Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Lawless: Having Been Shot Down by Federal Courts Twice In Attempting to Vote Themselves Powers Not Granted Them By Congress, Obama's FCC Violates the Law a Third Time and Once Again Pronounces Themselves Lords of the Internet
The left has been agitating for this endlessly, and twice before -- in 2010, I think, and then again in 2014 -- the FCC acted unconstitutionally to assert power over the Internet, bequeathing upon themselves a jurisdiction never delegated to them by Congress.
In 2014, the last time a Federal Court told the FCC it was acting unconstitutionally, there were suggestions that it would try again a third time, this time by using a different tactic. It has now in fact used that tactic. The internet is an "information service" over which the FCC has no power. So the FCC has decided, on its own authority, to declare the Internet a "telecomunications service," over which it does have authority. Note that Congress did not make this important change in definition. An agency charged with executing the law as Congress passes it has decided that it itself would change the law. We are no longer a democracy, and as there is no longer even a fictive consent of the governed in our laws, there no longer exists any philosophical basis for obeying the government. Now obedience is simply required by practical considerations: because they will kill or imprison you if you don't obey. Whether this move is good or bad is besides the point. But it is, you know, as bad as you would guess.Peter Suderman considers the possibility that this Will To Power Grab will itself be struck down in court; I suppose the odds of that are good, but I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it, when the out of control and frankly terrifying government demonstrates that it simply will not stop until it collects all political power into its hands.
In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration's long-running political priorities--a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process. As Commissioner Pai told ReasonTV, the move is a "solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist." It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own.
What is truly shocking is the complete disdain this Administration has for the rule of law and for our constitutional processes. They understand that these are the moves of a fascist tyranny, and they're okay with that. We no longer live in a democratic republic, in which the ordinary citizen can be said, at least constructively, to have consented to the laws which bind him; we now simply live under whatever laws the gangsters occupying our government have decided to inflict upon us. Beginning in 2009, the American Government went to war with the people it supposedly "served;" in 2015, it won that war.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Saved from the tribbles!
Posted by: Jdub at February 27, 2015 03:12 PM (WDySP)
2
and so it begins
Posted by: that guy that always thinks it's beginning at February 27, 2015 03:13 PM (evdj2)
3
Yeah, watching Wheeler make the announcement, unable to suppress his glee made me want to punch him.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:13 PM (lHHyw)
4
When does the internet strike back?
Posted by: Roy at February 27, 2015 03:14 PM (VndSC)
5
These assholes don't seem to realize that the Rule of Law protects them from us.
I think it's time we started acting accordingly. And that is all I'll say to avoid banhammering or the authorities.
These assholes don't seem to realize that the Rule of Law protects them from us.
I think it's time we started acting accordingly. And that is all I'll say to avoid banhammering or the authorities.
Posted by: butch at February 27, 2015 03:14 PM (0APJ3)
6
www.shopllap.com. Gotta get the autographed photo of Spock w/ '60's muscle car.
Posted by: Nimoy's Retail Site at February 27, 2015 03:14 PM (gwG9s)
7
Is it time to water the tree of liberty yet?
Posted by: Damiano at February 27, 2015 03:14 PM (AzHzU)
8
Never give up, never surrender!
Posted by: Galaxy Quest Kate58 at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (oLZsm)
9
>>When does the internet strike back?
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (lHHyw)
10
Has the wonderful 300+ page document been published yet? Now that it's passed shouldn't we be able to see what's in it?
Posted by: Duke Lowell at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (KFdZd)
11
and so it begins
Posted by: that guy that always thinks it's beginning at February 27, 2015 03:13 PM (evdj2)
The next step, as Churchill might remind us, is the end of the beginning.
May the Lord have mercy on this nation. I do not believe, as Ace fears, that the nation will simply endure tyranny all the way and cease all resistance.
I fear the contrary, and weep for it.
Posted by: that guy that always thinks it's beginning at February 27, 2015 03:13 PM (evdj2)
The next step, as Churchill might remind us, is the end of the beginning.
May the Lord have mercy on this nation. I do not believe, as Ace fears, that the nation will simply endure tyranny all the way and cease all resistance.
I fear the contrary, and weep for it.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (9LuAk)
12
Barry McAssfuck Obama: Constitutional Shredder
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (MNq6o)
13
Any passage of a law that makes Keith Ellison dance has got to be bad law.
http://tinyurl.com/n8aysfy
http://tinyurl.com/n8aysfy
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (81UWZ)
14
>>These assholes don't seem to realize that the Rule of Law protects them from us.
Oh, I think that's why they're so intent to suppress dissent via the 1st and 2nd Amendments, both attacked just this week.
Oh, I think that's why they're so intent to suppress dissent via the 1st and 2nd Amendments, both attacked just this week.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (lHHyw)
15
Congress had specifically stated in their law that the Internet was NOT a public utility, yet the FCC at the urging of the fascist in the WH said it was. I suspect that once again one of the Internet companies will take him to court. I say now the asshole should have to pay ALL the court costs out of his personal pockets.
If a Republican .... yada yada yada
And yet Congress till allows him to get away with anything he wants. Impeachment and defunding are off the table.
We have no Party Morons
If a Republican .... yada yada yada
And yet Congress till allows him to get away with anything he wants. Impeachment and defunding are off the table.
We have no Party Morons
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (wlDny)
16
Gotta ask the question: If the government doesn't have to follow the law, and the congress will not enforce its own powers, let alone reign in the power of the executive, and the SCOTUS interprets the law to suit the executive; why do we have a congress? For that matter, why do we have laws?
Well. All right then. Guess we're on our own.
Well. All right then. Guess we're on our own.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (60Vyp)
17
Hang. Them.
Hang them all. Every single "yea" vote, go to an amenable and corrupted Grand Jury and indict them all on Treason, mumping, "being in a place", and "mayhem" with additional "Horse Rape & Abuse". Then arrest them, perp walk the sons of bitches while explaining the Horse Rape plus Treason will equal Death.
Then seize their assets in a civil forfeiture.
Then perp walk them a few times, once in front of a fucking zoo.
They'll get the message.
Hang them all. Every single "yea" vote, go to an amenable and corrupted Grand Jury and indict them all on Treason, mumping, "being in a place", and "mayhem" with additional "Horse Rape & Abuse". Then arrest them, perp walk the sons of bitches while explaining the Horse Rape plus Treason will equal Death.
Then seize their assets in a civil forfeiture.
Then perp walk them a few times, once in front of a fucking zoo.
They'll get the message.
Posted by: Inspector Cussword at February 27, 2015 03:17 PM (scgac)
18
I want to hear Beckel, Juan Williams, the entire cadre of MSNBC leftist apologists, Josh Earnest defend the shit that has happened to this country just TODAY.
Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2015 03:17 PM (BZAd3)
19
What amazes me--and it shouldn't, we see it often enough--is the shortsightedness of the left and liberal Republicans screaming that we don't have to worry about the FCC using this power because they've promised to limit it.
I know WIBDI is cliched, but what if the Bush administration had told the FCC, you know what, since we aren't allowed the limited powers of Title I, let's grab the expansive powers of Title II, but we promise not to use those powers.
I know WIBDI is cliched, but what if the Bush administration had told the FCC, you know what, since we aren't allowed the limited powers of Title I, let's grab the expansive powers of Title II, but we promise not to use those powers.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 03:17 PM (J0IP0)
20
Well. All right then. Guess we're on our own.
-----------------
That's why they're after our ammo. Warlord time.
-----------------
That's why they're after our ammo. Warlord time.
Posted by: Roy at February 27, 2015 03:17 PM (VndSC)
21
"Okay with it?" The Administration is behind it -- and I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that, should the GOP regain the White House two years hence, it will do nothing to repeal it.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at February 27, 2015 03:17 PM (d2g9U)
22
Funny coincidence that they are acting to render useless the most popular rifle in the country.
Posted by: california red at February 27, 2015 03:18 PM (UyEG4)
23
The assholes at Reddit are cheering and slapping each other on the back over this shit. King Puttsalot sent them a handwritten 'thank you' for being the useful idiots they are.
Posted by: smaulz at February 27, 2015 03:18 PM (AbcTu)
24
The sheer number of lies and illegal actions by this administration is breathtaking.
Back in '08 lots of people were shouting about Alinsky and Obama's devotion to his principles, overloading the system, crashing it and rebuilding in their tyrannical vision. We were called loons.
Back in '08 lots of people were shouting about Alinsky and Obama's devotion to his principles, overloading the system, crashing it and rebuilding in their tyrannical vision. We were called loons.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:18 PM (g1DWB)
Posted by: Soothsayer, Lambda Lambda Lambda at February 27, 2015 03:18 PM (hbvPW)
26
I didn't even need to go full Junta.
Posted by: Barakhenaten I at February 27, 2015 03:18 PM (B7PYR)
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (evdj2)
28
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a malignant traitor.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (M1uf/)
Posted by: Soothsayer, Lambda Lambda Lambda at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (hbvPW)
30
May the Lord have mercy on this nation. I do not believe, as Ace fears, that the nation will simply endure tyranny all the way and cease all resistance.
Kinley Ardal at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM
Why not? We do it all the time! And you people gave us the House and the Senate last November!
Not the hill to die on!
Kinley Ardal at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM
Why not? We do it all the time! And you people gave us the House and the Senate last November!
Not the hill to die on!
Posted by: Republicans at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (AzHzU)
31
And all the "keep your laws off my body, scumbag" types up here in the People's Republics of New England are just peachy-keen about this. Because their chocolate messiah is the one making the rules.
And people (and by people I mean moonbat Obama/Democrat primary voters) wonder where the growing secessionists and Constitutional convention movements get their energy. Seriously. They have no clue.
And people (and by people I mean moonbat Obama/Democrat primary voters) wonder where the growing secessionists and Constitutional convention movements get their energy. Seriously. They have no clue.
Posted by: DocJ at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (zrsn3)
32
23 The assholes at Reddit are cheering and slapping each other on the back over this shit.
-------------------------
They killed the Kapos too.
-------------------------
They killed the Kapos too.
Posted by: Roy at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (VndSC)
33
When the government ignores the law, what legitimacy does either have?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (M1uf/)
34
RIP. Tom Jones will be missed.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (evdj2)
35
One problem: we have NO opposition party! No one standing up for the rule of law and the constitutional system of government. The republicans are worse than nothing because they're standing in the way of our electing a real opposition to this disaster.
Posted by: Lily at February 27, 2015 03:19 PM (mg7rj)
36
The Senate voted 95-1 to confirm Terrell McSweeny, giving the Democrats the majority.
You are so welcome.
Posted by: The Senate GOP
The Senate voted 95-1 to confirm Terrell McSweeny, giving the Democrats the majority.
You are so welcome.
Posted by: The Senate GOP
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 27, 2015 03:20 PM (kdS6q)
37
It's a tax!
Posted by: John Roberts at February 27, 2015 03:20 PM (XK0dn)
38
16 SCOTUS interprets the law to suit the executive; why do we have a congress? For that matter, why do we have laws?
Well. All right then. Guess we're on our own.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (60Vyp)
As Ace said, SCOTUS has ruled against him on this twice. He simply ignores them because Congress has already said they will do nothing.
Well. All right then. Guess we're on our own.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:16 PM (60Vyp)
As Ace said, SCOTUS has ruled against him on this twice. He simply ignores them because Congress has already said they will do nothing.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:20 PM (wlDny)
39
I need a better rifle.
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 27, 2015 03:20 PM (lG2E3)
40
Dissent was patriotic under Bush and the internet was unregulated. Now dissent is treason and the internet will be regulated. Hope & Change!
