Jeb Bush Is The Latest Politician To Demonstrate Absolutely No Understanding Of Net Neutrality

from the politicians-don't-understand-anything dept

Like many folks, I’m dreading the seeming inevitability of a Clinton-Bush presidential campaign next year involving Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush. I’m 40-years-old and half of my life has involved a Clinton or a Bush in the Oval Office (and it’s even worse if you count Vice Presidency). Both seem completely out of touch with the real issues of today. Instead, both are so surrounded by political cronies and yes-men that it’s difficult to see either candidate as being willing to actually take on the real challenges facing the world today. Clinton is currently dealing with the fallout from her decision to expose her emails to spies while shielding them from the American public. And Jeb Bush is now spouting pure nonsense on net neutrality.

Bush’s comments aren’t surprising, because despite Democrats and Republicans alike both strongly supporting net neutrality and those who truly understand the details favoring these rules, in Washington DC, net neutrality is a partisan issue. The reason almost certainly has to do with campaign finance. Splitting an issue down partisan lines makes it an issue that politicians can raise money around. Things that everyone agrees on aren’t useful for fundraising, and since politicians these days need to spend half their time fundraising, politics gets distorted pretty quickly.

But Bush’s comments are particularly clueless, trotting out both debunked talking points and clear misstatements that appear to have been fed to him by the broadband players.

?The idea of regulating access to the Internet with a 1934 law is one of the craziest ideas I?ve ever heard,? he said. It was the first time Bush had weighed in on the subject since the FCC voted.

?Just think of the logic of using a 1934 law that was designed when we did have a monopoly for wireline service as the basis to regulate the most dynamic part of life in America,? Bush said. ?It?s not going to be good for consumers. It?s certainly not going to be good for innovation.?

Except, you know, that’s not true. The 1934 Telecommunications Act was rewritten in 1996 by Republicans, who set it up this way with a clear plan for broadband to be covered by Title II. As Tim Lee at Vox recently explained:

The awkward thing about this is that the rules were drafted by a Republican Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In that legislation, Congress created two legal categories for online services: a low-regulation category for online services (known unimaginatively as Title I) and a high-regulation category for companies that provide basic infrastructure (called Title II).

When telephone companies began offering broadband access using a then-new technology called Digital Subscriber Lines, it was widely accepted that Title II ? the stricter regime designed for basic infrastructure ? would apply. After all, telephone companies had been governed under Title II for decades before that. Title II rules had ensured that telephone companies didn’t strangle the burgeoning market for dial-up ISPs, which provided internet access over telephone lines.

But Bush trots out the 1934 argument in a totally misleading way. And yes, in 1934 there was a monopoly for wireline service, but in 1996 when the Act was rewritten (again, by Republicans), there was actually a lot of competition in the ISP business thanks to line sharing. Yet, today, everyone knows that there’s basically no competition. While not a monopoly, it’s at the very least an oligopoly with very little choice for most consumers.

Furthermore, the rules are pretty clearly just basic rules to prevent anti-consumer behavior by the ISPs. How that’s going to be “bad for consumers” is hard to fathom. And considering that many of the most innovative internet companies have come out strongly in favor of net neutrality, it’s hard to see how it’s going to be bad for innovation. You can’t even argue that it’s going to be bad for broadband companies either, since many independent broadband providers, like, have come out in favor of the rules. As we’ve noted in the past, it’s only bad for broadband providers that want to treat customers badly.

So, does Jeb Bush really think he understands internet innovation better than all these internet companies that have pointed out how the new rule is helpful to innovation?

Is Jeb Bush giving a giant middle finger to internet innovation? That hardly seems like a good campaign move.

But, apparently, Bush not only is doing that, he’s also going to totally misrepresent others to do so:

Bush said that Netflix and other backers of net neutrality are already regretting the scale the FCC?s action. ?There is no support for this now,? Bush said. ?The people who were concerned about this, the content providers like Netflix and others, have now disowned this.?

That’s just hogwash. There’s massive support for this, which Bush would have noticed if he actually paid attention to the internet, which celebrated when the rules were approved. Anti-net neutrality folks have seized upon an out-of-context statement from a Netflix exec claiming that it would have been preferable to find another route — but that’s not disowning the rules. We’ve been among those who have pointed out for months that reclassifying under Title II was simply the best of a bunch of not great solutions. Yes, it would have been better to have something even cleaner than reclassification, but that option was not on the table.

