FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump

from the celebrating-devolution dept

As we've been discussing, there's absolutely every indication that the incoming Trump administration intends to not only gut net neutrality, but defang and defund the FCC entirely. All three of Trump's telecom advisors have made it abundantly clear they see no role for the FCC as a broadband consumer watchdog. None of them have been able to admit the broadband space suffers from a lack of broadband competition; in fact, one of his top advisors is a Sprint lobbyist who doesn't think telecom monopolies are real.

One of the top candidates for the new top FCC spot, current Commissioner Ajit Pai, last week made it abundantly clear that net neutrality won't be around for much longer in a speech before the Free State Foundation in Washington, DC:
"I’m optimistic that last month’s election will prove to be an inflection point—and that during the Trump Administration, we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense," Pai said in a speech yesterday before the Free State Foundation in Washington, DC, said. The commission "need[s] to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations... We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation," he also said.
That weed whacker won't just be chipping away at net neutrality; it will also be eliminating the FCC's new consumer broadband privacy rules, and potentially many of the agency's attempts to highlight and shore up the overall lack of competition in the market. According to Pai, net neutrality's days are numbered, and the incoming Trump FCC will be guided by, among other things, a "good dose of humility":
"On the day that the Title II [net neutrality] Order was adopted, I said that 'I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered,'" Pai said. "Today, I am more confident than ever that this prediction will come true. And I’m hopeful that beginning next year, our general regulatory approach will be a more sober one that is guided by evidence, sound economic analysis, and a good dose of humility."
If you're new to this debate, Pai has been waging a facts optional assault on net neutrality for years. At one point, the Commissioner insisted that the US net neutrality rules actively encouraged dictators in Iran and North Korea (it, uh, doesn't). Pai also tried to claim that net neutrality violations by ISPs simply aren't real, while attempting to claim that Netflix was the one violating net neutrality by running a content delivery network (it isn't). In fact, when one looks at Pai's history on net neutrality, "evidence, sound economic analysis, and a good dose of humility" are often nowhere to be found.

Pai, a former Verizon regulatory lawyer, is obviously thrilled that the agency will soon stop trying to protect consumers and innovators and get back to what he (and many of the incoming advisors) believes the FCC's core mission truly is: protecting Comcast, AT&T and Verizon revenues from harm. The problem, as we've noted a few times, is that net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support, so activist backlash to overturning the rules is likely to be swift and fierce. Still, folks like Pai and companies like AT&T are supremely confident they'll be able to somehow put this whole pesky net neutrality thing to bed in the new year:
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality is. Net neutrality is never going to just "go away as an issue." It's a fight that will be waged indefinitely as long as ISPs continue to explore new and creative ways of abusing their monopoly over the last mile. And with an incoming FCC that will try to pretend the market is intensely competitive, and telcos that are ceding control of the market to cable, this is actually only getting worse across large swaths of the country.

The goal for Pai and friends will be to dismantle net neutrality and the FCC without making it look like that's what they're doing. That will likely come in the form of a Communications Act rewrite, or some other ISP-supported act of Congress (like the flimsy and loophole-filled Thune/Upton proposal from last year) that pays ample, empty lip service to the concept but actually aims to codify breaking net neutrality into law. In other words, phony populism that actually runs in stark contrast to the best interests of the public and internet at large.

All of that said, whoever gets the FCC's top spot will need more than comedic absurdism and blanket denials if they want to do battle with the millions of Americans that actually like having a relatively open and healthy internet.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:28am

    Fuck you, Pai. Fuck you in all your holes.

    Selling out the public for a cushy job. Pai clearly loves watching people suffer.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:34am

    So .. with the FCC out of the way, this clearly is a sign that I can begin broadcasting my very own radio station to all my welcoming listeners.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:40am

      Re:

      Dream on, they are only interested in getting rid of its role in protecting the customer, while its role in protecting the corporations will continue.

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

    • icon
      Vidiot (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      No, better than that -- remember that the new regime wants to pass regulatory power away from Federal offices like the F-CC, and back to the states; so watch for 50 sets of regs from the AlabamaCC... AlaskaCC... ArizonaCC... ArkansasCC...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:46am

    I still stand by my statement that Ajit Pai is the biggest piece of shit to walk the Earth.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:50am

    "by running a content delivery network (it isn't)"

    Well no, they pay someone to perform CDN services but that distinction is not significant. In the same vein that if I pay someone to rob a bank for me then I am guilty either way.

