*"However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN.
The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it."*
So in your learned opinion Wheeler is bad because he did the thing he could do (regulation) but didn't do the thing he couldn't do (legislation). By that argument we should also be complaining about why you haven't fixed the problem yet. Well, why haven't you?!
Also, it's constantly amazing how often TD critics constantly bitch and complain about all these things TD supposedly missed or didn't understand, despite how often and in how much detail they were covered. You think you're all smart and clever showing up us dummies, but you look like an idiot every time you bring up these obvious and well understood points. In other words, thank you Captain Obvious!
"Hate to break it to you guys, but simply agitating - keyboard wars, even bringing legal action isn't going to repeal the old golden rule - the gold rules. Trying to blame it on one team - red or blue, ignores the fact that they are all on the "gimme the green" team..."
Remind me again which team just voted to give a huge and economically unjustifiable tax cut to the companies that pretty much write the laws they got the ISP market into this problem in the first place...
"FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date."
Not if the ISP's get their way and write the laws they really want, which is very clearly their real aim, and quite probably Pai's too.
"The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents."
That's a nonsensical statement. Pai is directly and personally responsible for undermining the current imperfect but not completely crap scenario. And the only real NN opponents are the ISP's who want to fuck over their customers for more profit. They're exactly who the focus should be on.
"If NN supporters are correct ... very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal -- What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)"
Is that a serious question? The answers have been discussed at length quite a bit recently...
"NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views -- if disaster strikes with NN abolition ... then NN re-establishment should be easy."
This shows your gross ignorance of the topic. That test has already taken place and the results are well documented. It was difficult to fix then and it'll be difficult to fix again.
"...I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser's way of keeping the focus on him so they don't have to face the fact that their shit stank too!"
Trump is the one currently fucking up the country, not Clinton. There is absolutely zero reason to keep bringing her up other than to deflect from criticism of Trump and your inability to defend his actions.
"Sorry but how is ensuring our constitutional rights are upheld on social media platforms with millions of users a form of fascism?"
It's not a form of fascism, but neither is it a thing at all. You have zero constitutional rights to force a privately owned platform to host your content. If you're going to demand your rights are upheld you'd better learn what they actually are first.
Because this is not a good purpose. If you're happy for messages you disagree with to be censored then you have no right to complain when messages you agree with are also censored.
"This woulnd't be you calling the "experts" wrong would it Mike?"
Whether or not they qualify for the simplistic term "expert" is irrelevant. One group are being paid to say what their client wants them to say, the other is under genuine threat of jail time for not being truthful. Hopefully you're able to judge who's more likely to be reliable.
"I notice you like experts when you agree with them but not when you don't."
"Pai will only have to show that the previous choice didn't generate the expected results, and that there is no reason to continue to support rules that have no proven beneficial effects."
I doubt that's entirely true, but even if it is, the rules literally just said "don't do bad shit". So the ISP's didn't do the bad shit the rules told them not to do. How is that not the expected result, and how is that of no benefit?
Re: NO big loss! "Net Neutrality" wasn't going to "save" us, either!
"...Techdirt asserts that "platforms" have First Amendment Right to control / remove all speech on their sites, not just their own..."
Are you really claiming that private companies don't have full legal control of content on their own websites? The First Amendment is irrelevant in this context. If the government tries to stop you from posting something on your website then come back and tell us all about it.
Says the person who just wrote a few hundred words that added nothing new to the discussion.
"NN is a band aid for a major wound. You may be able to make it stop bleeding a bit, but the overall problem remains. Get as upset and agressive about the real problem and you might find the band aid isn't needed at all"
Again, no shit Sherlock. But the current NN regs are much better than nothing, are popular with literally everyone who's not a major ISP, and should be left the hell alone so people can get all upset and aggressive about the real problem. Nothing you've said is a reason to not protest like hell about what's about to happen.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Why don't you try telling us something that isn't clearly understood by any regular reader here and anyone else with a passing interest in the topic.
