As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
from the that-was-then,-this-is-now dept
Despite having spent millions on repealing broadband privacy and soon net neutrality, Comcast's lobbyists and PR folks have spent the last few weeks claiming that nobody has anything to worry about because Comcast would never do anything to harm consumers or competitors. This glorified pinky swear is likely going to be cold comfort for the millions of consumers, small businesses, startups, and entrepreneurs trying to build something (or god forbid directly compete with Comcast NBC Universal) over the next decade.
But while Comcast is busy trying to convince everyone that gutting regulatory oversight over an uncompetitive broadband market will only result in wonderful things, they're simultaneously back peddling on past claims to not violate net neutrality.
Earlier this week, Ars Technica penned an article discussing how Comcast's past promises to not engage in "paid prioritization" have magically disappeared. Paid prioritization is the act of letting one company (say, Comcast-owned NBC) buy a faster, lower-latency pipe than its competitors. Obviously, such a scenario creates a market whereby deep-pocketed companies can pay for an unfair advantage over startups, non-profits, or smaller companies. That's not to be confused with enterprise prioritization or the prioritization of medical services, though that's a conflation Comcast lobbyists really enjoy making.
Back in 2014 when the debate was at its peak regarding the creation of the 2015 rules, Comcast repeatedly promised that paid prioritization would never be something it engaged in. Ars does a solid job highlighting how this promise has all-but disappeared from Comcast and Comcast-backed NCTA lobbying and policy materials over the last few years. This apparently angered Comcast PR rep Sena Fitzmaurice, who has previously and repeatedly yelled at me for calling Comcast's top lobbyist a lobbyist (you're supposed to call him Comcast's "Chief Diversity Officer" to help him tap dance around lobbying disclosure rules).
Fitzmaurice spent most of the day on Twitter trying to direct annoyed readers to an alternate, less skeptical CNET article, while insisting that Ars story author Jon Brodkin had somehow hallucinated Comcast's backtracking:
Brodkin, in turn, pointed out that Fitzmaurice repeatedly dodged hard questions about said backtracking, while hiding behind semantics:
Interesting how you never denied my point that Comcast's public statements changed from "no paid prioritization" to "no anticompetitive prioritization," and that you didn't answer my followup email yesterday cc @maggie_reardon
— The real Jon Brodkin (@jbrodkin) November 28, 2017
He then penned a second article, with the help of the Internet Wayback Machine, highlighting very clearly how Comcast pulled all references to its promise to not engage in "paid prioritization." Much of this purging occurred, coincidentally, the very same day that Ajit Pai first announced his plan to roll back the net neutrality protections:
"Starting in 2014, (Comcast's website) contained this statement: "Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes."
That statement remained on the page until April 26 of this year, according to page captures from the Internet Archive's WayBack Machine. But on April 27, the paid prioritization pledge was nowhere to be found on that page and remains absent now.
What changed? It was on April 26 that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the first version of his plan to eliminate net neutrality rules. Since then, Pai has finalized his repeal plan, and the FCC will vote to drop the rules on December 14.
To drive home the point, Brodkin posted a screen shot of the Comcast website pledge before the FCC announced its repeal of the rules on April 27:
And then after the FCC made it clear it was going to ignore the public and dismantle the rules:
You'll note, perhaps, that Comcast's promises get shorter and shorter the closer it gets to achieving its goal of fewer consumer protections. Oddly, Fitzmaurice has yet to complain about the updated version of the Ars story.
Comcast's track record on this sort of thing isn't particularly hot. You'll recall Comcast helped send the net neutrality debate into overdrive when it was caught throttling all upstream BitTorrent traffic without telling anybody, then lied that it was doing so until the Associated Press proved it. In the years since Comcast has gotten much more creative in abusing a lack of competition in the sector, whether that's by imposing unnecessary usage caps that only its own content is exempt from, blocking competing hardware and services for no good reason, or interconnection shenanigans.
The idea that Comcast will take full advantage of the one two-punch of limited competition and apathetic regulators is all but a certainty according to history. It's likely that for a year or two after repeal, Comcast and other ISPs will avoid getting too heavy handed in the hopes of convincing folks that net neutrality worries were over-stated. After that, you can be fairly certain that Comcast will slowly but surely engage in tricks old and new to leverage a lack of competition to its full, tactical advantage. You can also be fairly certain that while this is happening, you'll be told you're most definitely hallucinating the entire affair.
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: net neutrality, paid prioritization, rewriting history
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Did I cover everything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Free-Market is NOT to blame for this problem we are having, regulation IS, it's literally what regulatory capture FUCKING MEANS! Making him a liar just like the FCC in this situation.
Sorry this seems to be going over your head! But this just goes to show what the blind leading the blind does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, he's getting in early to predict what the usual idiot troll bridge who infests these discussions will say before they say it.
"Free-Market is NOT to blame for this problem we are having"
No, it's largely the fact that there is no free market in this sector, which needs fixing. This requires regulation to happen, as without it there is no competition and the barrier to entry is too high for newcomers to introduce it. It's not the only tool, but it is vital, and has led to vibrant competitions in other markets and countries.
