Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach. This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
Agreed.
And then that activist judge will gave his decision overturned by SCOTUS.
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
I'm pretty sure, once you strip out emotions from the argument, that what Chatman Pai is proposing is to roll back over-reaching regulations the FCC imposed on the industry since 2005. There is a huge difference between regulations regarding blocking a competitor 100% and allowing one customer to pay for faster service, which has no net effect on others that choose not to pay for faster service EXCEPT to make them slower only by comparison to those that paid for faster service. (It's like arguing that first class mail got slower when the post office started offering priority mail service.)
For what crime? Please, be specific, and don't waste our time with unproven allegations and accusations...
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
The issue wasn't what is or is not between her legs, it was her past - she has three plus decades of scandals and accusations weighing her down, and her actual accomplishments are few and far between (did she ever author legislation as a Senator? Did she 'reset' relations with Russia? Did she defend women's rights in middle-eastern countries? Did she consciously decide to NEVER use a secure gov't email server while Secretary of State? Etc.)...
The fundamental problem with Hillary, is her history. She had to 'launch' her campaign twice, since no one cared the first time - remember her drive across America ina sprinter van, where she NEVER interacted with anyone along the way? She worked the system to secure her party's nomination, but relied on a new campaign strategy to try and Win the general election - and that strategy had her ignore half of the famous 'blue wall' states during the general election, States she would go on to lose by a few thousand votes each, and cost her the election.
Democrats got luck in 2008 with their 'novelty' candidate, the first black candidate from a major party, but he had the advantage of being a relative unknown, compared to HRC with her decades of baggage - the novelty of the first female candidate from a major political party wasn't enough to overcome her legacy.
The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason
The Net Neutrality regulations Chairman Pai proposes rolling back are only 2 years old...
Is this a sponsored press release for Zero Tier VPN? I know it's Robert Cringley, I know he makes passing reference to other VPN providers, but this reads like an ad.
He's not stupid, he choose to talk about us domestic policy as if it had world-wide implications, he could have simply said 'Canada will not follow the US's lead in this area'...
Step one in any actual war between Canada and the US would likely involve the US removing all previously provided defense systems the US used to provide joint US & Canadian defense.
All this crap mattered when we had a Democrat in power, but it seems republicans continue to practice situational ethics, in that it only matters if it is a democrat in power.
The last time the federal gov't shutdown, before the Democrats agreed to fund the government they had one stipulation - the elimination of 'debt ceiling limit' for a period of 18 months or so.
Why would democrats insist on a blank check for an extended period if they are the ones concerned about fiscal responsibility?
Democrats repeatedly argue for the elimination of the debt ceiling.
True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.
How?
Seriously, how does an ISP, like Verizon or Comcast, throttling down certain service providers and offering higher data rates to paying service provider for their own customers impact a single Canadian internet user? Is all of Canada leeching off ISP accounts from Verizon, Comcast in the US? No, of course not, so I ask again, how do US regulations that impact US ISPs exclusively become the concern of foreign leaders?
A parallel argument would be if the President of Mexico was to declare that Canadian property taxes were preventing low-income people from affording homes elsewhere around the world.
Canada as a nation can't deal with a fraction of the border-crossing immigrants we see here in Texas every day - they have no plan.
They have hidden behind their inaccessibility (you have to enter the US to enter Canada unless you swim there) and the existing agreement between the US and Canada is that immigrants that cross I to Canada from the US are returned to the US as their point of first contact, and are then subject to US immigration/asylum/refugee policies.
Canada talks tough regarding US immigration policy, but won't itself live up to what it expects the US to do regarding illegal immigrants.
The leader of Canada, a nation with a population approaching that of California (36m Canadians vs 39m Californians) thinks that:
US domestic policy regarding internet neutrality impacts the rest of the world
As leader of a smallish nation believes he can somehow prevent 'the horror' of Trump administration rolling back net neutrality regulations.
How does the ability of an ISP to charge a service provider a fee for premium data rates to their US customers/users/visitors impact on a Canadian consumer?
Fully one-third of all comments posted were duplicate 'me too' comments, rendered irrelevant because after the first one the next 7.5 Million added nothing to the conversation.
