Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
This may (still) not be what you're looking for, but: Tom Wheeler proposes that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open protections.
tiny text
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Title II just passed at the FCC, 3 votes to 2.
It's.... it's real? You actually have de facto Net Neutrality?
Also the FCC overrode some state bans on city run broadband.
EDIT: Let us all taste Verizon's salty, salty tears.
Actually the site's loading extremely slowly, so I will repost it:
Yes, that is actually, truly Verizon's reply. Translated PDF is here.
It's.... it's real? You actually have de facto Net Neutrality?
Also the FCC overrode some state bans on city run broadband.
EDIT: Let us all taste Verizon's salty, salty tears.
Actually the site's loading extremely slowly, so I will repost it:
- --- -.. .- -.-- .----. ... -.. . -.-. .. ... .. --- -. -... -.-- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. - --- . -. -.-. ..- -- -... . .-. -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - ... . .-. ...- .. -.-. . ... .-- .. - .... -... .- -.. .-.. -.-- .- -. - .. --.- ..- .- - . -.. .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - .. --- -. ... .. ... .- .-. .- -.. .. -.-. .- .-.. ... - . .--. - .... .- - .--. .-. . ... .- --. . ... .- - .. -- . --- ..-. ..- -. -.-. . .-. - .- .. -. - -.-- ..-. --- .-. -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... --..-- .. -. -. --- ...- .- - --- .-. ... .- -. -.. .. -. ...- . ... - --- .-. ... .-.-.- --- ...- . .-. - .... . .--. .- ... - - .-- --- -.. . -.-. .- -.. . ... .- -... .. .--. .- .-. - .. ... .- -. --..-- .-.. .. --. .... - -....- - --- ..- -.-. .... .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .- .--. .--. .-. --- .- -.-. .... ..- -. .-.. . .- ... .... . -.. ..- -. .--. .-. . -.-. . -.. . -. - . -.. .. -. ...- . ... - -- . -. - .- -. -.. . -. .- -... .-.. . -.. - .... . -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .- --. . -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... -. --- .-- . -. .--- --- -.-- .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. - --- -.. .- -.-- -.-. .... --- ... . - --- -.-. .... .- -. --. . - .... . .-- .- -.-- - .... . -.-. --- -- -- . .-. -.-. .. .- .-.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .... .- ... --- .--. . .-. .- - . -.. ... .. -. -.-. . .. - ... -.-. .-. . .- - .. --- -. .-.-.- -.-. .... .- -. --. .. -. --. .- .--. .-.. .- - ..-. --- .-. -- - .... .- - .... .- ... -... . . -. ... --- ... ..- -.-. -.-. . ... ... ..-. ..- .-.. ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. -... . -.. --- -. . --..-- .. ..-. .- - .- .-.. .-.. --..-- --- -. .-.. -.-- .- ..-. - . .-. -.-. .- .-. . ..-. ..- .-.. .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .- -. .- .-.. -.-- ... .. ... --..-- ..-. ..- .-.. .-.. - .-. .- -. ... .--. .- .-. . -. -.-. -.-- --..-- .- -. -.. -... -.-- - .... . .-.. . --. .. ... .-.. .- - ..- .-. . --..-- .-- .... .. -.-. .... .. ... -.-. --- -. ... - .. - ..- - .. --- -. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- -.-. .... .- .-. --. . -.. .-- .. - .... -.. . - . .-. -- .. -. .. -. --. .--. --- .-.. .. -.-. -.-- .-.-.- .- ... .- .-. . ... ..- .-.. - --..-- .. - .. ... .-.. .. -.- . .-.. -.-- - .... .- - .... .. ... - --- .-. -.-- .-- .. .-.. .-.. .--- ..- -.. --. . - --- -.. .- -.-- .----. ... .- -.-. - .. --- -. ... .- ... -- .. ... --. ..- .. -.. . -.. .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. .----. ... -- --- ...- . .. ... . ... .--. . -.-. .. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- .-. . --. .-. . - - .- -... .-.. . -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . .. - .. ... .-- .... --- .-.. .-.. -.-- ..- -. -. . -.-. . ... ... .- .-. -.-- .-.-.- - .... . ..-. -.-. -.-. .... .- -.. - .- .-. --. . - . -.. - --- --- .-.. ... .- ...- .- .. .-.. .- -... .-.. . - --- .--. .-. . ... . .-. ...- . .- -. --- .--. . -. .. -. - . .-. -. . - --..