Restrained rules, based on Title II, are a perfectly reasonable solution to stopping broadband providers from implementing anti-consumer practices. The only “innovation” it may harm is the broadband guys innovating new ways to screw over consumers and successful internet companies. If Jeb Bush is looking for support from the most innovative sector on the planet, spewing lies and misrepresentations about key issues for the internet world seems like a piss poor way to go about it.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Jeb Bush Is The Latest Politician To Demonstrate Absolutely No Understanding Of Net Neutrality”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Ninja (profile) says:

Before Obama I’d say that anything would be better than a Bush but really, Obama managed to further some pretty nasty Constitution erosion that started with Bush so I’m highly skeptical, specially when Clinton made an effort to keep the American citizens in the dark about her office affairs.

I know this comment is slightly off-topic but choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma. The end result will be the same.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma"

“Is that asking too much?”


The idea of electing a president that was actually for and by the people, would be a deathblow to those who make their incomes by exploiting the people by bending the laws and buying their “right” to steal, lie and cheat.

Any candidate that you might have respect for would necessarily be one that would have no desire to assist the criminal elements of US society, or promote their criminal activities.

Therefore, since the corporations pay for the election, they insist on getting their money’s worth.

David says:

Re: Re:

Well, the Bush family is sort of a steady decline (or progress, if you are from the military-industrial complex): H. W. Bush was without authority, G. W. without a clue, and Jeb additionally drops the conscience. Not that there would be much of a difference to G. W. since one just needed to tell the latter what God and America wanted and he’d fall for it.

At any rate, that’s a family. In contrast, predicting Clinton by looking at what kind of a president Clinton was does not seem workable. He seemed a lot more straightforward and open in his political principles. She isn’t. That’s not a good sign.

So basically, Bush/Clinton would amount to a race between an appalling and a scary candidate. The latter could certainly end up as a total sellout like Obama. The former looks like one from the start.

God bless America. She’ll need it.

Matthew (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I know this comment is slightly off-topic but choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma. The end result will be the same.”

I disagree. The only reason the end result will be the same is ultimately our own fault. Instead of doing something about it, we’re sitting here on online forums commenting about everything that’s wrong. Our collective apathy is what creates these situations in the first place. Before we hold the politicians accountable for their bull and all their perceived incompetence, maybe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and actually do something about it?

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I cringe at every one of these scolding comments, since they imply that everyone is just sitting around whining without doing anything else. That’s just false and insulting. Nonetheless, I think this needs a slight change:

“Before we hold the politicians accountable for their bull and all their perceived incompetence, maybe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and actually do something about it?”

We should not wait for one before we do the other. We should do both.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Seriously. The protests all over, the whistleblowers… It seems the guy lives in another planet. Some of us can’t afford to be in the front lines but every donation to the right cause, every word of support is important. And these ‘forums’ do their jobs in raising awareness. Some people have families and responsibilities and won’t join live protests for fear of retaliation. Take everything from them and they’ll be the most ‘aggressive’ activists.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Politician

I just finished David Nevn’s book Eagle Cry, which is an historical fiction based upon Thomas Jefferson’s first term as president and the politics surrounding the almost stealing of that election by the Federalists (who wanted to create a royal ruling class) and the negotiations for the Louisiana Purchase with the French.

So much of the actions by political actors of that time relate to what happens now scares the hell out of me, except that we have managed to get to here despite political operatives. Or, here we are due to those political operatives, may they rest in hell.

mermaldad (profile) says:


The idea of regulating free speech with a 1787 constitution is one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard.

Just think of the logic of using a 1787 constitution that was designed when we relied on hand-operated printing presses as the basis to regulate the most dynamic part of life in America. It’s not going to be good for consumers. It’s certainly not going to be good for innovation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Crazy

Not to be a total drip, but sometimes reconciling the Constitution to modern times is a problem. I thought that the 4th Amendment is pretty clear on protecting citizens from government overreach into our private property and information, but there are a bunch of judges, legislators, and other people in government who think otherwise to its detriment, just because they see certain technologies, and what they can do as almost paradoxically harmless, but also essential to security.

