It's been amazing watching this debate unfold at "tech sites" like Gizmodo and Engadget. These are people who are paid to report on tech matters and none of them seems to know that in less than two years we'll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
They just keep railing on and on about how lots of people only have one internet provider...
I honestly can't tell if this is simply some kind of political strategy, or they truly don't what's going on in the tech world.
…in less than two years we’ll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
So are the phone telecoms giving any indication that they’re interested in serving ‘to the home’ Internet, or do you just think people will be okay with paying $20 per gigabyte?
…in less than two years we’ll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
So are the phone telecoms giving any indication that they’re interested in serving ‘to the home’ Internet, or do you just think people will be okay with paying $20 per gigabyte?
Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
…in less than two years we’ll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
So are the phone telecoms giving any indication that they’re interested in serving ‘to the home’ Internet, or do you just think people will be okay with paying $20 per gigabyte?
Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
And eventually do it over most of the continent.
Someone has already said this, but I think the big content players will look at building their own wireless networks.
It's been amazing watching this debate unfold at "tech sites" like Gizmodo and Engadget. These are people who are paid to report on tech matters and none of them seems to know that in less than two years we'll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
They just keep railing on and on about how lots of people only have one internet provider...
I honestly can't tell if this is simply some kind of political strategy, or they truly don't what's going on in the tech world.
Irrelevant: 1G or 5G or 10G -- cellular data is too limited and too expensive for the average American to use for all of their internet needs. It does what it was designed for: provide limited data in mobile situations.
5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
1. Stuck at 250, myself. 2. Intriguing. Thanks for the heads’ up. I really still trust a physical connection over wireless, so let’s hope this forces ISPs to either go bankrupt or get off their asses.
…in less than two years we’ll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
So are the phone telecoms giving any indication that they’re interested in serving ‘to the home’ Internet, or do you just think people will be okay with paying $20 per gigabyte?
Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
And eventually do it over most of the continent.
Who has a cap on home data usage over cable? Nobody I know ...
The internet is an asset of the country and just as essential to the growth and well being of this country as its roads, bridges, and electrical grid.
To abandon it and turn total, unrestricted control of it over to crooks like Concast and Verizon who have proven that they care only about their own profits and NOTHING about the well being of the country and its citizens is somewhere between foolish and criminal. Or, more accurately: Those who did it are the criminals. Those who believe it will benefit America and Americans are fools.
I'm just STUNNED by the sheer ignorance and stupidity on display by so many of the posters in this thread, not realizing just what has happened and what WILL now be allowed to happen... This repeal has opened the door for all the corporations to start gouging the consumers and smaller companies.
This is the WORST thing to happen to the Internet since it's inception.
Spare me your holier-than-thou predictions. Net Neutrality was only around since Feb, 2015. The Internet and the access to it did quite well prior to that. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc at all but then I question whether adding additional government regulations and bureaucracy and handcuffing companies was ever a good idea.
When AT&T blocked FaceTime back in the day, it wasn't Net Neutrality that brought it back. It was pissed-off users and bad PR, and other companies providing it to counter AT&T and steal its customers that brought it back.
Considering how loud and vocal today's Internet users are, I suspect that any company that does shady stuff to their Internet will feel their wrath, as well they should.
All we can do is play the wait and see approach. I'm genuinely curious to see what will happen now.
That attitude is EXACTLY what allowed the current administration and mafioso to infest your country now. You obviously have NO CLUE what the big telco companies were planning to do just prior to the 2015 net neutrality rules went into effect, which is exactly why the FCC enacted them then, because they saw what was going to happen.
All the BS spewed by Shithead Lying Pai is just that, flat-out LIES, that can be easily proven.
Holier-than-thou predictions? Wow, ignorance in the face of overwhelming facts of what is about to start happening couldn't be better illustrated with yours, and similar commentary.
Oh my God the sky is falling the sky is falling! LOL That was some great entertainment there. Look, I will take the private ownership vs government bureaucracy any day of the week. The idea that bureaucrat hacks somehow were saving us from the evils of IP titans is absolutely absurd. Oh, look! We've gotta save the people! Let's control what they do. More power to us, less power to them. Control control control. Reminds me of how Obamacare got started and how they grabbed control of 16% of the economy. Look where we are today with government intrusion. I never got my annual savings of $2500 and my premiums were supposed to come DOWN...not UP. Again I'll take a private owner vs a government bureaucrat czar any day of the week. It's going to be nice looking back to this in 5 years to see what all has happened. Those for net neutrality sound like climate change alarmists that have wanted my ear since the 70s. 10 yeas ago Al Gore was suggesting that people sell their beach front property because it would be under water in 10 years. Polar bears would cease to exist. Yadda yadda yadda. Always the same hyperbole and fear-mongering. Sorry but I've seen and heard enough of that crap for a lifetime and I know what to ignore and what to heed. I grew up in an age not far back that was without internet services nor cell phones and we got by just fine. I know people today who don't own computers nor cell phones who get by just fine. Let the free market take care of itself and stop the armageddon nonsense.
