 2017 – present

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 04:47 · Score: 1

Obama signed 13 EOs for national emergencies. I bet you couldn't name one without googling.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 04:55 · Score: 1

Why does the total number matter when talking about executive overreach through E.O's? Wouldn't you care about substance than number?
An executive order giving federal employees a day off for a holiday is not the same as declaring DACA.
Counting raw numbers equates those two E.O. when they are very very different in substance.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 05:08 · Score: 1

You do realize that people tend to become more conservative with age. There are plenty of articles you can find on the topic.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-05 05:21 · Score: 1

I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
So they were saying fewer people than some pundits expected were racist? As in voters are less racist than assumed?
Even when they are saying you aren't racist, you play the accused-racist card.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by PopeRatzo · 2019-03-05 05:43 · Score: 1

You do realize that people tend to become more conservative with age. There are plenty of articles you can find on the topic.
The interesting thing about those "plenty of articles" is that they only deal with Baby Boomers, the most drug-addled and entitled generation. The same shift to conservatism with age has not been shown in other age cohorts. You can look it up.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 05:46 · Score: 1

Even when they are saying you aren't racist
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.

you play the accused-racist card.
I didn't know there was such a card to play. Do you have examples of it being used? Let me know about it the next time it's used as a get out of criticism tactic. Much like the "anyone who disagrees is racist" card. Because obviously calling out CNN and others that race bait and bully for a party under the guise of "that's racist to disagree" is totally just "play the accused-racist card". Whatever "play the accused racist card" means.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:02 · Score: 2

Perhaps if Congress would have done it's job instead of playing political games.

Congress is doing it's job. There is no crisis on the border and what issues that are at the border are not affected by a wall.
First, border crossings are way, way, way down.
Second, Drugs and immigrants would not be stopped by a wall, because those are coming through the official ports of entry. Drugs are smuggled in other shipments (or using things like tunnels that aren't affected by a wall). The immigrants are refugees, and federal law (and treaty obligations) require that we let them into the country while investigating their claim. So they don't sneak in, they walk up to customs and say "I'm a refugee, please help". And before you declare this to be false, this is according to the Trump-run Department of Homeland Security. Also, those refugees show up to all of their court dates 96% of the time.
Third, immigrants, legal or not, commit violent crimes at a rate far lower than the native population. So no, there are not a massive wave of super predators streaming over the border.
So, why spend billions now and billions on maintenance for a wall that does not address the actual issues on the border, and requires the government to steal land from citizens? It seems like a really dumb waste of money and a violation of US some citizen's rights. Which means Congress is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing by not appropriating the money to build the wall.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-05 06:39 · Score: 1

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.
Only in your head. Keep pushing that victim narrative.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 07:00 · Score: 1

Oh wow I didn't know you were there and saw the same thing! Obviously you understand what was said 10 years ago on a CNN panel from a paraphrased sentenced. Should we use a more recent example? How should I interpret: "Trumps victory is a white lash.". I would love your interpretation. I wait with bated breath.
It sounds like you are trying to defend race baiting partisan "journalists". It sounds like you are defending the "journalism" that has led to the spectacular embarrassments of Jussie Smollett and Covington kids.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by No+Longer+an+AC · 2019-03-05 07:27 · Score: 1

Yes, I can. The flu epidemic, for one. That was easy. Of course, it's harder to remember Obama's because NONE of them were in the least bit controversial.
I recently reviewed them ALL as declarations of national emergencies have been a subject of the news recently and it WAS covered by the Fake News MSM .
NONE of those national emergencies were used as a means of subverting the will and power of Congress.
Most of them actually simply froze assets of bad actors in countries like Yemen or the Central African Republic.
BTW, why does Trump believe the US is so weak that we need Saudi Arabia's money? How many jobs are our arms sales actually creating?

“It’s $110 billion. I believe it’s the largest order ever made. It’s 450,000 jobs. It’s the best equipment in the world.”
— President Trump, in remarks to reporters, Oct. 13, 2018
“$110 billion in purchasing. It’s 500,000 jobs, American jobs. Everything’s made here.”
— Trump, in an interview with Trish Regan of Fox Business News, Oct. 16
“Who are we hurting? It’s 500,000 jobs. It’ll be ultimately $110 billion. It’s the biggest order in the history of our country from an outside military.”
— Trump, in an interview with Stuart Varney of Fox Business News, Oct. 17
“I would prefer that we don’t use, as retribution, canceling $110 billion worth of work, which means 600,000 jobs."
— Trump, during a defense roundtable at Luke Air Force Base, Oct. 19
“So now if you’re talking about — that was $110 billion — you know, you’re talking about over a million jobs. You know, I’d rather keep the million jobs, and I’d rather find another solution.”
— Trump, in additional remarks to reporters after the roundtable, Oct. 19
The truth is that it's more like thousands of jobs...maybe even more than 10,000. And before you say if we don't sell weapons to them, they'll just buy from Russia, China and maybe even India do you REALLY think they can get parts and service for all their American made aircraft? Do those countries sell THAAD systems? Is the security of our nation really dependent on supporting war crimes in Yemen?
It's absolutely absurd that anyone believes a word that Trump says.
"The reason I do not want military drills with South Korea is to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. for which we are not reimbursed," - Donald Trump
FACT: It's more like $14 million
I'll try to cite some NON-MSM sources for that:
Canceling Joint Exercise with South Korea Saved $14 Million: DoD
The Pentagon says next month's Freedom Guardian exercise with South Korea would have cost about $14 million, one month after President Trump said canceling the exercise would "save a fortune."
‘War Games’ Trump Said Were Too Expensive Cost Less Than a Fighter Jet
Pentagon estimates U.S.-South Korea military exercises, canceled as too provocative and expensive, would have cost $14 million
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by greythax · 2019-03-05 07:35 · Score: 1

I think the rationale there is that Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified to hold public office. Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service, or patriotic service in the military, or other qualifying history of politics. Trump has none of these things, in fact, he publically sneers at these things. Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Lets not forget that we had to endure eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:11 · Score: 1

I say fighting is bad, but you punch me in the face anyway. Is it hypocrisy when I fight back and beat you down?
You set the rules. You started this war. Stop the whining.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:15 · Score: 1

Cohen!? Why are they letting you post on Slashdot?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 08:22 · Score: 1

uniquely unqualified to hold public office.

He is 35 and a natural born citizen, no?

Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service
So? The point of the US is that anyone can be president or a senator or anything. I think the fact that he wasn't a politician before speaks to the American system. I guess we could follow China's example and only those that have been prepared by The Party get office.

Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Is a border wall racist? Asking for a friend. When fighting a terrorist group called "Islamic state" it is racist to mention the "Islamic" part? Barring travel from countries that do not have any reporting standards we ask for is racist because those countries are predominantly Muslim. Is that like saying any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic because it is predominantly a jewish country?

eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
"The Right decrying Obama". I am not denying the birthers but you describing "the right" pushing a conspiracy isn't accurate. At all. How am I supposed to prove a negative? A right wing fringe group doesn't mean the entire group. Should we judge the left by the craziest of lefty loonies? 911 truthers and antivaxx commies? It's just as accurate at what you describe.
It's easy to claim everything is racist against the first black president. My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist. You are doing the same thing. Birthers exist therefore "the right" is racist. I am all for calling out actual racism but you and others go too far.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by greythax · 2019-03-05 08:49 · Score: 1

You are being willfully ignorant, and it is fooling precisely no one. Acting as if it's not unusual that the least qualified candidate, on criteria of both experience and morality, got the nomination of a major political party. Or that the only things he ever said about race and muslims were his desire to build a wall and his mention of a islamic terrorism and not, say, his highly publicised proposal to outright ban all muslims from coming into the country. Your cherry-picking is reaching the point of mental gymnastics. You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
Re:Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 09:27 · Score: 1

You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
Perhaps you should reread my comments in this thread again before you start frothing at the mouth. What comments are you talking about that were made before Nov 9 2016 would be the justification in describing Trumps victory as a "white lash"? Are comments from Trump enough to justify his victory as a "white lash"? Is race the only reason he won and it was because of pissed off white racists that is best described as a "white lash"? Do you understand why I am asking about "white lash"? Why did you bring up Trump and comments after the election to describe a "white lash" happening before he was elected?
Maybe you want to make everything about Trump but a lot of the problems we have predate Trump. Media bias is one of those things which was originally the point of this conversation. I thought I spelled it out for you when I said: "My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist."
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by greythax · 2019-03-05 09:59 · Score: 1

âoeDonald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countryâ(TM)s representatives can figure out what is going on.â from a press release of the Trump campaign, December 7, 2015.
Once again, willfully ignorant.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by TimMD909 · 2019-03-05 10:04 · Score: 1

I'd like to see more down mods on this for the poster's ignorance to the Scunthorpe problem. Is there a -1 Irony modifier available?
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 10:16 · Score: 1

That is the entire justification of a "white lash"?

December 7, 2015. Once again, willfully ignorant.
Oh no! I was thinking of something in 2017. God forbid. I was trying to be fair and is why I mentioned the ban. Not sure how that is "willfully ignorant'. Still not sure how that relates to the original conversation.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by greythax · 2019-03-05 10:40 · Score: 1

Willfully ignorant in as much as that took me 10 seconds on Google to find, a task of which I assume you are capable. There is lots more citations I could lay out, perhaps dozens, maybe even a hundred. But let's not kid ourselves, you aren't going to read quote number 43 and say to yourself, wow, this guy is on to something! In your head, no reasonable person could assume Trump was race baiting, and that a significant portion of his voters took the bait. There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you, no article that could be cited that you wouldn't instantly dismiss as nitpicking. You are a true believer, and that can't be reasoned with. I'm not going to speculate on your motivations, i doubt it would help much if i did, but i believe the last few posts have illustrated my point for me. Rather than continue this, I think I'll just let you scream the last word into the void.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 11:05 · Score: 1

took me 10 seconds on Google to find
Yes I did google. I found the comments about a "Muslim ban" in 2017 and that was one example I remembered off hand. Sue me.
Yes, Trump did race bait. I am not denying that. I am not denying birthers. I am not denying there are racists.
My contention is that "the right" is not racist for opposing or criticism Obama before Trump came to the political scene. I am contending that Trump winning wasn't because of some racist backlash to 8 years of a black president because Trump said some shit about some Mexicans and a ban on Muslims.

There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you
It would help if you proved your assertions instead of making vague connections because Trump was mentioned even though he is not the point of the conversation.
Re: Trump overruled by the Senate already. by jeff4747 · 2019-03-06 04:43 · Score: 2

All illegal drugs come thru legal ports of entry. Right, the cartels think it's easiest to send containers of drugs into the hands of customs and border patrol agents than to, say, loadvit on a boat and have cigarette boats go off-shore and get the drugs to bring it in.
That isn't according to me. That's according to the Trump administration. The vast majority of illegal drugs are smuggled within legitimate shipments. The second most common method was via tunnel.
You'll note that neither of these are affected by a wall.
You'll also note that your fantasy of using "cigarette boats" would not be affected by a wall either. It also can't deliver the required volume of drugs, which is why they smuggle through ports-of-entry.
(Btw, they weren't named cigarette boats because of smuggling. They were named that because the long, thin shape resembled a cigarette, compared to the wider, shorter 'cigar' of typical boats. Cigarette boats as smuggling tools is a media invention. Their cargo capacity is incredibly tiny, and the Coast Guard has aircraft, so they are not suitable for large-scale smuggling.)

If we had a consistent presence along the border and tracked every capture, then we could say how the drugs are coming across
Good news! We already have a consistent presence along the border and track every capture. That's why Trump's DHS is reporting most drugs arrive via smuggling through ports of entry.
It turns out you don't actually need a wall in order to patrol a border. Heck, there's these nifty inventions called "cameras" too!!

Everyone that crosses the border is a refugee
Nope, just the vast majority. It turns out people don't abandon their homes and most of their possessions to walk 3000 miles for fun.

Walls work
I eagerly await your description of how a wall will stop your seaborne drug delivery scheme.

One is solving, the other is blocking. Stop lying by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 13:44 · Score: 1

Every time you lie your balls get a little smaller, GOP. You can't continue at this false equivocation much longer, you'll lose what tiny bits you've got left.

The title of the bill is the opposite of what .... by Proudrooster · 2019-03-04 14:04 · Score: 1

If there is anything I've learned about these types of bills, the title is the opposite of what the bill is intended to do.

So this bill should be titled, "Stopping Net Neutrality"

What if the Democrats ...... by Proudrooster · 2019-03-04 14:06 · Score: 3

What if the Democrats actually "got smart" and were trying to woo the tech community back into the fold with real net neutrality legislation?

Re:What if the Democrats ...... by Proudrooster · 2019-03-04 15:25 · Score: 1

I do not think "false equivocation" means what you think it means señor anonymous coward.
You might find this website useful: https://www.cjr.org/language_c...
I know that terms like equivocation, equivocate, and false equivocation are used with little understanding in the media world, so it is understandable that you are confused.
Also, don't hide behind the AC, be bold.
Do you do run around in the real world wearing a bandana over your face?
Re:What if the Democrats ...... by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 08:52 · Score: 1

Tell me, is the sky blue on your planet like it is here on Earth? Sun come up in the east, too? It must be very odd living on a Bizzaro world where you think your politicians are any good at writing laws about technical things.

Re:Veto by trump by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

As a Republican, I'm perfectly fine with reasonable neutrality legislation while I also agreed with Ajit's pulling the plug. Using ancient common carrier classifications to regulate the internet was not the right way to do it. Doing it through proper legislation from Congress is the correct way. Legislation that understands modern communications and data. Not some agency deciding to use rules designed for POTS carriers to regulate the internet.

It was the wrong way to do it and needed to be ended. If Congress succeeds, it means that Ajit succeeded in forcing Congress to do its job.

Pointless as usual by SirAstral · 2019-03-04 14:08 · Score: 1

This is just another "appeasement" gimmick. This does nothing to harm the monopolies and unless it has been changed still allows for Zero Rating so no... its more like net neutrality wannabe while people that support it act like its any kind of a solution and cheer.

Destroy the monopolies, stop trying to manage them, they only buy your regulators in a tug of war that keeps you busy fighting for crumbs instead of having choice. Both parties have gotten good at mouth breathing how much they care about you... they don't.

Re:Pointless as usual by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:50 · Score: 1

I agree. Not being sarcastic when I say that the local governments should have total control of any network that requires imminent domain to implement. That would include roads, railways, and communication networks. If it is important enough to the community for government to forcefully take someones property for it, it should be important enough for the government to retain control of it.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Wait to see what's in the new Net Neutrality bi by sasparillascott · 2019-03-04 14:11 · Score: 1

Oh, you're totally right, the GOP is totally bought off except for social issues - but the democrats are only slightly better - looking back at history its the Dems doing what the lobbyists paid them to do (other than the wonderful FCC chairman we had last time from Obama - which was a total surprise because he was a former telco lobbyist).

So don't get me wrong, the GOP is totally bought off - but the FCC Net Neutrality that is likely to get restored by the courts will probably be much better than what we'll see in any bill in the House and Senate as Telco's, ISP's etc. will have wanted to pay them lots of money to put stuff in those bills.