I don’t think of myself as a Jeffersonian “tear it up, and start over every generation” type, but is sure seems like we could use some updates just to make sure that there are no uncertain terms when it comes to the rights of citizens. Then even if the government doesn’t care, then at least the people might.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Crazy

I don’t think that problem is actually because it’s hard to reconcile the Constitution with modern times. I think that’s actually pretty easy.

The problem is that the courts, etc., are trying to reconcile the Constitution with the multitude of layers of interpretation that have been piled up on it over the centuries. That’s not a fault in the Constitution.

Aaron Von Gauss (profile) says:

Throwing Rocks at Glass Houses

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not rewrite the Telecommunications Act of 1934, it amended to it. The original act of 1934 and the various amendments including the 1996 act do not contain any verbiage relating to “network neutrality”. In fact, there is very little that would apply directly to “The Internet” though some would apply to how broadband service offerings are managed. The concept of common carrier is from the original 1934 act and is what the FCC is using to justify regulating authority.

Jeb Bush may not get it, but he’s not the only one including most of the “tech press” that posts about it. The entire reclassification of ISPs under Common Carrier rules has very little to do with any existing rules or regulation. It is about the FCC justifying that it has the authority to more deeply regulate broadband service and what we call The Internet.

Once the actual order is released, the public will get its first preview of the new regulations that will apply to broadband and The Internet. Any speculation on what the reclassification will mean for ISPs until then is exactly that, speculation. What is contained in the order is just the initial round, the FCC could implement any other regulations as time progresses as long as it has been giving authority for that particular aspect of service by law.

You will see the reclassification challenged and while many will like to cry that the opposing party is against “network neutrality”, it is mostly challenging whether or not the FCC has the authority to deeply regulate broadband service and The Internet in general.

justalurker says:

Espionage act, anyone?

The idea of regulating access to the Internet with a 1934 law is one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard,” he said.

Well then what about the Espionage Act of 1917 Snowden was charged under? Or the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787). All just crazy ideas because they are old right?

orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

Re: Espionage act, anyone?

Like the Constitution. Which we can venerate with religious fervor while violating it and inventing history to claim certain intents of those distant gods with the ridiculous name of Founding Fathers. Cherry-pick, revise history, and lie à la carte, whatever is convenient at the moment.

It’s what Jeb is doing, make shit up and see what sticks. An awful lot seems to stick long enough for these guys to get their way. I’m sure Clinton will say something equally idiotic. One-upsmanship is very popular in the partisan circles.

Anonymous Coward says:

Three Bushes and two Clintons running for the White House in the span of a few decades, reminds me of the ancient times when leaders were appointed to the throne by their bloodline. Bush VS Clinton 2016 encompasses everything wrong with America’s so called democracy. It’s not very democratic when the same bloodlines keep getting appointed to the throne.

Roger Strong (profile) says:

Re: Re:

In the Republican Party’s defence, they’re supposed to be conservative. Being conservative means a preference for what’s worked in the past.

The GOP hasn’t won a Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since Hoover in 1928. (Eisenhower’s VP was Nixon. Reagan’s VP was Bush I.)

Nixon has a grandson with an undergraduate degree in politics, a law degree, worked in John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and ran for Congress in 2010. Endorsed by Jeb Bush.

But he needs a few months in Congress or as a governor before being seen as qualified. So until 2020, they’re stuck with Jeb.

(Am I being serious, or sarcastic here? I honestly can’t tell any more.)

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sounds like he could definitely be the perfect unknown Ringer, needed to run against the No-Way Wacky Wanna-Bees, to insure the necessary, public-convincing probability, that the pre-fixed vote total is really the actual vote total.

Having no record is as good as having a clean record, when you’re running against the Usual Wack-Jobs.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

mmmm waffles

Remember this is Jeb Bush who was a pretty good leader on immigration issues; he had oodles of experience on the issue.

Then in prepping for his presidential run, he wrote a book that basically assumed the GOP wave would continue, so he took the Tea Party line on immigration.

Cue massive and quick national shift on immigration to favor amnesty.

Jeb quickly claims he didn’t really write the book…

..ok it’s a little more nuanced than my description, but still pretty bad for his big issue.