Who has a cap on home data usage over cable? Nobody I know ...
Anyone who has Comcast as their ISP.
All of the discussion on what will/won't happen based on this ruling are pointless.
Corporations will do anything they can (including write the damn laws) so that they can limit competition. There is no anti-trust enforcement anymore. There should be. Hopefully the next decade will be a major reset where ATT/DirecTV/TimeWarner, Comcast/NBC/Universal, Disney/Fox, CVS/Aetna, etc. get broken the hell up. This Friedman shareholder supremacy shit is nonsense. Corporations existed well before that idea and when properly regulated thrived. But greed got in the way and fucked the whole system up. The Supreme Court refuted it in the Hobby Lobby decision.
From "The Shareholder Value Myth"Lynn Stout": Modern corporate law is really clear that boards of directors have the discretion to do anything they think is in the best, long-run interest of the company. And if you doubt me, you can just listen to Justice Alito in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, writing for the majority. Justice Alito says, and I quote, 'While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.'" It's absolutely clear that corporate law does not require directors to maximize profits or share price.
Most shareholders believe this and there is pressure on the board for boosting short term gains over the stability of the corporations. Now with no anti-trust oversight and mega-mergers as an exit strategy when the house of cards created by stock buy-backs, etc. crumbles those same shareholders that put the pressure on the company to ever increase profits are left holding the bag whilst all of the executives and board of directors get their golden parachute. I can't believe argue that this is a good thing.
Yes - both parties are lobbied and campaign contributions impact decisions. One party wears it like a point of pride.
We need to ban campaign contributions completely for everyone and start to claw the government back from the lobbyists.
Why people don't think the internet is a utility like telephone, water, power is truly confusing to me. There are private companies providing all of these services but they are more regulated as the need is greater for continuity of service.
james
Ah, I have… more on this topic. But first, a quote that you’ll all ignore anyway because it hurts your feelings and goes against the narrative.
No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine.
– William Blum, Department of State computer analyst
Long before fake news or “net neutrality” (NN) became major media topics, the US, government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news. NN was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the Internet, A sequence that happened so slowly that virtually none noticed it happening at all. After all, NN wasn’t even all that bad, right? Sure, the Internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn’t really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right? But is anything ever that simple? Ask yourself why NN came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it? Now ask yourself what sequence led up to NN and who led it there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama’s final month in office, the Internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election. This is a long piece–the beginning will cover some material that you already know–but it is crucial to understand the big picture.
1950 - Education US House of Representatives commissioned the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator Norman Dodd published a final report, in which he discovered that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote “moral relativism” and “internationalism" to the end of “oligarchic collectivism,” In other words, marxism. Cultural marxism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.
1980 - Civil Society Sector The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for decades. By 1980, all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a “covert role in foaming uprisings,” and that “they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”
1990 - Media Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalized the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just 6. And now that Disney has purchased much of News Corp, only 5. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck 5 strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp (not anymore!), and CBS. And still shrinking.
2000 - Social Media This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user, quite shockingly. “If you happen to have a right-wing perspective. Google puts your search results on the 10th page, YouTube demonetizes your videos (or removes them entirely), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed.” – Reddit user /spydiggity/
2010 - The Internet The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit–the Internet itself. Already controlling much of the Internet’s media–and all the social media platforms that propagate it–the only thing left for the globalists to control is the physical infrastructure of the Internet itself. That’s why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization). Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules, they need to reclassify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as “common carriers,” effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title ll, ISPs need to apply for broadcasting licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.
The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit’s outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for broadcasting licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because broadcasting licenses become the globalists most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation. Three judges presided over the case: two Democrats, one Republican: Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan) Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton) David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)
The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title ll classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the Internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the Internet must receive a broadcasting license. The FCC was stumped and couldn’t really figure out what to do next. So Obama came in to save the day. He pressured them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over Internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move was quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as “net neutrality.” Surprise! The public is told that they are saving the Internet! But saving it from whom? HAHAHA from the very people who are telling them to save it! Fully by intent, the globalists played both sides and won. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape. Now here’s where the story picks up.
Net neutrality invokes Title ll of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides Internet service to register for broadcasting licenses from the government and regularly renew them. Well, what if the FCC doesn’t want to renew them? Ah, but that’s crazy talk! The FCC can’t just revoke broadcasting licenses on a whim! It would be taken to court within seconds! But imagine what happens when you’re appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC… and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules at the time. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it’s violating federal law. Well, you’d probably say, “Fuck you; I voted for Trump,” and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).
This is where everything comes together. Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the paper on your desk. You’re about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you.
“Why don’t they just call it The InfoWars Act’?” You look back at The InfoWars Act to read its mission statement:
…counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department…
That’s so bizarre, you think to yourself, Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you’re literally going to house it in the White House? Interagency center… Okay, so it’s a center… of multiple agencies… in the White House…
p. 1399: The head of the Center… shall be appointed by the President.