    So "(it isn't)" comment is disingenuous.

    That being said, Pai still has no room to yak because CDN's and fast lanes have nothing to do with each other on their own, unless there is an anti-trust issue where the ISP owns the CDN or the Originating Content service like Nutflix or vice versa or negotiates special contracts that breach neutrality.

    If you are reading Pai... it would be better for the FCC to be destroyed and put you in a card board box on the street than too see you run or work for the FCC!

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

    • icon
      beltorak (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      Well no, they pay someone to perform CDN services but that distinction is not significant. In the same vein that if I pay someone to rob a bank for me then I am guilty either way.

      So "(it isn't)" comment is disingenuous.

      No, the "(it isn't)" part isn't about who pays or runs the CDN, it's about the statement that using a CDN is a violation o fnet neutrality.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:03am

        Re: Re:

        the line says running not using, they should make that more clear if what you say is the actual case. makes it real easy to get the wrong idea.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:09am

      Re:

      >Well no, they pay someone to perform CDN services but that distinction is not significant.

      Their is a difference between paying for/ or providing the servers for a CDN caching service. That benefits everybody on the Internet by eliminating high traffic the Internet backbone. The ISPs charging for access to their customers ver the final mile just moves money into the ISPs bank account without offering any benefit to their customers, or other Internet services.

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

  • icon
    ShadowNinja (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:51am

    If Net Neutrality 'goes away' as an issue, it'll come back as something stronger

    AT&T and others should be careful what they wish for with their bold predictions that Net Neutrality will go away as an issue under Trump.

    If the problems that caused the need for Net Neutrality get even worse under Trump, then many Net Neutrality supporters will probably decide Net Neutrality isn't good enough to fix those problems, and will push for something even stronger.

    The most likely post-Net Neutrality candidate in my opinion is the idea of regulating ISP's (and probably cell phone companies to) like public utilities. Under public utility rules, the utilities are limited in what they can charge customers, and they actually make more money in expanding their coverage to new users, and not by getting their users to use more of their electricity/etc.

    That's why you see the electric company (like PECO in Pennsylvania) at times be so helpful at helping you to reduce your electricity use, because there's no money in it for them for you using more of it.

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

    • identicon
      JANET, 24 Jan 2017 @ 12:38pm

      Re: If Net Neutrality 'goes away' as an issue, it'll come back as something stronger

      GREAT INFO: MORE THAN COST ISSUES, I'M CONCERNED THAT THE INTEREST WILL BE CENSORED AND PROPAGANDIZED BY GOVT CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, VERY MUCH LIKE MSM IS.

      WHERE IS AARON SWARTZ? IS THERE ANOTHER LEADER THAN CAN
      AMASS MILLIONS TO CONFRONT TRUMP?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:53am

    I'm just waiting for Trump to get really angry after his ISP blocks twitter for customers unwilling to pay the Twitter fee.

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

  • identicon
    Ramsey, 13 Dec 2016 @ 6:58am

    Abolish FCC

    `

    "Trump administration intends to...defang and defund the FCC entirely."


    That's an excellent start -- but the FCC needs a stake thru its bureaucratic heart.

    A free American citizenry & economy can not tolerate a socialistic Potomac bureaucracy controlling the nation's communication system. All current monopolistic tendencies in the private communications sector are caused by the FCC and state/local governments. And, of course the FCC is totally non-Constitutional from its start.

    Kill the beast.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:05am

      Re: Abolish FCC

      Doing that will turn the very few ISPs into worse internet dictatorship then the FCC. If the FCC is done away with, internet needs to become a public utility or more competition at the same time. I have lived in multiple areas. My choices for internet is Comcast. Centurylink is available but at speeds that are closer to dial up then to Comcast's speed.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:24am

      Re: Abolish FCC

      Idiot

      "monopolistic tendencies in the private communications sector are caused by the FCC and state/local governments"

      Complete bullshit

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:07am

        Re: Re: Abolish FCC

        not complete bullshit.

        while you are correct they are definitely not the cause, but they sure did help secure them so in the case of the FCC this is not entirely bullshit even if the OP said it incorrectly. The FCC is as a matter of fact on record as agreeing to allowing the telco to have a few natural monopolies.

        the FCC has additionally assisted with ensuring that some exist as well. There are several places where they only only 1 choice of broadband or just none at all.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:26am

          Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

          A government sanctioned monopoly is accompanied by regulation, that is the deal. You do not get one without the other, unless you want to admit to running a despot dictatorship.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 11:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

            yes, regulation = capture = government sanctioned monopoly = dumb fucking citizens that supports them. That was not challenged in the bullshit complaint statement.

