Ajit Pai's Big Lie
from the not-at-all dept
I want to start out this post by making a key point: I know that it's become fashionable to launch into personal and ad hominem attacks on people we disagree with politically of late. We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt, even if we often will criticize people and their positions in stark terms. Over the past few days, however, the ad hominem attacks on FCC chair Ajit Pai by some have been absolutely disgraceful -- and absolutely counterproductive. I disagree with Pai quite a lot (as you'll see below). But the venom and attacks he's received from many are not just unfair and misguided, but only serve to bolster the idea that the people arguing against him are unhinged from reality. I've met Pai a few times and have found him to be both thoughtful and intelligent. I still believe that he is deeply misguided about multiple important issues, but we can debate those issues without resorting to personal attacks. I hope that others will follow suit.
Ever since Ajit Pai became chair of the FCC he's been systematically undoing more or less everything his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, accomplished during his (perhaps surprisingly) effective chairmanship. To do that, Pai has engaged in a series of statements and positions that, at best, have involved misrepresentations of reality. There are a number of these that may be worth exploring, but I want to focus on one that I'll refer to as Ajit Pai's Big Lie, because it's the key argument he's made, underlining his reasoning for chucking out the existing net neutrality rules. Here is the opening paragraph from the FAQ that Pai released last week, setting out his reasoning... and also succinctly presenting Ajit Pai's Big Lie:
Over twenty years ago, President Clinton and a Republican Congress established the policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” For decades, Commission policies encouraged broadband deployment and the development of the Internet. That ended two years ago. In 2015, the Commission imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs). Since then, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a recession in the Internet era. And new services have been delayed or scuttled by a regulatory environment that stifles innovation.
You might think that the "Big Lie" is the idea that the 2015 rules killed investment. And that is a lie. Actual evidence from financial reports has proven that completely false repeatedly. But, that's a smaller lie here. Ajit Pai's Big Lie is the idea that gutting all net neutrality protections is somehow returning FCC policy to the way things were two years ago, and that "for decades" the FCC kept out of this debate. All of that is wrong. And, unlike the other lie concerning investment -- where Pai and others can fiddle with numbers to make his claims look right -- Ajit Pai knows that the Big Lie is false.
Pai likes to point back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as his starting point in claiming that the internet is free from regulations, and suggests that things just changed with the 2015 FCC order. But he literally knows this is wrong. First of all, for all his talk of using 1996 as the starting date to show "decades" of supposedly unchanged FCC positions on this, he conveniently leaves out that the FCC didn't actually classify cable broadband as an information service... until 2002. That's from the FCC's own announcement about it. And this was fought out in court, eventually leading to the Brand X Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that said the FCC had the right to determine if broadband was an information service or a telco service (which is why the 2015 order has been upheld).
And, even then, telco (i.e., DSL) based broadband was still classified under Title II. It was only in 2005 that the FCC officially reclassified telco-based broadband as an information service, rather than a Title II covered telco service. This move actually stripped broadband of the one feature that had created the most competitive markets: the requirement to share their lines.
So, as a starting point, the idea that there's been a consistent policy position from 1996 until 2015 is simply wrong. The FCC itself changed the classification of broadband providers in 2002 and again in 2005.
Next, the idea that "net neutrality" itself is a new concept that only came about with the 2015 order is complete and utter hogwash. And, again, this is something that Pai knows well. If you go back through the previous four FCC chairs -- under both Democrat and Republican administrations -- they all supported net neutrality. They just struggled with how to implement it. In 2004, then FCC chair Michael Powell presented his "guiding principles" for "preserving internet freedom." In that document, Powell laid out an early argument for net neutrality (before the term had really caught on), noting that it was important that broadband providers offer up full access to the entire internet equally.
In that speech, he actually warned of why it would be dangerous for an internet access provider to block a competing VoIP service, and that the FCC "must keep a sharp eye on market practices that will continue to evolve rapidly." And, indeed, a year later, when Powell discovered that a small ISP named Madison River was blocking VoIP calls via Vonage, Powell's FCC fined Madison River using Title II as the justification (the consent decree refers to 47 USC 208, which is part of Title II).
So we had a Republican FCC chair who clearly supported net neutrality and used Title II to make it happen. How the hell can Ajit Pai square this with his claim of no one using Title II or supporting net neutrality until Tom Wheeler's 2015 order?
And we're just getting started. Powell's successor was Kevin Martin -- another Republican under President George W. Bush. Martin also strongly supported net neutrality and, in many ways, kicked off the process that eventually resulted in Wheeler's order. It was under Martin's watch that it was discovered that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent and the FCC issued an order telling Comcast to knock it off. By that point, the FCC had already (see above) made it clear that broadband was not a Title II service, so it relied on other parts of its claimed mandate to issue the order.
That went to court and the court said that the FCC did not have the proper authority to police such a net neutrality violation under the existing rules. The court said that the FCC was trying to stretch its ancillary authority too far -- that even though the FCC wanted to, it could not enforce net neutrality requirements on information services. Basically, the court was telling the FCC it fucked up in reclassifying broadband away from Title II, even as it still believed in the importance of net neutrality (and, yes, again, as a reminder, this was under a Republican FCC).
That's why the next FCC chair, Julius Genachowski, proposed a different set of rules for net neutrality in 2010. However, under tremendous pressure from the broadband providers, Genachowski punted and tried to craft net neutrality rules without reclassifying broadband companies under Title II. Verizon (who helped write the rules) still sued over these new rules... and won. Basically, the court said (again) "Hey, FCC, you clearly want net neutrality, but the only way to do that is to reclassify broadband under Title II."
It was only then, with the next FCC chair, Tom Wheeler, that the FCC actually did so. And that's why Wheeler's Open Internet order has been held up in court already.
But read through all of this carefully, and try to square this with Ajit Pai's Big Lie -- that since 1996, broadband has been treated one way, and there's been no FCC push for net neutrality. The FCC considered broadband covered by Title II for nearly a decade after the Communications Act of 1996, and even as it was reclassifying broadband to be an information service, every single FCC chair expressed strong support for net neutrality and tried to enforce it against those who violated those principles. It was only because the courts pushed back, and noted that if the FCC wanted to enforce net neutrality, broadband needed to be Title II, that the FCC made that switch, supported with both the backing of the court (in those earlier rulings and following the order) and plenty of evidence for why it was necessary.
For Pai to argue that he's trying to bring things back to how they were from 1996 to 2015, he has to ignore all of that history. He's not taking us back to that era. He's doing something worse. He's wiping out the rules that courts said were necessary to enforce the FCC's long-held position on net neutrality. And, more importantly, he's reversed course on the FCC's long-held position on net neutrality.
And he's doing so with his Big Lie that he's merely reverting back to where things used to be.
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: ajit pai, broadband, fcc, history, julius genachowski, kevin martin, lies, michael powell, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler
Companies: comcast, madison river, verizon, vonage
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Also Mike: Pai is a liar! A big liar! He's lying!
So childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The technicality of falsehood.
It may be that rather Anonymous Coward is suggesting Mr. Pai is under the thrall of misinformation, spurious logic and an unwillingness to actually do his job and research the snot out of the situation before making policy that actually serves the public, instead being willfully deceptive thanks to sweet, sweet incentives (and bribery) by corporate interests.
Lying only covers the latter, where sheer incompetence covers the former.
The thing is Techdirt has long established that Pai is well, well in love with Verizon and Comcast and believes they are trustworthy and can do no wrong. Whether that is due to the thrall of hard cash, sweet drugs, future employment or vampire powers has yet to be specifically determined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because while the flagged comment is an ad him/personal attack('So childish'), saying that Pai is lying and backing that up with evidence to show that he is is not.
There's nothing 'hypocritical' in saying that people shouldn't be personally attacking someone and pointing out that someone is lying. Had Mike simply said 'Pai is a liar and as such you shouldn't believe anything he says' after chiding people for personal attacks that might have been hypocritical as it would have been an accusation/insult without basis, but saying that he's lying on a particular subject and backing that up with evidence to support it is notably different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So he is eloquent and impressive, in the way that an elephant fart is more impressive than one of a house fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet... he still takes the positions he does.
Hate warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A person can be thoughtful and intelligent and still be bought off.
If I were in his position I would do the same. You want to be a hero to a bunch of people that would sacrifice you in an instant go ahead, be our guest. You can either get the the momentary adoration of the public or you can get cold hard cash selling a bunch of ungrateful idiots out.
I will take the cash, every time! no one has any reason to do the right thing when when all we are going to do is shit on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hate warranted.
"I will take the cash, every time!"
Thats you and thank our lucky stars not everyone has that twisted point of view. I was brought up to do the right thing... because it's the right thing to do. I sleep well at night with my life's decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hate warranted."
I agree with that if that was the intent but your words did not imply it.
"Thats you and thank our lucky stars not everyone has that twisted point of view."
MOST have that point of view and almost ALL politicians. You know it, which is why you don't share your account and private information with random people you are not forced to share them with to participate in the economy.
"I was brought up to do the right thing... because it's the right thing to do. I sleep well at night with my life's decisions."
So was I, but I do not waste time giving my time and efforts to those that do not deserve it either. You think the same way as well... unless I am mistaken and you spend a lot of time defending pedophiles, rapists, and murderers... just in case they are innocent.
I can assure you that you are no more special than Pai in this regard. If you were in his position you would find a way to "work it out in favor" of the constituents that helped get you into power. One thing I can count on with the TD crowd here is that most are hypocrites about these sorts of things. Most of the complaints here support Big monopolistic business while claiming to be against them!
It is more believable that you are just jealous of him getting all this $$$ for selling the citizens out. And the best way to show it, is to make him look so evil no one else see's your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too bad you decided to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So was I, means I was brought up to do the right thing too. It does not mean what I consider to be the right thing is the SAME as what you consider to be the right thing.
Without a higher authority at play, what is right for you is wrong for another. You an stand anywhere at any time and claim what is right... but the only thing that does matter is your ability to "make right through might". Those with the power to enforce their will are the ones that are right. Rule of the jungle 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if I understand you correctly.
Your morals allow you to take bribes since people will hate you either way?
Don't have a problem with that but if you are in a non elected public position you are likely not going to get praise for doing a great job. If people are hating you, most likely your are doing something wrong. So really the only two options are either being ignored or hated. If you don't like either of those options, then maybe look at doing something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about more like the "right" thing being what is morally and ethically "right."
Hope that cleared it up for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
except for a few things, even though I am not a Lawyer, there are some OBVIOUS 1st amendment issues alone. Namely Freedom of Speech, but more importantly Freedom of the Press.