Apologies if these basic points are too complex for you still. Perhaps if you tried listening to others in the discussion rather than shouting and screaming obscenities you might hear them better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with that statement. I just telling you that the solution to this problem is NOT the solution you folks are bringing to the table.
the solution you folks are bringing to the table has been there since the FCC was formed. It has not worked for nearly a fucking century, step aside and lets try something different huh?
Lets turn to the DOJ instead to start fucking these monopolistic businesses up, they are the ONLY agency that has gone after these monopolies and the agency that took the Bell Monopoly down... the FCC didn't do fucking shit!
[ 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:
I have been trying to get these folks to understand that all they are asking for is more failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have been trying to get these folks to understand that all they are asking for is more failure."
Perhaps if you listened to what they actually ask for instead of making up the opposite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It depends
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More us vs them bullshit, this really does not add to the discussion - assuming that is what you think you are participating in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You assume that without the rules of the FCC, regulatory capture will not exist. The reason this logic is false is that regulatory capture already in effect for many state and local level governments. Wiping FCC rules will not change that.
Arguably, the Free-Market approach is (at least indirectly) what caused the regulatory capture. Companies have grown too big. Then the companies fight against the idea of competition to the point of lobbying.
So what was that comment about the blind leading the blind again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Say what? I said no such thing and advance no such notion.
NN has nothing to do with the rules creating the "regulatory capture". NN is about consumer protections, yes they are better to have than not, but only because of the regulatory capture.
I am just telling you guys that your solution is getting you LESS than you deserve as consumers! NN is being used to TRICK YOU into continuing to support the agency that has been working against the consumers since it was formed!
If you Own the cookie jar, why are you letting "them" decide which cookies you get to have from it?
"Arguably, the Free-Market approach is (at least indirectly) what caused the regulatory capture."
No, a Free-Market is the opposite of this. I do not understand why you think blaming the free market for the failure of regulation is logical argument?
A free market means that there is a low barrier to enter the market so that you can provide competing services giving consumers a choice. The existence of a monopoly does not HARM THIS contrary to the lies being spewed here. Regulations are being purchased by the big players to get the FCC to raise the barrier of entry so that new competition cannot be started... look at Google Fiber and the law suits. And the regulatory capture comes by way of an FCC that is working on behalf of the businesses instead of the consumers it is supposed to be protecting!
"So what was that comment about the blind leading the blind again?"
Your blindness comes from fundamentally misunderstanding this situation, which means your understanding being passed to another person leads to them having misunderstanding as well!
In short, the blind leading the blind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote: "NN is about consumer protections, yes they are better to have than not, but only because of the regulatory capture."
Did you actually just agree with everything we have been saying and completely contradict yourself and all your arguments up to this point?
Aside from that, the rest of your points are completely wrong, especially your statement, and I quote: "The existence of a monopoly does not HARM THIS contrary to the lies being spewed here."
Definition of a monopoly taken from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly): "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity." Further down the page it states: "Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry – circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market."
So by definition, for a monopoly to exist and have power, it must have barriers to entry. And barriers to entry means you can't have a free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I am just telling you guys that your solution is getting you LESS than you deserve as consumers!"
The current NN regs boil down simply to "Don't fuck over your customers, and if you are, tell them you are". That's it. Please explain how the hell that's not what consumers want and deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I Lnveer said "all" regulations were Bad! Why do you Leftists always claim I said that when I "never" Said it!]]Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry I caused you to have an aneurysm, but you proved my point with your response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every nation Eats the paint chips it "Deserves"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buying protection?
-- future tweet by Comcast lobbyist Sena Fitzmaurice
Don't laugh, big corporations have been known to engage in some very dirty (including outright illegal) tactics against critics (Just ask Ralph Nader) but most of the time the public never learns about it, because the hired thugs successfully pulled it off, and yet another critic is permanently silenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple misunderstanding
Obviously Comcast, being the most trusted company in america simply feels that it should be implied that they would never do something so blatantly anti-customer, and as such they don't want to waste people's times by forcing them to read it out.
I mean, would you expect them to write out 'We promise not to go door to door punching our customers in the face'? Same thing really. Since they would never, not in a million years do something like that, they're doing everyone a favor by saving time not explicityly saying it.
As for why they had it written down before, well I would guess that, as impossible as it would seem, people didn't quite realize what an absolutely amazing company Comcast was before, and as such, as insane as it was to contemplate, they felt the need to reassure people. As the trust between company and customer has grown, and their reputation as the most beloved company in america(if not the world, it wouldn't surprise me if other countries were desperately hoping that Comcast would start offering their world-class service elsewhere too) the need to waste time like that has lessened, to the point that they feel it's no longer necessary now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple misunderstanding
:)
Great job, TOG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple misunderstanding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple misunderstanding
If they thought they could get away with it I think that would be part of the new customer install. You open the door and the install guy sucker punches you before trashing your house and leaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple misunderstanding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
What happened to notion that corporations must be left free to "innovate", and that in any case "the market" will work this out?