AnonymousCoward says:

Net Neutrality

I think the main point is “net neutrality” may or *may not* be the result of the legislation passed. Ostensibly that’s the whole purpose of the law, but the fact is it’s another control grab by the government which uses Regulations to extend it’s power and scope instead of legislation. Like it or not, the “you have to pass it before you can see what is in it” nature of the process means that nobody except the FCC knows what exactly they have planned (and maybe not even they do yet).

Lawmaking has been compared to making sausages – the problem is not the meat in the sausage, but all the OTHER crap that gets ground up and packed into it.

Wait and see what happens – until it either works or blows up horribly with unforeseen consequences.

I know what *I* think is going to happen, but I’m just basing my opinion on what has been the preferred method of growth in government lately.

Mike Soja (profile) says:

techdirt infirmaties

The fool who trades freedom for (net) security, deserves neither.

Likewise, the repetitive appeals to who does or does not “favor” the government encroachment du jour is characteristic of those unable to justify said encroachment otherwise.

But, hey, who will remember that when they came for the big ISPs that Masnick, et al., not only merely didn’t say anything, but cheered them on?

JP Jones (profile) says:

Re: techdirt infirmaties

The fool who trades freedom for (net) security, deserves neither.

Oh, man, this had me laughing out loud. Wait, wait, you’re not being serious, right?

Now, take a breath, go read what Net Neutrality actually is, then read your statement again. Notice how you have it completely backwards? No? Darn.

Let’s try again. First of all, net neutrality has nothing to do with network security. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not even the idiots against net neutrality argue this.

Second, you have to be insane to think the current system is “freedom.” Do you actually use any of the main ISPs? Do you use your internet for more than email? If so, you may have noticed a) you have a maximum of 2-3 options for your internet, if that, and b) all of your options are awful. Your real choice is either crappy, abusive internet or no internet. Yeah, that’s freedom.

Third, the Title II rules can’t do what you’re afraid of. Even if we haven’t seen the full rules we can ignore most of the FUD purely based on the other industries already regulated under Title II. You know, like the internet itself prior to broadband, which was regulated under Title II. And your cell phone, which is regulated under Title II. And these exist under rules that are more strict than the rules the FCC is proposing (we know this, because they already announced it).

Weirdly, you have significantly more choice in cell phone carriers, and there were more ISPs during dial-up internet than broadband. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but hey, I haven’t seen the FCC regulating what calls you make or how much porn you watch on your phone. Now, Apple may not like your porn-viewing habits, but the FCC has never even made a statement on controlling online or phone content, let alone attempted to regulate it.

Must be nice to live in a black-and-white dream world where government = bad and business = good. So easy to conceptualize and understand. Completely divorced from reality, but hey, who needs that when you’ve got it all figured out?

Andrew D. Todd (user link) says:

How Does Net Neutrality Relate to the Politicians' Own Politiical Objectives.

Hillary Clinton is going to run on ObamaCare, of course. And if she drops out, Elizabeth Warren will do the same thing. She’ll say, over and over again, that Republicans who hate ObamaCare also hate Social Security and Medicare. If she can assemble a big enough coalition of people who are afraid of losing their government health insurance, and not having enough money to buy private insurance, she can probably win. The Republicans made her a present of the issue. Not many people are rich enough that they can simply absorb a hundred-thousand-dollar medical bill. She simply doesn’t see Net Neutrality as a real issue. Nothing in her experience leads her to consider that what teenage boys do could be politically important.

President Obama is different. He’s an old community organizer, and he knows community organizing when he sees it, and the difference between astroturf and real support. When he sees millions of comments in support of Net Neutrality, he mentally translates those into votes, and decides that antagonizing that many votes is simply not worth a campaign contribution. However, Obama is more intelligent than most politicians, and therefore more of a realist. His brainpower is more characteristic of a judge (a B student in law school instead of a C student).

Now, Jeb Bush, he’s conflicted. His better angel wants to come up with a long-term solution for all the Hispanics and Mexicans and South Americans, around him and to points south. In the short term, however, he has to work with elderly southern white men. His instinct probably runs with big companies. The problem about being a party of the rich is that there are not remotely enough rich to win elections. So a party of the rich has to find allies whose objectives do not conflict drastically with those of the rich. The classic alliance was with the small shopkeeper, but shopkeepers are in trouble in the age of WalMart and Amazon. Subsequent alliances with the religious right have not been very successful. The most singular thing which happened to Jeb Bush was that, as a young man, he went to Mexico, and married Mexican. Subsequently, he worked in real estate in South Florida. He must have spent a lot of time on construction sites, and one suspects that his vision of the new Republican base is a Mexican-American construction tradesman. He probably has some difficulty seeing how a construction tradesman, someone who works with his hands, would care passionately about the internet, at a level transcending bread-and-butter issues. Again, Bush is likely to see the internet as something to be traded off.

