Ajit Pai's Big Lie

from the not-at-all dept

I want to start out this post by making a key point: I know that it's become fashionable to launch into personal and ad hominem attacks on people we disagree with politically of late. We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt, even if we often will criticize people and their positions in stark terms. Over the past few days, however, the ad hominem attacks on FCC chair Ajit Pai by some have been absolutely disgraceful -- and absolutely counterproductive. I disagree with Pai quite a lot (as you'll see below). But the venom and attacks he's received from many are not just unfair and misguided, but only serve to bolster the idea that the people arguing against him are unhinged from reality. I've met Pai a few times and have found him to be both thoughtful and intelligent. I still believe that he is deeply misguided about multiple important issues, but we can debate those issues without resorting to personal attacks. I hope that others will follow suit.

Ever since Ajit Pai became chair of the FCC he's been systematically undoing more or less everything his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, accomplished during his (perhaps surprisingly) effective chairmanship. To do that, Pai has engaged in a series of statements and positions that, at best, have involved misrepresentations of reality. There are a number of these that may be worth exploring, but I want to focus on one that I'll refer to as Ajit Pai's Big Lie, because it's the key argument he's made, underlining his reasoning for chucking out the existing net neutrality rules. Here is the opening paragraph from the FAQ that Pai released last week, setting out his reasoning... and also succinctly presenting Ajit Pai's Big Lie:

Over twenty years ago, President Clinton and a Republican Congress established the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” For decades, Commission policies encouraged broadband deployment and the development of the Internet. That ended two years ago. In 2015, the Commission imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs). Since then, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era. And new services have been delayed or scuttled by a regulatory environment that stifles innovation.

You might think that the "Big Lie" is the idea that the 2015 rules killed investment. And that is a lie. Actual evidence from financial reports has proven that completely false repeatedly. But, that's a smaller lie here. Ajit Pai's Big Lie is the idea that gutting all net neutrality protections is somehow returning FCC policy to the way things were two years ago, and that "for decades" the FCC kept out of this debate. All of that is wrong. And, unlike the other lie concerning investment -- where Pai and others can fiddle with numbers to make his claims look right -- Ajit Pai knows that the Big Lie is false.

Pai likes to point back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as his starting point in claiming that the internet is free from regulations, and suggests that things just changed with the 2015 FCC order. But he literally knows this is wrong. First of all, for all his talk of using 1996 as the starting date to show "decades" of supposedly unchanged FCC positions on this, he conveniently leaves out that the FCC didn't actually classify cable broadband as an information service... until 2002. That's from the FCC's own announcement about it. And this was fought out in court, eventually leading to the Brand X Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that said the FCC had the right to determine if broadband was an information service or a telco service (which is why the 2015 order has been upheld).

And, even then, telco (i.e., DSL) based broadband was still classified under Title II. It was only in 2005 that the FCC officially reclassified telco-based broadband as an information service, rather than a Title II covered telco service. This move actually stripped broadband of the one feature that had created the most competitive markets: the requirement to share their lines.

So, as a starting point, the idea that there's been a consistent policy position from 1996 until 2015 is simply wrong. The FCC itself changed the classification of broadband providers in 2002 and again in 2005.

Next, the idea that "net neutrality" itself is a new concept that only came about with the 2015 order is complete and utter hogwash. And, again, this is something that Pai knows well. If you go back through the previous four FCC chairs -- under both Democrat and Republican administrations -- they all supported net neutrality. They just struggled with how to implement it. In 2004, then FCC chair Michael Powell presented his "guiding principles" for "preserving internet freedom." In that document, Powell laid out an early argument for net neutrality (before the term had really caught on), noting that it was important that broadband providers offer up full access to the entire internet equally.

In that speech, he actually warned of why it would be dangerous for an internet access provider to block a competing VoIP service, and that the FCC "must keep a sharp eye on market practices that will continue to evolve rapidly." And, indeed, a year later, when Powell discovered that a small ISP named Madison River was blocking VoIP calls via Vonage, Powell's FCC fined Madison River using Title II as the justification (the consent decree refers to 47 USC 208, which is part of Title II).

So we had a Republican FCC chair who clearly supported net neutrality and used Title II to make it happen. How the hell can Ajit Pai square this with his claim of no one using Title II or supporting net neutrality until Tom Wheeler's 2015 order?

And we're just getting started. Powell's successor was Kevin Martin -- another Republican under President George W. Bush. Martin also strongly supported net neutrality and, in many ways, kicked off the process that eventually resulted in Wheeler's order. It was under Martin's watch that it was discovered that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent and the FCC issued an order telling Comcast to knock it off. By that point, the FCC had already (see above) made it clear that broadband was not a Title II service, so it relied on other parts of its claimed mandate to issue the order.

That went to court and the court said that the FCC did not have the proper authority to police such a net neutrality violation under the existing rules. The court said that the FCC was trying to stretch its ancillary authority too far -- that even though the FCC wanted to, it could not enforce net neutrality requirements on information services. Basically, the court was telling the FCC it fucked up in reclassifying broadband away from Title II, even as it still believed in the importance of net neutrality (and, yes, again, as a reminder, this was under a Republican FCC).

That's why the next FCC chair, Julius Genachowski, proposed a different set of rules for net neutrality in 2010. However, under tremendous pressure from the broadband providers, Genachowski punted and tried to craft net neutrality rules without reclassifying broadband companies under Title II. Verizon (who helped write the rules) still sued over these new rules... and won. Basically, the court said (again) "Hey, FCC, you clearly want net neutrality, but the only way to do that is to reclassify broadband under Title II."

It was only then, with the next FCC chair, Tom Wheeler, that the FCC actually did so. And that's why Wheeler's Open Internet order has been held up in court already.

But read through all of this carefully, and try to square this with Ajit Pai's Big Lie -- that since 1996, broadband has been treated one way, and there's been no FCC push for net neutrality. The FCC considered broadband covered by Title II for nearly a decade after the Communications Act of 1996, and even as it was reclassifying broadband to be an information service, every single FCC chair expressed strong support for net neutrality and tried to enforce it against those who violated those principles. It was only because the courts pushed back, and noted that if the FCC wanted to enforce net neutrality, broadband needed to be Title II, that the FCC made that switch, supported with both the backing of the court (in those earlier rulings and following the order) and plenty of evidence for why it was necessary.

For Pai to argue that he's trying to bring things back to how they were from 1996 to 2015, he has to ignore all of that history. He's not taking us back to that era. He's doing something worse. He's wiping out the rules that courts said were necessary to enforce the FCC's long-held position on net neutrality. And, more importantly, he's reversed course on the FCC's long-held position on net neutrality.

And he's doing so with his Big Lie that he's merely reverting back to where things used to be.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:37am

    Mike: I'm not going to get personal, 'cause that's not productive.

    Also Mike: Pai is a liar! A big liar! He's lying!

    So childish.

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

  2. identicon
    I.T. Guy, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:40am

    "to be both thoughtful and intelligent"
    And yet... he still takes the positions he does.
    Hate warranted.

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

  3. identicon
    Matthew M Bennett, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:43am

    Maybe don't let the government take over the internet, mmm'kay?

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

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:44am

    "-- and absolutely counterproductive."

    Lesson still not learned. I have my political deck of cards to use and use them I shall. No matter who they are, once they say something I disagree with my only job is is to twist, misrepresent, or lie about their position as much as I possibly can. Or call them troll, comrade, names, or act self-righteous while complaining about their self-righteousness.

    De-Legitimize, De-humanize, and Insulting the competition is job #1!

    Signed
    ~Democrats & Republicans

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

  5. identicon
    Jordan Chandler, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:44am

    Thoughtful and Intelligent

    Then why does he get net neutrality wrong? because he's a traitor to the United States of America's people. he's selling out for power to his overlords, and for that he should be shamed.

    I'm sorry isn't this like calling Trump thoughtful and intelligent?

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

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:44am

    Thoughtful

    Too bad the FCC won't bother reading this since it isn't a [Serious Legal Claim]... (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16689838/fcc-net-neutrality-comments-were-largely-ignored)

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

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:47am

    IMO his even BIGGER lie is that he's doing this for the benefit of the people as opposed to the financial considerations he stands to gain by doing so.

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

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:48am

    Re:

    you are confusing traits.

    A person can be thoughtful and intelligent and still be bought off.

    If I were in his position I would do the same. You want to be a hero to a bunch of people that would sacrifice you in an instant go ahead, be our guest. You can either get the the momentary adoration of the public or you can get cold hard cash selling a bunch of ungrateful idiots out.

    I will take the cash, every time! no one has any reason to do the right thing when when all we are going to do is shit on them.

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

  9. icon
    K`Tetch (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:50am

    Beat me to it, I have a piece on this coming out late today.

    Has to be said tho, that they don't seem to care about this, I included links to the FCC orders in my comments (both original comment and comment-reply) and there's zero interest in it.

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

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:51am

    Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    "Then why does he get net neutrality wrong?"

    Something tells me you don't understand the difference between thoughtful and intelligent and people able to trick you stupid.

    You have to be thoughtful and intelligent to be able to constantly trick people into supporting you. Goes with the job of "politician".

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

  11. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:51am

    I saw the stuff online about pizzas being sent, racist signs, targeting of his kids... and if people are doing that they are stupid. (We live in an era where people claim all sorts of untrue things & I didn't see major sources providing coverage).

    To make it about the man instead of the rules, makes it easier to be dismissed. People should have expected this & planned accordingly. After being called out about fake letters in peoples names & the names of the dead who didn't send any comment... he shared the handful of letters with racist comments.

    Giving them more ammo to distract with is harmful & no amount of hateful glee in your heart is worth it here.

    What they are doing is harmful & does nothing to benefit the public despite promises from corporations who gleefully tell you the price is $99 but your first bill comes and its $299 with extra charges they never mentioned.

    Don't add to the distraction.
    Call him out for being a sell out.
    Call him out for lying about history.
    Call him out for putting corporations wishes above public good.

    Shelve the racist BS & ordering pizzas.

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

  12. identicon
    I.T. Guy, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re:

    No. I got it right. He is thoughtful and intelligent hence his actions are done with complete understanding. Malicious.
    Hate warranted.

    "I will take the cash, every time!"
    Thats you and thank our lucky stars not everyone has that twisted point of view. I was brought up to do the right thing... because it's the right thing to do. I sleep well at night with my life's decisions.

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

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    "thoughtful and intelligent " "Goes with the job of "politician"."
    ROFL. You got me there. Funny stuff.

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

  14. identicon
    Baron von Robber, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:05am

    Re:

    It's ok, they basically weren't. They said "Nobody can mess with your internet connection, not even us, the government."

    Keep up the delusions.

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

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    most are, they just don't think like you do, and also why they frequently fool people like you.

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

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "He is thoughtful and intelligent hence his actions are done with complete understanding. Malicious.
    Hate warranted."

    I agree with that if that was the intent but your words did not imply it.

    "Thats you and thank our lucky stars not everyone has that twisted point of view."

    MOST have that point of view and almost ALL politicians. You know it, which is why you don't share your account and private information with random people you are not forced to share them with to participate in the economy.

    "I was brought up to do the right thing... because it's the right thing to do. I sleep well at night with my life's decisions."

    So was I, but I do not waste time giving my time and efforts to those that do not deserve it either. You think the same way as well... unless I am mistaken and you spend a lot of time defending pedophiles, rapists, and murderers... just in case they are innocent.

    I can assure you that you are no more special than Pai in this regard. If you were in his position you would find a way to "work it out in favor" of the constituents that helped get you into power. One thing I can count on with the TD crowd here is that most are hypocrites about these sorts of things. Most of the complaints here support Big monopolistic business while claiming to be against them!

    It is more believable that you are just jealous of him getting all this $$$ for selling the citizens out. And the best way to show it, is to make him look so evil no one else see's your own.

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

  17. icon
    Groaker (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:20am

    Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented, intelligence, thoughtfulness and intent have never saved anybody from making tremendous mistakes.

    Look at the idiocies of Linus Pauling who claimed that DNA was three stranded, Vit C could stop the human rhinovirus. And the biggest whopper was what any 1st year chem student made, was that the Watson and Crick model was impossible because it had the Phosphorous forcing each outward, when everyone knew similar charges attract (they do not.) Yet Pauling was a brilliant atomic scientist as long as he stayed in his own field

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

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:27am

    "We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!

    HOW SOON YOU OMIT. ANOTHER OF YOUR MANY BIG LIES.

    "There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brai ns-stop-zero.shtml#c1869

    The comment was never even hidden.

    YOU (after several years of ignoring my compliants) stated it was "a joke".

    But NOW you admit ad hominem is bad in all ways.

    You BURNED good will of everyone reasonable LONG ago.

    TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, Masnick.

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

  19. icon
    Mega (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:31am

    Everybody should be channeling their energy towards a legislative solution rather than relying on FCC policy. Without action by Congress we’ll still be debating NN 20 years from now.

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

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So was I...

    Too bad you decided to change.

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

  21. icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:40am

    That's where I disagree with Mike. I don't think Pai is misunderstanding anything. There's plenty of hard facts showing what the ISPs are going to do when NN dies as the last developments pointed in the post above: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171127/01044438683/ajit-pais-big-lie.shtml#c209

    And that's not even touching the fact that any moron in a hurry could read Wikipedia and get history right unlike he is doing. He's corrupt plain and simple.

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

  22. identicon
    tin-foil-hat, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:41am

    Make the Internet Great

    It will be making the internet great by silencing the voices that the oligarchy don't like.

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

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:41am

    Re:

    Net Neutrality is not about the government taking over the Internet, because it has nothing to do with content on the Internet, It is about preventing the ISP's from taking over the Internet, and controlling what sites you can visit and for how much, so that they can turn the Internet into cable T.V. version 2.

    If the ISP service is classified as a telecommunications service, they are not allowed to decide which sites you use, but if they are classified as infomation services they can obviously control what infomation they allow over their networks.

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

  24. icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:43am

    Re: "We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!

    "You BURNED good will of everyone reasonable LONG ago."

    And yet he has a solid community following his site, he got overwhelming support when attacked by Shiva, he is regularly invited to events with experts...

    Well, okay then.

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

  25. icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:45am

    Re:

    Was that for comedy? I gave you my funny vote!

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

  26. icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    except for a few things, even though I am not a Lawyer, there are some OBVIOUS 1st amendment issues alone. Namely Freedom of Speech, but more importantly Freedom of the Press.

    A regulatory agency, should be doing that, regulating the industries that they are in charge of regulating. Removing those regulations defeats the purpose of actually HAVING that regulatory agency, in this case, the FCC. That is why it is called the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, not the "Let's let the communications corporations do what the fuck they want commission".