Yes, I know you claim cable is physical monopoly therefore must be regulated, but you premise it as if essential, while people can in fact NOT use the service at all. -- And on other hand, Google's spying which can't be avoided, you always claim must NOT be in least regulated. (And among much else omitted is that Google profit ratio for mere advertising is about ten times what cable service brings, and Google gets to use the very wires for essentially free...)
Anyhoo, my bet is that "paid prioritization" actually does (seem to) result in better conditions for all, but it'll actually just be continuing the trend of last 40 years. Why, in my long-ago youth, I thought 150 baud was adequate, a speed at which one can literally see each bit change...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
You are busy fucking around in your idiocy that you are too stupid to know how to understand this problem or to properly take it seriously.
Ajit Pai is YOUR darwin award in regards to internet. I have been telling you fucking retards that this was coming and you laughed at me.
Now, I am actually laughing at you tards watching you bitch and moan like little babies the fucking over Ajit is giving you.
O yea... I told you so! Eat it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Which is why I tell you yet again, you drooling moron, that I am not American nor directly affected by the idiocy at hand right now. I just like to get involved in conversations where toxic people like you are trying to move the conversation away from reality into something that will get much, much worse for you an your countrymen.
I apologise for the fact that you're both too stupid to address the actual arguments in front of you and to get over your fear of regulation long enough to recognise that it works in many other places with vibrant competition. It must be exhausting to be this much or a prick.
"I have been telling you fucking retards that this was coming and you laughed at me."
But, everyone else are the rude ones who don't understand the real world? Right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
You you understand that just because you are not an American Citizen does not mean you don't deserve him right? If you are willing to sacrifice your liberty and a free-market then you deserve a bastard like Pai.
Plus, if you really don't have a dog in this fight how about you butt out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
lol - wut?
Did he get to vote in the USA last election? Why rip a non citizen for things not within their control? Are you mad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Is a bear Catholic?
Does the pope shit in the woods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
There's always some chucklefuck who thinks that if you're affected by something, it means you're involved. And if you're involved, it means you get to shoulder the blame, for all the good that does.
It's far easier to blame everyone else so he can eat all the paint chips he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
"If you are willing to sacrifice your liberty and a free-market then you deserve a bastard like Pai."
Luckily for everyone pro-consumer NN regs do no such thing, so not sure how that makes anyone deserve Pai.
"Plus, if you really don't have a dog in this fight how about you butt out?"
Maybe you should actually be listening a lot closer to people from countries with thriving competitive broadband markets that don't suffer from the problems that make US broadband so slow and expensive. You might learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
How do I personally deserve a government employee working for a foreign government thousands of miles away from me?
You are getting stupider, I swear.
"If you are willing to sacrifice your liberty and a free-market then you deserve a bastard like Pai."
You still haven't worked out that Pai is the one trying to take those things away from you and sell them to corporations, have you? It's all fine where I am, thanks, but it is due to effective regulation.
"Plus, if you really don't have a dog in this fight how about you butt out?"
No, I'd rather counter the raving bullshit you're spreading to negatively affect the lives of others, thanks. Perhaps when Pai takes away your access to a free and open internet you won't have to read my words, but until then I'll say what I wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Wow, so ol' Paint Chips has gone from thinking "Every nation has the government for which it is fit" means that if your government is bad it's your fault, to thinking it means that if somebody else's government is bad it's your fault?
I'm just gonna go ahead and blame him for the situation in Syria, then. What an asshole, that guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
It's possible to deserve something and not get it, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
We'd certainly all be better off if he could manage that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Wow, so ol' Paint Chips has gone from thinking "Every nation has the government for which it is fit" means that if your government is bad it's your fault, to thinking it means that if somebody else's government is bad it's your fault?
He's already jumped off that deep end for a while now. I've tried pointing out that other countries exist, and people from these countries read this website, and recognize that US policy has a history of affecting everyone else on the planet.
The discussion went about as well as you'd think, with our local anarchist doing the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and calling everyone else a racist, la la la la la la.
Bring on the paint chips. It's the discourse he deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
I "told" you Fucking "retards" that elections Exist and sometimes "politcal" Parties are Different than th "last" political Party! You didn't Listen to me, or "told" me that Of Course elections Exist We Already know "that"! Well who's stupid Now? Not me! I am very "Smrt"! You can tell how Smart I "am" because I always tell Everybody how "smart" I Am, Constantly, which is defiatnealy a thing that Smart people "do"!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it De4serves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
If we were on a boat with a guy who drilled a hole in the bottom he'd be arguing we need to do something about the guy with the drill before we plug the hole. Meanwhile the rest of us want to plug the hole first so the ship doesn't sink and THEN deal with the crazy guy. Both agree the hole and the crazy guy are a problem but we want to address the issue in a different order. Personally I think we need to save the ship before we lynch the guy with the drill but I see his point. It is possible that while we are plugging this hole the crazy guy could just make another and so we never get around to actually stopping him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
O yea... I told you so! Eat it!"
Your gene pool must be...very...shallow, as it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Can't? I'm looking at all requests from Google to my browser blocked here. Wonder what you are talking about.