            The challenge was that while true they are not the cause, it is also true that they definitely contribute to the monopolistic tendencies. So you cannot call that statement complete bullshit and get away with it. There is definitely some truth do it, just worded poorly.

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

      • identicon
        Annonymouse, 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:57am

        Re: Re: Abolish FCC

        Don't blame the bull.
        So high,
        So deep,
        So aromatic,
        And gold plated

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

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:43am

      Re: Abolish FCC

      Can you explain what you think "the nation's communication system" is?

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

      • icon
        Vidiot (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: Abolish FCC

        You know, those copper wires on the poles, crank phones, "Hello, Operator?", nickel pay phones...

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

      • identicon
        Durham, 13 Dec 2016 @ 3:25pm

        *Abolish FCC*

        @Jeremy: "Can you explain what you think "the nation's communication system" is?"


        Golly Gee, what does the FCC say it is regulating ??

        Let me Google that for you at FCC.gov :

        "The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories."

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 13 Dec 2016 @ 4:12pm

      Re: Abolish FCC

      All current monopolistic tendencies in the private communications sector are caused by the FCC and state/local governments.

      All of them?

      None of them are caused by, say, the actual private communications companies?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 5:12pm

        Re: Re: Abolish FCC

        Yes because they have a monopoly/duopoly created by regulation.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 12:58am

          Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

          So, if they didn't have that they'd just be completely moral upstanding companies who never tended toward collusion and monopoly? Unlike companies in every other industry?

          If only reality worked that way on this planet...

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:15am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

            Nope, competition has a way forcing their hand. When you give them posituon of power backed up by men with guns it tends to bring out the worst. That is the problem liberals, big government is their only answer. When it fails to work, more government is pilled on. Somehow big companies are evil but big government isn't. Yet the same people run both.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

              "Nope, competition has a way forcing their hand."

              Except for when they collude with each other or use other anti-competitive tactics to game the marketplace, among other things.

              "That is the problem liberals, big government is their only answer."

              Why are the idiots here so utterly obsessed with labelling everyone who disagrees with them? I'll say as I've said a lot recently, the stupidity of politics as a team sport is what's ruining your country.

              But, big business is your only answer? Look at history and what they try to get away with if left completely unregulated.

              "Somehow big companies are evil but big government isn't"

              It's possible for non-morons to believe that both have the capability to be evil and both need to be regulated. Perhaps if you tried addressing peoples' actual opinions instead of the idiotic strawmen you've created, you might understand how.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                Why do idiots always assume if you are pro business you are anti government. I am well aware of the abusses of the past and thus my comment about the same people running both. But government has guns and use them frequently. But like Thomas Jefferson said, I would rather have to much liberty than too little.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                  "Why do idiots always assume if you are pro business you are anti government."

                  I don't know. Intelligent people, however, can read the calls to abolish all regulation that you are stating. Or, other ACs are stating at least - the problem with so many of you being scared to give yourselves even a fictional identifier is that it's impossible to work out which moron you're arguing with after a while.

                  "But like Thomas Jefferson said, I would rather have to much liberty than too little."

                  Nobody's talking about taking away your liberty. In fact, we're talking about monopolistic corporations being prevented from doing so.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:15am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                    Why people always go to extremes when making an argument. I will you why, they have no argument to make. I have never called for abolishing all regulation.

                    You are talking big government which always leads to taking away liberty.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:22am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                      "I have never called for abolishing all regulation"

                      Some have, but since you all identify yourselves as "anonymous coward" it's impossible to tell which one of you is which. I presume this is deliberate, so you don't have to own your own words when called on them.