    IF these rules pass, you can bet that they can, and will, be used against those constituents, and then they will cry foul on the rules that they themselves wanted implemented.

    I am also of the thought group that content carriers cannot be content providers. It is a Vertical Integration problem. In other words, a few companies are controlling the entire supply chain. From production of content, to distribution of content, to carrying said content. An analogy would be if UP or BNSF owned several coal and iron mines, some steel mills, AND the rail lines. Obviously there are a lot of anti-trust laws that it would be breaking, but here we are with the internet industry in the US.

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

  27. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:52am

    Get help

    Did you just admit to who you are and make a fool of yourself for obsessing over what everyone other than you clearly realized was a joke from a comment six years ago? Not to mentioned tried to make your point by linking to a comment section where anyone who scrolls up or down can see just how nuts/demented you were acting?

    Seriously, as enjoyable as the schadenfreude is you really need to see a shrink, the level of obsession you are displaying is not healthy.

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

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:52am

    The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...

    I think that the real tragedy here is that the FCC lacks any accountability at all. There is simply nothing we can do legally to have Ajit pai prosecuted and imprisoned for selling out or to be clear for his crass and obvious conflict of interest as a lawyer for the telco industry. His positions lack any semblance of nuance with his willful denial of reality flying in the face of ethics. His duty as a regulator is to advance the mandate of the FCC. And spur broadband deployment be it by incentive or by stick if need be, insted he doesn't want to regulate at all and even wants to divest the FCC of his job as a regulator. That is just a criminal disregard for his duties as chairman and a shameless powergrab because the chairman doesn't have the authority to change the mandate of the FCC itself. He should be audited and investigated because he is clearly being ordered around by the very industry that he is suppose to regulate or in simple terms corruption of the highest order and a traitor to the nation's economic growth just to prop up the rampant gouging by the most uncompetitive companies in the US.

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

  29. icon
    McGyver (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:01am

    Nothing is more infuriating than a person who lies right to your face.
    While I agree that losing ones cool and attacking someone's character is counterproductive, one must have a molecule of character to begin with... Asking people to maintain their composure is almost contrary to human nature.
    This guy invites hate and oozes the same slimy coolness of any and every sleazy salesman and ripoff artist that we have ever seen, in real life or fiction.
    The consequences were inevitable.
    Whatever hatred and anger he has accrued, he invited it upon himself by selling out consumers to satisfy his own greed.
    I'd like to save sympathy for someone who at least thought they were doing the right thing and not someone who thought they were slick enough to screw a nation and get away with it.
    The rest of the article was fine, but I couldn't care less about Pai's problems.

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

  30. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:02am

    Inflamatory headline

    When clamouring for a more decent discussion climate, there is something about leading by example.

    Headline makes news: The headline is what people see and it is what makes people react to, by reading, sharing or otherwise supplying the contageon-machine for the piece. But it also sets the tone for discussing it!

    You are on very solid ground in the facts you are citing in the article. But exposing a lie is glorious. Calling it out is petty. It is difficult to find this piece anything but fuel for emotional responses and hence personal attacks from the more actively engaged.

    That is not leading by example, sir Masnick! Even if the preample is to avoid further ad hominem, The discrepancy between the headline and the plea easily comes off as hypocricy and it makes the article look petty.

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

  31. identicon
    TripMN, 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:03am

    Re: Life in the fast lane

    I read the link as containing the word 'trolls', not 'tolls'... and it still sorta made sense. Comcast would side with the trolls, wouldn't they. :-/

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

  32. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:03am

    Re:

    Yeah, I'd have to agree there, he's not 'mistaken', he's corrupt and dishonest. He knows that what he's pushing are lies, he just doesn't care.

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

  33. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:07am

    No, it really isn't

    Calling it out is petty.

    What exactly is 'petty' in pointing out 'That person is lying to you'? That is exactly the sort of thing that should be pointed out, because it shows they are not to be trusted and that what they are claiming is false.

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

  34. icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:19am

    History

    Is it worth pointing out that there was Internet Access before Broadband? We used to connect to ISPs via modems and the connecting phone system utilities were governed by Title II. Just because the bits per second are higher doesn't change the rationale behind these rules.

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

  35. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:24am

    Re:

    If there's one thing the last few decades have taught the main two parties, it's that you HAVE to use personal attacks to polarize the masses into voting defensively. After all, they don't want a third party to gain any traction, so demonize the opponent and "warn" the public about "throwing away" their vote rather than preventing the demon from winning.

    The only way I see forward is to take ALL the money out of campaigns. Each candidate gets (let's say) $1M, period. And they have to spend it on campaigning PERSONALLY. No help, no company support, no ads by ANYONE else other than the candidate. The only thing a third party can organize is a debate among candidates that is open to EVERY candidate.

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

  36. icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:25am

    Re:

    This argument makes as much sense as saying the 1st Amendment is the government taking over free speech.

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

  37. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:28am

    Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    Thoughtful, intelligent, and amoral or immoral. Don't forget that last trait as it perfectly explains why they can be the first two and yet still sell out the public for (relatively) minor amounts of money or power.

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

  38. icon
    crade (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:29am

    Re: No, it really isn't

    There is, of course, absolutely no discrepancy. The lying is important and 100% related to the policy debate under discussion and evidence is supplied. It's not ad hominem in any way to point out that the other guy is lying about the issue at hand.

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

  39. icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:34am

    Re:

    Newsflash the FCC is the legislative solution and it was working okay until we let regulatory capture get so out of control. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151

    Pretty sure the new "legislative solution" to this is to end corporate campaign donations and other "free speech" that sure looks like bribery.

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

  40. icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:38am

    Re: Get help

    I just clicked the link and I had to laugh loud while feeling guilty. Jesus, six years. This is clearly a case of OCD or something like (hence the guilt, the guy/girl is sick).

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

  41. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are mistaken, I have not changed. You just fundamentally misunderstood the statement.

    So was I, means I was brought up to do the right thing too. It does not mean what I consider to be the right thing is the SAME as what you consider to be the right thing.

    Without a higher authority at play, what is right for you is wrong for another. You an stand anywhere at any time and claim what is right... but the only thing that does matter is your ability to "make right through might". Those with the power to enforce their will are the ones that are right. Rule of the jungle 101.

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

  42. icon
    An Onymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:58am

    Re:

    Regulation is not "taking over". What did it take to wash down swallowing that party line?

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

  43. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "there are some OBVIOUS 1st amendment issues alone. Namely Freedom of Speech, but more importantly Freedom of the Press."

    You say they are obvious, what 1st amendment rights are suppressed by the FCC getting rid of NN?

    "A regulatory agency, should be doing that, regulating the industries that they are in charge of regulating."

    Actually according to the Constitution, agencies only have the power to enforce regulations, only congress is allowed to regulate.

    "Removing those regulations defeats the purpose of actually HAVING that regulatory agency, in this case, the FCC."

    those regulations.... well which ones... there are a large number of them on the books. NN is not the only laws the FCC has on the books.

    "That is why it is called the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, not the "Let's let the communications corporations do what the fuck they want commission"."

    Well history would like a word with you because it disgree's. Regulatory capture has been warned about long enough to make it an egg of everyone's faces that support the type of regulation that is NN. But the game of the day is to erroneously blame a non-existent free-market for the failures of regulation. There is a political reason for this as well, but goes beyond the scope of this response.

    "IF these rules pass, you can bet that they can, and will, be used against those constituents, and then they will cry foul on the rules that they themselves wanted implemented."

    This requires clarification. Which rules against which constituents?

    "I am also of the thought group that content carriers cannot be content providers."

    I am as well, but those are just anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations which I do support. The problem is many like you have spent so much time fighting against the likes of me you will never get it. If we do regulation is needs to be of this kind only, otherwise you are going to get capture at some level.

    "Obviously there are a lot of anti-trust laws that it would be breaking,"

    The root problem... anti-trust laws are already being broken, but since no one cares about those they are ignored to the point where it does not matter that they exist or not... kinda like how much the constitution matters when a cops decides it does not in the heat of the moment and takes your property, arrests you for resisting arrest, and makes up laws you just broke on the spot.

    How about we fix that shit first instead of creating more rules for them to fuck up and NOT enforce?

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

  44. icon
    An Onymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    They're professional liars. That's actually how Trump got elected. Enough people thought he was "a breath of fresh air", "not a politician", etc, etc. People thought he was blunt but not a liar. Turns out he's both .

    How thoughtful and/or intelligent they are means absolutely nothing. They're all (or a sufficiently large percentage of them to justify using the word "all", it's a rounding error) corrupt through and through.

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

  45. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Inflamatory headline

    And what exactly is the difference between "exposing a lie" and "calling it out?"

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

  46. icon
    An Onymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:09pm

    Re: "We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!

    Seek professional psychiatric care immediately.

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

  47. icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Re:

    Liberals and leftists have a purity issue, in that they want the perfect candidate (or policy), and let that be the enemy of the good candidate. They did it with Bernie and HRC, and countless other times.

    To win elections, better would be to have the kind of "big tent" the GOP has, where poor bible thumpers vote in alignment with rich oligarchs for fuck-knows-what shared goals. But they align and accept their allies' flaws, like, I dunno, pedophilia, as they pull the lever.

    So, that said, I want to vote for the "least worst" option, every time. Because that actually matters. And I am willing to align with people with very different views on an issue-by-issue basis to make coalitions to get the policy wins I seek.

    But there are some groups with whom I would never align. Nazis and pedophiles are in this category. This used to be obvious, but there you go. A big tent can be too big, too. Gotta leave some scum out in the sun to dry up.

    Fuck the racism lobbed against Pai. It's cruel, wrong, and counter productive all at once. Folks, if you want to get angry at Pai, or you want to shout him down, there are readily available valid concerns one could address. It's not hard to find something to get angry about which is policy-based.

    That said, Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan issue, it's The People versus the Oligopolists. There are just three categories of interested people: The sellouts, those rightly against, and those duped.

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

  48. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re:

    "If there's one thing the last few decades have taught the main two parties, it's that you HAVE to use personal attacks to polarize the masses into voting defensively."

    Well said! Could not agree more. I am independent but the first thing many people here at TD tries to do is put me in one of the parties and do just what you say when I post something they disagree with.

    "The only way I see forward is to take ALL the money out of campaigns."

    I don't believe it is possible to take money out of the campaigns. They will always have a way to make money a major component because everyone wants it.

    The root problem will remain the same eternal one...

    Eternal Vigilance

    The voters must remain eternally vigilant against corruption in their governments, and since we mostly approve of corruption so long as it gets us what we politically want, we invite corruption through the front door. Both parties use corruption to get things done and their voters applaud them for it.

    Once voters decide that they will no longer vote a person that corrupt back into office the tides will begin to change... but NEVER before then.

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

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Big tent? How about being against murdering babies? But that isn't the point.

    How bad will the demise of NN be? I think somewhat less than people here think, much like Trump becoming president. I mean, really think about it, what has Trump done?

    But I digress, if NN goes out, doesn't that just encourage Google Fiber and other initiatives? We will survive and there really is no need for the hysterics.

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

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    "They're professional liars. That's actually how Trump got elected. Enough people thought he was "a breath of fresh air", "not a politician", etc, etc. People thought he was blunt but not a liar. Turns out he's both."

    Trump was as obvious to me as Obama and Bush were. The breath of fresh air is the bluntness. Bush and Obama spend a lot of time figuring out ways to tell people to go fuck themselves and leaving them still wanting to shake their hands.

    "How thoughtful and/or intelligent they are means absolutely nothing."

    It does have meaning, just because you choose to disregard them does not mute them effects on things.

    "They're all (or a sufficiently large percentage of them to justify using the word "all", it's a rounding error) corrupt through and through."

    Agree, the problem is that far too many of the voters appreciate that corruption when it serves their politics.

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

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent

    Exactly!

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

  52. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re:

    "Net Neutrality is not about the government taking over the Internet, because it has nothing to do with content on the Internet,"

    It is regulating content plain and simple, so you are either grossly ignorant or lying.

    "It is about preventing the ISP's from taking over the Internet, and controlling what sites you can visit and for how much, so that they can turn the Internet into cable T.V. version 2."

    In other words, regulating content.

    "If the ISP service is classified as a telecommunications service, they are not allowed to decide which sites you use, but if they are classified as infomation services they can obviously control what infomation they allow over their networks."

    They already do control what information they allow over their networks and will not change with NN either. Zero Rating is still possible and all the tricks they have been using to throttle things were in place before NN was conceived.

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

  53. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Once an issue has been brought into the fold of identity politics rationality goes out of the window.

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

  54. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:27pm

    Re:

    Stating the facts isn't personal.

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

  55. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re:

    FCC was NEVER working. The only different between the FCC of yesterday vs tomorrow is the size of the broom handling being shoved up your asses.

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

  56. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:36pm

    Of all the Pai jokes, the sequence of pictures where his teeth get bigger is friggin hilarious!

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

  57. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:38pm

    Re: The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...

    "I think that the real tragedy here is that the FCC lacks any accountability at all."

    They are accountable when Congress decides to make them accountable. Since this requires the collective agreement of the electorate good luck with that.

    "There is simply nothing we can do legally to have Ajit pai prosecuted and imprisoned for selling out"

    and would you hold that standard for people you do agree with? I thought so... They all are selling out, just to different degrees and constituents.

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

  58. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "NEVER working"

    Hmm, I think your definition of never and mine are slightly different.

    If the FCC "never worked", then how is it that my cell phone, router, TV, game console, etc... can all be on and working without interfering with each other? Because, I mean, it's not like the FCC has a rule about how much EMF interference a device can accept and what bands/frequencies certain devices have to use so they don't interfere with each other. Right?

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

  59. identicon
    OGquaker, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: What 'election'?

    Repeat;

    My wife and i have run poling precincts for decades.
    In November 2016, She was a Clerk at a multiple precinct within USC, i was Inspector at two precincts in Compton.
    20% of the people who walked in to vote were not on my paperwork, and were forced to use a 'Provisional' ballot.
    80% of the students and staff who showed up at her precincts were forced onto a 'Provisional' ballot.
    She got up and walked away after 11 hours of such crap, forgoing her paycheck.

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

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:46pm

    The Smaller Lie

    Trying to figure out where the numbers were coming from that claimed a drop of less than 6% in investment, I found his recent WSJ column cited this analysis which ultimately drew on Hal Singer.

    And Doug Brake notes right there that correlation doesn't equal causation, and two years is far too short a period to conclude anything from.

    Did he actually read the website he cited?

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

  61. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It is regulating content plain and simple, so you are either grossly ignorant or lying.