Posted by: Hillary 2016! at February 27, 2015 03:20 PM (gwG9s)
41
Spuds McKenzie has passed. So sad.
Spuds McKenzie has passed. So sad.
Posted by: Soothsayer, Lambda Lambda Lambda at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (hbvPW)
42
I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it,
When I'm dead.
When I'm dead.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (M1uf/)
43
I sometimes wonder if all of the power grabbing isn't PARTLY motivated by a feeling of those in power that things are about to implode, or explode or break down....
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (AC0lD)
44
My friendsh, you have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.
Posted by: John McCain at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (a57bf)
Posted by: Soothsayer, Lambda Lambda Lambda at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (hbvPW)
46
And yet..... I am still here....
Posted by: Abe Vigoda at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (fLKzW)
47
Our country's been on the road to hell since Marbury v. Madison. It's just a recent development that the Executive branch has decided to grant itself the power the Judiciary granted themselves so long ago.
Posted by: Cpt. Sisko at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (MYCIw)
48
"43 I sometimes wonder if all of the power grabbing isn't PARTLY motivated by a feeling of those in power that things are about to implode, or explode or break down...."
If that's how they're feeling, they're right.
If that's how they're feeling, they're right.
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (lG2E3)
49
Ace: "What is truly shocking is the complete disdain this Administration has for the rule of law and for our constitutional processes."
Seriously, Ace? You're still shocked by this?
Seriously, Ace? You're still shocked by this?
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (SgXEz)
50
Did Hussein Obama say he was "going Bulworth" or "going Stalin"?
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 27, 2015 03:22 PM (1CroS)
51
Floyd Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for? Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for? Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Posted by: blaster at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (Rx8ML)
52
When does the internet strike back?
I have Verizon FIOS. Rock solid connection. They're not happy about this. If this country is ever going to get fiber optic onto every street, into every home, it will be because of their efforts. It will be a very good thing if this happens.
Meanwhile, the leftist at Google are as giddy as little grls.
I have Verizon FIOS. Rock solid connection. They're not happy about this. If this country is ever going to get fiber optic onto every street, into every home, it will be because of their efforts. It will be a very good thing if this happens.
Meanwhile, the leftist at Google are as giddy as little grls.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (zxQ4h)
53
>>The assholes at Reddit are cheering and slapping each other on the back over this shit.
Remember the young Egyptian expats who helped overthrow Mubarack via twitter, etc.? Oh, how they and the press were so proud of their social media revolution.
And then...how soon were they pushed out by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Remember the young Egyptian expats who helped overthrow Mubarack via twitter, etc.? Oh, how they and the press were so proud of their social media revolution.
And then...how soon were they pushed out by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (lHHyw)
54
Lassie?
Posted by: Trunk Monkey at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (fLKzW)
55
/sisko sock.
Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (MYCIw)
56
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Posted by: Groucho Marx at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (0HooB)
57
bequeathing upon themselves a jurisdiction never delegated to them by Congress.
*big eyes*
ace, why are you trying to kill me?
*big watery eyes*
*big eyes*
ace, why are you trying to kill me?
*big watery eyes*
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (mf5HN)
58
Tribble/Horta 2016
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (Gl3VB)
59
"... and they are okay with that..."
===
Much worse than the Administration being okay with that is the number of ordinary Americans who are okay with it.
===
Much worse than the Administration being okay with that is the number of ordinary Americans who are okay with it.
Posted by: Radeaminit at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (Xv7f/)
60
Maybe Anonymous and Co. will fuck up the FCC. Kind of funny if all of their paychecks bounced next week.
Posted by: Lincolntf at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (2cS/G)
61
What the big internet companies should do is turnabout. Simply ignore Obama, the FCC, and any regulations they write. What is OBama going to do, take them to court which has already ruled he has no authority?
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:24 PM (wlDny)
62
shoot the 3 criminals who voted Yes on that board ... several times ...
Posted by: KaiserDerden at February 27, 2015 03:24 PM (hYYqD)
63
So, let's see... the FCC grants itself the power to regulate free speech (for that is what is behind this desire to control the internet- you think they give a rat's ass about Netflix or Amazon?).
The ATF fast-tracks a ban on 5.56 ammunition (and you just *know* that it will be written broadly enough that it covers all 5.56 ammunition, and likely all 7.62 as well).
Simultaneously, the Democrats and Republicans are both dead set on continuing the agency dedicated to violating the 4th Amendment (DHS), and allowing illegal aliens to invade the country in droves.
Does that about sum it up?
The ATF fast-tracks a ban on 5.56 ammunition (and you just *know* that it will be written broadly enough that it covers all 5.56 ammunition, and likely all 7.62 as well).
Simultaneously, the Democrats and Republicans are both dead set on continuing the agency dedicated to violating the 4th Amendment (DHS), and allowing illegal aliens to invade the country in droves.
Does that about sum it up?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:24 PM (M1uf/)
64
Since these regulations are still secret regulations, they could say anything. We could be prosecuted and imprisoned by any court that states we are in violation of these secret regulations and how would we prove otherwise?
Since these regulations are still secret regulations, they could say anything. We could be prosecuted and imprisoned by any court that states we are in violation of these secret regulations and how would we prove otherwise?
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 03:24 PM (UYVd+)
65
ATF just declared all rifle calibers "cigarette like" and demands menthol filters be attached to each round.
ATF just declared all rifle calibers "cigarette like" and demands menthol filters be attached to each round.
Posted by: Smoke 'em if you got 'em at February 27, 2015 03:25 PM (1sVzz)
66
Net Neutrality - the wrong answer to an unasked question about a problem that doesn't exist. Disruptive. Damaging. Unnecessary. Freedom limiting.
Perfectly Obama, in every way.
Perfectly Obama, in every way.
Posted by: DocJ at February 27, 2015 03:25 PM (zrsn3)
67
Did anybody think he was kidding when he said he would fundamentally change America? There's nothing that will stop that critter from trying and the MFM will help him do it.
If Cankles gets her and Bill elected it's Doom City.
If Cankles gets her and Bill elected it's Doom City.
Posted by: Hank at February 27, 2015 03:25 PM (S1NkT)
68
Its not like Obama's base does much reading so taking over the intertubes is no loss to them. Now if he were restricting access to astrolube there would be a great wailing from his people.
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (oDCMR)
69
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 03:23 PM (mf5HN)
No one mention D^2 to AtC. I think she's about to explode int a cute little ball of fury.
On second thought...
Na. I won't.
No one mention D^2 to AtC. I think she's about to explode int a cute little ball of fury.
On second thought...
Na. I won't.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (M1uf/)
70
"I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it"
I'm not really that thirsty, but if you're having an iced tea, I'll have one too. Ooo! Ooo! Can they do a half tea/half lemonade instead? That sounds dee-lish!
Posted by: The Shrub of Republican Moderation
"I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it"
I'm not really that thirsty, but if you're having an iced tea, I'll have one too. Ooo! Ooo! Can they do a half tea/half lemonade instead? That sounds dee-lish!
Posted by: The Shrub of Republican Moderation
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (kdS6q)
71
Lots of rage inducing stuff from this leadership in the last 6 years. The internet allows us to blow off steam among like minded. I would think the gov would want to keep us here...loud, proud, and in the end ineffectual.
Posted by: Russkilitlover at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (vbWct)
72
I sometimes wonder if all of the power grabbing isn't PARTLY motivated by a feeling of those in power that things are about to implode, or explode or break down....
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (AC0lD)
I'd bet the smart critters know this.
The problem is that the "smart" critters think that power grabbing is a solution... if only for themselves.
The rest of them believe in Skittle Shitting Unicorns.
Posted by: Stateless Infidel at February 27, 2015 03:21 PM (AC0lD)
I'd bet the smart critters know this.
The problem is that the "smart" critters think that power grabbing is a solution... if only for themselves.
The rest of them believe in Skittle Shitting Unicorns.
Posted by: Damiano at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (AzHzU)
73
D's and R's both need to get thrown out, they're 80% in cahoots no matter what they say.
I fully expect that this or any of the government's overreaches will not be thrown out if and when the R's retake the White House.
I fully expect that this or any of the government's overreaches will not be thrown out if and when the R's retake the White House.
Posted by: Gaff at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (jPS2y)
74
Can I still google "Marie Harf motorboat tittays" or should I prepare to be audited?
Posted by: Bruce Jenners Plastic Vag at February 27, 2015 03:27 PM (oij5w)
75
66 Net Neutrality - the wrong answer to an unasked question about a problem that doesn't exist. Disruptive. Damaging. Unnecessary. Freedom limiting.
Perfectly Obama, in every way.
-------------------------------
I bet it does enable a whole lotta exemptions provided sufficient campaign cash is donated to the right Generalissimo.
Perfectly Obama, in every way.
-------------------------------
I bet it does enable a whole lotta exemptions provided sufficient campaign cash is donated to the right Generalissimo.
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:27 PM (oDCMR)
76
I hereby vote in favor of granting unto myself:
Unlimited power,
Total immunity from regulations imposed by entities unrecognized by myself,
Access to any and all information, financing, property or other such items as I may deem "necessary" to my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and
O, yeah: and baconz. and sammiches. and beer.
Yeah.
Unlimited power,
Total immunity from regulations imposed by entities unrecognized by myself,
Access to any and all information, financing, property or other such items as I may deem "necessary" to my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and
O, yeah: and baconz. and sammiches. and beer.
Yeah.
Posted by: JeanQ Flyover at February 27, 2015 03:27 PM (rhjQp)
77
Anonhamas are the last people who will get mad about this - until the regulations actually *land* on them, at which time they will blame the same people the rest of the shallow-headed left will blame.
Something along the lines of "if only Comrade Stalin knew about these regulations!"
Corruption is the biggest problem, in government and in the press. Until we can effectively push back on that (no progress so far), it will get worse.
On the other hand, it's a fascinating social science experiment. On the gripping hand, no one will learn from it, because they never do.
Something along the lines of "if only Comrade Stalin knew about these regulations!"
Corruption is the biggest problem, in government and in the press. Until we can effectively push back on that (no progress so far), it will get worse.
On the other hand, it's a fascinating social science experiment. On the gripping hand, no one will learn from it, because they never do.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 27, 2015 03:28 PM (bLnSU)
78
I think the worst thing I read today was a comment in the thread below about how John Ellis Bush did okay in his cpac speech.
ARE YOU FUKING KIDDING ME?
I can't believe even one person is buying into this bullshit. It really annoys me. Smarten up!
I think the worst thing I read today was a comment in the thread below about how John Ellis Bush did okay in his cpac speech.
ARE YOU FUKING KIDDING ME?
I can't believe even one person is buying into this bullshit. It really annoys me. Smarten up!
Posted by: Soothsayer, Lambda Lambda Lambda at February 27, 2015 03:28 PM (hbvPW)
79
When do we get the Ministry of Truth?
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (oDCMR)
80
"Beginning in 2009, the American Government went to war with the people it supposedly 'served;' in 2015, it won that war."
It was before that and probably well-before. Think of the FISA Court and the rubber-stamping of any charge by the State. Or No-Knock raids and asset confiscation at the local levels. Or Eminent Domain abuse to transfer property. The list is endless and indicts all three branches of our government.
Our soft tyranny is hardening. It's just hardening faster with Mr. Fundamental Transformation.
It was before that and probably well-before. Think of the FISA Court and the rubber-stamping of any charge by the State. Or No-Knock raids and asset confiscation at the local levels. Or Eminent Domain abuse to transfer property. The list is endless and indicts all three branches of our government.