"and Google gets to use the very wires for essentially free."
Free? If I do want to use Google services (and I do at times) they will be delivering it through the wires I HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR. Using a distribution network that THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR. Again, I wonder what you are talking about.
"Anyhoo, my bet is that "paid prioritization" actually does (seem to) result in better conditions for all, but it'll actually just be continuing the trend of last 40 years."
Skipped history classes much and now are unable to do history right? Packet prioritization is a very recent trend and it does not result in better condition for all. It results in better conditions to the ISPs and to the services that can afford it. You hate Google so much but you are willing to give it more power by securing priority over other services. Your delusion is amusing.
"Why, in my long-ago youth, I thought 150 baud was adequate, a speed at which one can literally see each bit change..."
And yet all bits were given equal treatment and the only restriction was the speed of the technology. Seriously.
As for the title, free market works when there are little barriers for entry and even then it has to be regulated to avoid monopolies as they will naturally form. There's a little game called, wait for it, MONOPOLY that will teach you wonders about natural market mechanics. Go play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
The existence of a monopoly itself is not enough to end a free-market. It is okay for a monopoly to exist and still not lose a free-market... as long as the barrier to entry remains low. This means that if a monopoly that benefits the consumers is around but does not use its monopoly to abuse customers then having the monopoly is NOT a problem.
The problem and destruction of a free-market comes from when a monopoly is allowed to prevent competition from challenging their grip on the market, THAT is when it is okay for regulation to step in, but NOT before.
In your regulatory sycophantic mind just the existence of a monopoly is wrong even if no one is being abused by it!
Your logic works like this.
Free-Market monopoly bad, because businesses are always evil
Regulatory capture monopoly good, because regulators are angels never doing wrong.
It's corrupt/ignorant/hypocritical as fuck! You are directly inviting a greater "guaranteed" evil in to protect yourself from a lesser "potential" evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
The very first post in this entire article was a rude comment itself and I don't see you up there saying anything.
Do you know what this means?
You are a hypocrite, that is what! Go after the first person that made the rude comment and you will not be corrupt in your attempts to correct others.
So correct yourself before you try to correct others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
That's because everyone else apart from you recognised it as a faintly amusing attempt at humour and treated it as such. Whereas your self-absorbed whining is 100% sincere and thus both offense and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
So was that your version of "I am not racist but...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
You can be right and still be a douchbag. Fact is, you don't have to be a douchbag, you choose that. Why would you do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Definition of hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
I am not the first douche-bag here... how about you go and fuck with the person that started it all instead? Oh right, you agree with them so its okay for them to be wrong... just not me. I understand the desire to hold the more capable and competent person to a higher standard, but it is still hypocrisy to do so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
#2. Your position is corrupt if you seek to correct the person that was insulted first. Meaning you have no standing to challenge anyone. Had you told everyone to stop being it, then you would have standing but you didn't. You directly went for the person insulted first making you a douchebag yourself.
You want people to stop being the way they are, first change yourself. I am not asking these idiots to be nice because asking people to be nice is the refuge for the weak and ignorant. It's like saying... wow you have a point, but I am going to ignore truth only because it comes from someone I don't like. Which is what creates partisan divides. Thinking this way allows you to create a facade in your own mind where people intellectually dishonestly write others off in complete ignorance and contempt!
I can live with these assholes, I just can't stand by and let ignorant liars advance lies, ignorance, or hypocrisy like they are superior while talking down to everyone else like they are inferior. I am going to call them out, and no... I am not going to avoid hurting their little douchebag feelings along the way.
I can even live with the fucks up in this place because I at least accept that their motives are intended to benefit consumers... they are just too stupid to realize that their solutions do not match up with their objectives. I don't hate them for that, but I will say that they deserve the results of their stupidity as long as they keep ignoring my warnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
How childish is your argument? Others are being assholes (and douchebags, so I am being one too.)
Stop being a douchebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Thank you. It only matters when you repeatedly make the mistake.
"How childish is your argument? Others are being assholes (and douchebags, so I am being one too.)"
No, that is NOT my argument. My argument is that YOU are being childish for worrying about people being douchebags. Not only that, but you are not even attacking the person that was a douchebag first making you a douchebag yourself. So the question Raymond... what moral compass do you posses that qualifies you to call out people for being a douchebag while being a douchebag yourself?
I am okay with people being douchebags... I am secure in my person, I and not so weak minded that I am going to cry about someone calling me a name. I grew up getting bullied and I learned how to ignore the stupid and how to fight back without fear. I am one of the few people that have the capacity to stand against the throngs of retards that have it wrong. I do not bend to popular opinion... I only bend to facts. And I certainly do not bend to crybabies with a bunch of hurt feelings... none of you silly bitches came to my rescue when my feeling were being hurt. So how about your go and fuck yourself or something? Or if you want me to say it in a nicer way.
Please leave me alone, I do not regard the opinions of biased hypocrites much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
1: I wasn't being a douchebag
2: Sorry, I will try
3: I am what I am, which is a douchebag
Guess we found out which one you chose.
