[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Originally Posted by Cap'n TightPants

Ahh, so they're saying they're "publishers" now? Do they realize what that would open them up to? Are they really this stupid?

That, in a nutshell, is why we need net neutrality.

Clearly the ISPs just don't get it ....

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That, in a nutshell, is why we need net neutrality.

The legal issues with calling themselves a publisher aside, I rankle at the unmitigated gall of them believing that they have the right to pick and choose what content I request online. "Well, you can look at this but we won't let you have that." Does that mean if I ask for a specific site they can reroute me to an alternative place that they believe is just as relevant or entertaining, but is more beneficial for them? "Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where..." I suppose that means they think they have the right to simply deny your access to certain online resources at any time, for any reason? **** those bozos, they're getting exactly what they deserve with this and it isn't happening a second too soon.

[BadKosh]

Yep, content will be regulated. What next? Banning some sources as not in line with the Narrative?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The legal issues with calling themselves a publisher aside, I rankle at the unmitigated gall of them believing that they have the right to pick and choose what content I request online.

It's the refusal to accept that your company is »only« a dumb pipe: we pay you to get access to all data at the speeds that we pay for. Also the issue with internet speeds is really something that bugs me: how can you advertise 24 MBit/s and yet I struggle watching Netflix in HD? That's like buying a car which has 500 horsepower only if there is no traffic, otherwise it can have anywhere between 75 and 300.

[The Final Dakar]

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes | Ars Technica

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.

"Just like Obamacare has destroyed the healthcare market in the name of making it ’fair’ and ‘accessible,’ so we can expect that the FCC’s newest rules to destroy the Internet as we currently know and enjoy it," Constitutional Rights PAC Chairman Larry Ward wrote. "Constitutional Rights PAC sent over 100 thousand letters to the FCC—and additional thousands to Congress—on behalf of the grassroots, and we are not planning on backing down because of a handful of Obama’s bureaucrats decided on new ‘rules’ for us to play by."

[BadKosh]

So why can't the average Joe sue their internet 'provider' when the speeds aren't what was contractually agreed to? I had issues from late Novemer last year until early February with trying to listen to internet radio and I got too much 'rebuffering' to even listen. I complained to Verizonheimer and told them to fix the issue or forget about me paying for their lousy service. Amazingly, within an hour the rebuffering stopped.

Good thing the FCC is independent.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...lity-john-fund

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yep, content will be regulated. What next? Banning some sources as not in line with the Narrative?

The new "Fairness Doctrine"

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Yep, content will be regulated. What next? Banning some sources as not in line with the Narrative?

Really? Really?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's like buying a car which has 500 horsepower only if there is no traffic, otherwise it can have anywhere between 75 and 300.

They actually do that, it's called Variable Engine Displacement, and it saves a lot of fuel if you're just puttering around town at less than half throttle, but you can turn it off if it annoys you (the reactivation of the dormant cylinders is smoother with some vehicles than it is with others). Mercedes, GM, and Ferrari do it very well. Lamborghini and Ford, not so much.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They actually do that, it's called Variable Engine Displacement, and it saves a lot of fuel if you're just puttering around town at less than half throttle, but you can turn it off if it annoys you (the reactivation of the dormant cylinders is smoother with some vehicles than it is with others). Mercedes, GM, and Ferrari do it very well. Lamborghini and Ford, not so much.

I know that this technology exists to save fuel, but importantly, if I put the pedal to the metal, all cylinders wake up and the full power of the engine is at my disposal. The driver is in control, not the provider of the road system (you're inside my region of influence, 4 cylinders in your V8 are sufficient; hey, do you want to pay for the 8-cylinder package?)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes | Ars Technica

They aren't mine unfortunately, or I'd give them a good dressing-down. I suppose that's one advantage of having one that doesn't accept many campaign contributions.

[The Final Dakar]

I didn't even connect it was Tennessee.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't even connect it was Tennessee.

Marsha Blackburn is, I'm fairly certain, one of the few members of congress with a double digit IQ (not exaggerating).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's the refusal to accept that your company is »only« a dumb pipe: we pay you to get access to all data at the speeds that we pay for.

This!

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So why can't the average Joe sue their internet 'provider' when the speeds aren't what was contractually agreed to?

I was wondering about that, shouldn't there be some form of responsibility and liability by your ISP to provide the speeds it has advertised?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I was wondering about that, shouldn't there be some form of responsibility and liability by your ISP to provide the speeds it has advertised?

Shouldn't they advertise speeds in a form that is understandable? A lot of how we treat businesses make no sense.

(FYI I think they have a 'tolerance' they have to hit, something like 80% of advertised speed)

[Chongo]

This is from CenturyLink's help page. Expect 80% of what you pay for. I pay for 20 and get 16.5
Slow Speeds | Wired | Tutorials | Internet Help | CenturyLink

image by machavez00, on Flickr

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

given the chance the Democrats have worked just as hard against net neutrality as the Republicans have.

Republicans’ “Internet Freedom Act” would wipe out net neutrality | Ars Technica

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) this week filed legislation she calls the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules.