                      If you don't like another anonymous comment being attributed to you, there are numerous methods available to you to distinguish yourself, if you dare.

                      "You are talking big government which always leads to taking away liberty."

                      Now who's talking extremes? You people are impossible to debate with, because you always resort to fantasy and one-sided arguments.

                      Not to mention vague terminology - what the hell does "big government" mean, anyway? It's a neat catchall for "government doing things I don't like" - the "small government" types never seem to mind when it's regulating something they don't like. In fact, they often call for more.

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 7:07am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                        Let me simplify for you. The government creates many monopolies. They then create whole agencies to regulate the monopoly. The agencies suffer from regulatory capture from a revolving door of corporate heads becoming regulators and vice versa. People like you complain and for more regulation street doesn't happen or makes things worse. It is a never ending cycle that you are party of and can't see that.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 7:20am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                          "The government creates many monopolies"

                          As do corporations, left unregulated.

                          "People like you complain"

                          As I do when unregulated companies cause bad things to happen. I also try to be constructive with my criticism, not "government bad must smash" like the people you parrot.

                          "It is a never ending cycle that you are party of and can't see that"

                          None of what you said describes "big government", and none of which is solved by removing regulation as you suggest.

                          There needs to be ways to reduce corruption, collusion and bribery and so forth, but that requires a change in the way things are regulated by the government (not "more government" or "more regulation" as you falsely claim).

                          So, another lying strawman vendor showing off how easily he knocks down the poorly constructed targets he made. Boring.

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

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:58am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                            Love how you refuse consider other opinions then declare yourself the winner. Guess you will remain in your bubble.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 2:03pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                              "Love how you refuse consider other opinions then declare yourself the winner. Guess you will remain in your bubble."

                              Exactly why they Left lost the election.

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

                              • identicon
                                Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Dec 2016 @ 2:29am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                                America doesn't really have a left as such. What you've actually got is "right" and "far right."

                                The right + liberals + progressives lost the election because they were too busy faffing about with the perceived needs of the people to bother to meet the real ones. Oh, and neoliberalism doesn't work unless you want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, in which case, job done.

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

                • icon
                  Frozen Njal (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:13am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                  Hmm, please tell me when the Government enforced its rules with guns lately? They couldn't even give the Bundys the pistol-whipping they deserved!

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:18am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                    They shot and killed one of the Bundys so easy to make point. Add to it thee police shootings of unarmed men. Just read articles here of police arresting cash when no crime had been committed.

                    Also, try not posting you taxes and who shows up at your door.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 7:25am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                      "They shot and killed one of the Bundys"

                      Yeah, they should have just let the guy shoot at them as he tried to when they went to arrest him for trying to illegally take their property, huh? Your beloved corporations would never use force to defend themselves (except when they do, of course).

                      "Also, try not posting you taxes and who shows up at your door."

                      Try not paying for the goods and services you use from private companies and see where that gets you. Oh, wait, they use the "government" to arrest and prosecute you so they can't be criticised, huh?

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

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 10:03am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish FCC

                        The guy was not shooting at the police when he was killed. He was ambushed in the middle of nowhere without a trial.

                        Preventing theft and punishing crime is one of the roles of government for a civil society. A government with lots more power will need to use out just like your friend Obama likes drone striking Americans abroad,

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:01am

    We need to crowd source to get $ to make ads pointing out one politician at a time showing all their statements and links to 'contributions' from corps. These criminals need to be permanently branded and shamed.

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

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:03am

    So. Um. Are we great yet?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:15am

      Re:Are we great again?

      Wait ten years and then check for the footnote under Fallen Civilizations.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:08am

      Re:

      Who knows? One of the things about that silly slogan is that it was never defined what "great" actually meant. I have a feeling it's not what his supporters thought it was, but he also can't be wrong no matter what happens. "Huh? You thought great meant returning power and resources to the lower classes? I was referring to when only landowners could vote and government consisted of a landed gentry".

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

      • icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re:

        Yes, it's a subtlety that analytical thinkers (who weren't the target) didn't overlook. But I think that's giving the campaign too much credit to have an semantically valid "out". They're obviously not above outright lies; I think the vague slogan was intended to simultaneously harness the support of conflicting groups. May as well been "Whatever you want me to say".