A regulatory agency, should be doing that, regulating the industries that they are in charge of regulating. Removing those regulations defeats the purpose of actually HAVING that regulatory agency, in this case, the FCC. That is why it is called the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, not the "Let's let the communications corporations do what the fuck they want commission".
IF these rules pass, you can bet that they can, and will, be used against those constituents, and then they will cry foul on the rules that they themselves wanted implemented.
I am also of the thought group that content carriers cannot be content providers. It is a Vertical Integration problem. In other words, a few companies are controlling the entire supply chain. From production of content, to distribution of content, to carrying said content. An analogy would be if UP or BNSF owned several coal and iron mines, some steel mills, AND the rail lines. Obviously there are a lot of anti-trust laws that it would be breaking, but here we are with the internet industry in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say they are obvious, what 1st amendment rights are suppressed by the FCC getting rid of NN?
"A regulatory agency, should be doing that, regulating the industries that they are in charge of regulating."
Actually according to the Constitution, agencies only have the power to enforce regulations, only congress is allowed to regulate.
"Removing those regulations defeats the purpose of actually HAVING that regulatory agency, in this case, the FCC."
those regulations.... well which ones... there are a large number of them on the books. NN is not the only laws the FCC has on the books.
"That is why it is called the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, not the "Let's let the communications corporations do what the fuck they want commission"."
Well history would like a word with you because it disgree's. Regulatory capture has been warned about long enough to make it an egg of everyone's faces that support the type of regulation that is NN. But the game of the day is to erroneously blame a non-existent free-market for the failures of regulation. There is a political reason for this as well, but goes beyond the scope of this response.
"IF these rules pass, you can bet that they can, and will, be used against those constituents, and then they will cry foul on the rules that they themselves wanted implemented."
This requires clarification. Which rules against which constituents?
"I am also of the thought group that content carriers cannot be content providers."
I am as well, but those are just anti-monopoly and anti-trust regulations which I do support. The problem is many like you have spent so much time fighting against the likes of me you will never get it. If we do regulation is needs to be of this kind only, otherwise you are going to get capture at some level.
"Obviously there are a lot of anti-trust laws that it would be breaking,"
The root problem... anti-trust laws are already being broken, but since no one cares about those they are ignored to the point where it does not matter that they exist or not... kinda like how much the constitution matters when a cops decides it does not in the heat of the moment and takes your property, arrests you for resisting arrest, and makes up laws you just broke on the spot.
How about we fix that shit first instead of creating more rules for them to fuck up and NOT enforce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I.T. Guy: I was brought up to do the right thing
Anonymous Coward: So was I, but I do not waste time giving my time and efforts to those that do not deserve it either.
And that is how our commons, one by one, fall to ruin.
When enough of us lose faith in the community, then it fails and the tigers make short work of us.
And they will this time too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep up the delusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the ISP service is classified as a telecommunications service, they are not allowed to decide which sites you use, but if they are classified as infomation services they can obviously control what infomation they allow over their networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is regulating content plain and simple, so you are either grossly ignorant or lying.
"It is about preventing the ISP's from taking over the Internet, and controlling what sites you can visit and for how much, so that they can turn the Internet into cable T.V. version 2."
In other words, regulating content.
"If the ISP service is classified as a telecommunications service, they are not allowed to decide which sites you use, but if they are classified as infomation services they can obviously control what infomation they allow over their networks."
They already do control what information they allow over their networks and will not change with NN either. Zero Rating is still possible and all the tricks they have been using to throttle things were in place before NN was conceived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is regulating content plain and simple, so you are either grossly ignorant or lying.
See if you can spot the difference between the following:
1) 'You will treat traffic/content differently based upon what it is, whether that be preferential treatment for the content we tell you is good, or negative treatment for content we tell you is bad.'
2) 'You will not treat certain traffic/content differently, and are instead required to treat all traffic/content equally, with no preferential or detrimental treatment based upon what the content is or who's offering it.'
Figure out the difference between those two and you'll be able to understand why telling the telecom companies not to 'regulate content' by treating some of it better or worse is not the government regulating the traffic/content itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you need to figure it out.
Government telling someone that they what they can or cannot do is regulation. The subject is content, government telling ISP what they cannot do with content... ergo content regulation. Just because this regulation is intended to have a net positive effect for consumers does not mean it is magically NOT content regulation just because you want it to sound that way. Words have meaning in the English language... use and understand them properly or you will become easy to fool and trick by word play.
Here is the definition for your edification.
reg·u·la·tion
ˌreɡ(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: regulation; plural noun: regulations
1.
a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority.
"planning regulations"
synonyms: rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept
"they obey all the regulations"
in accordance with regulations; of the correct type.
modifier noun: regulation
"regulation army footwear"
synonyms: official, prescribed, set, fixed, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory, de rigueur
"regulation dress"
antonyms: unofficial
informal
of a familiar or predictable type; formulaic; standardized.
"a regulation Western parody"
2.
the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
TLDR: a rule regulating what ISP "cannot" do with content is STILL content regulation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why can't you just accept that I am right? Is it so important that you twist and yoink what things mean to avoid having to say... okay... you are right... this is content regulation, but the regulation we want because it benefits us consumers!
Honesty is a good policy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it's regulation. Yes, it's about content. But no, it's not about regulating content, it's about regulating that content may not be interfered with. Calling this content regulation is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you are unhappy that the government tells the phone companies that they cannot decide who you can phone?
Sometimes when a company is in a position to control what other companies you do business with, and especially when some of those businesses are in competition with another part of their business, regulation of how the treat connections to those other businesses is required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am okay with that... but lets not twist what it means.
I am okay with regulations the "benefit" the consumers. I am just not okay with regulations that "benefit" the businesses against consumers... which NN also has in the vein of Zero Rating.
You are not going to get NN without a little poison in the mix, and because the problem is NOT with NN it is with the FCC blessing and securing monopolies we have bigger fish to fry, but instead here we are getting tricked by the Telco's to focus on NN when they still get to keep their monopolies! They CANT LOSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you seem hell-bent on making sure things get even worse for no other reason that "Regulations is a bad word! WARRABRGARBLE!"
Either you're a liar or a twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to advance the cause of NN, stop lying first, everyone else will begin to think that you have ulterior motives when you feel the need to lie to advance your cause!
What are you hiding?
[ 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: Re:
If you are gleeful about being lame, don't let me stop ya champ! I am sure you are going on to bigger and better things!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Goodness, a dictionary definition?! Alas, you have totally slain me with your amazing citation to the definition of 'regulation', and your masterful argument as to why telling the telecom companies not to regulate content is absolutely the same thing as the government regulating the content itself was a brilliant example of logic rarely seen on this site or any other.
Truly, your superb argument has bested me and shown me the error of my ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It helps if you try to stick to the facts instead of feelings about things.
next time I will "try" to cut you some slack if you really want to be that wrong about things.... but no promises!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Note so self: Sarcasm does not work on The Chosen One.)
Well, try not to pat yourself on the back for your amazing 'win' too much, don't want you to strain a muscle and be unable to boast about how you are totally right due to everyone around you being just so wrong on everything because you said they were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulations
Answer me this, Anonymous Coward...
Regulations are bad because...?
Last I checked I like clean meat and smooth AC current without surges and brown outs. I get those because of regulation.
How is net neutrality different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulations
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Sedserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And therefore they are responsible for it ... they are not going to like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So really, that was just a dumb thing to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
RE: ""regulate" the media as utility."
You are correct, that is a stupid thing to say. Perhaps that is why the poster to which you responded did not say that.
The media (many sources of information for you to choose from in a variety of ways) is not the same as the internet (one system providing access to many sources of information, some of which might be media, available via a very limited set of monopolies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet that analogy is closer to NN than what he DID say. Do you get the point, yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we increase the restrictions by 1 but it prevents a bunch of other harmful/terrible restrictions the ISPs would like to implement. This restriction prevents ISPs from creating restriction on which sites you get to see, which sites are fast, which sites cost extra. ONE restriction to prevent 3 just off the top of my head. Tell me how that trade off isn't a good deal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The further shame is that after the people in the US who are afraid of their own government have finally agreed to sign their vital infrastructure over to private corporate interests, it will take an actual government takeover to return your rights and freedoms back to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesson still not learned. I have my political deck of cards to use and use them I shall. No matter who they are, once they say something I disagree with my only job is is to twist, misrepresent, or lie about their position as much as I possibly can. Or call them troll, comrade, names, or act self-righteous while complaining about their self-righteousness.
De-Legitimize, De-humanize, and Insulting the competition is job #1!
Signed
~Democrats & Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way I see forward is to take ALL the money out of campaigns. Each candidate gets (let's say) $1M, period. And they have to spend it on campaigning PERSONALLY. No help, no company support, no ads by ANYONE else other than the candidate. The only thing a third party can organize is a debate among candidates that is open to EVERY candidate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well said! Could not agree more. I am independent but the first thing many people here at TD tries to do is put me in one of the parties and do just what you say when I post something they disagree with.
"The only way I see forward is to take ALL the money out of campaigns."
I don't believe it is possible to take money out of the campaigns. They will always have a way to make money a major component because everyone wants it.
The root problem will remain the same eternal one...
Eternal Vigilance
The voters must remain eternally vigilant against corruption in their governments, and since we mostly approve of corruption so long as it gets us what we politically want, we invite corruption through the front door. Both parties use corruption to get things done and their voters applaud them for it.
Once voters decide that they will no longer vote a person that corrupt back into office the tides will begin to change... but NEVER before then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What 'election'?
My wife and i have run poling precincts for decades.
In November 2016, She was a Clerk at a multiple precinct within USC, i was Inspector at two precincts in Compton.
20% of the people who walked in to vote were not on my paperwork, and were forced to use a 'Provisional' ballot.
80% of the students and staff who showed up at her precincts were forced onto a 'Provisional' ballot.
She got up and walked away after 11 hours of such crap, forgoing her paycheck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your use of the word "we" seems a bit presumptuous.
"Once voters decide that they will no longer vote a person that corrupt "
And how will these voters know about this corruption when the fake media has been silenced?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughtful and Intelligent
I'm sorry isn't this like calling Trump thoughtful and intelligent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
Something tells me you don't understand the difference between thoughtful and intelligent and people able to trick you stupid.
You have to be thoughtful and intelligent to be able to constantly trick people into supporting you. Goes with the job of "politician".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
ROFL. You got me there. Funny stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
How thoughtful and/or intelligent they are means absolutely nothing. They're all (or a sufficiently large percentage of them to justify using the word "all", it's a rounding error) corrupt through and through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
Trump was as obvious to me as Obama and Bush were. The breath of fresh air is the bluntness. Bush and Obama spend a lot of time figuring out ways to tell people to go fuck themselves and leaving them still wanting to shake their hands.