Re:Pai's position is that Congress needs to do it by SirAstral · 2019-03-04 14:11 · Score: 2

Pai is Constitutionally correct.

The constitution makes it clear that only congress can make laws. They do not have the power to create a law making agency. They can only create agencies to enforce law and that's it.

Re: Pai's position is that Congress needs to do it by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:12 · Score: 1

Ajit Pai's position is that it's up to Congress, not him, to make law. That was his big issue with it.

Nope. His position was that there was some terrible harm caused by Net Neutrality which was a horrific burden to his constituents and so he concocted a fabricated reason and used a cofrupt process to stop enforcing the law against ISPs rather than serve the public at large.

EVERY TIME YOU LIE, GOP. EVERY TIME. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:23 · Score: 1

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/ajit-pai-admits-fcc-lied-about-ddos-blames-it-on-obama-administration/

I appreciate you taking the time to try to obfuscate instead though. People having clean drinking water and Social Security aren't "Big Socialism" - you've been lied to, and you've internalized the bullshit like a moron.

Now drink your coal ash slurry.

Pelosi wants to save the Internet? by LynnwoodRooster · 2019-03-04 14:25 · Score: 1

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Questionable... by atrex · 2019-03-04 14:27 · Score: 1

Until we have the text of the bill, I remain skeptic of the content. There's no mention of who wrote the bill, or who's sponsoring or co-sponsoring it. If Progressives aren't on board with it (AOC, Ro Khanna, Sanders, etc), then it's going to be a load of corporate horse crap.

Re:Questionable... by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 08:56 · Score: 1

If Progressives aren't on board with it (AOC, Ro Khanna, Sanders, etc), then it's going to be a load of corporate horse crap.
And if "progressives" are on board with it, then it's going to be a load of warm-fuzzy feel-good virtue-signaling technobabble that imposes social sanctions on technical problems.
Re:Questionable... by atrex · 2019-03-08 02:52 · Score: 1

If Progressives aren't on board with it (AOC, Ro Khanna, Sanders, etc), then it's going to be a load of corporate horse crap.
And if "progressives" are on board with it, then it's going to be a load of warm-fuzzy feel-good virtue-signaling technobabble that imposes social sanctions on technical problems.
There is undoubtedly some overlap between Progressives and SJWs but they are not the same thing. True Progressives actually value freedom of speech as opposed to many conservatives that weaponize it when it's convenient for them and ignore it when it's not.

Re:EVERY TIME YOU LIE, GOP. EVERY TIME. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 14:52 · Score: 1

You don't have one. Drinking water is socialism. Freeways are socialism. Education is socialism. Stoking unrealistic fear of anything you didn't eat/shit/burn is Republicanism.

Summer school is socialism, you're going anyway.

Read it and weep by SuperKendall · 2019-03-04 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I do hope everyone here will read what the bill ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than merely the claims that are going to be made about the bill...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Read it and weep by dgatwood · 2019-03-04 18:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately, this is true. It's a safe bet that it was written by lobbyists for their corporate masters, and that the American public will get totally and thoroughly screwed. I mean, I could be wrong, but statistically speaking, I'm probably not.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Read it and weep by x0 · 2019-03-05 02:17 · Score: 1

I do hope everyone here will read what the bill ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than merely the claims that are going to be made about the bill...
With Pelosi sponsoring the bill, no doubt you'll only be able to read it after it's been signed into law.

m

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'

I'm not sure I want government involved at all by ASCIIxTended · 2019-03-04 15:32 · Score: 1

While the concept of net neutrality is good, I'm not sure I want the government involved at all. Radio didn't require a license, then by law it did. Now an FCC radio license can cost a small fortune. For what?-- the FCC doesn't really do much of anything for their money.

Before you know it the FCC will require a license to have a website or email address, and email addresses will be linked to your SSN for identification. Don't forget Internet access taxes - just like phones have now. I'd rather the Internet remain free even if I have to shop for my ISP to get an un-throttled connection.

Maybe breaking up Comcast would be a better plan?

--
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'

Re:I'm not sure I want government involved at all by Pikoro · 2019-03-05 03:33 · Score: 1

"Now an FCC radio license can cost a small fortune"
Not sure who's ass you pulled that from. The cost is typically less than $30, typically $15. If that's a small fortune to you, you may have other concerns.

--
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Re:I'm not sure I want government involved at all by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 09:19 · Score: 1

Now an FCC radio license can cost a small fortune.
The last license I got cost $0. The one prior to that was $15 because I went through a VEC that charged $15. Laurel VE charges $0. The cost of a license depends on what kind of license. A commercial broadcast license may cost what you think is "a small fortune", but once you have one it's a cash cow.

For what?-- the FCC doesn't really do much of anything for their money.
Really? The fact that you can listen to the local radio station you want without another one interfering is due, in large part, to FCC frequency allocations. The fact that your local public safety and land mobile users can talk to each other without a thousand other users on their frequencies is due to FCC action. (Yes, there are frequency coordinators to help identify non-interfering frequencies, but it is the FCC license that keeps users where they belong.) The fact that there aren't 100 different types of radio is also due to FCC action. Compare broadcast FM to amateur FM and notice that there are a large number of different modes for amateur -- all incompatible. P25, DMR, Tetra, Fusion, D-STAR. That's (mostly) just voice. JT65, MT63, Vara, FT8, etc. etc. for pure digital.
Remember analog TV? The FCC rules that meant your analog TV receiver could receive any station? The FCC rules that meant that your B/W TV could pick up color TV? That your color TV could pick up B/W broadcasts? That defined the ATSC system? That even provided rebates so people with analog TVs could start picking up digital without having to buy a new TV?

Before you know it the FCC will require a license to have a website or email address,
Right. Sure. You can make up any ridiculous fiction you want if all you want to do is spread fear and lies.

Maybe breaking up Comcast would be a better plan?
What would that gain? Would it create more ISPs? Hardly. Would it create more cable TV providers? Probably not. It will still cost a lot of money that will not be recouped for someone to compete as a cable TV provider. It's not a fictional dejure monopoly that limits competition, nor is it the existing defacto, it's economic factors. You could split Comcast up into one-company-per-town and it would still cost the same to run infrastructure to compete in the dying cable TV market, and it would change nothing about the existing ISP market.

Re:Veto by trump by ASCIIxTended · 2019-03-04 15:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Does anyone think Trump will allow this to pass?

After all, he did put Patel in to power. Would he sign a bill that disagrees with Ajit's position?

Actually, Obama put him into power May of 2012.

--
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'

Day 268 of the post-Title II era by zioncat · 2019-03-04 15:53 · Score: 1

The Internet is free and open.

If you ever wondered how anyone will continue to believe in doomsday cult after supposed day of rapture come and goes with nothing happening, just look at "net neutrality" folks still bravely fighting to save the internet.

Re:Day 268 of the post-Title II era by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:18 · Score: 1

Actually, the un-title-II'ing went into effect far after the official FCC vote. So your day count is off.
Also, the ISPs are aware of the public relations disaster that awaits them if they exploit the new rules at this moment. So they're not dumb enough to do much yet.

Re:wtf by Narcocide · 2019-03-04 16:12 · Score: 1

The entire premise of your statement (that net neutrality wasn't what we were operating under this entire time) is completely false. Either you've been fed a huge lie that you're now parroting, or you're the one feeding the lies.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by Cmdln+Daco · 2019-03-04 16:55 · Score: 1, Troll

Net Neutrality as most often proposed is a gimmick. If it becomes highly politically partisan, it will be a creaky shrieking gimmick. The stench will kill it permanently.

