FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash

from the there's-no-hiding-from-this dept

Numerous reports have indicated that the FCC intends to try and hide its attack on net neutrality behind the looming Thanksgiving holiday. The agency is expected to either unveil its formal plan on Wednesday while Americans are distracted by holiday preparations, or potentially on Friday, while Americans are busy shopping for black Friday bargains. Regardless of when it's unveiled, the announcement will involve unveiling a formal date to vote to finally kill the rules, currently expected to be December 15:

"It's a devilishly brilliant plan by the FCC and its chairman, Ajit Pai, who has made no secret of his wish to undo the benchmark rules put in place during Barack Obama's presidency. There will inevitably be plenty of people already enjoying their holiday break, and any major coverage on Wednesday will then be lost to a day of turkey, gravy, football, and indigestion, followed by three more days in which people won't be looking at the news."

Except this obfuscation plan isn't "devilishly brilliant," it's a massive underestimation of the brutal backlash awaiting the broadband industry and its myopic water carriers. Survey after survey (including those conducted by the cable industry itself) have found net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support. The plan is even unpopular among the traditional Trump trolls over at 4chan /pol/ that spent the last week drinking onion juice. It's a mammoth turd of a proposal, and outside of the color guard at the lead of the telecom industry's sockpuppet parade -- the majority of informed Americans know it.

Net neutrality has been a fifteen year fight to protect the very health of the internet itself from predatory duopolists like Comcast. Killing it isn't something you can hide behind the green bean amandine, and it's not a small scandal you can bury via the late Friday news dump. This effort is, by absolutely any measure, little more than a grotesque hand out to one of the least competitive -- and most disliked -- industries in America. Trying to obfuscate this reality via the holidays doesn't change that. Neither does giving the plan an Orwellian name like "Restoring Internet Freedom."

It's abundantly clear that if the FCC and supporters were truly proud of what they were doing, they wouldn't feel the need to try and hide it. If this was an FCC that actually wanted to have a candid, useful public conversation about rolling back net neutrality, it wouldn't be actively encouraging fraud and abuse of the agency's comment system. To date, the entire proceeding has been little more than a glorified, giant middle finger to the public at large, filled with scandal and misinformation. And the public at large -- across partisan aisles -- is very much aware of that fact.

Consumers, small businesses, and those interested in keeping the internet open, healthy and competitive will remember this severe of a shafting. It's going to inform policy conversations and voting decisions (especially among Millennials) for years to come. This isn't something that can be hidden between the cranberry sauce and Grandpa Jones' corn bake surprise, and the fact that Ajit Pai's staff thinks that's even possible highlights how absurdly out of touch the current FCC actually is.

Many people obviously believed that the net neutrality conversation was over when the FCC crafted the 2015 rules, and that they could subsequently tune out because the fight had been won.

But net neutrality isn't a conversation that begins or ends when rules are created or destroyed. Since net neutrality is just a symptom of the disease that is a lack of broadband competition, this is a battle that will persist for as long as said lack of broadband competition exists, and for as long as companies like Comcast attempt to abuse it. With Pai at the helm, that's certainly not changing anytime soon. In fact, with the gutting of privacy protections, net neutrality rules, and a blind federal and state eye turned toward cable's growing monopoly over broadband, it's going to get notably worse.

Supporters of net neutrality also need to understand that the broadband industry's assault on net neutrality is a two-phase plan. Phase one is having an unelected bureaucrat like Ajit Pai play bad cop with his vote to dismantle the rules. Phase two will be to gather support for a net neutrality law that professes to be a "long-standing solution to this tiresome debate." In reality, this law will be written by ISP lobbyists themselves as an attempt to codify federal apathy on this subject into law. These weaker protections will be designed to be so loophole-filled as to effectively be useless, preventing the FCC from revisiting the subject down the road. A solution that isn't -- for a problem they themselves created.

It's understandable that the public and press is tired of this debate after fifteen years. But instead of hand wringing and apathy, we should be placing the blame for this endless hamster wheel at the feet of those responsible for it: Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Charter, and the army of lawmakers, economists, fauxcademics, and other hired policy tendrils willing to sell out the health of the internet -- and genuinely competitive markets -- for a little extra holiday cash. Folks that honestly believe they can lie repeatedly with zero repercussion, and hide a giant middle finger behind the gluten-free stuffing and Aunt Martha's cardboard-esque pumpkin pie.

Make no mistake: net neutrality is likely a permanent battle against telecom duopolists with a vested interest in abusing a lack of broadband competition. It's a battle for a healthy, open internet, truly competitive markets, and the right to innovate without Comcast, Verizon or AT&T interference. The decision to ignore the will of the public and kill existing, popular net neutrality rules is going to pour napalm on that fire, not extinguish it.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    burt hoovis, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:32am

    you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

    'Net Neutrality' is nothing but an innocuous term used by the government so that they can justify further regulate internet service providers and how they do business. None of the 'doomsday' scenarios that people worry about have occurred in a meaningful way.

    I applaud Ajit Pai and his principled approach to allow market forces to continue to allow market forces to control the evolution of the internet.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:59am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Looks like Pai's a techdirt reader...

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

      • identicon
        Zel, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:29pm

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        http://www.iflscience.com/technology/country-net-neutrality/

        Read the link. It actually is already happening in other parts of the world where these rules do not exist. You really should look outside just the US before making these kind of statements.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 2:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

          First and foremost, I fully support net neutrality and I feel the existing standards should remain.
          That said, according to the majority of the comments on the article you linked, what is actually being offered are packages that let you use those groups of apps without touching your 10 GBs of mobile data. Apparently you are not restricted from using these services without the special package, but it will use up your data if you do. Now, I don't know any Portuguese, so I can't research into this to find out if this is the case, but the overwhelming majority of comments indicate that it is.

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

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

            what is actually being offered are packages that let you use those groups of apps without touching your 10 GBs of mobile data.

            That's called zero rating, and it's a net neutrality violation.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

              Hell, I'd argue zero rating is far more sinister.

              Makes it easy to mislead people into thinking its a free and open market like the person you responded to.

              At least with AOL style internet no one is going to fall for that line of thinking.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 2:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

                I wish people would stop conflating wireless rules with general internet - they are different.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:00am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Are you really that stupid or are you just another shill.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:15am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      What "market forces"? There's no competition, so the only marker force is "take it or leave it, suckers".

      But let's follow your path of reasoning. Why limit yourself to Internet? Stop regulate the drug production - let the "market forces" to control the evolution of pharmaceuticals. Disband FDA. After all if the company says the anti-emetic pain relief if safe, it surely is. The market forces will drive another Chemie Grünenthal out of the market after some other Thalidomide. Eventually. Or not, considering they are still operating.
      And why would you need FCC? Wifi interfering with the airport radar? Well, the market forces will fix that. After a crash or two.

      Are you sure the market forces will keep your job as a Ajit puppet for much longer? Your above feeble attempts at licking his backside might fail to impress.

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

      • identicon
        Bruce C., 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        Well at least until the wireless carriers have the capacity (and desire) to compete with landline providers. Once you have Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint competing with AT&T/Time Warner and Comcast.

        Plus high bandwidth wireless opens the door to more municipalities rolling their own, as the upfront infrastructure is much lower than fiber. So smaller communities become viable markets for regional service providers, and it's easier for communities to get over the state regulatory hurdles like "no tax dollars" and public referendums that have been imposed at the state level.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:23am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Damn those reanimated zombies work fast...

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:35am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Nice alias Pai, do yourself a favor, and "hoovis" your "burt" out of office before we do it for you.

