FCC looks to scrap net neutrality rules, report says

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 68
    A couple pieces for people who may want to hear a different perspective outside the "sky is falling" cacophony.

    Why removing the classification as ISPs as "public carriers" isn't the same as "ending net neutrality":
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#423c4e29438e

    Ajit Pai's interview PBS a few months ago:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality

    Including:
    But the second point I would make is that these companies are the best evidence of the success of the light-touch regulatory framework that originated in the Clinton administration, and that’s something that I favor.

    From the dawn of the commercial Internet in the 1990s until 2015, we had light-touch regulation, where the agency or where the country monitored the market, let it develop organically, and then took targeted action if necessary, if there was an example of anti-competitive conduct.

    And it’s under that light-touch framework that the companies like Google, like Facebook, like Netflix were able to become globally known names. And that’s the kind of success that we want to promote in the future with light-touch regulation.
    tadd
  • Reply 42 of 68
    Heavily regulated industries tend to be the least dynamic with lower levels of R&D and innovation.

    Name one.
  • Reply 43 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    The US are really becoming a third world country legally-wise.
    Lack of regulations to protect the environment.
    Lack of regulations to protect consumers.

    It's a cesspool. Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them.

  • Reply 44 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    LordeHawk said:
    You have to admit that in its purest form greed is awe inspiring.  That certain repulsive companies would plunge us into a modern dark internet age.

    The costs will without a doubt get passed on to consumers, squeezing those that already don’t have enough.  Essentially a toll lane to the internet, and a new kind of paywall.

    Thank you Apple for standing up to the companies that our own government will not protect us from.

    Time to stand up behind Apple and draw a line in the sand.  It’s never been so easy to fight back.
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/?utm_source=AN&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BFTNCallTool&utm_content=voteannouncement&ref=fftf_fftfan1120_30&link_id=0&can_id=99938e0e78ecbd59e0a8f02403bc2fb6&email_referrer=email_265023&email_subject=net-neutrality-dies-in-one-month-unless-we-stop-it

    You can’t have access to my phone, you can’t break my privacy, and you can’t deny my right to acces the internet.
    We the People are more powerful than your lobbyists will ever be!
    “Net Neutrality” has never been about neutrality, it amounted to a subsidy for internet providers. Same anti-competitive subsidized BS we got from the prior administrative with regard to healthcare insurance. It’s “corporatism”.
    I'm baffled that anyone could write something as uninforemed as this.
    Net neutrality is neutrality.

    The US are going down.
  • Reply 45 of 68
    A couple pieces for people who may want to hear a different perspective outside the "sky is falling" cacophony.

    Why removing the classification as ISPs as "public carriers" isn't the same as "ending net neutrality":
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#423c4e29438e

    Ajit Pai's interview PBS a few months ago:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fcc-chair-ajit-pai-explains-wants-scrap-net-neutrality

    Including:
    But the second point I would make is that these companies are the best evidence of the success of the light-touch regulatory framework that originated in the Clinton administration, and that’s something that I favor.

    From the dawn of the commercial Internet in the 1990s until 2015, we had light-touch regulation, where the agency or where the country monitored the market, let it develop organically, and then took targeted action if necessary, if there was an example of anti-competitive conduct.

    And it’s under that light-touch framework that the companies like Google, like Facebook, like Netflix were able to become globally known names. And that’s the kind of success that we want to promote in the future with light-touch regulation.
    Respectfully, not everyone considers the facts he relays in that quote to be a positive. If anything, that 'light touch' is indicative of still more greed - the companies that he mentions built their brands and their fortunes on taking advantage of their users - if anything, they need to be regulated into the ground. That is a separate issue from the network itself, he is making false equivalencies, and I personally believe he is doing it intentionally. What we are talking about here is access. All of the innovation that led to any of those companies having the opportunity to get off the ground in the first place will either be erased or nurtured based on how the network itself is regulated. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the fact that whomever controls the gate controls the information, and that is the antithesis of the reason the web was created in the first place. Corporations have been trying to weasel their way in and take control ever since the first day a website generated a dollar.