…that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?
…maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts…
Wait, what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening posts on social media? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is “propaganda” defined? Huh, that’s strange… There’s no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just… call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up at your lawyer. “How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?” Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar. “He didn’t.” The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. “He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it.”
Oh shit, yeah, this is that fucking propaganda thing that Obama legalized… “Jesus Christ.” The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in PDF format): SEC. 1287: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER. “This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they’re going to be doing.”
Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online, and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and non-governmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation…
“Clandestine special operators? That’s like some Tom Clancy shit!” Not even Tom Clancy would write something like this.
The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists…
“But just when it couldn’t get worse… it gets way fucking worse.”
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government… provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations. and other experts outside the US. government…
They call in their globalist friends from some “totally neutral third-party” and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who’s been flagged by a “third-party” “fact-checker” without having to take them to court. Oh, fuck. Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the Internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term “fake news” to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of “neutral third-parties” policing online content. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Google. All the tech companies–and the White House itself–were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers… across the entire Internet. Fucking Snopes. It’s brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them.
The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations…
And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s why passing “net neutrality” was so important. The President uses the “whole-of-government” to suppress information. Thanks to “net neutrality’s” Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II broadcasting license is legally revoked. They can no longer do business. They go bankrupt. And the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
STORY TIME IS OVER; THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL.
They could physically shut down your access to the Internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you post on a website they don’t like! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Voat, and any other right-wing (or even “right-wing”) website that pops up to replace them! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years–like they always do with everything else they’ve done–so that nobody would notice until it’s too late. They could have removed all dissent from the Internet little by little, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions. And it was 100% “legal.” They passed every “law” they needed to do it.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY AMERICANS ARE TO HAVE WON THE 2016 ELECTION, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. And now one final quote.
p. 1446: “The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
They thought she would win. They thought she would win, and like the titanic infants they are, they wrote it so that–even if they didn’t manage to completely destroy all free speech in 8 years and a Republican–neocon though he would be–won again, he wouldn’t be able to use it against them.
Ah, I have… more on this topic. But first, a quote that you’ll all ignore anyway because it hurts your feelings and goes against the narrative.
No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine.
– William Blum, Department of State computer analyst
Long before fake news or “net neutrality” (NN) became major media topics, the US, government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news. NN was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the Internet, A sequence that happened so slowly that virtually none noticed it happening at all. After all, NN wasn’t even all that bad, right? Sure, the Internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn’t really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right? But is anything ever that simple? Ask yourself why NN came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it? Now ask yourself what sequence led up to NN and who led it there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama’s final month in office, the Internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election. This is a long piece–the beginning will cover some material that you already know–but it is crucial to understand the big picture.
1950 - Education US House of Representatives commissioned the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator Norman Dodd published a final report, in which he discovered that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote “moral relativism” and “internationalism" to the end of “oligarchic collectivism,” In other words, marxism. Cultural marxism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.
1980 - Civil Society Sector The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for decades. By 1980, all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a “covert role in foaming uprisings,” and that “they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”
1990 - Media Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalized the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just 6. And now that Disney has purchased much of News Corp, only 5. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck 5 strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp (not anymore!), and CBS. And still shrinking.
2000 - Social Media This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user, quite shockingly. “If you happen to have a right-wing perspective. Google puts your search results on the 10th page, YouTube demonetizes your videos (or removes them entirely), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed.” – Reddit user /spydiggity/
2010 - The Internet The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit–the Internet itself. Already controlling much of the Internet’s media–and all the social media platforms that propagate it–the only thing left for the globalists to control is the physical infrastructure of the Internet itself. That’s why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization). Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules, they need to reclassify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as “common carriers,” effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title ll, ISPs need to apply for broadcasting licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.
The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit’s outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for broadcasting licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because broadcasting licenses become the globalists most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation. Three judges presided over the case: two Democrats, one Republican: Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan) Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton) David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)
The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title ll classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the Internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the Internet must receive a broadcasting license. The FCC was stumped and couldn’t really figure out what to do next. So Obama came in to save the day. He pressured them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over Internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move was quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as “net neutrality.” Surprise! The public is told that they are saving the Internet! But saving it from whom? HAHAHA from the very people who are telling them to save it! Fully by intent, the globalists played both sides and won. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape. Now here’s where the story picks up.
Net neutrality invokes Title ll of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides Internet service to register for broadcasting licenses from the government and regularly renew them. Well, what if the FCC doesn’t want to renew them? Ah, but that’s crazy talk! The FCC can’t just revoke broadcasting licenses on a whim! It would be taken to court within seconds! But imagine what happens when you’re appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC… and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules at the time. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it’s violating federal law. Well, you’d probably say, “Fuck you; I voted for Trump,” and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).
This is where everything comes together. Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the paper on your desk. You’re about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you.