      You're a corporate shill, willing to fuck over everyone else in the name of self-enrichment, and nothing more. You are a disgrace to yourself and your fellow citizenry, for which you should be punished.

      This is absolutely not a 'principled approach' to the regulating the internet. The only reason why those 'doomsday scenarios' you're talking about haven't happened yet is because of regulation, not in spite of it. Removing those regulations would allow for all sorts of price gouging and abuse. Of course, there is no point in explaining this to a corporate stooge like you, who only seeks profits for himself, and would call such behavior a "profit center" or "good business" despite the harm done to society as a whole.

      Get the fuck out. You have no business here if your sole goal is to tear everything down.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        > The only reason why those 'doomsday scenarios' you're talking about haven't happened yet

        Don't give in to the troll arguments. The ISPs are very much looking to make the doomsday scenarios a reality as much as they can (are not slapped for).

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:02am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Aiming for funniest of the week are we?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:07am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Interesting. I'm sure that this has nothing to do with Pai's ability to profit massively (as in 9 figures) from ramming this through. I mean, it can't: who could possibly imagine that anyone in the Trump administration would try to use their position as a means to enrichment?

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:27am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      "None of the 'doomsday' scenarios that people worry about have occurred in a meaningful way."

      Because you still have net neutrality, which is something that's been in place since the internet was invented. The rules you're arguing against are to prevent corporations from leveraging defacto monopolies to curb free speech and prevent competition in the markets they operate (which extend well outside the ISP market). The "doomsday" scenarios will happen when those rules are removed, not before, which is why it's so important to have a meaningful discussion based on facts now, not based on the fictions you've been fooled into believing.

      I know this is probably a troll, just putting that there in case anyone was confused. It's sad really. People like this actually exist, and will happily vote their rights away to corporations if they can be convinced the government is trying to take them. Then probably blame the "other team" in government rather than demanding their representatives fix the problem.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:42am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Never heard of Portugal?

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

    • icon
      FUPai (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:06am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Nice fake account Pai. Damn Dirtbag.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:17am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Hi Burt,

      What "market forces" are you referring to, specifically?

      Can you name a place in the United States that has effective free-market competition, where consumers have their choice of at least 3 ISPs, and as a result they have access to higher-quality service at lower prices?

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

      • identicon
        Gary, 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:31pm

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        Monticello, MN has 3 different ISPs. One of them is owned by the city. Because of the competition we pay less than $100.00 a month for 1GB (yes, GIGA) fiber to the home and can choose from three different providers for roughly the same price.

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

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 23 Nov 2017 @ 5:21am

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        For the minimum speed that meets the FCC definition of broadband, 25/3 Mbps:
        30% of US households have 0 providers
        48% have one
        19% have 2
        3% have 3+

        For 100/15 speeds, it's:
        0: 55%
        1: 35%
        2: 9%
        3+: 1%

        The chart doesn't include whether that 2% of people with something resembling competition have higher-quality or lower prices.

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

    • identicon
      WTH?, 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:24am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      What market force is Ajit Pai allowing to control the evolution of the internet?

      Hey shill, I only have ONE CHOICE FOR INTERNET PROVIDER. That's not a free market. Ajit Pai and his ilk have created the perfect closed market where I CANNOT vote with my dollar -- that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of a free market.

      If it isn't a free market in every element of it, then it isn't at all a free market.

      While I agree with the sentiment that regulatory manipulation is a bad thing, you can't tell me the doomsday scenarios aren't going to happen WHEN THEY'RE HAPPENING RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE. The duopolists/monopolists have control of every mile of Internet on-ramp, access roads, highways, business routes, etc. EVERY SINGLE MILE!!!! That means they can brow-beat me on how much data I download, and how much data Netflix transmits, and when they have no oversight on how they do that brow-beating, i.e., no net neutrality rules whatsoever, no one can change their behavior.

      Well, we could all become luddites I guess and disconnect from the Internet entirely.

      Free market forces only work when they surround a market from all sides and can effectively influence behavior by allowing the consumers of the market to dictate supply and demand. That simply doesn't exist here.

      In the absence of a truly free market, you need regulatory interference because no one else has any power to change market behavior. Ugh, I hate that I just defended regulatory interference, but that's what we're forced into due to decades of cronyism and industry shills in the FCC. It is really the result of HAVING the FCC, a group of people that has NEVER regardless of who has been in power, looked at the long term telecommunications needs of this nation and looked to implement a market that can support change and growth. EVER.

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

      • icon
        cattress (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 12:02am

        Re: Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

        Yes! Yes! Applause! I am Libertarian and believer in free markets too! But this isn't a free market, hasn't been since we started getting internet directly from the phone and cable companies, which have always been under government regulation.
        This is the perfect example of what makes liberals (which I'm not using as a slur or in a derogatory manner because liberal is not a dirty word) have animosity towards capitalism and free markets. This is cronyism that is pretending to be capitalism, which it's not even very good at. It is not a result of the failure of free markets, it is the result of a failed privatization of a government monopoly.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Richard Bennett (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:28am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      How sad that Techdirt readers have censored this comment. Because they're for freedom, man.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:33am

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      I would agree with you if market forces actually existed. I work directly with large networks and have tried to bring other companies in the area. Unfortunately there are strange rules that prevent them. As an example, there is a small ISP in a neighboring town that offers fiber to their residents. Great support and good internet and have used them to run fiber in several areas. Tried to get them in my town and the only way is if I lease fiber lines from a utility pole to them. Their is a law here that ISPs are only allowed to offer to residentials and commercial institutions if they can connect 90% of the residents within city limits at any given time. That ISP is in a small area that can easily support that but won't touch any big towns because it can't afford to run that much line. Everyone else was bought out by one of big names. For work, I am actually looking to run or lease the fiber to them as I need to have a secondary dedicated line but for home, I only have 1 high speed option and 1 crappy speed option.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:12pm

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      @burt hoovis
      you are a fucking clown.

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

    • identicon
      Zel, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:23pm

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      Read the link. It actually is already happening in other parts of the world where these rules do not exist. You really should look outside just the US before making these kind of statements.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 3:15pm

      Re: you guys have the 100% wrong take on net netrality

      "None of the 'doomsday' scenarios that people worry about have occurred in a meaningful way."

      You are right, and this is because of Net Neutrality rules. There have been attempts to take steps in such a direction but because we have these rules all of these attempts have failed.

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

  • icon
    TasMot (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:48am

    "Restoring Internet Freedom"

    I guess that corporate America doesn't realize that people are tired of being "RIF-fed" already after years of layoffs with fancy names.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 5:10am

    If only there was some other way to learn about stuff...

    There will inevitably be plenty of people already enjoying their holiday break, and any major coverage on Wednesday will then be lost to a day of turkey, gravy, football, and indigestion, followed by three more days in which people won't be looking at the news."

    They are absolutely right, the only reason people know about Pai's attempt to kill off network neutrality rules is because of the extensive, non-John Oliver coverage it's received. As such if people aren't stuck to their tv's they will have absolutely no way to know when Pai tries to sneak something through, no way to make their displeasure heard, and no way to tell others about it.

    Not to mention, with no expectation that Pai would try to slip something through that the public would object to there will be absolutely no reason for people to be extra watchful just in case he tries something, so if he does it will come as a complete surprise.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:15am

      Re: If only there was some other way to learn about stuff...

      I do notice that they waited until right after his season ended to make the announcement.

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

  • icon
    hij (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:01am

    The problem is the FCC

    This is something that the legislators should have sorted out a long time ago and made law. Leaving it up to the FCC will always come back to this sort of bureaucratic nonsense. It will continue to be an issue as long as the Congress refuses to address the problem.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:17am

    whiners

    "If this was an FCC that actually wanted to have a candid, useful public conversation"

    You are not wanting a candid convo either. All you whine for is uncontrolled legislation.