Our soft tyranny is hardening. It's just hardening faster with Mr. Fundamental Transformation.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (1CroS)
81
"Every normal man must be tempted at times..."
Posted by: MostlyRight at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (VQNay)
82
When do we get the Ministry of Truth?
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (oDCMR)
You rang?
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (oDCMR)
You rang?
Posted by: The MFM at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (M1uf/)
83
The Dims have despised the internet ever since Drudge used it to re-write the first sentence of every obituary of Bill Clinton.
The Dims have despised the internet ever since Drudge used it to re-write the first sentence of every obituary of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Radeaminit at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (Xv7f/)
84
You know what the solution is to government overreach regarding control of the Internet? Open borders.
Posted by: Reason at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (u9OP6)
85
Net "Neutrality" is for fucking cucks. Pathetic, dickless cucks.
Anyone that thinks this will make the Internet more free is fucking stupid and I guarantee their wives fuck around on them...if they're even man enough to have a wife.
Anyone that thinks this will make the Internet more free is fucking stupid and I guarantee their wives fuck around on them...if they're even man enough to have a wife.
Posted by: Geraldine Ferraro at February 27, 2015 03:29 PM (XpAxm)
86
One word, son: Mimeographs.
Posted by: That Guy In "The Graduate" at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (lG2E3)
87
Does that about sum it up?
Don't forget the bin Laden documents that came out yesterday. These were documents taken from bin Laden's compound by the SEAL team and they demonstrate that contra the Obama administration, bin Laden was very active and was actually working with Iran.
Go figure.
Don't forget the bin Laden documents that came out yesterday. These were documents taken from bin Laden's compound by the SEAL team and they demonstrate that contra the Obama administration, bin Laden was very active and was actually working with Iran.
Go figure.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (g1DWB)
88
74 Can I still google "Marie Harf motorboat tittays" or should I prepare to be audited?
----------------------------
Thread winner - and yeah, I will see you in the camps. I get the upper bunk.
----------------------------
Thread winner - and yeah, I will see you in the camps. I get the upper bunk.
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (oDCMR)
89
the Clone Wars, begun they have ...
Posted by: KaiserDerden at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (hYYqD)
90
So when the spineless eunuchs who are, at least numerically, in charge of CONgress do precisely nothing about this, or the ammo ban, or the DHS/Immigration debacle they've already screwed-up beyond belief - how many GOP voters will march dutifully right back into the voting booth in NOV 2016 to put them right back?
80%? 90%? 99.44%
Because until that number gets significantly below, say, 60% nothing. will. change.
80%? 90%? 99.44%
Because until that number gets significantly below, say, 60% nothing. will. change.
Posted by: DocJ at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (zrsn3)
91
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (wlDny)
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (M1uf/)
93
our rights began to be eroded the day that Congress decided not to exercise its constitutional authority to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over things the courts should not have been allowed to become involved in.
I hope I said that right. It is in the Constitution. I'll find it if anyone wants me too.
I hope I said that right. It is in the Constitution. I'll find it if anyone wants me too.
Posted by: mallfly at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (bJm7W)
94
Well, well, well...
We shall see how this plays out. I don't think it will be good, and I'm sure Republicans and capitalism will somehow get the blame.
On the plus side, at least theyre not hiding it anymore. The bureaucracy is openly saying "we write the laws now, plebes".
We shall see how this plays out. I don't think it will be good, and I'm sure Republicans and capitalism will somehow get the blame.
On the plus side, at least theyre not hiding it anymore. The bureaucracy is openly saying "we write the laws now, plebes".
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (AkOaV)
95
What will you do when SWAT kicks in your door to take away your illegal bullets?
You will hang alone, because they will come after us one at a time. Methodically, step by step, inch by inch.
What will you do when your hosting service shuts down your blog, when SWAT kicks in your door because of a comment you made on some blog, while national news media reports a fictitious story about you?
You will hang alone as a radical extremists anti government radical activists.
You will hang alone, because they will come after us one at a time. Methodically, step by step, inch by inch.
What will you do when your hosting service shuts down your blog, when SWAT kicks in your door because of a comment you made on some blog, while national news media reports a fictitious story about you?
You will hang alone as a radical extremists anti government radical activists.
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (UYVd+)
96
When law becomes merely suggestion it is then you know you are truly fukt.
Posted by: Joe Biden at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (NpXoL)
97
I just speed tested my Wi-fi over FIOS. Almost 100 feet from garage Wi-fi antenna. I'm streaming CBSN over a Fire Stick, refreshing Ace comments on my laptop, and clicking Drudge links like a fiend on my smurt fone. All as quickly as I can.
Not a belch, nor even a stifled burp. It ain't broke.
But my bill for the internet does not include .01 cent of tax. THAT is what the FCC and TFG want to change.
Not a belch, nor even a stifled burp. It ain't broke.
But my bill for the internet does not include .01 cent of tax. THAT is what the FCC and TFG want to change.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (zxQ4h)
98
Of course Ellison is happy. Anyone who says anything bad about moslems can now be fined.
It took a couple of extra decades but 1984 is here now.
It took a couple of extra decades but 1984 is here now.
Posted by: Null at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (xjpRj)
99
You know what the solution is to government overreach regarding control of the Internet? Open borders.
That's good. For a moment I thought you said Oven spiders.
That's good. For a moment I thought you said Oven spiders.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (J0IP0)
100
"OMG, Comcast may throttle my netflix/torrents/porn?! Save me big government!"
Seriously, people are rejoicing over this. A lot of tech-oriented people who normally want the govt far away from the internet, too, after the Snowden affair, totally not hinking it through. It's going to come back and bite them in the ass.
Seriously, people are rejoicing over this. A lot of tech-oriented people who normally want the govt far away from the internet, too, after the Snowden affair, totally not hinking it through. It's going to come back and bite them in the ass.
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (Tj+s6)
101
The lib mantra: "For a free and open internet"
Yes, because the words "free" and "open" are what I always associate with "heavy regulation."
Yes, because the words "free" and "open" are what I always associate with "heavy regulation."
Posted by: Marie Harf at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (1li1B)
102
"Beginning in 2009, the American Government went to war with the people it supposedly "served;" in 2015, it won that war."
War isn't over yet.
War isn't over yet.
Posted by: Jollyroger at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (t06LC)
103
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (JtwS4)
104
Go figure.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (g1DWB)
Well I was just chronicling their shredding of the Constitution. Other bad-but-not-blatantly-unconstitutional acts would fill up a library.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:30 PM (g1DWB)
Well I was just chronicling their shredding of the Constitution. Other bad-but-not-blatantly-unconstitutional acts would fill up a library.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (M1uf/)
105
LoneStarHeeb: "I want to hear Beckel, Juan Williams, the entire cadre of MSNBC leftist apologists, Josh Earnest defend the shit that has happened to this country just TODAY."
I just have to say... oh, look! Llamas!
I just have to say... oh, look! Llamas!
Posted by: Beckel, Williams, And Earnest at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (1CroS)
106
from Phyllis Schafly's website:
Anybody who has read the Constitution knows that Article III, Section 2 clearly states: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Anybody who has read the Constitution knows that Article III, Section 2 clearly states: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Posted by: mallfly at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (bJm7W)
107
You don't control the Matrix, Mr. Anderson...
Posted by: Agent Smith at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (0Ew3K)
108
and absolutely no one will do anything about this, because we are now a nation of pussies. Tonight would be a good night to kill myself.
Posted by: Some Dude at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (lbgjb)
109
What are the laws regarding fundraising on public utilities?
Anyway we can use that to bite the politicians in the ass?
What are the laws regarding fundraising on public utilities?
Anyway we can use that to bite the politicians in the ass?
Posted by: Bigby's Spock Pinch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (3ZtZW)
110
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (wlDny)
It may be too late.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:31 PM (wlDny)
It may be too late.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (h6Mpm)
Posted by: The Political Hat at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (0Ew3K)
112
"We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House." (Shit-4-Brains McCain)
Posted by: Bad Dog Puppy Treats at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (Xrkvx)
113
" All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?"
A new constitution won't change anything as long as Obama and his friends are ignoring the one we have now.
A new constitution won't change anything as long as Obama and his friends are ignoring the one we have now.
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (UYVd+)
114
in 2015 2009, it won that war.
Posted by: Mega at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (hHFOx)
115
The FCC ruling is just step one. The FEC is up to the plate next.
Posted by: Old Blue at February 27, 2015 03:34 PM (AxABj)
116
I'm all for sub-netting them a section with no balls.
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (DL2i+)
117
Thank God for Tardisil.
Posted by: wooga at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (XK0dn)
118
103
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (JtwS4)
Because we will split the country up and the South will go its own way. The asses in States that voted for Obama can enjoy their shit sandwich.
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (JtwS4)
Because we will split the country up and the South will go its own way. The asses in States that voted for Obama can enjoy their shit sandwich.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (wlDny)
119
I can only hope that the FCC's idea of Muslim outreach looks a lot like Mia Khalifa.
Posted by: Garrett at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (B7PYR)
120
But my bill for the internet does not include .01 cent of tax. THAT is what the FCC and TFG want to change.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (zxQ4h)
Oh, the taxes are a nice side effect.
They're just flexing their muscles right now. Now that the internet is a public utility, give them some time and they'll find ways to do things no one has even considered.
Wait until they pass Chinese-style regulations saying all commenters must use their real names? You know, for fairness. because otherwise, the evil businesses and ne'er do wells will spam threads under fake names to try to influence public discourse.
I'm sure they've got some nice long term plans up their sleeves.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 03:32 PM (zxQ4h)
Oh, the taxes are a nice side effect.
They're just flexing their muscles right now. Now that the internet is a public utility, give them some time and they'll find ways to do things no one has even considered.
Wait until they pass Chinese-style regulations saying all commenters must use their real names? You know, for fairness. because otherwise, the evil businesses and ne'er do wells will spam threads under fake names to try to influence public discourse.
I'm sure they've got some nice long term plans up their sleeves.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (AkOaV)
121
The Most Transparent Administration Ever Just Got Even More Transparenty
Posted by: Mega at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (hHFOx)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (0HooB)
123
if they are banning 5.56x45 ammo, what are they planning on arming their forces with?
because, otherwise, there will be a ready, and steady, supply of ammo once the festivities kick off.
because, otherwise, there will be a ready, and steady, supply of ammo once the festivities kick off.
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (pZtrP)
124
And, of course, it's still the case that no one except the FCC knows what these new regulations actually say...
Posted by: junior at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (UWFpX)
125
I'm stocked up. I've got 1.75L of whisky. 1.75L of Captain Morgan.
That should get me through tonight.
That should get me through tonight.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (h6Mpm)
126
Well over at Redstate they are blaming the ISP's. They had it coming or something.. *BLINK*
Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (GGCsk)
127
So, what are the real reasons Obama and the Prog Fascists did this?
Their stated reason are to protect you from Comcast slowing down Netflix while you binge-watch House of Cards. Which is total bullshit.
So what are their real reasons?
Their stated reason are to protect you from Comcast slowing down Netflix while you binge-watch House of Cards. Which is total bullshit.
So what are their real reasons?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (ZPrif)
128
F*ck, f*ckity, f*ck, they are in every aspect of our lives. Doesn't anyone know and believe in the definition of freedom?
Everything the Feds touch turns to shit. Even the Armed Forces.
Everything the Feds touch turns to shit. Even the Armed Forces.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (F2IAQ)
129
@23
yep, very pathetic, funny so many people on reddit think they're "libertarian" then fall over themselves cheering something like this
yep, very pathetic, funny so many people on reddit think they're "libertarian" then fall over themselves cheering something like this
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (Tj+s6)
Posted by: JohnnyBoy at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (TPjwz)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (0HooB)
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (pZtrP)
133
War isn't over yet.