    See if you can spot the difference between the following:

    1) 'You will treat traffic/content differently based upon what it is, whether that be preferential treatment for the content we tell you is good, or negative treatment for content we tell you is bad.'

    2) 'You will not treat certain traffic/content differently, and are instead required to treat all traffic/content equally, with no preferential or detrimental treatment based upon what the content is or who's offering it.'

    Figure out the difference between those two and you'll be able to understand why telling the telecom companies not to 'regulate content' by treating some of it better or worse is not the government regulating the traffic/content itself.

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

  62. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Figure out the difference between those two and you'll be able to understand why telling the telecom companies not to 'regulate content' by treating some of it better or worse is not the government regulating the traffic/content itself."

    I think you need to figure it out.

    Government telling someone that they what they can or cannot do is regulation. The subject is content, government telling ISP what they cannot do with content... ergo content regulation. Just because this regulation is intended to have a net positive effect for consumers does not mean it is magically NOT content regulation just because you want it to sound that way. Words have meaning in the English language... use and understand them properly or you will become easy to fool and trick by word play.

    Here is the definition for your edification.

    reg·u·la·tion
    ˌreɡ(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/
    noun
    noun: regulation; plural noun: regulations

    1.
    a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
    "planning regulations"
    synonyms: rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept
    "they obey all the regulations"
    in accordance with regulations; of the correct type.
    modifier noun: regulation
    "regulation army footwear"
    synonyms: official, prescribed, set, fixed, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory, de rigueur
    "regulation dress"
    antonyms: unofficial
    informal
    of a familiar or predictable type; formulaic; standardized.
    "a regulation Western parody"
    2.
    the action or process of regulating or being regulated.


    TLDR: a rule regulating what ISP "cannot" do with content is STILL content regulation!

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

  63. identicon
    Jerick, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Actually NN rules are rules about what they can do with data rather than content. It's just that a lot of content is delivered as data. Regardless even if we were to say they are regulating content with NN; can you explain why those regulations were a bad thing on their own merits rather than relying on the negative connotations of "regulating content"?

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

  64. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Government telling someone that they what they can or cannot do is regulation.

    So you are unhappy that the government tells the phone companies that they cannot decide who you can phone?

    Sometimes when a company is in a position to control what other companies you do business with, and especially when some of those businesses are in competition with another part of their business, regulation of how the treat connections to those other businesses is required.

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

  65. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You sound like one of anti net neutrality scripts that Pai bought gained sentience, but only enough to keep vomiting up the same regurgitated dross in a different word salad every time his name gets brought up. Oh that and the same air of smug superiority that only high school girls and first year college dropout living in their parents basement can seem to achieve.

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

  66. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Hmm, I think your definition of never and mine are slightly different."

    Context man... CONTEXT!!! It matters!

    "he FCC is the legislative solution and it was working okay until we let regulatory capture get so out of control."

    What I said was in the context of his statement... get a CLUE!

    And to drive the point home..

    "If the FCC "never worked", then how is it that my cell phone, router, TV, game console, etc... can all be on and working without interfering with each other?"

    Because your phone, router, TV, game console, etc worked... that is why they worked... the FCC does not magically make them work with rules and laws. When they break or malfunction the FCC is not going to make them fixed for you. The FCC just makes rules that MFG's need to follow so that your electronics can be taken over or interfered with by the Government or "more important" things... example FCC part 15.

    I would support the FCC if it only performed anti-trust and anti monopoly regulation. But it does not now does it? IT has been busy creating that which is was created to destroy! Which means, it is a cancer that should be cut out, not screwed around with!

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

  67. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:12pm

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

    data = content...

    why can't you just accept that I am right? Is it so important that you twist and yoink what things mean to avoid having to say... okay... you are right... this is content regulation, but the regulation we want because it benefits us consumers!

    Honesty is a good policy!

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

  68. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:14pm

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

    "So you are unhappy that the government tells the phone companies that they cannot decide who you can phone?"

    I am okay with that... but lets not twist what it means.

    I am okay with regulations the "benefit" the consumers. I am just not okay with regulations that "benefit" the businesses against consumers... which NN also has in the vein of Zero Rating.

    You are not going to get NN without a little poison in the mix, and because the problem is NOT with NN it is with the FCC blessing and securing monopolies we have bigger fish to fry, but instead here we are getting tricked by the Telco's to focus on NN when they still get to keep their monopolies! They CANT LOSE!

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

  69. identicon
    Baron von Robber, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, you hate regulations cuz regulations. You must really be triggered by such overreaching things like laws.

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

  70. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:16pm

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

    Well, if you are going to lie... make them whoppers I guess!

    If you want to advance the cause of NN, stop lying first, everyone else will begin to think that you have ulterior motives when you feel the need to lie to advance your cause!

    What are you hiding?

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

  71. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Goodness, a dictionary definition?! Alas, you have totally slain me with your amazing citation to the definition of 'regulation', and your masterful argument as to why telling the telecom companies not to regulate content is absolutely the same thing as the government regulating the content itself was a brilliant example of logic rarely seen on this site or any other.

    Truly, your superb argument has bested me and shown me the error of my ways.

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

  72. icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:19pm

    Lets open this up...

    "“to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” For decades, Commission policies encouraged broadband deployment and the development of the Internet. That ended two years ago. In 2015, the Commission imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs). Since then, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era. "

    Corporate ideal of competitive is to SUCK UP everything in its way, and Make it PART of 1 WHOLE.,.

    FREE MARKET?? no such thing in this country..Parts made in other countries, Put together in the USA(no tariffs), To make 6 different NAMES that 1 company builds..6 company names made by 1 Corp, for all your refrig, washers and dryers.. How do you compete?? you dont have to..

    Commissions Old policy was to GIVE MONEY to the Major ISP'S to UPDATE the internet system..the LAST mile to give EVERYONE Fiber, in the cities and towns..and Little was/is done..only the Main sections are finished that have the MOST people/business access. YES, WE ALREADY PAID THEM TO DO THE WORK.. The Telephone service has ALWAYS been updated and Supported by the Government..its an EMERGENCY SERVICE..YOU PAID for the old copper lines to be Placed EVERYWHERE..and to RUN even when there was a catastrophic incident.(cellphones cant even do that)

    2015?? didnt CHANGE anything, it reinforced the THAT ISP and telephone service WAS/IS a Utility..its is AN EMERGENCY SERVICE..

    Broadband investment?? SUPPOSEDLY, our Gov has paid 2 times to GET IT DONE...as a utility ITS SUBSIDIZED...

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

  73. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:20pm

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

    Oh look the troll has appeared, you should get a Darwin award. I told you that this was coming and you didn't listen. I hope you have nightmares about Pai cause you deserve them!

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

  74. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:24pm

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

    Well try not to let that chagrin get to ya...
    It helps if you try to stick to the facts instead of feelings about things.

    next time I will "try" to cut you some slack if you really want to be that wrong about things.... but no promises!

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

  75. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:25pm

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

    I wasn’t lying, I was insulting you. You’re just too stupid to understand the difference. The only thing I’m hiding is the glee with which you’ve proved my point.

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

  76. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re:

    The facts are a lie!!! /s

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

  77. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:29pm

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

    But, you had to lie to insult me... I like a good insult as much as the next guy, but lying makes it bland weak-sauce and unfunny.

    If you are gleeful about being lame, don't let me stop ya champ! I am sure you are going on to bigger and better things!

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

  78. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Inflamatory headline

    Exposing in this case is based on providing evidence and facts to proove why specific items in an argument is wrong. Calling out "lies" assumes the evidence is insufficient for people to come to that conclusion on their own, based on the evidence! Shouting "lies" the highest, the longest and the most media-effective are ways to use feelings to make a point. In fact, take Trump!

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

  79. icon
    JMT (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:38pm

    Re:

    Please explain how calling someone who is lying a liar is personal and childish. What exactly to you do when someone lies to you?

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

  80. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:43pm

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

    I understand what you mean on everyone morals are different.
    So if I understand you correctly.
    Your morals allow you to take bribes since people will hate you either way?
    Don't have a problem with that but if you are in a non elected public position you are likely not going to get praise for doing a great job. If people are hating you, most likely your are doing something wrong. So really the only two options are either being ignored or hated. If you don't like either of those options, then maybe look at doing something else.

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

  81. identicon
    Thad, 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:46pm

    Re:

    I think we'll be seeing a judicial solution well before we see a legislative one.

    But still, call your reps; it can't hurt.

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

  82. icon
    JMT (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:49pm

    Re:

    "Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented..."

    You seem to be suffering from the same misunderstanding as the "don't let the government control the internet" clowns. If Pai succeeds in his goals US ISP customers will suffer and the rest of the world will barely notice. The internet is not going anywhere.

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

  83. icon
    JMT (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Inflamatory headline

    It's really hard to what the hell your point is. This article and many before provides the evidence and facts you claim are required to prove the claim. The logical conclusion based on this evidence is that Pai is lying and he knows it. If someone lies, they get called a liar. Real simple.

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

  84. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:09pm

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

    (Note so self: Sarcasm does not work on The Chosen One.)

    Well, try not to pat yourself on the back for your amazing 'win' too much, don't want you to strain a muscle and be unable to boast about how you are totally right due to everyone around you being just so wrong on everything because you said they were.

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

  85. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:25pm

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

    Wow you can dish out the insults but your ego is waaayyy to fragile to handle taking one. Kind of like a high school girl.

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

  86. icon
    McFortner (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:32pm

    Re:

    This has been flagged why? It's a pretty good example of hypocrisy on the author's part.

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

  87. icon
    An Onymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:35pm

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

    Are you willfully ignorant or is yours just plain old ignorance?

    Yes, it's regulation. Yes, it's about content. But no, it's not about regulating content, it's about regulating that content may not be interfered with. Calling this content regulation is disingenuous.

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

  88. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Lets open this up...

    Are you having a stroke?

    But yeah, it's definitely not a free market with government subsidies in the picture. There should really be lobbying for an end to those instead, since the private companies never seem to deliver anyway. What's the point of subsidizing laziness?

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

  89. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Linus Pauling

    Watson and Crick had tremendous respect for Pauling, and were terrified that he was going to figure out DNA first.

    They were convinced that Pauling was just weeks or months behind them. And stated so publicly, decades later.

    Pauling didn't screw up. He was just a little too late.

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

  90. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:48pm

    Pai is sincerely wrong

    I'll be the one to say it.

    1 - Pai hasn't been bought. He believes what he says. I think he's wrong (and Mike is right here), but he's sincere.

    2 - The whole Net Neutrality thing is way overblown.

    As long as we have protectionist regulations (federal, state, and local) that restrict entry into the ISP business, I support Net Neutrality.

    I'd rather get rid of the protectionism and have free competition - then NN would be unnecessary.

    3 - Even if Pai succeeds in dismantling NN, the damage will be minor and isolated to a few areas and special circumstances, and fixed pretty soon by either competition, public pressure/embarrassment, or legislation.

    So everybody calm down.

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

  91. identicon
    Thad, 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    the damage will be [...] fixed pretty soon by [...] public pressure/embarrassment

    So everybody calm down.

    You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be such a public outcry, because any abuses will be quickly fixed, because of the public outcry.

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

  92. icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re: Lets open this up...

    Used to be that corps jumped on to being subsidized and Things PAID for..
    NOW they just keep the money and DONT do anything..

    BUT, even if Net Neutral was passed...THERE IS A BACK DOOR..
    You move OFF the ISP being the server company, and make it a Different service...
    Like ATT saying they dont give an EMAIL address, that you must go someplace else..
    AND ISP only supplies ACCESS to the net, and the SECOND company, gives SPEED ACCESS to the net..

    LOVE the holes..

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

  93. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:57pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Funny you should mention Google Fiber... a court just overturned a city making a rule for 1 touch ready. It would allow a single qualified person to move & attach new lines to poles.

    AT&T & Comcast were dragging their feet to try and piss off Google Fiber, it should not take more than 6 months to prepare a pole for another line, but that was the min time they were doing it in.

    We won't survive, the incumbents were handed control over a majority of the poles, so they can make sure no one can run new lines for their service offering. They have legal deals locking residents into just 1 service, even if they managed to have 15 providers... the buildings locked into a multi-decade contract saying you only get provider X. You are captive income & they can raise prices as much as they want because what is your other choice?

    NN just makes them treat all the packets the same & not slow down other services to make theirs look better.
    The line is run, the bandwidth is paid for, but trying to keep people from using more is a stupid game. Bandwidth costs are very low, but because they have underprovisioned their network they have to make everyone use less.

    Look at the games they play, one of the providers refused to pay for another connection to Level 3 & yelled and screamed that it was Level 3 that was at fault... until Level 3 showed the switch running at 100% for the single connection they had. They want us to think it would be billions to make another connection, it wasn't because after they were called out... they made another connection.

    We offer GIG service!!! But your data limit is 150GB a month, extra costs you $50 for another 10. It doesn't cost them $50 to get another 10GB, but they like making more money where they can and convince people the companies zero-rated service is much better. Oh our meter is often wrong, but there is no government oversight of it so suck it up and pay. The website might show you have access to 3 providers but 1 isn't in your state and the other one wants you to pay them $10K to run the line.

    The government has given the big providers monopolies & passed laws keeping them the only game in town... NN being in or out won't change that. NN just keeps them from saying you need to pay an extra $5 a month to access FB, another $5 for Twitter, $15 to access Gmail.

    We have no competition in the markets, if NN goes away... they can and will break the entire net into ala-carte pieces to get a few more coins from the same shitty service offerings.

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

  94. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 2:58pm

    I know this blog understands many complex legal issues, so it always pains me to see such ignorance regarding how the APA works. The APA requires a comment period. Nothing more, nothing less. The agency has no obligation to read the comments, incorporate them, or address them. It must simply solicit them. All of the things you demand, like looking into false comments could only jeopardize the rule under the APA process in a legal challenge, so the agency will never do them. Please stop pretending that the comment proccess is anything other than a bureaucratic checkbox that the FCC (and every other agency) go through the motions with to satisfy the APA and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

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

  95. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:02pm

    Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    "fixed pretty soon by either competition, public pressure/embarrassment, or legislation"

    They own the poles, they keep competition out.
    Comcast was rated the shittiest provider ever for years & years... still aren't any better.
    Ummm maybe you haven't seen all of the protectionist legislation they gave donations to get voted on.

    They own the system lock, stock, and barrel.
    No one is coming to save us, our only weapon is NN making them play fair.

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

  96. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Re:

    Because while the flagged comment is an ad him/personal attack('So childish'), saying that Pai is lying and backing that up with evidence to show that he is is not.