"As usual, over time, regulations have become nothing other than a way for big businesses to solidify their death grips on the economy."
Please explain how the current NN regs, in place for two years and popular with everyone except the big ISP thugs, are allowing "big businesses to solidify their death grips on the economy." No hypotheticals or dystopian predictions, no broad generalisations about regulation in general; tell us how are these rules that are about to be killed are harming consumers in any way.
It's amusing that your entire argument boils down to who's on what side. It's grossly simplistic thinking that shows you up as intellectually average. Both companies do good things and bad things, and both are called out by TD when it's deserved.
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.
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.
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
Re: re-writing history?
*"However, he forget (or ignored) one basic thing, which is the moment he is out of office, the next person can just do what Pai is doing now and remove the Title II status, which kills off NN.
The true evidence pointed to the need for legislation and not regulation. but Wheeler didn't do it right - and now you are paying for it."*
So in your learned opinion Wheeler is bad because he did the thing he could do (regulation) but didn't do the thing he couldn't do (legislation). By that argument we should also be complaining about why you haven't fixed the problem yet. Well, why haven't you?!
Also, it's constantly amazing how often TD critics constantly bitch and complain about all these things TD supposedly missed or didn't understand, despite how often and in how much detail they were covered. You think you're all smart and clever showing up us dummies, but you look like an idiot every time you bring up these obvious and well understood points. In other words, thank you Captain Obvious!
On the post: Shocker: FOIA Request Shows Yet Another Core Justification For Repealing Net Neutrality Was Bullshit
Re: See?
"Hate to break it to you guys, but simply agitating - keyboard wars, even bringing legal action isn't going to repeal the old golden rule - the gold rules. Trying to blame it on one team - red or blue, ignores the fact that they are all on the "gimme the green" team..."
Remind me again which team just voted to give a huge and economically unjustifiable tax cut to the companies that pretty much write the laws they got the ISP market into this problem in the first place...
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
Re: Pai bashing
"FCC NN decision has been made, but can be reversed at some future date."
Not if the ISP's get their way and write the laws they really want, which is very clearly their real aim, and quite probably Pai's too.
"The more sober NN supporters should focus on NN itself, rather than emotionally bashing Pai and NN opponents."
That's a nonsensical statement. Pai is directly and personally responsible for undermining the current imperfect but not completely crap scenario. And the only real NN opponents are the ISP's who want to fuck over their customers for more profit. They're exactly who the focus should be on.
"If NN supporters are correct ... very bad consequences will now develop with NN repeal -- What are those specific consequences (??) and When will they become apparent (??)"
Is that a serious question? The answers have been discussed at length quite a bit recently...
"NN supporters now have a full real-world test of their views -- if disaster strikes with NN abolition ... then NN re-establishment should be easy."
This shows your gross ignorance of the topic. That test has already taken place and the results are well documented. It was difficult to fix then and it'll be difficult to fix again.
On the post: FCC Boss Claims Net Neutrality Supporters Were Clearly Wrong Because Twitter Still Works The Day After Repeal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...I am still going to point out bitching about Trump is just the loser's way of keeping the focus on him so they don't have to face the fact that their shit stank too!"
Trump is the one currently fucking up the country, not Clinton. There is absolutely zero reason to keep bringing her up other than to deflect from criticism of Trump and your inability to defend his actions.
On the post: Would-Be Congressman Wants A Law Forcing Social Media Platforms To Keep All His Alt-Right Buddies Online
Re: Re:
"Sorry but how is ensuring our constitutional rights are upheld on social media platforms with millions of users a form of fascism?"
It's not a form of fascism, but neither is it a thing at all. You have zero constitutional rights to force a privately owned platform to host your content. If you're going to demand your rights are upheld you'd better learn what they actually are first.
On the post: This Whole Mess With Ajit Pai, The Harlem Shake And Copyright Is Bad And Everyone's Wrong.