What we should be thinking about is not the mental defects of politicians, but how to use wireless technology to shift the focus of combat. By wireless, I include the various kinds of communication satellites ,smart handsets, the lot. Wireless is a libertarian technology, it’s starting premise being that the air is free to all. If wireless technology can be made to shift money away from the old legacy companies, they will start thinking about the possibilities of being bought out by the local sewer district, and their natural tendency for crookedness will be channeled to getting an unrealistically high purchase price. We can live with an unrealistically high purchase price. Legally containing wireless technology would require a lot of new laws, and we can block new laws.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: How Does Net Neutrality Relate to the Politicians' Own Politiical Objectives.

Oh poo. What Election?

Methinks the next POTUS will be someone we have yet to meet.

Hillary and the rest of the apparent wacky wanna-bees are just the window-dressing needed to give the US citizens something they DO NOT want to vote for, so that the New Corporate POTUS – who will say all the right things and have an impeccable background “story” – can be (s)elected as the “only sane choice” – just like O’bummer was, and the phony overwhelming “vote total” in favor can be laid at the feet of the US Public and the pundits can all say, the “people’s choice”, every thirteen minutes for 6 months.

I’m pretty sure the idea of Hillary being POTUS will scare the beezeejums outta most folks so bad that they will actually mostly vote for any smooth talking con-man that the CEOs in charge of Selections might offer up.

As long as there is an “obvious” reason for the popular vote to theoretically be cast for the new-comer, its a shoe-in to convince the public that they really did indeed vote for the pre-selected corporate crown prince.

Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again…

After all, the public never catches on to these gimmicks anyway. They’re all too busy trying to make ends meet in a world specifically designed to insure that the ends seldom meet for the majority of US society.

Uriel has a new web browser on his tablet. (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Someone we have yet to meet"

In our last election, we decided between a disappointing incumbant and the least despicable character in the Batman Rogues Gallery. I think neither side is interested in providing someone actually palatable to the public so much as slightly less objectionable than the other guy.

We’re going to probably get an election between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, and everyone in media is going to smile and grit their teeth and pretend that this is what they always wanted, just like they did with Romney.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: "Someone we have yet to meet"


But the Obama Scam worked perfectly.

Most Americans thought “Gee. A Black Guy as Pres. Wow. He will definitely be something new and wondrous because he’s not just another in a long line of white pretty-boys with a silver spoon up his nose.”

He was groomed by Republicans and his campaign was financed by Republicans and he was elected by Oprah! 🙂

The Fascists are not that original and not the brightest balls in the bag outside of turning one dollar into three dollars over and over again.

They’ll run with this scam at least once more because it worked and because it is in fact still working.

I seriously think the next POTUS has not even shown his face yet, but will be all over the TV very soon – once the public has had all it can stomach of the Wacky Wannabe Troupe of Faux Candidates, whose entire purpose is to drive the public towards the Ringer’s Tent.

We shall see.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I hope Bush and Obama serves as an example

George W. Bush campaigned as the compassionate conservative, a centrist moderate who slid to the far (far) right once he went into office.

Obama was the Hope and Change guy. Nominal change. Not much in the way of hope that we’re going to undo a lot of the evil shit that Bush did.

I’m now in the no confidence party. Whatever a candidate says while campaigning is irrelevant to what she is going to do in the Oval Office. I think anyone on the ballot is going to give pretty much the same thing: More stuff for big money, less stuff for the rest of us, and the same old torture, the same old surveillance, the same old police state. The same old wealth-disparity economy.

I want to believe that the rest of the people of the United States can add the same numbers and get the same sum that I do and predict the same pattern, and then make a huge fracas about it.