    There's nothing 'hypocritical' in saying that people shouldn't be personally attacking someone and pointing out that someone is lying. Had Mike simply said 'Pai is a liar and as such you shouldn't believe anything he says' after chiding people for personal attacks that might have been hypocritical as it would have been an accusation/insult without basis, but saying that he's lying on a particular subject and backing that up with evidence to support it is notably different.

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

  97. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:11pm

    Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    No, I'm suggesting that:

    a) The sky isn't falling, the world's not about to end, and the "Internet as we know it" is not going to disappear.

    The panic and hyperbole I see in the comments seems vastly disproportionate to the reality. People are overreacting.

    The world has far more important problems, and greater injustices, to get excited about.

    b) Public outcry is appropriate now, but it ought to be proportionate to the problem.

    c) Public outcry is completely necessary if and when ISPs start abusing the lack of NN. If and when.

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

  98. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:20pm

    The technicality of falsehood.

    It may be that rather Anonymous Coward is suggesting Mr. Pai is under the thrall of misinformation, spurious logic and an unwillingness to actually do his job and research the snot out of the situation before making policy that actually serves the public, instead being willfully deceptive thanks to sweet, sweet incentives (and bribery) by corporate interests.

    Lying only covers the latter, where sheer incompetence covers the former.

    The thing is Techdirt has long established that Pai is well, well in love with Verizon and Comcast and believes they are trustworthy and can do no wrong. Whether that is due to the thrall of hard cash, sweet drugs, future employment or vampire powers has yet to be specifically determined.

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

  99. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I.T. Guy: I was brought up to do the right thing

    Anonymous Coward: So was I, but I do not waste time giving my time and efforts to those that do not deserve it either.

    And that is how our commons, one by one, fall to ruin.

    When enough of us lose faith in the community, then it fails and the tigers make short work of us.

    And they will this time too.

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

  100. icon
    Shane (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:25pm

    Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    I knew Republicans would come at Net Neutrality. I have no idea WHY, but I knew they would. God knows it took long enough to coerce Obama into it.

    As far as I am concerned, Pai deserves all the bad names that can be flung at him. What is unhinged is this idea that anything good comes from turning the internet into a gigantic cable tv network.

    They might as well just have banned peer to peer technology if this was the big plan.

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

  101. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:30pm

    Regulations

    Answer me this, Anonymous Coward...

    Regulations are bad because...?

    Last I checked I like clean meat and smooth AC current without surges and brown outs. I get those because of regulation.

    How is net neutrality different?

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

  102. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 3:56pm

    Laughing at the poor life of Pai:

    From the Amazonian Post:

    Pai said in a statement, “Internet regulation activists have crossed the line by threatening and harassing my family. They should leave my family out of this and focus on debating the merits of the issue.”

    This guy actually has the balls to say this, knowing full well that what he is proposing will allow carriers to implement corporate versions of Jim Crow laws in their respective districts.

    Diagnosis of clinical depression is up 60% in teens in the past decade. It is only a matter of time before this is statistically linked to mindfarms like facebook, twitter, and the unholy trinity. That and all the highly engineered mind bending used by carriers and ad-tracking providers. Which is what he proposes to make worse.

    Which is to say that the private institutions this guy is endowing with sovereign authority over the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 13th amendments, HAVE ALREADY been broadly invested in the psychological battery of ALL of the children in this nation. Including HIS incidentally.

    The line that is being crossed here was drawn in 1791. If Pai wants to talk about lines, perhaps he should retreat back onto the safe side of that one before opening his gob again.

    I mean it is just terrible that he gets to read some mean signs, and ugly emails, while real America gets its head busted, and face pepper sprayed at protests. And if another Kent State Massacre comes out of it, well that isn't such a price to pay for his cushy contractor job once he leaves the FCC.

    People are going to get hurt because of this motherfucker, for no reason but to elevate the legend he presumes himself to be. Intelligent and considerate men do not assume that they are precluded from such debts.

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

  103. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Pai never says anything specific enough to NOT be a lie. Truth is inversely proportional to the scope of speech. If one never speaks in anything other than generalities, one does nothing but lying.

    So he is eloquent and impressive, in the way that an elephant fart is more impressive than one of a house fly.

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

  104. identicon
    Matthew M Bennett, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Except if the government were trying to "regulate" the media as utility.....that would actually be a huge threat to free speech. Which is, y'know, what happened.

    So really, that was just a dumb thing to say.

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

  105. identicon
    Matthew M Bennett, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:05pm

    Not regulating the internet how I want is racism!

    How dare he say "please, no death threats"?!?

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

  106. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Regulation isn't bad if constructed correctly. Like Traffic signs. Not perfect but it works. Otherwise if Comcast decides it hates TechDirt and blocks all traffic to and from Techdirt? That could potentially happen without NN or maybe they limit Techdirt traffic to 1kbps so it isn't actually blocked.

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

  107. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re:

    " The internet is not going anywhere."

    Except underground. I think you going to find that if they do what they say, black market nets are going to start popping up. That and bolt cutter sales are going to go way up. Both for the cutting of old fiber, and for the stealing of new.

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

  108. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:19pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You look confused.

    RE: ""regulate" the media as utility."
    You are correct, that is a stupid thing to say. Perhaps that is why the poster to which you responded did not say that.

    The media (many sources of information for you to choose from in a variety of ways) is not the same as the internet (one system providing access to many sources of information, some of which might be media, available via a very limited set of monopolies).

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

  109. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "since we mostly approve of corruption so long as it gets us what we politically want, we invite corruption through the front door. "

    Your use of the word "we" seems a bit presumptuous.



    "Once voters decide that they will no longer vote a person that corrupt "

    And how will these voters know about this corruption when the fake media has been silenced?

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

  110. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Re: The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...

    "They are accountable when Congress decides to make them accountable."

    That or an angry mob. I'd happily help carry the rail that runs that motherfucker out of town.

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

  111. identicon
    Thad, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    a) The sky isn't falling, the world's not about to end, and the "Internet as we know it" is not going to disappear.

    Strawman.

    The world has far more important problems, and greater injustices, to get excited about.

    Fallacy of relative privation.

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

  112. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I think the poster to which you replied was saying that the internet is worldwide, not just a USA toy to be dismantled.
    So, yeah - the USA will suffer while the world points and laughs.

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

  113. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:34pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the FCC never worked, then how did all those transmitters not walk all over each other back in the day .... how are they not walking all over each other today? Why are pirate transmitters not blasting out idk, what do they transmit?

    Take off those blinders man.

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

  114. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    "I knew Republicans would come at Net Neutrality. I have no idea WHY, but I knew they would. "

    Because they must dismantle everything obama did, sort of like a petulant child throwing a tantrum at the store because they can not have that candy or toy or ice cream (two scoops).

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

  115. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:44pm

    Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:

    "Diagnosis of clinical depression is up 60% in teens in the past decade. It is only a matter of time before this is statistically linked to mindfarms like facebook, twitter, and the unholy trinity. That and all the highly engineered mind bending used by carriers and ad-tracking providers. Which is what he proposes to make worse. "

    Whoa! - I think they are building a system to gaslight the entire nation.

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

  116. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 4:59pm

    Re: Re:

    Derek Kerton liberals and leftists don't have anyone they can vote for in the election. The Democrats are to the right of center, and we liberals (you know, who believe in liberty) have to make do with whatever the slightly-less-right group throws at us.

    There isn't a no drone strikes candidate.

    There isn't a robust public domain candidate.

    There isn't an internet serves the public candidate.

    This is an indication not that we're unwilling to compromise, but of failure of government

    In the case of the FCC, this is a textbook case of regulatory capture in which the regulatory agency has ceased serving the public interest and is blatantly serving the interests of stakeholders in an industry it's supposed to regulate.

    We know how to fix this: change from FPTP and wait a century as new parties form. But our current parties are invested in making sure the people get as few options as possible.

    So there isn't an electoral reform candidate either.

    And there won't be until the people crack out the guillotines and execute a million Americans.

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

  117. icon
    takitus (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    Because they must dismantle everything obama did, sort of like a petulant child throwing a tantrum at the store because they can not have that candy or toy or ice cream (two scoops).

    One of the primary points of Mike's article is that there has been (and is) broad support for net neutrality among members of both major parties. To bring Barack Obama into it muddies the waters, as the “Obama-FCC power grab!” brigade well knows.

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

  118. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 5:40pm

    Re:

    I Ctrl+F-ed "liar" and the first result was this comment. So unless the article has been modified between comment posting and now, Mike never said Pai was a liar. He only said Pai has been telling lies and he pointed what the lies were and why. That's not a personal attack.

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

  119. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 5:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    Well, curiously the GOP did let his guy throw out the moderately-NN guy for the fiercely-Anti-NN guy, and no one even flinched about it.

    So yeah, the GOP's inaction and lack of effort stopping their undo-anything-Obama-did president from making that switch seems to suggest they didn't really care all that much about net neutrality after all.

    Remember, Ajit Pai had written numerous bits trying to convince Wheeler to kill net neutrality and avoid Title-2 designation for telecommunications. He was then a known quantity.

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

  120. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 5:47pm

    Re:

    I know this blog understands many complex legal issues, so it always pains me to see such ignorance regarding how the APA works. The APA requires a comment period. Nothing more, nothing less. The agency has no obligation to read the comments, incorporate them, or address them. It must simply solicit them. All of the things you demand, like looking into false comments could only jeopardize the rule under the APA process in a legal challenge, so the agency will never do them. Please stop pretending that the comment proccess is anything other than a bureaucratic checkbox that the FCC (and every other agency) go through the motions with to satisfy the APA and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

    Not a single thing in this post is about the comment process. You are perhaps replying to the wrong post?

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

  121. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 6:01pm

    On a rather different subject...

    Ever since congress blocked judicial appointments (at the expense of impacting the courts and overworking the remaining justices) and then won the gamble and got Gorsuch onto the SCOTUS bench, I've been wondering if this isn't going to play out violently in the future.

    Given it is now an optimal strategy to, once your side has control of the presidency and legislature, identifying justices that have a history of adjudicating along enemy ideological positions, and killing them, probably with guns or bombs or handfuls of guys with clubs.

    I'm not saying I'm endorsing such a strategy, but I imagine that when the courts start leaning to much in one way or another, when it becomes evident that some people have no friends or even rational minds in the legal system, the US might suffer through an epidemic of targeted rage.

    We're not at that position yet, and until I read this article, I was unaware of any harassment campaign against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. I don't endorse it either.

    But it is noteworthy, and when the people have no peaceful recourse, when the FCC chooses to completely ignore public interest, and even sabotages communication, it does encourage continuing policy by other means. This looks like the step before horse-head-on-the-bed level communications.

    I get it. Mr. Pai just wants to be rich and carve his niche out for himself and his family. It's too bad he has chosen to do it in a way that causes the rest of us to suffer. I don't think I'm going to cry if he gets shanked in the street.

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

  122. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 6:46pm

    Re: Re:

    >Pretty sure the new "legislative solution" to this is to end corporate campaign donations and other "free speech" that sure looks like bribery.

    We have a lot of posters that don't seem to be familiar with American government.

    Since Ajit is not elected, this solution would not only be totally ineffective, but would divert resources from other less-totally-ineffective approaches.

    In the bureaucracy, "bribes" are implemented by companies (frequently including, of course, nonprofit companies) offering remunerative sinecures to bureaucrats who spent their career being "useful tools."

    There hasn't BEEN any bribe--YET. And so there's nothing to prosecute.

    The solution isn't more laws, but more honest people: that is, people who want to be fair, not rich.

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

  123. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 7:13pm

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

    There's no way to take on the monopolies right now, when they have someone who's willing to let them make even more right now holding the pen to sign bills with.

    But you seem hell-bent on making sure things get even worse for no other reason that "Regulations is a bad word! WARRABRGARBLE!"

    Either you're a liar or a twit.

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

  124. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 7:26pm

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

    "Without a higher authority at play, what is right for you is wrong for another."

    Think about more like the "right" thing being what is morally and ethically "right."

    Hope that cleared it up for you.

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

  125. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 7:37pm

    Re: Re:

    I think that if you proved he lied, then you can call him a liar.

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

  126. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2017 @ 8:06pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "... but if they are classified as infomation services they can obviously control what infomation they allow over their networks."


    And therefore they are responsible for it ... they are not going to like this.

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

  127. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 8:57pm

    Slippery slope

    Mike, you don't get the fact that calling Pai a liar fuels the fire that ends up burning his wife and children. That's especially true when you're wrong on the facts as you are here. As Brent Skorup points out on Twitter, Democratic FCC Chairman Kennard classified all ISPs under Title I in 1998.

    You're the liar here. Please stop blogging.

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

  128. icon
    surfer (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:20pm

    you should have seen this coming, I did..

    I think you are missing the forest from the trees here, when it comes to political duplicity, there is alway an agenda. An end game, a thought through process with all angles decided from big think-tanks. When public outcry from the 'Oliver affect' arose, miraculously the outpour of bot driven defense. Does anyone here really think that was a response, or a process driven reply?

    The little lives here are so quaint to quantify here, honestly, I like TechDirt, its informative and mostly intelligent input from subscribers. But I gotta honestly evaluate the 'pro' part of your protest.

    The dystopium conundrum that is net neutrality is the result of alot of prior dysfunction slightly related. It all really boils down to money. I can make all kind of arguments and comparisons for reality's sake therefore I can boil this down to one simple fact.

    If every single member of the US of A called their his/her congressman/congresswoman and voiced their opinion on net neutrality, and every single call was for retaining Title II application, I guarantee the FCC would still vote to dismantle it.

    tldr; money is going to screw you out of your privacy. and the voice of the people can go fuck themselves.

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

  129. identicon
    Chip, 27 Nov 2017 @ 9:23pm

    Re: Regulations

    Regulations are "Bad" because Who is the "government" to tell Me that I acn't eat leaded Paint Chips! It's called the "Free Market", Leftists! If I want to "eat" paint Chips with "lead" in Them, then that's My "Business"! My doctor said So. He is not a "licensed Medical professional", because who tis thea o;aGovernment to tell me who is and "isn't" a Doctor! Let the "free Market" decide!

    Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Sedserves!

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

  130. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:09pm

    Re: Slippery slope

    Mike, you don't get the fact that calling Pai a liar fuels the fire that ends up burning his wife and children.

    Wait. Let's back up a second. Me explaining in careful and detailed terms, with numerous links to sources about why Pai is lying -- while also urging people to not attack Pai personally, and noting that the attacks against him are uncalled for and disgusting -- is the slippery slope.

    Yet, when you attack me with false ad homs on a near daily basis, make blatantly false statements about me (such as claiming I support piracy) or making other misleading statements about me... that's fair game?