-- -... ..- - .. -. ... - . .- -.. -.-. .... --- ... . - --- ..- ... . - .... .. ... --- .-. -.. . .-. .- ... .- -. . -..- -.-. ..- ... . - --- .- -.. --- .--. - ...-- ----- ----- -....- .--. .-.. ..- ... .--. .- --. . ... --- ..-. -... .-. --- .- -.. .- -. -.. --- .--. . -. -....- . -. -.. . -.. .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - --- .-. -.-- .- .-. -.-. .- -. .- - .... .- - .-- .. .-.. .-.. .... .- ...- . ..- -. .. -. - . -. -.. . -.. -. . --. .- - .. ...- . -.-. --- -. ... . --.- ..- . -. -.-. . ... ..-. --- .-. -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... .- -. -.. ...- .- .-. .. --- ..- ... .--. .- .-. - ... --- ..-. - .... . .. -. - . .-. -. . - . -.-. --- ... -.-- ... - . -- ..-. --- .-. -.-- . .- .-. ... - --- -.-. --- -- . .-.-.- .-- .... .- - .... .- ... -... . . -. .- -. -.. .-- .. .-.. .-.. .-. . -- .- .. -. -.-. --- -. ... - .- -. - -... . ..-. --- .-. . --..-- -.. ..- .-. .. -. --. .- -. -.. .- ..-. - . .-. - .... . . -..- .. ... - . -. -.-. . --- ..-. .- -. -.-- .-. . --. ..- .-.. .- - .. --- -. ... .. ... ...- . .-. .. --.. --- -. .----. ... -.-. --- -- -- .. - -- . -. - - --- .- -. --- .--. . -. .. -. - . .-. -. . - - .... .- - .--. .-. --- ...- .. -.. . ... -.-. --- -. ... ..- -- . .-. ... .-- .. - .... -.-. --- -- .--. . - .. - .. ...- . -... .-. --- .- -.. -... .- -. -.. -.-. .... --- .. -.-. . ... .- -. -.. .. -. - . .-. -. . - .- -.-. -.-. . ... ... .-- .... . -. --..-- .-- .... . .-. . --..-- .- -. -.. .... --- .-- - .... . -.-- .-- .- -. - .-.-.-
Yes, that is actually, truly Verizon's reply. Translated PDF is here.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Okay then.
I've been saying since November that I would believe Wheeler's about-face just as soon as he started doing the right things instead of just saying the right things.
Today's that day. I accept that Wheeler is on our side now, and I thank him for the work he's done to protect the open Internet.
Kudos also to John Oliver, because I genuinely believe this would not have happened without him.
I've been saying since November that I would believe Wheeler's about-face just as soon as he started doing the right things instead of just saying the right things.
Today's that day. I accept that Wheeler is on our side now, and I thank him for the work he's done to protect the open Internet.
Kudos also to John Oliver, because I genuinely believe this would not have happened without him.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Apparently the new regs also require ISP's to stop lying about what their subscriptions cost.
It's a nice sentiment, but what the fuck are people going to do, switch to one of the many other ISP's they have to choose from?
As part of the transparency requirements in the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality order, Internet providers have to clearly detail all charges, such as modem rental and installation fees, and disclose the full monthly price that will go into effect after any promotional pricing expires.
It's a nice sentiment, but what the fuck are people going to do, switch to one of the many other ISP's they have to choose from?
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Still can't believe the FCC didn't fuck us on this.
THE SYSTEM WORKS
THE SYSTEM WORKS
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Mothra wrote:Still can't believe the FCC didn't fuck us on this.
I know!
THE SYSTEM WORKS
Whoa whoa whoa whoa hold on there
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
If anything this proves that the system often fails to function as intended. /tumblrlibertarian
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Keep in mind that congress is trying to dismantle this whole thing right now, so maybe keep the party hats to minimum.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Congress has also voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 50 times. There's a difference between legislation and theatre; this is the latter.