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:32am

        Re: Re:

        Obviously, it refers to when things were great for the riche elite ruling class. You know, like when women were barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen cooking, minorities weren't all uppity n stuff and the rest of the world let us screw them over 24-7.

        For some reason, the rich assholes think they have lost something - when in fact they are taking home more than ever, but apparently they want more and the only place to get it is your pocket. So pony up suckers - you asked for it. Bend over, here it comes again.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "For some reason, the rich assholes think they have lost something - when in fact they are taking home more than ever"

          Actually, I don't believe that's the case. The "1%" know exactly what they're doing and are happy taking as much as possible. It's the middle and lower-middle class who are increasingly unhappy about them taking from them.

          Sadly, what seems to have happened is that instead of correctly blaming people like Trump and his billionaire cronies for their woes, a lot of them have been fooled into blaming handy scapegoats - immigrants, gays, "liberals", etc. - and into pining for when the country was "great". Or, in other words, when life was easier/more comfortable for them personally.

          This usually seems to relate to a time when a lot of them were young, perhaps in the 50s and 60s. But not the real life version, where women had to fight to have a career, minorities were segregated, sexuality was closeted, taxes on the rich were high, unions were strong, the country was in a state of constant war, etc. They always seem to forget the massive negative aspects of those times.

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

  • icon
    mac insand (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:04am

    got any more of them VPN tutorials?

    Hey, Techdirt. Sounds like we could use a bit more of a reminder of how we might *NEED* VPN for privacy protections in the coming years.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:29am

      Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

      You will have a choice, use a VPN and stay in the slow lane, or make direct connections to get your cap free services.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 2:41pm

      Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

      Talk about hypocrisy. They pimp the vpn but moderate every comment coming from one. So use a vpn, just don't use it when you come to this site?

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:10am

        Re: Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

        "They pimp the vpn but moderate every comment coming from one. So use a vpn, just don't use it when you come to this site?"

        Citation needed.

        Are you the same AC who trolls incessantly from every IP he gets his hands on, then whines because the IPs have been flagged for trolling? Because that's not the VPN or TD at fault.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 2:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

          Not sure what you mean. I did buy the VPN package and install it as advertised. It works fine I guess, except some web sites seem to have blocks of some sort where when you try to make a comment or something, it's moderated or blocked. Same thing happens when I go to craigs list for goodies.

          When you say "Citation needed" are you saying I need to provide some kind of proof? Then you say some troll is having the ip's flagged? I don't understand your comment. You sound very angry, you mad?

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 20 Dec 2016 @ 2:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

            "You sound very angry, you mad?"

            Are you hallucinating?

            It's very simple: VPNs allow you to access sites via a public IP address, addresses are shared between customers. Techdirt are only advertising the VPN service they don't administer or have control over it.

            This site has a feature where people flag messages for a number of reasons - including reporting spam and trolls. If an IP is flagged, messages are held for moderation to allow them to confirm whether it should be posted or not. If your message is being moderation and you don't know why, the most likely reason is that your public IP has been flagged due to behaviour by another user of the same service. This is unfortunate but a common issue, and will remain so until everyone moves to 100% IPv6 addressing (this will be a long wait).

            You're attacking the site for "hypocrisy", but there's not anything of the sort going on. Unless you can provide a citation that there is something deliberate happening other than a well-documented feature to deter the trolls and spam, of course.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 2:43pm

      Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

      Talk about hypocrisy. They pimp the vpn but moderate every comment coming from one. So use a vpn, just don't use it when you come to this site?

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 3:07pm

        Re: Re: got any more of them VPN tutorials?

        That's simply due to the spam filter they have in place, to keep the comment section from being flooded with junk.

        While it's unfortunate when it catches legitimate comments from people using a VPN or Tor or something like that, given I believe I remember mention of thousands of spam comments on a daily basis being caught by the system they've got it's still a much better option than the alternative.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:18am

    Ah the wonders of Trump. I did expect Clinton to be consistently bad just like Obama but Trump leaves that apocalyptic smell on everything he touches and with everything he says. I'm honestly hoping I bite my tongue and he ends up being awesome. The perspectives so far, however, are very, very bad.

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

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 3:42pm

      Re:

      "I'm honestly hoping I bite my tongue and he ends up being awesome."