And yes, it is a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Please... proceed! it is your choice after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar y.com/Douch
Douch redirects to Douche in that link. In fact my own spelling correction in my browser considers douch to be incorrect while douche is correct. Sure I do not consider my brower to be authority on spelling but if you google it yourself you will find that I am correct.
Also if you go to google and start to type it in you will be offered the correct spelling and lead to the following result.
Dictionary
douche
do͞oSH/
noun
noun: douche; plural noun: douches
1.
a shower of water.
"a daily douche"
a jet of liquid applied to part of the body for cleansing or medicinal purposes.
a device for washing out the vagina.
2.
North Americaninformal
an obnoxious or contemptible person (typically used of a man).
"that guy is such a douche"
verb
verb: douche; 3rd person present: douches; past tense: douched; past participle: douched; gerund or present participle: douching
1.
spray or shower with water.
I believe the intention is to refer to me by definition 2
"an obnoxious or contemptible person"
So umm... yea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Maybe you can petition them for a few "regulations" to have it changed.
I don't claim I am not a douchebag, but I do not claim to be one either. I just am who I am. How nice or mean people are about facts is a distraction. Stop being wrong... things have a higher chance of going better for you. But remember... no matter how right you are... you are not guaranteed of the outcome you expect when you are right!
You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and do the wrong thing for the right reasons... the problem is if the result of that decision is really the right thing to have done.
If doing the right thing results in harm... then it needs to be done. It will cause less damage over all than avoiding doing the right in a vain attempt to avoid causing damage.
Take the TARP bailouts that started with Bush. They caused more damage than they protected us from. A few thousand people got to keep their jobs... but millions got the price tag of that corruption loaded onto their backs and the businesses learned they can ride you like a fucking pony all damn day long and us your fear of losing a job to keep your ass in their air for them they want!
so yea... I am going to be uncaring about your feelings when I talk back... don't know what else to say, except... pick on all or just the first douchebag if you want to be intellectually honest in your efforts. Otherwise you are just a douchebag yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Facts do indeed win out but when you start name calling, it weakens your argument.
Don't get started on TARP. I believe that the movie "The Big Short" should be required viewing in every school in America.
Again though, the argument of they are doing it so I will too doesn't fly. Why allow them to turn you into a douchebag.
Oh, and I admit it, I didn't know that douchebag came with an e, but then again, I don't type it much at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
So, are you a pot, or a kettle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Look, more but what aboutism...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Indeed. Which is why it's particularly important that the monopolisation of this particular market is reversed, since the barrier to entry is so high and the incumbents control the gates. Glad you agree.
"THAT is when it is okay for regulation to step in, but NOT before"
So, you have to wait for the store to be cleared out by robbers before you get security involved, or the house to be reduced to ashes before telling someone to grab the fire extinguisher? That's a rather strange way of doing things.
"You are directly inviting a greater "guaranteed" evil in to protect yourself from a lesser "potential" evil."
No, that's what the corporate worshipers who wish to remove what little effective regulation remains wish to do. At which point, it will be impossible to reverse *without* a literal government takeover, which is what everyone wishes to avoid. Sane and intelligent people are talking about effective regulation such as that seen in vibrant markets elsewhere.
I think I've found your problem - you're reading your arguments in the mirror. Try facing toward the priginal, you'll see the evidence the correct way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
NN does not reverse the monopolization. It only focuses on giving consumers a paltry few protections. Zero Rating can still be gamed and I have no faith that Ajit will actually enforce NN fully if he is forced to keep them.
"So, you have to wait for the store to be cleared out by robbers before you get security involved, or the house to be reduced to ashes before telling someone to grab the fire extinguisher? That's a rather strange way of doing things."
That is a strawman argument, you are conflating enforcement of law with the creation of law. Even with NN remaining the FCC could still let a fire burn the place to ashes before it gets the extinguisher. You need to be intellectually honest for this discussion.
"I think I've found your problem"
The problem is definitely in the mirror... your mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
No, and nobody has claimed it will. It prevents further degradation of services and allows more effective regulation to build on it. It's to stop the rot, not magically make everything better. On the other hand, you seem to advocate handing everything to the corporations who made the mess.
"Zero Rating can still be gamed and I have no faith that Ajit will actually enforce NN fully if he is forced to keep them."
Of course zero rating will be gamed, since it only exists as a workaround for the rules already in place to remove net neutrality. As for the rest, what's your problem, then? If you don't think the laws will be enforced if they're kept in place, why are you so dead set on having them removed so that the corporations no longer have to pretend they're not rping their customers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
"The existence of a monopoly itself is not enough to end a free-market. It is okay for a monopoly to exist and still not lose a free-market... as long as the barrier to entry remains low. This means that if a monopoly that benefits the consumers is around but does not use its monopoly to abuse customers then having the monopoly is NOT a problem."
Can you provide any actual examples from this utopian world of non-abusive monopolies?
*"Your logic works like this.
