Broadband

by Karl Bode


Filed Under:
competition, fcc, isps, net neutrality, privacy

Companies:
sonic



40 ISPs, VoIP And VPN Providers Tell FCC They Like Having Net Neutrality Rules

from the far-from-Comcastic dept

Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike. But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens." Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok." That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed).

But in yet another example of net neutrality's broad support out here in the real world, the EFF this week accumulated a list of 40 or so ISPs, VPN and VoIP providers that would very much like it if the rules remained intact. Noting how the last FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under the Communications Act actually helps them compete with their larger counterparts, the companies note that net neutrality hasn't hurt their ability to develop and expand their networks in the slightest:

"We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet."

Among these companies is California ISP Sonic, one of the few independent ISPs from the early aughts that managed to survive the incumbent ISP gauntlet, and the slow but steady attack on competition that started under former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Michael Powell (we talked with Sonic CEO Dane Jasper about this a podcast last April). Sonic and the rest of the companies proceed to note that eliminating the rules doesn't "restore freedom" for them; in fact most of them worry that the elimination of the rules will have a dramatically negative impact on competition in the market:

"Without a legal foundation to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market, the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability. As direct competitors to the biggest cable and telephone companies, we have reservations about any plan at the FCC that seeks to enhance their market power without any meaningful restraints on their ability to monopolize large swaths of the Internet."

The companies also express concern about Congress' recent decision to kill broadband privacy protections at the behest of giant ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T -- most of which are not coincidentally conducting massive pivots into media and advertising:

"Lastly, we implore the FCC to examine the ramifications of the Congressional Review Act repeal of broadband privacy and provide guidance. We have long championed our customer’s privacy and believe Congress was in error to erode their legal right to privacy. However, the repeal’s detrimental impact on the reach and scope of Section 222’s ISP privacy provisions has resulted in great uncertainty in the market that the FCC could help provide clarity."

The companies' support comes on the heels of similar support for the rules from over 900 startups (you know, the people actually building the networks and technologies of tomorrow). In both instances (privacy and net neutrality), these "onerous regulations" had broad support among consumers and many smaller companies alike, highlighting again how the myopic opinion that "all regulation is automatically bad" is lazy thinking, a violent over-simplification, and incredibly detrimental when it comes to bringing competition to bear on one of the most anti-competitive and complicated segments of American industry.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Vidiot (profile), 29 Jun 2017 @ 6:09am

    Opponents are right, of course

    Having 40 providers contradict you... that's a really onerous burden.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 6:35am

    Yes, free riders would like that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 7:41am

      Re:

      What is a "free rider" ?

      Are you referring to those who profit hugely from the very low capitol gains tax levels? Or maybe you are referring to those who charge a "toll" at every chance they get? Possibly it refers to those who refuse to pay a living wage and therefore rely upon the tax payers to ensure low wage employees are available for hire in the area. Some how I doubt you have thought much about any of these things.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      So you'll pay their internet bills then.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2017 @ 2:01am

      Re:

      Which free riders? The ones who pay massive amounts of money for the bandwidth to supply content to people who have also paid for their bandwidth usage? Or did you have some other smear in mind?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 6:45am

    I can't wait to read comments from that guy who thinks that all regulation is bad. What hoops will they jump through to try and make this fit their narrative?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    tin-foil-hat, 29 Jun 2017 @ 6:47am

    US New speak

    Any mention of freedom by politicians or legislation will be restricting your freedom or violating your constitutional rights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 6:59am

    "Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike. But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens." Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok." That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed)."

    You sound just like Clapper. Your statements are technically correct on verbiage, but it is also a massive LIE of omission.

    Lets take this apart piece by piece.

    --"Opponents of net neutrality often claim the rules placed "onerous burdens" on small and large ISPs alike.--

    You mean Opponents of "regulation"? You are deceptively altering the narrative. Yes there are people shitting on Net Neutrality, but there are a lot of other shitting on Regulation and NN just happens to be in the crossfire.