Posted by: Jollyroger at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (t06LC)
How's it feel to be a Japanese soldier in the jungle? The war is over. We lost. We're just quibbling about terms of surrender.
War isn't over yet.
Posted by: Jollyroger at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (t06LC)
How's it feel to be a Japanese soldier in the jungle? The war is over. We lost. We're just quibbling about terms of surrender.
Posted by: wooga at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (XK0dn)
134
Posted by: Bigby's Spock Pinch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (3ZtZW)
Ah yes, good point. Hosting political fundraising on a public utility would be an in-kind donation, no?
I guess we shall have to see.
At this point, we're just wildly speculating... but the FCC wouldnt have gone out on a limb without an end goal here, and trust me it has nothing to do with netflix and comcast.
Ah yes, good point. Hosting political fundraising on a public utility would be an in-kind donation, no?
I guess we shall have to see.
At this point, we're just wildly speculating... but the FCC wouldnt have gone out on a limb without an end goal here, and trust me it has nothing to do with netflix and comcast.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (AkOaV)
135
control and now under Obama, more taxes.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (wlDny)
136
The JEF and his minions don't even *try* to hide who they are and what they're about.
What in the hell can we do? Our damned congresscritters are worthless.
Oh well. I'll take the lower bunk in the camps, please.
What in the hell can we do? Our damned congresscritters are worthless.
Oh well. I'll take the lower bunk in the camps, please.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (FsuaD)
137
A new constitution won't change anything as long as Obama and his friends are ignoring the one we have now.
Yes, that's kind of the same mistake that the left makes: criminals aren't following our laws. Therefore, we should tinker with the laws.
Yes, that's kind of the same mistake that the left makes: criminals aren't following our laws. Therefore, we should tinker with the laws.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (J0IP0)
138
Feck off.
Posted by: Abe Vigoda at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (sH832)
139
One possible real reasons:
Taxation
FCC taxes phone lies. People are ditching phone lines. That means less revenue for the FCC. Now FCC can tax the internet
Taxation
FCC taxes phone lies. People are ditching phone lines. That means less revenue for the FCC. Now FCC can tax the internet
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (ZPrif)
140
126 Well over at Redstate they are blaming the ISP's. They had it coming or something.. *BLINK*
Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (GGCsk)
Those damn producers. How dare they provide products and services that people want! We'll show them.
Posted by: Marcus T at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (GGCsk)
Those damn producers. How dare they provide products and services that people want! We'll show them.
Posted by: rickl at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (zoehZ)
141
Ace,
Did you read the two dissents?
Did you read the two dissents?
Posted by: Carol at February 27, 2015 03:38 PM (sj3Ax)
142
I don't see the problem
Posted by: Zombie Cesar Chavez at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (0FSuD)
143
So the FCC has decided, on its own authority, to declare the Internet a "telecomunications service," over which it does have authority.
Deem and pass, mofos, deem and pass.
Deem and pass, mofos, deem and pass.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (fwARV)
144
Need a new Matrix to plug into.
This one is a bit torn and tattered.
And it smells like elderberries and shit, but mostly elderberries.
This one is a bit torn and tattered.
And it smells like elderberries and shit, but mostly elderberries.
Posted by: dananjcon at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (NpXoL)
145
A lot of tech-oriented people who normally want the govt far away from the internet, too, after the Snowden affair, totally not hinking it through. It's going to come back and bite them in the ass.
Of course they're not, because Comcast might throttle Netflix. Or something.
Worse, they're not even thinking it through technically. If Comcast tries to throttle Netflix's up-stream speed (which assumes that Netflix uses Comcast for their ISP), then Netflix will cut that cable, and go to a different ISP. Comcast doesn't want that, so they're not going to throttle Netflix, or jack their rate (unless its an across the board thing).
So the only way Comcast could even sort of do it is to throttle down-stream speed to you and me. And if they do that, they'll lose customers to someone who *won't* throttle their Netflix streaming.
Not to mention the massive headache in intercepting all those bytes, examining, and then prioritizing them.
No one who thinks about it seriously could possibly think that the ISPs are going to do this. But "Comcast!" and they lose their fucking minds, as though Comcast were the Galactic Empire or something.
Of course they're not, because Comcast might throttle Netflix. Or something.
Worse, they're not even thinking it through technically. If Comcast tries to throttle Netflix's up-stream speed (which assumes that Netflix uses Comcast for their ISP), then Netflix will cut that cable, and go to a different ISP. Comcast doesn't want that, so they're not going to throttle Netflix, or jack their rate (unless its an across the board thing).
So the only way Comcast could even sort of do it is to throttle down-stream speed to you and me. And if they do that, they'll lose customers to someone who *won't* throttle their Netflix streaming.
Not to mention the massive headache in intercepting all those bytes, examining, and then prioritizing them.
No one who thinks about it seriously could possibly think that the ISPs are going to do this. But "Comcast!" and they lose their fucking minds, as though Comcast were the Galactic Empire or something.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (M1uf/)
146
No one mention D^2 to AtC. I think she's about to explode int a cute little ball of fury.
On second thought...
Na. I won't.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (M1uf/)
*breathes atomic flame all over you*
This is what I was ranting about earlier in the day re: the US system not being designed to handle purposeful flaunting of separation of powers.
This has gone to the courts twice and twice the FCC was told no and the FCC still did it anyway. Even if this gets the most rocket of all rocket dockets, we're still months from a decision on it. In the meantime, companies have to comply with whatever the hell it is that is in those regulations (RTFRYMFMF) and the entire industry is in a state where it is impossible to know if you are in compliance. See further re: heroin into eyeball.
On second thought...
Na. I won't.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Wizard at February 27, 2015 03:26 PM (M1uf/)
*breathes atomic flame all over you*
This is what I was ranting about earlier in the day re: the US system not being designed to handle purposeful flaunting of separation of powers.
This has gone to the courts twice and twice the FCC was told no and the FCC still did it anyway. Even if this gets the most rocket of all rocket dockets, we're still months from a decision on it. In the meantime, companies have to comply with whatever the hell it is that is in those regulations (RTFRYMFMF) and the entire industry is in a state where it is impossible to know if you are in compliance. See further re: heroin into eyeball.
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (mf5HN)
147
Didn't the Left spend the last 30-40 years bitching about the FCC and how much the FCC were fascist control freak scum who won't let them say dirty words and show boobies on TV?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (ZPrif)
148
I think the worst thing I read today was.....
Posted by: Soothsayer
How about this? A two-fer today from Noah Rothman* over at HA:
Clear-eyed conservatives should perhaps take a critical look at Scott Walker's level of preparedness.
Marco Rubio's compelling biography, his ability to capture the increasingly hawkish sensibilities of the Republican grassroots, and his unique facility as a communicator all serve to demonstrate to the talking class that it would be unwise to write him off as a presidential candidate just yet.
*http://youtu.be/1SI6rhotAkE
I think the worst thing I read today was.....
Posted by: Soothsayer
How about this? A two-fer today from Noah Rothman* over at HA:
Clear-eyed conservatives should perhaps take a critical look at Scott Walker's level of preparedness.
Marco Rubio's compelling biography, his ability to capture the increasingly hawkish sensibilities of the Republican grassroots, and his unique facility as a communicator all serve to demonstrate to the talking class that it would be unwise to write him off as a presidential candidate just yet.
*http://youtu.be/1SI6rhotAkE
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (kdS6q)
149
RE: Reddit,
The one hope I have left is that I get to see the looks on their faces when they're the first ones against the wall. Keeps me warm at night, it does.
The one hope I have left is that I get to see the looks on their faces when they're the first ones against the wall. Keeps me warm at night, it does.
Posted by: smaulz at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (AbcTu)
150
119 I can only hope that the FCC's idea of Muslim outreach looks a lot like Mia Khalifa.
Posted by: Garrett at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (B7PYR)
The FCC will rule that for every minute of Mia Khalifa porn you watch, you must watch 30 seconds of tranny porn, 15 seconds of granny porn, and 10 seconds of couch fucking.
Posted by: Garrett at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (B7PYR)
The FCC will rule that for every minute of Mia Khalifa porn you watch, you must watch 30 seconds of tranny porn, 15 seconds of granny porn, and 10 seconds of couch fucking.
Posted by: wooga at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (XK0dn)
151
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (ZPrif)
The funny thing is that Comcast has a perfectly valid complaint there.
They keep building out infrastructure to increase speeds to their customers, and NetFlix and YouTube keep coming along with higher definition streaming services that eat up all that new bandwidth and leave consumers not much better off then they were before hand.
Of course, there clearly is a free market solution there -- let the companies fight it out amongst themselves and make it easier for new entrants to run their own fiber to peoples houses... Maybe some would go to a pay-per-GB-of-usage system, who knows? But I can see why the ISPs are pissed.
I can also see why NetFlix is pissed.
But I can't see how the government thinks they can solve this. And I don't think they're going to even try. It's a total side show.
The funny thing is that Comcast has a perfectly valid complaint there.
They keep building out infrastructure to increase speeds to their customers, and NetFlix and YouTube keep coming along with higher definition streaming services that eat up all that new bandwidth and leave consumers not much better off then they were before hand.
Of course, there clearly is a free market solution there -- let the companies fight it out amongst themselves and make it easier for new entrants to run their own fiber to peoples houses... Maybe some would go to a pay-per-GB-of-usage system, who knows? But I can see why the ISPs are pissed.
I can also see why NetFlix is pissed.
But I can't see how the government thinks they can solve this. And I don't think they're going to even try. It's a total side show.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (AkOaV)
152
This ambush takeover of broadband by the FCC was done at the bequest of Big Tech in Silicon Valley. Google reportedly even got to help write the new regs. The new laws are kept secret from the public, but not secret from Google. Makes sense, since Google bought these new regs.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (ZPrif)
153
Ace, I'm suprised at your stance on this. As the operator of a website, net neutrality directly affects you more than most.
The only reason for these rule changes is to prevent ISPs from being able to give preferential treatment to those websites it either favors or receives extra payment from.
Without net neutrality, Sites with deep pockets like Huff Po, Drudge, Media Matters, and others could pay to have their data prioritized over other sites. Sites like this one.
Net neutrality is not about silencing people. It's the complete opposite. It's requiring ISPs to treat all data on their network *no matter where it originates* exactly the same.
ISPs are a natural monopoly. Not only that, they are in active collusion
with each to prevent competition within their geographic areas. ISPs
use their monopoly status in order to provide the bare minimum of
service and customer satisfaction. After all, when you're the only game
in town then customer satisfaction isn't really a priority, is it?
Yes, There are some first amendment issues with this since the transmission lines are privately owned. Given the importance of the modern internet to commerce and security in the modern world though, It is wholly appropriate for the government to make sure that data on the internet is not artificially degraded or prioritized based on the transmitter's ability to pay.
I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof.
The only reason for these rule changes is to prevent ISPs from being able to give preferential treatment to those websites it either favors or receives extra payment from.
Without net neutrality, Sites with deep pockets like Huff Po, Drudge, Media Matters, and others could pay to have their data prioritized over other sites. Sites like this one.
Net neutrality is not about silencing people. It's the complete opposite. It's requiring ISPs to treat all data on their network *no matter where it originates* exactly the same.
ISPs are a natural monopoly. Not only that, they are in active collusion
with each to prevent competition within their geographic areas. ISPs
use their monopoly status in order to provide the bare minimum of
service and customer satisfaction. After all, when you're the only game
in town then customer satisfaction isn't really a priority, is it?
