If You Want To Protect The Internet, Look To Congress
from the and-fight-fight-fight dept
As you probably know (because it's almost unavoidable across the web), today is the "Day of Action" on behalf of net neutrality. Tons of other sites are participating in various ways. Many are popping up widgets, warning you of how crappy the internet might become if broadband access providers were allowed to create the kind of internet they dream of -- one in which they are the gatekeepers, and where they get to put tollbooths on services trying to reach you. But you already know about all that, because you already read Techdirt, and we've been talking about this for over a decade. Many sites are encouraging you to comment on the FCC's proceedings -- which you absolutely should do (even as the FCC itself is making a mockery of the commenting process, by allowing bogus and fraudulent comments in.
However, for this day of action, I wanted to focus people here on two key things. First, yes this does matter. I know that some of you think you're oh-so-cool and therefore you take the cynical approach of "it doesn't matter, man, the fix is already in" or however you phrase it, but that's bullshit. This stuff does matter. And I know that the cynical folks and the DC insiders absolutely hate when people bring this up, but other situations in the past -- including SOPA and the last net neutrality rule making -- were both situations where the "savvy" absolutely knew what was going to happen... and they were totally wrong. If enough people speak up and make things clear, change can and does happen. And if you still want to remain cynical, consider this: being cynical and insisting that nothing you do will matter guarantees that nothing you do will matter and by default helps ensure the shitty situation you're so cynical about remains shitty. Speaking up at least contributes to the possibility of things going in a better direction.
Second: while you absolutely should go and file FCC comments (and I highly recommend first reading this guide to filing impactful FCC comments from a former top FCC staffer), this fight is going to end with Congress one way or the other. Two months ago we wrote about the real game plan to destroy net neutrality, and you can see it playing out in realtime. Ajit Pai's move to get the FCC to repeal the rules is an effort to force the hand of Congress, and make it come in and create new regulations. Indeed, if you look around, it's not hard to find lots of opeds from telco-funded folks about how "Congress should solve this" (all of which pretend to support net neutrality). And, yes, this is the kind of thing that Congress should solve -- if we trusted Congress to actually do what was in the interest of the public, rather than the interests of the broadband access providers. But, right now, you shouldn't. After all, this is the same Congress that happily voted to kill broadband privacy rules, and then seemed shocked that this upset people.
So, the fight at the FCC matters, but the end game is Congress. And we all know that bad stuff can happen in Congress (especially when it comes to broadband providers writing legislation themselves). But (and this is the important part): the best way to stop bad stuff from happening in Congress is to speak up. This is what killed SOPA five years ago, even though a ton of people in Congress had signed on as co-sponsors. We've talked about this in the past: lobbyists win in Congress all the time, but only on issues where the public isn't speaking up. Congress relies on lobbyists to fill in the gaps (and sometimes that's even okay!). The problems come in when the public interest and the lobbyists' interest diverge -- and if the public isn't speaking up, then the lobbyists win. But if the public is speaking up -- and doing so loudly -- it can stop bad bills in their tracks (witness Congress's recent inability to pass any major bad legislation).
So, not only should you be commenting for the FCC's benefit, you should be calling your Representative and Senators and letting them know that if they support undermining net neutrality in any way -- even with bogus bills that pretend to support net neutrality, while really undercutting it -- then you'll no longer support them. If you can, set up meetings. Make Congress aware that this matters to you deeply. Make them aware that if they support the internet, the people on the internet will support them back. Make Congress aware that this is an issue that matters and that ignoring the will of the public (most of whom -- on both sides of the partisan aisle overwhelmingly support an open internet) will not go unnoticed by the wider internet.
Techdirt only exists because of the open internet. When I set it up almost 20 years ago, I didn't have to go and get permission. I didn't have to go and beg (or pay!) AT&T or Comcast to make sure people could reach the site. It wasn't like TV or publishing where I had to get approval from some giant gatekeeper to exist. I just got to set stuff up and now millions of people have visited and supported us over the years. The internet is wonderful because it's not TV and there aren't gatekeepers. Let's keep it that way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, ajit pai, congress, cynicism, day of action, fcc, net neutrality, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
To boldly go ...
