Good luck to them on that. Hackers will be going on a hacking spree against both ISP companies & congress just like before.
Revolt⌠thatâs a good one. The second they revolt, the Feds will just shoot them.
The ISPs own our elected officials, so thatâs dead on arrival.
Good luck to them on that. People will just come armed with guns themselves.
The UN considers High speed broadband internet a basic human right
Too bad our own Government canât say the same thing
Our own government doesnât even consider shelter and food to be basic human rights.
Fuck âourâ government with a sawed-off shotty.
âThis country was bought and paid for a long time ago.â - George Carlin
that true too, how Trump handling Puerto Rico is disgusting.
What what you would about George Bush with Louisianan, Trump is far, far, far worst.
Bush at least (eventually) recognize whats going on and send proper Federal aid after the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisianan stop being dicks and it took them 3 days before they are forced to ask for help.
The Governor of Puerto Rico is practically begging Trump, and he sits on his hands.
The Governor of Puerto Rico is playing up to the camera to score political points.
Here is the response to PR:
https://www.fema.gov/blog/2017-09-29/overview-federal-efforts-prepare-and-respond-hurricane-maria
It was comprehensive, immediate and thorough. They had people on the ground, sea and air. Iâm failing to understand how this is âsitting on his hands.â In fact the military had engineers on the island beforehand shoring up the defense.
Net neutrality is somewhat complicated. What they want to repeal from what I understand are rules put in place in '15 or '16? Thereâs a perspective that the rules impede development because they donât encourage competition to grab more customers. The concern is more around LTE I think. I believe one of the examples used for repeal is t-mobile offering unlimited data for certain services (netflix, maybe spotify?). I think this is a violation if I understand it correctly. So even though in theory it could be great for customers, itâs against net neutrality.
There are also arguments about how itâs hurt development of infrastructure too. I think if you are concerned with net neutrality you should try to understand what the repeal side thinks too.
The best route is likely to just rethink the whole thing and write a new foundation for telecommunications. We have some info now to try and craft something which works better.
Need real Mr robot?
Stop.
Ajit Pai, the head of the FFC under Trump, has said that he believes the rules creating net neutrality now are too onerous. He thinks the internet providers should be the ones to police what content is available to people. He says heâs for free and open internet but is against the regulations that do EXACTLY that. Here ya go.
Heâs wrong on so many counts. He has zero evidence that no one is investing in broadband, when in fact since the rules have been placed itâs gone up. You canât seriously believe internet is not being invested in when you see us with Fios now and moving up to 5G from 4G LTE.
Meanwhile, allowing ISPs the opportunity to charge small businesses for traffic actually impedes the growth of small businesses, many of which rely on a free and open internet to actually turn a buck.
My favorite, btw, is his âhypotheticals are hypotheticalsâ whenever someone brings them up. But in fact the ISPs have done this, namely when Netflix was slowed down under some ISPs. Heâs a massive fucking idiot but thatâs what I expect from this administration.
His problem is for the internet to be named a utility, something Obama opened the door to. He wants ISP providers to have the ability to bilk consumers for literally their last penny to access a part of life now thatâs seen as necessary. Sorry but Iâm not sorry. The US government invented the internet and thus should be charged with it. Thatâs taxpayer dollars at work. Fuck Pai.
The BULLSHIT never stops.
Spoiler
The FCC is peddling its net neutrality spin as facts
The agency is disseminating a list of myths vs. so-called facts and itâs very misleading.
Mallory Locklear, @mallorylocklear
Last week, the FCC released the final draft of its proposal to rollback net neutrality protections, a plan that the agency will vote on next month. Removing these protections has been a targeted goal of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai since he took the position, and even in the face of immense pushback from both the public and hundreds of companies and organizations, the FCC has moved forward with the plan and are fully expected to approve it in just a couple of weeks. Since its release, the draft proposal has continued to draw intense opposition and now the FCC has released a list of myths vs. facts in regards to the plan. But this list, which poses as an explanatory breakdown of the FCC proposal and is most definitely the agencyâs attempt at damage control, is nearly as ill-conceived as the plan itself.
Letâs take the first bullet point. âMyth: This is the end of the internet as we know it. Fact: The internet was free and open before the Obama Administrationâs 2015 heavy-handed Title II regulations, and it will be free and open after they are repealed.â Well, Mr. Pai, that last bit isnât actually a fact. It is at best a hope. The FCC could have ensured that a free and open internet would indeed be a fact for the citizens of the United States, but it has instead chosen to remove the regulations that would do just that. What internet service providers (ISPs) will choose to do with their soon-to-be newfound deregulation is not in any way guaranteed and even if some have said they will honor net neutrality and promote an open internet, it doesnât mean they actually will.
