JMT’s Techdirt Profile


About JMT

JMT’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 22nd, 2017 @ 5:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If you are regulating people's access to the internet, you are regulating the internet."

    The regulations don't affect people's access to the internet or the Internet itself, which are quite different things. The regs control only what ISP's can and cannot do. You're making a complete strawman argument, and I can't think of any good reason to do that other than having a vested interest in ISP customers having fewer protections.

  • Jul 20th, 2017 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "...there ISN'T a difference between "the internet" (however you define that) and ISPs, at least not in regards to how it's going to be regulated."

    Please explain how US regulations limiting the behavior of US ISP's are going to affect the actual Internet and the content it contains, which is accessible all over the world.

  • Jul 20th, 2017 @ 2:43pm

    Re: Re:

    Your analogy fails quite badly because you start out talking about a live performance and end with a studio recording. Makes no sense at all.

    The only reason an officer should be concerned about being recorded is if they know they're doing something wrong. If they're acting legally and professionally then any criticism can be confidently responded to. Policing is too important to undertaken without a high level of public scrutiny and accountability. Officers who can't handle that are simply not the right people for the job and should be doing less important work with less serious implications for others.

  • Jul 20th, 2017 @ 2:28pm


    "Stop asking the government to regulate the internet."

    Nobody here did. We can only conclude that you either genuinely don't understand the difference between the Internet and ISP's or you're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest because it suits your purpose.

  • Jul 19th, 2017 @ 5:16pm


    "Like it or not, it is Congress that should be deciding this issue..."

    The same Congress whose members are beholden to massive campaign contributions from the very companies that need to be regulated to protect the public from them? Cool ideal bro.

    " opposed to nameless and faceless bureaucrats."

    Nameless and faceless? You cannot possibly be serious... htt ps://

  • Jul 18th, 2017 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Re: ??

    "The leading 'internet-regulation advocates' are outraged that Trump’s FCC is loosening its government grip on the web .... and restoring oversight to the country’s primary consumer-protection agency-- the Federal Trade Commission."

    You just repeated the same lie Wyden is chastising Pai about. The government does not have a "grip on the web", it's regulating the ISP's. And nobody with a half a clue really expects the FTC will be cable or even interested in protecting consumers from nefarious ISP behavior.

    "They loudly condemn the loss of “net neutrality” -- an extremely vague & deceptive concept."

    Don't abuse your monopoly position to fuck over your customers for financial gain. Not a terribly vague & deceptive concept really.

    "When self-anointed “net neutrality” proponents use that term-- they mean they want far-reaching Internet-regulation by the FCC and politicians."

    Same lie as above.

  • Jul 17th, 2017 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Techdirt and the EFF were right before

    "...regulating ISPs is regulating the internet."

    Not even close. Nothing about rules governing ISP behavior even touch the actual content on the Internet.

    "If it isn't why do you think net neutrality would save the internet? After all, ISPs are not the internet..."

    Do you think anybody outside of the US gives a shit about what US ISP's are doing? Of course not, because US ISP's are not the Internet.

  • Jul 16th, 2017 @ 5:18pm

    Re: Johnny come lately dog people.

    "I would call this a cautionary tale to corral your dogs if you think the cops are going to come by to deal with a burglar."

    Not sure if trolling or stupid, but I'll run with the latter...

    The dogs were 'corralled, in a fenced back yard. The officer climbed over the fence into the corral! And how exactly are you supposed to know that a cop is coming to deal with a burglar since you're generally not at home during a burglary?

  • Jul 14th, 2017 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Not sure what you think is so funny. You may have noticed that events like this are very rare because the system usually works and most buildings are quite safe. This case is obviously a spectacular and tragic failure, and hopefully the resulting investigation will highlight if changes need to be made and/or if there was non-compliance and illegal behavior.

  • Jul 14th, 2017 @ 2:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I deal with building construction standards in my job, including several that deal with life safety systems, and when they are revised they can go either way. Some aspects might be tightened up, some might be relaxed. It all depends on the collective experiences of the industry in the intervening years. You're right that some things will be obvious, but some things aren't.

    The standards for building fire safety are quite complex, and would be impossible for the lay-person to know without access to all the applicable standards. The residents' complaints were likely based on common sense observations, not necessarily familiarity with building standards. They make have known what seemed unsafe, but it would not be easy for them you know what was definitely illegal.

    It's always bothered me that standards we're required to comply with by law are locked up behind paywalls, with restrictions that make far less sense than they might when applied to a movie or album. Laws (which they effectively are) shouldn't be so expensive for the public to access.

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Supreme Court != Government

    I don't see any specific claim from the author that the Supreme Court was lobbied and corrupted, only statements of fact that the USG has intensely pressured the Canadian government over this issue, and now the Court has delivered the desired result, seemingly against the country's best interests. It now needs to be asked why the Court made this decision, and whether there was any connection between the Government and Court, which there obviously should not be.

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: I'm from Australia, what should I do?

    To clarify (thought it was obvious), this issue has nothing to do with government control of internet content, only government control of bad ISP behavior. These are two completely different things. The former is not happening, but implying it does riles up a lot of people. The latter is absolutely needed but is poorly understood.

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 4:46pm


    That's not how standards work. Only the latest version is relevant, so an old version that's out of copyright (meaning it would have to be really old) could not be relied upon.

  • Jul 13th, 2017 @ 12:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans

    I'm really not seeing how what I said demonstrates any form or delusion or denial on my part. I'm not the one with anti-regulation issues. And what I said is an opinion that I wholeheartedly believe, so by definition is not a lie. These two points are pretty self-evident I think, so this really just sounds like lame name-calling (as opposed to witty, clever name-calling, which i'm ok with).

  • Jul 12th, 2017 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans

    What a weird reply. Apparently you don't know the definition of the words 'lying' or 'projecting'.

  • Jul 12th, 2017 @ 3:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans

    "All regulation IS bad..."

    As soon as you make a stupid blanket statement such as this we know nothing else that comes after is worth reading. Your position is so ignorant you don't even realize how utterly miserable your life would be in your anarchistic fantasy world.

  • Jul 12th, 2017 @ 3:22pm

    Re: I'm from Australia, what should I do?

    You have no need to worry, because like most countries that aren't the US, you have actual competition between ISP's. In a competitive market net neutrality is the natural position because doing things to fuck over your customers puts you at a competitive disadvantage, so they tend not to do it.

    Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the actual internet content as such, just the behavior of ISP's who provide access to the internet. That's why the whole "government controlling the internet!" narrative is such a disingenuous dog whistle aimed at the uninformed.

  • Jul 10th, 2017 @ 4:11pm


    "Sounds like our representative-democracy form of government has big problems then, well beyond the small potatoes of internet service."

    No shit, it's call campaign financing, and it has poisoned the US electoral system nearly to death. If the sources of political funds were far more restricted and far more transparent these sorts of problems would be significantly reduced. But since campaign financing reform can only be enacted by those who benefit from the status quo, and the populace is generally ignorant of or ambivalent to the scale of the problem, I don't see much changing in the future.

  • Jul 10th, 2017 @ 4:03pm

    Re: call a spade a spade

    Calling undocumented immigrants "invaders" is not calling a spade a spade, it's calling a spade a screwdriver. Related only in the vaguest sense, but not even close to the same thing.

  • Jul 10th, 2017 @ 3:57pm


    "I really don't understand..."*

    We know. Your position is simplistic and ignorant.

More comments from JMT >>