      If he'd picked people with the nation's interests at heart there might have been a sliver of hope of him being OK (not awesome, that's a wish too far). But the people he's surrounding himself with make a drained swamp look like a holiday resort. The damage they could potentially inflict is epic in scale and would take a long time to recover from.

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

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:19am

    Net Neutrality Good or Evil

    I am personally unsure of whether Net Neutrality is good or bad. In a world where there were no huge broadband monopolies, I think it might be good if certain carriers could offer discounts or free as incentives. It would actually drive prices down as the various companies COMPETED for customers.

    But in a world where states have laws prohibiting competitions in the broadband and there are HUGE monopolies like AT&T and Verizon... I think there needs to be something like Net Neutrality to prevent them from abusing their monopoly status. Without the need to actually compete, we get what we have now... bad service and high prices.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:21am

    so, all 3 of the mentioned people, Cheng, Pai and Trump dont give a flyin' fuck about anything other than making sure the people can be ripped up for ass paper and pay a fortune for the privilege!! i still cant believe the nation voted to have this fucking prick as President and have any and all things that mean anything to the people wiped out in one fell blow!! are we going to get what we deserve for doing this? you're damn right we are!!

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:39am

      Re:

      Wow, someone got up on the wrong side of the bed. Angry are we. I'm not a fan of Trump. Wouldn't have been my pick, but I as sure as hell didn't want the criminal Hillary in office, let alone a Clinton in the white house. The problem was, she was just a really poor pick. We already had a pretty poor pick as Obama for the first Black President. Didn't need that again for a Woman. Of course Bernie Sanders was just as bad as a flat out Socialist. He calls himself that. No thanks!

      Really, like it has been for a number of years, just all around poor picks for both sides for President. I'm in CA, but the time I can pick who I would want, it's already been decided long ago. I'm stuck with whoever.

      All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next year. OBAMA screwed me over!!! Screwed up my health care big time. How about a big F you to Obama!!!! To me, he's done far more/worse then BUSH ever did.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:09am

        Re: Re:

        I would pick Clinton over Trump. Firstly Clinton has done a lot of good and a few bad things. Trump has done a lot of bad with a few more bad things. Clinton shouldn't have used a private email server but everyone who sent her classified info is just as guilty and no one makes a fuss about them.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re:

        All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next year.

        Someone doesn't need to do something before you can criticize them. If one person for examples makes it clear that when they get into office they plan on burning your house to the ground, and they nominate person after person well known for their arsonistic tendencies to serve under them, you don't have to wait until your house is nothing but charred cinders to say, 'Yeah, they plan on torching something, and that's not a good thing'.

        Sure Trump might not gut the FCC and fill it's corpose with nothing but pro-telecom people not only willing but eager to throw the public to the wolves of private companies. It might not happen, this is true, meaning people might be jumping the gun on this issue by saying that he's going to. But when all evidence points to the contrary, that it will happen, it's not unfair in the slightest to call him out on it.

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

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:53am

        Re: Re:

        "Of course Bernie Sanders was just as bad as a flat out Socialist. He calls himself that."

        No, he didn't. He referred to himself at times as a Scandinavian-style Democratic Socialist, which is a different thing to the boogeyman socialist that the right-wing media tended to push. If you don't understand the distinction, you'll forgive others for not believing your statements elsewhere on more complicated matters.

        "All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next yer"

        So, we have to judge him on what he said he'll do and the track record of his proposed nominees. It's not looking good.

        "OBAMA screwed me over!!! Screwed up my health care big time."

        Citation needed. Interestingly, I tend to find that people who are so angry about the PPACA don't understand all its provisions or wrongly blame it for underhanded profiteering undertaken by insurance companies or politicians. For example, the PPACA demanded minimum standards for what an acceptable policy can contain, but allowed existing plans to be grandfathered in. Some people are blaming Obama personally because their insurance company used that as an excuse to cancel their plan and put them on a higher cost one. Similarly, some people seem to be blaming Obama for problems some people have had with exchange cutoffs and the like, but those usually seem to be people in states that voted not to accept the medicare expansion that the bill specifically provided for.