    Whomever it was that said the web will become television in the 90s was spot on. Originally television was a lot more akin to YouTube than HBO with the majority of content being produced locally and aired live. That changed when the networks took over, and was pretty much dead in the water but for a dedicated 'public access' channel with corporate cable companies monopolizing the the medium. That is likely what we are looking at for the future web, history is repeating itself.

    Bear in mind as well that when people like Pai refer to their 'constituents', they aren't talking to you or I but to those same corporate cronies. I don't know what we as regular citizens could possibly do without the help of something like the FCC's Net Neutrality rules, we can't compete with that kind of money, there's just no way. The rules may not have been perfect, but they were a very good start. This is all straight-up, profit-motivated, corporate bullshit, the monopolies of the past want their power back, and they have an FCC that is happy to eliminate the conversation altogether and hand it to them.
  • Reply 46 of 68
    clemynx said:
    LordeHawk said:
    You have to admit that in its purest form greed is awe inspiring.  That certain repulsive companies would plunge us into a modern dark internet age.

    The costs will without a doubt get passed on to consumers, squeezing those that already don’t have enough.  Essentially a toll lane to the internet, and a new kind of paywall.

    Thank you Apple for standing up to the companies that our own government will not protect us from.

    Time to stand up behind Apple and draw a line in the sand.  It’s never been so easy to fight back.
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/?utm_source=AN&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BFTNCallTool&utm_content=voteannouncement&ref=fftf_fftfan1120_30&link_id=0&can_id=99938e0e78ecbd59e0a8f02403bc2fb6&email_referrer=email_265023&email_subject=net-neutrality-dies-in-one-month-unless-we-stop-it

    You can’t have access to my phone, you can’t break my privacy, and you can’t deny my right to acces the internet.
    We the People are more powerful than your lobbyists will ever be!
    “Net Neutrality” has never been about neutrality, it amounted to a subsidy for internet providers. Same anti-competitive subsidized BS we got from the prior administrative with regard to healthcare insurance. It’s “corporatism”.
    I'm baffled that anyone could write something as uninforemed as this.
    Net neutrality is neutrality.

    The US are going down.
    I daresay I’m more informed on the issue, which is why I wrote that.
  • Reply 47 of 68
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality.
    You have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. I bet you think a long island iced tea is just iced tea from long island, as well. Was the Patriot Act an act of patriotism? For fuck’s sake, man.
    randominternetpersonkamiltonSpamSandwichtadd
  • Reply 48 of 68
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    foggyhill said:
    georgie01 said:
    ... The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic.
    Wanna bet?  I think you underestimate the dynamism of the market.
    Bet on what, that monopoly have devastating effects...
    How the hell would you even prove what would have happened otherwise once the choke is on. You can't so it's just empty words.
    Relax.  We're just talkin' here.

    georgie01's assertion was "The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic."

    I said I don't expect that that will be the case, that market forces are very dynamic.

    If what I said is "just empty words" then what I was responding to was as well.  He stated a prediction and I simply said I expect he'll be proven wrong.

    You mention that monopolies have devastating effects.  Monopolies can have bad effects, but the vast majority of Americans don't live in an area where any firm has a monopoly on broadband.  I live in an urban area (as do a huge percentage of Americans), so I have more options than some, but I have at least 2 options for non-cellular internet and at least 3 for wireless.  If I find that my home Fios isn't as good as Comcast (perhaps because of some side deal Verizon makes with Google and Netflix), I could switch to Comcast or try something else.  I'm pretty sure Verizon realizes that providing good Internet service is a factor in customer retention, and customer retention is probably their most important goal.  So, yeah, the telecom market isn't as competitive as some others (most others, probably), but it's still competitive.

    Heavily regulated industries tend to be the least dynamic with lower levels of R&D and innovation.