"How thoughtful and/or intelligent they are means absolutely nothing."
It does have meaning, just because you choose to disregard them does not mute them effects on things.
"They're all (or a sufficiently large percentage of them to justify using the word "all", it's a rounding error) corrupt through and through."
Agree, the problem is that far too many of the voters appreciate that corruption when it serves their politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thoughtful and Intelligent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughtful
Too bad the FCC won't bother reading this since it isn't a [Serious Legal Claim]... (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16689838/fcc-net-neutrality-comments-were-largely-ignored)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thoughtful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has to be said tho, that they don't seem to care about this, I included links to the FCC orders in my comments (both original comment and comment-reply) and there's zero interest in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To make it about the man instead of the rules, makes it easier to be dismissed. People should have expected this & planned accordingly. After being called out about fake letters in peoples names & the names of the dead who didn't send any comment... he shared the handful of letters with racist comments.
Giving them more ammo to distract with is harmful & no amount of hateful glee in your heart is worth it here.
What they are doing is harmful & does nothing to benefit the public despite promises from corporations who gleefully tell you the price is $99 but your first bill comes and its $299 with extra charges they never mentioned.
Don't add to the distraction.
Call him out for being a sell out.
Call him out for lying about history.
Call him out for putting corporations wishes above public good.
Shelve the racist BS & ordering pizzas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To win elections, better would be to have the kind of "big tent" the GOP has, where poor bible thumpers vote in alignment with rich oligarchs for fuck-knows-what shared goals. But they align and accept their allies' flaws, like, I dunno, pedophilia, as they pull the lever.
So, that said, I want to vote for the "least worst" option, every time. Because that actually matters. And I am willing to align with people with very different views on an issue-by-issue basis to make coalitions to get the policy wins I seek.
But there are some groups with whom I would never align. Nazis and pedophiles are in this category. This used to be obvious, but there you go. A big tent can be too big, too. Gotta leave some scum out in the sun to dry up.
Fuck the racism lobbed against Pai. It's cruel, wrong, and counter productive all at once. Folks, if you want to get angry at Pai, or you want to shout him down, there are readily available valid concerns one could address. It's not hard to find something to get angry about which is policy-based.
That said, Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan issue, it's The People versus the Oligopolists. There are just three categories of interested people: The sellouts, those rightly against, and those duped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How bad will the demise of NN be? I think somewhat less than people here think, much like Trump becoming president. I mean, really think about it, what has Trump done?
But I digress, if NN goes out, doesn't that just encourage Google Fiber and other initiatives? We will survive and there really is no need for the hysterics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AT&T & Comcast were dragging their feet to try and piss off Google Fiber, it should not take more than 6 months to prepare a pole for another line, but that was the min time they were doing it in.
We won't survive, the incumbents were handed control over a majority of the poles, so they can make sure no one can run new lines for their service offering. They have legal deals locking residents into just 1 service, even if they managed to have 15 providers... the buildings locked into a multi-decade contract saying you only get provider X. You are captive income & they can raise prices as much as they want because what is your other choice?
NN just makes them treat all the packets the same & not slow down other services to make theirs look better.
The line is run, the bandwidth is paid for, but trying to keep people from using more is a stupid game. Bandwidth costs are very low, but because they have underprovisioned their network they have to make everyone use less.
Look at the games they play, one of the providers refused to pay for another connection to Level 3 & yelled and screamed that it was Level 3 that was at fault... until Level 3 showed the switch running at 100% for the single connection they had. They want us to think it would be billions to make another connection, it wasn't because after they were called out... they made another connection.
We offer GIG service!!! But your data limit is 150GB a month, extra costs you $50 for another 10. It doesn't cost them $50 to get another 10GB, but they like making more money where they can and convince people the companies zero-rated service is much better. Oh our meter is often wrong, but there is no government oversight of it so suck it up and pay. The website might show you have access to 3 providers but 1 isn't in your state and the other one wants you to pay them $10K to run the line.
The government has given the big providers monopolies & passed laws keeping them the only game in town... NN being in or out won't change that. NN just keeps them from saying you need to pay an extra $5 a month to access FB, another $5 for Twitter, $15 to access Gmail.
We have no competition in the markets, if NN goes away... they can and will break the entire net into ala-carte pieces to get a few more coins from the same shitty service offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
30% of households have 0 broadband providers available
48% have one provider
19% have two
3% have 3+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're against murdering babies you'll have a problem with rolling back the entitlement programs that didn't make mothers-to-be choose between feeding the kids she has and caring for a newborn. You'd be mad as hell about attempts to frame healthcare as a partisan issue in which only the rich deserve it because they can afford it; poor foetus-carriers can't afford healthcare. And I'm sure you'd also agree that letting foetus-carriers die in childbirth or from complications in pregnancy is also unacceptable.
You do agree with me on the above, don't you? Or are you merely of the "Sex must have a consequence," AKA "Wimmin be ho's" persuasion?
If there's anything I can't abide it's a sanctimonious hypocrite. I sure hope you're not one of those. We've got more than enough as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So do you think that people should not take responsibility for their actions? Sex shouldn't have a consequence? Hey, I like that, I can be loose with guns and if someone gets shot, lets blame the manufacturer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Maybe having multiple kids from multiple fathers out of wedlock isn't all that great an idea."
...and all people who ask for an abortion are doing that? No rape victims? No victims of incest? Nobody making the decision on purely medical grounds? Nobody facing single parenthood due to a death or other misfortune that didn't exist when they decided to have children? Hell, nobody who's had a child from a previous marriage, or doesn't wish to get married is worth your time if they fall on hard times?
That's the problem when you go for moronic oversimplifcation. You miss out on the complexities of reality - and when you do that, people suffer.
If you actually want to avoid abortions and suffering, you provide help for those who need it despite bad choices - the main people who will suffer are the children, not the brood mares you fantasise about being the only recipients. Provide comprehensive sex education, contraception, accessible medical care and adoption services along with help for those who struggle to care for their children and you'll stop damaging and abusing children.
If not, you support policies that actively attack children because you disapprove of who their parents are. Thus, the cycle continues. That's the problem with people like you - you pretend to be superior because you oppose "murdering babies", even though it's scientifically nothing of the sort, yet you demand that the children who are born suffer needlessly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we made it legal for everyone that faced those few and far between issues but banned it for everyone else, would you accept that?
I didn't think so, you just build a straw man on less than 5% of the cases to justify it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I argue that banning abortion outright leads to unintended consequences, while providing support, education and other services actually help prevent the need for abortion in the first place. Mine is an overall argument, a common one which is that abortion should be rare, but that it is a necessary but undesirable need in some cases, illegal abortions still happen even with outright bans, and the other fixes have the benefit of helping those children who have already born.
You, on the other hand are apparently arguing that it should be completely outlawed despite those horrific consequence, as you've convinced yourself that the only people wishing to do so are unmarried whores, and you apparently pay no mind to the children who have been born already to such mothers.
"I didn't think so, you just build a straw man on less than 5% of the cases to justify it all."
I await your obviously impeccable evidence for this figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where in any of my posts have I mentioned anything of the sort? Why do you deserve evidence when you provide none yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here:
"Maybe having multiple kids from multiple fathers out of wedlock isn't all that great an idea."
Why jump to that cliche rather than the needs of rape victims, women with serious medical conditions, even the needs of the existing children, if not because you think they're the more numerous/important group to consider?
"Why do you deserve evidence when you provide none yourself?"
Because you're the one pulling figures out of your ass, I just want you to back them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rape victims, maybe, medical conditions, of course, all others? No. Would you agree with that? Make it legal for those cases, illegal for other cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see why not. I've seen plenty of abusive relationships and children with unhappy childhoods where the parents have been married for decades. I've seen plenty of happy children of single parents, people who have remarried and even gay couples.
Why are you so obsessed with it as necessary?
"Make it legal for those cases, illegal for other cases?"
I'd rather make the necessary social and legal measures to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Outlawing abortions doesn't prevent them, but education, access to medical care and other services vastly reduce the need for them, while also improving life for others who share the same society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is the problem when talking about abortion. One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't. There are cases where it becomes necessary, but convenience isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is where I call bullshit, sorry.
"One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't."
There are times where an abortion is necessary to prevent killing a living person. But, what I find strange is that the people against abortions are also usually against the medical and societal methods of preventing the pregnancy in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.
Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.
[citation needed]
Marriage has become such a poisonous institution more and more families are choosing to avoid it except specifically when there are government benefits for it. The younger generations are now choosing to not get married.
Of course, may people would avoid having kids altogether if we allowed them full access to contraception, several of which are legal in the EU, but not here, thanks to religious groups lobbying to delay their approval by the FDA.
One side believes that you are killing a living person. The other side doesn't.
One side doesn't know what living is. Curiously, there's a solution in development in the form of ectogenesis. We have a nearly perfect artificial womb, and between that, and a fast, cheap transfer process we could separate any zygote from the mother early on.
Moreover, we'd be able to save some alleged lives considering the more than 50% that fail to implant or miscarry (about which the pro-life movement gives zero fucks). However many, many of them would not succeed in eventually becoming an infant, because some fertilized eggs are just not viable.
Curiously, the artificial womb technology has gotten zero support from the religious sector and the pro-life activism sector. It seems super-important to them to make mothers suffer the woes of pregnancy, more so than it is to preserve the lives of children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.
In some ways, it always has been. It's been something that's been used for great joy, of course, but on the dark side it's been used as a tool to trap unwilling spouses and trap children in toxic environments. Had a one night stand that resulted in pregnancy? Sorry, you're now tied to that guy for life, even as he rapes and beats both you and your children.
Such cases are thankfully rare compared to the relatively happy ones, of course, but this guy thinks it's necessary because obviously it's better than an unmarried couple or a loving couple with kids from previous relationships, for some deluded reason.
"It seems super-important to them to make mothers suffer the woes of pregnancy, more so than it is to preserve the lives of children."
This guy appears to be that kind of person. He's already stated that women should be forced to carry babies as a form of punishment. It seems he carries this to the extreme - once pregnant, a woman's life is forfeit, she is now nothing but a brood mare and meaningless compared to the future child.
Until it's born, of course, then it's nothing but a welfare leech who also deserves to be punished for being born to a single women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Having kids out of wedlock destroys society, that is why.
Maybe the idea is to not have kids because you had a one night stand. Are condoms too much to ask for? They are not hard to get. Colleges give them out for free.
I have no problem with loving couples (married or not) having kids or step kids, but you fucking want to ignore all the single moms and their kids that never know their fathers. Well, you reap what you sow. No wonder so many people are fucked up today, it is attitudes like yours that foster that.
Your attitudes on children are the reason things are fucked up. You consider babies a form of punishment and a leach on society. Your attitudes are truly fucked up and misguided.