Re: Use the tools that are available
Because this is not a good purpose. If you're happy for messages you disagree with to be censored then you have no right to complain when messages you agree with are also censored.
On the post: Why Must The FCC Insult Everyone's Intelligence By Misrepresenting Broadband Investment?
Re:
"This woulnd't be you calling the "experts" wrong would it Mike?"
Whether or not they qualify for the simplistic term "expert" is irrelevant. One group are being paid to say what their client wants them to say, the other is under genuine threat of jail time for not being truthful. Hopefully you're able to judge who's more likely to be reliable.
"I notice you like experts when you agree with them but not when you don't."
That's real kindergarten-level analysis there.
On the post: Two Separate Studies Show That The Vast Majority Of People Who Said They Support Ajit Pai's Plan... Were Fake
Re: Re: Re: So what ?
"Do you support Net Neutrality?"
"No! It's a liberal socialist policy from Obama that'll take our jobs!"
"Okay, do you support the only ISP available in your area being able to fuck you over even more than they already do?"
"No! Why would anyone want that?"
"Here's your sign"
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Pai will only have to show that the previous choice didn't generate the expected results, and that there is no reason to continue to support rules that have no proven beneficial effects."
I doubt that's entirely true, but even if it is, the rules literally just said "don't do bad shit". So the ISP's didn't do the bad shit the rules told them not to do. How is that not the expected result, and how is that of no benefit?
On the post: No, The FTC Won't Save You Once Net Neutrality Rules Are Killed
Re: NO big loss! "Net Neutrality" wasn't going to "save" us, either!
"...Techdirt asserts that "platforms" have First Amendment Right to control / remove all speech on their sites, not just their own..."
Are you really claiming that private companies don't have full legal control of content on their own websites? The First Amendment is irrelevant in this context. If the government tries to stop you from posting something on your website then come back and tell us all about it.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: It's a good post, but...
"Wow, talk about "adding" to the discussion."
Says the person who just wrote a few hundred words that added nothing new to the discussion.
"NN is a band aid for a major wound. You may be able to make it stop bleeding a bit, but the overall problem remains. Get as upset and agressive about the real problem and you might find the band aid isn't needed at all"
Again, no shit Sherlock. But the current NN regs are much better than nothing, are popular with literally everyone who's not a major ISP, and should be left the hell alone so people can get all upset and aggressive about the real problem. Nothing you've said is a reason to not protest like hell about what's about to happen.
On the post: FBI Director Complains About Encryption, Offers To Sacrifice Public Safety In The Interest Of Public Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fantasy conversation
I think the second nuclear bomb explosion was a shark jumping moment.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re: It's a good post, but...
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re:
"You want REAL net neutrality? Break the Monopolies and stop trying to manage them with easily bought and paid for political toadies!"
We wait to hear your brilliant solution for achieving this apparently quick and easy task.
On the post: The Free Market Argument For Net Neutrality
Re:
"Who says roads would become more costly? Why wouldn't they become less expensive?"
How is a private toll road less expensive to use than a free one?
On the post: Why I Changed My Mind On Net Neutrality
Re:
"As usual, over time, regulations have become nothing other than a way for big businesses to solidify their death grips on the economy."
Please explain how the current NN regs, in place for two years and popular with everyone except the big ISP thugs, are allowing "big businesses to solidify their death grips on the economy." No hypotheticals or dystopian predictions, no broad generalisations about regulation in general; tell us how are these rules that are about to be killed are harming consumers in any way.
On the post: Ajit Pai Attacked Hollywood & Silicon Valley Because Even Republicans Are Against His Net Neutrality Plan
Re:
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
Re: Re: Re:
"The Internet is dead if this goes through."
You realise that US ISP's are not "The Internet" right?
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
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.
On the post: As Net Neutrality Repeal Nears, Comcast's Promise To Avoid 'Paid Prioritization' Disappears
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.
Next >>