    The pro-regulation crowd were clever to coin the term "net neutrality" and apply it so a certain form of regulation, but it's just as loaded as any other slogan.  Especially when you say, as this article does, "net neutrality protections."  Getting rid of "protections" sounds scary; reducing government regulations to give companies more freedom to operate and innovate doesn't.

    So I suggest we dump the gross generalizations and talk specifics.  I don't think the boogeyman is hiding behind Ajit Pai's chair, so therefore I think we can discuss his proposals based on the substance rather than assumptions of evil intent.
    Again, platitude bring me the god damn stats behind your platitude. Seems you are pulling right wing talking points.
    You talk about substance and say: ZERO substance: it's the same thing Trump shovels out about all the time, the con man talk : trust me.

    And not something from some right wing think tank too with some desingenious idiocy as their name like "progress", "family" or "tomorrow" (sic), or Fox, Breitbart.

    The reason they're regulated is because they've been given a license to print money by the government and they've abused it before the internet even existed:: got that.
    Funny how those fuckers spend hundreds of millions to deregulate and somehow I have to believe their shills that everything will be fine in the end, trust us.
    The fact they Pai plainly refuse facts, analysis or well any contrary to his (or your ) dogma in taking that decision, well let's just disregard that too.

    Also, you're not talking to a child, 30+ years of engineering and management experience including in four startups gives me the right to think I'm not making this in my damn head, got that bud.

    As for desinvolture you have about what the results of this: it all will be fine in the end..., That says everything about your lack of both empathy for the poor, minority and emerging companies which will be most impacted and actual not wanting to know actual facts about how those things go.

    It's basically trickle down/1980s deregulation all over again the start of a bad time for most of the lower 90% of the population in the US (that's what actual stats and not some imaginary stats show)... But, hey big corps (even Apple) and the top guys will be fine and they'll all take care of everyone like they did in the gilded age.... Grand times for sure (sic).

    The "market" and "capitalism" you talk about doesn't reflect current economic theory, it's some fucking la la land dogmatic invention that's stuck in 1970s theory.




    asdasd
  • Reply 49 of 68
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    maestro64 said:
    foggyhill said:
    That’s good .The less government interference in the web ,the better.Its this sort of crony capitalism that got us stuck with only 1 or 2 ISPs in an area.
    WTF are you talking about buddy,you just shat a load there.
    Get a fracking clue about telecoms or stop talking.;
    The reason there are so little competition is not too much regulations,but too little of it, and also the telecom shovel cash in Trump's and his POS cohort's gaping cesspool of immorality.

    Big companies, especially telecoms, will choke off everyone (small to medium sized companies), that will result in possibly 1-2 big players (Google, Apple, Facebook) going around them to become themselves telecoms serving the most lucrative markets (big urban centers) while Trump's moron voters will be the ones stuck with by far the worse and most expensive service (true karma).

    Everything will turn more expensive and way worse with innovation from small players essentially brought to an end.
    The US which was ahead 20 years ago will continue falling behind China and Europeans at an ever faster pace.


    First, I would generally agree with you, without some level of controls and regulations companies would take advantage of their positions. However, I worked in this industry when the telecom act of 1996 came in to play which deregulated the industry down to a point (not be political but Clinton did this not Trump and his Cohorts). At this time we had lots of competitions and I works for companies who were taking advantage of this and growing their business, competition was good.

    However, Companies like VZ, & AT&T and others uses regulations to keep competitors out of the market. They successfully used all the regulations which the government put in place to ensure the US has functioning telecom infrastructure to keep those competitors which the Telecom Act of 96 was to promote out of the market place. Why do you think we had the internet bubble bust in 1999, a bunch of company all trying to grow fast and hit the wall of regulations and could not capitalizes on their investments.