People wonder why kids suicide rates are going up. Sure, have sex, don't care about kids, let someone else raise them. Well, stop complaining about how fucked up society is then, because you are the reason it is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Catholic church is against abortion. They also run hospitals, run schools, provide soup kitchens and other social services.
People who donate to the church provide the funds for this, so what do you do for those people? Anything beyond lip service?
You don't care about any of that stuff, you just don't want to be inconvenienced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry your points depend on simplistic lies rather than facing complex reality. People like you are the ones destroying society, not those who try to prevent the suffering that you people cause.
"The Catholic church is against abortion. They also run hospitals, run schools, provide soup kitchens and other social services."
They have also been responsible for vast suffering among those children who have been born for centuries in various ways. Not just the pedo stuff either. Sorry, that's an extremely poor example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't really all that complex, kids do better with parents, families do better with two parents. Doesn't matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, two women, but kids with single parents don't do as well. That is a fact.
You can rail all you want about it, but you are actually wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm dealing with today's problem. Using solutions that are shown to work, not depending on whether people have sat through an expensive fake ceremony to sign a piece of paper that only lasts a few months for some of them anyway (or alternatively may trap a person in an abusive relationship if it is taken seriously).
"kids with single parents don't do as well"
Due partly to the attitude from people like you, frankly. You'd rather punish them for daring to be a single parent than provide the social and financial support they need to do the work of two people, even if they're in the situation through no direct fault of their own. I personally know 2 women who were widowed in their 30s, and I'd take either of them as parents over and above some of the deadbeats and abusive assholes I've seen wearing a ring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In general, kids are better off with two parents. You can deny that, but you would of course be wrong.
The greater good of society. That is what we should look for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a major issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whereas you agrgue despicable views that apparently revolve around a subset of women and children of society suffering needlessly.
"In general, kids are better off with two parents. "
This is true. I will, however note that you are expertly moving the goalposts. This little thread started with you opposing abortion so that women bear some consequences for daring to have sex, now it's just about a stable family unit. Interesting.
There are several things to note here. The first is that you seem to have it in your little head that marriage is somehow required for a two parent family. It is not. So, a hole blown in your little lie straight away.
The second is that two parent families are not as stable as your sitcom fantasy would have you believe. Women are trapped in loveless, abusive marriages all the time, especially when kinds are involved. Hell, in your romantic past, it was often legal for husbands to outright rape their wives. That creates toxic environments where not only are the children and spouses abused, but they carry this on to the next generation. This has a cost to society, both in terms of the number of unwanted, abused children who then become criminals, etc., bt in the inevitable loss to potentially productive members of society who don't contribute due to their issues.
The third is that families are often split up through no fault of their own. While the nuclear family might be preferable, that's no reason to punish those who get out of that without choice.
"You argue individual cases instead of looking at the whole."
Yep. Which is why I support real solutions, not the fantasies you believe will work so long as women can return to being subjugated.
"The greater good of society. That is what we should look for."
Indeed. The greater good of society is not to have a subclass shunned and abused because they
But, you'd prefer they suffer and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oops, fat fingers...
Indeed. The greater good of society is not to have a subclass shunned and abused because they dared not conform to a specific norm, but to aid those who have been dealt bad cards.
But, you'd prefer they suffer and rot, because they dared to have sex out of wedlock, or some such crap. Sorry, I'm not an asshole so I won't agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Catholic Church
They run hospitals, but only for those people that they like, and will reject people for moral reasons. Despite Francis' suggestions of a more modern, liberal church, the CDF (that's the Holy Inquisition in modern form) still enforces that control of sexuality (the oppression of women, the exclusion of LGBTQ) is of higher priority than their alleged wars on poverty and hunger. The CDF went and trashed the LCWR for failing to conform to that priority list.
The same thing with schools, soup kitchens and other social services which are often ones the Church financed with caveats to serve only according to Church doctrine. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. No salvation outside the Church, and no services to those outside either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
Children are a punishment for sex, then?
So it's not about murdering babies, it's about making families suffer for their prurience without a license.
I don't have to ask, then, why no love for ectogenesis, robust public education, and publicly provided healthcare and welfare for mothers and children.
I don't have to ask about our current system that funnels lower-class kids, especially minorities and marginalized groups into prisons, often by police hunting for warm bodies easy to convict.
I don't have to ask about drone strikes, which are used to annihilate villages, including exactly as many kids as you'd expect. (We call them fun-sized terrorists. Cool, huh?)
You're not interested in the health and welfare of children, or infants, or fetuses. You want to see women suffer for being sexually active.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
It's absolutely disgusting and evil, but these people somehow convince themselves they're on the side of moral good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
I've been married since 2005 and we're perfectly happy.
The takeaway: Marriage is only as good as the people involved. If both parties are committed to a happy, healthy union of equals it'll be rock solid till death they do part. It's when marriage is about one party dominating and controlling the other, or for convenience, or for any other reason than "a healthy union of equals" that it fails.
Our society promotes sexual pleasure as a right and a rite of passage; basically you're not considered a grown-up till you've Done It. In certain societies this results in early, rushed marriages as young people get married so they can have sex, then rue the day as they realise that marriage means living with the person you married every day even if you've just realised you don't like your partner much. In my opinion we should be promoting healthy relationships as the be all and end all. This in turn would lead to healthy marriages which would raise its status in our society.
Pleasure results from feeling comfortable with your partner, so that would of course follow.
FYI AC, most abortion seekers are married.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majori ty_of_women_who_ter.html
The takeaway: caring about born people does more to protect the unborn than attempting to ban women from having unapproved sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
You would disagree and say I have no heart. I say your methods just don't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
I got married, remember.
As for affirmative action, America has a racism and sexism problem. If you don't make people think about their hiring choices, how do you overcome that?
Views on society don't cause social problems, hypocrisy, attempting to control others, and bad attitudes and behaviour do.
Basically, hoe your own row, do the right thing, and try to make the world around you a little better, if you can. That's what I do and it works for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
She told me that schools have different requirements for MCATS (standardized tests to get into US Medical schools.) I never knew that schools require Asian boys have to score higher than anyone else to get into med school. I forget the exact rankings, but blacks get into med school with much lower scores. That is affirmative action.
I never questioned the qualifications of black doctors before, but now that I know they are given breaks, should I? If I were black, isn't that being told that you don't have to do as well because we don't expect as much from you? How can they ever have confidence that they are as good when the system tells them they are not in fact as good and don't have to be?
In terms of sexism, I agree, but all we have to do is uphold the law. People have the same job, you better pay them the same.
I do hoe my own row, but we should make sure public policy encourages good attitudes and behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sex shouldn't have a consequence?
I never questioned the qualifications of black doctors before, but now that I know they are given breaks, should I? If I were black, isn't that being told that you don't have to do as well because we don't expect as much from you? How can they ever have confidence that they are as good when the system tells them they are not in fact as good and don't have to be?**
Okay, that's scary. I need as much information as you can provide on that; I always thought it was about levelling the playing field by giving disadvantaged kids a shot at a decent education, etc.
**In terms of sexism, I agree, but all we have to do is uphold the law. People have the same job, you better pay them the same.**
Yeah, but that doesn't always happen. It should but it doesn't.
**I do hoe my own row, but we should make sure public policy encourages good attitudes and behavior.**
Agreed, but I think we differ on which public policies actually encourage good attitudes and behaviour. I've seen that coercive or discriminatory policies tend to have the opposite effect. Attempting to control behaviour and attitudes doesn't work. If it did, we'd have better behaviour and attitudes, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Derek Kerton liberals and leftists don't have anyone they can vote for in the election. The Democrats are to the right of center, and we liberals (you know, who believe in liberty) have to make do with whatever the slightly-less-right group throws at us.
There isn't a no drone strikes candidate.
There isn't a robust public domain candidate.
There isn't an internet serves the public candidate.
This is an indication not that we're unwilling to compromise, but of failure of government
In the case of the FCC, this is a textbook case of regulatory capture in which the regulatory agency has ceased serving the public interest and is blatantly serving the interests of stakeholders in an industry it's supposed to regulate.
We know how to fix this: change from FPTP and wait a century as new parties form. But our current parties are invested in making sure the people get as few options as possible.
So there isn't an electoral reform candidate either.
And there won't be until the people crack out the guillotines and execute a million Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/come-revolution-good-luck-with-that.html
The revolution has happened and we lost. Just as they won via the electoral process, we could win if we organised and got the numbers. I know the game is rigged but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You know what causes this kind of failure? That all-American dread of collectivism. Learn to work together with other people even if you disagree with them. Set small goals and work towards them one at a time till you've got what you want. If you could get same-sex marriage you can get this.
And will somebody PLEASE take responsibility for the new "via democratic process" revolution instead of waiting for some messianic figure to come forth riding on the clouds? Ain't. Gonna. Happen. No new party, no new leader. You're going to have to step up to the plate and slog it out door to door till you've got enough votes to make a difference. Aim for the lower-level offices first, then work your way up. If it means you caucus with a larger party for now, do it.
I'm in the UK, there's sod all I can do but I do what I can, and trying to influence people is one of them. Sometimes it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that is the foundation of political parties and corruption of the system. That is the eternal dilemma, to control the power seekers requires organization, and that provides the structure for the power seekers to use for their own ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However - recently this has started to get more difficult due to better and faster communication amongst the proles (wage slaves) so they seem to be attacking from several vectors in a meager attempt to put the genie back in the bottle. They are failing miserably and this is pissing them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Friends of mine have spent 25 years building the 'Green Party Of California' brand until last year, after the Democratic primary, we got steamrolled. Nothing left but the name:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
I don't. Revolts either fail, and the incumbent power purges them, and then purges anyone they can suspect (tens of thousands to millions), or they succeed, in which case the incumbent government is purged. And then the supporting classes. And then anyone else unpopular (tens of thousands to millions).
Once we get into a mass executing mood, it doesn't stop until we have a Robespierre moment.
But here's the thing.
Climate change, whether it's ideologically agreeable or not, is going to fuck us all. We're out of time.
We have about twenty years, forty at best, before we go into a massive food crisis. Our kids and their kids will get the choice of dying by famine, dying in conflict fighting over food, or dying when the plagues come. (Nowadays, we rely on a robust centralized disease control sector to manage them, and they do pretty well so long as we continue to supply them.) Civilization is going to fall apart, probably in our lifetimes. If we're lucky it might only constrict in population size, but with that we're going to lose a lot of logistic vectors and infrastructure.
That is going to be the defining event in the lives of our kids, and their kids. Depending on how soon we act will determine how many kids there are after that, if any.