Yes, There are some first amendment issues with this since the transmission lines are privately owned. Given the importance of the modern internet to commerce and security in the modern world though, It is wholly appropriate for the government to make sure that data on the internet is not artificially degraded or prioritized based on the transmitter's ability to pay.
I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
154
A big part of the spin on this is that it will stop those monopoly telecoms and then everyone's internet gets faster. With magic or something.
Seriously, tell people that and of course they support it. It's really infuriating.
Seriously, tell people that and of course they support it. It's really infuriating.
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (Tj+s6)
155
Aren't we the optimist?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (0HooB)
Sunny Jim, am I. Got some bitters, sweet vermouth and maraschino cherries for manhattans, too, so I can get wasted old-style before finishing off with the Captain Morgan straight shots.
The Washington Poo-Flingers will eventually manage to fling poo into the rotary air movement devices.
Many people will be stunned, shocked, and surprised when it finally happens. "Nobody" will haver seen it coming.
Idiots.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:37 PM (0HooB)
Sunny Jim, am I. Got some bitters, sweet vermouth and maraschino cherries for manhattans, too, so I can get wasted old-style before finishing off with the Captain Morgan straight shots.
The Washington Poo-Flingers will eventually manage to fling poo into the rotary air movement devices.
Many people will be stunned, shocked, and surprised when it finally happens. "Nobody" will haver seen it coming.
Idiots.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (h6Mpm)
156
When St. Petersburg was under a horrific seige from the nazis many people died. Survivors said that people who fell dead in their tracks had become apothetic. They just didn't care anymore and would not/could not continue.
As America is being "fundamentally transformed," I see nothing but an apothetic people. Lambs to the slaughter stuff.
As America is being "fundamentally transformed," I see nothing but an apothetic people. Lambs to the slaughter stuff.
Posted by: Russkilitlover at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (vbWct)
Posted by: Mr. Nitpick at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ODxAs)
158
Maybe Anonymous and Co. will fuck up the FCC. Kind of funny if all of their paychecks bounced next week.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
/sharp inhale
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Those lefty pukes?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
/sharp inhale
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Those lefty pukes?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (DT3rQ)
159
When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.
Posted by: Papa Joe, not sleeping at February 27, 2015 03:42 PM (TPjwz)
160
Mark Cuban has made excellent points about why this is a total clusterfark.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:42 PM (ZPrif)
161
So what are their real reasons?
To control each and everything you do.
But primarily to make sure no one know the truth. This is to make up for the sheeple that somehow missed getting indoctrinate in the pubic skools.
The novel 1984 is being made real right before our eyes and no one is doing anything about it. Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away almost too rapidly to keep up with. And the half of the country that's been brainwashed is perfectly alright with it, as they should be. Thanks to the MFM and the Ayers Skool System, they've never even heard of the concept of freedom, except that it's something that far-right extremists talk about.
#WASTF
To control each and everything you do.
But primarily to make sure no one know the truth. This is to make up for the sheeple that somehow missed getting indoctrinate in the pubic skools.
The novel 1984 is being made real right before our eyes and no one is doing anything about it. Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away almost too rapidly to keep up with. And the half of the country that's been brainwashed is perfectly alright with it, as they should be. Thanks to the MFM and the Ayers Skool System, they've never even heard of the concept of freedom, except that it's something that far-right extremists talk about.
#WASTF
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:42 PM (0HooB)
162
Once Americans truly feel their backs are up against the wall the ruling class won't be worth the dirt they stand on. End of story.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at February 27, 2015 03:42 PM (FMbng)
163
>>Well I was just chronicling their shredding of the Constitution. Other bad-but-not-blatantly-unconstitutional acts would fill up a library.
Gotcha. Although I think blatantly lying to Congress and the American people about al Qaeda's actions including monitoring their "brothers" in Libya and al Qaeda's ties to the Iranian government while Team Obama is negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons is pretty damn bad. Probably also speaks as to why he is so pissed that Bibi is coming to town next week.
Gotcha. Although I think blatantly lying to Congress and the American people about al Qaeda's actions including monitoring their "brothers" in Libya and al Qaeda's ties to the Iranian government while Team Obama is negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons is pretty damn bad. Probably also speaks as to why he is so pissed that Bibi is coming to town next week.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:43 PM (g1DWB)
164
Net neutrality is not about silencing people. It's the complete opposite. It's requiring ISPs to treat all data on their network *no matter where it originates* exactly the same.
-
Bullshit. You're a fucking retard.
Net neutrality is not about silencing people. It's the complete opposite. It's requiring ISPs to treat all data on their network *no matter where it originates* exactly the same.
-
Bullshit. You're a fucking retard.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:43 PM (ZPrif)
165
151 Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (AkOaV)
That is not what this is all about. The ISPs are charging Netflix and others for that bandwidth. What they want is all the individual people like us who don't use a lot of bandwidth to subsidize their hoggishness.
When this crap first started long before obama it was estimated that the average home user bill would go up by $10/month. I am sure it is much more than that now.
That is not what this is all about. The ISPs are charging Netflix and others for that bandwidth. What they want is all the individual people like us who don't use a lot of bandwidth to subsidize their hoggishness.
When this crap first started long before obama it was estimated that the average home user bill would go up by $10/month. I am sure it is much more than that now.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:43 PM (wlDny)
166
Just a quick look at Facebook, I don't think the livs consider this a bad thing yet.
The argument I heard is that if your internet is down you have to wait on the company to fix it. Ummm.... What do they think happens with your electricity?
Also the last time my power went out it was because my neighbors tree pulled down my meter loop, which cost me a grand to fix. The last time my internet went down it was my modum, which the company replaced for free in a couple days. And in the meantime I had Internet available at work, at home via phone, at the library and a million other places with free wifi. This is not a problem.
The argument I heard is that if your internet is down you have to wait on the company to fix it. Ummm.... What do they think happens with your electricity?
Also the last time my power went out it was because my neighbors tree pulled down my meter loop, which cost me a grand to fix. The last time my internet went down it was my modum, which the company replaced for free in a couple days. And in the meantime I had Internet available at work, at home via phone, at the library and a million other places with free wifi. This is not a problem.
Posted by: Lea at February 27, 2015 03:43 PM (0uBKR)
167
123 if they are banning 5.56x45 ammo, what are they planning on arming their forces with?
because, otherwise, there will be a ready, and steady, supply of ammo once the festivities kick off.
------------------------
My first weapon is either a .303 or 30.06, my second will be whatever the stormtroopers are carrying.
because, otherwise, there will be a ready, and steady, supply of ammo once the festivities kick off.
------------------------
My first weapon is either a .303 or 30.06, my second will be whatever the stormtroopers are carrying.
Posted by: Super Creepy Rob Lowe at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (oDCMR)
168
Ace, you run an internet.
You of all people should hate the capitalists.
You of all people should hate the capitalists.
Posted by: Papa Joe, not sleeping at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (TPjwz)
169
Not for nothin' that Jeh Johnson just said a few days ago - again - that their (DHS's) primary concern is right wing extremism. Like his predecessor as Grand Potentate of Homeland Obscurity, they've been chasing this phantom of right wing extremism ever since the 2008 election.
Now they seize the interwebs and ban ammo because they desperately need a violent "right wing" revolt to justify their police state and expand it. It's textbook Alinsky.
Or as Van Jones explains it, "Bottom up, top down and inside out." That's how you fundamentally transform a nation. Everything Precedent Bullshit does from now on will be about incitement, pure and simple.
Now they seize the interwebs and ban ammo because they desperately need a violent "right wing" revolt to justify their police state and expand it. It's textbook Alinsky.
Or as Van Jones explains it, "Bottom up, top down and inside out." That's how you fundamentally transform a nation. Everything Precedent Bullshit does from now on will be about incitement, pure and simple.
Posted by: digitalcowboy at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (b1a3S)
170
The stated reasons for NetNeutrality are obvious bullshit -- to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (ZPrif)
171
All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (JtwS4)
^
This
If they don't abide by this Constitution why do you think they'd adhere to a new one?
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:33 PM (JtwS4)
^
This
Posted by: The Political Hat at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (0Ew3K)
172
Once Americans truly feel their backs are up against the wall the ruling
class won't be worth the dirt they stand on. End of story.
Yeah, yeah I'm so mad I could...
That dress looks white and gold to me. Oh wait, is it blue?
class won't be worth the dirt they stand on. End of story.
Yeah, yeah I'm so mad I could...
That dress looks white and gold to me. Oh wait, is it blue?
Posted by: The Entire Fucking Country at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (sH832)
173
>>I can only hope that the FCC's idea of Muslim outreach looks a lot like Mia Khalifa.
More like blasphemy laws.
More like blasphemy laws.
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (lHHyw)
174
WWTDD?
What Would The Dress Do?
What Would The Dress Do?
Posted by: mikeyslaw at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (Wkdli)
175
They keep building out infrastructure to increase speeds to their customers, and NetFlix and YouTube keep coming along with higher definition streaming services that eat up all that new bandwidth and leave consumers not much better off then they were before hand.
That's been happening forever. Intel would make a faster chip and Microsoft would write software that sucked it up.
Somehow market forces work.
They keep building out infrastructure to increase speeds to their customers, and NetFlix and YouTube keep coming along with higher definition streaming services that eat up all that new bandwidth and leave consumers not much better off then they were before hand.
That's been happening forever. Intel would make a faster chip and Microsoft would write software that sucked it up.
Somehow market forces work.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (JtwS4)
176
Proponents of the Title II switch say that Internet service won't be subject to new fees under the proposal, but in today's meeting, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, warned that new taxes and fees on Internet service were sure to come.
Wonder how happy the LIVs will be when Net Neutrality results in new Internet Taxes?
Wonder how happy the LIVs will be when Net Neutrality results in new Internet Taxes?
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (0NdlF)
177
Blocking throttling is part of it, but it opens to the door to content regulation.... That should worry everyone.
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (Tj+s6)
178
Tyranny is not severity, it is capriciousness.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (evdj2)
179
Costanza @152
Check this out (WaPo link from Drudge):
http://tinyurl.com/qa6o5c3
Why Silicon Valley is revolving door for Obama staffers.
Check this out (WaPo link from Drudge):
http://tinyurl.com/qa6o5c3
Why Silicon Valley is revolving door for Obama staffers.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (FsuaD)
180
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (M1uf/)
As I understand it the complaint is more with the "final mile" distribution system. ie: the fiber or coax connecting your house back to your ISP.
The ISPs are watching NetFlix (a competitor for cable companies) eat up 75% of their peak bandwidth. So they spend millions to build out their infrastructure and get wider pipes, but NetFlix just keeps getting new customers and streaming videos at higher resolutions. So Comcast et al are feeling like their multi millions in investments in infrastructure are really just being used as distribution by netflix and are not allowing them to increase speeds etc as much as they want.
They keep building, but end user speeds stay the same since the more bandwidth available, the more users use.
Like I said... private sector solutions to this semi-problem will work it all out in a matter of years, I'm sure. Or, would have...
As I understand it the complaint is more with the "final mile" distribution system. ie: the fiber or coax connecting your house back to your ISP.
The ISPs are watching NetFlix (a competitor for cable companies) eat up 75% of their peak bandwidth. So they spend millions to build out their infrastructure and get wider pipes, but NetFlix just keeps getting new customers and streaming videos at higher resolutions. So Comcast et al are feeling like their multi millions in investments in infrastructure are really just being used as distribution by netflix and are not allowing them to increase speeds etc as much as they want.