Free-Market monopoly bad, because businesses are always evil Regulatory capture monopoly good, because regulators are angels never doing wrong."*
It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you so grossly misstate the actual positions of people. Literally nobody here thinks that way. In fact there is frequent, intense criticism of regulatory capture in industries. By definition there is no good version of regulatory capture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Like the post office delivery van gets to use my access road without paying for its maintenance. Because I am paying for it. I wouldn't do so unless I wanted traffic (including postal delivery) to be able to reach my house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Anyone who thinks Google does not pay for internet access should try swapping bills for a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
read up you stupid fucking twit... it might benefit you.
"In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
This means if you have a monopoly or oligopoly just like our current FCC blessed AND REGULATORY SECURED landscape, you don't have a meaningful free-market in the general sense.
We have regulatory capture. But plenty of retards around here keep blaming free-market for the failures of regulations. They don't even see clearly enough to understand that the enemy in the mirror, is themselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
I'm glad you agree with me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Maybe if you go back to grade school and develop additional reading comprehension skills you could "get it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
You proved yourself wrong with your own quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
I know you are stupid, but try not to let the cat out of your own bag!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly your faith in "free market" vanishes?
Google doesn't get it's internet for free. They pay a huge amount for internet. It isn't even free on the lines they own as they have to build, maintain them, pay rental fees for pole usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170412/06311737132/tennessee-gives-att-comcast-millions-new -taxpayer-subsidies-yet-banned-city-owned-isp-expanding-broadband-without-taxpayer-aid.shtml
https:// mic.com/articles/85101/10-corporations-receiving-massive-public-subsidies-from-taxpayers
HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED!
LIKE FUCK THE CITIZENS SUBSIDIZED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A small Internet company does not need Googles infrastructure to serve it first few users. Also, as it user base grows, ans assuming its business plans work out, it can increase it capacity to serve users via content delivery networks, renting servers in various location, buying servers and putting them in co-location facilities, or if it grows big enough, building its own server farms. However its grown depends on building up its user base, which becomes almost impossible if the ISPs are blocking it, or slowing down its data.
Also note, that it will be almost impossible for a small company to gain the attention of the big ISPs to negotiate a solution to the problems the ISPs are causing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only markets that are likely to expand in the ISP sector, is fully ciphered networking. TOR capacity is going to to see a big increase. And then they are going to ban that declaring that all ciphered traffic is a criminal offense.
What your talking about is a grass roots buildout of private national backbones. And there is only one company that I know of that has ever done anything like that. And when it did it, it started out with a warchest that dwarves most small nations.
No. You do not understand this market AT ALL. The authority to restrain trade that is being bestowed on these carriers is no less than the grant of a title of nobility. And that violates the intent of Article 1 Section 9.
You can sprinkle optimism on the corpse all you want. The Internet is dead if this goes through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Irrational Fear mongering, the internet is not going to die regardless of who wins. It's a service and people want it and will keep paying for it no matter how fucked up or awesome it gets.
This is just a fight over how good or bad it is going to be. People have an unbelievable capacity for putting up with shit, which is why there are a lot of dictators and nations murdering their citizens in weird and colorful ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NN is just one piece, there are still all sorts of regulations protecting businesses and preventing competition. I want those getting attacked, not be stuck here pissing and moaning over a few paltry consumer protections. I don't need protection, I need freedom to choose my ISP, not get shoehorned into making selections from the oligarchy/oligopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In most countries where that is possible, like here in the U.K. that is made possible by regulating the infrastructure so that the infrastructure owner has to lease capacity to other ISPs at a reasonable rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The Internet is dead if this goes through."
You realise that US ISP's are not "The Internet" right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might want to start collecting traceroutes on all your favourite sites. Because when public peering in the U.S. goes away, so is a shit ton of YOUR content, even if your in another country.
I get your point. But the effect IS going to be global. This is going to have a serious impact on the traffic of other countries as well. Which means that foreign nations will see major fiber growth to work around Ajit Pai's regulatory truck bomb against the 1st amendment.
So expect a lot of new yank network engineers in your country soon. Because that is the only place where new network technologies are going to be growing.
In the 70's U.S. auto manufacturers reached mutual detante, and basically stopped innovated. They investing nothing in their factories and the whole market in the U.S. stagnated while the rest of the world advanced.
That is what Ajit Pai is trying to do to telecom in the U.S. When Pais little bomb goes off, a ton of business's are going to start rehoming abroad. It will be the only way to stay competitive in the market. So Cheers! Save me a Pint mate! I'll be across the pond directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Incidentally, as one of the more senior people on the Internet -- my tenure goes back to the late 1970's -- I don't find it necessary to use Google. They may have various advantages, but none them have been sufficient to coerce my participation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"With perfect NN, other video delivery sites won't be as fast as YouTube, will they?"
Not sure what you point is here. Is it that small companies can not afford infrastructure? That is not at all related to NN is it? Why would YT be faster in traversing a network if all traffic were treated equal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is already shot to a mess.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha ha... wut? They sure can manipulate the data. There are all sorts of ways to "indirectly" manipulate stuff. Just because you lack the expertise and knowledge in ways things can be manipulated does not mean everything has now been magically solved.