So we don't have time for the slow, plodding methods of progressivist reform, especially with conservative resistance.
So really, we're just SOL.
To be fair, some kind of amazing agri-tech might delay or even stave off such a crisis, we may by some miracle of human cooperation actually cut our emissions enough to prevent things from getting worse. The thing is climate change inertia is still going to drive us beyond the T+2° line. That alone is going to be a Hell of a ride. At T+4°, we're at pretty high existential risk. T+9° is way past human survivability.
I don't have any good solutions. But we're out of time. We either reform fast, or we wait for the new depopulated world order to get its act together.
Granted, we're still trying, but it's a short-on-bullets, long-on-zombies situation. Without a deus-ex-machina, we know how this story ends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
It's one of several ways to act; that, plus piling the pressure on incumbents, and working with other groups to install politicians who will mostly do what we want. As I've often said, don't outsource democracy. You have to keep your critters on a tight leash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
I don't agree. The goal shouldn't be entrenching one particular group; it should be fairly and democratically representing the diverse views of the populace.
Gerrymandering is the example that springs to mind. The solution to Republican gerrymandering isn't Democratic gerrymandering; it's fair and independent redistricting committees.
My state has one. It's worked out pretty well. It sometimes elects idiots like Paul Gosar, but at least you know he's an idiot who legitimately represents his idiot constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
Fair and democratic representation, which is actually what I want, is being undermined by this kind of thing. Given that I don't fit into any of the political tribes we've got at the moment, aiming for anything else would be shooting myself in the foot.
As for fair and independent redistricting committees, that's the kind of thing to be campaigning for. I'm with you there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
We don't have any problem except for the fact that there are too many people on this planet. A few atomic bombs going off wouldn't be a bad thing except for the fallout problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You seem to believe I advocate for revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Birthers, faked moon landing enthusiasts...
You forgot truthers, UFOlogists, flat-earthers, anti-vaccs, young-earth creationists and trickle-down economists.
I assume Anonymous Coward when you say I'm fucked up you're referring to my hysteria about climate change and the high existential risk it presents. Maybe you're just duckspeaking to flag as a red-voter. You may genuinly believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, or a grand conspiracy of Sierra-Club environmentalists or just overstated by alarmists in the ecology sector.
Man, I hope you're right. I hope I am just hysterical. I'll be thrilled to eat crow in twenty years when the global temperature is stabilized, we've gone clean-and-green or are adjusting nicely to living in domed cities.
I'm not a crazed preacher who thinks I cracked a bible code. I'm looking at the current ecological models backed by mountains of the same data we've collected to date dinosaurs, find oil and predict barometric depressions.
And they tell us, we've crossed the line of disaster prevention and are now looking at damage control. We can lower our greenhouse emissions and limit the change. Or we can keep doing what we're doing and face extinction. But human civilization is going to take a pounding. Short of a miracle, its unavoidable now.
Still, Anonymous Coward, take the benefit of doubt: If you have data you think I don't have, please show it to me. I'd love to have hope. I'd love to have reassurance. May you know about some amazing geoengineering project I don't.
But if you just are refusing to consider our looming anthropogenic global crisis, understand that nature doesn't care what we don't want. Nature isn't going to change course because we pretend everything is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Birthers, faked moon landing enthusiasts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Winning elections that way results in situations like what the GOP is dealing with in Congress right now: multiple distinct factions, which should each really be a separate political party, all pulling in different directions.
The effect is that even though the GOP controls the legislature in name, in fact none of their sub-parties has enough votes to control; the things some of those sub-parties want conflict with things some of the others want, and so they can't get things passed.
The Democratic Party is currently made up of at least two such factions: the "mainstream", roughly corresponding to the Clinton faction from the last primary-election cycle, and the "left", roughly corresponding to the Bernie faction from that same cycle. These have a certain amount of overlap and shared views, but there are other areas where they disagree.
The Republican Party is currently made up of at least three such factions, and possibly several more. There's the small-government faction (cut spending, reduce taxes, let the deficit explode so that later Congresses have to cut spending even further), the fiscal-conservative faction (reduce the deficit, but preferably by cutting spending, not raising taxes), the religious-conservative faction (freedom of religion! homosexuality is bad! abortion is murder!), and the Trumpist faction (everything Trump and/or Breitbart says is good!), at a minimum; I could probably go on pointing out distinct, or at least distinguishable, factions at considerable length. Some of these factions have areas of overlap (cutting spending, for example), but there is considerably more area of disagreement than seems to exist on the Democratic side.
No matter how you define these factions, none of them - on either side of the two-party division - has enough seats in the legislature to be a majority.
In European democracies, when that happens, the various factions have to negotiate among themselves to put together a "governing coalition", a group of two or more factions which in combination do have a majority of seats.
The GOP as it is currently constituted is, de facto, just such a governing coalition - but not one resulting from that type of negotiation; instead, it's formed out of the fact that its member factions are officially parts of the same party. This fiction that they're all part of the same monolithic group ties their hands; it might be more natural for the moderate faction to form a coalition with the Democratic Party than with the rest of what is currently called the Republican Party, but because their voters think of them as "Republicans" they don't really have that option.
I really think we'd be better off if our system formally acknowledged this governing-coalition reality, so that voters could recognize which faction they're supporting, rather than trying to hide it under the two-party model.
Unfortunately, by the way our election system is structured, a two-party model is pretty much all we can meaningfully achieve. About the only way we're really going to break out of that is by switching from a single-choice, first-past-the-post voting system to a ranked-preferences model, preferably one which satisfies the Condorcet criteria; unfortunately (again), the chances of getting that adopted in the existing political environment are slim at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We're seeing some momentum for ranked-choice voting, but it's still going to be a tough slog. Maine's passed a ranked-choice system, but it has the minor problem of violating the state constitution (at least, in the case of state offices; federal offices seem to be okay).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm aware of Maine's situation (although I haven't heard an update on it in a few months, and I don't know if I'd heard the maybe-OK-for-federal-offices bit).
What they seem to have adopted (or tried to adopt) is about the worst ranked-preference voting system, in terms of avoiding the "spoiler effect" and other perverse incentives, that I'm aware of - but it's still almost certainly better than single-choice first-past-the-post, particularly in regard to improving the chances of having more than two viable political parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life in the fast lane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Life in the fast lane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the idiocies of Linus Pauling who claimed that DNA was three stranded, Vit C could stop the human rhinovirus. And the biggest whopper was what any 1st year chem student made, was that the Watson and Crick model was impossible because it had the Phosphorous forcing each outward, when everyone knew similar charges attract (they do not.) Yet Pauling was a brilliant atomic scientist as long as he stayed in his own field
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pai is set to destroy one of the most marvelous libraries and means of communication ever invented..."
You seem to be suffering from the same misunderstanding as the "don't let the government control the internet" clowns. If Pai succeeds in his goals US ISP customers will suffer and the rest of the world will barely notice. The internet is not going anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except underground. I think you going to find that if they do what they say, black market nets are going to start popping up. That and bolt cutter sales are going to go way up. Both for the cutting of old fiber, and for the stealing of new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, yeah - the USA will suffer while the world points and laughs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Linus Pauling
They were convinced that Pauling was just weeks or months behind them. And stated so publicly, decades later.
Pauling didn't screw up. He was just a little too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Linus Pauling
https://www.dnalc.org/view/15512-linus-pauling-s-triple-dna-helix-model-3d-animation-with-ba sic-narration.html
The point I am making here is that No matter how brilliant anyone is, they can make disastrous errors. Especially when they are out of their field. Castigating this guy is meaningless. It is his decision that should be buried, not his mind that should be slandered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do-brai ns-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
The comment was never even hidden.
YOU (after several years of ignoring my compliants) stated it was "a joke".
But NOW you admit ad hominem is bad in all ways.
You BURNED good will of everyone reasonable LONG ago.
TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!
And yet he has a solid community following his site, he got overwhelming support when attacked by Shiva, he is regularly invited to events with experts...
Well, okay then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get help
Did you just admit to who you are and make a fool of yourself for obsessing over what everyone other than you clearly realized was a joke from a comment six years ago? Not to mentioned tried to make your point by linking to a comment section where anyone who scrolls up or down can see just how nuts/demented you were acting?
Seriously, as enjoyable as the schadenfreude is you really need to see a shrink, the level of obsession you are displaying is not healthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We've sought to avoid doing that here on Techdirt" -- HA, HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Newsflash the FCC is the legislative solution and it was working okay until we let regulatory capture get so out of control. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/151
Pretty sure the new "legislative solution" to this is to end corporate campaign donations and other "free speech" that sure looks like bribery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm, I think your definition of never and mine are slightly different.
If the FCC "never worked", then how is it that my cell phone, router, TV, game console, etc... can all be on and working without interfering with each other? Because, I mean, it's not like the FCC has a rule about how much EMF interference a device can accept and what bands/frequencies certain devices have to use so they don't interfere with each other. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Context man... CONTEXT!!! It matters!
"he FCC is the legislative solution and it was working okay until we let regulatory capture get so out of control."
What I said was in the context of his statement... get a CLUE!
And to drive the point home..
"If the FCC "never worked", then how is it that my cell phone, router, TV, game console, etc... can all be on and working without interfering with each other?"
Because your phone, router, TV, game console, etc worked... that is why they worked... the FCC does not magically make them work with rules and laws. When they break or malfunction the FCC is not going to make them fixed for you. The FCC just makes rules that MFG's need to follow so that your electronics can be taken over or interfered with by the Government or "more important" things... example FCC part 15.
I would support the FCC if it only performed anti-trust and anti monopoly regulation. But it does not now does it? IT has been busy creating that which is was created to destroy! Which means, it is a cancer that should be cut out, not screwed around with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Take off those blinders man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We have a lot of posters that don't seem to be familiar with American government.
Since Ajit is not elected, this solution would not only be totally ineffective, but would divert resources from other less-totally-ineffective approaches.
In the bureaucracy, "bribes" are implemented by companies (frequently including, of course, nonprofit companies) offering remunerative sinecures to bureaucrats who spent their career being "useful tools."
There hasn't BEEN any bribe--YET. And so there's nothing to prosecute.
The solution isn't more laws, but more honest people: that is, people who want to be fair, not rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think we'll be seeing a judicial solution well before we see a legislative one.
But still, call your reps; it can't hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's not even touching the fact that any moron in a hurry could read Wikipedia and get history right unlike he is doing. He's corrupt plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I'd have to agree there, he's not 'mistaken', he's corrupt and dishonest. He knows that what he's pushing are lies, he just doesn't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make the Internet Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...
They are accountable when Congress decides to make them accountable. Since this requires the collective agreement of the electorate good luck with that.