I’ve been disappointed by the people of the United States. They seem to be easily placated.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I hope Bush and Obama serves as an example

I’m sure it will be another standard (s)election process, where the new Wonder Guy will promise everyone a new car and a new job at higher wages and all the rest of the usual crap that is trucked out for elections, to con the people into casting some votes his way. Matters not really.

Once in power, even if it were done by an honest popular vote, the POTUS is only a figure-head who works for the billionaires that run US Inc., and either he does what they tell him to do or he will be replaced with one of the willing minions waiting in the wings.

I’m actually looking forward to seeing who they’ve hired for the job of POTUS this time.

Roger Strong, above, suggested this:

“Nixon has a grandson with an undergraduate degree in politics, a law degree, worked in John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and ran for Congress in 2010. Endorsed by Jeb Bush.”

Almost looks like the perfect corporate candidate, but we will see. They’d still have to make him appear to be at least slightly Democratic first.

Anonymous Coward says:

If Obama hadn’t pushed out the Progressive Democrats out of his inner circle, he only used them for the necessary initial victory in 2008, everyone knew what a crazy Hawk Hitlery is. If she was president right now we’d probably all be dead from an attempt at first striking Russia after them defending Iran. At least the northern hemisphere would be ruined of all human life and maybe that stuff my grandfather who was a fighter mechanic at some AFB in northern Canada told me about how they were actually spraying the skies with metals, silver nitrate in that occasion, I think, to reflect back the sun (act as a man-made ozone layer) back in the late 50’s, it’s what he told my dad, I remember my dad telling me about this in passing when I asked what was that long trail that def wasn’t a control that stayed for very long in the air behind these F-18’s (my city is home of an AFB…yay? that means we’re likely a place to strike at by Russia).

Always thought there was a link between the so-called climate change threat (more like geo-engineering kept on the hush-hush, amirite?) of killing us all back after the USSR folded was just some white lie, that yes we gotta worry about the future, more than ever again, even if the cold war is over ( I was 10 when the USSR dissolved), for the first few years it was like all wars are over! All these african dictatorships are dissolving and becoming democratic! Humanity is saved! Wasn’t long until we were warned of an intangible non-human factor.

Could be anything really, but anotheer Clinton/Bush showdown, with both wanting to bomb Iran to smithereens even if the proofs and the intelligence agencies everywhere tell these dumbass leaders not to worry, that Iran doesn’t want a nuke are all over, they fall on deaf ears. I say we won’t make it past 2018. And that’s not being alarmist, the Oxford Institute’s department on studying this particular field (I forgot the actual name) said back in 2013 that we had 5 to 100 years left if we continued this way. 5 in 2013 sounded a bit close but they said that technology, especially how fast and how powerful it becomes is our most dangerous enemy. 3d-Printers that print out carrier groups and B-2’s for China who just stole all that data (through israel nonetheless) suddenly appear, bricks are shat all over america. I’ll be the odd one out cheering, unless the US becomes so overwhelmed it just resorts to the fantasy of a “winnable First Strike”. If such was to happen, they need to use those mini nukes that are proven to exist by now, and not only the US have them…

I’ll just eat some valium and call in sick today, the world sucks the energy out of my brain and it’ll be one less day of working for the man with this great chemistry degree I use making useless shit (paint factory).

GEMont (profile) says:

My dear old Meme.

The current meme going around the web about the NN situation, is incorrect.

Most of the people spewing false information and scare stories about Title 2, “Do Know How Net Neutrality Works.


If they did not know how Net Neutrality Works, they would be unable to lie about it as effectively as they have been to date, and they would be unable to cash in on the Anti-Net-Neutrality campaigns financed by the Telecom Giants.

Mind you there are likely a few of them – like Jeb “The Dolt” Bush – who are too simply stupid to fully comprehend the nuances of Net Neutrality – or life in general for that matter – who are just repeating the script handed them by the Telecos.

But even for them it would be obvious that if they’re being paid to lie about it, then the statements they’re being paid to repeat, must be the opposite of the truth.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
05:30 Survey Shows Majority Of GOP Voters Support Restoring Net Neutrality (31)
06:25 Big Telecom Finally Ends Quest To Stop States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (35)
05:56 Big Telecom's Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers Continues To Go... Poorly (13)
12:15 Courts (Again) Shoot Down Telecom Lobby's Attempt To Kill State-Level Net Neutrality Rules (5)
04:48 Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered (23)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
More arrow