80% "support it"?? WTF does that even mean? Did the pollsters who said "Hillary would win" cook that number up?

when the republicans vote against this by cats-paw · 2019-03-04 17:14 · Score: 2

can we forever dispense with the "both parties are the same" nonsense ?

my guess is not.

and BTW, if you give a shit about the environment, they are most definitely not the same.

--
Absolute statements are never true

Re:when the republicans vote against this by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 18:10 · Score: 1

... "both parties are the same" nonsense ?
I'll consider the Democrat and Republican parties different when one of them legislates against endless corporate rights, or perpetual monopolies: Broadband and IP copyright are an obvious starting point but I'll also include generic pharmaceuticals. Or, legislates for socialist policies like universal healthcare or carbon-neutral energy.
Protecting the common good demonstrates good leadership but doesn't mean the party has better policies.
Re:when the republicans vote against this by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:21 · Score: 1

"Both parties are the same" is required to maintain the status quo. It also makes being a pundit way easier since it sounds intelligent and informed. You don't have to actually understand any issue, you can just type up a "both sides!!" op-ed and move on to the next cocktail party.
You don't want those poor pundits to miss their cocktail parties by actually understanding the issues they cover, do you?

You're still a moron avoiding reality. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-04 17:14 · Score: 1

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/did-russia-meddle-with-net-neutrality-comments-nyt-sues-fcc-to-find-out/

Doesn't solve the problem by Solandri · 2019-03-04 17:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

The ISPs do not have natural monopolies. They have government-granted monopolies. Instead of passing Net Neutrality, which only attempts to address one of the symptoms of these monopolies, why not just solve the problem altogether? Pass legislation prohibiting local governments from granting monopolies. Require at least two cable and two phone companies in every local jurisdiction. Then if one of them tries something stupid like throttle Netflix as a ploy to extort Netflix into paying them, their customers will simply cancel and switch service to the competitor ISP.

Re:Doesn't solve the problem by dgatwood · 2019-03-04 18:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

The ISPs do not have natural monopolies. They have government-granted monopolies.
For the majority of the country, the monopoly is, indeed, a natural monopoly. The average lifespan of a second cable company in most of America is measured in single-digit years. We've seen it time and time again. A new company comes in because the old cable company is charging extortionate prices. The existing company drops their prices, undercutting the new company and preventing them from getting enough subscribers to pay off the interest on their physical plant (all those cable lines). After three to five years, the newcomer gives up and sells off its assets to the incumbent, who gets a new (often government-subsidized) network infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of building it themselves.
A local government can "require" two cable companies all it wants to, but in practice, the only way that is ever going to happen is if that government steps in and pays for the cost of running the cable lines. Otherwise, there is way too much first-mover advantage for a second company to ever succeed. And this is true very nearly everywhere, with the possible exception of major cities.
And if the government is building out the infrastructure anyway, then doing it for a for-profit company is just corporate welfare. Why not instead create competition the right way — by leasing the use of that infrastructure non-preferentially to any competitor that wants to do business in your community? This approach, unlike competing wire providers, actually works in practice.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by thegarbz · 2019-03-04 23:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

You're viewing this to narrowly. Yes the ISP's monopoly is government granted, but it is also most definitely natural. Being an ISP has an incredibly expensive cost of entry which creates the natural monopoly. How do you fix that by legislation? You can't legislate a company into existence. Mandating competition where naturally none exists doesn't work. The only alternative is for the government to enter the field directly and pay for the infrastructure which is how countries get into this situation in the first place when the result gets privatised.
There's a word for that: Duopoly and it's no better than a monopoly.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-05 01:59 · Score: 1

Local loop unbundling (LLU). The company that owns the infrastructure is required by law to make it available to other ISPs at the same price it charges itself.
LLU has worked in a number of countries. For example in the UK you have a choice of ISPs using BT's copper phone lines. Your ISP of choice installs their own hardware at the local exchange or in the cabinet near your house.
It's far from perfect and there can be issues with the infrastructure owner not investing enough in the network (BT is definitely guilty of that), but at least there is a choice of ISPs. Doesn't just have to be copper phone lines either, it can be used for the cable conduits, for utility poles, pretty much any infrastructure.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by thegarbz · 2019-03-05 03:34 · Score: 1

LLU is not a silver bullet. It's a bandaid for a horrible situation. LLU reduces the incentive for any investment while at the same time creates a situation where the local loop is slowly left to rot. You can see that in Australia where they introduced LLU in the mid 00s only to steadily drop in world rankings for internet connection quality to say nothing of the brief drop in price which has now crept up way higher than it was when Telstra had their monopoly in the first place.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-05 03:44 · Score: 1

The issues with lack of investment can be fixed by requiring a certain proportion of the fees to be used for investment, or better yet by forcing the fees on old technology down while keeping them higher for new stuff, creating an incentive to upgrade speeds and infrastructure.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:35 · Score: 1

They have government-granted monopolies.
No, they don't.
Local governments granted cable TV monopolies in the 1970s and 1980s to spur the rollout of cable TV. Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates, and those dates have passed.
Also, a monopoly for cable TV does not grant a monopoly for Internet service. You can tell this by the fact that both the cable TV company and the phone company are offering you Internet service. If the old cable TV monopolies applied, the phone company couldn't offer you service.
The "last mile" is the expensive part of any ISP. The cable and phone companies already have that "last mile" connection, which gives them a natural monopoly. They've already paid for that rollout, and thus they can afford to drive any competitor out of business. That's one of the big reasons Google Fiber "paused" their rollout - Google came to my city and Spectrum and AT&T slashed their prices to try to make Google unprofitable enough to give up.
Note that if Spectrum and AT&T were actually cutting prices due to competition, they would have already done so since they compete with each other. They didn't until Google showed up, because they're trying to drive Google out.

Require at least two cable and two phone companies in every local jurisdiction
How, exactly, are you going to do this without the government rolling out the wires themselves? There is nothing legally stopping a second cable TV provider from servicing your house right now. No one does it because the incumbent's natural monopoly will make it a money-losing proposition.

Then if one of them tries something stupid like throttle Netflix as a ploy to extort Netflix into paying them, their customers will simply cancel and switch service to the competitor ISP.
Or the other one will also throttle Netflix, because making your customers pay to un-throttle Netflix makes a lot of money. There's no particular reason to believe ISPs will not behave like a cartel.....especially since they already do.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:40 · Score: 1

Yes the ISP's monopoly is government granted
No, it isn't.
Cable TV monopolies were granted by many municipalities in the 1970s and 1980s. Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates that passed by 2000.
Also, a cable TV monopoly is not an Internet Service monopoly. You can tell this because both the cable company and the phone company are offering to sell you Internet service.

You can't legislate a company into existence
Sure you can. The TVA is a corporation created by the government. The government owns the company via being the primary (only?) shareholder.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 09:33 · Score: 1

The ISPs do not have natural monopolies. They have government-granted monopolies.
For the majority of the country, the monopoly is, indeed, a natural monopoly. The average lifespan of a second cable company in most of America is measured in single-digit years.

You make the same mistake of jumping from "ISP" to "cable company". Cable television infrastructure is just one way of delivering Internet services. If you want to talk about monopolies for ISPs, stick to ISPs. Then count the number of ISPs there are and see if "a lot more than one" doesn't put a crimp in the claim that there is any monopoly for ISPs.
The OP makes the mistake of ignoring that there are NO government-granted monopolies for ISPs. Not a single one. There USED to be "exclusive franchises" for cable television companies, but that was outlawed more than 20 years ago, and any such franchises are long expired. There MAY be exclusive franchises for wireline telephone companies, but that's for the wireline telephone service, not because they are an ISP.