"There is simply nothing we can do legally to have Ajit pai prosecuted and imprisoned for selling out"
and would you hold that standard for people you do agree with? I thought so... They all are selling out, just to different degrees and constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real disgrace is not the hate heaped upon Pai...
That or an angry mob. I'd happily help carry the rail that runs that motherfucker out of town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I agree that losing ones cool and attacking someone's character is counterproductive, one must have a molecule of character to begin with... Asking people to maintain their composure is almost contrary to human nature.
This guy invites hate and oozes the same slimy coolness of any and every sleazy salesman and ripoff artist that we have ever seen, in real life or fiction.
The consequences were inevitable.
Whatever hatred and anger he has accrued, he invited it upon himself by selling out consumers to satisfy his own greed.
I'd like to save sympathy for someone who at least thought they were doing the right thing and not someone who thought they were slick enough to screw a nation and get away with it.
The rest of the article was fine, but I couldn't care less about Pai's problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inflamatory headline
Headline makes news: The headline is what people see and it is what makes people react to, by reading, sharing or otherwise supplying the contageon-machine for the piece. But it also sets the tone for discussing it!
You are on very solid ground in the facts you are citing in the article. But exposing a lie is glorious. Calling it out is petty. It is difficult to find this piece anything but fuel for emotional responses and hence personal attacks from the more actively engaged.
That is not leading by example, sir Masnick! Even if the preample is to avoid further ad hominem, The discrepancy between the headline and the plea easily comes off as hypocricy and it makes the article look petty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it really isn't
Calling it out is petty.
What exactly is 'petty' in pointing out 'That person is lying to you'? That is exactly the sort of thing that should be pointed out, because it shows they are not to be trusted and that what they are claiming is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, it really isn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inflamatory headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inflamatory headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inflamatory headline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Inflamatory headline
I think he's arguing that only a piece which only "provides the evidence and facts" qualifies as "exposing", and that as soon as you bring in things like calling the false statements "lies", the piece becomes "calling out" and deserving of condemnation on that basis.
From a certain abstract / philosophical / academic perspective, he may even be right. The trouble is that a piece which eschews that sort of call-a-spade-a-spade labelling is also likely to be sufficiently dry and unengaging that not many people are likely to properly read it, much less be persuaded by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Smaller Lie
Trying to figure out where the numbers were coming from that claimed a drop of less than 6% in investment, I found his recent WSJ column cited this analysis which ultimately drew on Hal Singer.
And Doug Brake notes right there that correlation doesn't equal causation, and two years is far too short a period to conclude anything from.
Did he actually read the website he cited?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Smaller Lie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Smaller Lie
Correlation doesn't equal causation, especially on such a short timeframe, and Pai claims causation. That's what's ridiculous. He has no reason to conclude that, when ISPs claim in SEC filings that NN didn't cause any negative effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets open this up...
Corporate ideal of competitive is to SUCK UP everything in its way, and Make it PART of 1 WHOLE.,.
FREE MARKET?? no such thing in this country..Parts made in other countries, Put together in the USA(no tariffs), To make 6 different NAMES that 1 company builds..6 company names made by 1 Corp, for all your refrig, washers and dryers.. How do you compete?? you dont have to..
Commissions Old policy was to GIVE MONEY to the Major ISP'S to UPDATE the internet system..the LAST mile to give EVERYONE Fiber, in the cities and towns..and Little was/is done..only the Main sections are finished that have the MOST people/business access. YES, WE ALREADY PAID THEM TO DO THE WORK.. The Telephone service has ALWAYS been updated and Supported by the Government..its an EMERGENCY SERVICE..YOU PAID for the old copper lines to be Placed EVERYWHERE..and to RUN even when there was a catastrophic incident.(cellphones cant even do that)
2015?? didnt CHANGE anything, it reinforced the THAT ISP and telephone service WAS/IS a Utility..its is AN EMERGENCY SERVICE..
Broadband investment?? SUPPOSEDLY, our Gov has paid 2 times to GET IT DONE...as a utility ITS SUBSIDIZED...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets open this up...
But yeah, it's definitely not a free market with government subsidies in the picture. There should really be lobbying for an end to those instead, since the private companies never seem to deliver anyway. What's the point of subsidizing laziness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lets open this up...
NOW they just keep the money and DONT do anything..
BUT, even if Net Neutral was passed...THERE IS A BACK DOOR..
You move OFF the ISP being the server company, and make it a Different service...
Like ATT saying they dont give an EMAIL address, that you must go someplace else..
AND ISP only supplies ACCESS to the net, and the SECOND company, gives SPEED ACCESS to the net..
LOVE the holes..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pai is sincerely wrong
1 - Pai hasn't been bought. He believes what he says. I think he's wrong (and Mike is right here), but he's sincere.
2 - The whole Net Neutrality thing is way overblown.
As long as we have protectionist regulations (federal, state, and local) that restrict entry into the ISP business, I support Net Neutrality.
I'd rather get rid of the protectionism and have free competition - then NN would be unnecessary.
3 - Even if Pai succeeds in dismantling NN, the damage will be minor and isolated to a few areas and special circumstances, and fixed pretty soon by either competition, public pressure/embarrassment, or legislation.
So everybody calm down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be such a public outcry, because any abuses will be quickly fixed, because of the public outcry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
a) The sky isn't falling, the world's not about to end, and the "Internet as we know it" is not going to disappear.
The panic and hyperbole I see in the comments seems vastly disproportionate to the reality. People are overreacting.
The world has far more important problems, and greater injustices, to get excited about.
b) Public outcry is appropriate now, but it ought to be proportionate to the problem.
c) Public outcry is completely necessary if and when ISPs start abusing the lack of NN. If and when.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
Strawman.
Fallacy of relative privation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
That panic *is* appropriate?
I favor NN. I just think people here are going overboard with hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
Strawman.
You already did that one. Jeez, if you're not even going to try, I'm not going to play Name That Logical Fallacy with you anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
They own the poles, they keep competition out.
Comcast was rated the shittiest provider ever for years & years... still aren't any better.
Ummm maybe you haven't seen all of the protectionist legislation they gave donations to get voted on.
They own the system lock, stock, and barrel.
No one is coming to save us, our only weapon is NN making them play fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
HOw old are you?? REALLY..
Im almost 60, and SOME of the stuff iv seen in my life is strange and weird..
The Original CABLE wanted to give FREE TV to everyone without Commercials, and the CORPS said, NOPE, we dont want it..
Until they were allowed to show Commercials THEY didnt join up..
NOW the Cable industry PAYS/SELLS channels to anyone..and SUPPOSEDLY PAYS for the major channels.
In the OLD days, you Paid for Batches of channels..and if you COULD afford $20, you PAID $20 and only got a few channels.
NOW you CANT pay $20-30-40...and get anything from them..
And WHO is in charge of TV/Phones/CELLPHONES/INTERNET...
But does not want to UPDATE IT..even after being subsidized for YEARS... The Original Phone services WERE/ARE SUBSIDIZED.. Its PART AND PARCEL of the emergency system..
WHICH in my eyes tells me ALL of these corps are SUBSIDIZED..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
As head of the FCC his position makes sincerity and competence mutually exclusive.
No I will not calm down. Usurpation of the bill of rights is simply not acceptable. If they choose to continue down this road, people will escalate the fight. And I will stand with them when they do. Frankly I'm looking forward to being in the front rank when the teargas starts flying.
I built networks in my youth when many of my peers were joining up and serving abroad. Perhaps this is my time to serve my country, preserving the freedoms that we gave to the world.
Building networks was fascinating at the time, but looking back, what we created was freedom, not networks. We gave people a degree of freedom of speech, and a reach that mankind had never had before. It is my lifes work. And if Pai thinks he can fuck that up with the stroke of a pen, he is mistaken.
We all have a responsibility to oversee the good things that we have done and preserve them for posterity. The Internet, is unequivocally the responsibility of everyone who has worked on it. And if we let this guy do this, we are betraying ourselves, and our children.
This is a time for good men to come to the service of their country. This issue is the keystone of a hundreds of future tyrannies to come. Deal with it now for the price of some bruises, or deal with it later when your sons and daughters are obliged to arm themselves in the defense of the Constitution.
It's your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
Getting rid of NN won't end the Internet. In fact, it may usher in a new age of ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
It may usher in a new ISPs. But I expect they will be black market ones. People are going to start buying private pipe, and connecting TOR nodes, and manage their own fully encrypted private peering peering points.
Until cryptographic networking becomes a crime, and they start getting locked up. And since news of those trials will only be available with the extra "public services" contract for an extra $19.95/M nobodies going to hear about it.
And then other "undesirables" will start disappearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
In the US today, there are over 400 ISPs. They are legal, so no one needs to go to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
And, so, I know that breaking the Internet is a lot harder than most people here seem to think.
It's robust. There are a lot of ways to route data.
Even the GFW of China is only a speedbump - data flows around it, for anybody in China who makes the effort.
And I don't see anyone proposing a GFW of America.
So, while I do support NN (at least as long as the ISP business is a semi-monopoly), I don't think Pai can break the Internet, even if he wants to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
The carriers will start standardizing MPLS tag to BGP4 AS numbers between them. Then the major content aggregators: Google, Facebook, etc. will get metric'd at the peering points, based on billing. Essentially all of the carriers at that point will be just one big racket.
As that traffic increases, generic traffic will recieve a worse metric than all of the paying customers, making all non big company traffic fight over the tiny portion of peering capacity that is left.
This is going to mean than ANY new business, will have no expectation of transport reliability. If you serve a single server off a business T1 or T3, EVERY peering point your traffic crosses will see severe packet loss. But the big content providers traffic will fly.
What is worse, is that since these flows are going to be heavily aggregated, the switching capacity to do deep packet analysis on average user traffic will be less interspersed with high capacity content provider traffic. This means that header injection will be cheaper. Which means that not only will the carriers be providing shitty service to EVERY small company in the country, but they will be molesting their traffic with their own advertising, and psyche profiling while they are at it.
Any of this not sound plausible?
The next step in that progression is to dump all of the free (as in freedom) traffic through massive AI switches, to do "consumer decision management". There are going to be big rooms at the carriers that have equipment that does nothing other than massively parallel brainwashing, by manipulating content exposure in real time. IE the carriers are going to start going after Facebooks bread and butter.
Any of that sound implausible?
Good. Now go get your helmet and your gask mask. Because sometime soon we'll all be meeting down at Le Enfant Plaza to get our fair share of abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
Doesn't large content providers have their own "tubes" to ensure their traffic speeds along? Can small companies do that? No? well then big companies already have an advantage with or without NN, no?
What the fuck is your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
And while the markets will attempt to recover, that is beside the fact. A crime against the Constitution is being committed. We are obliged by oath to take corrective measures.