    I would rather live with capitalist monopolies instead of the regulatory monopolies we have now. The government is literally standing behind the telco while they fuck us over and you silly fucks want to keep giving the people that created the problem more power and control.

    Pai is everything you asked for and you have been warned for decades. You didn't listen then and you sure as fuck are not listening now.

    lay in your bed quietly, you made it!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:46am

      Re: whiners

      Stop your whining

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:50am

      Re: whiners

      lay in your bed quietly, you made it!

      No, Pai made it. We're being forced to sleep in it by a bunch of Trumptards. (The president appoints the FCC chairman. It's not an elected position.) You bet your ass we're going to be loud about it.

      I would rather live with capitalist monopolies instead of the regulatory monopolies we have now.

      Really? OK, then when the insurance company says they are not covering your latest medical expense at all good luck with paying the expenses out of pocket. Also, have fun paying to drive on each street everyday twice a day as you go to and from work, on a salary of whatever pittance they decide you're worth. Don't forget to pay the police officer his bribe or that "friend" of his might show up, and then you'll need to pay the firefighter, and the EMTs.

      You Capitalist Maximists have a very broken and ultimately unworkable vision for how society should operate. Namely: "F' yours, got mine." Guess what? You should be happy with Pai. After all, he's a paid corporate shill working on their behalf. He's literally implementing what you want: A capitalist monopoly. It's just being enforced by the government, instead of a bunch of Rentacops. Or were the Rentacops the thing you were counting on to make everything work in your vision?

      The government is literally standing behind the telco while they fuck us over and you silly fucks want to keep giving the people that created the problem more power and control.

      They'd still be standing there in your scenario. The problem is the Capitalists who don't give a shit about the society that gave them their wealth, then whine and complain when society demands that they do. Yeah, the economic model doesn't explicitly require you to give a shit, but the basic underpinnings of society do. Don't like it? You're free to do business in another country that's more accepting of your screwing them over, but something tells me your greed will catch up to you eventually. You can't constantly screw others over without penalty, eventually they fight back.

      All you whine for is uncontrolled legislation.

      No, we "whine" for legislation that gives everyone a fair shot at the market. We "whine" to protect startups from unfair barriers to entry and double dipping created by established incumbents. We "whine" to ensure that companies can't exploit someone's health crisis to make a buck. We "whine" to ensure that the public isn't scammed and overcharged for poor or non-existent goods and services. We "whine" because we want a fair market that the Capitalist Monopolies seek to destroy for their own self-benefit at everyone else's expense.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:56am

        Re: Re: whiners

        The stupidity of calling us trumptards is beyond me. I am on your side on this, but why would anyone want to continue to support you when all you do is act like a 5 year old calling people names? Dumb.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:06am

          Re: Re: Re: whiners

          I'll agree the name-calling is not productive, but if you're actually a Trump supporter then it's rather hypocritical to be complaining about such things.

          Unfortunately, the fact is this - on subject like this, people armed with facts are rather frustrated at being over-ridden by outright fiction such as that presented by the OP. Especially when it's not theory - effective regulation is proven to work across the globe, while unfettered capitalist only leads to robber barons.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

            You don't even know what a fact is.

            Your "regulations" have lead to the very monopolies you claim you seek to prevent. You are like that doctor that says "this won't hurt a bit" right before you amputate someone legs without anesthetic. And when they start complaining you tell them that is all in their head.

            What do you call someone like you that keeps trying the same thing over and over and over again but expects different results?

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              As long as you are only writing what you are against, while attacking people for implying what you are for, your argumentation is a selfrighteous rant and not worth addressing.

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                Doth thou not recognize that thou art more guilty than those you accuse?

                I have offered at least some detail on my position, you have offered none. What good is a person that offers only vitriol but does not describe the particular thing on which they offer it. Do you discount a person entirely when it is only the one thing you might disagree with?

                The moment you feel that someone is not worth addressing is the moment you have lost. Entire civilizations have fallen through your logic.

                "Eternal Vigilance" is the price of liberty, which is why you have less of it. Oppression has taken the spot where you vigilance once stood and you have invited it in by way of the front door under the guise of "regulation".

                This is how all things usurp each other. Under the guise of giving to you, it will take instead. A citizen and their liberties are soon parted by a promise making politician.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                  Stop your whining

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

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:23am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                  Me thinks you doth protest too much. You fucking wanker.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:48am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                  Actually, despite your assertions to the contrary, many people have offered very detailed responses on their positions. You on the other hand have offered little more than vague assertions that "regulation is bad and free market is good". While no one is disputing that OVER regulation is bad and WORKING free market is good and preferrable, what they are saying is that we have very little regulation and in this case corporations are taking advantage of that to the point where we no longer have a working free market in the ISP space.

                  Secondly, it is actually quite valid to not address someone when to do so is totally pointless and actually would be further detrimental to society if they did address them. For example, the schoolyard bully, in most cases, the best way to deal with them is to ignore them since a lot of the time what they are after is attention and if they don't get it, they eventually leave you alone. Addressing them would only escalate matters. Entire civilizations have fallen due to this as well. (citation needed)

                  You are correct, "Eternal Vigilance" is the price of liberty, which is why we in America have more of it than many other nations. This is why everyone is so upset over this, because we ARE being vigilant and removing any oversight from ISP's to steamroll over us is something that would damage our liberties. Hence we are trying to stop it.

                  I think you misunderstand the conversation taking place here. We aren't buying into some politician's promises and blindly following their lead that will give up our freedom and liberties. Many of us work in IT or other technical fields where we deal with all of these issues on a daily basis. We know how the internet and networks work and we know that what ISP's want to do would destroy the internet as we know it, and the only thing stopping them from doing so are net neutrality rules.

                  How the internet works is completely open and not hard to understand if you take the time to learn. Almost every single technology company or internet startup understands this and opposes rolling back net neutrality. These people are not ignorant or misinformed, they are the experts who have built much of what the internet is today. The people who generally oppose things such as net neutrality are generally people who do not understand how the internet was built, formed, and currently operates. They also tend to be not very technologically proficient.

                  We are not asking for anything to be given to us, we already have it. We are trying to protect it because ISP's are trying to take it away from us. We can't "vote with our wallets" because many of us only have one ISP in town (the definition of a monopoly). Therefore, the only recourse is to have a higher power lay down some ground rules for how ISP's can treat their customers and the internet. The same phrase can be applied to you "A citizen and their liberties are soon parted by a promise making politician". Pai promises to "give us back internet freedom", however, history and the actual, fully verifiable facts say otherwise. The only people blindly following a politician's promises are those who support Pai and his plan to remove net neutrality rules.

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

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:04pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                    "Actually, despite your assertions to the contrary, many people have offered very detailed responses on their positions."

                    I have offered plenty, but the mantra for you guys is to always advance the lie that I never have... at least your lies are consistent... I will give you that.

                    "While no one is disputing that OVER regulation is bad and WORKING free market is good and preferrable,"

                    Okay another lie, the constant mantra is "free-market bad" and you know it... at least make the lies less obvious just read the other posts here that talk about the constant "failures" of free market. They are blaming free-market for the failure of regulation and the greed of capitalism. Both are dual pronged efforts to destroy free-market because no one wants free market.

                    "This is why everyone is so upset over this, because we ARE being vigilant"

                    You can say you are, but your actions clearly tell another tale. You cannot say you are vigilant about liberty in the same breath your actions lead to giving it up.