Yes this >>_MATTERS_<<.
(and congress is the real battleground).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not quite sure people will engage as they did back then and I suspect there's a whole lot more of money stuck in politicians ears and eyes so it may be harder to get the message that it's going to stink for them. I hope I'm proven wrong!
Anyway good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the SOPA post-mortem analysis it's clear that one of the lessons learned by those backing the bill was that these key communication platforms must be shut down or heavily disrupted. We saw acquisition of many technology publications, or efforts to create brand new ones with emphasis on pop futurology stories (with special emphasis on barring political discussion). The effort was aimed at making discussion of the overlap between technology and politics off-limits.
Specifically, as a moderator of /r/technology on reddit we observed distinct shifts in subscriber behavior. Heavy downvote brigades of new stories putting them all below 0 votes. Spamming of low-effort product promotional or two sentence summary articles. Aggressive comment brigades attacking discussions trending political. Creation alternative technology subs promoting themselves as identical in every way, but barring political conversation. Harassing mods to remove political stories. Agitator applicants in mod recruitment cycles. We see many of the techniques applied today used on a massive scale to disrupt and influence overall partisan politics discussion online.
As a result conversation is scattered more than it was during SOPA. It was possible to take a difficult concept, boil it down to the root issue and share simple graphics or summary information to educate the public. Posting to one or two locations had a huge reach. The same summary material today needs to be spread across numerous platforms to garner attention.
The techniques being used by reputation management firms are akin to sending groups of people with mega-phones into a public hearing and shouting everyone down. People continue to discuss, but they leave the hall looking over their shoulder and find other rooms to continue the discussion. There are few options currently to evict those with the mega-phones from the room, thus there is a need to adapt flexibility to simply move when it occurs. There are those left behind each time this occurs however. People get lost or get annoyed and go home rather than seeking out new sources of information.
A frustrating challenge in need of a solution. There's a business plan in there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've noticed the same sketchy occurrences you're describing in many forums/comment sections and is especially true of reddit (e.g., /r/politics is the epitome of censorship and partisan/establishment propaganda). I expect this sort of thing will only get worse in the near term as these sorts of vested interest services and groups mature. However, in the medium-to-long term I think they will ultimately fail and be exposed for what they are (i.e., mercenary corporate/political shills attempting to manipulate public discourse in favor of their own - vs the publics - best interests). Because once you become aware of their techniques, such as the ones you described (and are further described here), they become fairly obvious to spot in real time and ultimately serve to discredit both the perpetrators' narrative and the associated platform. That is, if the leadership of that platform can be shown to have facilitated said shills (as I expect is the case with reddit). As you noted, this does create business opportunities for some clever entrepreneur - and is yet another reason why net neutrality is so important to maintain.
Anyway, you're doing your part just by making people aware of the issue/mitigation. So, thank you for doing that.
Also, I read the article below the other day and thought you might enjoy it as some food for thought on the broader issue...
How To Fight The Establishment Propaganda Machine And Win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second: while you absolutely should go and file FCC comments (and I highly recommend first reading this guide to filing impactful FCC comments from a former top FCC staffer), this fight is going to end with Congress one way or the other.
I tried leaving a comment with the FCC that Pai might listen to, but they didn't seem to accept PayPal. Luckily I'm from Illinois, so at least my Congressional Reps are intimately familiar with BitCoin and make it a breeze for me to express my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm from Australia, what should I do?
As I understand it, if the 'all information is equal' open internet protections go away, ISPs could selectively censor whatever sites they like, refuse to send or receive data from competitors, extort cash from businesses so that visitors can still see their website...it's like a post office picking and choosing what mail they decide to deliver.
Considering how many sites are .com websites, I'll definitely be affected if this goes through...so what should I do to help? Should I also contact the FCC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm from Australia, what should I do?
This fight has everything to do with content, and the ISPs trying to kill off competition to their cable business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm from Australia, what should I do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm from Australia, what should I do?
Should I also contact the FCC?
Yes, you can, though you should note where you are from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when you americans
( SEE your hollywood people coming to canada yapping and your copyright crap )
i'll think about supporting you....perhaps if you get boned it might then dawn on you what you all are responsible for everywhere else.