All the FCC needs to do is "look the other way" kind like is has been doing since it was established. Laws may be on the books, but it does not mean they will be enforced. Heck... laws don't even have to be on the books for them to be enforced either. I have seen more than enough courts enforce laws that don't exist and ignore laws that do.
"Closest they can come is slowing your total bandwidth if you exceed your quota."
yea, your quota for "netflix", your quota for "google", your quota for "techdirt".
There are all sorts of ways to quota yo that NN does not talk about and even one where it does allow it through Zero Rating.
When you connect to an approved site you get 100 mbps... but if you connect to a non-approved site.. you might bet 300 baud.
Heck, they can just plug your ass up to a 1mbps link. There are soo many ways to jerk you around, don't let them fool you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is a case of the rules not going far enough, not the rules themselves being a problem.
As well just because one loophole remains(again, due to the rules not being strict enough) does not mean that making it more difficult/risky to abuse the customers in other ways stops being a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One and the same. Rules not going far enough means the rules are the problem.
"As well just because one loophole remains(again, due to the rules not being strict enough) "
I guess you have been missing out on all those "intentional" loopholes they keep putting into things. They guys are paid to sit around the think all of this up. We shoot holes in them in our past times... do you really think they are that stupid? they are not, they have just gotten good at fooling you through subversion and misdirection!
"does not mean that making it more difficult/risky to abuse the customers in other ways stops being a good idea."
If regulators were perfect people not prone to being paid henchmen for big business I would be in support of you guys.
the problem is that you are calling free market evil and regulators salt of the earth good. It just is not true. consumers must have the capacity to pick any ISP they want or Become their OWN ISP if they so desire. That is the solution. Not some FCC clown like suck bawls Pai telling me what choices I am going to get!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One and the same. Rules not going far enough means the rules are the problem.
In that there's not enough of them, sure, yet for some strange reason I suspect that you would not be in favor of more rules.
the problem is that you are calling free market evil and regulators salt of the earth good.
Coming from someone who believes that companies should be able to do anything they want with no oversight or regulations to restrain them I suppose I can't be surprised you would believe this of others.
(Now I know what you might be thinking, 'That's not my position!', to which my response is 'Yes, it absolutely is', in the very same way that that 'free market=evil' and 'regulations=good' is the position of those here who you so vehemently disagree with.)
It just is not true. consumers must have the capacity to pick any ISP they want or Become their OWN ISP if they so desire.
Ah yes, that reminds me, I need to finish laying out the last section of concrete for the runway so I can start advertising my own airline. Which of course was a trivial undertaking, but if it means I can avoid the current companies in the field, well, it had to be done clearly.
Competition would solve a lot of the problem, but given the high barrier to entry and the predatory/defensive nature of the current companies in the market it's been made crystal clear that it isn't going to happen any time soon, and is going to require strict rules in place to allow competition and keep the current players from stomping anyone who tries flat.
That is the solution. Not some FCC clown like suck bawls Pai telling me what choices I am going to get!
Pai's a problem because he's a tool of the telecom companies to the point that he might as well preface any press releases he makes with 'This content sponsored by Verizon, Comcast and AT&T'. Those same companies that will screw you over even more than they currently are if the rules keeping them in check(poorly to be sure, but again that's largely on Pai and his breathless support of them) are struck down and replaced with... let's see, rules that are quite likely to be literally written by the telecom companies and will have loopholes that make the current ones look like pinholes in comparison, enforced by an agency(the FTC) that is overworked and lacks any sort of rule making ability such that the best they can do is hand out fines based upon the rules presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the Pro NN crowd is busy fighting over crumbs... they are too dogmatically invested to think straight and notice the whole fucking cake has been taken from them!
[ 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:
The problem is so bad... not only did they not have to steal the cake... we paid them to take it from us! That is insane!
[ 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:
Wow - really? That's it? .... lol - you're funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However none of that gets round any road blocks put up by ISPs, and where a small company will not have the clout to deal with such problems.
Why do you keep conflating the problems of building a business with the problem of ISPs being in a position to control the potential user/customer access to that business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"most definitely hallucinating the entire affair."
Of course as a private company those dollars are just "speech" according to SCOTUS. And they aren't an agency of state, (even if they are being endowed with the right to adjudicate the disposition of 1st amendment protected speech), so foreign operatives intervening in domestic public affairs is just a tax deductible business expense.
Personally I think we are past the point where the 1st amendment has any utility. But to know for sure you have to go out and get your head busted on the protest line a couple of times. Not looking forward to it, but we all have to pitch in at some point.
"Why do I have to go to jail for your freedom?"
-- Larry Flint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "most definitely hallucinating the entire affair."
Yes, on both sides. I am not on the side of either NN or FCC, but both hate me. It definitely seems like an insurmountable task to call out all the lies. Thankfully TD is at least doing a good job of Calling out the FCC lies, it just has a problem with creating a few of its own along the way.