    You're hilarious.

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

  131. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:34pm

    Re: Re: Slippery slope

    This is a classically slippery response. In the first place, Pai isn't lying. Title I for ISPs was in fact the norm prior to 2002: the Common Carrier Report in 1998 lays it out and says it follows from the MFJ (1982) and Computer II (1980). So you're the one who's lying, not Pai.

    Second, you're opposed to all forms of piracy enforcement, especially those like SOPA that would have made a difference.

    And third, I don't have an angry mob that I feed red meat every day raring to go attack somebody. I'm a calm, polite, and moderate analyst who values sound policy over traffic, impressions, and web sales.

    So yes, my moderate comments are very different from your inflammatory ones.

    But I will grant that you may not know about the Common Carrier Report, the MFJ, and Computer II. If that's the case, you're not lying, you're simply negligent.

    So which is it?

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

  132. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    Incidentally, your post channels van Schewick, so why don't you throw her an h/t?

    It's the gentlemanly way to roll, dog.

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

  133. icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:49pm

    Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..

    You started out very well..
    I was thinking of jumping in to voice a REAL comment..

    But there ARE some added strange facts..
    ASK CABLE/SAT TV..What the hell is happening? With their business. ASK why I have to pay for ESPN, sports channels, religious channels, and TONS of channels I dont even watch..

    Then get Every customer to ASK the same thing.
    Then ask the PARENTS, how much they would LIKE to pay for a cellphone..NOT a smart phone.
    Suggest that they could SAVE over $100 per month(its true) if they could be satisfied with watching LOCAL channels already GIVING away free TV..

    Suggest to them that WHEN enough people CUT the cord, that Prices will drop, Things WILL CHANGE..But we all have to SAVE the $100..EVERY MONTH..(done this already to a few people, and they LOVE ME..
    The Inductry DOES have a recourse..and its not nice..to CUT ALL LOCAL BROADCASTS...and NOT make money..for a time..

    Can you see a Bunch of RICH people going Without PAY for a few months, while people DECIDE what to do??

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

  134. icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 10:55pm

    Re:

    Dear AC..
    Iv looked at this site long ago, and ya know what??
    The Gov, pays no Attention to it..

    For allot of reasons, LIKE there is TO MUCH to wade thru to do anything..

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

  135. icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2017 @ 11:08pm

    Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    OMW..

    HOw old are you?? REALLY..
    Im almost 60, and SOME of the stuff iv seen in my life is strange and weird..
    The Original CABLE wanted to give FREE TV to everyone without Commercials, and the CORPS said, NOPE, we dont want it..
    Until they were allowed to show Commercials THEY didnt join up..
    NOW the Cable industry PAYS/SELLS channels to anyone..and SUPPOSEDLY PAYS for the major channels.
    In the OLD days, you Paid for Batches of channels..and if you COULD afford $20, you PAID $20 and only got a few channels.
    NOW you CANT pay $20-30-40...and get anything from them..

    And WHO is in charge of TV/Phones/CELLPHONES/INTERNET...
    But does not want to UPDATE IT..even after being subsidized for YEARS... The Original Phone services WERE/ARE SUBSIDIZED.. Its PART AND PARCEL of the emergency system..

    WHICH in my eyes tells me ALL of these corps are SUBSIDIZED..

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

  136. icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 1:04am

    Slippery words at best

    An interesting article Mike. You clearly put your heart into it. Your anger shows through pretty clearly.

    However, your anger is more than a little misdirected.

    The whole Brand X thing is a red herring. It's not about net neutrality or content or anything like that, it is strictly about the question of can a cable company be forced to share it's network with third party ISPs who want access to their customers but who do not want to build their own network. The answer from SCOTUS was no.

    Classifying cable internet as an information service exempted them from that requirement. Many years later, the FCC also classified internet services provided by a phone company in the same manner, equaling up what had been a somewhat uneven playing field.

    Other than the move by Wheeler to put internet services under Title II, there really hasn't been a whole lot much of anything from the FCC in regards to the internet in terms of regulation. There has been a lot of poking and prodding, a lot of discussion and public ridicule, but generally things have been pretty quiet without too much in the way of actual regulation. Lots of talk, little real action.

    Aside from pitching money at the problem, Congress has been equally quiet.

    Ajit Pai certainly glosses over that there has been discussion back and forth over the years. The concept of Net Neutrality has been around since at least June 2002 as a term.

    Now, there is the question of investment by the major companies in their networks. ARS Technica has a pretty long article on the subject.

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-accord ing-to-the-isps-themselves/

    I do find they are working very hard to ignore a few things and twist some words. While they show a "2013-2014 v 2015-2016" increase overall of 5.3%, it doesn't consider a couple of major things. Existing players with large networks must maintain and upgrade them from time to time to keep with the current technology. Comcast, as an example, is making significant investments related to their rolling out of the X1 box and platform for their cable side product. That is IPTV, so it requires that investment is made in many areas to build out their network to support that. It's not specifically internet related, except to say that they are piggy backing their cable product onto their IP network.

    ARS Technica also ignores that many of the smaller companies have had significant cutbacks in their investments. A third of the companies reporting had a drop in investment.

    So while investment is on the increase (slightly), much of it can be attributed to issues not related to internet service. In fact, the top two "increasing" represent nearly 65% of the net increase.

    What you aren't seeing is huge investments from new players. That list they have doesn't show Google (who never reports details in this sort of thing) who went from hell bent for leather investing in fiber to "taking a break, thanks".

    So I think that you are being a little melodramatic in saying the Pai is a liar. He is a political guy who is very good at choosing his words and battles. Just like you do from time to time, he leaves out things that don't support his point of view or that could create a point of debate, and highlights the information that he wants you to consume and accept as fact. He is talented in that manner.

    I also agree with some posters that personal level attacks on Pai are both counter productive and appear to be leading to nutjobs coming out of the woodwork to create real problems. Pizza bombing his house is amusing but pointless, putting up information about his family is evil and I think deserves a post here on Techdirt to explain just how stupid it really is. It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that.

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

  137. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 2:01am

    Re:

    It's a shame really. So much time into this debate, and people still trot out this fundamental lie about what net neutrality is about.

    The further shame is that after the people in the US who are afraid of their own government have finally agreed to sign their vital infrastructure over to private corporate interests, it will take an actual government takeover to return your rights and freedoms back to you.

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

  138. icon
    Ninja (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 5:09am

    Re: Slippery words at best

    I have yet to see anything backing up your assertions. Any of them.

    The FCC adopted a "hands-off" approach for a long while (when they classified ISPs as service providers instead of using Title II) which lead to this mess.

    The ISPs themselves (as per force of regulations) publish financial reports and all reports basically say the opposite.

    As for Google, you are either mentally impaired or you are a complete idiot. Google with all their might got stuck into the incumbent ISPs regulatory capture, lawsuits and general assholishness and you have PLENTY of examples of people that got fed up and went municipal broadband and got a much, much better service.

    And Pai said things that are historically wrong. Either he is a liar or he is ignorant. Pic the best. Either way he should be out of his job.

    "It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that."

    Have you looked at any mirror recently?

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

  139. icon
    Groaker (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 5:57am

    Re: Re: Linus Pauling

    Everybody scientist has respect for Pauling. But he made a lot of mistakes. There are also quite a few people who claim to have been "weeks" behind W&C.

    https://www.dnalc.org/view/15512-linus-pauling-s-triple-dna-helix-model-3d-animation-with-ba sic-narration.html

    The point I am making here is that No matter how brilliant anyone is, they can make disastrous errors. Especially when they are out of their field. Castigating this guy is meaningless. It is his decision that should be buried, not his mind that should be slandered.

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

  140. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    **Big tent? How about being against murdering babies? But that isn't the point.**

    If you're against murdering babies you'll have a problem with rolling back the entitlement programs that didn't make mothers-to-be choose between feeding the kids she has and caring for a newborn. You'd be mad as hell about attempts to frame healthcare as a partisan issue in which only the rich deserve it because they can afford it; poor foetus-carriers can't afford healthcare. And I'm sure you'd also agree that letting foetus-carriers die in childbirth or from complications in pregnancy is also unacceptable.

    You do agree with me on the above, don't you? Or are you merely of the "Sex must have a consequence," AKA "Wimmin be ho's" persuasion?

    If there's anything I can't abide it's a sanctimonious hypocrite. I sure hope you're not one of those. We've got more than enough as it is.

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

  141. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are over 400 ISP's in the US alone. Examples include Brooklyn, Central Illinois (laid 103 miles of fiber), Oregon, Monmouth, Dunnellon and more.

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

  142. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:12am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What, do I have to break this old chestnut out again?

    http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/come-revolution-good-luck-with-that.html

    The revolution has happened and we lost. Just as they won via the electoral process, we could win if we organised and got the numbers. I know the game is rigged but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You know what causes this kind of failure? That all-American dread of collectivism. Learn to work together with other people even if you disagree with them. Set small goals and work towards them one at a time till you've got what you want. If you could get same-sex marriage you can get this.

    And will somebody PLEASE take responsibility for the new "via democratic process" revolution instead of waiting for some messianic figure to come forth riding on the clouds? Ain't. Gonna. Happen. No new party, no new leader. You're going to have to step up to the plate and slog it out door to door till you've got enough votes to make a difference. Aim for the lower-level offices first, then work your way up. If it means you caucus with a larger party for now, do it.

    I'm in the UK, there's sod all I can do but I do what I can, and trying to influence people is one of them. Sometimes it works.

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

  143. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:12am

    How is it possible that a guy named Ajit Pai is in charge of FCC?

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

  144. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I believe in none of the above. I also believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Maybe having multiple kids from multiple fathers out of wedlock isn't all that great an idea.

    So do you think that people should not take responsibility for their actions? Sex shouldn't have a consequence? Hey, I like that, I can be loose with guns and if someone gets shot, lets blame the manufacturer.

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

  145. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:16am

    Re: Re:

    Apologies, this was meant for the prior post regarding the NY AG investigation.

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

  146. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:17am

    Re: The Smaller Lie

    So according to you, he didn't lie about the drop in investment now, did he? That was actually the truth?

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

  147. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This stuff annoys me, so I'll continue on the subject that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand:

    "Maybe having multiple kids from multiple fathers out of wedlock isn't all that great an idea."

    ...and all people who ask for an abortion are doing that? No rape victims? No victims of incest? Nobody making the decision on purely medical grounds? Nobody facing single parenthood due to a death or other misfortune that didn't exist when they decided to have children? Hell, nobody who's had a child from a previous marriage, or doesn't wish to get married is worth your time if they fall on hard times?

    That's the problem when you go for moronic oversimplifcation. You miss out on the complexities of reality - and when you do that, people suffer.

    If you actually want to avoid abortions and suffering, you provide help for those who need it despite bad choices - the main people who will suffer are the children, not the brood mares you fantasise about being the only recipients. Provide comprehensive sex education, contraception, accessible medical care and adoption services along with help for those who struggle to care for their children and you'll stop damaging and abusing children.

    If not, you support policies that actively attack children because you disapprove of who their parents are. Thus, the cycle continues. That's the problem with people like you - you pretend to be superior because you oppose "murdering babies", even though it's scientifically nothing of the sort, yet you demand that the children who are born suffer needlessly.

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

  148. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:34am

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

    So you argue the miniscule percentage of something to allow it all?

    If we made it legal for everyone that faced those few and far between issues but banned it for everyone else, would you accept that?

    I didn't think so, you just build a straw man on less than 5% of the cases to justify it all.

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

  149. identicon
    Baron von Robber, 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:46am

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

    I was happy with Wheeler. I'd have no problem if he was still there and running things. But 1+1 is too much for you.

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

  150. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:07am

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

    "So you argue the miniscule percentage of something to allow it all?"

    No, I argue that banning abortion outright leads to unintended consequences, while providing support, education and other services actually help prevent the need for abortion in the first place. Mine is an overall argument, a common one which is that abortion should be rare, but that it is a necessary but undesirable need in some cases, illegal abortions still happen even with outright bans, and the other fixes have the benefit of helping those children who have already born.

    You, on the other hand are apparently arguing that it should be completely outlawed despite those horrific consequence, as you've convinced yourself that the only people wishing to do so are unmarried whores, and you apparently pay no mind to the children who have been born already to such mothers.

    "I didn't think so, you just build a straw man on less than 5% of the cases to justify it all."

    I await your obviously impeccable evidence for this figure.

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

  151. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:10am

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

    NN rules do not promote zero rating. That is BS the ISPs are trying because they can't make a fast/slow lane.

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

  152. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:28am

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

    You ask for evidence yet you write "You, on the other hand are apparently arguing that it should be completely outlawed despite those horrific consequence, as you've convinced yourself that the only people wishing to do so are unmarried whores".

    Where in any of my posts have I mentioned anything of the sort? Why do you deserve evidence when you provide none yourself?

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

  153. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    According to the FCC's Internet Access Services Report (data up to June 2015), here's the breakdown of minimum-speed broadband (25/3 Mbps) access in the US:


    30% of households have 0 broadband providers available
    48% have one provider
    19% have two
    3% have 3+

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

  154. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Your point being what, Thad?

    That panic *is* appropriate?

    I favor NN. I just think people here are going overboard with hyperbole.

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

  155. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:34am

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

    "Where in any of my posts have I mentioned anything of the sort?"

    Here:

    "Maybe having multiple kids from multiple fathers out of wedlock isn't all that great an idea."

    Why jump to that cliche rather than the needs of rape victims, women with serious medical conditions, even the needs of the existing children, if not because you think they're the more numerous/important group to consider?

    "Why do you deserve evidence when you provide none yourself?"

    Because you're the one pulling figures out of your ass, I just want you to back them up.

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

  156. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:35am

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

    The evidence comes from your post.

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

  157. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:37am

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

    You think it is good that kids born out of wedlock is a good idea?

    Rape victims, maybe, medical conditions, of course, all others? No. Would you agree with that? Make it legal for those cases, illegal for other cases?

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

  158. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    we could win if we organised and got the numbers

    And that is the foundation of political parties and corruption of the system. That is the eternal dilemma, to control the power seekers requires organization, and that provides the structure for the power seekers to use for their own ends.

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

  159. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:01am

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

    "You think it is good that kids born out of wedlock is a good idea?"

    I don't see why not. I've seen plenty of abusive relationships and children with unhappy childhoods where the parents have been married for decades. I've seen plenty of happy children of single parents, people who have remarried and even gay couples.

    Why are you so obsessed with it as necessary?

    "Make it legal for those cases, illegal for other cases?"

    I'd rather make the necessary social and legal measures to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them, but education, access to medical care and other services vastly reduce the need for them, while also improving life for others who share the same society.