They keep building, but end user speeds stay the same since the more bandwidth available, the more users use.
Like I said... private sector solutions to this semi-problem will work it all out in a matter of years, I'm sure. Or, would have...
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (AkOaV)
181
ISPs are a natural monopoly. Not only that, they are in active collusion
with each to prevent competition within their geographic areas.
Name them.
with each to prevent competition within their geographic areas.
Name them.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (0HooB)
182
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
Are you fucking stupid?
No, that's a serious question.
Let's assert you're right (you're wrong, btw, but I explained that above). So. What? Comcast, and Time-Warner, and AT&T and Verizon are the ones who built and maintain the infrastructure. It is their right to dispense with it as they please: give it away for free, sell it at a flat rate to everyone, sell it at different rates to different people, or whatever.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MUST PRODUCE OR PROVIDE.
If a site with deeper pockets wants their packets prioritized, okay. If Comcast says "we're going to filter all the AoSHQ packets out of our data stream" that's their right. So the fuck what?
Are you fucking stupid?
No, that's a serious question.
Let's assert you're right (you're wrong, btw, but I explained that above). So. What? Comcast, and Time-Warner, and AT&T and Verizon are the ones who built and maintain the infrastructure. It is their right to dispense with it as they please: give it away for free, sell it at a flat rate to everyone, sell it at different rates to different people, or whatever.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WHAT SOMEONE ELSE MUST PRODUCE OR PROVIDE.
If a site with deeper pockets wants their packets prioritized, okay. If Comcast says "we're going to filter all the AoSHQ packets out of our data stream" that's their right. So the fuck what?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (M1uf/)
183
Glad I didn't live long enough to see this shit.
Posted by: Leonard Nimoy: Still Cooling at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (gwG9s)
184
Once Americans truly feel their backs are up against the wall the ruling class won't be worth the dirt they stand on. End of story.
By the time enough people realize their back is to a wall, they'll be asked if they want a blindfold.
Fuckers. They deserve to be slaves.
By the time enough people realize their back is to a wall, they'll be asked if they want a blindfold.
Fuckers. They deserve to be slaves.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 03:46 PM (DT3rQ)
185
Without net neutrality, Sites with deep pockets like Huff Po, Drudge,
Media Matters, and others could pay to have their data prioritized over
other sites.
So?
Is it the realm of the govt to decide such things?
Even if you say yes, know this economically > all sites will slow down and at increased costs to everybody. Think national socialist healthcare for the internet.
Without net neutrality, Sites with deep pockets like Huff Po, Drudge,
Media Matters, and others could pay to have their data prioritized over
other sites.
So?
Is it the realm of the govt to decide such things?
Even if you say yes, know this economically > all sites will slow down and at increased costs to everybody. Think national socialist healthcare for the internet.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 27, 2015 03:46 PM (ODxAs)
186
Yeah, yeah I'm so mad I could...
That dress looks white and gold to me. Oh wait, is it blue?
Posted by: The Entire Fucking Country at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (sH832)
I'm not talking about the half of the population that needs to be boiled into space. They'll be used as sandbags by the other half.
That dress looks white and gold to me. Oh wait, is it blue?
Posted by: The Entire Fucking Country at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (sH832)
I'm not talking about the half of the population that needs to be boiled into space. They'll be used as sandbags by the other half.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at February 27, 2015 03:46 PM (FMbng)
187
This is what I was ranting about earlier in the day re: the US system not being designed to handle purposeful flaunting of separation of powers.
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (mf5HN)
Begging your pardon ma'am but isn't that what the impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 03:39 PM (mf5HN)
Begging your pardon ma'am but isn't that what the impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (60Vyp)
188
Blocking throttling is part of it, but it opens to the door to makes inevitable content regulation.... That should worry everyone.
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (Tj+s6)
FIFY
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:45 PM (Tj+s6)
FIFY
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (h6Mpm)
189
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
http://tinyurl.com/pqjcoxg
http://tinyurl.com/pqjcoxg
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (ikbhD)
190
Next up the Obama phone tax, which is on your phone bill on you internet bill.
To be called internet free for the thugs tax
To be called internet free for the thugs tax
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (0FSuD)
191
How do we get to single payer?
How do we get to nationalized telecom?
One step at a time, my comrades.
How do we get to nationalized telecom?
One step at a time, my comrades.
Posted by: JohnnyBoy at February 27, 2015 03:48 PM (TPjwz)
192
Begging your pardon ma'am but isn't that what the impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (60Vyp)
But impeachment is off the table, because racism. Or Republican Stupidity. Same-same.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (60Vyp)
But impeachment is off the table, because racism. Or Republican Stupidity. Same-same.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:48 PM (h6Mpm)
193
An internet touched me down there.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 03:48 PM (JtwS4)
194
Jack Straw,
I was reading about Bin Laden Docs at Weekly Standard. I notice a large number of links from Drudge lead to TWS.
I keep subscription up for website.
I was reading about Bin Laden Docs at Weekly Standard. I notice a large number of links from Drudge lead to TWS.
I keep subscription up for website.
Posted by: Carol at February 27, 2015 03:48 PM (sj3Ax)
195
Some asshole posts here from time to time that a little revolution may be in order.
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 27, 2015 03:48 PM (N6Gqp)
196
You know that esurance commercial "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."?
I find myself silently screaming that everyday as I read or here about what is going on in the Obama administration.
I find myself silently screaming that everyday as I read or here about what is going on in the Obama administration.
Posted by: Dancing Queen at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (SvnHQ)
197
BTW, Verizon is the one who has sued them when they try this bull shit. I am sure they will sue again.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (wlDny)
198
Enjoy your Netflix re-buffering now that the teenage warez and porn downloader up the street has equal packet priority.
Posted by: Eisenhorn at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (1li1B)
199
If the FCC had done this back in 1995, we'd still be using 1200 baud modems.
You can expect no forward movement from here on out. Except by whomever the FCC deems fit (lobbyists) as they'll now pick and choose the winners and losers.
And guess which one you are?
You can expect no forward movement from here on out. Except by whomever the FCC deems fit (lobbyists) as they'll now pick and choose the winners and losers.
And guess which one you are?
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (sH832)
200
the free market argument for net neutrality.
Contradiction in terms.
If the government is forcing someone to provide me something (or regulating what they can charge, or whatever) the market is no longer free.
You want to prevent throttling? Remove what regulations currently exist to allow smaller competitors to enter the market.
Contradiction in terms.
If the government is forcing someone to provide me something (or regulating what they can charge, or whatever) the market is no longer free.
You want to prevent throttling? Remove what regulations currently exist to allow smaller competitors to enter the market.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (M1uf/)
201
Ajit Pai made it clear, these new regs give the FCC the authority to tax the internet. They are holding off doing it, though. For now. But they just granted themselves the authority to impose taxes -- I'm sorry, "fees" -- whenever they feel like it in the future.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (ZPrif)
202
@153
Your concernsare noted. Are you, by any chance, a concerned Christian who normally votes Republican?
Your concernsare noted. Are you, by any chance, a concerned Christian who normally votes Republican?
Posted by: Lurkingestlurker at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (k8xvx)
203
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
My mind already knows that freedom means freedom from the control freaks in government.
GFY.
My mind already knows that freedom means freedom from the control freaks in government.
GFY.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (0HooB)
204
9
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Anonymous is all for it.
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Anonymous is all for it.
Posted by: Anachronda at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (o78gS)
205
Look, we're not going to mess up anything. We just want to find ways to make things work better. Honest.
Posted by: Every Regulatory Agency in History at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (8ZskC)
206
>>>" All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?"
NO
>>>" All the Morons who said an Art V convention was too dangerous ready to change your minds now?"
NO
Posted by: Bigby's Spock Pinch at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (3ZtZW)
207
It is wholly appropriate for the government to make sure that data on the internet is not artificially degraded or prioritized based on the transmitter's ability to pay. "
O.M.F.G.
I thought I had read some really, really unbelievably stupid commentary on Net Neutering before.
I was wrong.
O.M.F.G.
I thought I had read some really, really unbelievably stupid commentary on Net Neutering before.
I was wrong.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (/jpU8)
208
Anonymous is all for it.
Posted by: Anachronda at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (o78gS)
Anonymous is most likely the FSB.
Posted by: Anachronda at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (o78gS)
Anonymous is most likely the FSB.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (h6Mpm)
209
It's not a 'war' until BOTH sides engage.
Posted by: Abiss 2016 at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (UsgHM)
210
Do we still believe there is going to be an election.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (5Qqbu)
211
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
Blocked at work! Fascists! I was keen to read a free market argument for government intervention in the marketplace.
Blocked at work! Fascists! I was keen to read a free market argument for government intervention in the marketplace.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (evdj2)
212
Just let me put my nose in the tent. Only my nose.
Posted by: A Camel at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (8ZskC)
213
to be fair, ISPs aren't a free market, which was part of the problem....
Posted by: brak at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (Tj+s6)
214
>>I was reading about Bin Laden Docs at Weekly Standard. I notice a large number of links from Drudge lead to TWS.
I keep subscription up for website.
Pretty damning stuff. It also demonstrates that the Obama administration was well aware of the fact that al Qaeda was operating in Libya more than a year before the attack in Benghazi. And they still let security lapse and lied about it.
I keep subscription up for website.
Pretty damning stuff. It also demonstrates that the Obama administration was well aware of the fact that al Qaeda was operating in Libya more than a year before the attack in Benghazi. And they still let security lapse and lied about it.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (g1DWB)
215
The Government should take over the Postal Service and see if they can make it work better.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (ntuyY)
216
Just as an aside on a 'net' thread -- I just did the beer can Wi-Fi extender (see YouTube for explanation).
Summabitch -- works like a charm. Picked up another easy twenty feet of range. Of course now I have violated some FCC regulation.
They can pry my sharp, poorly cut aluminum beer can Wi-Fi extender from my cold dead hands.
Summabitch -- works like a charm. Picked up another easy twenty feet of range. Of course now I have violated some FCC regulation.
They can pry my sharp, poorly cut aluminum beer can Wi-Fi extender from my cold dead hands.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (zxQ4h)
217
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
You think the govt, this govt, has in mind to make the internet more freedom based?
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
You think the govt, this govt, has in mind to make the internet more freedom based?
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (ODxAs)
218
The founders were very clear in their belief that this system of government, such as they had created, would only be usable by decent, honest, and G-d fearing citizens. In the wrong hands freedom leads quickly back into tyranny.
Was it Heinlin who had a little poem that details this trajectory in about 5 lines? Hafta go look for it.....
Was it Heinlin who had a little poem that details this trajectory in about 5 lines? Hafta go look for it.....
Posted by: Boots at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (l9mF2)
219
supercore23 @ 153 -
I don't presume to speak for Mr. of Spades, but my sense from reading this post is that Ace is upset about the process, not the specific policy.
Let's say, hypothetically, that President Smith proposes a rule that would be universally beneficial, contains no possible downside and enjoys 99% popular support, but it doesn't have Congressional support. Should this theoretical president go ahead and make it a rule anyway?
I don't presume to speak for Mr. of Spades, but my sense from reading this post is that Ace is upset about the process, not the specific policy.
Let's say, hypothetically, that President Smith proposes a rule that would be universally beneficial, contains no possible downside and enjoys 99% popular support, but it doesn't have Congressional support. Should this theoretical president go ahead and make it a rule anyway?
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (SgXEz)
220
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
You're a dummy.
What the government is doing is essentially nationalizing the distribution networks of ISPs by calling them a "public utility." That of course will lead ISPs to say "screw putting money in to that ish, I don't even own it" which will slow innovation and stop new competitors from coming in.