"Maybe it is the same Russians Trump used. "
Maybe it's just the other foreigners like PaulT who says he is not an American getting into the mix as well. Foreign interest's are just going to get into the mix no matter what. If we American want to stop them, we can. Additionally, just because they are a foreign interested does not mean that their ideas are bad either. I only just people based on the merits of the idea, not by considering the source. If you only consider the source when you hear something then you are helping others to mislead yourself and makes you easy to control through propaganda!
"Of course as a private company those dollars are just "speech" according to SCOTUS."
Elected Officials are NOT required to take those bribes or contributions and they are not required to follow everything they demand. You blaming a problem of corruption on the people doing the corrupting will giving a pass to those getting corrupted.
Right now we don't blame road manufacturers for build a road smooth enough to allow people to travel 150 MPH on it killing someone, but seem to be okay with blaming websites for shit that others post so we are definitely getting to where we are now victim blaming for EVERYTHING we do.
We blame free-market for the failures of regulation, we blame the people giving bribes because the politcians took the bribe, we blame gun makers for criminals shooting people.
"Not looking forward to it, but we all have to pitch in at some point. "
Not everyone can be rosa parks. there were several rosa parks before rosa parks came along... she just happened to be the right protester in the right place at the right time to be the straw that broke the camels back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "most definitely hallucinating the entire affair."
It isn't going to be like Rosa Parks for NN. If Pais truck bomb against Constitution goes off it is going to be extremely difficult to demonstrate through action.
They've spent decades memeing cultural bias against the I.T. industry. Every t.v. show, every movie, all clearly demonstrate that all technicians either works for the government, or is a criminal. How do you get support if using "big words" is publicly regarded in the same way as wearing a bandana in a gang neighborhood? It is going to be very difficult to get past that. But hey, now we at least know what it was for. Now we're finding out, like the Jews who eventually found out what those stars of David were really for.
Layer 3 traffic is no longer going to be able to traverse peering points without severe latency, if at all. While service to overlay networks is going to increase, crypto increases byte volume. So the latency problem to non-edge-hosted sites is going to get critical much faster than most people think it is. And it is already pretty bad for those people unfortunate enough to live in the perpetrators areas of immanent domain.
Really the "Rosa Parks" might end up being the guy who figures out how to bring the whole network to it's knees, to force the end game on us all faster than the perpetrators were intending.
Please all you government agents reading this forum. Please advise on exactly how the 1st amendment can be exercised in protest of this issue, that can bring results, but not end up resulting in permanent residency in Gitmo? Because if most Americans can't figure our a way, doesn't that pretty much mean there is no first amendment? And doesn't that compel your oath to be exercised in the service of the Constitution, rather than in the service of your employer?
So what gives? Your out there! I can hear you breathing when I make a phone call. How about an opinion? Because those rights are your rights too. Or does your club prevent you from having an opinion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am curious what lies those are. Do you have any information on that? Even if it is just one, it would at least show me what I am not seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Regulations are what killed free market. This was told a LONG TIME ago. Since the free-market was murdered before most of us were born, it's a lie to call the monopolies of the Telco's a failure of the free-market.
The story that we need NN to protect consumers is a lie as well. NN still allows for Zero Rating, it is not nearly the protection they are "advancing" it to be. TD has also posted its own Articles about the risks of Zero Rating.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161111/08192636020/too-little-too-late-fcc-finally-realiz es-ats-zero-rating-is-anti-competitive.shtml
"it would at least show me what I am not seeing."
My big question is how you CAN'T see these whoppers?
The FCC has been in power since 1934 and has been regulating for more than 80+ years now. Ma Bell and ATT monopolies were built before & during the FCC. The FCC also officially states that they intend to regulate them as "natural monopolies"
Which leads to the 3rd lie, where the claims that regulation is required to protect people from monopolies. It's NOT!
the only protection we require from a monopoly is low barriers to market entry for businesses.
The other problem comes to natural monopolies. They quantitatively different from a regular monopoly and Those "DO" require SOME regulation... because the tunnels and polls for the cables to be run on should not be privately owned. This comprises the infrastructure and last mile and also is part of how google fiber we stonewalled in its deployments.
The truth is that regulations are being used to cement big business and TD and its crowd of pro NN supports are not understanding that.
If we are going to have regulations... they need to be focused on keeping the market as free as reasonably possible so that consumers have a REAL choice of ISP's. The choice of which one they want to buy from or even the choice to create one of their own! But we are very far from that stage in this argument because the Pro NN crowd has ignorantly allow Big Business to push us ALL onto the backs of our heels. They could not even poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But how is NN being a barrier for starting ISP businesses? From what I understand small ISPs are not affected by NN. I see other regulations being a barrier and think that it needs to be change but not for NN. If we destroyed all barriers in the ISP market then NN can go along with it and wouldn't be needed but NN is the focus. Now it may cause an avalanche for continual change but it looks highly suspicious when the focus is on something that those who control most of the market are happy to remove. Until then, I will support NN as it is one of the few consumer protections as limited as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to tell you I told you so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, it's a drug, and must be regulated against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fiduciary Responsibility
Worse than that. Once they lobby and Pai changes the rules, their non-binding promises will shift again and thus are worth bubkis, but they will have a FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to the shareholders to explore ways of using their increased market control to generate more profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]