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

  160. icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the fact that ISPs seem to believe they can buy federal legislation to preempt the FCC from doing its job. That's what this whole gambit is about, trying to create a situation where it's "necessary" for Congress to write new rules which permanently benefit corporations instead of constituents.

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

  161. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:09am

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

    Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.

    Here is the problem when talking about abortion. One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't. There are cases where it becomes necessary, but convenience isn't one of them.

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

  162. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:19am

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

    So what have you done?

    The Catholic church is against abortion. They also run hospitals, run schools, provide soup kitchens and other social services.

    People who donate to the church provide the funds for this, so what do you do for those people? Anything beyond lip service?

    You don't care about any of that stuff, you just don't want to be inconvenienced.

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

  163. icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:23am

    Re: Re:

    I tend to agree, there's no justification for this change and it shouldn't survive judicial review. Unfortunately the ISP lobbyists are waiting to malign the court and scream that SOMETHING must be done on a legislative level. It will be 100% AstroTurf and generous campaign contributions driving our own congressional representatives to codify rules based on an unpopular fiction.

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

  164. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:23am

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

    "Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why."

    This is where I call bullshit, sorry.

    "One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't."

    There are times where an abortion is necessary to prevent killing a living person. But, what I find strange is that the people against abortions are also usually against the medical and societal methods of preventing the pregnancy in the first place.

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

  165. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:29am

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

    Ah, so faced with something that doesn't fit into a little box, you have to make shit up about me. Nice.

    I'm sorry your points depend on simplistic lies rather than facing complex reality. People like you are the ones destroying society, not those who try to prevent the suffering that you people cause.

    "The Catholic church is against abortion. They also run hospitals, run schools, provide soup kitchens and other social services."

    They have also been responsible for vast suffering among those children who have been born for centuries in various ways. Not just the pedo stuff either. Sorry, that's an extremely poor example.

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

  166. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:32am

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

    So live in the past, nice. Don't worry about today's problems.

    It isn't really all that complex, kids do better with parents, families do better with two parents. Doesn't matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, two women, but kids with single parents don't do as well. That is a fact.

    You can rail all you want about it, but you are actually wrong.

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

  167. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re: Regulations

    Every anarchist eats the shit they deserve

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

  168. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Attempting to divert the conversation is an old tactic - rather obvious also.

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

  169. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The divide and conquer approach to ruling over the masses has worked for many centuries and is so easily implemented.

    However - recently this has started to get more difficult due to better and faster communication amongst the proles (wage slaves) so they seem to be attacking from several vectors in a meager attempt to put the genie back in the bottle. They are failing miserably and this is pissing them off.

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

  170. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    "To bring Barack Obama into it "

    Like they had not already happened

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

  171. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    Perhaps it would be prudent to answer a few of the points made?

    Naahhhh - just spew more crapola

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

  172. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 8:59am

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

    "So live in the past, nice. Don't worry about today's problems."

    I'm dealing with today's problem. Using solutions that are shown to work, not depending on whether people have sat through an expensive fake ceremony to sign a piece of paper that only lasts a few months for some of them anyway (or alternatively may trap a person in an abusive relationship if it is taken seriously).

    "kids with single parents don't do as well"

    Due partly to the attitude from people like you, frankly. You'd rather punish them for daring to be a single parent than provide the social and financial support they need to do the work of two people, even if they're in the situation through no direct fault of their own. I personally know 2 women who were widowed in their 30s, and I'd take either of them as parents over and above some of the deadbeats and abusive assholes I've seen wearing a ring.

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

  173. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:07am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The problem is some people oppose ANY increase in restrictions for any reason. So even though 1 additional restriction will prevent hundreds of other restrictions they can't see the forest for the trees.

    Yes, we increase the restrictions by 1 but it prevents a bunch of other harmful/terrible restrictions the ISPs would like to implement. This restriction prevents ISPs from creating restriction on which sites you get to see, which sites are fast, which sites cost extra. ONE restriction to prevent 3 just off the top of my head. Tell me how that trade off isn't a good deal?

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

  174. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:

    Welcome to the party pal!

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

  175. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:18am

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

    You argue individual cases instead of looking at the whole.

    In general, kids are better off with two parents. You can deny that, but you would of course be wrong.

    The greater good of society. That is what we should look for.

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

  176. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:53am

    Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    "He believes what he says."

    As head of the FCC his position makes sincerity and competence mutually exclusive.

    No I will not calm down. Usurpation of the bill of rights is simply not acceptable. If they choose to continue down this road, people will escalate the fight. And I will stand with them when they do. Frankly I'm looking forward to being in the front rank when the teargas starts flying.

    I built networks in my youth when many of my peers were joining up and serving abroad. Perhaps this is my time to serve my country, preserving the freedoms that we gave to the world.

    Building networks was fascinating at the time, but looking back, what we created was freedom, not networks. We gave people a degree of freedom of speech, and a reach that mankind had never had before. It is my lifes work. And if Pai thinks he can fuck that up with the stroke of a pen, he is mistaken.

    We all have a responsibility to oversee the good things that we have done and preserve them for posterity. The Internet, is unequivocally the responsibility of everyone who has worked on it. And if we let this guy do this, we are betraying ourselves, and our children.

    This is a time for good men to come to the service of their country. This issue is the keystone of a hundreds of future tyrannies to come. Deal with it now for the price of some bruises, or deal with it later when your sons and daughters are obliged to arm themselves in the defense of the Constitution.

    It's your choice.

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

  177. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 10:09am

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

    Everything I've seen points to a family's stability, including financial stability, far outweighing the family's makeup as a factor in determining the child's well-being.

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

  178. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 10:11am

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

    Tge presence / gender of the parent(s) matter little as long as the family is stable and secure.

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

  179. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Lighten up Francis.

    Getting rid of NN won't end the Internet. In fact, it may usher in a new age of ISPs.

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

  180. icon
    Teamchaos (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 10:35am

    Is the debate whether or not net neutrality is a good idea, or if the heavy handed approach of Wheeler's FCC was the right way to implement it?

    Most of the opinions posted lead me to believe that net neutrality must be enforced no matter what the government has to do to impose it. That should scare any libertarians out there.

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

  181. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:01am

    Re:

    No, I think that those who provide internet access need to understand their role in society.

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

  182. identicon
    Thad, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    But for the time being, the Senate still has filibuster rules. There's no way a net neutrality ban gets 60 votes. And while the Republican majority has shown it's willing to use budget reconciliation rules to try to pass wildly unpopular legislation with a simple majority, it's reserved the process for top priorities like repealing the ACA and cutting taxes on the donor class; banning net neutrality simply isn't a high enough priority for the party to warrant that kind of treatment.

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

  183. identicon
    Thad, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Your point being what, Thad?

    That panic is appropriate?

    Strawman.

    You already did that one. Jeez, if you're not even going to try, I'm not going to play Name That Logical Fallacy with you anymore.

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

  184. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:11am

    Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:

    The only people that will get hurt are idiots like yourself.

    It isn't that big a deal. Why don't you go out and start your own ISP?

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

  185. identicon
    Thad, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:14am

    Re:

    Is the debate whether or not net neutrality is a good idea, or if the heavy handed approach of Wheeler's FCC was the right way to implement it?

    "Do you still beat your wife?" is not a debate.

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

  186. identicon
    Thad, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:15am

    Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..

    If every single member of the US of A called their his/her congressman/congresswoman and voiced their opinion on net neutrality, and every single call was for retaining Title II application, I guarantee the FCC would still vote to dismantle it.

    No shit.

    But, as people have explained, over and over again, every single time somebody has pointed this out here, at Ars, and on every single other forum discussing this issue, preventing the FCC from voting this way is not the point. There are two whole branches of government besides the executive.

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

  187. identicon
    Thad, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

    You may be talking about two different groups of Republicans.

    If you say "Republicans overwhelmingly favor net neutrality," and you're referring to private individuals who are registered Republican, that's an accurate statement.

    If you say "Republicans oppose net neutrality," and you're referring to Republicans serving in Congress and the FCC, that's an accurate statement too.

    On this issue (and others -- including, according to polls, healthcare and taxes), Republicans in Washington do not represent the views of their constituents.

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

  188. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    you're opposed to all forms of piracy enforcement, especially those like SOPA that would have made a difference.

    That does not make "you support piracy" true and not a lie.

    That's like saying "I disapprove of antifa punching people" is the same as "I support Nazis."

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

  189. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Slippery words at best

    I suggest you look at the ARS Technica article. Most of the increases are attributed to only two companies, and in the case of Comcast, it is work related to making their network ready for the IPTV X1 project. They are essentially moving off of the limits of "cable" and moving to an IP based delivery system, which requires more bandwidth up and down their internal network to support.

    The hands off approach has applied since the internet was first turned commercial in nature. We went from zero to widely available with the vast majority of Americans hooked up in more than one way (wireline and wireless) in less than 2 decades.

    The results are clear.

    "Pai said things that are historically wrong."

    Not seeing that. NN was discussed and tosses a couple of times, and aside from tagging internet services as "information services", the FCC applied no specific regulation to the internet until the title II and NN situation. There were attempts, but those were dropped each time.

    "Have you looked at any mirror recently?"

    Everyone morning, same guy waves back at me.

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

  190. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    I've been building datacom network technologies since 1979.

    And, so, I know that breaking the Internet is a lot harder than most people here seem to think.

    It's robust. There are a lot of ways to route data.

    Even the GFW of China is only a speedbump - data flows around it, for anybody in China who makes the effort.

    And I don't see anyone proposing a GFW of America.

    So, while I do support NN (at least as long as the ISP business is a semi-monopoly), I don't think Pai can break the Internet, even if he wants to.

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

  191. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Yes Sgt. Hulka. How is your big toe doing today?

    It may usher in a new ISPs. But I expect they will be black market ones. People are going to start buying private pipe, and connecting TOR nodes, and manage their own fully encrypted private peering peering points.

    Until cryptographic networking becomes a crime, and they start getting locked up. And since news of those trials will only be available with the extra "public services" contract for an extra $19.95/M nobodies going to hear about it.

    And then other "undesirables" will start disappearing.

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

  192. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Good job catching the referenced quote.

    In the US today, there are over 400 ISPs. They are legal, so no one needs to go to jail.

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

  193. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    OK, I'll bite. How this is going to go is so:

    The carriers will start standardizing MPLS tag to BGP4 AS numbers between them. Then the major content aggregators: Google, Facebook, etc. will get metric'd at the peering points, based on billing. Essentially all of the carriers at that point will be just one big racket.

    As that traffic increases, generic traffic will recieve a worse metric than all of the paying customers, making all non big company traffic fight over the tiny portion of peering capacity that is left.

    This is going to mean than ANY new business, will have no expectation of transport reliability. If you serve a single server off a business T1 or T3, EVERY peering point your traffic crosses will see severe packet loss. But the big content providers traffic will fly.

    What is worse, is that since these flows are going to be heavily aggregated, the switching capacity to do deep packet analysis on average user traffic will be less interspersed with high capacity content provider traffic. This means that header injection will be cheaper. Which means that not only will the carriers be providing shitty service to EVERY small company in the country, but they will be molesting their traffic with their own advertising, and psyche profiling while they are at it.

    Any of this not sound plausible?

    The next step in that progression is to dump all of the free (as in freedom) traffic through massive AI switches, to do "consumer decision management". There are going to be big rooms at the carriers that have equipment that does nothing other than massively parallel brainwashing, by manipulating content exposure in real time. IE the carriers are going to start going after Facebooks bread and butter.

    Any of that sound implausible?

    Good. Now go get your helmet and your gask mask. Because sometime soon we'll all be meeting down at Le Enfant Plaza to get our fair share of abuse.

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

  194. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Hmmm, doesn't Google have data centers all over the world so pages load faster? Can small companies do that? No? Well, then big companies already have an advantage with or without NN, no?

    Doesn't large content providers have their own "tubes" to ensure their traffic speeds along? Can small companies do that? No? well then big companies already have an advantage with or without NN, no?

    What the fuck is your point?

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

  195. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    The point was made in 1791. All I have to do is demonstrate how that point is being fucked with. My point is that all of this is going to result in massive restraint of both the exercise of the 1st amendment and free trade.

    And while the markets will attempt to recover, that is beside the fact. A crime against the Constitution is being committed. We are obliged by oath to take corrective measures.

    What point beyond that needs be made?

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

  196. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:

    "The only people that will get hurt are idiots like yourself."

    I consider that a matter of due diligence. If your a coward, just say so.

    "It isn't that big a deal. Why don't you go out and start your own ISP?"

    Clearly you've considered the market barrier to entry before asking that question and are therefore willing to put up the initial $100M so I can break ground. Would you like to know who to make the check out to?

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

  197. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 3:52pm

    Re:

    the heavy handed approach of Wheeler's FCC was the right way to implement it?

    What, pray tell, in the 2015 OIO was "heavy handed"? I've asked this question a bunch, and no one has been able to tell me. Dane Jasper, the CEO of an actual ISP correctly noted that it was only "heavy handed" IF you wanted to screw over your customers.

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

  198. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 4:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with content providers solving the problem of serving all their users, but is about the ISPs between them and potential users preventing them from serving those users.

    Need more capacity to serve your users, then various options exist from buying more servers, renting servers in a server farm, or employing a content delivery service. If ISPs are throttling their traffic, then they will have problems deciding whether it is their content and/or system that is the problem, or whether the ISPs are making the experience of potential users so bad they they do not come back.

    Beside which, if your company is not well known, your chance of gaining the attention of anybody at an ISP so that you can start to negotiate a solution to the problems they are causing will be close to zero.

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

  199. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:05pm

    Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    Children are a punishment for sex, then?

    So it's not about murdering babies, it's about making families suffer for their prurience without a license.

    I don't have to ask, then, why no love for ectogenesis, robust public education, and publicly provided healthcare and welfare for mothers and children.

    I don't have to ask about our current system that funnels lower-class kids, especially minorities and marginalized groups into prisons, often by police hunting for warm bodies easy to convict.

    I don't have to ask about drone strikes, which are used to annihilate villages, including exactly as many kids as you'd expect. (We call them fun-sized terrorists. Cool, huh?)

    You're not interested in the health and welfare of children, or infants, or fetuses. You want to see women suffer for being sexually active.

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

  200. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:13pm

    The Catholic Church

    They run hospitals, but only for those people that they like, and will reject people for moral reasons. Despite Francis' suggestions of a more modern, liberal church, the CDF (that's the Holy Inquisition in modern form) still enforces that control of sexuality (the oppression of women, the exclusion of LGBTQ) is of higher priority than their alleged wars on poverty and hunger. The CDF went and trashed the LCWR for failing to conform to that priority list.