    --But when push comes to shove, you'll rarely see any of these folks provide hard evidence of such "burdens."--

    I know right? The FCC's historical and OPEN directive to operate the Telco's as a giant "Natural Monopoly" is not proof of a fucking thing right? If a donkey kicked you in the face you would come up with some other excuse for why you have a black eye because you cannot bring yourself to state any facts that are inconvenient to your cause or party. So be honest yourself. You are OKAY with monopolies, as long as government is regulating it, which just becomes another "devils deal".

    --Usually, opposition is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rules do, and by a conflation of the rules with nebulous partisan worries that net neutrality somehow represents "government run amok."--

    I read the fucking rules myself! Zero Rating is a bullshit loop hole and the wording explicitly puts too much power into the hands of the FCC for enforcement to "pick and choose" winners and losers in the ISP space. THAT is a fucking problem and NOT what government should be allowed to do!

    I want REAL net-neutrality, not more bullshit regulatory doublespeak that allows the FCC to maintain that status quo based on which ISP donates to their coffers.

    --That confusion is, quite often, courtesy of "insight" on the subject from the likes of Ted Cruz, who has repeatedly tried to insist that killing the popular consumer protections somehow "restores freedom" (citation needed). --

    Okay, I have to agree with you there. Ted Cruz is a fucking tool and grossly ignorant on the subject matter here. But he is hardly the only SIDE spewing misinformation and causing confusion here!

    I want REAL net neutrality... not the cocked up Wheeler vision where FCC becomes a fucking ISP Czar agency where they can throw their dick around like a damn tyrant!

    All I can say is you guys freaking deserve this mess. You are all like a bunch of idiots that keep poking a fucking bear in hopes it will leave you alone. It makes no sense at all. You are asking for corrupt people to save you from corrupt people! How is this going to work out in our favor? Hint: I never will! The best we can hope for is to be screwed with lube and unlike you idiots... I don't want to be screwed at all!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 7:43am

      Re:

      "I want REAL net neutrality... not the cocked up Wheeler vision where FCC becomes a fucking ISP Czar agency where they can throw their dick around like a damn tyrant!"

      I think I speak for most people here in saying, we would also like real net neutrality codified in law rather than subject to some ISP Czar as well. But we're pragmatists. And we would have preferred the rules under Wheeler to the realities of what a current congress is likely to produce should they try to write a net neutrality law.

      But wanting something doesn't make it so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 9:12am

        Re: Re:

        "I think I speak for most people here in saying, we would also like real net neutrality codified in law rather than subject to some ISP Czar as well."

        I am NOT making that claim either. One thing I am sure of is that these guys here want a fair regulatory setting in the economy as well.

        "But we're pragmatists."

        No, I think you have been mentally defeated or just not understanding that you are giving big businesses what they want without realizing it. You are so used to regulation that it scares the shit out of you to consider not having it around.

        "And we would have preferred the rules under Wheeler to the realities of what a current congress is likely to produce should they try to write a net neutrality law."

        I am in the same boat, but that will NOT stop me from criticizing it for the garbage that it still is.

        Businesses would only give us a plate of shit for lunch if they could get away with it. Regulation benefits us by at least putting "some" actual food on our plate, but still mixed in with the shit.

        A strong free-market protected by anti-monopoly/trust regulations gives me the option to turn away from any plate I feel is being served with shit. Regulation often will not allow me to do that, because regulation has become the vehicle for which monopolies are established.

        "But wanting something doesn't make it so."

        Don't I know it!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:51pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You go dream about a free-market protected by anti-monopoly/trust, but in infrastructure the ideal isn't "more is better".

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 1:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That comment is so ignorant that it is painful.

            This is not about "more is better".

            It is about not letting the FCC lock you into a single ISP that can rip you off with the blessings of the State!

            You keep ignorantly seeing regulation as "salvation for the consumer". Regulation is just another word for LAWS. They can be good or they can be bad! Right now, when you go to a politician to get regulation in, the people you are trying to regulate just buy that politician and then scheme up ways to use the push for regulation to create regulations that help keep them in business and potential competitors OUT OF BUSINESS!