What point beyond that needs be made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
Need more capacity to serve your users, then various options exist from buying more servers, renting servers in a server farm, or employing a content delivery service. If ISPs are throttling their traffic, then they will have problems deciding whether it is their content and/or system that is the problem, or whether the ISPs are making the experience of potential users so bad they they do not come back.
Beside which, if your company is not well known, your chance of gaining the attention of anybody at an ISP so that you can start to negotiate a solution to the problems they are causing will be close to zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
I might almost agree with you, except one note:
Network neutrality will still be necessary, forever.
In the presence of robust competition, explicit rules mandating network neutrality may no longer be necessary.
But it will still be absolutely essential that the network be neutral, even if the market rather than a regulator is what is ensuring that neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pai is sincerely wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know this blog understands many complex legal issues, so it always pains me to see such ignorance regarding how the APA works. The APA requires a comment period. Nothing more, nothing less. The agency has no obligation to read the comments, incorporate them, or address them. It must simply solicit them. All of the things you demand, like looking into false comments could only jeopardize the rule under the APA process in a legal challenge, so the agency will never do them. Please stop pretending that the comment proccess is anything other than a bureaucratic checkbox that the FCC (and every other agency) go through the motions with to satisfy the APA and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place.
Not a single thing in this post is about the comment process. You are perhaps replying to the wrong post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
As far as I am concerned, Pai deserves all the bad names that can be flung at him. What is unhinged is this idea that anything good comes from turning the internet into a gigantic cable tv network.
They might as well just have banned peer to peer technology if this was the big plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
Because they must dismantle everything obama did, sort of like a petulant child throwing a tantrum at the store because they can not have that candy or toy or ice cream (two scoops).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
One of the primary points of Mike's article is that there has been (and is) broad support for net neutrality among members of both major parties. To bring Barack Obama into it muddies the waters, as the “Obama-FCC power grab!” brigade well knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
Well, curiously the GOP did let his guy throw out the moderately-NN guy for the fiercely-Anti-NN guy, and no one even flinched about it.
So yeah, the GOP's inaction and lack of effort stopping their undo-anything-Obama-did president from making that switch seems to suggest they didn't really care all that much about net neutrality after all.
Remember, Ajit Pai had written numerous bits trying to convince Wheeler to kill net neutrality and avoid Title-2 designation for telecommunications. He was then a known quantity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
You may be talking about two different groups of Republicans.
If you say "Republicans overwhelmingly favor net neutrality," and you're referring to private individuals who are registered Republican, that's an accurate statement.
If you say "Republicans oppose net neutrality," and you're referring to Republicans serving in Congress and the FCC, that's an accurate statement too.
On this issue (and others -- including, according to polls, healthcare and taxes), Republicans in Washington do not represent the views of their constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy
Like they had not already happened
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laughing at the poor life of Pai:
Pai said in a statement, “Internet regulation activists have crossed the line by threatening and harassing my family. They should leave my family out of this and focus on debating the merits of the issue.”
This guy actually has the balls to say this, knowing full well that what he is proposing will allow carriers to implement corporate versions of Jim Crow laws in their respective districts.
Diagnosis of clinical depression is up 60% in teens in the past decade. It is only a matter of time before this is statistically linked to mindfarms like facebook, twitter, and the unholy trinity. That and all the highly engineered mind bending used by carriers and ad-tracking providers. Which is what he proposes to make worse.
Which is to say that the private institutions this guy is endowing with sovereign authority over the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 13th amendments, HAVE ALREADY been broadly invested in the psychological battery of ALL of the children in this nation. Including HIS incidentally.
The line that is being crossed here was drawn in 1791. If Pai wants to talk about lines, perhaps he should retreat back onto the safe side of that one before opening his gob again.
I mean it is just terrible that he gets to read some mean signs, and ugly emails, while real America gets its head busted, and face pepper sprayed at protests. And if another Kent State Massacre comes out of it, well that isn't such a price to pay for his cushy contractor job once he leaves the FCC.
People are going to get hurt because of this motherfucker, for no reason but to elevate the legend he presumes himself to be. Intelligent and considerate men do not assume that they are precluded from such debts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:
Whoa! - I think they are building a system to gaslight the entire nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:
It isn't that big a deal. Why don't you go out and start your own ISP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Laughing at the poor life of Pai:
I consider that a matter of due diligence. If your a coward, just say so.
"It isn't that big a deal. Why don't you go out and start your own ISP?"
Clearly you've considered the market barrier to entry before asking that question and are therefore willing to put up the initial $100M so I can break ground. Would you like to know who to make the check out to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dare he say "please, no death threats"?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Iv looked at this site long ago, and ya know what??
The Gov, pays no Attention to it..
For allot of reasons, LIKE there is TO MUCH to wade thru to do anything..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a rather different subject...
Ever since congress blocked judicial appointments (at the expense of impacting the courts and overworking the remaining justices) and then won the gamble and got Gorsuch onto the SCOTUS bench, I've been wondering if this isn't going to play out violently in the future.
Given it is now an optimal strategy to, once your side has control of the presidency and legislature, identifying justices that have a history of adjudicating along enemy ideological positions, and killing them, probably with guns or bombs or handfuls of guys with clubs.
I'm not saying I'm endorsing such a strategy, but I imagine that when the courts start leaning to much in one way or another, when it becomes evident that some people have no friends or even rational minds in the legal system, the US might suffer through an epidemic of targeted rage.
We're not at that position yet, and until I read this article, I was unaware of any harassment campaign against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. I don't endorse it either.
But it is noteworthy, and when the people have no peaceful recourse, when the FCC chooses to completely ignore public interest, and even sabotages communication, it does encourage continuing policy by other means. This looks like the step before horse-head-on-the-bed level communications.
I get it. Mr. Pai just wants to be rich and carve his niche out for himself and his family. It's too bad he has chosen to do it in a way that causes the rest of us to suffer. I don't think I'm going to cry if he gets shanked in the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery slope
You're the liar here. Please stop blogging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery slope
Mike, you don't get the fact that calling Pai a liar fuels the fire that ends up burning his wife and children.
Wait. Let's back up a second. Me explaining in careful and detailed terms, with numerous links to sources about why Pai is lying -- while also urging people to not attack Pai personally, and noting that the attacks against him are uncalled for and disgusting -- is the slippery slope.
Yet, when you attack me with false ad homs on a near daily basis, make blatantly false statements about me (such as claiming I support piracy) or making other misleading statements about me... that's fair game?
You're hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slippery slope
Second, you're opposed to all forms of piracy enforcement, especially those like SOPA that would have made a difference.
And third, I don't have an angry mob that I feed red meat every day raring to go attack somebody. I'm a calm, polite, and moderate analyst who values sound policy over traffic, impressions, and web sales.
So yes, my moderate comments are very different from your inflammatory ones.
But I will grant that you may not know about the Common Carrier Report, the MFJ, and Computer II. If that's the case, you're not lying, you're simply negligent.
So which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
It's the gentlemanly way to roll, dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
Naahhhh - just spew more crapola
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
That does not make "you support piracy" true and not a lie.
That's like saying "I disapprove of antifa punching people" is the same as "I support Nazis."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
Have I missed something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD offerings regarding combatting media piracy
You missed:
~ Make media services easier (including affordability) than piracy.
~ Stop taking new bites out of old apples and evergreening with remasters. Don't charge for the same content in new formats.
~ Stop using DRM that makes the content worse, or that makes the paying end-user feel shitty, or that forces them to suffer through too many adverts and boilerplates.
~ Actually pay artists. Hollywood is legendary for re-accounting to cheat their workers, and resisting any kind of transparency or oversight. We know the content industries are completely corrupt. Prove to the public you're cleaning up.
~ Sell stuff at a reasonable price. A lot of your audience is shit poor.
~ Stop trying to quash other competing sources. Taking down dancing-baby videos because the (muted, truncated) background music belongs to Sony only makes me hate Sony and avoid paying them money. For anything.
~ Let copyrights expire after a reasonable time. Stop copyrighting / patenting every little ping or plot turn or game mechanic or combination of three words. The more content that's locked out from use in other creation, the less we want to take it seriously.
~ Don't be a dick. Hollywood culture is super shitty. Movie workers and game developers are grossly overworked and underpaid (not for want of profits). The companies try to lock down everything, shore it up with malware and seek to kill alternative public resources. The more you do this stuff, the less I want to have anything to do with stuff coming from Hollywood.
All these things have been suggested here on TD.
The thing is, big media often forgets that it lives and dies at the whims of the audience. And when they're really disrespectful, when they squeeze out their content creators and labor, it makes me want to do the one thing that's worse than pirating their content.
That being, not pirating their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
If you say "I'm opposed to piracy" while denouncing every enforcement plan and offering none of your own, you're not opposed to piracy. Most of what Masnick has offered on this question is compulsory licenses, pools, and t-shirt sales.
Have I missed something?
Yes, more or less everything we've written on the subject, it seems. First off, we've never advocated for compulsory licenses, and have argued against that when EFF (and Jim Griffin) suggested it as a solution. We've never argued for pools either.
What we have discussed is not treating your biggest fans like criminals, focusing on using infinitely copyable works to gain bigger fanbases/larger audiences, leveraging free promotion and then selling SCARCITIES, which some people have stupidly reduced to "t-shirts," which is only a very tiny form of scarcity. Instead, we talk about many other kinds of scarcities, from attention to access and more. We've discussed many, many different variations on this over the years.
Why am I not surprised that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and are just making up stuff you THINK we've said. Richard, you've done that for years, and we've called you out on it repeatedly. Yet, here you are, once again, falsely claiming we've said stuff we haven't.
Will you apologize for making false statements? Of course not. Richard Bennett doesn't do that. He just keeps misrepresenting us, because that's all Richard Bennett can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slippery slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slippery slope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you should have seen this coming, I did..
The little lives here are so quaint to quantify here, honestly, I like TechDirt, its informative and mostly intelligent input from subscribers. But I gotta honestly evaluate the 'pro' part of your protest.
The dystopium conundrum that is net neutrality is the result of alot of prior dysfunction slightly related. It all really boils down to money. I can make all kind of arguments and comparisons for reality's sake therefore I can boil this down to one simple fact.
If every single member of the US of A called their his/her congressman/congresswoman and voiced their opinion on net neutrality, and every single call was for retaining Title II application, I guarantee the FCC would still vote to dismantle it.
tldr; money is going to screw you out of your privacy. and the voice of the people can go fuck themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..
I was thinking of jumping in to voice a REAL comment..
But there ARE some added strange facts..
ASK CABLE/SAT TV..What the hell is happening? With their business. ASK why I have to pay for ESPN, sports channels, religious channels, and TONS of channels I dont even watch..