“Why don’t they just call it The InfoWars Act’?” You look back at The InfoWars Act to read its mission statement:
…counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department…
That’s so bizarre, you think to yourself, Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you’re literally going to house it in the White House? Interagency center… Okay, so it’s a center… of multiple agencies… in the White House…
p. 1399: The head of the Center… shall be appointed by the President.
…that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?
…maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts…
Wait, what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening posts on social media? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is “propaganda” defined? Huh, that’s strange… There’s no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just… call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up at your lawyer. “How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?” Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar. “He didn’t.” The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. “He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it.”
Oh shit, yeah, this is that fucking propaganda thing that Obama legalized… “Jesus Christ.” The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in PDF format): SEC. 1287: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER. “This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they’re going to be doing.”
Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online, and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and non-governmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation…
“Clandestine special operators? That’s like some Tom Clancy shit!” Not even Tom Clancy would write something like this.
The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists…
“But just when it couldn’t get worse… it gets way fucking worse.”
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government… provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations. and other experts outside the US. government…
They call in their globalist friends from some “totally neutral third-party” and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who’s been flagged by a “third-party” “fact-checker” without having to take them to court. Oh, fuck. Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the Internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term “fake news” to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of “neutral third-parties” policing online content. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Google. All the tech companies–and the White House itself–were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers… across the entire Internet. Fucking Snopes. It’s brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them.
The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations…
And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s why passing “net neutrality” was so important. The President uses the “whole-of-government” to suppress information. Thanks to “net neutrality’s” Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II broadcasting license is legally revoked. They can no longer do business. They go bankrupt. And the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
STORY TIME IS OVER; THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL.
They could physically shut down your access to the Internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you post on a website they don’t like! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Voat, and any other right-wing (or even “right-wing”) website that pops up to replace them! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years–like they always do with everything else they’ve done–so that nobody would notice until it’s too late. They could have removed all dissent from the Internet little by little, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions. And it was 100% “legal.” They passed every “law” they needed to do it.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY AMERICANS ARE TO HAVE WON THE 2016 ELECTION, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. And now one final quote.
p. 1446: “The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
They thought she would win. They thought she would win, and like the titanic infants they are, they wrote it so that–even if they didn’t manage to completely destroy all free speech in 8 years and a Republican–neocon though he would be–won again, he wouldn’t be able to use it against them.
Dude. We get it. The tinfoil is strong with you and you are projecting the desires of the currently Klepto-Authoritarian administration onto their opposition to somehow rationalize the situation we all find ourselves in right now as a good thing. It isn't.
So you went with “prove me right instantly–about you not giving a fuck about fact, law, reason, logic, or truth–and don’t actually engage in discussion or attempt to comprehend what is happening or fix any of the problems we have” Got it. You could have simply not replied at all, because we’d all come to exactly the same conclusion about your “beliefs” and you wouldn’t have wasted screen space.
…the currently Klepto-Authoritarian administration…
Yeah, that’s totally not a bipartisan effort for the last century or anything.
…projecting… …onto their opposition…
Funny, I don’t recall Trump passing the CIWA 2016 Act…
…to somehow rationalize the situation we all find ourselves in right now as a good thing. It isn't.
Thanks for proving you didn’t read a goddamn thing I wrote. Again, just don’t reply at all next time. You won’t look so embarrassingly stupid.
So you went with “prove me right instantly–about you not giving a fuck about fact, law, reason, logic, or truth–and don’t actually engage in discussion or attempt to comprehend what is happening or fix any of the problems we have” Got it. You could have simply not replied at all, because we’d all come to exactly the same conclusion about your “beliefs” and you wouldn’t have wasted screen space.
…the currently Klepto-Authoritarian administration…
Yeah, that’s totally not a bipartisan effort for the last century or anything.
…projecting… …onto their opposition…
Funny, I don’t recall Trump passing the CIWA 2016 Act…
…to somehow rationalize the situation we all find ourselves in right now as a good thing. It isn't.
Thanks for proving you didn’t read a goddamn thing I wrote. Again, just don’t reply at all next time. You won’t look so embarrassingly stupid.
Watch out for the chemtrails.
Cute, but retarded. Try harder next time.
I read everything you wrote and it is the same crap parrotted around the internet in conspiracy forums that takes everything you sourced and draws wildly conspiratorial conclusions. Then you use all of that to somehow think that ending the Common Carrier rules is actually a good thing. So - don't tell me that because I think what you wrote is absolute garbage that I don't get it. Also - we don't use the term retarded in polite company anymore.
So people are protesting a change back to what we were using for 20 years prior to 2015. Competition in the marketplace typically gives the consumer more choice. More choice leads to lower prices. T-Mobile competes in this type of system and the consumer benefits. Basically it's going to be someone else raking in the cash with the consumer winning.
Well, two different arguments. Net neutrality (principal) has little to do with competition, pricing, etc. It's just a principal to avoid collusion (and the impacts, which would effect pricing, I suppose, but much more dire stuff than that!) between content and distribution.