Not saying it couldn't happen in 2017, if we got a Republican in the White House -- hell, we wouldn't even need Congress to pass anything then, just a Republican majority at the FCC. But the odds of it happening short of that? Pretty low. If Congress is going to pass anything, they'll need 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature, or 67 votes in the Senate without it.
I'd definitely recommend that everybody vote for candidates who favor net neutrality, and not get complacent. But I don't think it's under imminent threat.
Not saying it couldn't happen in 2017, if we got a Republican in the White House -- hell, we wouldn't even need Congress to pass anything then, just a Republican majority at the FCC. But the odds of it happening short of that? Pretty low. If Congress is going to pass anything, they'll need 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature, or 67 votes in the Senate without it.
I'd definitely recommend that everybody vote for candidates who favor net neutrality, and not get complacent. But I don't think it's under imminent threat.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Except for the fact that "powerful entities" are going to continue to work to disrupt and devastate it.
This is basically going to be one of those interminable slogs that we won't see even remotely enshrined in basic decency until most of us are dead or keeling over.
This is basically going to be one of those interminable slogs that we won't see even remotely enshrined in basic decency until most of us are dead or keeling over.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
I guess I can take heart in the inability of Congress to do literally anything.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Thad wrote:Apparently the new regs also require ISP's to stop lying about what their subscriptions cost.As part of the transparency requirements in the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality order, Internet providers have to clearly detail all charges, such as modem rental and installation fees, and disclose the full monthly price that will go into effect after any promotional pricing expires.
It's a nice sentiment, but what the pineapple are people going to do, switch to one of the many other ISP's they have to choose from?
https://www.dialupsound.com/
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Classic wrote:Except for the fact that "powerful entities" are going to continue to work to disrupt and devastate it.
This is basically going to be one of those interminable slogs that we won't see even remotely enshrined in basic decency until most of us are dead or keeling over.
Well sure. We're going to see companies outright flout the regulations, companies throttle some sites and pretend it's an accident, lawsuits tying up the courts for years, and attempts to undercut the federal regulations at the state level.
But I still don't see any laws against net neutrality passing the Senate.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Time for public comments again (hit the "+ Express" link).
Seeking public comment? This is a farce. Chairman Pai heard exactly what the public had to say in 2014. The public responded, overwhelmingly, in support of net neutrality; indeed, the public interest was so high that the traffic brought down fcc.gov.
If Chairman Pai cared what the public thought, he would not be reversing a rule supported by the public in order to grant more power to internet service providers, some of the most despised companies in America. Nobody wants this except Comcast, AT&T, Charter, and Time Warner.
There is no free market competition in broadband Internet in America. There is no incentive for ISPs to compete on price or on service. We, as Americans, are a captive audience; our only choices are "use whatever ISP is available at our address" and "try to participate in twenty-first century America without Internet access".
We've already seen AT&T prioritizing its own traffic and Comcast banning protocols it didn't like. We need net neutrality protections to prevent predatory, monopolistic ISPs from engaging in that behavior. This is obvious to every American who's seen their monthly bill go up while the quality of service goes down.
But Chairman Pai has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care what the American public has to say. If he did, he wouldn't even be considering repealing net neutrality.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
On the other hand, I have no qualms whatsoever about kicking Asshole Pie
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
From a WSJ journal article about fake comments on the FCC site in "support" of the repeal:
A comment from “Elzor The Blarghmaster” at 9632 Elm Road, Maywood, Ill., was among the 818,000 identical FCC comments backing the Trump policy. No such address could be found, said Jimmie Thompson, a U.S. Postal Service carrier in Maywood.
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
Yeah, it really seems like the only way this holds up in court is the sheer luck of getting judges who are the right combination of friendly and incompetent. It's like Pai isn't even trying to make his case. Either he's totally delusional about his chances of defending the rule change, or he doesn't really care if it gets overturned so long as he's proven his loyalty and, when this is all over, he can go back to Verizon with a nice fat raise.
- Mongrel
- Posts: 21391
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
- Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line
Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)
On the bright side, I have a handy name if I make a Nurgle warband.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests