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.
Citation? Where is your story coming from? Last I heard, Lexington is going to get GB fiber from MetroNet, an Indiana based ISP. That was last week. Also, I would GLADLY take $35 or even as much as $50 for GB fiber as opposed to $70 for 16Mb up/1mb down speeds any day of the week.
For those of you STILL having trouble following this, here...
Let's take the automobile market AS AN EXAMPLE.
Ford and GM buys state laws to prevent any other vehicle manufacturer to sell within the state. Suddenly your only choices of Automobiles are either Ford or GM, EVERYWHERE. Busses, Vans, Semis, Cars, Trucks, all Ford or GM. (This is actually happening with Tesla.)
Now lets say that GM and Ford make an arrangement to not sell in each others markets. Suddenly All of the State of New York is NOTHING but GM, or all of the State of California is NOTHING but Ford. Because they would also have bought laws to the effect of driving a vehicle across state lines either a) is illegal, or b) is prohibitively expensive to licence.
No Mazda, No Toyota, No Lambos, No Porches, or Ferraris. No outdated vehicles either such as AMC, DMC, Duesenburg, or Pontiacs. Now obviously that won't fly because of anti-trust legislation.
But here's the kicker, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH ISP'S. Our choice is either Ford and/or GM. Not only that, the FCC wants us to buy specially branded GM or Ford Fuel as well.
the ROI was do to precisely because incumbent ISP's made it too costly to invest by buying laws to do so. Try again.
It's kind of funny that where Google (or local power companies) DID deploy GB fiber, suddenly ALL the ISP's could do GB fiber almost immediately where they couldn't before, imagine that.
There are some problems with your theory. Net Neutrality is regulation, let's get that out of the way right now. It is regulation because the markets are FUBAR. We NEED Net Neutrality in the same sense that we need Long distance and standard phone neutrality rules. We NEED Net Neutrality BECAUSE there is no competition. Having lack of competition is NOT Net Neutrality's fault, it is the fault of ISP's not wanting to invade on another ISP's territory.
That leads us to the second point, Google found it prohibitive to invest in broadband mostly because incumbent ISP's have made it prohibitively so. By buying state laws, and buying state and federal legislatures. I do agree with your point halfway though, Competition needs to be at the local level, but also ISP's need to overlap each other and start competing for services.
IMO, This whole problem was created in the early 80's with the breakup of AT&T/Bell. Which led to the Baby Bells, regional phone companies, all 7 of which are now part of 3 companies, AT&T being the largest, then Verizon, and CenturyLink. No the problem needs to be addressed both at the National AND Local level.
If I remember my history correctly, the FCC broke up the National Broadcasting Company, which had a radio monopoly. They split up into 3 companies, The National Broadcasting Company (NBC), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Columbia Broadcasting Systems (CBS)
Now I will agree with you that it was a failure of regulation, but that doesn't mean that we should subsequently have NO regulation, as failure of regulation equates to no regulations at all, hence our point of needing USEFUL regulations. Over-regulating is just as bad as under-regulating. Ajit Paid Off is completely deregulating, which is worse.
Bull-fucking-shit, The situation we now find ourselves is a DIRECT result of the us govt breaking up Ma Bell in the 80's. The Baby Bells did not start competing with each other, they formed regional monopolies of phone services, then they started offering internet. That should have been regulated right then and there. And with the FCC plans that Paid Off just unveiled (might want to update/new post Karl), I have a very very real fear of Democracy in the US being totally destroyed (more so than it is/was before).
I have a very real fear of AT&T telling me what news, information, and debates I can and cannot see and participate in. That is straight up 1984 shit right there. Now when you look at the bigger picture with the Sinclair situation, well...
such as something not unlike a criminal asset forfeiture. I am sure their families would LOVE to be homeless and penniless because their husbands/wives have found it fit to abuse the law and commit constitutional violations.
He has threatened with extreme violence against a reporter of a newspaper called "The Mockingbird". You could say he wants to kill one of their reporters. Harper Lee would like a word.
So you are an authoritative expert on who is and who is not a journalist now? Which govt agency do you work for that is responsible for deciding who is and who isn't a journalist?
You forgot a key point, ever since the advent of the camera (and I dare say even before THAT), Citizen level journalism has been a thing.
This story is NOT a repost from 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017...
The path to Rosenstein's slaughtering of a metaphor runs through such highlights as the DAG claiming device encryption is solely motivated by profits...
I will grant him this one BUT... only in as much as that after Snowden, the world took a hard look at how strong our encryption actually is, and who is accessing it, and for what reasons.
The bigger story isn't the provisions in TPP. No, the bigger story is that the US is in practice, no longer a superpower. Yes, we do have the ability to do so, but we aren't.
With the current administration, the world is realizing that they don't NEED the US to do stuff. TPP is being/has been negotiated without US involvement. China has been on record to take the lead on the Paris Agreements, which with their economy, they can and most likely are, developing renewable energy sources. The EU has made a coalition of EU forces under the banner of the EU for the sole purpose of being less reliant on US forces.
So the bigger story in all this, is that the world woke up, and it found it is stronger than it thought it was before. And that the US is and will not be as dominant as it was before, at least not without consequence.
I said it before and I will keep saying it. We should allow backdoors into encryption, on one caveat, that Govt official also has that backdoor as well.
Bonus: Feinstein represents California, Which includes the City of Palmdale, which houses Lockheed Martin ADP (Skunkworks), Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. I am SURE they would just LOVE to have a backdoor into their R&D programs.
Anchors having an opinion isn't a new phenomenon, Murrow had one and it was the end of McCarthy, Cronkite had one and it was the end of Vietnam -- The Newsroom (2012) S1 Ep1.
Should think it applies to reporters as well, I mean, they are human, with human emotions, and human opinions.
On the post: Comcast Spent Millions Repealing Net Neutrality, Now Wants You To Believe It Won't Take Full, Brutal Advantage
Re: Re: You've long argued for cities making "public-private" partnerships...
On the post: Ajit Pai's Big Lie
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.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation? Where is your story coming from? Last I heard, Lexington is going to get GB fiber from MetroNet, an Indiana based ISP. That was last week. Also, I would GLADLY take $35 or even as much as $50 for GB fiber as opposed to $70 for 16Mb up/1mb down speeds any day of the week.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
For those of you STILL having trouble following this, here...
Ford and GM buys state laws to prevent any other vehicle manufacturer to sell within the state. Suddenly your only choices of Automobiles are either Ford or GM, EVERYWHERE. Busses, Vans, Semis, Cars, Trucks, all Ford or GM. (This is actually happening with Tesla.)
Now lets say that GM and Ford make an arrangement to not sell in each others markets. Suddenly All of the State of New York is NOTHING but GM, or all of the State of California is NOTHING but Ford. Because they would also have bought laws to the effect of driving a vehicle across state lines either a) is illegal, or b) is prohibitively expensive to licence.
No Mazda, No Toyota, No Lambos, No Porches, or Ferraris. No outdated vehicles either such as AMC, DMC, Duesenburg, or Pontiacs. Now obviously that won't fly because of anti-trust legislation.
But here's the kicker, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH ISP'S. Our choice is either Ford and/or GM. Not only that, the FCC wants us to buy specially branded GM or Ford Fuel as well.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's kind of funny that where Google (or local power companies) DID deploy GB fiber, suddenly ALL the ISP's could do GB fiber almost immediately where they couldn't before, imagine that.
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Releases Net Neutrality Killing Order, Hopes You're Too Busy Cooking Turkey To Read It
Re: Re:
There are some problems with your theory. Net Neutrality is regulation, let's get that out of the way right now. It is regulation because the markets are FUBAR. We NEED Net Neutrality in the same sense that we need Long distance and standard phone neutrality rules. We NEED Net Neutrality BECAUSE there is no competition. Having lack of competition is NOT Net Neutrality's fault, it is the fault of ISP's not wanting to invade on another ISP's territory.
That leads us to the second point, Google found it prohibitive to invest in broadband mostly because incumbent ISP's have made it prohibitively so. By buying state laws, and buying state and federal legislatures. I do agree with your point halfway though, Competition needs to be at the local level, but also ISP's need to overlap each other and start competing for services.
IMO, This whole problem was created in the early 80's with the breakup of AT&T/Bell. Which led to the Baby Bells, regional phone companies, all 7 of which are now part of 3 companies, AT&T being the largest, then Verizon, and CenturyLink. No the problem needs to be addressed both at the National AND Local level.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners
If I remember my history correctly, the FCC broke up the National Broadcasting Company, which had a radio monopoly. They split up into 3 companies, The National Broadcasting Company (NBC), American Broadcasting Company (ABC), and Columbia Broadcasting Systems (CBS)
Now I will agree with you that it was a failure of regulation, but that doesn't mean that we should subsequently have NO regulation, as failure of regulation equates to no regulations at all, hence our point of needing USEFUL regulations. Over-regulating is just as bad as under-regulating. Ajit Paid Off is completely deregulating, which is worse.
On the post: FCC Plan To Use Thanksgiving To 'Hide' Its Attack On Net Neutrality Vastly Underestimates The Looming Backlash
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whiners
I have a very real fear of AT&T telling me what news, information, and debates I can and cannot see and participate in. That is straight up 1984 shit right there. Now when you look at the bigger picture with the Sinclair situation, well...
On the post: Sheriff's Office To Pay $3 Million For Invasive Searches Of 850 High School Students
Re: Re: Re: Sucks
On the post: Angry Lawyer Already Engaged In A SLAPP Suit Promises To Sue More Critics, Use His Machine Gun If Sanctioned
I sense a copyright lawsuit coming...
On the post: Trial Set To Start For Journalist Facing Decades In Prison For Covering Inauguration Day Protests
Re:
You forgot a key point, ever since the advent of the camera (and I dare say even before THAT), Citizen level journalism has been a thing.
On the post: AT&T Promises Your Broadband Will Suck Less...But Only If It Gets Another Massive Tax Cut
On the post: Shady Anti-Spyware Developer Loses Lawsuit Against Competitor Who Flagged Its Software As Malicious
Re: Dead Parrot Sketch, Enigma Software Edition
It's like Zaaaaango to Kaspersky
On the post: Latest DOJ WTFness: Encryption Is Like A Locked House That Won't Let Its Owners Back Inside
I will grant him this one BUT... only in as much as that after Snowden, the world took a hard look at how strong our encryption actually is, and who is accessing it, and for what reasons.
This is what happens when you put backdoors in stuff.
On the post: With The US Out, Canada Gets Copyright Out Of TPP And Moves Closer To Agreement
The bigger story...
With the current administration, the world is realizing that they don't NEED the US to do stuff. TPP is being/has been negotiated without US involvement. China has been on record to take the lead on the Paris Agreements, which with their economy, they can and most likely are, developing renewable energy sources. The EU has made a coalition of EU forces under the banner of the EU for the sole purpose of being less reliant on US forces.
So the bigger story in all this, is that the world woke up, and it found it is stronger than it thought it was before. And that the US is and will not be as dominant as it was before, at least not without consequence.
On the post: Sen. Feinstein Looking To Revive Anti-Encryption Bill In The Wake Of Texas Church Shooting
Bonus: Feinstein represents California, Which includes the City of Palmdale, which houses Lockheed Martin ADP (Skunkworks), Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. I am SURE they would just LOVE to have a backdoor into their R&D programs.
On the post: And Another Thing: Those Dumb Social Media Guidelines For Journalists Are Going To Paint A Target On Their Backs
Should think it applies to reporters as well, I mean, they are human, with human emotions, and human opinions.
On the post: DRM Strikes Again: Sonic Forces Just Plain Broken Thanks To Denuvo
Re: *pulls out the EULA again*
Next >>