But, in regards to competition and pricing, I'd agree except there is little to none aside from cellular in terms of Internet access.
It's been amazing watching this debate unfold at "tech sites" like Gizmodo and Engadget. These are people who are paid to report on tech matters and none of them seems to know that in less than two years we'll have 5G mobile connections building out that are as fast as home connections, and cable ISPs will be in the fight of their lives.
Can it really handle the quantity of data (not speed)? My impression is that cellular data is working OK right now because few are using it and for relatively minute amounts of data.
My biggest problem with tech sites coverage, is that many of the places screaming for net neutrality aren't net neutral in their own networks.... unless we write some exceptions into the principal.
frank777 said: Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
While I admit this isn't my area of expertise, I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim.
GeorgeBMac said:Who has a cap on home data usage over cable? Nobody I know ...
Well, now you do. Hi, my name is Steve, BTW. I think we currently pay between $100-115/mo for it too (just Internet access), reasonably fast in the last year or so but nothing too special (i.e.: < 100 down, 2-3 up).
The internet is an asset of the country and just as essential to the growth and well being of this country as its roads, bridges, and electrical grid.
To abandon it and turn total, unrestricted control of it over to crooks like Concast and Verizon who have proven that they care only about their own profits and NOTHING about the well being of the country and its citizens is somewhere between foolish and criminal. Or, more accurately: Those who did it are the criminals. Those who believe it will benefit America and Americans are fools.
Agreed. The problem is that we also have to be *very* careful not to turn it over to the crooks in government (which might actually be worse). I'm for strong enough regulation to help create a free market, but until we get some semi-honest and effective people creating that regulation, I might actually trust the companies more. They'll just bundle up stuff for economic gain, whereas government powers are more likely do nefarious things.
rwx9901 said: Let the free market take care of itself and stop the armageddon nonsense.
I agree with some of your sentiments.... except that if you know anything about economics, markets don't just magically become free. Economics is a social science... i.e.: people. And, you need regulations and laws to counteract the dark side of human nature.
I had to laugh yesterday as I was listening to a podcast where they get on the subject of economics. One host said something like, 'socialism doesn't work because it ignores our hunter-gatherer impulses, and capitalism doesn't work because it feeds them a bit too much.' The host said something like, 'so, basically you're saying neither works because humans are involved.' Bingo!
jbilgihan said: Dude. We get it. The tinfoil is strong with you...
Doesn't take much tinfoil, just a bit of paying attention and a longer than year or two historical perspective. I might question a few points, but the general narrative is accurate.
jbilgihan said: I read everything you wrote and it is the same crap parrotted around the internet in conspiracy forums that takes everything you sourced and draws wildly conspiratorial conclusions. Then you use all of that to somehow think that ending the Common Carrier rules is actually a good thing. So - don't tell me that because I think what you wrote is absolute garbage that I don't get it. Also - we don't use the term retarded in polite company anymore.
Ok, time to start you on red-pill-lite. Take a listen to the latest episode of Congressional Dish podcast on Net Neutrality. Then reference a few of the episodes mentioned there. Check out the hosts extensive show-notes pointing to the direct evidence. And, BTW, she's a political left-progressive, so not just some right-wing conspiracy site ( which you'd no-doiubt dismiss, just because).
Then, once you start getting all sorts of holes punched in your neat little reality... we can point you to more. It's difficult at first, I resisted for years too.
I read everything you wrote and it is the same crap parrotted around the internet in conspiracy forums that takes everything you sourced and draws wildly conspiratorial conclusions.
Yes, so you read none of it. Got it. US law itself is a “conspiracy theory” to you. You’re utterly worthless to this discussion.
So - don't tell me that because I think what you wrote is absolute garbage that I don't get it.
You objectively do not get it. You reject it offhand because it’s fact that hurts your feelings and goes against your narrative. Sit down, take the time, and PROVE that the conclusions in the statement are not true, if you claim they’re not. Prove that each point of evidence presented is inconsequential.
Also - we don't use the term retarded in polite company anymore.
Cry more. You have nothing to add to the actual thread discussion of “net neutrality”, so you lash out with your ad-homs and character assassinations. Run along.
Ah, I have… more on this topic. But first, a quote that you’ll all ignore anyway because it hurts your feelings and goes against the narrative.
No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine.
– William Blum, Department of State computer analyst
Long before fake news or “net neutrality” (NN) became major media topics, the US, government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news. NN was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the Internet, A sequence that happened so slowly that virtually none noticed it happening at all. After all, NN wasn’t even all that bad, right? Sure, the Internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn’t really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right? But is anything ever that simple? Ask yourself why NN came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it? Now ask yourself what sequence led up to NN and who led it there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama’s final month in office, the Internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election. This is a long piece–the beginning will cover some material that you already know–but it is crucial to understand the big picture.
1950 - Education US House of Representatives commissioned the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator Norman Dodd published a final report, in which he discovered that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote “moral relativism” and “internationalism" to the end of “oligarchic collectivism,” In other words, marxism. Cultural marxism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.