My best hope is that the DNC has learned not to thumb the scale so next election when the GOP again offers up a rogue's gallery the Ds can pick someone who will win.
You understand that the very reason the Democrats have "Super Delegates" is explicitly to keep Democrat Voters from nominating anyone they like - the Republican primary process allowed for literally anyone to wander in, capture the hearts and minds of the common voter and "steal" the nomination from the party's preferred candidate. Remember, the GOP didn't want Trump as it's candidate, it was forced to accept it when Trump won the primaries.
The Democrats picked someone that should have won, but she choose to ignore several staunchly democrat states and take the voters there for granted, costing her just enough votes to lose the election. Instead of campaigning in PA, MI, WI, etc. HRC repeatedly went back to CA to milk ever more campaign funds from rich Hollywood types... Now she has a fat bank account, but she lost the election.
Seven and a half million people saying "ditto" just increases the workload and adds nothing to the argument.
But I do have an opinion as do the many other millions who voiced their opinions and those are as valid as anything.
Who cares what your opinion is, if you can't make a factual argument based on legal principles, don't waste your time.
This is like a town council meeting, and everyone in town wants to get up and read the editorial from the local newspaper into the record because it expresses their "opinion". How long must the council members sit there and listen to the same argument over and over again?
No, it's like saying we only count votes from people that can follow instructions and clearly punch the ballot, not dimple it or create a hanging chad.
It really is quite reasonable that the FCC reviews the comments and considers those that add something to the conversation, not treating all responses equally. I'm quite certain the majority of the non-unique comments were rambling, mis-informed statements of personal opinion which are, literally, meaningless to the discussion at hand.
A malformed email address is fake. An email address that bounces when an email is sent to it can be considered fake.
That 7.5 million "people" chose to send the same comment is really quite remarkable, that's one out of every three comment that added nothing to the discussion - it was 1 person expressing an idea, and seven and a half million other people said "Me Too."
The wording is confusing, it sounds like 45,000 fake email addresses sent 7.5 million identical comments:
The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate, but from the sound of it, it's ignoring the vast majority of them. In a call with reporters yesterday discussing its plan to end net neutrality, a senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses.
The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate [...] a senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses.
So 45,000 fake email addresses sent 7.5 million copies of the same letter, and the FCC didn't find that a convincing argument? I'm shocked!
One out of three comments were identical - that's quite an achievement from the "hashtag activisim" folks, a group best known for their "#BringBackOurGirls", but that isn't a convincing argument. Simple repetition renders the message meaningless.
Pai said from the get-go that public commentary would not impact his decision.
You want popular opinion to guide federal regulation?
I'd consider it you'll let the gov't count all similarly-worded comments as redundant, all comments with invalid email addresses as invalid, and off-topic comments go uncounted.
Make attempt to contact state level officials to make laws to override: States, under 10th Amendment are not without sovereignty in spite of Article I, Section 8.
I strongly suggest you go back and reread Article 1, Section 8 (which specifically assigns responsibility to Federal government), and the 10th Amendment (which leaves everything not assigned to the federal government to the states), and rethink your position on this.
Are you imagining that the FCC is unconstitutional?
Slashdot Mirror
Wu got it backwards: the legal case for net neutrality regulation is exceptionally weak, as is the evidence that it is needed in the first place; and the whole thing was regulatory overreach. This challenges to the reversal will go down in flames in court, unless they find some progressive activist judge.
Agreed.
And then that activist judge will gave his decision overturned by SCOTUS.
What's that got to do with anything?
What? Is there a new requirement that /. comments need to be relevant to the topic at hand?
The political appointee positions you speak of typically turn over after each administration - it is rare, but not unheard of, for them to remain between administrations.
Republican obstinacy under Obama did not create additional opportunities to put republicans in political appointee positions. Democrat obstinacy under Trump is a bit more overt that under Obama - with Democrats proudly referring to themselves as the party of 'no', a label they used to mock republicans as recently as last year.
Oh, I see - 12 years is "longstanding"?