            Take the following example!

            http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2016/02/25/t-sues-city-o ver-google-fiber-proposal/80881870/

            This is what you get with regulation and why you are getting screwed! They just word the regulations to sucker you into believing that one up'd those nasty mean businesses!

            They are laughing at you all the way to the bank!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 1:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I am not seeing you propose anything resembling a coherent alternative. FTC has already admitted that they ain't got no ressources or knowledge to regulate them connected tube-thingies.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 1:57pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "coherent alternative"

                Ha ha... your solution is the incoherent one.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 2:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I have Lots of alternatives and they are Very Coherent!

                I have So Many "laternatives" that I can't even "List" them all! Or any f them!

                But you "Sycophantic Idiots" always pull this! Where you calim I don't have any "suggestions" just becaue I never have any suggestions!

                Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 7:47am

      Re:

      Yes, you are correct in that everyone is an idiot except you.
      I'm quite certain that you are the life of the party and are always invited to the best parties. You are always right and anyone who does not idolize you is an idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      It's not about net neutraility it's about Regulations! All regulations are Negative, except net neutrality, which I am in favor of, but I want "real" net neutrality, not regulations! You are all stupid! Stupid stupid! And also sycophantic! Me? I don't know the meaning of the word "sycophantic!" I mean, I literally don't know the meaning of it. But I sure like saying it! Idiots! Stupid idiots! Not like me! I am smart! I am very very smart! You can tell I am very very smart because I spend all my time talking about how "smart" I am, which iw what Smart people do!

      Now give me my "Paint" chips!

      Every Nation eats the paint Chips it Deserves!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:16am

      Re:

      How does that go? A fanatic is someone who can't change their mind, and won't shut up. Goes for Chip, too.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re:

        Chip is just trolling, ignore Chip.

        No, that is NOT the definition of a fanatic. Closed Minded is someone that cannot change their mind and won't shut up.

        If you can find me a human being that is not corrupt and will run for office and remain in that position for the rest of their life and be immune from big business waving their money in their face then... yea... I will happily change my mind and give THAT guy Czar power.

        The problem is, the idea that giving away my rights to pick and choose who I do business with away to a politician, as a solution. It is not, and it will never be!

        All I need government to do is prevent these businesses from creating monopolies, trusts or oligopolies, and regulations that limit new startups from replacing the big terrible turds.

        The FCC brought us these monopolies, its not even a secret, they literally said "lets make them a natural monopoly and regulate them as one". This is the end result of regulatory capture, which regulations will drive towards if kept unchecked.

        Here is the pattern.

        Create Regulation.
        Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
        Create More Regulation.
        Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
        Create even More Regulation.
        Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win... AGAIN!

        What was the definition of insanity again? Trying the same things over and over, but expecting different results? Why do we think that an elected Politician has any reason to serve our interest's when we do not get rid of corrupt politicians? All they need to be is part of a party where they are guaranteed a large number of votes through party sycophancy and the rest is just lying and cheating their way to the remaining votes necessary to win!

        Any legal solution that removes the responsibility of the standing public to make smart decisions in the economy will only result it us getting fucked. In most cases, anything other than anti-monopoly & anti-trust regulations results it getting exactly what we did not want.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          See?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You do realize that it also applies to you correct?

            Remember that one cannot go about calling someone else closed mined without first being closed to their way of thinking. It has been my experience that the most prolific bigots, racists, closed minded, biased, and hypocrites are the ones running around calling others those very things.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 9:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I know You are, but What am I?

              Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 9:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Hello chip, if you are still coherent enough to post, you obviously have not had your fill of paint chips today.

                I am beginning to think you are running a scam here. Fess up!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:31am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Dont' try to Regulate me, Sycophant!

                  Every nation Eats the paint chips it Deserve!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Hey, no regulation here... just making a few observations.