1980 - Civil Society Sector The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for decades. By 1980, all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a “covert role in foaming uprisings,” and that “they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”
1990 - Media Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalized the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just 6. And now that Disney has purchased much of News Corp, only 5. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck 5 strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp (not anymore!), and CBS. And still shrinking.
2000 - Social Media This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user, quite shockingly. “If you happen to have a right-wing perspective. Google puts your search results on the 10th page, YouTube demonetizes your videos (or removes them entirely), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed.” – Reddit user /spydiggity/
2010 - The Internet The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit–the Internet itself. Already controlling much of the Internet’s media–and all the social media platforms that propagate it–the only thing left for the globalists to control is the physical infrastructure of the Internet itself. That’s why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization). Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules, they need to reclassify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as “common carriers,” effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title ll, ISPs need to apply for broadcasting licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.
The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit’s outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for broadcasting licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because broadcasting licenses become the globalists most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation. Three judges presided over the case: two Democrats, one Republican: Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan) Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton) David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)
The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title ll classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the Internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the Internet must receive a broadcasting license. The FCC was stumped and couldn’t really figure out what to do next. So Obama came in to save the day. He pressured them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over Internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move was quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as “net neutrality.” Surprise! The public is told that they are saving the Internet! But saving it from whom? HAHAHA from the very people who are telling them to save it! Fully by intent, the globalists played both sides and won. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape. Now here’s where the story picks up.
Net neutrality invokes Title ll of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides Internet service to register for broadcasting licenses from the government and regularly renew them. Well, what if the FCC doesn’t want to renew them? Ah, but that’s crazy talk! The FCC can’t just revoke broadcasting licenses on a whim! It would be taken to court within seconds! But imagine what happens when you’re appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC… and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules at the time. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it’s violating federal law. Well, you’d probably say, “Fuck you; I voted for Trump,” and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).
This is where everything comes together. Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the paper on your desk. You’re about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you.
“Why don’t they just call it The InfoWars Act’?” You look back at The InfoWars Act to read its mission statement:
…counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department…
That’s so bizarre, you think to yourself, Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you’re literally going to house it in the White House? Interagency center… Okay, so it’s a center… of multiple agencies… in the White House…
p. 1399: The head of the Center… shall be appointed by the President.
…that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?
…maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts…
Wait, what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening posts on social media? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is “propaganda” defined? Huh, that’s strange… There’s no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just… call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up at your lawyer. “How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?” Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar. “He didn’t.” The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. “He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it.”
Oh shit, yeah, this is that fucking propaganda thing that Obama legalized… “Jesus Christ.” The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in PDF format): SEC. 1287: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER. “This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they’re going to be doing.”
Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online, and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and non-governmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation…
“Clandestine special operators? That’s like some Tom Clancy shit!” Not even Tom Clancy would write something like this.
The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists…
“But just when it couldn’t get worse… it gets way fucking worse.”
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government… provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations. and other experts outside the US. government…
They call in their globalist friends from some “totally neutral third-party” and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who’s been flagged by a “third-party” “fact-checker” without having to take them to court. Oh, fuck. Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the Internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term “fake news” to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of “neutral third-parties” policing online content. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Google. All the tech companies–and the White House itself–were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers… across the entire Internet. Fucking Snopes. It’s brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them.
The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations…
And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s why passing “net neutrality” was so important. The President uses the “whole-of-government” to suppress information. Thanks to “net neutrality’s” Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II broadcasting license is legally revoked. They can no longer do business. They go bankrupt. And the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
STORY TIME IS OVER; THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL.
They could physically shut down your access to the Internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you post on a website they don’t like! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Voat, and any other right-wing (or even “right-wing”) website that pops up to replace them! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years–like they always do with everything else they’ve done–so that nobody would notice until it’s too late. They could have removed all dissent from the Internet little by little, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions. And it was 100% “legal.” They passed every “law” they needed to do it.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY AMERICANS ARE TO HAVE WON THE 2016 ELECTION, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. And now one final quote.
p. 1446: “The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
They thought she would win. They thought she would win, and like the titanic infants they are, they wrote it so that–even if they didn’t manage to completely destroy all free speech in 8 years and a Republican–neocon though he would be–won again, he wouldn’t be able to use it against them.
Comments
Edit: never mind.
They just keep railing on and on about how lots of people only have one internet provider...
I honestly can't tell if this is simply some kind of political strategy, or they truly don't what's going on in the tech world.
Here's an article by Forbes from two months ago that nails a lot of the 5G buildout details.
Forbes says they're planning deployments now, and the cable guys will be at a disadvantage, since the phone guys can bundle both home and mobile over the one network infrastructure. 5G apparently widens the mobile pipes so much they can offer the 1TB caps home users are accustomed to now.
And eventually do it over most of the continent.