The FCC's neutrality rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling Internet traffic, prohibit prioritization of traffic in exchange for payment, and require the ISPs to disclose network management practices.

These rules "shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act," the Internet Freedom Act states.

The legislation has 31 Republican cosponsors.

"My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations.”

Blackburn's Internet Freedom Act wouldn't even enforce a weaker version of net neutrality, consistent with her past proposals. In 2011, she filed an "Internet Freedom Act" that would have struck down the FCC's original net neutrality rules that were enforced without a Title II reclassification.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) have discussed legislation to overturn the FCC's vote while keeping some version of net neutrality in place, but they haven't finalized a bill yet.
"We don't really have a Walden bill yet," said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who cosponsored Blackburn's legislation, Politico reported today. The Upton/Thune bill is "just theoretical," but the Blackburn bill at least has "some language to address what we think is a problem," Shimnkus said.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

This is good! Wow, Something actually has the Rs and Ds working together on something, it's a Saturnalia miracle! Seriously, we do need a more modern solution to handle this, and they seem to be moving in the right direction.

[The Final Dakar]

If this is some type of humor, the joke is lost on me

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What I'm saying is they're at least trying to work out something in a bipartisan way, and either it'll be decent or it'll be swiftly vetoed (because they sure as hell won't get enough to override a veto if Net Neutrality wording isn't included in the bill).

[The Final Dakar]

Where is the bipartisan part you refer to?

I'm also missing what about this bill you consider good.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

My bad, I mistakenly thought I saw some Democrats on board to work on this but there apparently aren't any. It'll die then, no biggie.

[The Final Dakar]

I still don't understand what you thought was so good about it, particularly when it was sponsored by that nitwit you were telling me about earlier. All it seems designed to do is return us to the status quo.

[The Final Dakar]

Jeb Bush thinks net neutrality is crazy | The Verge

Speaking at the Cedar Rapids Pizza Ranch in Iowa this weekend, Bush criticized President Obama's stance on internet regulation, saying it would "stifle competition, stifle innovation."

"The idea of regulating access to the internet with a 1934 law is one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard," he said.

So it begins. Also, I don't see how it could stifle competition and worse than what it is now.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but if we were to (as a society) push the issue front and center for 2016 I think we'd find a great many republican candidates in support of NN.

I might add, this is the moderate potential nominee.

[The Final Dakar]

Obama's secret plan to take over the internet finally revealed

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jeb Bush thinks net neutrality is crazy | The Verge


So it begins. Also, I don't see how it could stifle competition and worse than what it is now.

Edit:

I might add, this is the moderate potential nominee.

Calling Jeb Bush moderate is just the same as calling BHO moderate. Not even close. We need to get away from establishment candidates if we want to see any good come to the citizens of the US. Right now is just the ruling class doing as a ruling class is ought to do.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Jeb's as "moderate" as George W, which is to say, not at all.

[The Final Dakar]

Perhaps I'm using the wrong term or perhaps our definitions differ, but out of the current GOP field, Jeb strikes me as the least dogmatic. I'm certainly curious as to who you would put closer to center than him. And no Rand Paul please, the guy is all over the map.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Christie, Paul, and Jindal are all more moderate.

[The Final Dakar]

Jindal? I'll have to revisit some of what I've read.

To explain my previous comment, I believe Jeb was one of the few GOPers who believed in a path to citizenship. Not sure if he's flip-flopped since testing the waters.

[The Final Dakar]

Tennessee fights for its right to squash municipal broadband expansion | Ars Technica

Tennessee isn't going to give up its restriction on municipal broadband without a fight. "[T]he FCC has unlawfully inserted itself between the State of Tennessee and the State’s own political subdivisions," Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery wrote in the state's petition to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. "The State of Tennessee, as a sovereign and a party to the proceeding below, is aggrieved and seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is contrary to the United States Constitution; (2) is in excess of the Commission’s authority; (3) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law."

Despite Tennessee's lawsuit, there are members of the state legislature who want to get rid of the restrictions on municipal broadband. Legislation in the state Senate and House would eliminate the provisions of state law that prevent municipal electric utilities from offering broadband and video service outside their electric service footprint. The legislation is scheduled for markups today, but AT&T and other telecom companies are lobbying against it, Communications Daily reported.

The Tennessee restriction dates to 1999, when the legislature authorized municipal electric systems to provide Internet access and cable TV, but only within their electric service areas.

[The Final Dakar]

New tactic in war on net neutrality: Strip FCC of enforcement funding | Ars Technica

After losing the battle against net neutrality rules at the Federal Communications Commission, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has taken his fight to Congress. Today, Pai asked the House of Representatives to strip the FCC of funding it needs to enforce net neutrality rules.

This doesn't sit right with me. As a commissioner, he should put forth his opinions and vote his conscience on proposed regulations. As a member of the FCC, though, he should also abide by its decisions and not undermine its authority just because he doesn't like those decisions.

It feels like if a general lobbied congress to cut the defense budget because he disagreed with a war we were waging.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It feels like if a general lobbied congress to cut the defense budget because he disagreed with a war we were waging.