Hereâs another one. âMyth: This will result in âfast lanesâ and âslow lanesâ on the internet that will worsen consumersâ online experience. Fact: Restoring Internet freedom will lead to better, faster and cheaper broadband for consumers and give startups that need priority access (such as telehealth applications) the chance to offer new services to consumers.â The FCC is really playing fast and loose with the word âfactâ because, again, this is not a fact.
A fact, since we clearly need to review its definition, is, according to the trusty olâ Merriam-Webster dictionary, âsomething that has actual existence, an actual occurrence or a piece of information presented as having objective reality.â The FCC doesnât have any way to prove that its proposal will lead to a better internet experience for consumers. It can hope thatâs the case. It can, I guess, continue to preach that such an unfounded claim could happen, but stating that as fact is wildly inappropriate, egregiously misleading and a straight-up abuse of power.
The majority of the FCCâs myth vs. fact list does this repeatedly â stating something as fact when it is at most a possibility. Whether they are possibilities that the members of the FCC actually believe could happen or just what they want all of us to think will happen is unclear.
If we are to believe this list, the FCC proposal WILL âpromote consumersâ online privacy,â ISPs WONâT block websites or charge more for certain content and the reduced regulations WILL âlead to greater investment in building and expanding broadband networks in rural and low-income areas.â But all of those claims are ridiculous because none of them are guaranteed.
What the FCC is doing with this proposal is putting all of its faith and the fate of consumersâ internet in the hands of US ISPs. Sure, some of these practices didnât happen prior to the 2015 regulations put in place during the Obama administration, but the FCC wants everyone to buy into the belief that they never will. Essentially, it wants you to trust ISPs to do the right thing.
But why should we? ISPs arenât governed by the public good. They arenât driven by morality. Their business decisions arenât made based on what is best for the consumer. They are all there to make money. And if throttling service or offering paid prioritization is the next way for them to make more money, then why wouldnât they do it? Further, if the FCC members truly believe ISPs wonât or that they shouldnât (though I highly doubt they believe that), then why on earth would they remove the only regulations keeping them from actually doing that?
The FCC also says that if ISPs engage in practices like blocking and throttling, they would face heavy consumer backlash and the insinuation is that consumer backlash is enough to deter such practices. It has also continuously stated that removing these regulations would promote competition and protect the consumer. If you look at the US as a whole, there are quite a few ISPs around â BroadbandNow says there are currently 2,665 ISPs in the US â but that number keeps dropping as more and more companies merge.
Some of the mergers are between smaller telecom companies that you likely havenât even heard of, but others, like Charterâs acquisition of Time Warner Cable, are massive and have a huge impact on the market. Nationwide, the telecom market is being consolidated, and a few significant mergers â Charter and Time Warner Cable as well as Verizon and AOL â have happened since the Obama-era Title II regulations were put in place, meaning thereâs less competition to, in theory, keep ISPs in check than there was prior to those regulations being put in place.
But even outside of reduced competition, when it comes down to the individual internet user, nationwide competition actually has very little meaning. Many people have just one or, at best, two ISPs to choose from. So, even if consumers wanted to fight back against shady ISP practices by switching to another provider, most canât. And so this idea that consumers themselves can keep ISPs in line and encourage them to promote an open internet is completely bogus. Consumers canât do that, which is why so many want the FCC to.
Plus, a number of companies have actually engaged in practices that go against the spirit of net neutrality. Comcast has repeatedly prioritized its own streaming services over others by excluding its own from data caps. It also, along with Time Warner and Verizon, has been accused of throttling Netflix streaming. Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T have also all come under for their zero-rating schemes, which were initially denounced by the FCC until Ajit Pai took over. And some of those practices took place while Title II regulations and bright-line rules were in place. Why should we expect ISPs to not engage in those practices without regulations?
So while reading the FCCâs list of myths vs. facts, keep in mind that most of those âfactsâ are opinions, hopes or possibilities. And you have to ask yourself if you trust unregulated ISPs to choose the possibility thatâs best for you and best for the internet. If you donât, speak up for net neutrality, because itâs running out of time.
Pai doesnât have his foot set in reality. Heâs doing exactly what he was likely paid to do: undo roadblocks for ISPs to do whatever they want.
This is why he falls back on âhypotheticals are just hypotheticals.â Heâs hoping that discredits the worry that a large number of US citizens have by removing the restrictions placed on them. This is simply so ISPs can nickle and dime you freely.
Itâs disgusting, imo.
This is a beautiful post.
You think thatâs beautiful? Shouldâve seen how I ripped âcompetitionâ to shreds seeing as how the majority of Americans only have one ISP option, maybe two in some parts.
I removed it because I thought everyone would already know that and know heâs full of shit.
You are doing Godâs own work, R@z0r.
Yea Ajit Pai is up to eyeballs in horse shit. I wouldnât piss on his teeth if they where on fire.
who is ppi?
Progressive Policy Institute is a conservative think tank masquerading as a liberal institution.
Just look up Will Marshall to be convinced.