2. Intriguing. Thanks for the heads’ up. I really still trust a physical connection over wireless, so let’s hope this forces ISPs to either go bankrupt or get off their asses.
To abandon it and turn total, unrestricted control of it over to crooks like Concast and Verizon who have proven that they care only about their own profits and NOTHING about the well being of the country and its citizens is somewhere between foolish and criminal. Or, more accurately: Those who did it are the criminals. Those who believe it will benefit America and Americans are fools.
Anyone who has Comcast as their ISP. All of the discussion on what will/won't happen based on this ruling are pointless. Corporations will do anything they can (including write the damn laws) so that they can limit competition. There is no anti-trust enforcement anymore. There should be. Hopefully the next decade will be a major reset where ATT/DirecTV/TimeWarner, Comcast/NBC/Universal, Disney/Fox, CVS/Aetna, etc. get broken the hell up. This Friedman shareholder supremacy shit is nonsense. Corporations existed well before that idea and when properly regulated thrived. But greed got in the way and fucked the whole system up. The Supreme Court refuted it in the Hobby Lobby decision. From "The Shareholder Value Myth"Lynn Stout": Modern corporate law is really clear that boards of directors have the discretion to do anything they think is in the best, long-run interest of the company. And if you doubt me, you can just listen to Justice Alito in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, writing for the majority. Justice Alito says, and I quote, 'While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.'" It's absolutely clear that corporate law does not require directors to maximize profits or share price. Most shareholders believe this and there is pressure on the board for boosting short term gains over the stability of the corporations. Now with no anti-trust oversight and mega-mergers as an exit strategy when the house of cards created by stock buy-backs, etc. crumbles those same shareholders that put the pressure on the company to ever increase profits are left holding the bag whilst all of the executives and board of directors get their golden parachute. I can't believe argue that this is a good thing. Yes - both parties are lobbied and campaign contributions impact decisions. One party wears it like a point of pride. We need to ban campaign contributions completely for everyone and start to claw the government back from the lobbyists. Why people don't think the internet is a utility like telephone, water, power is truly confusing to me. There are private companies providing all of these services but they are more regulated as the need is greater for continuity of service. james
Long before fake news or “net neutrality” (NN) became major media topics, the US, government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news. NN was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the Internet, A sequence that happened so slowly that virtually none noticed it happening at all. After all, NN wasn’t even all that bad, right? Sure, the Internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn’t really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right? But is anything ever that simple? Ask yourself why NN came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it? Now ask yourself what sequence led up to NN and who led it there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama’s final month in office, the Internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election.
This is a long piece–the beginning will cover some material that you already know–but it is crucial to understand the big picture.
1950 - Education
US House of Representatives commissioned the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator Norman Dodd published a final report, in which he discovered that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote “moral relativism” and “internationalism" to the end of “oligarchic collectivism,” In other words, marxism. Cultural marxism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down.
1980 - Civil Society Sector
The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for decades. By 1980, all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a “covert role in foaming uprisings,” and that “they are doing things the CIA cannot do.”
1990 - Media
Bill Clinton’s Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalized the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just 6. And now that Disney has purchased much of News Corp, only 5. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck 5 strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp (not anymore!), and CBS. And still shrinking.
2000 - Social Media
This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user, quite shockingly. “If you happen to have a right-wing perspective. Google puts your search results on the 10th page, YouTube demonetizes your videos (or removes them entirely), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed.” – Reddit user /spydiggity/
2010 - The Internet
The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit–the Internet itself. Already controlling much of the Internet’s media–and all the social media platforms that propagate it–the only thing left for the globalists to control is the physical infrastructure of the Internet itself. That’s why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton’s 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization). Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules, they need to reclassify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as “common carriers,” effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title ll, ISPs need to apply for broadcasting licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.
The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit’s outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for broadcasting licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because broadcasting licenses become the globalists most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation. Three judges presided over the case: two Democrats, one Republican:
Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)
Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)
David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)
The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title ll classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the Internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the Internet must receive a broadcasting license. The FCC was stumped and couldn’t really figure out what to do next. So Obama came in to save the day. He pressured them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over Internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move was quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as “net neutrality.” Surprise! The public is told that they are saving the Internet! But saving it from whom? HAHAHA from the very people who are telling them to save it! Fully by intent, the globalists played both sides and won. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape. Now here’s where the story picks up.
Net neutrality invokes Title ll of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides Internet service to register for broadcasting licenses from the government and regularly renew them. Well, what if the FCC doesn’t want to renew them? Ah, but that’s crazy talk! The FCC can’t just revoke broadcasting licenses on a whim! It would be taken to court within seconds! But imagine what happens when you’re appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC… and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules at the time. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it’s violating federal law. Well, you’d probably say, “Fuck you; I voted for Trump,” and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power? None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).
This is where everything comes together. Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the paper on your desk. You’re about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you.