    The reason we have what we got today is exactly due to regulations all the regulations put in place to ensure you can pick up your phone and get a dial tone, which are the same regulations which kept competitors out of the market place. One simple example, and there are many like this, making a 911 call and IP phones, internet based calling was around in the 90's it took almost 20 yrs to have IP phones equality to a land line, we all should have had it back in the 90's but VZ and others kept it out of the market place for a long time due to one thing, it could not tell the 911 operators where your locations was. VZ and others had phone number databases connected to 911 services that automatically told them where your physical phones was at. Federal Regs required this and VZ was not required to share this information with start-up ISP offering IP phone services. VZ successfully used the 911 Reg to keep competitors out of the land line replacement space for 10 yrs. This also allowed them 10 yrs to take the profits from land lines to install fiber which there are not required to share with anyone unlike copper lines which they were required to share due to the telecom act.

    There are many regulations like the 911 which were done for very good reasons like peoples safety, are also the saem reason why we do not have competition. Your flat out comment that without reg companies will take over is not accurate. Regulations work for and against competition and the Government is the last group of people who will get it right especially today.

    All the reg cost everyone more, and companies just pass those costs along to you, so keep asking for regulations just mean you pay more. I would be more than happy to share with you more examples like the above and how many companies were put out of business due to regulations, because the first in had all the resources to keep competitors out using government regulations.

    But that's not the regulations we are talking about now, so that's like pointing to something else and declaring shiny.  In this case, the hundreds of millions spent on lobbying by those very firms to get rid of those regulations make it clear that they don't believe it is for our greater good. Most people outside the industry also don't believe that.

    Saying some completely different regulations in the past have been misused doesn't say that regs are bad, it's just tells you you must create better ones (or at least ones that slowly adapt to a changing market): more responsive ones.

    Some regulations have direct costs, that's the ones you seem to be focusing on, but in this case it's the indirect costs that will be the most staggering.
    In this case, the cost will be born by everyone who uses Netflix for example and every small company which must now pay 2-3 times for its net access.
    In the long run, the telecoms will undoubtably run services on their own network that will compete with Netflix and all those small players too, while also providing the only means of accessing those services. A return essentially to the cable era world. By that point, even the bigger players will start to suffer (about 3-5 years from now).

    The result of that, as I said, will undoubtedly be a stepping of third party offers (like Google fiber) in some lucrative markets, but everywhere else, offer will decline and price increase  for customers and for those wanting to offer competitive services on the net (that's where the most impact of net neutrality will be felt).

    And lets not forget that Increasingly, accessing the net will be done through the air and it that realm, the government had given telecoms, airwave rights that cannot be competed with. They have been given the right by the government to print money. There, there are very few good options in most markets and no possible relief even in the best of scenarios from any competition except maybe cities (or some local private firm) running a local mesh wifi net. And that's only really good in dense urban centers.


  • Reply 50 of 68
    taddtadd Posts: 95member
    I think we're talking about a few different things.
    The Federal Government Running Things Is Bad crowd are worried that the flunky in the Fed will do dumb things or fascist things and bad things will happen including more fascist things.
    The Federal Government Running Things is Good crowd are worried that the corporations will make things expensive and attempt to block new companies from breaking into the industry.  the idea is that new companies breaking into the industry would increase tech and bring down prices, something the existing companies wouldn't want . 

    Does that sum it up?  
    edited November 2017 randominternetpersonasdasd
  • Reply 51 of 68
    foggyhill said:
    foggyhill said:
    georgie01 said:
    ... The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic.
    Wanna bet?  I think you underestimate the dynamism of the market.
    Bet on what, that monopoly have devastating effects...
    How the hell would you even prove what would have happened otherwise once the choke is on. You can't so it's just empty words.
    Relax.  We're just talkin' here.

    georgie01's assertion was "The internet as we know it will fade away and become like television was 20 years ago—only those with lots of money and influence can get ‘in’ on content creation and distribution. And the variety we see today, for better and worse, will be relatively anemic."

    I said I don't expect that that will be the case, that market forces are very dynamic.

    If what I said is "just empty words" then what I was responding to was as well.  He stated a prediction and I simply said I expect he'll be proven wrong.