                    "We aren't buying into some politician's promises and blindly following their lead that will give up our freedom and liberties."

                    That is exactly what you are doing and constantly to that effect as well, which is why it was so easy to predict the like of Ajit Pai and Trump. I have been warning people for more than a decade that this was coming but everyone called me crazy. Now that it is here people hate me even more because I have the gall to say "i told you so" and I still get ignored.

                    Hence my current predicament with trying to explain to you folks that before we can fix this, enough people have to drop their admiration for regulation and corrupt politicians.

                    Because you guys are so fearful, it is easy to control you with empty promises and political bluster! You roll right over for the bell rub right as they gut you!

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                      "I have offered plenty, but the mantra for you guys is to always advance the lie that I never have... at least your lies are consistent... I will give you that."

                      Please provide a quote to your previously stated detailed response. I'll wait.

                      "Okay another lie, the constant mantra is "free-market bad" and you know it".

                      Actually, I don't know it. I would be without a job if it wasn't for the free market and America wouldn't exist as we know it today. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't automatically mean they are lying.

                      "You can say you are, but your actions clearly tell another tale. You cannot say you are vigilant about liberty in the same breath your actions lead to giving it up."

                      The Bill of Rights is essentially, regulation. But it is good regulation stating that these are the rights people have by default and you can't infringe them. The net neutrality rules are the same. They state that people have a right to access any legal content they want without fear of being infringed upon "blocked or throttled".

                      "That is exactly what you are doing and constantly to that effect as well, which is why it was so easy to predict the like of Ajit Pai and Trump."

                      This makes no sense, I didn't vote for Trump and most others on here didn't either. Neither did I vote for Clinton and potentially neither did many others on here as well given their past comments and positions. So what exactly are you trying to say?

                      "Because you guys are so fearful, it is easy to control you with empty promises and political bluster!"

                      Again, many of us work in the IT industry, we aren't following some politician's lead. We are familiar with the technology and how it works ourselves.

                      I am curious who you think we are following, exactly, as there hasn't been one specific politician (other than Wheeler and potentially Wyden) who has really beat the drum on net neutrality. The only specific people you have mentioned are Pai and Trump and we have made it quite clear we did not vote for or support them. So who is it that is supposedly leading us all astray?

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

                    • icon
                      JMT (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:14pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                      "I have offered plenty, but the mantra for you guys is to always advance the lie that I never have..."

                      Oh you have? Hang on, let me go look that up by searching under your user name....

                      Oh wow, you have made a lot of posts! Very inconsistent positions though. Some very smart posts, some very stupid ones. Almost like you're not actually one person...

                      "Okay another lie, the constant mantra is "free-market bad" and you know it..."

                      No TD writer and very few regular commenters have made this simplistic claim. A totally unfettered, regulation-free market would be terrible. A government-controlled, heavily regulated market would also be very bad. History has proven both of these points well, which is why we want a sensible middle ground that maximises the net benefit to society. Nobody here is interested in anarchists or authoritarians.

                      "You cannot say you are vigilant about liberty in the same breath your actions lead to giving it up."

                      This is why it's hard to believe you have a clue what you're talking about. We're arguing about regulations that curtail bad behavior by ISP's and do nothing else. The public are not losing any freedoms here; these are popular, functioning consumer protections that you want to kill. Why would anyone want that unless they have a vested interest in those who would directly benefit from it?

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

                      • identicon
                        Chip, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:57pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                        I hae lots and "Lots" of Suggestions! yOU Sycophantic Idiots!Q

                        Every nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              Before you act like a moron again - you do remember I'm not in the US, and therefore enjoy the competition that you claim cannot happen in the US while regulated. Right? I enjoy internet faster and cheaper and with more effective competition, completely due to government regulation.

              I'm sorry that people like you would rather have it all sold to corporate monopolies than allow effective regulation because you're scared of your own elected officials. But, there it is.

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                Once again, as along as the name calling and hate comes from a leftist it is okay for the TD community.

                "I enjoy internet faster and cheaper and with more effective competition, completely due to government regulation."

                Then you are well deluded. All I need to do to trick a person like you is to show you that "I" take Less from you than "those guys" and you become complacent. You are still being taken from... just less.

                "I'm sorry that people like you would rather have it all sold to corporate monopolies than allow effective regulation because you're scared of your own elected officials. But, there it is."

                Well, if you are going to lie or misrepresent someone, might as well go for the gold.

                I advocate for a free-market approach. people like you often confuse that with the perils of capitalism. But that is okay, you clearly lack comprehensive critical thinking skills.

                you see, even if you get a politician to take care of your problems for you, you are still not absolved of the responsibility of those problems.

                Your view of the US is only through these media lenses and they are distorted the same way you are, which makes you a perfect parrot.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                  So, I'm deluded and only you know the truth?

                  Yawn.

                  I'll take the highly verifiable information about how much I have access to compared to the average American, and notice that it's usually more. Some of this is down to other factors, but the free market where I live is very well served compared to the monopoly and duopoly-ridden crap you lot have to put up with. In fact, the main reason I have fibre at all is because the government told them they needed to install it in my area, the guys you support wouldn't have done that at all given free reign. Now, they not only did that, they've been forced to compete as well.

                  "Your view of the US is only through these media lenses and they are distorted the same way you are, which makes you a perfect parrot."

                  No, it's through the friends and family I have there that will also tell you how full of shit you are.

                  One of the funniest things about delusional fools like yourself is that you will argue with the first hand experiences of people in other places, telling them they're wrong for relaying the facts of those experiences to you. No wonder you're on a race to the bottom.

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

                  • identicon
                    Rich Kulawiec, 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:38am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                    I'm going with Paul on this one. There hasn't been anything resembling free market competition WRT consumer Internet connectivity in the US since the days of dialup. Nearly everyone is faced with a duopoly, or worse, a monopoly. (And let's not kid ourselves: the duopolies are frenemies. Neither will initiate a price/feature war with the other because they have no reason to.)

                    Other countries have figured out that this is NOT a good situation and have legislated/regulated to avoid it. As a direct result of that, they enjoy (variously) higher speeds, lower prices, expanded choices, and equal treatment of all traffic. Often they enjoy all of them simultaneously.

                    This in turn has benefits for their entire society, from making telecommuting much more feasible (thus reducing time wasted commuting, energy expenditures, and pollution) to enabling startups to compete on a level playing field with much larger and older operations. It's not perfect -- but you'll notice that NONE of them are clamoring to move toward the US model. They like where they find themselves.

                    The Internet has become, in many ways, a shared public utility that operates for the common good -- like highways and sewage treatment plants and municipal water supplies and fire departments. If we're serious about relying on it in the same way that we rely on those operations, then it needs to be regulated like they are: for the good of the public.

                    I wish that wasn't necessary. It'd be great if it just happened because everyone recognized that it's the right thing to do, and they decided to do it all on their own. That hasn't happened. It's not happening. It's not going to happen. So the choice is either (a) keep indulging in wishful thinking and hoping that the free market fairy will sprinkle magic pixie dust on the Verizons and Comcasts and Charters of the world or (b) recognize that in the real world, the only entity capable of taking practical steps to ensure this outcome is the government.

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

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:55am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                      "There hasn't been anything resembling free market competition WRT consumer Internet connectivity in the US since the days of dialup. "

                      Because you don't want it. You want government to make those decisions for you. What do you do when that politician takes advantage?

                      This is a problem of our own making, the problem is not if it goes well or not... the problem is undoing the damage when the corruption gets bad enough to become just like America.

                      Free-Market didn't work because it is not allowed. We don't have a free market everything down to the labels on your food is regulated.