“Why don’t they just call it The InfoWars Act’?” You look back at The InfoWars Act to read its mission statement:
That’s so bizarre, you think to yourself, Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you’re literally going to house it in the White House? Interagency center… Okay, so it’s a center… of multiple agencies… in the White House…
…that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?
Wait, what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening posts on social media? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is “propaganda” defined? Huh, that’s strange… There’s no definition in here. Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just… call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up at your lawyer. “How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?” Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar. “He didn’t.” The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. “He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it.”
Oh shit, yeah, this is that fucking propaganda thing that Obama legalized… “Jesus Christ.” The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in PDF format): SEC. 1287: GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER. “This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they’re going to be doing.”
“Clandestine special operators? That’s like some Tom Clancy shit!” Not even Tom Clancy would write something like this.
“But just when it couldn’t get worse… it gets way fucking worse.”
They call in their globalist friends from some “totally neutral third-party” and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who’s been flagged by a “third-party” “fact-checker” without having to take them to court. Oh, fuck. Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the Internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term “fake news” to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of “neutral third-parties” policing online content. Facebook. Twitter. Reddit. Google. All the tech companies–and the White House itself–were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers… across the entire Internet. Fucking Snopes. It’s brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them.
And that’s it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s why passing “net neutrality” was so important. The President uses the “whole-of-government” to suppress information. Thanks to “net neutrality’s” Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II broadcasting license is legally revoked. They can no longer do business. They go bankrupt. And the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.
STORY TIME IS OVER; THIS IS ACTUALLY REAL.
They could physically shut down your access to the Internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you post on a website they don’t like! They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Voat, and any other right-wing (or even “right-wing”) website that pops up to replace them! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years–like they always do with everything else they’ve done–so that nobody would notice until it’s too late. They could have removed all dissent from the Internet little by little, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions. And it was 100% “legal.” They passed every “law” they needed to do it.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW LUCKY AMERICANS ARE TO HAVE WON THE 2016 ELECTION, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ANOTHER ONE AGAIN. And now one final quote.
They thought she would win. They thought she would win, and like the titanic infants they are, they wrote it so that–even if they didn’t manage to completely destroy all free speech in 8 years and a Republican–neocon though he would be–won again, he wouldn’t be able to use it against them.
Watch out for the chemtrails.
Yeah, that’s totally not a bipartisan effort for the last century or anything.
Funny, I don’t recall Trump passing the CIWA 2016 Act…
Thanks for proving you didn’t read a goddamn thing I wrote. Again, just don’t reply at all next time. You won’t look so embarrassingly stupid.
Cute, but retarded. Try harder next time.
I read everything you wrote and it is the same crap parrotted around the internet in conspiracy forums that takes everything you sourced and draws wildly conspiratorial conclusions. Then you use all of that to somehow think that ending the Common Carrier rules is actually a good thing. So - don't tell me that because I think what you wrote is absolute garbage that I don't get it. Also - we don't use the term retarded in polite company anymore.
But, in regards to competition and pricing, I'd agree except there is little to none aside from cellular in terms of Internet access.
Can it really handle the quantity of data (not speed)? My impression is that cellular data is working OK right now because few are using it and for relatively minute amounts of data.
My biggest problem with tech sites coverage, is that many of the places screaming for net neutrality aren't net neutral in their own networks.... unless we write some exceptions into the principal.
While I admit this isn't my area of expertise, I'm somewhat skeptical of that claim.
Well, now you do. Hi, my name is Steve, BTW. I think we currently pay between $100-115/mo for it too (just Internet access), reasonably fast in the last year or so but nothing too special (i.e.: < 100 down, 2-3 up).
Agreed. The problem is that we also have to be *very* careful not to turn it over to the crooks in government (which might actually be worse). I'm for strong enough regulation to help create a free market, but until we get some semi-honest and effective people creating that regulation, I might actually trust the companies more. They'll just bundle up stuff for economic gain, whereas government powers are more likely do nefarious things.
I agree with some of your sentiments.... except that if you know anything about economics, markets don't just magically become free. Economics is a social science... i.e.: people. And, you need regulations and laws to counteract the dark side of human nature.
I had to laugh yesterday as I was listening to a podcast where they get on the subject of economics. One host said something like, 'socialism doesn't work because it ignores our hunter-gatherer impulses, and capitalism doesn't work because it feeds them a bit too much.' The host said something like, 'so, basically you're saying neither works because humans are involved.' Bingo!
Doesn't take much tinfoil, just a bit of paying attention and a longer than year or two historical perspective.
I might question a few points, but the general narrative is accurate.
Then, once you start getting all sorts of holes punched in your neat little reality... we can point you to more. It's difficult at first, I resisted for years too.
You objectively do not get it. You reject it offhand because it’s fact that hurts your feelings and goes against your narrative. Sit down, take the time, and PROVE that the conclusions in the statement are not true, if you claim they’re not. Prove that each point of evidence presented is inconsequential.
Cry more. You have nothing to add to the actual thread discussion of “net neutrality”, so you lash out with your ad-homs and character assassinations. Run along.