A local government can "require" two cable companies all it wants to,
Actually, it can't. A government cannot force a company to come into a market to compete. It can only get out of the way and allow them to, which happened under federal law a very long time ago. The fact that nobody wants to compete against an existing company isn't a "government-granted monopoly", it is pure economics.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by thegarbz · 2019-03-05 09:44 · Score: 1

No it isn't but yes it is?
A government granted monopoly doesn't just expire if the result is that the recipient of it retains a natural monopoly as a result. It is still very much government granted. Also you're missing the last line of my post. Just because another alternative exists doesn't mean everything is magically okay. Having a duopoly between a cable provider and a phone based ISP is not much better than having a monopoly.

Sure you can. [tva.gov] The TVA is a corporation created by the government. The government owns the company via being the primary (only?) shareholder.
That's not legislating a company into existence. That's the government using tax dollars to get into business. It's still very much a business that needs to be built up and needs dollars invested into it. The fact you don't get these dollars from capital market investment doesn't mean you've legislated a company into existence.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by Obfuscant · 2019-03-05 09:49 · Score: 1

Almost all of those monopolies had expiration dates, and those dates have passed.
The "monopolies" did not have expiration dates; the franchises had expiration dates. Had there not been federal law prohibiting exclusive franchises more than two decades ago, it would have been possible, and likely even, for those existing exclusive franchises to have been renewed as exclusive franchises. They could not legally be renewed as such, and so the "government-granted monopoly" status died with the renewed non-exclusive franchise.

No one does it because the incumbent's natural monopoly will make it a money-losing proposition.
It's not just the natural monopoly from being an incumbent that limits new competition. It's the realization that the market size for cable services is FIXED. There are only so many homes/potential customers in any geographic area. Any competitor has to either rely on getting people who currently do not subscribe to do so (unlikely), or steal customers from the other op.
This is completely unlike the situation for most companies. When a new grocery store opens in a community, it can get customers from surrounding communities, too. For example, a Costco opened up in a town ten miles away. They get shoppers from all over the area, not just from within the legal boundaries of that city. An auto repair shop can get customers from anywhere. A cable company, however, cannot sell services outside the area it has a franchise for.

Also, a monopoly for cable TV does not grant a monopoly for Internet service.
Bingo, ding ding ding, this is the fact that people who claim that ISPs have "government-granted monopolies" do not understand. The ancient practice of exclusive franchises for cable TV providers has absolutely nothing to do with NN or ISPs today simply because cable TV infrastructure is just one means of delivering Internet services. It would be like saying that KATU-TV has a monopoly on video delivery services because it has an FCC license for that specific channel, which ignores that there are a lot of other video delivery services that either use a different channel or don't use broadcast radio frequencies at all.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by thegarbz · 2019-03-05 09:50 · Score: 1

At what point do you stop throwing regulation at it and just nationalise the infrastructure? After all you're suggesting the government should run it as it is. Throwing money at the problem while being run by private companies hasn't worked in the USA or Australia in the past, what makes you think the future looks any different?
Plus careful. If you use that "R" word here the republicans may lynch you.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 10:04 · Score: 1

A government granted monopoly doesn't just expire if the result is that the recipient of it retains a natural monopoly as a result.

Um....you described it perfectly. The government monopoly expired. Thus there is no more government monopoly.
Yes, there's a natural monopoly now. But that monopoly is not enforced by the government, and the fact that I went from one to three high-speed ISPs is a good thing. They just had to be corporate behemoths that could fund the rollout, which is a bad thing.

Having a duopoly between a cable provider and a phone based ISP is not much better than having a monopoly.
Nope it isn't. It also isn't a government-granted monopoly.
Look, when you say things like there is a government-granted monopoly, you convince people to demand the government stop granting a monopoly...and that's it.

That's not legislating a company into existence.
There is literally a law, passed by Congress and signed by FDR, that created the TVA. What, exactly, about that is not legislating a company into existence?
Not to mention the very concept of "company" is a legislative creation.

That's the government using tax dollars to get into business.
Nope. The TVA is not run by the government. That's the big difference. The decisions are made by the company and it's board. Yes, those people are appointed by the shareholder (the government) but they can say "screw you shareholders!!" as much as any other corporation.
Look, the TVA is a fantastic model for solving the last-mile problem in Internet service. It literally is what you proposed in your post, without the privatization end-state you fear.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-05 10:36 · Score: 1

Well, personally I would nationalize it, but this kind of regulation seems more practical from a political perspective.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by dgatwood · 2019-03-05 13:55 · Score: 1
You make the same mistake of jumping from "ISP" to "cable company". Cable television infrastructure is just one way of delivering Internet services. If you want to talk about monopolies for ISPs, stick to ISPs. Then count the number of ISPs there are and see if "a lot more than one" doesn't put a crimp in the claim that there is any monopoly for ISPs.
No, it doesn't. There are only three real ways of delivering broadband currently:
- Cellular — competition is inherently limited because available spectrum is limited. Therefore, we will never have many more cellular companies than we already have. There is no meaningful competition between them, and they are in the middle of further consolidation, because it turns out even four is more than are practical. Also, unless you just happen to be right next to a tower, LTE service does not even meet the federal minimum limit for being called broadband (25Mb/3Mb). In other words, this might as well not exist.
- Fixed wireless — this only works well in high-density areas, and requires unsightly equipment that is often not allowed to be installed. So again, in most areas, this might as well not exist.
- Cable/fiber/twisted pair wired infrastructure. Of these, twisted pair doesn't have broadband at any meaningful range, which leaves cable and fiber. So you have at most a duopoly, and that's if the phone company thinks there is enough profit to be made by worth running fiber to your neighborhood. Otherwise, you have a monopoly.
As a result, almost 21% of households have exactly one broadband provider, and that's cable TV. And an additional 19% don't have access to any service that meets the minimum criterial for being broadband (source: Ars Technica). It isn't that I'm ignoring other types of ISPs. They just aren't viable outside of dense population centers, which makes them all entirely moot for the purposes of this discussion.

The OP makes the mistake of ignoring that there are NO government-granted monopolies for ISPs. Not a single one. There USED to be "exclusive franchises" for cable television companies, but that was outlawed more than 20 years ago, and any such franchises are long expired. There MAY be exclusive franchises for wireline telephone companies, but that's for the wireline telephone service, not because they are an ISP.
It should be noted that only local-level franchising laws were banned in 1992. State-level franchising laws are still allowed. But still, it doesn't matter, because as I said, even where local governments opened up their towns to multiple cable companies, the result was almost invariably the complete and total failure of any newcomer.

A local government can "require" two cable companies all it wants to,
Actually, it can't. A government cannot force a company to come into a market to compete. It can only get out of the way and allow them to, which happened under federal law a very long time ago. The fact that nobody wants to compete against an existing company isn't a "government-granted monopoly", it is pure economics.
I think you kind of misunderstood that statement. The construct "X can do Y all it wants to, Z" does not actually imply that X has the right to do Y. Rather, it means that even if we assume that X is capable of doing Y and does so, then Z. I guess it's a southern thing.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by Obfuscant · 2019-03-06 07:38 · Score: 1

No, it doesn't. There are only three real ways of delivering broadband currently:
And now you are making the argument that there exists a government-granted monopoly on ISP services because there exists just one means of delivering the speed of service for the price you're willing to pay. There are a lot of ways of delivering ISP services, and "cable TV" isn't the only one. The fact that "cable TV" no longer has a government-granted monopoly seems to be irrelevant to you, and the topic is about government-granted monopolies to an ISP. The context of the comment of mine you quoted was government-granted monopolies and ISPs.
But even when you try to limit the delivery of broadband to three media, that still shows there is no government monopoly. You deny that wireless fixed broadband exists because it doesn't work for you. Sorry, we have that where I live. It's not a densely populated area. It doesn't take a lot of unsightly equipment that is prohibited. It's not the most popular system, but they clearly exist and count. And trying to claim that because some parts of the country aren't suitable for wireless fixed service doesn't create a government-granted monopoly in those areas, either.