                    I still don't think your plate is piled high enough friend. Here... have a few more! You will be ready for a siesta in no time!

                    bon appétit

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 11:48am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You are the regulator extraordinaire, always spouting off about how you would regulate regulations, which is ... wait for it ... regulation!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:04pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        lol... yes there is an obvious need for "some" regulation, but it definitely needs to be far more narrow than what they are now.

                        The problem is that the term regulation has now been bastardized into serving a meaning it no longer serves.

                        Regulation = Nothing but blessing for the poor to pro-regulation people. It is not.
                        DeRegulation = Nothing but a blessing for the poor to anti-regulation people. It is not.

                        People often view DeRegulation as complete destruction of regulation and will ride that lie to the end of the tunnel in hopes they win their ignorant arguments.

                        In reality, there are very few people that actually want DeRegulation in the way that TD frames it's meaning. I am pro-DeRegulation, but only until we get to anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation. Those need to be strong and remain for obvious reasons.

                        The first problem is that even those kinds of regulations are very susceptible to corrupt ass politicians not enforcing those either.

                        The second problem is the idea that adding more regulations to only be enforced by those same corrupt ass politicians that caused this problem by not enforcing the first ones to begin with is an exceptionally short sighted solution.

                        It is exactly the same as Comey's "nerd harder" policy on getting a back door installed on all systems where only the "good guys" get the keys.

                        We are literally asking corruption politicians to "regulation harder" while we are looking at them fucking it all up! Anyone that thinks they can regulation without corruption needs to not be a part of the discussions on this solution.

                        Everything in law/regulation is corruptible... all rules and regulations need to created with that root principle in mind.

                        Removing free-market is the same as removing Juries from the Court room and just letting the Judge make the decision!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 2:23pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Reulgation = Thing I just made up
                          De3rgulation = Other thing I just made up

                          If I misuse "Words", it's Your Fault! It's everyone Else's fault but Mine!

                          Why won't you sycophantic Idiots show some Personal Responsibility like "I" do? Idiots!

                          Every Nation eatst he Paint chips it Deserves!

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Here is the pattern.

          Create Regulation.
          Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
          Create More Regulation.
          Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win.
          Create even More Regulation.
          Enforcement is not sufficient and businesses win... AGAIN!"

          Except that there are plenty of examples of regulation that HAS worked. And by 'worked', I mean 'made the situation better than it was'. Of course nothing is perfect.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That is not my argument here. My argument is that making the situation better "in this way" is not a good solution.

            Yes, some form of net neutrality is better than no form. The problem is everyone's willingness to make a deal with the devil to lose a part of their voice when they should not have to lose any part of their voice. Regulation removes my voice from the economy where now, only the regulators and businesses have a voice. I no longer get to pick and choose who I do business with I get to instead do business with whomever the "government chooses" I can do business with.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, and with no regulation, your choice will be from the monopoly with zero respect for net neutrality and...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you can find me a human being that is not corrupt and will run for office and remain in that position for the rest of their life and be immune from big business waving their money in their face then... yea... I will happily change my mind and give THAT guy Czar power.

          So, given that this human does not exist, do you have a solution other than screaming at us for not fulfilling your "not idiot" criteria?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "do you have a solution"

            do you have eyeballs to read with? cause that and "other" solutions have already been given plenty of times, but I know your game already.

            Ignore all solutions that are proposed, then turn around and say that no one gave you a solution so you can move forward with your idea. It's called being closed minded. You are not interested in any other solution that your own.

            I am ONLY interested in solutions where I still get to have a say in matters as a citizen and NOT interested in any solutions where a Politician is deciding my fate where they get to "pretend" to care about me while laughing at us behind "closed doors" as they construct these damnable regulations!