        It's a shame if you've suffered personally from the changes, and I hope it's not been anything too serious. But, if I were you I'd make sure it's down to something that was actually put into the healthcare bill, and not something unrelated that's being wrongly blamed on it. It's hardly a perfect bill, but it's also clear that the old system was causing people even more suffering and wasn't really sustainable without causing a hell of a lot more.

        "To me, he's done far more/worse then BUSH ever did."

        But far better to others. It's not all about you, so until other evidence is in, I'll take the side of people who died in the needless wars Bush started, those who suffered in the financial collapse that he left with, those who languished in Guantanamo without trial and otherwise suffered under the PATRIOT act, etc. And, no, "Obama didn't stop all those things" isn't a good argument against the man who actually started them.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Several good videos on YouTube on why Democratic socialism is a terrible idea.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I imagine there are videos on YT about why fascism is a terrible idea, and why laissez-faire capitalism is a terrible idea. There may be even more videos about terrible ideas everywhere, be afraid.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:48am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It is your choice to ignore modern media if you desire.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:17am

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

                No, it's our choice to evaluate the claims made by modern media, which allows anything to be claimed, good or bad, true or false. Since you refuse to state which videos are "good", we can only state the fact that "some guy made a YouTube video" does not prove your point one way or the other.

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 10:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            YT has lots of videos, it might help your case if you actually pointed out one or two.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 5:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              For a tech blog the readers here seem awful ignorant of the use of Google or any other search engine. I guess the willful ignorance of the left is what amazes me the most.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:15am

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

                No, it's because we're not all wasting time researching someone's half-assed anonymous assertions. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Saying "Google it" is a good way to flag the original assertion as dishonest or wrong.

                Especially because you picked out a single phrase form the comment you replied to and didn't bother to address anything else other than a description you don't like, and there's plenty of real-life examples of the system described by that phrase working very well.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:11am

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

                  Lazy much? Google is so stupid simple that I assummed even liberals knew how to use it. My bad. Just going the two words into YouTube search will turn up a list of videos. The titles off said videos will indicate their positron on the matter. Surely liberal elitists such add yourself understand this?

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:31am

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

                    I understand it perfectly.

                    I also understand that dishonest fools like yourself love to play this game. I Google and find something, then if I disagree with it you claim I'm not looking at the right thing, or I didn't search for the correct terms. You then insist I do so again, claiming each time that I'm not doing it right, ad infinitum. It's a great delaying tactic to avoid backing up your claims, especially when you point to video, meaning it takes more time to verify the content of each result.

                    Sorry, I don't play those games. If you're not willing to provide evidence for your claims, I'm not doing it for you. I'll be happy enough with the real life examples that disprove your assertion.

                    "The titles off said videos will indicate their positron on the matter."

                    But not their honesty, veracity or factual content. Lots of people have positions that are demonstrably wrong, and all of them can post videos if they want. That doesn't make their position true.

                    It figures that you would judge a book by its cover, others would want to do further research. By asking everyone reading your comments to do the research rather than provide the results yourself, you are being extremely dishonest. But, facts and honesty are for elitist liberals, right?

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

                    • identicon
                      Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Dec 2016 @ 2:34am

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

                      There's also the fact that if we do the research ourselves, we may JUST come up with different conclusions to the ones you came to given our personal biases.

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

                  • identicon
                    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Dec 2016 @ 8:08pm

                    Re: Google is so stupid simple that I assummed even liberals knew how to use it.

                    But ... but ... it was liberals who created Google, wasn’t it?

                    Doesn’t using it make you liberal, or something?

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

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 8:02am

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

                In which case I'm invoking Hitchen's Razor and assuming you have nothing, know it, and don't want to admit it.

                Well that was easy, would you like to make any other empty claims I can dismiss outright as being lacking in evidence while we're here?

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

          • identicon
            Thad, 13 Dec 2016 @ 4:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Several good videos on YouTube on why Democratic socialism is a terrible idea.

            Several good books in library on why "video on Youtube" is not actually a citation.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 5:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Google don't work where you are?

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:18am

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

                Google works fine. Depending on location, search terms, etc. we will almost certainly find different videos to the ones you're thinking of. Which is why providing a citation rather than going "Google it" is the preferred method for honest discourse. Refusing to do so is a good sign that your original claim is false.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 1:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Several good videos on YouTube on why Democratic socialism is a terrible idea."