I'm pretty sure, once you strip out emotions from the argument, that what Chatman Pai is proposing is to roll back over-reaching regulations the FCC imposed on the industry since 2005. There is a huge difference between regulations regarding blocking a competitor 100% and allowing one customer to pay for faster service, which has no net effect on others that choose not to pay for faster service EXCEPT to make them slower only by comparison to those that paid for faster service. (It's like arguing that first class mail got slower when the post office started offering priority mail service.)
For what crime? Please, be specific, and don't waste our time with unproven allegations and accusations...
How much will Democrats force the federal government spend to investigate the Steele dossier, which they themselves funded the creation of and never bothered to corroborate or vett any claims within it before 'leaking' it to the press?
The issue wasn't what is or is not between her legs, it was her past - she has three plus decades of scandals and accusations weighing her down, and her actual accomplishments are few and far between (did she ever author legislation as a Senator? Did she 'reset' relations with Russia? Did she defend women's rights in middle-eastern countries? Did she consciously decide to NEVER use a secure gov't email server while Secretary of State? Etc.)...
The fundamental problem with Hillary, is her history. She had to 'launch' her campaign twice, since no one cared the first time - remember her drive across America ina sprinter van, where she NEVER interacted with anyone along the way? She worked the system to secure her party's nomination, but relied on a new campaign strategy to try and Win the general election - and that strategy had her ignore half of the famous 'blue wall' states during the general election, States she would go on to lose by a few thousand votes each, and cost her the election.
Democrats got luck in 2008 with their 'novelty' candidate, the first black candidate from a major party, but he had the advantage of being a relative unknown, compared to HRC with her decades of baggage - the novelty of the first female candidate from a major political party wasn't enough to overcome her legacy.
The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason
The Net Neutrality regulations Chairman Pai proposes rolling back are only 2 years old...
Is this a sponsored press release for Zero Tier VPN? I know it's Robert Cringley, I know he makes passing reference to other VPN providers, but this reads like an ad.
Chemical equivalence drugsdon't have to prove efficacy in clinical drug trials...
The guy who Trump picked to head Health and Human Services tripled the price of insulin when he was CEO of Eli Lilly. After the drug's patent expired.
So, since it went 'off-patent'that means competitors could offer cheaper generic versions...
Then why not simply say that?
He's not stupid, he choose to talk about us domestic policy as if it had world-wide implications, he could have simply said 'Canada will not follow the US's lead in this area'...
Step one in any actual war between Canada and the US would likely involve the US removing all previously provided defense systems the US used to provide joint US & Canadian defense.
The bottom 40% of tax filers pay no net taxes, instead they get refunds in excess of monies withheld.
The top 40% pay 95% of all collected federal income taxes.
The middle 20% collectively pay the remaining 5% of collected federal income taxes.
Cutting taxes in any meaningful way will disproportionately benefit those that actually pay taxes, the top 40% of filers - it's unavoidable.
Selective memory.
All this crap mattered when we had a Democrat in power, but it seems republicans continue to practice situational ethics, in that it only matters if it is a democrat in power.
The last time the federal gov't shutdown, before the Democrats agreed to fund the government they had one stipulation - the elimination of 'debt ceiling limit' for a period of 18 months or so.
Why would democrats insist on a blank check for an extended period if they are the ones concerned about fiscal responsibility?
Democrats repeatedly argue for the elimination of the debt ceiling.
True, but the US is a very large market in the shared resource of the Internet. The fall of net neutrality will negatively affect the quality of the Internet for everyone.
How?
Seriously, how does an ISP, like Verizon or Comcast, throttling down certain service providers and offering higher data rates to paying service provider for their own customers impact a single Canadian internet user? Is all of Canada leeching off ISP accounts from Verizon, Comcast in the US? No, of course not, so I ask again, how do US regulations that impact US ISPs exclusively become the concern of foreign leaders?
A parallel argument would be if the President of Mexico was to declare that Canadian property taxes were preventing low-income people from affording homes elsewhere around the world.
Canada as a nation can't deal with a fraction of the border-crossing immigrants we see here in Texas every day - they have no plan.