    You mention that monopolies have devastating effects.  Monopolies can have bad effects, but the vast majority of Americans don't live in an area where any firm has a monopoly on broadband.  I live in an urban area (as do a huge percentage of Americans), so I have more options than some, but I have at least 2 options for non-cellular internet and at least 3 for wireless.  If I find that my home Fios isn't as good as Comcast (perhaps because of some side deal Verizon makes with Google and Netflix), I could switch to Comcast or try something else.  I'm pretty sure Verizon realizes that providing good Internet service is a factor in customer retention, and customer retention is probably their most important goal.  So, yeah, the telecom market isn't as competitive as some others (most others, probably), but it's still competitive.

    Heavily regulated industries tend to be the least dynamic with lower levels of R&D and innovation.

    The pro-regulation crowd were clever to coin the term "net neutrality" and apply it so a certain form of regulation, but it's just as loaded as any other slogan.  Especially when you say, as this article does, "net neutrality protections."  Getting rid of "protections" sounds scary; reducing government regulations to give companies more freedom to operate and innovate doesn't.

    So I suggest we dump the gross generalizations and talk specifics.  I don't think the boogeyman is hiding behind Ajit Pai's chair, so therefore I think we can discuss his proposals based on the substance rather than assumptions of evil intent.
    Again, platitude bring me the god damn stats behind your platitude. Seems you are pulling right wing talking points.
    You talk about substance and say: ZERO substance: it's the same thing Trump shovels out about all the time, the con man talk : trust me.

    And not something from some right wing think tank too with some desingenious idiocy as their name like "progress", "family" or "tomorrow" (sic), or Fox, Breitbart.

    The reason they're regulated is because they've been given a license to print money by the government and they've abused it before the internet even existed:: got that.
    Funny how those fuckers spend hundreds of millions to deregulate and somehow I have to believe their shills that everything will be fine in the end, trust us.
    The fact they Pai plainly refuse facts, analysis or well any contrary to his (or your ) dogma in taking that decision, well let's just disregard that too.

    Also, you're not talking to a child, 30+ years of engineering and management experience including in four startups gives me the right to think I'm not making this in my damn head, got that bud.

    As for desinvolture you have about what the results of this: it all will be fine in the end..., That says everything about your lack of both empathy for the poor, minority and emerging companies which will be most impacted and actual not wanting to know actual facts about how those things go.

    It's basically trickle down/1980s deregulation all over again the start of a bad time for most of the lower 90% of the population in the US (that's what actual stats and not some imaginary stats show)... But, hey big corps (even Apple) and the top guys will be fine and they'll all take care of everyone like they did in the gilded age.... Grand times for sure (sic).

    The "market" and "capitalism" you talk about doesn't reflect current economic theory, it's some fucking la la land dogmatic invention that's stuck in 1970s theory.





    Thanks for the new word (desinvolture).  I had to look it up and I still can't pronounce it, but I learned something new at least.

    I feel like you're arguing against someone else, since you put words in my mouth and attribute all sorts of weird things to me, but I suppose we can keep the conversation going.

    Where's the evidence of harm from the (long) period before Obama's FCC changed the rules to make ISPs "common carriers" a couple years ago?  If this change (which Trump's FCC is going to reverse, apparently) was so important to "poor, minority and emerging companies which will be most impacted" (whatever that means), there should be some evidence of improvement since then, right?

    I don't know why my economic/political beliefs are "dogmatic" while yours are enlightened (or whatever).  It seems to me that you're the more dogmatic, angry, and pessimistic one in this chat.  In my view, we've been in a golden age of innovation and economic dynamism in the information space for the past decade or more.  I'm not worried that the Verizon's and AT&Ts of the world are going to be able to hold the Googles, Netflixes, and Amazons of the world hostage nor will they have any motivation or ability to crush the upcoming startups who will be creating the next generation of Internet giants.  In fact, the ISPs have committed to the principles of neutrality and open access.