                      TD is a website dedicated to reporting on the disasters of regulation about Speech, Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and things like Net Neutrality but still supports the idea of getting MORE of what brought this problem.

                      You don't believe in a free market because it has become the boogeyman. A Non-existent creature you can blame all your problems caused by regulation on so you don't have to face reality. Better to keep your feet of the floor... the boogeymen might get ya! Out of fear of the unknown that Free-Market allows you willingly embrace a lesser capable more controlled and closer to monopoly form of economy... and all because some suit in a tie make you a promise.

                      I can put on a suit and a tie and lie to you as well, but I have integrity. Enough to refuse to lie and enough to refuse to buy them!

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:06pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                        Do you know why there are labels on our food? Because food companies couldn't be trusted to not put what essentially amounts to poison in our food. Therefore they now have to be upfront about what is going into it.

                        Additionally, some people have severe allergies to certain food products and very few people know all the ingredients to a packet of pudding. Therefore labels are necessary so people don't accidentally kill themselves with a tasty meal.

                        And some people, who know a thing or two about diet and food ingredients, want to make sure they eat healthy and need to know what is in their food to do that.

                        So no, regulation and a free market are not two things that can't live in concert with each other. Without regulation, your cellphone would interfere with electronics on an airplane or airport and cause crashes and other catastrophes. Without regulation, drug companies could put rat poison in birth control and sell it without fear of reprisal. Without regulation, highways, power and water lines could be built or repaired with subpar materials causing all kinds of infrastructure collapse. Without regulation, Joe Bloe down the street could start a contracting company and build houses with whatever tree branches he found in his backyard and wire it up with exposed wiring right below the water faucet.

                        Do you get it now? Not all regulation is bad, not all of it is good, but just because regulation is proposed doesn't make it automatically bad.

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

                      • icon
                        Ryunosuke (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:09pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                        Bull-fucking-shit, The situation we now find ourselves is a DIRECT result of the us govt breaking up Ma Bell in the 80's. The Baby Bells did not start competing with each other, they formed regional monopolies of phone services, then they started offering internet. That should have been regulated right then and there. And with the FCC plans that Paid Off just unveiled (might want to update/new post Karl), I have a very very real fear of Democracy in the US being totally destroyed (more so than it is/was before).

                        I have a very real fear of AT&T telling me what news, information, and debates I can and cannot see and participate in. That is straight up 1984 shit right there. Now when you look at the bigger picture with the Sinclair situation, well...

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

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:20pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                          "Bull-fucking-shit,"

                          You are already more than full of it.

                          "The Baby Bells did not start competing with each other, they formed regional monopolies of phone services, then they started offering internet. That should have been regulated right then and there."

                          You do realize that they were already regulated from a long time ago right? Additionally, this is a sign of "failure" of regulation.

                          How have you been so well fooled? It's like a politician punched you square in the face and they managed to make you think it was your own mothers fault.

                          the FCC since it's inception made it clear that they intended to regulate the Telco as natural monopolies. AT&T has bought you, your politicians, and your sanity a long time ago. You don't even understand that your playing for the AT&T team, they have tricked you into support regulation so they can pull your chair away from the bargaining table by giving it to a politician they can BUY!

                          "I have a very real fear of AT&T telling me what news, information, and debates I can and cannot see and participate in."

                          News, information, and debates are "well curated" bits of information. Did you know that the politicians debating for your viewing pleasure have all been prescript-ed? You are being led around by the nose like a lost child and you don't even know it!

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

                          • icon
                            Ryunosuke (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:40pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

                            uhh no?

                            If I remember my history correctly, the FCC broke up the National Broadcasting Company, which had a radio monopoly. They split up into 3 companies, The National Broadcasting Company (NBC), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Columbia Broadcasting Systems (CBS)

                            Now I will agree with you that it was a failure of regulation, but that doesn't mean that we should subsequently have NO regulation, as failure of regulation equates to no regulations at all, hence our point of needing USEFUL regulations. Over-regulating is just as bad as under-regulating. Ajit Paid Off is completely deregulating, which is worse.

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

                • identicon
                  Will B., 21 Nov 2017 @ 2:34pm

                  ....what?

                  You advocate for a free market approach - I.E. free market capitalism -and we confuse that with the perils of capitalism -I.E. free market capitalism.
                  ...what?
                  Did you just literally discount all possible negatives of your viewpoint by somehow claiming they are separate from the positives? And then try to throw that back in our faces by saying considering both the positives and the negatives is "confusing"your position?

                  Or do you truly believe the "free market" is a magical panacaea with no downsides whatsoever?

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

                  • identicon
                    Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 3:25pm

                    Re: ....what?

                    Besides which point, of course, there's no free market in high-speed Internet in the US.

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

                    • identicon
                      Will B., 21 Nov 2017 @ 4:40pm

                      Re: Re: ....what?

                      Even if there was, it wouldn't last; the inevitable end of a free market is monopoly, because human beings are not the perfectly rational, perfectly informed beings economics presumes we are.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              dumb

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

            • icon
              The Wanderer (profile), 25 Nov 2017 @ 2:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              Well, in one context, you call such a person a lumberjack.

              (Chopping down a tree - or cutting wood in general - involves doing the same thing over and over, and eventually you get a different result.)

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re: whiners

          It's okay for the left to name call, discriminate, and spew hate... just not okay for anyone else to do it.

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

          • identicon
            Baron von Robber, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

            You forgot to say "Jews will not replace us."

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

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              Way to water racism down... get a new deck of political cards to play with you hack.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

            This from the same lot who made "Fuck your feelings" their catchphrase.

            Hah! You flaming morons really don't have any self-awareness.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:08am

          Re: Re: Re: whiners

          "waah he called me names"

          Get over yourself, you realize he's got a point. You realize Trump voters are particularly unpopular in this circle. Take the L and move on, we're all on the same stretching rack.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

            I am okay with calling people names, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the left that are okay when they are the ones calling people the names but flag anyone else from another political camp that does it.

            "Take the L and move on, we're all on the same stretching rack."

            The difference is that you brought this stretching rack while I was trying to warn you against it.

            Hench, this is the bed you helped make... you should lay in it!

            And I am not a Trump voter either... another constant accusation you like to make, but you sure deserve him for your President because of it.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners

              Speaking of hypocrites, hows the weather in Somolia? We all know that you wouldn’t stoop so low as to live under the regulations you so love to deride.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 6:35am

    Re: fifteen year fight

    Without detente.

    I think Ajit Pai is not really too clear on the loyalty his benefactors have for him. I can't conceive of a better fall guy. He just seems to have no self awareness whatsoever.

    What your looking at is an FCC parallel to what the SEC was during the 2008 financial collapse. Some smiling dipshit asleep at the switch while a whole domestic economic sector burns.

    The question is what the next phase is. Because of course they will have planned for what comes after the liquidation of the 1st amendment.

    My guess is the next phase is to kill the public Internet. At which point the only response is the development of a whole parallel network to support the next generation public Internet, which will almost surely be 100% crypto.

    Which the fed will declare to be a crime. Probably reffing the Obamacare SCOTUS precedent. Forcing people to use a particular telecom carrier exclusively will be a "tax", and not a violation of article 1, the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 13th amendments.

    But yeah. Time to dig out that old zoom modem. Because if this toad wins, we are going back to the stone age. And you will be able to speak freely, but only over ciphered 56Kbs.

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

    • identicon
      Good luck with that zoom, 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:29am

      Re: Re: fifteen year fight

      You forget that Pai and Wheeler before him has allowed the telcos to let the copper deteriorate to uselessness, so getting a modem to work is going to be near impossible.