    The same thing with schools, soup kitchens and other social services which are often ones the Church financed with caveats to serve only according to Church doctrine. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. No salvation outside the Church, and no services to those outside either.

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

  201. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:43pm

    You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    I don't. Revolts either fail, and the incumbent power purges them, and then purges anyone they can suspect (tens of thousands to millions), or they succeed, in which case the incumbent government is purged. And then the supporting classes. And then anyone else unpopular (tens of thousands to millions).

    Once we get into a mass executing mood, it doesn't stop until we have a Robespierre moment.

    But here's the thing.

    Climate change, whether it's ideologically agreeable or not, is going to fuck us all. We're out of time.

    We have about twenty years, forty at best, before we go into a massive food crisis. Our kids and their kids will get the choice of dying by famine, dying in conflict fighting over food, or dying when the plagues come. (Nowadays, we rely on a robust centralized disease control sector to manage them, and they do pretty well so long as we continue to supply them.) Civilization is going to fall apart, probably in our lifetimes. If we're lucky it might only constrict in population size, but with that we're going to lose a lot of logistic vectors and infrastructure.

    That is going to be the defining event in the lives of our kids, and their kids. Depending on how soon we act will determine how many kids there are after that, if any.

    So we don't have time for the slow, plodding methods of progressivist reform, especially with conservative resistance.

    So really, we're just SOL.

    To be fair, some kind of amazing agri-tech might delay or even stave off such a crisis, we may by some miracle of human cooperation actually cut our emissions enough to prevent things from getting worse. The thing is climate change inertia is still going to drive us beyond the T+2° line. That alone is going to be a Hell of a ride. At T+4°, we're at pretty high existential risk. T+9° is way past human survivability.

    I don't have any good solutions. But we're out of time. We either reform fast, or we wait for the new depopulated world order to get its act together.

    Granted, we're still trying, but it's a short-on-bullets, long-on-zombies situation. Without a deus-ex-machina, we know how this story ends.

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

  202. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 6:59pm

    Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.

    Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.

    [citation needed]

    Marriage has become such a poisonous institution more and more families are choosing to avoid it except specifically when there are government benefits for it. The younger generations are now choosing to not get married.

    Of course, may people would avoid having kids altogether if we allowed them full access to contraception, several of which are legal in the EU, but not here, thanks to religious groups lobbying to delay their approval by the FDA.

    One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't.

    One side doesn't know what living is. Curiously, there's a solution in development in the form of ectogenesis. We have a nearly perfect artificial womb, and between that, and a fast, cheap transfer process we could separate any zygote from the mother early on.

    Moreover, we'd be able to save some alleged lives considering the more than 50% that fail to implant or miscarry (about which the pro-life movement gives zero fucks). However many, many of them would not succeed in eventually becoming an infant, because some fertilized eggs are just not viable.

    Curiously, the artificial womb technology has gotten zero support from the religious sector and the pro-life activism sector. It seems super-important to them to make mothers suffer the woes of pregnancy, more so than it is to preserve the lives of children.

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

  203. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:47pm

    Re: Slippery slope

    The piracy-loving darlings have downvoted my comments out of existence because they're for free speech, man.

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

  204. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    I did answer, but the pirates downvoted the answers because free speech, mon.

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

  205. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 7:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    If you say "I'm opposed to piracy" while denouncing every enforcement plan and offering none of your own, you're not opposed to piracy. Most of what Masnick has offered on this question is compulsory licenses, pools, and t-shirt sales.

    Have I missed something?

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

  206. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:25pm

    TD offerings regarding combatting media piracy

    You missed:

    ~ Make media services easier (including affordability) than piracy.

    ~ Stop taking new bites out of old apples and evergreening with remasters. Don't charge for the same content in new formats.

    ~ Stop using DRM that makes the content worse, or that makes the paying end-user feel shitty, or that forces them to suffer through too many adverts and boilerplates.

    ~ Actually pay artists. Hollywood is legendary for re-accounting to cheat their workers, and resisting any kind of transparency or oversight. We know the content industries are completely corrupt. Prove to the public you're cleaning up.

    ~ Sell stuff at a reasonable price. A lot of your audience is shit poor.

    ~ Stop trying to quash other competing sources. Taking down dancing-baby videos because the (muted, truncated) background music belongs to Sony only makes me hate Sony and avoid paying them money. For anything.

    ~ Let copyrights expire after a reasonable time. Stop copyrighting / patenting every little ping or plot turn or game mechanic or combination of three words. The more content that's locked out from use in other creation, the less we want to take it seriously.

    ~ Don't be a dick. Hollywood culture is super shitty. Movie workers and game developers are grossly overworked and underpaid (not for want of profits). The companies try to lock down everything, shore it up with malware and seek to kill alternative public resources. The more you do this stuff, the less I want to have anything to do with stuff coming from Hollywood.

    All these things have been suggested here on TD.

    The thing is, big media often forgets that it lives and dies at the whims of the audience. And when they're really disrespectful, when they squeeze out their content creators and labor, it makes me want to do the one thing that's worse than pirating their content.

    That being, not pirating their content.

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

  207. identicon
    OGquaker, 28 Nov 2017 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yep
    Friends of mine have spent 25 years building the 'Green Party Of California' brand until last year, after the Democratic primary, we got steamrolled. Nothing left but the name:(

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

  208. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2017 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: The Smaller Lie

    You can imagine scare quotes around the phrase Mike chose that was reused there.

    Correlation doesn't equal causation, especially on such a short timeframe, and Pai claims causation. That's what's ridiculous. He has no reason to conclude that, when ISPs claim in SEC filings that NN didn't cause any negative effect.

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

  209. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    If you say "I'm opposed to piracy" while denouncing every enforcement plan and offering none of your own, you're not opposed to piracy. Most of what Masnick has offered on this question is compulsory licenses, pools, and t-shirt sales.

    Have I missed something?

    Yes, more or less everything we've written on the subject, it seems. First off, we've never advocated for compulsory licenses, and have argued against that when EFF (and Jim Griffin) suggested it as a solution. We've never argued for pools either.

    What we have discussed is not treating your biggest fans like criminals, focusing on using infinitely copyable works to gain bigger fanbases/larger audiences, leveraging free promotion and then selling SCARCITIES, which some people have stupidly reduced to "t-shirts," which is only a very tiny form of scarcity. Instead, we talk about many other kinds of scarcities, from attention to access and more. We've discussed many, many different variations on this over the years.

    Why am I not surprised that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and are just making up stuff you THINK we've said. Richard, you've done that for years, and we've called you out on it repeatedly. Yet, here you are, once again, falsely claiming we've said stuff we haven't.

    Will you apologize for making false statements? Of course not. Richard Bennett doesn't do that. He just keeps misrepresenting us, because that's all Richard Bennett can do.

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

  210. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:37pm

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

    "You argue individual cases instead of looking at the whole."

    Whereas you agrgue despicable views that apparently revolve around a subset of women and children of society suffering needlessly.

    "In general, kids are better off with two parents. "

    This is true. I will, however note that you are expertly moving the goalposts. This little thread started with you opposing abortion so that women bear some consequences for daring to have sex, now it's just about a stable family unit. Interesting.

    There are several things to note here. The first is that you seem to have it in your little head that marriage is somehow required for a two parent family. It is not. So, a hole blown in your little lie straight away.

    The second is that two parent families are not as stable as your sitcom fantasy would have you believe. Women are trapped in loveless, abusive marriages all the time, especially when kinds are involved. Hell, in your romantic past, it was often legal for husbands to outright rape their wives. That creates toxic environments where not only are the children and spouses abused, but they carry this on to the next generation. This has a cost to society, both in terms of the number of unwanted, abused children who then become criminals, etc., bt in the inevitable loss to potentially productive members of society who don't contribute due to their issues.

    The third is that families are often split up through no fault of their own. While the nuclear family might be preferable, that's no reason to punish those who get out of that without choice.

    "You argue individual cases instead of looking at the whole."

    Yep. Which is why I support real solutions, not the fantasies you believe will work so long as women can return to being subjugated.
    "The greater good of society. That is what we should look for."

    Indeed. The greater good of society is not to have a subclass shunned and abused because they

    But, you'd prefer they suffer and

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

  211. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:39pm

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

    "But, you'd prefer they suffer and"

    Oops, fat fingers...

    Indeed. The greater good of society is not to have a subclass shunned and abused because they dared not conform to a specific norm, but to aid those who have been dealt bad cards.

    But, you'd prefer they suffer and rot, because they dared to have sex out of wedlock, or some such crap. Sorry, I'm not an asshole so I won't agree.

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

  212. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:41pm

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

    That is true. The problem is, this guy is deluded enough to think that a marriage certificate is the only thing that can provide that, while also supporting the idea that anyone who doesn't conform should needlessly suffer, including and especially their children.

    That is a major issue.

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

  213. icon
    PaulT (profile), 28 Nov 2017 @ 11:54pm

    Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    That's why I addressed this conversation. The people most vehemently against abortion also tend to be against any welfare for the resulting children. They literally want women and generations of children to suffer for their entire lives because the woman enjoyed sex.

    It's absolutely disgusting and evil, but these people somehow convince themselves they're on the side of moral good.

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

  214. icon
    PaulT (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 12:05am

    Re: Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.

    "Marriage has become such a poisonous institution"

    In some ways, it always has been. It's been something that's been used for great joy, of course, but on the dark side it's been used as a tool to trap unwilling spouses and trap children in toxic environments. Had a one night stand that resulted in pregnancy? Sorry, you're now tied to that guy for life, even as he rapes and beats both you and your children.

    Such cases are thankfully rare compared to the relatively happy ones, of course, but this guy thinks it's necessary because obviously it's better than an unmarried couple or a loving couple with kids from previous relationships, for some deluded reason.

    "It seems super-important to them to make mothers suffer the woes of pregnancy, more so than it is to preserve the lives of children."

    This guy appears to be that kind of person. He's already stated that women should be forced to carry babies as a form of punishment. It seems he carries this to the extreme - once pregnant, a woman's life is forfeit, she is now nothing but a brood mare and meaningless compared to the future child.

    Until it's born, of course, then it's nothing but a welfare leech who also deserves to be punished for being born to a single women.

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

  215. icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 1:36am

    Re: Re:

    Moving internet services to title II is pretty heavy handed, not for what it has done so far but what it opens up.

    Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.

    Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.

    True net neutrality (and proper classification of ISPs) should come from Congress. The critters have been remarkably silent on the whole thing. They have the power to amend the law or write new law to address the issue. Title II was the only square hole large enough to jam the internet shaped peg into. It's not a perfect fit, and the potential for future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing.

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

  216. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 1:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.

    Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.

    Yes, if the FCC had done a straight up "Title II" reclassification, you'd be right. But they did not. The 2015 Open Internet Order specifically forbear using the provisions of Title II that you mention. And that doesn't just mean "hey we won't use them now." By forbearing, the FCC commits to not using any of those provisions and CANNOT change without then going through a full rulemaking process, involving issuing an NPRM, taking comments, proving the legitimate need for the change, etc.

    In other words, it would have to go through the entire process that it would need to go through just to classify broadband providers under Title II.

    So, again, the 2015 rules imposed none of what you're claiming it did. And, since that's the only example you have of "onerous" I'll take it that you are effectively admitting that nothing in the 2015 OIO was onerous.

    Thanks for, again, confirming what we said even while pretending you were debunking. You do that a lot, you know.

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

  217. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 29 Nov 2017 @ 2:28am

    Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    Agreed in full. However, the reason the right-wingers are ruling the roost is because they took over the administrative functions of government and entrenched themselves. If we don't or won't do the same thing and push back, we're screwed.

    It's one of several ways to act; that, plus piling the pressure on incumbents, and working with other groups to install politicians who will mostly do what we want. As I've often said, don't outsource democracy. You have to keep your critters on a tight leash.

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

  218. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 3:57am

    Re: Re: Slippery slope

    Funny, I can still read your comments....

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

  219. icon
    PaulT (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 4:02am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet"

    ...and removing net neutrality protections hands that power over to corporate monopolies. A lot of you seem ready to do exactly that gladly, because you're too scared of what your publicly appointed representatives might possibly do.

    Even if you weren't lying half the time, this attitude is mystifying.

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

  220. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 29 Nov 2017 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    Indeed. That's why I called it out. Sanctimony annoys me. I'm the product of a broken home; parents divorced when I was five. Getting married didn't save their relationship, neither did having kids.

    I've been married since 2005 and we're perfectly happy.

    The takeaway: Marriage is only as good as the people involved. If both parties are committed to a happy, healthy union of equals it'll be rock solid till death they do part. It's when marriage is about one party dominating and controlling the other, or for convenience, or for any other reason than "a healthy union of equals" that it fails.

    Our society promotes sexual pleasure as a right and a rite of passage; basically you're not considered a grown-up till you've Done It. In certain societies this results in early, rushed marriages as young people get married so they can have sex, then rue the day as they realise that marriage means living with the person you married every day even if you've just realised you don't like your partner much. In my opinion we should be promoting healthy relationships as the be all and end all. This in turn would lead to healthy marriages which would raise its status in our society.

    Pleasure results from feeling comfortable with your partner, so that would of course follow.

    FYI AC, most abortion seekers are married.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majori ty_of_women_who_ter.html

    The takeaway: caring about born people does more to protect the unborn than attempting to ban women from having unapproved sex.

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

  221. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope

    It just means you've been cutting to the quick, Mike, when verified shills like Dick come out to troll you.

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

  222. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..

    "There are two whole branches of government besides the executive."

    Both of which have steadfastly refused to amend or interpret the dictionary act of 1871 to restrain bizarre interpretations of corporate rights.

    It isn't that Congress is passing bad law. It is that they aren't passing law AT ALL, but instead externalizing the adjudication of law into the private sector.

    They pass their tax bill annually and everybody bitches and gripes. But when it comes to actual Constitutional issues, they just point somewhere else, as if somebody is going to ask them who to blame when heads start rolling.

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

  223. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 7:32am

    After having read some of these comments I forgot what the subject was, talk about tangents.

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

  224. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.

    Nice straw men. All of them.

    Maybe the idea is to not have kids because you had a one night stand. Are condoms too much to ask for? They are not hard to get. Colleges give them out for free.

    I have no problem with loving couples (married or not) having kids or step kids, but you fucking want to ignore all the single moms and their kids that never know their fathers. Well, you reap what you sow. No wonder so many people are fucked up today, it is attitudes like yours that foster that.

    Your attitudes on children are the reason things are fucked up. You consider babies a form of punishment and a leach on society. Your attitudes are truly fucked up and misguided.

