Richard Bennett’s Techdirt Profile


About Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 4:48pm

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

    As usual, you cite a public relations statement that has nothing to do with the claims you've made as evidence for the veracity of your claims. If the SCCFPD incident was an accident, it has no policy implications. "Don't ever make a mistake" is not an enforceable rule.

    Keep on showing your ignorance, it's fun to watch.

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 2:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt

    When was that, ten years ago? More?

    Look, you were babbling some trivia to the effect that artists are doing better than ever thanks to the t-shirt sales or something. After a bit more nonsense than I cared to hear, I politely excused myself from the conversation. After checking the data, I concluded you were deliberately dissembling.

    And now you have this tech policy satire blog where you feed spin to these damaged readers. Whatever pays the mortgage, right?

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Re:

    you state no one is going to talk about whether Silicon Valley dominant firms have a legitimate concern or if it's a smokescreen.

    Blatant lie. First, the challenge was not solely issued by the "dominant firms", and second, this is and has been discussed at length by not only sites like TechDirt and Ars Technica, but also other mainstream news outlets. You really have a problem with making lies that are easily disproven by a quick internet search and/or history.

    Point one is orthogonal and point two is asserted without evidence. Fail. is one of the DNS providers that offers encrypted DNS. If you enable it and set your computer to use it, your DNS requests will be encrypted and hidden from your ISP and anybody trying to snoop on your web traffic. It doesn't hide it COMPLETELY, but it's a far cry from doing "nothing for privacy".

    False. doesn't magically enable DNSSEC on domains that don't use it. does essentially nothing. BGP & DNS experts in the public interest sector have agreed with me on this point.

    But wait, you might be saying, your ISP still has to know the IP address of the site you are going to! Gotcha!

    Major destinations such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon are not hidden by Cloudflare and virtual hosting is only used by low-traffic sites. When you visit a site protected by a gatekeeper like Cloudflare, it's still possible to identify it from the external references it makes. You lose again.

    Moving on, your article about the "Save the Internet Act" states that net neutrality as talked about doesn't actually mean net neutrality and instead has something to do with telephones. Oh where to start, where to start? I mean, TD, Ars Technica and other news and tech outlets have LOUDLY proclaimed that's not what it's about.

    Title II was written for telephone services. I've done podcasts with the people who actually wrote the Title II revisions for the '96 Telecom Act, and I've read the Act. I'll stick with my evidence over your conspiracy nut fantasies.

    You also claim that it basically ignores what voters really want. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! How you can say that with a straight face is hilarious, considering every major poll has said the exact opposite.

    Open-ended polls on the Internet issues of highest concern to voters put NN way down the list, after privacy, fake news, trolling, ID theft, robo-calls and a host of other issues. The push polls that purport to show deep support for NN don't fool elected officials because they misstate what NN actually does and doesn't do.

    Then there's your article about the FOIA requests regarding the fake DDOS attacks on the FCC. You claim that it's all false, the emails don't prove anything, and that the whole thing was made up by a "Tom Wheeler operative" are outright lies and false.

    Pai's CIO told him it was a DDOS attack. That was wrong, but it is what he was told.

    You have cited some analyses that are over your head, but none of these are lies.

    Thanks for the laughs, Utter Coward.

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 12:53pm

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

    Asserts facts with no foundation.

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 12:52pm

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

    SCCFPD bought their plan from Vz when the Schmidt Administration's NN regs were in effect; it predates Pai's RIF order.

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 4:01am

    Re: Dick

    You kids have used the word “Dick” nine times already. You’ve probably never heard of him, but Dick Wiley is a former FCC Chairman. He’s a charming man, I hope you all get the chance to meet him some day.

    [Note that my use of the term in question is appropriate.]

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 3:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark

    Verizon delivered the service the Santa Clara County Fire Protection District contracted for. Any other first responder agency would have purchased a plan consistent with their needs or, even better, used First Net.

    Verizon wasn’t at fault, SCCFPD was.

  • Aug 22nd, 2019 @ 3:51am

    Back it up

    Kindly provide evidence of even one lie on the High Tech Forum blog, if you can.

    Thank you.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 7:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Those multiple times Richard kept lying....

    Still waiting for the evidence.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Finally give up on trying to lie about the reports?

    You see, Utter, it's like this. You can't distinguish facts from opinions, hence you believe you prevail over facts by simply sharing your feelings. You've accused my blog of being nothing but lies several times, but you've failed to fact check a single sentence on it.

    You can't do that because your claim is untrue; but you can keep asserting it because, as a victim of Techdirt, you don't grasp the concept of truth.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 7:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yadda yadda yadd

    There's legal difference between regulatory agencies that are parts of the Executive Branch - like the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department and the EPA - and those that are independent, like the FCC and the FTC.

    This narrative was pushed by the guys in Congress that wrote all those bogus laws, dude. It's a bummer, in it?

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 12:35pm


    Techdirt is an even more hilarious comedy site than The Onion. Readers like Utter Coward actually think their automaton comments are "winning".

    People like Bode and Utter are the reason Trump won.

  • Aug 21st, 2019 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: yadda yadda yadda

    This is absolutely hilarious. Bode & fans treat an alleged proposal for a outlandish Trump executive order as no different from a serious policy proposal by an Air Force general.