            It's one of the reasons I dislike democrats a smidgen more than republicans. At least the republicans are a bit more honest when they state that they are preparing to fuck you! The Democrats are still in bed with big business but hey have fooled their followers into believing otherwise. They are stupid fucking rich and part of that elite and you poor schmucks still fucking believe them when they say they will tax the rich and spend on the poor. It is the most laughable fucking farce in existence and it has been going on since before any of us were born!

            sure I do not expect to get very far by discussing this with a bunch of leftists and pro regulation zealots, but I am also here to tell you that you are getting played, BIG TIME! You think you are playing for the A Team, when you are actually scoring for the B Team! Cut that shit out!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I have lots of solutions! Lots and lots of solutions! Lots and lots and "lots" of Solutions! So many solutions that I'm not going go give you Any!

              Thats how You can tell how many "Solutions" I have! Because I never give any, and Can't name a Single Time I have actually Done so!

              Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                So you DO like Trump! I knew there was something wrong with you! Try to tone down the trump love bro, I don't like him much but the others around here hate him even more!

                You might get lynched and then were would be be without our Paint Chip eating mascot?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:07pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  If I "change the Subject" to Trump, that will just show how many Solutions I have!

                  Every Nation eats The paint Chips it deserves!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:14pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    no, it would only show how many times you spoke or used a word that you did not understand.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:39pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      oh, like Sycophantic! I love that word!

                      Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:47pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Everyone deserves to have a few words they love, but it is important to understand what they mean.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 2:28pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Wht about Historical Quotes? I know this one Historical Quote that I really loe that shows how Very Very Smart I am, but I don't "know what it means".

                          Every Nation eats the paint chips it Deserves!

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Playing for...? Dude, you spend half your time whining about the two party system and supporting politicians, and your solution is to accuse other posters of supporting a group or system, despite multiple posters and instances indicating that they don't support any of this? Just what the fuck does it take to convince you that not everybody is the regulation-loving, government's-dick-up-the-ass fantasy bogeyman you want everyone to be, just so you can shout at everybody else with a ridiculously overblown sense of self-importance?

              You were asked for solutions, given that yes, we agree that relying on a human or human group isn't possible - and what's your reply? More smoke and mirrors about how your cavalcade of berating insults, which repeat the fact that humans are infallible (and the ones in politics, even more so) have somehow magically also contained the solution? That's not a solution; that's the sort of shit any ten-year-old trying to pass himself off as a movie critic can assemble on YouTube, trying to sound minimally intelligent, cryptic and witty!

              Naw, mate, this is your game. Blame everything on everyone regardless of which country they come from, how much resources and influence they have at their command, then bitch at them no matter what their response is. Because that's somehow constructive...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Vel the Engimatic, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      "The FCC's historical and OPEN directive to operate the Telco's as a giant "Natural Monopoly" is not proof of a fucking thing right?"

      Citation needed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re:

        do you need a fucking citation that we landed on the fucking moon too?

        I don't like to give citations because it is pointless to attempt to educate a fool that needs people to lead them around by the nose instead of going and learning for their fucking selves!

        butt... since I am such a terrible asshole.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

        "From monopoly to competition
        See also: History of AT&T

        The important relationship of the FCC and the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Company evolved over the decades. For many years, the FCC and state officials agreed to regulate the telephone system as a natural monopoly.[52] The FCC controlled telephone rates and imposed other restrictions under Title II to limit the profits of AT&T and ensure nondiscriminatory pricing.

        In the 1960s, the FCC began allowing other long-distance companies, namely MCI, to offer specialized services. In the 1970s, the FCC allowed other companies to expand offerings to the public.[53] A lawsuit in 1982 led by the Justice Department after AT&T underpriced other companies, resulted in the Breakup of the Bell System from AT&T. Beginning in 1984, the FCC implemented a new goal that all long-distance companies had equal access to the local phone companies' customers.[54] Effective January 1, 1984, the Bell System’s many member-companies were variously merged into seven independent "Regional Holding Companies", also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". This divestiture reduced the book value of AT&T by approximately 70%.[55]
        Internet

        The FCC initially exempted "information services" such as broadband Internet access from regulation under Title II. The FCC held that information services were distinct from telecommunications services that are subject to common carrier regulation.