They have hidden behind their inaccessibility (you have to enter the US to enter Canada unless you swim there) and the existing agreement between the US and Canada is that immigrants that cross I to Canada from the US are returned to the US as their point of first contact, and are then subject to US immigration/asylum/refugee policies.
Canada talks tough regarding US immigration policy, but won't itself live up to what it expects the US to do regarding illegal immigrants.
The leader of Canada, a nation with a population approaching that of California (36m Canadians vs 39m Californians) thinks that:
US domestic policy regarding internet neutrality impacts the rest of the world
As leader of a smallish nation believes he can somehow prevent 'the horror' of Trump administration rolling back net neutrality regulations.
How does the ability of an ISP to charge a service provider a fee for premium data rates to their US customers/users/visitors impact on a Canadian consumer?
Fully one-third of all comments posted were duplicate 'me too' comments, rendered irrelevant because after the first one the next 7.5 Million added nothing to the conversation.
My best hope is that the DNC has learned not to thumb the scale so next election when the GOP again offers up a rogue's gallery the Ds can pick someone who will win.
You understand that the very reason the Democrats have "Super Delegates" is explicitly to keep Democrat Voters from nominating anyone they like - the Republican primary process allowed for literally anyone to wander in, capture the hearts and minds of the common voter and "steal" the nomination from the party's preferred candidate. Remember, the GOP didn't want Trump as it's candidate, it was forced to accept it when Trump won the primaries.
The Democrats picked someone that should have won, but she choose to ignore several staunchly democrat states and take the voters there for granted, costing her just enough votes to lose the election. Instead of campaigning in PA, MI, WI, etc. HRC repeatedly went back to CA to milk ever more campaign funds from rich Hollywood types... Now she has a fat bank account, but she lost the election.
Seven and a half million people saying "ditto" just increases the workload and adds nothing to the argument.
But I do have an opinion as do the many other millions who voiced their opinions and those are as valid as anything.
Who cares what your opinion is, if you can't make a factual argument based on legal principles, don't waste your time.
This is like a town council meeting, and everyone in town wants to get up and read the editorial from the local newspaper into the record because it expresses their "opinion". How long must the council members sit there and listen to the same argument over and over again?
No, it's like saying we only count votes from people that can follow instructions and clearly punch the ballot, not dimple it or create a hanging chad.
It really is quite reasonable that the FCC reviews the comments and considers those that add something to the conversation, not treating all responses equally. I'm quite certain the majority of the non-unique comments were rambling, mis-informed statements of personal opinion which are, literally, meaningless to the discussion at hand.
A malformed email address is fake. An email address that bounces when an email is sent to it can be considered fake.
That 7.5 million "people" chose to send the same comment is really quite remarkable, that's one out of every three comment that added nothing to the discussion - it was 1 person expressing an idea, and seven and a half million other people said "Me Too."
The wording is confusing, it sounds like 45,000 fake email addresses sent 7.5 million identical comments:
The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate, but from the sound of it, it's ignoring the vast majority of them. In a call with reporters yesterday discussing its plan to end net neutrality, a senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses.
The FCC received a record-breaking 22 million comments chiming in on the net neutrality debate [...] a senior FCC official said that 7.5 million of those comments were the exact same letter, which was submitted using 45,000 fake email addresses.
So 45,000 fake email addresses sent 7.5 million copies of the same letter, and the FCC didn't find that a convincing argument? I'm shocked!
One out of three comments were identical - that's quite an achievement from the "hashtag activisim" folks, a group best known for their "#BringBackOurGirls", but that isn't a convincing argument. Simple repetition renders the message meaningless.
Pai said from the get-go that public commentary would not impact his decision.
You want popular opinion to guide federal regulation?
I'd consider it you'll let the gov't count all similarly-worded comments as redundant, all comments with invalid email addresses as invalid, and off-topic comments go uncounted.
Make attempt to contact state level officials to make laws to override: States, under 10th Amendment are not without sovereignty in spite of Article I, Section 8.
I strongly suggest you go back and reread Article 1, Section 8 (which specifically assigns responsibility to Federal government), and the 10th Amendment (which leaves everything not assigned to the federal government to the states), and rethink your position on this.
Are you imagining that the FCC is unconstitutional?