It isn't that I'm ignoring other types of ISPs.

Yeah, it's just that you deny they exist. "In other words, this might as well not exist." You don't get to deny something that clearly exists does exist so you can prove there is some government monopoly system for ISPs.

I think you kind of misunderstood that statement. The construct "X can do Y all it wants to, Z" does not actually imply that X has the right to do Y.

You say it can do something it cannot. I say it cannot. You correct me by telling me that it cannot, so what's the problem?

It should be noted that only local-level franchising laws were banned in 1992. State-level franchising laws are still allowed.
Nobody said that franchising laws are not allowed. Federal law allows franchises, but specifically states that exclusive franchises are prohibited, and failure to grant additional franchises are allowed only for certain reasons. That applies to city, county, and STATE franchising authorities, because the law does not differentiate when it make the prohibition. In fact, federal law does NOT prohibit "local-level" franchises. It is states that have acted to centralize the franchise authority, and even then, they are subject to the prohibitions found in federal law.

But still, it doesn't matter,

Of course it matters. It's dejure proof that government-granted monopolies for cable television services are PROHIBITED. It's black letter law. And there has never been an exclusive franchise or "government-granted monopoly" for any ISP. I've had a standing challenge for people to name one, but nobody has yet been able to. Can you?
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by dgatwood · 2019-03-06 10:48 · Score: 1

And now you are making the argument that there exists a government-granted monopoly on ISP services because there exists just one means of delivering the speed of service for the price you're willing to pay.
Bear in mind that my argument was not there was a government-granted monopoly. Rather, I argued that there is a natural monopoly on broadband, which means precisely that only one company can viably deliver the level of service that qualifies as broadband for a price that customers are willing to pay. The crux of my argument was that, based on repeated failures to compete back when there were government-granted monopolies, even if there are places where government-granted monopolies still exist, those monopolies are purely academic, because the natural monopoly would still exist without that government interference.

You deny that wireless fixed broadband exists because it doesn't work for you. Sorry, we have that where I live. It's not a densely populated area. It doesn't take a lot of unsightly equipment that is prohibited.
It's not that I deny that it exists. It is that if it were actually financially competitive, someone would have done it already in any given area. Yet fixed (non-cellular) wireless is relatively rare outside of urban or suburban areas. One possible reason for this is that increasing customer bandwidth for fixed wireless is relatively expensive compared with the cost of increasing bandwidth over coax, meaning that a lot of fixed wireless companies seem competitive at first, but quickly stop being competitive, eventually becoming one of the slowest services available before shutting down service entirely.
Even in the Bay Area, fixed wireless companies tend to last only a few years before going under. The junk heap of history is littered with the husks of wireless ISPs that have failed.
Also, many of the larger fixed wireless providers don't even meet the 25 Mbps minimum to even qualify as broadband, making them moot. True wireless fixed broadband is pretty much a unicorn. They might exist, but you'll probably never actually see one in practice.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by Obfuscant · 2019-03-06 11:49 · Score: 1

Bear in mind that my argument was not there was a government-granted monopoly. Rather, I argued that there is a natural monopoly on broadband,
You read nothing I wrote, did you? It's economics, not goverment, that results in cable TV having a natural monopoly. But that does NOT apply to ISPs. There are simply too many ISPs to ever claim there is any monopoly at all.
When the Colorado town decided to create its own municipal broadband because there was a "monopoly" they needed to destroy, I did some simple research. Guess what? Instead of a monopoly on ISP services, there were actually at least 8 residential broadband providers in that town, and at least 8 commercial, and they weren't the same 8. Not a monopoly. But because the only CABLE TV service was a monopoly, and it was also an ISP, they claimed there was a monopoly on ISP services. And stupid people believed it. One of the commercial ISPs was Level 3. Are you going to claim that Level 3 is not an ISP?

which means precisely that only one company can viably deliver the level of service that qualifies as broadband for a price that customers are willing to pay.
And THAT is a perfect description of the argument I said you were making. Only one provider of the service at the speed you want at the price you think you should be required to pay. That's not how a monopoly is defined, sir. Monopoly means one provider period. There are lots of ISPs, and there are ISPs who will provide the speeds and service you want for more than you think you ought to pay for it. Level 3, for just one, surely finds customers who will pay what it asks. How do they stay in business otherwise?
If you think that qualifies as "monopoly", then let me talk about the monopoly that Subaru has on the US automobile market, since only Subaru makes a vehicle that I like at a price I think is reasonable. Now, ignore all the other car manufacturers that sell cars to everyone else, Subaru is an evil monopoly because I said it was. Right? Shall we go there?

The crux of my argument was that, based on repeated failures to compete back when there were government-granted monopolies,
There has never been a government-granted monopoly to an ISP ever. At least not in the US. I challenged you to name just one, and you were not able to do so. The problem is that you consistently and repeatedly confuse "ISP" and "cable company", freely switching between the two, non-synonymous things, to try to prove there is some monopoly for ISPs. Yeah, two cable companies don't survive in one place. That's not because either one or neither one or both of them are ISPs, it's because there is a limited number of subs for their services and they can't both profit from cable TV if they compete. But ISPs, gosh, they're a different thing.

It's not that I deny that it exists. It is that if it were actually financially competitive, someone would have done it already in any given area.
I quoted you as saying it doesn't exist, and yet, it exists here. It must be financially competitive, they've been in business for a very long time. In other words, someone has done it already, at least here. I can't speak for technical issues that prevent it from being done in other places, but then, technical issues are not based on government-granted monopoly status, either now or "way back when" there wasn't a government-granted monopoly.
The fact that I could find more than 8 broadband providers in just the one town that claimed it was victim of an evil monopoly and needed to use taxpayer dollars to create competition is pretty clear evidence that, despite your personal limitations in accepting what being an ISP means, there are enough people who will pay what the other competitors ask for the service they provide. And that means there is no monopoly, and certainly not a government-granted one like the person claimed that started this discussion.
Let me take you back
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by thegarbz · 2019-03-06 22:04 · Score: 1

I agree. The problem with nationalisation is that you end up with a subsequent government seeing a government run "company" as a paycheck through privatisation. End result you end up with another private enterprise propped up by the government.
As anti-regulation as a lot of people are, there are some things that just need regulation.
Re:Doesn't solve the problem by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-06 22:15 · Score: 1

It's possible to privatize-proof orgs. The NHS is somewhat protected, for example, but there is no reason why there couldn't be some kind of constitutional lock to prevent it too. Well, in the UK it would likely take the form of legislation that required a significant parliamentary majority, say 3/4ths, which would be politically very difficult to subvert.
Not perfect but definitely possible.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Another lie caught. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-05 01:20 · Score: 1

Russia is pissed off because of various sanctions. Anything that hamper America is "good" to them. Hence Internet problems in the U.S is "good", and dropping net neutrality is one way of achieving that. With time, services that can't afford to pay for "fast lanes" will be in trouble, some sites will disappear. Cencorship "for the children" or whatever is another one. Filtering out four-letter words from streams that aren't text already cause broken connections.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by subie · 2019-03-05 02:00 · Score: 1

Like clockwork, you keep doing a copy paste job on every article. Think about this genius, why are the Democrats( my party ) in the House opening up a brand new investigation of the President? Could it be that the Mueller investigation doesn't have anything and the Democrats know it? Why waste the time if the Mueller team had a found something? At this point I agree, they are fishing now.