    Let's come back and in 10 years.  I expect to be able to half a dozen companies offering amazing services with astronomical market values who are mere blips on the radar today.  I expect that consumers will have more bandwidth than ever before and the media marketplace will be at least as dynamic as it is today.  In other words, I don't care what the FCC does or doesn't do; the economic motivation of lots and lots of brilliant people will serve consumers very well (including poor and minority consumers, since you mentioned them).

  • Reply 52 of 68
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality.
    You have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. I bet you think a long island iced tea is just iced tea from long island, as well. Was the Patriot Act an act of patriotism? For fuck’s sake, man.
    Go Man Go!  

    I cannot believe how mis/uninformed some good folks are.  

    First Rule of being a Human on Planet Earth:  Do not automatically trust your government!  
    tallest skiltadd
  • Reply 53 of 68
    clemynx said:
    The US are really becoming a third world country legally-wise.
    Lack of regulations to protect the environment.
    Lack of regulations to protect consumers.

    It's a cesspool. Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them.

    Do you think it is the regulations that made US into a first world country? Lol
    Or that naiveté is charming.

    "Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them."
    You do know that those pay the majority of taxes, right? You do know that 50% of Americans do not pay ANY income tax at all.
    So, those 50% are supported by taxes paid by those greedy and evil multibillionaires companies, but you still have the audacity to type what you typed here?
    I guess, logic is a foreign concept to you. You are that proverbial moron from a russian saying, who is trying to cut a branch of a tree, while still sitting on that branch.
    SpamSandwichtadd
  • Reply 54 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality.
    You have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. I bet you think a long island iced tea is just iced tea from long island, as well. Was the Patriot Act an act of patriotism? For fuck’s sake, man.
    Net neutrality is neutrality.

    It works like this in all developed nations in the world.

    You just don't realize that the US are now behaving like an underdeveloped country.

    Apple defends net neutrality, what are you doing here? Go troll somewhere else.
  • Reply 55 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    clemynx said:
    The US are really becoming a third world country legally-wise.
    Lack of regulations to protect the environment.
    Lack of regulations to protect consumers.

    It's a cesspool. Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them.

    Do you think it is the regulations that made US into a first world country? Lol
    Or that naiveté is charming.

    "Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them."
    You do know that those pay the majority of taxes, right? You do know that 50% of Americans do not pay ANY income tax at all.
    So, those 50% are supported by taxes paid by those greedy and evil multibillionaires companies, but you still have the audacity to type what you typed here?
    I guess, logic is a foreign concept to you. You are that proverbial moron from a russian saying, who is trying to cut a branch of a tree, while still sitting on that branch.
    People who do not pay federal taxes do pay taxes when they buy products, which is the most important tax of all.

    What you say is irrelevant to the fact that the removal of net neutrality is only good for greedy companies and no one else.

    edited November 2017
  • Reply 56 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    kamilton said:
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality.
    You have absolutely no idea what you’re saying. I bet you think a long island iced tea is just iced tea from long island, as well. Was the Patriot Act an act of patriotism? For fuck’s sake, man.
    Go Man Go!  

    I cannot believe how mis/uninformed some good folks are.  

    First Rule of being a Human on Planet Earth:  Do not automatically trust your government!  
    Apple, Google, and basically all internet companies support net neutrality.
    Again, net neutrality is neutrality.

    If you are against it, you are defending the interest of greedy corporations that have zero interest in making the consumer happier.

    This is retrograde, wrong and just one more thing that is pulling the US back into the middle ages.

    Oh and climate change is caused by humans, btw.
  • Reply 57 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    clemynx said:
    LordeHawk said:
    You have to admit that in its purest form greed is awe inspiring.  That certain repulsive companies would plunge us into a modern dark internet age.

    The costs will without a doubt get passed on to consumers, squeezing those that already don’t have enough.  Essentially a toll lane to the internet, and a new kind of paywall.

    Thank you Apple for standing up to the companies that our own government will not protect us from.