    Clue: the heads of independent regulatory agencies such as the FCC and the FTC have better things to do with their time than play Twitter wars with our deranged president. Ignoring his crazy fantasies is the most effective way to crush them.

    TD's amateurism is showing, and its disaffected audience loves it.

  • Aug 20th, 2019 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped t

    The post fails to make a credible case for its claim that commenting on a proposal to the NSC is equivalent to commenting on a press rumor - with no concrete evidence - of an executive order that would be unlawful on its face. Contrary to Bode's claim, the NSC presentation did not originate at Rivada Networks, it came from an Air Force General Robert Spalding. While Rivada certainly liked it, their influence over the Air Force is nil. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and his minion Earl Comstock liked it as well, but they didn't write it either.

    The Spalding proposal was reported in a credible way by the Actual Press; Axios published the slide deck. There has been no disclosure of the alleged Facebook censorship plan, and one of the two journalists who've written about claims to have seen no more than a summary.

    It's premature for official government reaction to a possible plan to make an unlawful order to solve a problem that may or may not exist. The alleged executive order simply isn't at the same level of newsworthiness as the Spalding proposal.

    It's obvious that Bode is trying to use this leak as a cudgel for him to continue Techdirt's unprincipled attacks on Chairman Pai. No reasonable person expected Pai to take this piece of media bait. While Techdirt bloggers generally do little more than summarize or react to news reported by journalists with actual sources close their stories, this post is among the saddest to appear on the site.

    I have to laugh about Techdirt's complaints about intellectual honesty. This is the blog that insists, contrary to academic evidence in 30 papers on the impact of piracy on the sales of music and video entertainment, that piracy does not harm sales of digital goods.

    Techdirt is the Flat Earth Society of tech policy. You can't curse your way out of the hole you've dug by publishing this ridiculous article.

  • Aug 18th, 2019 @ 10:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark

    Your readers love being lied to; in fact, they demand it.

  • Aug 18th, 2019 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark

    I haven't moved the goalposts, I've been asking for evidence of the similarity your conspiracy nut alleges from the beginning. You're making his false charge because you feel like it's your only way out. Let me suggest you break with precedent and try a little honesty.

    Trump will never issue an order directing the FCC to censor Facebook; this entire affair is click bait.

  • Aug 17th, 2019 @ 9:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...

    It's funny how your readers keep flagging the comments to which you're replying. That says a lot about your audience, does it not?

    Petulant crybabies is the phrase that comes to mind.

  • Aug 17th, 2019 @ 9:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...

    You've still not provided evidence of an FCC chairman publicly commenting on an early draft of an executive order. That's the only evidence that will let your troll off the hook.

    All kinds of people comment on all kinds of proposals, but independent regulators have no history of commenting on proposals for early drafts of thoughts on possible executive orders. You can wave your hands and wag your fuzzy little head all you want about "proposals", but they're not equal.

    I will continue to wait for concrete, relevant precedent, but we both know you'd have shared it by now if you had any.

  • Aug 17th, 2019 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...

    Nice try at propping up the scam, but there are clear and obvious differences between the 5G plan cooked up by former NSC member AF Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding and an early draft of a presidential executive order.

    Some of these are matters of content: the spectrum plan had direct relevance to the FCC's jurisdiction over spectrum rights and broadband deployment, but the regulation of Internet social platform speech policies is not under FCC jurisdiction. I can show you where the Comms Act directs the FCC to manage spectrum and broadband deployment, but you can't show me where the Comms Act says the FCC is supposed to regulate Facebook.

    Another difference is the maturity of the proposal. The 5G plan was presented to a broad group of government stakeholders (the NSC) in a slide deck that was intended to elicit discussion. Nobody knows how early the alleged White House order is, who (if anyone) it was presented do, and what its status is with respect to discussion and revision. So it's nothing more than a rumor and certainly not a concrete proposal.

    And then there's the broader question of FCC's place in the federal government structure. Contrary to Techdirt's claims, the FCC doesn't report to the White House, it reports to Congress. The president nominates the commissioners and chooses one of them to be the chairman. He can't fire a commissioner, and all he can do with the chairmanship is transfer it to another commissioner. It's not the FCC's business to comment on possible executive orders and no reason to believe it sees them. In fact, there are good legal reasons to believe they don't.

    Finally, you've made a claim about "normal practice" but you've only offered one incident in support. Statistically, one data point doesn't prove a trend. In fact, the 5G case was the outlier and what's happening here is the norm. You can't show me a single instance in which an FCC chairman has ever commented on an early draft of a possible White House executive order. The 5G plan was certainly not related to any executive order.

    So your story is a farce. The claim that the FCC is "oddly silent" is false. Techdirt is either clueless or deliberately lying.

    Prove me wrong with evidence if you can; and if you can't, you should take down the story or, bette yet, leave it up and label is as false.

  • Aug 17th, 2019 @ 11:35am

    That time when TechDirt jumped the shark...

    In summary, it is not normal practice for the heads of federal regulatory agencies to speak to the media on early drafts of possible White House executive orders. The FCC is independent of the White House by law and is not involved in the drafting of executive orders.

    This post displays massive ignorance of the structure of the federal government and a sad fixation on conspiratorial reasoning. It's the political equivalent of hypochondria.

More comments from Richard Bennett >>