        However, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to help accelerate deployment of "advanced telecommunications capability" which included high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video, and to regularly assess its availability. In August 2015, the FCC said that nearly 55 million Americans did not have access to broadband capable of delivering high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.[56]

        On February 26, 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service, thus subjecting it to Title II regulation, although several exemptions were also created. The reclassification was done in order to give the FCC a legal basis for imposing net neutrality rules (see below), after earlier attempts to impose such rules on an "information service" had been overturned in court."

        And if you think that shit is a lie, go and fucking edit the damn page making it read the way YOU want it to read.

        Don't forget to cite your fucking sources!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:12am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I thought you were going to move to the regulation free country of Somolia so you could practise what you preach. And eat your paint chips in peace, without us pointing out what a sanctimonious little snot you are.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            ah snap...

            One Sanctimonious little snot calling another Sanctimonious little snot out!

            I am not sanctimonious I am just trying to slap you silly suckers out of your, ass in the air rape me with regulation, delusions!

            Protecting yourself, is YOUR responsibility. You can only farm a small portion of it out to others before you run into farming out your freedom and liberty along with it! This is a basic truth. If you want government to protect you from the big bad business boogie man then you are already getting what you deserve to get. You better run and get to sucking some democrat or republican dick, but good luck with that. They seem to be too busy sucking big business dick to pay you much attention... until election season where you will once again forget that they have been corrupted and screwing you while they trick you AGAIN into paying more attention to that "other bad candidate more worse than I am" gambit every election cycle.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 11:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Your shoulder must hurt, what with lugging that cross around all day.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 11:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                despite my bitching and moaning I am doing quite well. Unlike most other idiots I figured out how to avoid most of the bullshit in life where everyone fucks themselves over.

                But I do admit that it is very hard to convince others that the way I live is nice. They are all stuck in their little Stockholm syndrome settings.

                I am a high school drop out and no college, but am blessed to earn a very nice living and surrounded by a few good friends. I am always thinking outside of the box and never listened too. It's odd that I am not a failure in life when so many others who have "figured life out" are not as blessed.

                I guess I am just lucky and it colors my bias a lot, but so far my logic has yet to fail me.

                My shoulder is fine, but my eyes hurt from watching the rest of you.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 10:46pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So... your solution is to be networked with a few friends that accept you for being a pissy little asshole who insults everyone he disagrees with, and fund you for your lack of qualifications?

                  The basis of your life situation and its perks are primarily determined because you were lucky? That's a solution? Luck?

                  Gee, wonder why nobody else believes you have a solution. You're akin to the kind of gamer who charges into a competitive game with godmode hacks, kills everyone with his "I win!" button, then screams at everyone to "git gud". Mature and skilled.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      We all want real Net Neutrality. The problem is all the time in between killing the old rules and implementing the new ones where the giant cable oligopolies will lie, cheat, steal and abuse the system in their favor, putting everyone else at harm for personal gain.

      If we want to get rid of the current flimsy New Neutrality rules, let's get the stronger ones passed first.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2017 @ 12:54pm

        Re: Re:

        "let's get the stronger ones passed first."

        they already exist, the problem is they are not being enforced. Nothing will end the net neutrality debate as fast as people being able to pick and choose which ISP's they want to do business with.

        In fact those regulations not being enforced is what got most of you to call for more regulation to begin with. What good is more regulation going to fix? They don't have to enforce those either and proven by the verbiage of Wheeler Vision version of Net Neutrality.

        The FCC has a long history of supporting Monopolies and in their own words. What does it say about you to say that we need regulation to save us from monopolies when almost 75% of the fucking market is still a damn monopoly BLESSED by the fucking FCC, the same agency you propose to give MORE power to? Do you not realize how stupid that makes you all look?

        TD and many of you are so bent over on regulation that you will take anything, as long as it is regulation. Its the same logic as saying... doing something is better than nothing... even when doing that something will be WORSE than having done nothing!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Chip, 29 Jun 2017 @ 2:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If I keep saying THE SAME THINGS enough Times, will people Finally recognize my "brilliance"?

          Every Nation eatst hte Paitn chips it Desrves!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.