Dumb acronym by jbmartin6 · 2019-03-05 02:12 · Score: 1

STIA? Come on Democrats, you can do better

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.

And this is why Palo Alto Big Tech votes Democrat by Chissblue · 2019-03-05 02:40 · Score: 1

Leave it to the Democrats to create Bills that help big tech maintain their monopolies.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by GLMDesigns · 2019-03-05 02:54 · Score: 2

Serious Question.

I still don't understand Net Neutrality.

Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?
Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?
Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

As a Democrat I completely disagree by rsilvergun · 2019-03-05 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

data is data. Whether it's your voice or bits. Common carrier applies because it's for the same thing. They're both just communicating over a wire. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was still all modems since it would literally _be_ voice. The point is the intent of congress, which was to force what was then the principal means of telecom to behave.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Historical Precedent by SuperKendall · 2019-03-05 03:45 · Score: 1

That's always a good idea, but do you have any complaints right now, are you just insinuating?

Of course I have no complaints now, there is not yet a bill to read.

I am extrapolating, not insinuating. History has shown us almost no-one who wanted network neutrality read the original 30 page FCC regulations. Especially in the age of the hot take, is it so unreasonable to expect many people will complain about, or support the bill based merely on a summary they read on Buzzfeed? No, that's about par for the course.

So I'm just trying to plant the thought, lets at least some of us read it, then we can talk about what it actually does rather than pretending the bill we get is actually "network neutrality" the abstract concept, which means different things to different people.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Historical Precedent by penandpaper · 2019-03-05 04:15 · Score: 1

a summary they read on Buzzfeed
I didn't read what you wrote but I read what others wrote about you. I do not approve of the things they said you wrote!

Does it cover 5G wireless? by roccomaglio · 2019-03-05 04:29 · Score: 1

It appears that the future of ISPs is 5G wireless. If this net neutrality does not address wireless Internet connectivity, it will be of limited use going forward. My understanding is that the previous net neutrality declaration mostly did not apply to wireless. Many of the ISPs have stopped building out their wired infrastructure because they expect to be able to provide service wirelessly saving the large expense of maintaining the last mile to peoples homes.

Same song and dance to nothing by GregMmm · 2019-03-05 04:45 · Score: 1

Do people think this bill has any chance of passing if it's simply the same thing the FCC removed? Of course it won't! So this is just a political game. Dems will cry: Look the other guys don't want net neutrality!! The Republicans will cry: We want net neutrality, we just don't want it implemented the way it is. And the argument goes round and round. It's simply about D vs R. Nothing more. NEITHER care a bit about net neutrality. (sorry I'm sure there is a few in there but I'm a bit jaded)

I have an idea: Stop pushing legislation that is DOA and find some common ground and do some work. I swear the last 2+ years has just been alot of nothing.

Re:Same song and dance to nothing by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:55 · Score: 1

I have an idea: Stop pushing legislation that is DOA and find some common ground and do some work.

What, exactly, is the common ground between putting an immigrant child in a cage and not putting a child in a cage?
What, exactly, is the common ground between government control of every woman's uterus and believing women are adults with the ability to make decisions?
What, exactly, is the common ground between going to war and not going to war?
There are very large differences in the beliefs of our two parties. Common ground is not possible on many of those differences. The "middle" of the policy differences is the equivalent of Solomon splitting the baby - it is not stable.
The parties were relatively close to each other during the Southern realignment and that was an extremely unusual situation. Before that, the real split in the country was between East and West, with members of both parties on both sides of that split. After 1964, the Southern states started realigning themselves to the Republican party, and Northeastern Republicans converted to Democrats. That slowly returned us to our normal state of affairs, with a strong ideological split between our two main parties.
You have to remember there have been multiple duels fought between members of Congress. A Senator was literally beaten by a group of Representatives on the Senate floor. Strong division between the parties is normal. Demanding "common ground" is to not understand what the positions of the parties actually are.

Re:GD it by r_naked · 2019-03-05 04:49 · Score: 1

This is why we desperately need a 3 Rd party. Both of the 2 majors do nothing but play with issues and fucking solve nothing.

What fuck-nut moderators are so far up the major parties asses that they felt the need to moderate this as troll or flamebait -- it is the FUCKING TRUTH.

If you modded that post troll or flamebait, your are 100% what is wrong with this country -- FUCK YOU!

--
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.

TelCo's Need American Help?! by LifesABeach · 2019-03-05 05:18 · Score: 1

As I see it, no one that maintains the Internet Backbone has a gun to their head. That means anytime these winy dogs want to step away, no one will stop them. Or better yet! Those who maintain the board rooms that lobby for doing to the Internet anything they please, create their own separate Backbone, and go it alone. And, god speed them along their way.

Re:Pai's position is that Congress needs to do it by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 05:20 · Score: 1

We never would have gotten rid of AOL

Interesting, there are still a lot of folks with AOL email addresses, including my wife. Mine would work too if I ever bothered resetting the long forgotten password.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:Pai's position is that Congress needs to do it by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 05:26 · Score: 1

The Constitution says a lot of things that courts have ruled on and it really only matters what the courts decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Just another day in Paradise

Regardless of whether it is a good idea or not by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-03-05 05:45 · Score: 1

This is how it should be done -- supine, cowardly Congress changing the law rather than letting unelected regulators arrogate control of a trillion dollar industry based on phone control wording from the 70s.

You know, the same casting off of other powers to the president you bitch, rightly, about now.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 05:50 · Score: 1

Without the text of this specific bill, exact answers to your questions aren't possible.

That being said, here's the answers using the typical definitions of net neutrality.

Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?

Nope. Net neutrality is about the behavior of ISPs. It has nothing to do with deplatforming.

Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?

ISPs have to treat similar data as the same. So they must treat all SMTP packets the same, or all streaming video packets the same. They would be allowed to use QoS-style techniques that prioritizes particular packets, as long as those techniques do not take into account the source or destination of the packets. For example, Netflix can have priority over email, but (Brand_new_video_streaming_service) will enjoy the same prioritization.

Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu

It technically does not prevent such an agreement, but the ISP would have little to offer. Free data only for Netflix would not be allowed. Free data for video streaming in general would be allowed. Also ISPs could set up marketing tie-ins (Sign a 2 year contract, get a free year of Netflix!) as long as the packets are treated like any similar packets.

Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

You need to learn about the structure of the government, and there reason why third parties are not able to wield power. For third parties to have any effect, you're going to need to completely restructure our government.

Re:Veto by trump by HiThere · 2019-03-05 05:59 · Score: 1

Don't be too quick to jump given just the title of the law. Those are often highly deceptive, and even the summary says that the proposed text of the law (even before any amendments) is not available for review.

I *HOPE* it will be a decent law. That's not the same as saying I expect it to be a decent law. And evaluation has to await someone who can understand legalese interpreting it. The devil is in the details.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Wait to see what's in the new Net Neutrality bi by dcw3 · 2019-03-05 06:00 · Score: 1

Both are at fault. ISPs spent over $100M on donations to both parties, with the Rs getting a bit more ($55M v. $45M), most likely be cause there were more of them in office.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re: Veto by trump by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:08 · Score: 1

Any bills that were not passed by both houses become void at the end of each Congress (The current one ends in January 2021 after the 2020 elections). So if this passes the House and the Senate does nothing with it, it can't be passed without a new vote in the House.

Re:Veto by trump by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:09 · Score: 1

What, specifically, did not fit?

And "POTS is old!" is not specific.

Re:Pai's position is that Congress needs to do it by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:10 · Score: 1

No, Congress passed a law giving Pai the power. That's why the FCC gets to make rules at all.