While I generally agree with your post - it's a pity the above has not happened. Fighting endless wars on the Chinese T-bill-buying credit card. We could use a General lobbying Congress like that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

While I generally agree with your post - it's a pity the above has not happened. Fighting endless wars on the Chinese T-bill-buying credit card. We could use a General lobbying Congress like that.

Chain of Command. It's not as cut and dry in the business world, but undermining your boss and department is bad juju. I wonder if he can be fired.

Pai's behavior would be more palatable if he resigned his position. I'm honestly floored by actions. Just further demonstration of how bad politics have gotten.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tennessee fights for its right to squash municipal broadband expansion | Ars Technica

He's a dweeb. Besides, if you really want to circumvent it all just form as a "community" co-op, utility co-ops are exempted from municipal restrictions under TN state law. It's a big, gaping loophole that ISPs don't want anyone to know about.

[BadKosh]

Mo money - Mo Money - Mo Money

FCC's net neutrality rules open door to new fee on Internet service - LA Times

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

FCC's net neutrality rules open door to new fee on Internet service - LA Times

Ajit Pai

Disregard as scaremongering

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's a dweeb. Besides, if you really want to circumvent it all just form as a "community" co-op, utility co-ops are exempted from municipal restrictions under TN state law. It's a big, gaping loophole that ISPs don't want anyone to know about.

Doctors hate it! Read this one trick to bulk up your fiber!

[The Final Dakar]

...and we're off!
Net neutrality rules published, lawsuit to overturn them immediately filed | Ars Technica

[The Final Dakar]

Republicans seek fast-track repeal of net neutrality | Ars Technica

Republicans in Congress yesterday unveiled a new plan to fast track repeal of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules.

Introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and 14 Republican cosponsors, the "Resolution of Disapproval" would use Congress's fast track powers under the Congressional Review Act to cancel the FCC's new rules.

Saying the resolution "would require only a simple Senate majority to pass under special procedural rules of the Congressional Review Act," Collins' announcement called it "the quickest way to stop heavy-handed agency regulations that would slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices and hamper infrastructure development, especially in his Northeast Georgia district."

Republicans can use this method to bypass Democratic opposition in the Senate by requiring just a simple majority rather than 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but "it would still face an almost certain veto from President Obama," National Journal wrote. "Other attempts to fast-track repeals of regulations in the past have largely been unsuccessful."

[OAW]

Whenever the issue comes down to a conflict between what's fair to consumers and what's profitable for big business ... true to form the GOP never fails to side with the latter.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Whenever the issue comes down to a conflict between what's fair to consumers and what's profitable for big business/government ... true to form both sides of the isle never fail to side with the latter.

OAW

Adjusted for accuracy.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Adjusted for accuracy.

Of course it's all the rage to roll with the old saying ... "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties." ... but in this particular instance when it comes to Net Neutrality the Dems are clearly in favor of it and the GOP is in staunch opposition. Just saying ...

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Adjusted for accuracy.

Here, it's a GOP-led effort, and if you want »your« party to stop with such non-sensical legislation, you should hold them to a higher standard rather than pointing out »the Democrats do it, too!«

[The Final Dakar]

both sides of the isle never fail to side with the latter.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Adjusted for accuracy.

…except for on Net Neutrality.

C'mon dude, both parties have their vile moments, but a rush to indict both when one is pretty clearly the villain on a specific issue comes off as thin-skinned.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Here, it's a GOP-led effort, and if you want »your« party to stop with such non-sensical legislation, you should hold them to a higher standard rather than pointing out »the Democrats do it, too!«

Why can't i do both?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

…except for on Net Neutrality.

C'mon dude, both parties have their vile moments, but a rush to indict both when one is pretty clearly the villain on a specific issue comes off as thin-skinned.

Because I think the democrat's support of net neutrality is absolutely emergent of their newfound congressional disadvantage. I will praise them when this stands up to scrutiny in the courts and Democrats can support the issue for longer than a few months (after near a decade of neglect).

I am not quick to forget the NBC/Comcast merger and almost a decade of letting the big ISPs become this big of a problem in the first place. This issue was prominent when the democrats controlled the house, senate and presidency yet they are "fighting the battle" once their formidable power for passing NN legislation has evaporated.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...461&cycle=2012

The democrats (or whoever is in power) are still just as happy as the Republicans to take money from Comcast & the other big ISPs, and I doubt this is of no benefit to Comcast.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

…except for on Net Neutrality.

C'mon dude, both parties have their vile moments, but a rush to indict both when one is pretty clearly the villain on a specific issue comes off as thin-skinned.

The allegation wasn't limited to Net Neutality, it was expanded to include the whole of corporate vs. consumer legislation.

Let's say we have some campaign finance reform on the slab, and we start a thread about it. For whatever reason, the Republicans want to try and shoot it down.

One of the replies is "those Republicans, always trying to kill campaign finance reform".

I think it would be fair to call that allegation lopsided, even in the context of the Republicans being the current villain of the scenario.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

When the Dems were in charge why didn't they plug these holes? It's not like bills weren't being written and presented to do just that, at the time. I'm just as mad at them over this mess, because they willfully stood by and let it all turn to shit.