    People wonder why kids suicide rates are going up. Sure, have sex, don't care about kids, let someone else raise them. Well, stop complaining about how fucked up society is then, because you are the reason it is happening.

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

  225. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 8:03am

    Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    If you really believe that, you are kind of fucked up. Sorry dude.

    We don't have any problem except for the fact that there are too many people on this planet. A few atomic bombs going off wouldn't be a bad thing except for the fallout problem.

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

  226. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re:

    Winning elections that way results in situations like what the GOP is dealing with in Congress right now: multiple distinct factions, which should each really be a separate political party, all pulling in different directions.

    The effect is that even though the GOP controls the legislature in name, in fact none of their sub-parties has enough votes to control; the things some of those sub-parties want conflict with things some of the others want, and so they can't get things passed.

    The Democratic Party is currently made up of at least two such factions: the "mainstream", roughly corresponding to the Clinton faction from the last primary-election cycle, and the "left", roughly corresponding to the Bernie faction from that same cycle. These have a certain amount of overlap and shared views, but there are other areas where they disagree.

    The Republican Party is currently made up of at least three such factions, and possibly several more. There's the small-government faction (cut spending, reduce taxes, let the deficit explode so that later Congresses have to cut spending even further), the fiscal-conservative faction (reduce the deficit, but preferably by cutting spending, not raising taxes), the religious-conservative faction (freedom of religion! homosexuality is bad! abortion is murder!), and the Trumpist faction (everything Trump and/or Breitbart says is good!), at a minimum; I could probably go on pointing out distinct, or at least distinguishable, factions at considerable length. Some of these factions have areas of overlap (cutting spending, for example), but there is considerably more area of disagreement than seems to exist on the Democratic side.

    No matter how you define these factions, none of them - on either side of the two-party division - has enough seats in the legislature to be a majority.

    In European democracies, when that happens, the various factions have to negotiate among themselves to put together a "governing coalition", a group of two or more factions which in combination do have a majority of seats.

    The GOP as it is currently constituted is, de facto, just such a governing coalition - but not one resulting from that type of negotiation; instead, it's formed out of the fact that its member factions are officially parts of the same party. This fiction that they're all part of the same monolithic group ties their hands; it might be more natural for the moderate faction to form a coalition with the Democratic Party than with the rest of what is currently called the Republican Party, but because their voters think of them as "Republicans" they don't really have that option.

    I really think we'd be better off if our system formally acknowledged this governing-coalition reality, so that voters could recognize which faction they're supporting, rather than trying to hide it under the two-party model.

    Unfortunately, by the way our election system is structured, a two-party model is pretty much all we can meaningfully achieve. About the only way we're really going to break out of that is by switching from a single-choice, first-past-the-post voting system to a ranked-preferences model, preferably one which satisfies the Condorcet criteria; unfortunately (again), the chances of getting that adopted in the existing political environment are slim at best.

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

  227. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Inflamatory headline

    I think he's arguing that only a piece which only "provides the evidence and facts" qualifies as "exposing", and that as soon as you bring in things like calling the false statements "lies", the piece becomes "calling out" and deserving of condemnation on that basis.

    From a certain abstract / philosophical / academic perspective, he may even be right. The trouble is that a piece which eschews that sort of call-a-spade-a-spade labelling is also likely to be sufficiently dry and unengaging that not many people are likely to properly read it, much less be persuaded by it.

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

  228. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 8:47am

    Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    I might almost agree with you, except one note:

    As long as we have protectionist regulations (federal, state, and local) that restrict entry into the ISP business, I support Net Neutrality.

    I'd rather get rid of the protectionism and have free competition - then NN would be unnecessary.

    Network neutrality will still be necessary, forever.

    In the presence of robust competition, explicit rules mandating network neutrality may no longer be necessary.

    But it will still be absolutely essential that the network be neutral, even if the market rather than a regulator is what is ensuring that neutrality.

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

  229. identicon
    Thad, 29 Nov 2017 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    However, the reason the right-wingers are ruling the roost is because they took over the administrative functions of government and entrenched themselves. If we don't or won't do the same thing and push back, we're screwed.

    I don't agree. The goal shouldn't be entrenching one particular group; it should be fairly and democratically representing the diverse views of the populace.

    Gerrymandering is the example that springs to mind. The solution to Republican gerrymandering isn't Democratic gerrymandering; it's fair and independent redistricting committees.

    My state has one. It's worked out pretty well. It sometimes elects idiots like Paul Gosar, but at least you know he's an idiot who legitimately represents his idiot constituents.

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

  230. identicon
    Thad, 29 Nov 2017 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    We're seeing some momentum for ranked-choice voting, but it's still going to be a tough slog. Maine's passed a ranked-choice system, but it has the minor problem of violating the state constitution (at least, in the case of state offices; federal offices seem to be okay).

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

  231. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 11:15am

    Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    Wow, just wow. You are right out there with the birthers, fake moon landing and more folks.

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

  232. icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The forbearing is easy enough to remove, no more difficult than the process Pai is using right now drop Title II entirely.

    The forbearing is mostly related to hammering the "1st century internet" square peg into the title II round hole, and exposed it as being relatively inappropriate. Really, there should be a Title XYZ (whatever) to cover the internet with congress defining it and passing it into law.

    As for taxation, they really didn't have all that much to say, your buddy Wyden was a big part of passing an internet tax free law that (for the moment) makes the title II tax issues, at least on the federal level, moot. However, the powers to regulate at solidly in title II, and the forbearance on such issues could be easily removed.

    Again, the problem at hand is that it's not an act of congress that significantly changed the internet's standing, it's an act of Wheeler. from zero to Title II standing is a big jump, removing self imposed restrictions isn't anywhere near as big a jump.

    For what it's worth, the FCC specifically danced around the whole pole law thing. Imagine if they had handled that. I guess the problem of competition is at least a little bit on them.

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

  233. icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Nov 2017 @ 2:18pm

    Birthers, faked moon landing enthusiasts...

    You forgot truthers, UFOlogists, flat-earthers, anti-vaccs, young-earth creationists and trickle-down economists.

    I assume Anonymous Coward when you say I'm fucked up you're referring to my hysteria about climate change and the high existential risk it presents. Maybe you're just duckspeaking to flag as a red-voter. You may genuinly believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, or a grand conspiracy of Sierra-Club environmentalists or just overstated by alarmists in the ecology sector.

    Man, I hope you're right. I hope I am just hysterical. I'll be thrilled to eat crow in twenty years when the global temperature is stabilized, we've gone clean-and-green or are adjusting nicely to living in domed cities.

    I'm not a crazed preacher who thinks I cracked a bible code. I'm looking at the current ecological models backed by mountains of the same data we've collected to date dinosaurs, find oil and predict barometric depressions.

    And they tell us, we've crossed the line of disaster prevention and are now looking at damage control. We can lower our greenhouse emissions and limit the change. Or we can keep doing what we're doing and face extinction. But human civilization is going to take a pounding. Short of a miracle, its unavoidable now.

    Still, Anonymous Coward, take the benefit of doubt: If you have data you think I don't have, please show it to me. I'd love to have hope. I'd love to have reassurance. May you know about some amazing geoengineering project I don't.

    But if you just are refusing to consider our looming anthropogenic global crisis, understand that nature doesn't care what we don't want. Nature isn't going to change course because we pretend everything is fine.

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

  234. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2017 @ 4:21pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "defining legal content"

    They already do this.

    "unacceptable or illegal protocol"

    That they even understand that there is such a thing as a communications protocol is a leap of faith. I get your point, but it is still a pretty big leap. And really this is the same as the argument above. Content is data. Protocols are data. Humans are data. Its easier to tunnel at layer 4, than it is to buy your own WAN gear (which is what killing NN will compel many to do)

    ""per meg" usage tax."

    The carriers will shit a brick fighting that. The reason of is that interface counters are notoriously unreliable. While colo providers do do this, and ISP's used to do it for burstable circuits, it is still a huge pain in the ass administratively. And if they are using specialized QOS to keep track of this, then they are probably doing other stuff that is violating peoples civil rights, which is a whole other problem.

    "future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing."

    So a bunch of future "maybe"'s, is worth watching the Bill of Rights get pig fucked by a buck toothed terrorist in an expensive suit and his jolly team of Constitutional-rapists over there at the FCC?

    Not quite sure I follow your logic, but it is (was?) a free country.

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

  235. identicon
    So thankful for our federal overlords, 29 Nov 2017 @ 10:34pm

    So thankful for tech durt's unbiased coverage

    There's really no way to express how double-plus-thankful I am for tech durt's totally awesome coverage of both sides of this issue: both pro net neutrality and PRO-net neutrality! Double-double-plus good! You guys have it really covered!
    Big brother IS Love, and will protect us.
    Double-plus-thankful for your thorough reporting, which informs it's that the best since is to trust politicians. My congressman really, really double-plus loves me. And or deficit proves it.
    All hail big brother!

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

  236. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 30 Nov 2017 @ 2:31am

    Re: Re: Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.

    Ah, sorry Thad, I didn't make myself clear: the problem we have is with one group being entrenched already. We'll have to plan to replace them or try to live with being ruled by them. It's not just political positions, they're in administrative positions too. Remember that woman Kim Davis who refused to issue marriage certs, etc., for gay couples? Case in point.

    Fair and democratic representation, which is actually what I want, is being undermined by this kind of thing. Given that I don't fit into any of the political tribes we've got at the moment, aiming for anything else would be shooting myself in the foot.

    As for fair and independent redistricting committees, that's the kind of thing to be campaigning for. I'm with you there.

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

  237. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 30 Nov 2017 @ 5:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, I'm aware of Maine's situation (although I haven't heard an update on it in a few months, and I don't know if I'd heard the maybe-OK-for-federal-offices bit).

    What they seem to have adopted (or tried to adopt) is about the worst ranked-preference voting system, in terms of avoiding the "spoiler effect" and other perverse incentives, that I'm aware of - but it's still almost certainly better than single-choice first-past-the-post, particularly in regard to improving the chances of having more than two viable political parties.

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

  238. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2017 @ 7:07am

    Re: Birthers, faked moon landing enthusiasts...

    Oh, I think its happening. My advise, don't believe the sky is falling and don't buy any property on a coast.

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

  239. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Nov 2017 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    Here is the problem. You call it sanctimony. Others believe that your views on society are actually making things worse. Examples? I can believe affirmative action is actually bad and not be racist or sexist. I can believe that kids should be raised in a stable family structure and not hate single moms.

    You would disagree and say I have no heart. I say your methods just don't work.

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

  240. identicon
    Thad, 30 Nov 2017 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Maine's already got unusually robust support for third-party and independent candidates -- which is exactly why it needs ranked-preference voting, because when you've got three candidates in a first-past-the-post electoral system, you end up with Paul LePage.

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

  241. identicon
    Thad, 30 Nov 2017 @ 9:26am

    Re: So thankful for tech durt's unbiased coverage

    Yeah, I remember that part of 1984 where Big Brother used a small, privately-owned media outlet to criticize the actions of the government.

    No, wait, that didn't happen in 1984 at all. What I meant to say was, not only do you not seem to have read 1984, I'm not sure you know how to read.

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

  242. icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 30 Nov 2017 @ 6:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Great. So what. Most homes have 1-2 choices or fewer.

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

  243. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Dec 2017 @ 2:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    I'm an old-fashioned conservative and big believer in pragmatism. I'd rather have stable family units with two parents of opposite gender, etc., because that's what we've had for thousands of years. However, that's not what's happening around us and we can't force people to conform if they don't want to. The best we can do is be the example.

    I got married, remember.

    As for affirmative action, America has a racism and sexism problem. If you don't make people think about their hiring choices, how do you overcome that?

    Views on society don't cause social problems, hypocrisy, attempting to control others, and bad attitudes and behaviour do.

    Basically, hoe your own row, do the right thing, and try to make the world around you a little better, if you can. That's what I do and it works for me.

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

  244. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 Dec 2017 @ 6:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    Wendy, my daughter is all into getting ready to college. She knows the colleges, the scores they require, the merit ad they give.

    She told me that schools have different requirements for MCATS (standardized tests to get into US Medical schools.) I never knew that schools require Asian boys have to score higher than anyone else to get into med school. I forget the exact rankings, but blacks get into med school with much lower scores. That is affirmative action.

    I never questioned the qualifications of black doctors before, but now that I know they are given breaks, should I? If I were black, isn't that being told that you don't have to do as well because we don't expect as much from you? How can they ever have confidence that they are as good when the system tells them they are not in fact as good and don't have to be?

    In terms of sexism, I agree, but all we have to do is uphold the law. People have the same job, you better pay them the same.

    I do hoe my own row, but we should make sure public policy encourages good attitudes and behavior.

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

  245. identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Dec 2017 @ 7:18am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?

    **She told me that schools have different requirements for MCATS (standardized tests to get into US Medical schools.) I never knew that schools require Asian boys have to score higher than anyone else to get into med school. I forget the exact rankings, but blacks get into med school with much lower scores. That is affirmative action.

    I never questioned the qualifications of black doctors before, but now that I know they are given breaks, should I? If I were black, isn't that being told that you don't have to do as well because we don't expect as much from you? How can they ever have confidence that they are as good when the system tells them they are not in fact as good and don't have to be?**

    Okay, that's scary. I need as much information as you can provide on that; I always thought it was about levelling the playing field by giving disadvantaged kids a shot at a decent education, etc.


    **In terms of sexism, I agree, but all we have to do is uphold the law. People have the same job, you better pay them the same.**

    Yeah, but that doesn't always happen. It should but it doesn't.

    **I do hoe my own row, but we should make sure public policy encourages good attitudes and behavior.**

    Agreed, but I think we differ on which public policies actually encourage good attitudes and behaviour. I've seen that coercive or discriminatory policies tend to have the opposite effect. Attempting to control behaviour and attitudes doesn't work. If it did, we'd have better behaviour and attitudes, right?

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

  246. identicon
    Tim Smith, 1 Dec 2017 @ 8:18am

    I think you should publish in NYT

    I think you should publish a version of this article in the New York Times as an open letter to Ajit Pai.

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

  247. icon
    OldMugwump (profile), 1 Dec 2017 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong

    Agree.

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

  248. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2017 @ 4:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You are correct, that is a stupid thing to say. Perhaps that is why the poster to which you responded did not say that."

    And yet that analogy is closer to NN than what he DID say. Do you get the point, yet?

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

  249. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2017 @ 4:49pm

    Re: Thoughtful

    So you're arguing they SHOULD consider unserious claims? Why? Oh, right, because your ideology requires emotion instead of law and logic, so it's "unfair" to exclude such things.

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


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.