ENJOY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: when you americans
The American democracy is clearly broken. I fear even a well coordinated effort will not be enough to overcome the current institutional dysfunction. I have left my FCC comments and called my federal representatives. I'm just not very hopeful. As my friend to the north speculates, I think the boning is on the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: when you americans
Motherfucker, I've never interfered in any of your laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: when you americans
In the same vein of (The butterfly effect) your selection for the politicians that serve can have a far more significant impact on things than you anticipate.
There is a reason why I frequently tell you folks that seeking a politician as your solution to problems is a sure fire way to create more of them. Politicians can't resist putting their hands in the cookie jar will fixing it, along with their buddies and business partners hands, but you didn't see those at all (wink wink)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: when you americans
There is a reason why I frequently tell you folks that seeking a politician as your solution to problems is a sure fire way to create more of them. Politicians can't resist putting their hands in the cookie jar will fixing it, along with their buddies and business partners hands, but you didn't see those at all (wink wink)
I notice you ignored me pointing out the other day that you sure seem to support government regulations and intervention when it comes to grabbing undocumented individuals (even those who have lived here their whole lives) and throwing them out of the country. You don't like FCC enforcement, but you love ICE enforcement. You don't like telco regulations, but you love immigration regulations -- even as you keep making blanket statements about how all regulation is bad.
People can disagree with your simplistic view of the world without being stupid. People can recognize that a good solution -- such as the current open internet rules -- is effective in stopping bad behavior, without endorsing "ooooh, all regulation is good."
Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
If we got rid of ALL government welfare, and stopped trying to remove 2nd amendment rights, then I would be in favor of those open borders. Until then, it is a moral decay to say that because someone is from a foreign land that they get to be a scofflaw while I must still adhere to doing my civic duty and obey law or else. If I lie about my identity I risk far more retribution as a red and white citizen than I do as a brown non-citizen.
"People can disagree with your simplistic view of the world without being stupid."
Perhaps, but not likely. I absolutely work to avoid all manor of cognitive dissonance in my positions, unlike most of you that simultaneously call America racist for their immigration laws on people from a country that is far more fucking criminal about how they treat humanity and "illegals".
In order to combat me, you need a morally superior position. You have a morally inferior one where some people get treated better than others. I am for 100% equality where all are equal before the law. You want peoples outcome to be equal which requires that people be treated DIFFERENTLY before the law. There is a significant difference there.
---People can recognize that a good solution -- such as the current open internet rules -- is effective in stopping bad behavior, without endorsing "ooooh, all regulation is good."---
People can, but politicians CANNOT. Again you are not listening, AS USUAL!
Try again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Projecting AND lying much? The other poster stated...
"I have already been on record multiple times that I will support regulation when they prevent a GREATER bad from occurring,"
If you are going to waste your time lying when you can be proven wrong so fast and easily, maybe you should consider other "debating" tactics.
I could deal with blanket statements faster that I could deal with liars so bad at lying they look just like Trump... ha ha... wait, are you Trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Projecting "1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial."
"As soon as you make a stupid blanket statement such as this we know nothing else that comes after is worth reading."
You are projecting with that statement. You just made a blanket statement while trash-talking all blanket statements. This serves to indicate a contradiction, irony, or projection. I usually call Projecting the new age definition of Irony. But that is me, I am okay if you wish to disagree here, I don't hold any special attachments to urban dictionaries definition of things.
The lying was from this part.
"Your position is so ignorant you don't even realize how utterly miserable your life would be in your anarchistic fantasy world."
The other poster said nothing that promotes anarchy and even indicated that they would agree to some regulation based on certain though undisclosed criteria, which technically applies to anyone willing to seek regulation regardless of their feelings about the subject matter. Hopefully you are not so thick that you can't understand this.
While the other post states that they think all regulation is bad they also made it clear that they do agree with some regulation. This can hardly be classified as anarchy as you falsely accuse. Your lie is easy to prove out of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Every Nation eatst the Paint chips it Desrves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Yeah, you like regulations that do what YOU like, even if it is BAD. Hypocrites like you are a dime a dozen and easy to spot a mile away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
"People can disagree with your simplistic view of the world without being stupid."