    Time to stand up behind Apple and draw a line in the sand.  It’s never been so easy to fight back.
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/?utm_source=AN&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BFTNCallTool&utm_content=voteannouncement&ref=fftf_fftfan1120_30&link_id=0&can_id=99938e0e78ecbd59e0a8f02403bc2fb6&email_referrer=email_265023&email_subject=net-neutrality-dies-in-one-month-unless-we-stop-it

    You can’t have access to my phone, you can’t break my privacy, and you can’t deny my right to acces the internet.
    We the People are more powerful than your lobbyists will ever be!
    “Net Neutrality” has never been about neutrality, it amounted to a subsidy for internet providers. Same anti-competitive subsidized BS we got from the prior administrative with regard to healthcare insurance. It’s “corporatism”.
    I'm baffled that anyone could write something as uninforemed as this.
    Net neutrality is neutrality.

    The US are going down.
    I daresay I’m more informed on the issue, which is why I wrote that.
    You are not.

    Net neutrality is neutrality. Anyone against it is against neutrality.

    You are just one greedy bastard. This website is full of trumpist assholes like you. SAD

    You idiot haven't noticed that Apple fights against climate change and for net neutrality? You are on the wrong website pal.

    Get an education.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 58 of 68
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,510member
    Oh and also, where is the investigation on voter fraud that Trump launched? Still waiting on that one.

    Of course there will never be a result of the investigation since Trump made it all up to defend his ego. And just like you drone were defending him then, you are defending this atrocious decision now. Sad, really.

    And where are his tax returns?

    And where is proof that Obama wiretapped Trump tower?

    And how do you feel that the whole world now sees the US as a retrograde cesspool, the only country that hasn't signed the Paris agreement? Do you realize that's all to please you? Do you realize that the US are still following most environmental regulations for the COOP 23?

    What do you think about the removal of the ban on elephant ivory which will lead to more protected elephants being killed every day?


  • Reply 59 of 68
    taddtadd Posts: 95member
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality. Anyone against it is against neutrality.

    I think you are trivializing this.  Net Neutrality is being used to describe many things.  There is a 332 document the FCC commissioner is bandying about.  There is a huge amount of discussion that talks about neutrality as if it has many meanings.  I think any one-line summation, or one WORD summation, is not good enough. 
    Even the word "neutrality" doesn't by itself describe anything.  It needs some object of discussion.  

    I think you need to come up with a more sophisticated tag-line. 

    I suggest "Common carriers should be agnostic about the source, destination and contents of material being carried and should not be able to do modulation of performance or accessibility of the material based on its source, destination or contents."    

    That seems eminently defendable.   Being for or against neutrality doesn't really help.  I suspect that many agencies, including the FCC, Comcast, the LAtimes and hundreds of others are also trivializing this and possibly even lying, obfuscating, or distracting in order to push a position.  

    "Don't be a fool man!"   or some such. 

    42

  • Reply 60 of 68
    clemynx said:
    Net neutrality is neutrality.
    That statement doesn’t mean a fucking thing. It says nothing about the state of being before the current law. It says nothing about the state of being under the current law. It says nothing about the state of being when the law will be repealed. WHAT MAKES THE CURRENT LAW ACTUALLY BE WHAT IT (meaning you) SAYS IT IS. That’s the question here. What IS net neutrality; does the law UPHOLD net neutrality; if so how; if not, in what way does it not. It’s that simple.
    It works like this in all developed nations in the world.
    It doesn’t, really.
    You just don't realize that the US are now behaving like an underdeveloped country.
    Oh, no; I know full well that the telecoms’ refusal to do their jobs has made the US the laughingstock of Internet infrastructure. But nothing you’ve said or proposed fixes any actual problems that we have. It’s like screaming about not being paid enough to afford what you want when the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen 98% since 1913. So you demand a higher minimum wage instead of the shut down of the Federal Reserve. You know, the thing that would actually fix the problem. LOL!
    Apple defends net neutrality, what are you doing here?
    Wondering why you’re talking about the topic when you don’t even know what the phrase means.
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.