Then get Every customer to ASK the same thing.
Then ask the PARENTS, how much they would LIKE to pay for a cellphone..NOT a smart phone.
Suggest that they could SAVE over $100 per month(its true) if they could be satisfied with watching LOCAL channels already GIVING away free TV..
Suggest to them that WHEN enough people CUT the cord, that Prices will drop, Things WILL CHANGE..But we all have to SAVE the $100..EVERY MONTH..(done this already to a few people, and they LOVE ME..
The Inductry DOES have a recourse..and its not nice..to CUT ALL LOCAL BROADCASTS...and NOT make money..for a time..
Can you see a Bunch of RICH people going Without PAY for a few months, while people DECIDE what to do??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..
No shit.
But, as people have explained, over and over again, every single time somebody has pointed this out here, at Ars, and on every single other forum discussing this issue, preventing the FCC from voting this way is not the point. There are two whole branches of government besides the executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you should have seen this coming, I did..
Both of which have steadfastly refused to amend or interpret the dictionary act of 1871 to restrain bizarre interpretations of corporate rights.
It isn't that Congress is passing bad law. It is that they aren't passing law AT ALL, but instead externalizing the adjudication of law into the private sector.
They pass their tax bill annually and everybody bitches and gripes. But when it comes to actual Constitutional issues, they just point somewhere else, as if somebody is going to ask them who to blame when heads start rolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slippery words at best
However, your anger is more than a little misdirected.
The whole Brand X thing is a red herring. It's not about net neutrality or content or anything like that, it is strictly about the question of can a cable company be forced to share it's network with third party ISPs who want access to their customers but who do not want to build their own network. The answer from SCOTUS was no.
Classifying cable internet as an information service exempted them from that requirement. Many years later, the FCC also classified internet services provided by a phone company in the same manner, equaling up what had been a somewhat uneven playing field.
Other than the move by Wheeler to put internet services under Title II, there really hasn't been a whole lot much of anything from the FCC in regards to the internet in terms of regulation. There has been a lot of poking and prodding, a lot of discussion and public ridicule, but generally things have been pretty quiet without too much in the way of actual regulation. Lots of talk, little real action.
Aside from pitching money at the problem, Congress has been equally quiet.
Ajit Pai certainly glosses over that there has been discussion back and forth over the years. The concept of Net Neutrality has been around since at least June 2002 as a term.
Now, there is the question of investment by the major companies in their networks. ARS Technica has a pretty long article on the subject.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-accord ing-to-the-isps-themselves/
I do find they are working very hard to ignore a few things and twist some words. While they show a "2013-2014 v 2015-2016" increase overall of 5.3%, it doesn't consider a couple of major things. Existing players with large networks must maintain and upgrade them from time to time to keep with the current technology. Comcast, as an example, is making significant investments related to their rolling out of the X1 box and platform for their cable side product. That is IPTV, so it requires that investment is made in many areas to build out their network to support that. It's not specifically internet related, except to say that they are piggy backing their cable product onto their IP network.
ARS Technica also ignores that many of the smaller companies have had significant cutbacks in their investments. A third of the companies reporting had a drop in investment.
So while investment is on the increase (slightly), much of it can be attributed to issues not related to internet service. In fact, the top two "increasing" represent nearly 65% of the net increase.
What you aren't seeing is huge investments from new players. That list they have doesn't show Google (who never reports details in this sort of thing) who went from hell bent for leather investing in fiber to "taking a break, thanks".
So I think that you are being a little melodramatic in saying the Pai is a liar. He is a political guy who is very good at choosing his words and battles. Just like you do from time to time, he leaves out things that don't support his point of view or that could create a point of debate, and highlights the information that he wants you to consume and accept as fact. He is talented in that manner.
I also agree with some posters that personal level attacks on Pai are both counter productive and appear to be leading to nutjobs coming out of the woodwork to create real problems. Pizza bombing his house is amusing but pointless, putting up information about his family is evil and I think deserves a post here on Techdirt to explain just how stupid it really is. It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slippery words at best
The FCC adopted a "hands-off" approach for a long while (when they classified ISPs as service providers instead of using Title II) which lead to this mess.
The ISPs themselves (as per force of regulations) publish financial reports and all reports basically say the opposite.
As for Google, you are either mentally impaired or you are a complete idiot. Google with all their might got stuck into the incumbent ISPs regulatory capture, lawsuits and general assholishness and you have PLENTY of examples of people that got fed up and went municipal broadband and got a much, much better service.
And Pai said things that are historically wrong. Either he is a liar or he is ignorant. Pic the best. Either way he should be out of his job.
"It's not about you, me, or Pai as a person, it's about the ideas and the concepts. When you get down to personally labeling him a liar, you have stopped debating concepts and started to debate people. NN isn't about any of that."
Have you looked at any mirror recently?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slippery words at best
The hands off approach has applied since the internet was first turned commercial in nature. We went from zero to widely available with the vast majority of Americans hooked up in more than one way (wireline and wireless) in less than 2 decades.
The results are clear.
"Pai said things that are historically wrong."
Not seeing that. NN was discussed and tosses a couple of times, and aside from tagging internet services as "information services", the FCC applied no specific regulation to the internet until the title II and NN situation. There were attempts, but those were dropped each time.
"Have you looked at any mirror recently?"
Everyone morning, same guy waves back at me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the opinions posted lead me to believe that net neutrality must be enforced no matter what the government has to do to impose it. That should scare any libertarians out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Do you still beat your wife?" is not a debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the heavy handed approach of Wheeler's FCC was the right way to implement it?
What, pray tell, in the 2015 OIO was "heavy handed"? I've asked this question a bunch, and no one has been able to tell me. Dane Jasper, the CEO of an actual ISP correctly noted that it was only "heavy handed" IF you wanted to screw over your customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.
Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.
True net neutrality (and proper classification of ISPs) should come from Congress. The critters have been remarkably silent on the whole thing. They have the power to amend the law or write new law to address the issue. Title II was the only square hole large enough to jam the internet shaped peg into. It's not a perfect fit, and the potential for future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Title II gives the FCC incredible direct power over the internet, from the ability to tax connections to specifying reasonable rates and defining legal content. The implication is that the FCC could (but has not yet) decide that torrent traffic as an example is an unacceptable or illegal protocol, and demand all title II ISPs block it. It would be within their power.
Title II also allows for direct taxation of internet services in the same manner as other public utilities. It could mean, as an example, that a state could impose a "per meg" usage tax that would have to be applied to all users of the ISP utility.
Yes, if the FCC had done a straight up "Title II" reclassification, you'd be right. But they did not. The 2015 Open Internet Order specifically forbear using the provisions of Title II that you mention. And that doesn't just mean "hey we won't use them now." By forbearing, the FCC commits to not using any of those provisions and CANNOT change without then going through a full rulemaking process, involving issuing an NPRM, taking comments, proving the legitimate need for the change, etc.
In other words, it would have to go through the entire process that it would need to go through just to classify broadband providers under Title II.
So, again, the 2015 rules imposed none of what you're claiming it did. And, since that's the only example you have of "onerous" I'll take it that you are effectively admitting that nothing in the 2015 OIO was onerous.
Thanks for, again, confirming what we said even while pretending you were debunking. You do that a lot, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The forbearing is mostly related to hammering the "1st century internet" square peg into the title II round hole, and exposed it as being relatively inappropriate. Really, there should be a Title XYZ (whatever) to cover the internet with congress defining it and passing it into law.
As for taxation, they really didn't have all that much to say, your buddy Wyden was a big part of passing an internet tax free law that (for the moment) makes the title II tax issues, at least on the federal level, moot. However, the powers to regulate at solidly in title II, and the forbearance on such issues could be easily removed.
Again, the problem at hand is that it's not an act of congress that significantly changed the internet's standing, it's an act of Wheeler. from zero to Title II standing is a big jump, removing self imposed restrictions isn't anywhere near as big a jump.
For what it's worth, the FCC specifically danced around the whole pole law thing. Imagine if they had handled that. I guess the problem of competition is at least a little bit on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and removing net neutrality protections hands that power over to corporate monopolies. A lot of you seem ready to do exactly that gladly, because you're too scared of what your publicly appointed representatives might possibly do.
Even if you weren't lying half the time, this attitude is mystifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They already do this.
"unacceptable or illegal protocol"
That they even understand that there is such a thing as a communications protocol is a leap of faith. I get your point, but it is still a pretty big leap. And really this is the same as the argument above. Content is data. Protocols are data. Humans are data. Its easier to tunnel at layer 4, than it is to buy your own WAN gear (which is what killing NN will compel many to do)
""per meg" usage tax."
The carriers will shit a brick fighting that. The reason of is that interface counters are notoriously unreliable. While colo providers do do this, and ISP's used to do it for burstable circuits, it is still a huge pain in the ass administratively. And if they are using specialized QOS to keep track of this, then they are probably doing other stuff that is violating peoples civil rights, which is a whole other problem.
"future abuses from government(s) isn't very appealing."
So a bunch of future "maybe"'s, is worth watching the Bill of Rights get pig fucked by a buck toothed terrorist in an expensive suit and his jolly team of Constitutional-rapists over there at the FCC?
Not quite sure I follow your logic, but it is (was?) a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So thankful for tech durt's unbiased coverage
Big brother IS Love, and will protect us.
Double-plus-thankful for your thorough reporting, which informs it's that the best since is to trust politicians. My congressman really, really double-plus loves me. And or deficit proves it.
All hail big brother!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So thankful for tech durt's unbiased coverage
No, wait, that didn't happen in 1984 at all. What I meant to say was, not only do you not seem to have read 1984, I'm not sure you know how to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you should publish in NYT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to re-frame the Net Neutrality debate
The FCC repealed Net Neutrality without authority. Even Justice Scalia pointed that out in his dissenting opinion in Brand X.
The logical steps are simple. If you own the pipes and hold them out for hire for transmitting data, you're a common carrier, no matter what "information services" you put on top. Even if you're selling access, even if your customers don't decide which hops to use along the way, your pipes carry their data.
As long as you're in the business of transmitting data for the public, you're a common carrier. The FCC has no authority to make an arbitrary determination on this single fact alone.
This is how we reframe the Net Neutrality debate. The order just passed by the FCC yesterday reclassifies the ISPs as information services, when it is absolutely crystal clear that they are telecommunications services under the Act. Congress conferred no new authority for the FCC to make such classification. Ever.
Hammer on this point, because people at the top are pretending that the FCC is authorized to classify ISPs as information services when they are not.
I explain this all in much greater detail here:
https://steemit.com/politics/@digitalfirehose/how-to-re-frame-the-net-neutrality-debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]