Perhaps, but not likely. I absolutely work to avoid all manor of cognitive dissonance in my positions, unlike most of you that simultaneously call America racist for their immigration laws on people from a country that is far more fucking criminal about how they treat humanity and "illegals".
In order to combat me, you need a morally superior position. You have a morally inferior one where some people get treated better than others. I am for 100% equality where all are equal before the law. You want peoples outcome to be equal which requires that people be treated DIFFERENTLY before the law. There is a significant difference there.
Oh my. You're one of those people. I knew a few people like that decades ago. And then they grew out of it. You'll get there too someday.
"A morally superior positions." Thanks for the chuckle.
I don't want to combat you. I'm just sharing my perspective that your position is devoid of any real logic, while you pretend it's totally logical. Your level of confidence in a totally clueless position is cute, the way it's cute when impressionable children first discovery Ayn Rand and forget to ever take a step back and add reality to the equation.
Best of luck to you. One day, I imagine you'll look back on your positions and laugh at them the way I and others are laughing at you now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
I don't get why we just don't turn these "regulations" into actual law if their so necessary. Yes it would be time consuming and tedious, but it seems to me that the creation of regulatory bodies/rules is simply creating an easy way for Government to bypass our legislative system.
I don't mind regulations specifically. I like clean water and healthy food. I appreciate those things certainly. But I don't like when we create regulations to fix broken regulations etc.. like Net Neutrality. I don't think anyone disagree's that if we had true competition in the industry, that the need for all these regulations wouldn't be necessary. You may need a few to keep things open and fair, but not this tangled mess we have now. So instead of fixing or removing the regulation that is causing the problem, we are creating MORE regulation to fix the broken regulation. When does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: when you americans
At the same time, neither you or I nor a vast majority of Americans did NOT interfere with the laws of other nations. Even though some of us recognize the issues of our political system that allows our representatives to kowtow to the contributors rather than the constituents, we have not done enough, YET, to correct that situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Well, yes, and given that this is Techdirt, most everybody here agrees with most of that.
But, leaving aside the foolishness of painting any large group with a broad brush, suggesting that you don't care what happens in an entire country because you're mad about some other, unrelated thing originating within that country is very silly indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
You vote in a turd with your "meddle with everything everywhere" politics and then say "But, leaving aside the foolishness of painting any large group with a broad brush" is wrong.
Go ahead, bury your face in the dirt Ostrich. When those other folks get the power to fuck with you we will watch your "not my fault" piss and shit tune change real fast!
You cannot ever vote in these corrupt bastards and then absolve yourself of responsibility, but that is why you got Trump. You have been spending so much time making it clear that corruption is okay as long as they serve your political interests that it has now bitten you right on your ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
He was the result of the electorate constantly and repetitiously making it clear that corruption is not only welcome in government but desired! When you keep installed your own corrupt and despicable candidates that like to insult the members of other political parties for gaffs or in seriousness then why would you not expect those on the other side to start playing your game? Does it hurt when turn-about become fair play?
As a person that despises all political parties, I must say, you all quite frankly, Deserve Each Other! My brush paints quite large because, unfortunately, it MUST! The same vile corruption exists in all humanity, REGARDLESS of politics. The Declaration of Independence said it best!
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Again "...experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,..."
Mankind = "I would rather rot in my misery than to lift a single finger to make yours or my life better OR ask another to take up the work for which I am not fit and to give them power over me and others in hopes that I might be saved"
When the rare individual comes along to set you free, people quickly turn against them and beg for another king just like the story of Israel in the Book of Samuel.
Here with Net Neutrality, instead of the people "working together" to guide the national economy we ask for a dirty rotten and corrupt politician to fix it for us so we don't have to expend any REAL effort to fix things. Tell me where I am wrong Mr. Give me Regulation and save me from the ISP man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
Right. Approximately 19% of Americans voted for Trump; approximately 20% voted for Clinton. Neither of them had a majority of votes, let alone a majority of eligible votes, let alone a majority of the entire population.