Re:One is solving, the other is blocking. Stop lyi by WindBourne · 2019-03-05 06:10 · Score: 1

relax. That guy is a Chinese (possibly Russian, but I doubt it) troll known as Crimson Tsunami/Caffeinated Bacon. He is a constant liar and just makes up all sorts of shit. Even now, I'm making an opinion on America needing a 3rd party and he claims that I am lying about it. Basically, he does not understand English enough to realize what I wrote.

But, you should consider just ignoring him.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Veto by trump by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 06:12 · Score: 1

No, Obama put Pai into one of the Republican FCC seats in 2012.

Trump appointed Pai as Chairman.

Pai was around for the previous FCC ruling, demonstrating he wasn't exactly "in power".

Re:GD it by WindBourne · 2019-03-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Actually, one of the moderators in this case, is almost certainly Caffeinated Bacon/Crimson Tsunami. The guy is Chinese ( possibly Russian ). He simply mods me down on everything once he gets points (and /. owners are doing nothing about it). In this case, I suspect that CB/CT does not read English well enough to understand that I declared an opinion (and one heavily shared by most Americans and other westerners), called me a liar earlier (how the fuck do you lie on an opinion???) , and then keeps posting as AC.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Smells. by WolfgangVL · 2019-03-05 07:24 · Score: 1

Noble, but It's such a lightning rod issue, and voting against it looks so bad that they will sneak all sorts of ugly into the bill. It's just too perfect an opportunity to slip in something for Safe spaces, Bullying, or ID politics.

There's also the spooky way that the phrase "Legal Content" always gets used. I can't help but imagine the different ways this can be used to enable mass censorship of the net just by declaring such-and-such discussion illegal. An easy precedent would be 3d printed firearms.

At the end of the day the internet will be faster, more regulated, and less free.

--
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2019-03-05 07:32 · Score: 1

Actually, T-Mobile's version completely circumvents net neutrality rules. They don't affect the SPEED at which you get the packets, only the COST- Netflix's packets don't count against your data plan.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by Dragonslicer · 2019-03-05 07:46 · Score: 2

Serious Question. I still don't understand Net Neutrality.

The goal of Network Neutrality is to prevent ISPs from abusing their monopoly position in the ISP market to affect other markets, such as movie/television content.

Does this mean that companies cannot deplatform websites and people?

No, unless you mean ISPs blocking certain legal websites. YouTube and Facebook are not ISPs, and anyone that gets kicked off YouTube or Facebook is free to use some other similar service.

Does it mean that companies must treat all data as the same? (So data from an email and a netflix video must be treated the same?

No, the part of the packet that can't be used for prioritization is the source/destination address, whichever is the remote end. Quality of Service is still allowed for prioritizing packets that require lower latency in order to function correctly. ISPs can prioritize VoIP over BitTorrent, but they can't prioritize VoIP packets to the ISP's service over VoIP packets to Google.

Does it mean that companies cannot come to agreements with content providers? After all if TMobile give free data access to Netflix it is promoting that company above Hulu.

There's some debate on this point, but by the strictest definition, yes, agreements that make e.g. Netflix's data not count towards your data cap would be prohibited. Such an agreement would result in the ISP degrading Hulu's performance in a way that it doesn't do so for Netflix, which would be using their position in the ISP market to influence the video streaming market. Something like your ISP paying for your Netflix service is also debatable; obviously it's favoring a certain video provider, but other video providers would still work equally well. It's also less of an issue when the "free" video streaming company is completely separate from the ISP, because it isn't as clear a case of monopoly abuse for the benefit of the abuser.

Re: Because there's a new crime found? by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 07:56 · Score: 1

I don't think you said what you meant.

You don't open an investigation to see if a crime was committed. You take note that a crime was committed, then you open an investigation to see what happened.

We still don't have a "Paragraph 1" for any of the Trump investigations. For those that don't know, "Paragraph 1" is the beginning of the opening report of any investigation. It would read along the lines of "On , material evidence was found that a crime was committed at ...."

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:06 · Score: 2

A) If the Democrats bill goes into any sort of details like this I will be both surprised and excited. I fully expect it to be more along the lines of their Green New Deal (ie, a ridiculous wishlist of unrealistic fluff). If the bill mentions "packet" I'll be happy.

B) Blocking marketing agreements may not be desirable. What happens when Spectrum negotiates to get Netflix and Hulu to build co-lo centers within their network areas. Netflix agrees, but Hulu resists. Spectrum will now have a lower cost for delivering Netflix vs Hulu. What if, to save money, Spectrum cuts back on (or decides not to upgrade) their peering connection with the partner that DOES have the Hulu co-lo?

Again, I fully expect any bill put forth to gloss over these sort of technical issues.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by jeff4747 · 2019-03-05 08:06 · Score: 1

Net neutrality isn't just about speed. Zero-rating is also a violation of net neutrality.

The packets must be handled the same. If you're charging for packets from one source but not another, you are not treating the packets the same.

Re:Veto by trump by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:08 · Score: 1

Did you think Trump would support prison sentence reform? Did you think Trump would be so strong about pulling our troops from foreign territories?

Will Trump sign this? Wait while I flip this coin.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Veto by trump by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

Considering that they consistently have worked against your interests for the last 50 years, how do you motivate still calling yourself a Republican?

Against my interest? How is having the federal government take over every aspect of my life so that I can be as equally poor as you in my interest? How do you even know what my interests are? How is guaranteeing a living wage to people who can't work, or don't want to work in my interests? How in ruining the greatest healthcare system and the greatest economy in the world in my interests?

You are a willfully blind idiot that can not see how great the country you live in truly is. Please leave at your earliest convenience and take all the rest of the self-hating, racist democrats with you.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re:Veto by trump by Shotgun · 2019-03-05 08:33 · Score: 1

Then, why did you respond? So that we could all see how advanced your TDS is?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Re: The real story - Republican apologizes for lyi by kenh · 2019-03-05 10:36 · Score: 1

80%+ of voters don't know what net neutrality is - everyone you speak to says something different - I'd love to know how pollsters that got 80%+ of voters to support NN defined it "rules to treat all traffic fairly"?
"Providers can't force you to pay a surcharge for certain traffic?"
"No traffic will be zero-rated (free)?"
"Service can't pay for better service?"

--
Ken

Re: Veto by trump by kenh · 2019-03-05 10:54 · Score: 1

It has to get thru the GOP-controlled Senate before Trump becomes a consideration.

It will never get to Trump's desk to sign/veto.

--
Ken

Welcome back by AHuxley · 2019-03-05 11:20 · Score: 1

to paper insulated wireline.
No new competition.
No new innovation.
Federal rules and laws protect a few ISP who can say they fully meet federal NN rules.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:GD it by CaffeinatedBacon · 2019-03-05 15:59 · Score: 1

One of the moderators is most definitely not me.
No one would have enough mod points to mod down all you constant bullshit, it would be pointless.
Now that I've posted did the moderation undo? No. So shut the fuck up Windy with all your false accusations.

You are right, I do often call you a liar. And then show the lies. Wasn't me on that occasion though.
By the way, did you ever find a single lie of mine? Where is it?

Re:You are deliberately clueless. by GLMDesigns · 2019-03-06 01:58 · Score: 1

I have read MANY, MANY articles - from standard sites to EFF articles and the devil is in the fukin details.

Case in point - Are you opposed to the deplatforming going on by Facebook, Twitter, etc... and what will the government do differently. Is it then a first amendment issue? I haven't heard detailed explanations about this. Have you?

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

Re:GD it by WindBourne · 2019-03-06 05:05 · Score: 1

No, you never show any lies. All you do is lie.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Slashdot Mirror

Democrats Will Introduce Bill To Bring Back Net Neutrality (thehill.com)

146 of 291 comments (clear)