The issues you mentioned may theoretically exist, but would all work themselves out in a private marketplace.
Also, ISPs are not a "natural monopoly" they're a government-created monopoly, since governments gave them exclusive access to the telephone lines in the '80s to build out the cable infrastructure.
And that government-created monopoly is being broken as we speak by fiber optics. I now have a choice of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. Before their distribution networks were turned in to public utilities, I would say I had a pretty good chance of at least 2 or 3 other companies coming along and running fiber, assuming the local governments let them (another artificial barrier to entry created by government that helps big companies over small companies)
You're a dummy.
What the government is doing is essentially nationalizing the distribution networks of ISPs by calling them a "public utility." That of course will lead ISPs to say "screw putting money in to that ish, I don't even own it" which will slow innovation and stop new competitors from coming in.
The issues you mentioned may theoretically exist, but would all work themselves out in a private marketplace.
Also, ISPs are not a "natural monopoly" they're a government-created monopoly, since governments gave them exclusive access to the telephone lines in the '80s to build out the cable infrastructure.
And that government-created monopoly is being broken as we speak by fiber optics. I now have a choice of Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon. Before their distribution networks were turned in to public utilities, I would say I had a pretty good chance of at least 2 or 3 other companies coming along and running fiber, assuming the local governments let them (another artificial barrier to entry created by government that helps big companies over small companies)
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (AkOaV)
221
James Heaney wrote an excellent piece detailing the free market argument for net neutrality. It might change your mind.
I read it. It seems to be the same random junk thrown against the wall. For example, Heaney uses Ma Bell as an example, without even mentioning why Ma Bell was a problem in the first place.
One of his arguments is basically:
1. Net Neutrality was the law until a few years ago.
2. ISPs have been able to charge exorbitant prices all throughout Net Neutrality.
3. Therefore, we need to reinstate Net Neutrality.
It is often the case that problems caused by government result in government officials telling us that we need more government regulation to solve those problems.
It's also often a lie.
If monopolies at the cable company level were the real issue, then they could forbid government grants of cable monopolies. Instead, they went for Title II control of the Tubes.
See link in nic for more ranting against the Heaney article and those who use it.
I read it. It seems to be the same random junk thrown against the wall. For example, Heaney uses Ma Bell as an example, without even mentioning why Ma Bell was a problem in the first place.
One of his arguments is basically:
1. Net Neutrality was the law until a few years ago.
2. ISPs have been able to charge exorbitant prices all throughout Net Neutrality.
3. Therefore, we need to reinstate Net Neutrality.
It is often the case that problems caused by government result in government officials telling us that we need more government regulation to solve those problems.
It's also often a lie.
If monopolies at the cable company level were the real issue, then they could forbid government grants of cable monopolies. Instead, they went for Title II control of the Tubes.
See link in nic for more ranting against the Heaney article and those who use it.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 03:52 PM (J0IP0)
222
I did a lot of research in this when it first went before congress before OBama (brought in by Democrats of course who got "campaign contributions".
What is was then was a "netflix subsidy bill" (as well has other big bandwidth hogs). And who would ultimately pay for those subsidies? The people who paid their monthly home bills.
What is was then was a "netflix subsidy bill" (as well has other big bandwidth hogs). And who would ultimately pay for those subsidies? The people who paid their monthly home bills.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:53 PM (wlDny)
223
>Your concernsare noted. Are you, by any chance, a concerned Christian who normally votes Republican?
No, I'm a registered republican atheist that reads this site every day. I generally agree with most of the stuff here. Thanks for the condescension though.
No, I'm a registered republican atheist that reads this site every day. I generally agree with most of the stuff here. Thanks for the condescension though.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:53 PM (ikbhD)
224
I have no fcuking idea how economics works, or how things have operated in practice since widespread consumption on the internet began more mumblety years ago. Please pay attention to me and my tendentious attempts to explain how wrong you are and how right my statist masters are.
Posted by: Supersealion24 at February 27, 2015 03:53 PM (k8xvx)
225
the Obama administration was well aware of the fact that al Qaeda was operating in Libya more than a year before the attack in Benghazi. And they still let security lapse and lied about it.
Stuttering.
Clusterfuck.
Of.
A.
Malignant.
Traitor.
Stuttering.
Clusterfuck.
Of.
A.
Malignant.
Traitor.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:53 PM (M1uf/)
226
It is wholly appropriate for the government to make sure that our access to hookers and blow[\i] is not artificially degraded or prioritized based on the transmitter's ability to pay. "
Posted by: JohnnyBoy at February 27, 2015 03:53 PM (TPjwz)
227
I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
Sounds all fine and dandy until you realize this "equality" is coming about because the FCC declared it has absolute power over the internet.
This particular exercise of power may sound spiffy, but now they have the power to do things that are very very despotic.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
Sounds all fine and dandy until you realize this "equality" is coming about because the FCC declared it has absolute power over the internet.
This particular exercise of power may sound spiffy, but now they have the power to do things that are very very despotic.
Posted by: The Political Hat at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (0Ew3K)
228
anyone know what the firearms laws in New Zealand are?
Posted by: Some Dude at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (lbgjb)
229
on my way...
Posted by: JohnnyBoy at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (TPjwz)
230
>>>Ace, I'm suprised at your stance on this. As the operator of a website, net neutrality directly affects you more than most.
The only reason for these rule changes is to prevent ISPs from being able to give preferential treatment to those websites it either favors or receives extra payment from.
....
Let us accept, for the moment, hypothetically, that there is a potential problem down the road for which there ought to be some solution.
So answer me this, then:
How does the fact that there *may be* a problem in the future cause an Executive agency to gain power to draft and execute legislation on its own initiative?
If a law is needed, why do we not get a law?
Why is an undemocratic, unaccountable branch of government now writing the law, and why are you saying that that's good and constitutional just because you are in basic agreement with the law currently being lawlessly passed?
I would like lower taxes; would you agree that a Republican president may reduce tax rates upon his own whim? Or that an agency like the IRS, headed by a conservative, can pass its own tax rates and lower them as it may please?
how about in the other direction-- can a president raise the rates as he sees fit? Can IRS head John Kostinen?
The only reason for these rule changes is to prevent ISPs from being able to give preferential treatment to those websites it either favors or receives extra payment from.
....
Let us accept, for the moment, hypothetically, that there is a potential problem down the road for which there ought to be some solution.
So answer me this, then:
How does the fact that there *may be* a problem in the future cause an Executive agency to gain power to draft and execute legislation on its own initiative?
If a law is needed, why do we not get a law?
Why is an undemocratic, unaccountable branch of government now writing the law, and why are you saying that that's good and constitutional just because you are in basic agreement with the law currently being lawlessly passed?
I would like lower taxes; would you agree that a Republican president may reduce tax rates upon his own whim? Or that an agency like the IRS, headed by a conservative, can pass its own tax rates and lower them as it may please?
how about in the other direction-- can a president raise the rates as he sees fit? Can IRS head John Kostinen?
Posted by: ace at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (E+pqw)
231
Now they seize the interwebs and ban ammo because they desperately need a violent "right wing" revolt to justify their police state and expand it. It's textbook Alinsky. Or as Van Jones explains it, "Bottom up, top down and inside out." That's how you fundamentally transform a nation. Everything Precedent Bullshit does from now on will be about incitement, pure and simple.
Posted by: digitalcowboy at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (b1a3S)
I guess ifyou're an authoritarian dictator type, courting insurrection in order to justify expansion ofthe police state sounds like agreat idea until the insurrection wins.
Posted by: digitalcowboy at February 27, 2015 03:44 PM (b1a3S)
I guess ifyou're an authoritarian dictator type, courting insurrection in order to justify expansion ofthe police state sounds like agreat idea until the insurrection wins.
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (CAJL/)
232
We hereby annex the Sudetenland.
Posted by: The F.C.C. at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (ntuyY)
233
Let me put my neutrality in you.
Posted by: FCC at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (MNq6o)
235
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
You stupid simpering fuck. Shut up, and let the adults talk.
You stupid simpering fuck. Shut up, and let the adults talk.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (Q9qpj)
236
Title II opens massive new regulations.
Everytime an ISP changes pricing, FCC will have the right to review and approve or disapprove.
So the market won't be allowed to function. If an ISP invests in infrastructure so you can stream 4K TV and tries to raise prices, ppl can petition the FCC who can block the price raise.
This inevitably will lead to ISPs under-investing since they won't have any confidence they'll be able to recoup their investment.
Everytime an ISP changes pricing, FCC will have the right to review and approve or disapprove.
So the market won't be allowed to function. If an ISP invests in infrastructure so you can stream 4K TV and tries to raise prices, ppl can petition the FCC who can block the price raise.
This inevitably will lead to ISPs under-investing since they won't have any confidence they'll be able to recoup their investment.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (ZPrif)
237
Why shouldn't Internet users be able to pay more to guarantee a better level of quality of service?
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (h6Mpm)
238
197 BTW, Verizon is the one who has sued them when they try this bull shit. I am sure they will sue again.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (wlDny)
Yeah, because Verizon and ATT get SCREWED in this deal.
Comcast makes out like a bandit though.
Anyone who already has existing infrastructure is almost guaranteed to not face any new competition now because who would invest billions in a "public utility" that they don't ultimately have control over?
Comcast made the investment in the '80s and '90s, and are now seeing fiber optics come along, and they know thats the future of home-based internet connections, so they just want to nip that all in the bud so they don't have to face any real competition.
Posted by: Vic at February 27, 2015 03:49 PM (wlDny)
Yeah, because Verizon and ATT get SCREWED in this deal.
Comcast makes out like a bandit though.
Anyone who already has existing infrastructure is almost guaranteed to not face any new competition now because who would invest billions in a "public utility" that they don't ultimately have control over?
Comcast made the investment in the '80s and '90s, and are now seeing fiber optics come along, and they know thats the future of home-based internet connections, so they just want to nip that all in the bud so they don't have to face any real competition.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (AkOaV)
239
Jack Straw,
Yes, it is damning stuff & should also take out Mrs. Clinton!
I am very POd today & I'm sick of Mitch acting like Minority Leader & bowing to Reid!!
Yes, it is damning stuff & should also take out Mrs. Clinton!
I am very POd today & I'm sick of Mitch acting like Minority Leader & bowing to Reid!!
Posted by: Carol at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (sj3Ax)
240
C'mon down! Your smart friends are already here.
Posted by: BELIZE! at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (gwG9s)
241
We may be incompetent and overbearing but OUR employees don't shit in the hallway.
Posted by: The FCC at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (8ZskC)
242
It's not a 'war' until BOTH sides engage.
Posted by: Abiss 2016 at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (UsgHM)
Oh yes it is. It's just a one-sided slaughter until the other side realizes it's in a war.
Posted by: Abiss 2016 at February 27, 2015 03:51 PM (UsgHM)
Oh yes it is. It's just a one-sided slaughter until the other side realizes it's in a war.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards, returned from 1080 exile at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (fwARV)
243
You remember how I said our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people? And that it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other?
I meant that, you jackasses.
--zombie John Adams
I meant that, you jackasses.
--zombie John Adams
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (DT3rQ)
244
"the free market argument for net neutrality" imposed by government edict (negates the free market portion at the beginning of the construct)
You can have 'free market' or you can have 'government regulations', Pick one.
Ok..ok, lets go with mixed mode. Mostly free, somewhat regulated. Then what next? More free, less government? Only happened once when ICC was deconstructed. In every case since the trend is more regulation less free.
You can have 'free market' or you can have 'government regulations', Pick one.