And even if Trump had had a majority -- so what? The notion that the rights of a minority should be dismissed because of the actions of a majority is absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
That is the VERY intention of democracy and why it should NEVER be allowed to happen and also why the founding fathers did not create America as one and why anyone calling America a democracy is an immediate idiot that just revealed themselves!
No contrast that with the number of people that say "democracy" and are in the news, in the government, in education, and in law enforcement. Beginning to see the problem yet? Gross fucking ignorance and stupidity, that is what!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: when you americans
the founding fathers did not create America as one [a democracy] and why anyone calling America a democracy is an immediate idiot
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers knew semantic shorthand when they heard it. They probably also knew a sophomoric cosplay-pedant when they heard one of those. (BTW - that pizza box won't look like a mortarboard until you paint it black. Get it off your head.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: when you americans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Make doubly sure it's after you contact your representatives, if you're planning on emailing them. After all, you won't be visiting the ol' internet for quite a while once you've 'ended your business with companies that oppose NN'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But that idea is too free market for all of the wimps running around, they would rather have a politician come and save them from themselves instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But that idea is too free market for all of the wimps running around, they would rather have a politician come and save them from themselves instead."
If you stop giving them money, they will actually *gasp* change! Yes you will have to suffer for a time, but that is what it is about.
You guys sure like to have your cakes and to eat them too. You lack the fortitude to work for or deserve a say in the market unless you are willing to suffer for your decisions.
But don't worry, you are instead now going to have to suffer under the decisions someone else has made for you instead now.
Did I mention that either way you are going to suffer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
wtf does that mean?
What have you done Mr Paint Chip Connoisseur ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
wtf does that mean?"
It means EVERYONE that was offended by that statement, that is what! If you were not guilty it would not ruffle your feathers. If have found the people getting bent and twisted over things tend to be the worst offenders of that thing. Sure there are exceptions, but that is why they are called exceptions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The goalpost moving and deflection is a riot, too.
This is very simple: To stop doing business with companies in opposition to net neutrality means ditching one's ISP - the very central opponents of NN, with zero options to switch to one that supports NN (and zero options whatsoever for a significant number of people). So the bizarre apologetic that totally ignores this (and in this conversation no less) followed by further ridiculous and distracting arguments, is a rather poor game. Why not just acknowledge that 1) this is exactly what it means, and 2) it is a generally ridiculous and impossible proposal. Some people can and will (and have) done this, and other things, like quitting driving their own car, or moving off the grid. However, it is literally impossible for enough people to make a difference to stop consuming x until companies change.
As for you, you can always have your cake and it it too. Imaginary, pointless cakes make this possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The subtext was that since it's the ISPs putting up the loudest resistance to net neutrality, to "end your business with companies that oppose NN" is to not have access to the internet.
Which is why this subject is so important. The companies running what amounts to a utility are screaming in resistance to their customers wanting protection from them.
"It'd be a shame if your pretty internet there... stopped working. If you pay a little internet insurance, see, we'll keep that from happening, kapisch?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that is the WRONG way to look at it, is what I am saying. There are other ways, go down to library, find another way, or just make do with nothing, but under all circumstances stop giving the bully your damn lunch money.
---"It'd be a shame if your pretty internet there... stopped working. If you pay a little internet insurance, see, we'll keep that from happening, kapisch?---
From where I am sitting, I am hearing that exact line from the "Pro & Anti" net neutrality sides. I want to be on the side that does not haw the power to put a gun in your face when you don't do what they say, and that side is the painful but still better free market side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right and Wrong.
Racism is wrong, sitting around watching people suffer and doing nothing is wrong.
Sure some wrongs seem more important than another wrong, but at the end of the day, as long as you can classify one wrong as greater or lesser than another, you can reason with yourself to escape responsibility.
In many ways, things are connected. The same "apathy" that allowed racism to begin, is the same "apathy" that allows for people to ask for a "politician" to save them from the big bad business ISP man, instead of getting off of their duffs and collectively damaging the ISP's financially. But you can't be put out, the evil involved is NOT serious enough.
Just like so many others that did nothing when slavery was around... it was just not a very serious evil at the time... but boy it sure was when a black man tried to hang out with a white woman...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything is equal to everything else.
You sound very boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling BS
"Techdirt only exists because of the open internet. When I set it up almost 20 years ago, I didn't have to go and get permission."
Nobody (repeat nobody) will make you ask permission to run a website in the future either. ISPs make their money selling access to the internet, and they will continue to do so. They didn't need net neutrality to do it before, and they won't need it to do it in the future.
The first ISP that starts dropping or blocking websites en mass will be creating the perfect storm for competition. They would make it impossible for any sane politician to protect them or block competition at that point. It would be suicide.
Your point is pure strawman. Nobody is planning to make you ask permission to be on the internet.
Oh and before any goes off, I support the true idea of net neutrality, which could be best achieved by requiring ALL ISPS and all service providers to use their party interchanges. No direct deals, no direct peering, everything through third party peers. Net Neutrality as it stood was a crock, as Netflix, Google, and Facebook have all moved to bypass the internet by setting up their own private peering with ISPs. They don't pay for connectivity, but they give it away for free, and ISPs would be stupid to reject it. It's free bandwidth, and under net neutrality would be perfectly legal and acceptable. To the rich go the best connections, does that seem neutral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling BS
Just like the first ISP to impose data caps faded into oblivion as their subscribers fled en masse to one of the multitude of options in a vibrant and completive marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Calling BS
They don't generally "fade into oblivion"—they compete by dropping caps and/or lowering prices. Where competition exists, less restrictive caps are almost universally touted by some competitor. Compare Google-fiber cities with non-Google cities for example.
People generally do flee to uncapped service when it's an option and not too expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Calling BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling BS
I seem to remember a rule change by the FCC being triggered by an ISP asking Netflix for a payment to provide decent service to Netflis customers, so it is very much about about asking ISPs for access to you audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Calling BS
Netflix is a network hog. in prime rime (6pm to 10om local) it accounts for more than a third of all network traffic for most US ISPs now. It moves hard files on an 1 to 1 basis (1 file, 1 user, no "broadcast" methods available) and it really loads down the network and the peering points.
What the ISPs were asking for was payment to add more peering than they otherwise need without netflix.
Now, with net neutrality, Netflix cannot make such a deal anymore, and they would be subject to whatever limits exist based on what connections the ISP has.
Most important: As the ISPs are often cable companies with programming packages to sell, they have little interest in paying out a whole bunch extra to increase their peering to support Netflix. So they can subtly control how well Netflix can do while at the same time not at all violating the idea of net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling BS
I laughed when I read this, given the state of our current broadband marketplace where there is little to no competition it is amusing to think that shitty ISP behavior will suddenly induce competition. Look at Comcast, universally reviled and yet it faces no real competitive threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calling BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lobbying is best ?
....thought formal voting for our Congressional representatives was the primary & best way ?
does lobbying Congress work much better than the normal citizen voting system ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lobbying is best ?
This will not improve until it takes less than a decent fraction of a million dollars (to buy media access) to get elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: lobbying is best ?
"Unfortunately, the answer to your question is likely yes, IF YOU HAVE MONEY/POWER"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shocked!!!
"So, the fight at the FCC matters, but the end game is Congress."
Well done TD, but I bet you hated echoing the comments of someone that wants to see the FCC destroyed!
I wonder how many "fellow Americans" will take the steps necessary to rid themselves of corruption... not many is my guess, but I sincerely commend you guys for saying it well this time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shocked!!!
That is the way it is, people are corruptible and it will happen.
The only thing you control is your reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shocked!!!
Because of that corrupt that we will never rid ourselves of will exist, we must maintain our voices.
#1. Only use congress to create anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws and that is IT, not a single damn thing else.
#2. Maintain our liberty as a free-market where businesses cannot hide behind "regulations" to protect themselves and create obstacles for us to compete against them.
Yes, #2 is a lot of work, but that is the price of "Liberty"!
Eternal Vigilance.
You can never get a politician to care about your position, you can only get them to care about their status as an elected official in power, therefore, the moment you see your congressional critter participating in corruption or accepting bribed from big business, make it clear that they are not being re-elected. But you do need enough "fellow citizens" to agree with you to accomplish that. But that is why I said...
"I wonder how many "fellow Americans" will take the steps necessary to rid themselves of corruption... not many is my guess, but I sincerely commend you guys for saying it well this time!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shocked!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress Listens!
Remember, Congress absolutely listens! But... you have to speak their language. And their language is the language of money. In order to get them on your side, you need to outbid the other side. So, get out those envelopes, start stuffing them with cash, and sending them to Congress. If you don't speak up, with lots of money, you won't be heard. And that would be your own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress Listens!
It's hard for many, but I don't like either of the parties so it is easy for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As we all saw though the pro SOPA crowd while defeated at that time, still was lurking in the back round working away to get their SOPA like ideas squeaked in thru the back doors.
The anti net neutrality cause is still mired in their SOPA like thinking and Ajit Pai is leading the way to take the FCC into a toothless tiger and willing to screw us all for the almighty dollar and as we all know congressmen and senators will vote the way that the money flows to them in the form of PAC's by lobbyists.
I hope that the pro net neutrality cause heaps some pressure on senators and congressmen to not let net neutrality get gutted and to throw some mud in Pai's face because of how he has already gone out of his way to screw the consumers and stifle competition.
Let's hope that todays outcome will be startling defeat for Pai and the SOPA lovers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have the exact same opinion. Enough people in power/money saw their "power/profits" being threatened by it and said a few words.
I have zero hope for anything "the citizens" do. They are too busy playing political grab-ass to know or notice what the fuck is going on around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you've already seen what a complete and total fuck up it is when wanting to change the way you watch and/or listen to something you've already bought, let alone when wanting to download and copy stuff from the Internet! all because of the way Hollywood, the MPAA and RIAA as well as other sections of the entertainment industry think they are entitled to keep control of everything for 3 generations at least, while at the same time screwing over their own artists! and thanks as well, in part, to the disgraceful rulings of some of the planets most corrupt law professionals!
now imagine not just trying to use the Internet but trying to actually access it! if this prick Pai gets his way and hands the Internet over to the ISPs etc, so they can control it, run it, do what they want and what a few massive industries want, in the ways they want, restricting everyone from doing everything except what they dictate and at prices they dictate, it wont be worth even having it! fight it people or give it up so that only the rich and famous, the corrupt and tyrants have the option and the USA falls so far behind everywhere else, it wont be a leading nation any more!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before but it bears repeating: even if you do believe the fix is in and Pai doesn't care what anybody has to say (and I do believe that), this is about more than Pai, more than Trump, more than the current FCC, more than any FCC. Pai won't be there forever; Trump won't be there forever -- and, even aside from that, if Title II classifications are removed, there are going to be lawsuits.
And yes, ultimately, it's about convincing Congress. And even assuming the Republicans are still in charge for the foreseeable future, they're going to have to face their constituents sooner or later, and net neutrality is not a partisan issue anywhere outside of Capitol Hill. Democrats support net neutrality. Republicans -- the rank-and-file, not the elected officials -- support net neutrality. Independents support net neutrality. We need to make our voices heard. Not just by Pai but by everybody.
And hey, Masnick's right: I was wrong about SOPA going down, I was wrong about TPP going down -- hell, I was wrong about the FCC's fast-lane proposal going down the last time we had this conversation, three years ago. I don't think this is going to sway Pai -- but my track record on these predictions is pretty poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't worry, we noticed Mr. Blue Mountain State.
Let me tell you how this is going to go down.
You are going to lose the Net Neutrality war, for now. I predict that the ISP's will successfully find a way to continue to restrict, throttle, and over charge you no matter what because the only avenue that you believe in for relief is through a politician.
After Trump is out of office we will likely get someone in that is much softer on this issue and will move back to Wheeler vision and institute very similar in results but very different sounding when talked about. They will either directly fuck you (R) or loop hole fuck you (D).
Yes, the loophole fucking is at least with some lube but you are still taking it up the tail pipe.
That is my prediction, just as it is now, and my warning to you guys that Wheeler's Weak attempt is going to backfire into your faces! What a spectacular prediction I made, but you still are not going to listen to me because I am stupid and ignorant according to your standards, no matter how RIGHT I turn out to be. That will be your special curse, watching me predictions that you are going to HATE turn out to be true, while still calling me an idiot. But what does it say about you, and an idiot is able to correctly predict these things, and you are NOT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McAfee Advanced Software Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: McAfee Advanced Software Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: McAfee Advanced Software Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McAfee Advanced Software Support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are there for no other purpose then to destroy net neutrality.
Period.
So we must make their life hell and remove the value of their compensation, and show to those that would think to follow them that these matters do not go overlooked.
Whether by lawsuits or by pestering congress to do the right thing, we have to show them we are more then willing to fight.
It might not be easy, it might not be quick... These are cowards of the highest and sleaziest order, they don't want a fight because though they may have well resourced backers, they themselves are weak and only chose this route because they believed it was an easy fight with the odds in their favor.
Show them how wrong and weak they are.
Bring the fight to them, support any groups that will be suing them, make your elected officials aware that enough is enough and you will do everything you to make this costly to their "careers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's because you haven't paid enough to have your side heard. For the right price, Ajit Pai would become the world's biggest net neutrality lover and figuratively suck your dick while he's at it. But, you have to PAY! Nobody cares what a bunch of deadbeat, socialist, hippie bums want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isnt?
They might give recommendations, but they Only enforce the laws Created.
The problem I SEE, is that those in CHARGE ARE NOT ENFORCING ANYTHING..they are debating, they are Politicking..
WHICH IS NOT HIS/THEIR JOB..
I keep telling people the same thing, TALK, Email, Phone your STATE and FED representatives and congress...THEY MAKE THE LAWS.. and regulations.
And those should be based on the Consensus of the PEOPLE. its the only way LAWS can be enforced.
Good luck people.
There is a LOAD of might HIGH BS being built up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isnt?
The problem is that these same people want it all the easy way out. Figuring out how to get people to sit up and pay attention is very difficult, indeed. I mean, we have already been given the tools to fix the problem but we refuse to use them because... lazy, ignorance, political sycophancy, apathy?
With great power comes great responsibility. But instead we like to piss it all away for conveniences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isnt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isnt?
Without something codified in law, it's all slippery and short term. The victory in creating net neutrality rules is easily lost because the rule was made by a chairman who is long gone. It wasn't the law, just his opinion.
It should be pointed out that had net neutrality actually gone fully into force, it's very likely that one or more ISPs would have taken the whole mess to court and the FCC quite possibly would lose.
If you want change, get your congress critters to pass laws that make sense. Notice Wyden isn't exactly tripping over himself to introduce the Final Universal Net Neutrality (FUNN) act? Even he knows this isn't going to work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that is a problem..
That WE THE PEOPLE dont get the idea, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the idiots we put into office..
Even for Short times, they get enough power, and get a few things DONE for the corps, that they get JOBS in the market that PAY TONS MORE, to represent the Corps..
They NOW have contacts and KNOW the system..
WE PAY THEM..
WE ARE EMPLOYERS..
WE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT THEY GET, including retirement and MEDICAL..
AND..If we did anything similar to what is happening, At a work place..Would you Still be working??
We dont pay enough attention to them, anymore. AND why arnt the newspapers and reporters WATCHING them as hard as we watch Actors??
Because they can PUSH the law enough to BURY YOU IN A HOLE.. And there are a few Interesting laws, about RECORDING AUDIO without permission.. as soon as its shown there was no permission, ANYTHING we get can be destroyed..
So how corrupt can you be?
The Corps DONT CARE..they dont even CARE enough to make goods WORTH buying. And Taxes and JOBS?? nope..make it THERE, send it here, and sell it..and make 10-100 times the profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No government regulation; the ISPs will "self regulate" (hint, they won't), and we know how that will turn out for the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that kind of like like letting pedos police themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congrats: You agree with AT&T and Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congrats: You agree with AT&T and Comcast
Rethink your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faint praise
Question: If AT&T and Comcast are both for the law rather than regulation side, do you think for so much as one second that they hold that position because they believe it's better for the customers, or the companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gambit fails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]