            Any examples? There's some good videos about lots of things on YouTube, by the way, but that doesn't make them accurate.

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

          • icon
            Frozen Njal (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Is that along with the Flat Earth videos, Jackie Onassis was an alien videos, the Earth was created 6000 years ago videos, the Pyramids are beaming mind control waves all over the Earth videos, or the Hillary Clinton double-crossed the Devil videos?

            Because there are numerous successful happy northern European countries that rather belie that assertion.

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

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 15 Dec 2016 @ 5:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              **Because there are numerous successful happy northern European countries that rather belie that assertion.**

              You'll probably find that this is the "bad idea."

              We can't have people not being totally self-reliant (which only the rich can afford to do), now, can we?

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

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 3:55pm

        Re: Re:

        "All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next year."

        I honestly can't think of a more braindead criticism to make about predictions being made based on mountains of solid evidence right in front of us. You're basically praying that despite the well-documented history of Trump and his cronies' actions, there're all going to do something completely different this time.

        Have you even considered the possibility that calling them out on potential bad behavior now might actually reduce the chances of them following through? Shine a critical light on people and they're naturally less inclined to do what they're being criticized for. Keep quiet, as you obviously think we should, and they'll feel there's a better chance of getting away with it.

        Getting stuck into Trump now is a perfectly valid self-defense mechanism. Giving him the completely undeserved benefit of the doubt is to openly invite disaster.

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

  • identicon
    PrivateFrazer, 13 Dec 2016 @ 7:59am

    phony populism

    thats the only thing on the menu the world over at the moment sadly

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 11:56am

      Re: phony populism

      yes, sadly this is the case.

      Trump is a damn fine troll! He has both republican sycophants and the democratic losers all in a tissy... it's hilarious.

      Both Obama and Trump are part of the "We want a King" crowd which is being mistaken for populism.

      Trump has always been part of the ruling faction, by definition he is not a populist. He has just managed to fool a lot of people. To be a populist you cannot be counted among the corrupt elite. trump is corrupted elite! But this will not be the first time that Media gets it wrong intentionally to push a narrative.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 8:22am

    "holding back investment, innovation, and job creation"

    This is such bullshit.
    They will never stop with the bullshit, bunch of liars.

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

  • icon
    Lord Lidl of Cheem (profile), 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:05am

    ..until one day someone looks up from their screen and says "hang on a second - why am I paying $500 a month to watch adverts"

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

  • identicon
    kallethen, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:39am

    The only innovation we will see with the gutted FCC is in the billing departments of the telcoms to see who can fleece more money.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 9:51am

    Who will miss them?

    Considering how little the FCC had done to this point, how we even know they are gone?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2016 @ 11:02am

    table flip

    maybe Trump will surprise you all and just nominate the ceo of att to run the fcc... tell me it would be a surprise.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 8:32am

    What will happen if the free market floats with the monopolies in their current positions

    is that the last mile carriers will go on peering jihad, and and start ransoming the eyeballs of the public to whomever they can. This will result in degraded service, increased service fees across the board, and LOT of pissed off voters.

    There is no free market in telecom without carrier neutral facilities. In fact if there is ONE thing that the state needs to understand, it is that carrier neutrality, IS the free market in the telecom sector. And carrier neutrality is a very rare thing in the United States.

    Anyone who makes any argument about telecom politics, and says "free market" without also saying "carrier neutral" should be punched right in the face.

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

  • icon
    standing bracket (profile), 22 Jan 2017 @ 6:32am

    standing bracket

    tekniklasbrackettv.com . We are a company that stood since 2013 engaged in industrial Television, Event Organizer, Steel Contractor, Construction Tools Rental, Video, Other Consumer Electronic, Bracket tv Standard, Jasa Pemasangan Bracket TV, Bracket tv Standing, Bracket TV Swivel, Bracket Tv Video Wall , Bracket Ceiling/Plafon, Bracket Monitor Meja, KABLE HDMI, rak dvd, Bracket Tv Standing Custom

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

  • icon
    pouar (profile), 8 Feb 2017 @ 10:19am

    If they want to remove "outdated and unnecessary regulations", they can start with the anti-municipal broadband laws

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
New And For A Limited Time
New Gear By Techdirt: 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.