      Private Loon Balloons maybe? A privately funded fleet of balloons might be a way around this.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: Re: fifteen year fight

        Mmm. I doubt it. Wifi is still not secure as far as I know. I think it will happen a lot like it did the last time. Some guys will get together in a garage and work out a replacement for IPv6. Then maybe reprogram a DSLAM or something. Then some other guys on the other side of the country will do the same, and your off to the races.

        Verizon isn't a telecom so much as a sovereign state. The way you know that is it is based in fortress manhattan with all the banks. So it isn't surprising that these guys think they can jackboot the countries jugular. Their pals across the street did in 2008. And they got away with it. And they did it before than in the 70's and got away with it. (barely)

        I am just hoping that when the music stops this time, it isn't a controlled crash like in 2008. The trinity worked like animals to control the public when all that went on, and they were successful. Looking back on it, what the trinity of cabal news accomplished was certainly the greatest feat of propaganda since 1939.

        But I think the country is past the point where we are willing to let that kind of shit show happen again. Time will tell.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:17am

    "this is a battle that will persist for as long as said lack of broadband competition exists"

    In that case, the battle will persist as long as politicians can be bought by corporations.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:38am

    FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

    You can find the main document here:
    https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom

    It even includes the preemption of state rules. Talk about being a hypocritical zealot!

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:46am

      Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

      "It even includes the preemption of state rules. Talk about being a hypocritical zealot!"

      Exactly, the problem is that too many other people have been allowing their side be hypocritical without putting a stop to it that this is all we are going to get going forward.

      All we are going to get now, is one hypocrite vs another hypocrite. It's literally what made me disgusted with both political parties. Both claim to care while their actions say otherwise. I have no idea why people continue to listen to these in your face liars.

      Fool me once... shame on you.
      Fool me for the umpteenth time... seriously guys... stop letting them take you for a ride. Ajit is driving the bus and you keep getting back on while saying you don't want to ride it anymore!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:48am

        Re: Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

        Trollolol

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

        And both sides are bad and you’re the only one clever enough to have everything figured out. Yeah I remember my first year of college too.

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

          Go and read George Washtington's farewell address.

          He predicted this problem like it was a prophecy. Liberty is being ruined by the left vs right hypocritical struggle.

          None of you are self thinking, you are all little sheep parroting your political parties mantra's... THAT is what makes you the same, not the misleading names you have assigned to your selves!

          You don't care about liberty or the Constitution, you only care that you get what you want. You only want liberty for yourself while everyone else has to follow the rules. And you are more than fine if your elected officials are evil and corrupt as long as they get you a little something along the way. You elect and worship evil people to tell you what to do and how to live and then whine when they turn out bad... whoops... shocker there.. you were only warned several millions times.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

            I did, in middle school. Which is about where your debate tactics are. Call names, bitch if they respond in kind. Complain about all regulations, deny that you said same. Claim youre just the only one smart enough to see things how they are, deny when caught. Tell people what and who they believe in, deny when confronted. Use the word sheeple or sycophant like you get paid for it. Wash, rinse, repeat.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2017 @ 8:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC has officially done away with "net neutrality"

              Yuuuuuuuuuuuup.

              Arguing about vagueries and generalities, while we're trying to discuss specific actions that can occur right now and have an immediate effect.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 8:48am

    'we should be placing the blame for this endless hamster wheel at the feet of those responsible for it: Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Charter, and the army of lawmakers, economists, fauxcademics, and other hired policy tendrils willing to sell out the health of the internet -- and genuinely competitive markets -- for a little extra holiday cash'

    would it not be better to lay the blame squarely at the feet of those in government who, instead of doing their jobs, listening to and catering for the good of the people, are actually selling us out in return for 'campaign contributions' from the members of the industry mentioned above and brown envelopes of cash for themselves? if put into the position of potentially losing their gravy train positions, would they perhaps not think a little harder before screwing us over every time the subject of broadband comes up?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:26am

    The Trump administration is conducting the war on Thanksgiving

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:39am

    Re: preemption of state rules

    They can try, but they are kidding themselves if they think they can actually enforce it.

    Poles and rooftops are going to starting looking like shanty-town electrical grids. Illegal ad-hoc public networks are going to start popping up everywhere.

    When we first started building the Internet, it was revolutionary in the scientific sense. Now it is going to be revolutionary in the political sense. And criminal, which is kind of cool.

    Do I get street cred for patching cat5 now?

    The long and short of it is this: there are more people who can patch cable then there are policemen and G-men who can tell one cable from another.The inevitable evolution is municiple carrier neutral CO's. Which really should be the case in every neighborhood in the country already.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 9:57am

    Timing is obvious

    There is a three week review period before the meeting, and Pai has from the beginning released proposed rules at the beginning of that period. This neutrality rule is being released three weeks before the mid december meeting, on that schedule. I am sure pai would have loved to pass the rule last week in the november meeting, in which case he would have released it in late october.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:20am

    In before corporations realize we can still form utility cooperatives (which then they'll have them promptly banned by their congressional servants).

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

  • icon
    DOlz (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 10:26am

    Nothing to do with Thanksgiving

    The timing of this has nothing to do with Thanksgiving. They were just waiting for John Oliver to start his two month vacation.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:33am

    Reddit readers love this post.

    That says a lot about reddit, don't it?

    Net neutrality is a very quaint fixation. The only thing Title II accomplished for the American people was to speed up the propagation of the fake news that elected Donald Trump. Good show, fans of fictitious causes.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:49am

      Re: Reddit readers love this post.

      Net neutrality is a very quaint fixation.

      Says the guy who's been trolling posts about net neutrality on multiple websites for 11 years.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:56am

      Re: Reddit readers love this post.

      Then I say good! Because in a country that has true freedom of speech, any speech that is not illegal should be allowed to have a voice, fake or otherwise. As soon as corporations or the government start deciding what is "fake" and what is "real" then you have censorship. Because ultimately, whoever is in power (be that Rep., Dem., or the media) will skew "fake" and "real" to be in their favor.

      I will gladly take my fake news with Title II since (if you actually bothered to read the net neutrality rules, which you obviously have not) because I can easily filter out all the fake news and not have to worry about my ISP filtering my content or slowing down my connection to my favorite services just because I (or those services) don't pay them king's ransom every month for it.

      And if people are not smart enough to do a little research to verify what news is fake or not, then we have an entirely different problem.

      I say good day sir!

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Richard Bennett (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

        Yeah, I have no idea what Obama's net neutrality rules say. But I did see the YouTube where he ordered the rubes at the FCC to do his bidding. It was fun to see Wheeler to a 180 on Title II.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

          I saw that Youtube video too. Pretty sure there was no order, just agreeing with the rest of the people who were making a fuss over it and saying he would support it.

          The fact that that rulemaking received the most amount of public comments in FCC history (until this year) saying he was going in the wrong direction as well had absolutely nothing to do with it I'm sure.

          Try again Richard.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Richard Bennett (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

            Yes, robots have been very engaged in the net neutrality discourse.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

              Not in the first round, which is what you were discussing. This year? Yes. But not when Net Neutrality rules were first implemented.

              Try again Richard.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 7:35pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

              Which is why your side staffed supporters sourced from dead people.

              Thanks, though, for confirming that anti-NN is being driven by folks who believe in the uber-piracy bogeyman, which NN never promised.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: Reddit readers love this post.

          Citation / link to YouTube needed.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:25pm

    Ajit Pai's oath,

    isn't to "market forces" but to the Constitution. Economic theory is beside the point entirely. The 1st amendment rights of citizens will inevitably be harmed by actions against NN regulations. It therefore stands that the guy is betraying his oath.

    Beyond that there really is no need for argument.The same can be said for the rest of the FCC board if they should vote that way.

    So the question is not about NN, so much as: Why is this guy not being hauled before an ethics committee, or perhaps the federal BAR?

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Ajit Pai's oath,

      lol, a silly politician didn't do what you wanted them to do so you call them a traitor... that sounds so much like an ignorant sheeple its not funny.

      You want them up on ethics violations... put your self up first for having voted these scum in!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:40pm

        Re: Re: Ajit Pai's oath,

        First off, FCC chairman is not an elected position so no one technically voted him in.

        Secondly, the election of Trump is what placed Pai in office and I would be willing to bet that almost no one on these forums voted for Trump. So your last statement is just flat out absurd, since no one arguing with you is likely to have voted "these scum" in in the first place.

        Thirdly, and I hesitate to even touch this one, no one is calling him a traitor, you said those words. However, the things Pai has done and said in office do border if not outright cross what should be allowed under the law of the Constitution of the United States, and morally and ethically there is more than enough evidence publicly available to question his legal ethics. Therefore, anyone from either side of the aisle calling for closer scrutiny of him is not the voice of "ignorant sheeple", it is people recognizing that what he is doing is wrong and wanting him to be called to account for it. Whether they originally supported him or not is irrelevant.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:04pm

        Re: Re: Ajit Pai's oath,

        The other question that really needs to be asked is: What facilities have been put in place to measure the chilling effect on speech that will invariably occur?

        We know what is going to happen. The carriers are going to start licensing Americans eyeballs to one another, instead of licensing pipe to everyone. And this is going to to destroy the public Internet as we know it.

        This is a clinically measurable thing. So if the FCC as so sure about the benefits of "market forces", we can be assured they that have been using some technology to measure those "market forces". And to measure the effects that their policies have on Constitutionally protected speech.

        Right?

        They are in the comm business. They should know a little about how to metric communications systems. So where is the data? What means do they plan to use to track the results of the impending economic catastrophe they are so motivated to manufacture?

        So what your looking at is a declaration of political philosophy with no data driven basis, driving a fundamentalist attack on the U.S. Constitution. There is a word for that, and it isn't "traitor".

        Close though.

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

  • identicon
    tablesix, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:26pm

    Since net neutrality is just a symptom of the disease that is a lack of broadband competition

    Shouldn't this read "Since the endangerment of net neutrality is just a symptom..."?

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:29pm

    Damn, you guys are so easily trolled. It's so easily, I swear that TD staff are actually playing the trolls just to get you guys going. It's seriously funny.

    That said, let's deal with reality.

    Reality: If it isn't the law, it is easily changed. Where are the congress critters? Where is Wyden? Strange level of silence from that corner!

    If you want net neutrality for real, put it in law. Without that, the discussion is meaningless because it will change every time the commissioner of the FCC gets bad gas. It requires nothing more than a simple show of hands from a captive commission.

    Also, the "overwhelming backlash" thing has me going. What exactly is the backlash going to be at? Are you guys going to vote Pai out of office? Oh wait, you didn't vote him in. Are you going to drop your internet connections and go back to reading books? Are you going to get mad at your congress critters and then re-elect the same ones next time around?

    Seriously, what is the actual and honest leverage here? Pai doesn't care, he's got the job and it's his to keep at least until Trump's term is done. He's not going anywhere, and there doesn't seem to be any move to change that.

    So aside from the hand waving, what is there really?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:33pm

      Re:

      You are an idiot...

      "Are you going to drop your internet connections and go back to reading books?"

      They don't have the integrity to stand up for what they believe in... they want a politician to save them from themselves so they don't have to do anything hard like boycotting.

      "So aside from the hand waving, what is there really?"

      Crying and whining... because that is about all they can do. On a more positive note... they will be more willing next election to vote in a person more corrupt than Trump... as long as that dirtbag hates Trump.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        *sigh* When you have the choice of exactly one ISP in your city and you need an internet connection to work a job to live and eat, how exactly are we supposed to boycott ISP's again?

        Again, logic dictates that likely no one here voted for Trump. Many probably didn't even vote for Clinton, so your last statement is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately malicious.

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

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          MyNameHere (profile), 21 Nov 2017 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "*sigh* When you have the choice of exactly one ISP in your city and you need an internet connection to work a job to live and eat, how exactly are we supposed to boycott ISP's again?"

          If you have only one ISP, perhaps you live in the wrong place. Your desire for your own white picket fence and a long commute to town is what will get you every time.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That's a bad argument and an insulting one. Where someone lives shouldn't matter. You are also saying there is only one correct place to live, and that's in the city. That's not how America works. America was built on the ideal that if anyone works hard enough they can live however they want to, there is no right or wrong.

            I live in a city of 100,000+ with a ten minute drive to work solely because there are many stop signs and stop lights in between. I have exactly one, count them, one cable internet provider and one DSL provider. The DSL service is nowhere near fast enough to support my work connection, nor is it as reliable as the cable provider. Additionally, both the cable and DSL providers are two of the biggest telco's in the country.

            So no, I live in an average city like the majority of Americans, I don't live out in the boonies and have a short commute to work and still can't vote with my wallet because even if my other choice of ISP was viable as far as speed goes, I still wouldn't be boycotting anything because I'm just paying the other big guy in town who is doing the same thing as the cable company.

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

            • icon
              MyNameHere (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 12:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If you live in a "city" of 100,000 you should think that you are doing good to have two options. 100,000 population isn't very big, you are talking only about 40,000 addresses, and even if most of them take one or the other service, they are only looking at 20k clients each. Add a third option, and that number would drop to about 13k each.

              Oh, and for what it's worth, there are about 300 cities in the US over 100,000 people. Many of those are "suburb cities" located close to larger cities, such as around Southern California, New York, and South Florida.

              See, we had a chat about the economics of it all the other day. Lexington is having a company do the work for about $770 per household on average. In your burg, that would mean shelling out between 30 and 35 million just to enter the game - to get your 15k clients. So they would be out of pocket just over $2000 per customer (assuming they get that many signups) which, amortized over 5 years at 5% (pretty low really) would run them $38 per month per subscriber, just to be in the game. That doesn't pay for actual or ongoing service, it just pays to build out the network to even start.

              With numbers like that, nobody is lining up to play. Google tried, figured it out pretty quickly, and have basically tucked their tail between their legs and run away.

              For Incumbent players, with declining revenues from cable TV and landline phones, they don't have the space to turn around and spend that level of money for the return. So you are sort of stuck in a holding pattern.

              Good luck with it. Net Neutrality or not, it's doubtful your service will get any better any time soon.

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

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 4:05am

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

                With numbers like that, nobody is lining up to play. Google tried, figured it out pretty quickly, and have basically tucked their tail between their legs and run away.

                You know, other than the company that is willing to step up in the very example you use because clearly they do think they stand to make a profit.

                As for Google I'm sure that had absolutely nothing to do with the current players suing left and right to prevent them from entering the market, no, clearly that was all about how expensive it is to do so, which again, has nothing whatsoever to do with the current companies buying laws to keep competition out.

                If only there was some large, well funded organization that could shoulder the costs to upgrade/create such networks. One that is responsible for upgrades and maintenance for other utilities, and that doesn't have to worry about how profitable they are, where instead the focus is on providing people the necessary infrastructure for their needs.

                One where people already pay into it for infrastructure creation/maintenance(among other things), and would likely jump at the chance to pay a little more if it meant an internet connection that actually worked, and didn't look at times like something you'd expect from some third world country while at the same time costing several times more than what people pay for in other countries.

                If only such a group existed I imagine it might be able to handle rolling out such networks, providing people the infrastructure they needed just like other public service without having to worry about return on investment costs or projected quarterly profits.

                Of course were such a completely hypothetical group to try I suspect that the current players in the field might object, perhaps by trying to claim that such a thing would never work, that it would be just a huge waste of money and people were better off sticking to what they had now, that doing so would create an 'unfair advantage' and 'unfairly compete' with them. Perhaps they would profess that they care just so much about the local taxpayers and their hard-earned money that they are just trying to protect them by preventing this hypothetical group from stepping in and wasting their money on something that could never work.

                However, this is of course all mere speculation, as obviously no such group exists, and the current players in the market would never act in such a dishonest, self-serving fashion.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 10:05am

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

                You are actually, quite wrong. A city with a population of 100,000 is actually quite large in the US. You are correct in that that there approximately 300 cities in the US with populations of 100,000 or more. What you fail to mention is there are approximately 19,000 cities in the US with populations under 100,000.

                So no, I am quite comfortably living in a city that is at worst average and quite common and at best far above average in city size and population. And further, no, my city is not a suburb of another major city, we are the major city. Other cities are suburbs to us.

                Google tried and succeeded in several cities until incumbent ISPs got scared (because it actually forced them to compete and raise speeds and drop prices in areas that Google came into, huh, go figure) and so they started suing Google and the cities to stop Google from coming in and dragging their feet on giving Google approval to move their equipment on the poles to make room for Google's.

                What you are essentially saying then is that it's far too expensive to provide decent internet to any of America except for the elite larger cities (which amounts to less than 2% of all cities in the US) and if people don't like it then they should all move to the larger cities and shut up and stop complaining. Congratulations, you've just proved yourself to be a total elitist jerk who doesn't understand the first thing about the human race, economics, or America in general.

                There are what? Three or four big cable companies in the US? Charter, Comcast, and COX? Ever notice how they almost never offer service to an area that is already served by a different cable provider? Same with DSL. You don't think that 35 million isn't a drop in the bucket for these corporations? Despite declining TV subscribers, they still make BILLIONS in revenue each year. That 35 million is just the initial rollout. After that they don't have to spend hardly anything, just sign up new customers and profit.

                Finally, your last statement, I'm not looking for my service to get better (though gig speeds would be nice). My service is adequate for my needs. That wasn't my point about having only one provider. My point is, without net neutrality, if my provider decides to start jacking up my rates for no reason, implement low data caps, and throttle all my traffic other web browsing unless I pay higher monthly fees, I can't "vote with my wallet" because there is no other provider to vote for. In other words WE HAVE NO COMPETITION IN THE ISP MARKET.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 Nov 2017 @ 4:02am

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

                  "Congratulations, you've just proved yourself to be a total elitist jerk who doesn't understand the first thing about the human race, economics, or America in general."

                  The world in general. Though, that's not surprising from this guy, who routinely creates his own reality to argue from. I'll argue from reality:

                  I live in an area with a population of around 20-30,000 people (technically 3 towns, but one overall municipal area) nowhere near a major city. Because I'm not in the US, we have effective regulation and consumer protection, which has made steps to improve internet availability in the area, in the last 5 years involving widespread installation of fibre optics.

                  At present, I am paying €65.40 (around $78) for 300Mb fibre, which includes unlimited national calls and limited free calls to mobile. I could up that to just over €100 to include both a mobile contract and TV, but I'm saving money by not requiring the TV package and using a competitor for my mobile, for whom there's at lest as many competitors (more if I don't want a contract). I can also switch to at least 3 other providers, and there's no data caps.

                  But, this is a European hellhole where the free market is dead and regulators have killed any competition and the US is doomed to follow if you don't destroy the net neutrality protections we enjoy at the same time. At least if you listen to these guys.

                  I can understand the logistics make it difficult for a truly national broadband program. But, to state that it's not possible in towns of over 100,000 people, and people should move to a different city if they're refused the services they request? These sycophants are either insane or so entrenched in a basement that they've never encountered another human being, let alone the way business and government work.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Nov 2017 @ 4:06am

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

                    Oh, and I might add - I've signed several friends up over the last year for 50Mb fibre installations - free installation and €32/month with no data caps. In an area with less than 1/5 of the population that our resident idiot says is impossible to economically service for double the annual revenue.

                    The speed's noticeably lower than mine, of course, but the bill's not much different from the 10Mb ADSL they had installed before and it's plenty to just watch Netflix, etc. as most of them do.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 1:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That’s the same argument they used for segragation by the way. Not surprising coming from you.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 11:26pm

      Re:

      *If you want net neutrality for real, put it in law. Without that, the discussion is meaningless because it will change every time the commissioner of the FCC gets bad gas. It requires nothing more than a simple show of hands from a captive commission.*

      Except we actually already have a law preventing exactly what you say. The FCC cannot change the rules on a whim. The Supreme Court ruled on exactly that point in the Brand X case, that "arbitrary and capricious" changes are not allowed. The FCC has to back up the reason for its change with great detail and evidence. It succeeded in doing that two years ago, but Pai hasn't shown what's changed in the intervening years. And that's why these new rules (or lack of rules) will almost certainly be tossed out by the DC Circuit sometime next year.

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

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 1:48am

        Re: Re:

        Actually, aside from a very, very long, and very acrimonious legal battle, the result remained the same:

        6-3 ruling in favor of the FCC.

        In fact, a good summary I am reading to get up speed included this passage:

        "While, as noted above, the Supreme Court expressly did not reach the question of how broadband services other than cable modem services should be classified and regulated, the opinion strongly suggests that all such services should be classified in a similar fashion and should be minimally regulated. "

        https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-pressreleases-161.html

        Let's just say that it seems to give the FCC an incredibly huge amount of leeway to operate in.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2017 @ 2:01pm

    You're right. Our rights have been slipping away from us for too long, and those of us with the biggest voices have been silenced, slowly, over time. Sometimes it's those around us enforcing their views over us, sometimes big money is behind those who want to make more money.

    We all deserve the freedom to keep our country from slipping away. We all deserve the rights to speak and not be hurt for saying what's right. The integrity of our thoughts is not locked behind who has more money. Our political systems are abusing the time periods of our lives. Those older than 25 are distracted by family. Those 20 - 24 are distracted by being forced into minimum wage and worrying about college. Those who grew up with the internet are suddenly too busy to make their voices heard.

    The legislative branch needs checked. People are ignoring their freedoms and rights in exchange for gains. They are not putting the forefathers of the country and values we declared independence for first. We need more of the young, computer savvy in congress who are not motivated by money. Unfortunately, they silence their voices to suck up to those already in congress. They're dissuaded from saying the right thing because media pretends what they are saying is as bad as Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing, even if what they are actually saying is middle-of-the-road. It is blown out of proportion with the excuse of maintaining security clearance as the limiting factor.

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

  • icon
    Lord Lidl of Cheem (profile), 22 Nov 2017 @ 2:27am

    Hey Mike, any chance you could check all those flagged comments for Russian IP's?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2017 @ 6:21am

    I'm an uber free'd markets/voluntaryist/consensualist and even I don't want the net neutrality rules gutted.

    unfortunately there's just so much regulatory capture in so many different counties and States, it's actually better to have the regulation in this case in the US.

    ...and this is coming from a guy that views "the power to regulate is the power to grant favors".

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

  • identicon
    matt, 24 Nov 2017 @ 11:37am

    so what backlash?

    Did I miss something or the article is not explaining what will the backlash be? Saying that people are against this in surveys are not an explanation of the backlash.

    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
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
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.