Ok..ok, lets go with mixed mode. Mostly free, somewhat regulated. Then what next? More free, less government? Only happened once when ICC was deconstructed. In every case since the trend is more regulation less free.
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 03:56 PM (UYVd+)
245
237 Why shouldn't Internet users be able to pay more to guarantee a better level of quality of service?
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (h6Mpm)
Well, many of us do...
And anyone with a VOIP landline knows that they're paying for QoS which prioritizes VOIP traffic over, say, warez traffic.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (h6Mpm)
Well, many of us do...
And anyone with a VOIP landline knows that they're paying for QoS which prioritizes VOIP traffic over, say, warez traffic.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (AkOaV)
246
ACE ...
... about a year ago, you mockingly asked if you could come stay in my bunker.
Care to ask a little more nicely ?
... about a year ago, you mockingly asked if you could come stay in my bunker.
Care to ask a little more nicely ?
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (N6Gqp)
247
This inevitably will lead to ISPs under-investing since they won't have any confidence they'll be able to recoup their investment.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (ZPrif)
Also ISP Consolidation. Because Bank Consolidation in the 90s and early 00s went so swimmingly, right?
You're concerned about Comcast throttling Netflix now, wait until the only games in town are Comcast and AT&T, and you don't even have a choice between those two- just whichever one happens to operate in your area.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (ZPrif)
Also ISP Consolidation. Because Bank Consolidation in the 90s and early 00s went so swimmingly, right?
You're concerned about Comcast throttling Netflix now, wait until the only games in town are Comcast and AT&T, and you don't even have a choice between those two- just whichever one happens to operate in your area.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (M1uf/)
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (LA7Cm)
249
Oh yes it is. It's just a one-sided slaughter until the other side realizes it's in a war.
So. Islam is at war with the West, which a large part doesn't realize, because it's too busy being at war with the other part of the West, which doesn't realize that. (Though it seems to be aware it's at war with Islam...)
Why yes, I'll take some extra Charlie with that Foxtrot, thank you very much.
So. Islam is at war with the West, which a large part doesn't realize, because it's too busy being at war with the other part of the West, which doesn't realize that. (Though it seems to be aware it's at war with Islam...)
Why yes, I'll take some extra Charlie with that Foxtrot, thank you very much.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (DT3rQ)
250
This inevitably will lead to ISPs under-investing since they won't have any confidence they'll be able to recoup their investment.
Strangling yet another market in its crib, as intended, in addition to eventually gaining control of what you can see and hear.
Dissent (against the Dim Party) will not be allowed.
Strangling yet another market in its crib, as intended, in addition to eventually gaining control of what you can see and hear.
Dissent (against the Dim Party) will not be allowed.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (0HooB)
251
Bah.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (DT3rQ)
252
Ah yes, good point. Hosting political fundraising on a public utility would be an in-kind donation, no?
--------
Yes, and this is where the other shoe drops with the Federal Election Commission. This is where they will begin to regulate political speech on the intertubes.
--------
Yes, and this is where the other shoe drops with the Federal Election Commission. This is where they will begin to regulate political speech on the intertubes.
Posted by: Old Blue at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (AxABj)
253
So what are their real reasons?
Is this a real question?
Control,
Tax
payoff Google, Netflix, Facebook etc. for campaign donations by forcing the owners of the "last mile" into your house to price their traffic (huge, requiring low latency) the same as everyone else (dribbling this page thru fast enough for L'Affair du Moron and our hamsters).
Is this a real question?
Control,
Tax
payoff Google, Netflix, Facebook etc. for campaign donations by forcing the owners of the "last mile" into your house to price their traffic (huge, requiring low latency) the same as everyone else (dribbling this page thru fast enough for L'Affair du Moron and our hamsters).
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (DL2i+)
254
219>> Only if President Smith believes that he has the constitutional authority to make law. Then he's either a guest lecturer on Constitutional Law or a shitty golfer.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:58 PM (60Vyp)
255
Comcast made the investment in the '80s and '90s, and are now seeing fiber optics come along, and they know thats the future of home-based internet connections, so they just want to nip that all in the bud so they don't have to face any real competition.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (AkOaV)
Google Fiber is, coincidentally, in my neighborhood this week laying fiber. I'm currently a Comcast customer.
I hate Google marginally less than I hate Comcast.
As soon as the signups open up, I'm gone from Comcast like a shot for Google Fiber.
This is called "competition."
Comcast hates it.
(Google is coming to dislike it as well, more's the pity.)
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (AkOaV)
Google Fiber is, coincidentally, in my neighborhood this week laying fiber. I'm currently a Comcast customer.
I hate Google marginally less than I hate Comcast.
As soon as the signups open up, I'm gone from Comcast like a shot for Google Fiber.
This is called "competition."
Comcast hates it.
(Google is coming to dislike it as well, more's the pity.)
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (h6Mpm)
256
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:55 PM (ZPrif)
If I'm AT&T, why would I invest to run fiber in to a new city knowing that the government could come along and say, "hey guys, if netflix wants to use 100% of that bandwidth, they can, and you can't charge more than $x for the service"
It's a total gamble. And it's not worth the risk.
If I'm AT&T, why would I invest to run fiber in to a new city knowing that the government could come along and say, "hey guys, if netflix wants to use 100% of that bandwidth, they can, and you can't charge more than $x for the service"
It's a total gamble. And it's not worth the risk.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (AkOaV)
257
I'm seriously interested to know if we believe there is going to be an election in 16. I'm no nut case but how can you not look at the direction we're going an presume that an election will not be taking place.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (5Qqbu)
258
Why shouldn't Internet users be able to pay more to guarantee a better level of quality of service?
Posted by: filbert
Because to fucking liberal pussified retard dipshits, that's unfair.
Posted by: filbert
Because to fucking liberal pussified retard dipshits, that's unfair.
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (MNq6o)
259
But the main issue, as Ace points out, isn't whether this is a good or bad law, whether it will increase or decrease innovation -- it's that the FCC just pulled an ambush takeover of a trillion dollar industry on the vote of 3 unelected bureaucrat shit-weasels.
There was no debate. No laws. Nobody had any idea they were gonna do this until a few weeks ago when Obama called for it. Last year the Democrats on the FCC board weren't proposing anything like this at all.
There was no debate. No laws. Nobody had any idea they were gonna do this until a few weeks ago when Obama called for it. Last year the Democrats on the FCC board weren't proposing anything like this at all.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (nzKvP)
261
I put CSPAN on & Gohmert was on fire & now Nancy is acting like the witch she is.
Posted by: Carol at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (sj3Ax)
262
Cavill, the Thai Tranny in the Barrel was decomposing rather badly when I was in it earlier. Bring a face mask.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:00 PM (JtwS4)
263
Man, there is some pretty good propaganda abut this out there. My 21-year-old son made a very rare Facebook post about it yesterday and basically bought all the Lefty arguments about saving the Internet from Comcast and Big Cable. He's usually very anti-government.
Posted by: rockmom at February 27, 2015 04:00 PM (vE1mx)
264
Why do I feel like this Net Neutrality/FCC takeover is like the government's takeover of the health insurance industry?
"Oh, the market has broken this (no it hasn't butwork with me here-LL)we have to take it over and make it fair.Let's use the sweeping power of the central government to make everything right (read: ruin it, and make it so you have little or choice but to use the substandard product-LL), it's for the kids/little internet providers/uninsured"
"Oh, the market has broken this (no it hasn't butwork with me here-LL)we have to take it over and make it fair.Let's use the sweeping power of the central government to make everything right (read: ruin it, and make it so you have little or choice but to use the substandard product-LL), it's for the kids/little internet providers/uninsured"
Posted by: Lurkingestlurker at February 27, 2015 04:00 PM (k8xvx)
265
You're concerned about Comcast throttling Netflix now, wait until the only games in town are Comcast and AT&T, and you don't even have a choice between those two- just whichever one happens to operate in your area.
Oh, it's better than that. Yesterday they passed a new reg saying local municipalities could run their own services of that sort.
Anybody want to guess how underfunded municipalities will manage that feat?
Yeeeaaah.
Oh, it's better than that. Yesterday they passed a new reg saying local municipalities could run their own services of that sort.
Anybody want to guess how underfunded municipalities will manage that feat?
Yeeeaaah.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 04:00 PM (DT3rQ)
266
Looks like the Soros trolls are working overtime today.
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 04:00 PM (MNq6o)
267
Yeah, 300+ pages of regulations to merely prevent bandwidth throttling. Right.
The originator of this fifteen year odyssey is a Marxist professor who started this push right before Netflix was even a concept.
This is about the left seizing the means of production. That has all it has ever been about, despite what whore-spawned cum burpers like the one upthread will try to tell you.
George Soros put over 150 million dollars into this effort so you can watch streamed movies in HD. Because, he is cool like that.
The originator of this fifteen year odyssey is a Marxist professor who started this push right before Netflix was even a concept.
This is about the left seizing the means of production. That has all it has ever been about, despite what whore-spawned cum burpers like the one upthread will try to tell you.
George Soros put over 150 million dollars into this effort so you can watch streamed movies in HD. Because, he is cool like that.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (Q9qpj)
268
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (h6Mpm)
I doubt Google will continue running new fiber lines. If they can't tie that back in with their core services, there is no reason for them to be in the business.
...And I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly pay less for the service if Google prioritized Google Play and YouTube over NetFlix and World Star videos or whatever.
The only way google fiber worked for google is if they can somehow make up their investment in infrastructure with additional ad revenue (where most of the money is derived from). As a public utility, they won't be able to do that, so... let people suffer with comcast, i guess.
I doubt Google will continue running new fiber lines. If they can't tie that back in with their core services, there is no reason for them to be in the business.
...And I'm sure there are plenty of people who would gladly pay less for the service if Google prioritized Google Play and YouTube over NetFlix and World Star videos or whatever.
The only way google fiber worked for google is if they can somehow make up their investment in infrastructure with additional ad revenue (where most of the money is derived from). As a public utility, they won't be able to do that, so... let people suffer with comcast, i guess.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (AkOaV)
269
Cavill, the Thai Tranny in the Barrel was decomposing rather badly when I was in it earlier. Bring a face mask.
What, are you crazy? I have those emergency auto-closers there for a reason, chief.
What, are you crazy? I have those emergency auto-closers there for a reason, chief.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (DT3rQ)
270
Looks like the Soros trolls are working overtime today
The new guy isn't trolling, he's making an argument.
Looks like the Soros trolls are working overtime today
The new guy isn't trolling, he's making an argument.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (JtwS4)
271
Posted by: ace at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (E+pqw)
Pay not attention to the idiots behind the curtain here ace.
The internet morons tend to think that "fair" is at play here and as such only the government can dictate "fair."
It's remarkably stupid though. Clearly things are more or less working, I'm not sure what their trying to fix. (Ok, I know they just love power and the awesome new taxes that come with this, but for the sake of the idiot "internet kids" pretend I don't know that.)
I am curious though about downstream effects that might become obvious and perhaps wake the rubes up. AT&T for example prioritizes it's IPTV signal over it's uverse network. Is that no longer allowed? (Such that my HD will now stop working due to speed throttling.)
Or what about Verizon Wireless who gives a cost priority to consumers for using various services (certain services don't count towards data limits.) Is that not allowed?
The consumers better be ready to take it on face, that's how the FCC likes to finish.
Pay not attention to the idiots behind the curtain here ace.
The internet morons tend to think that "fair" is at play here and as such only the government can dictate "fair."
It's remarkably stupid though. Clearly things are more or less working, I'm not sure what their trying to fix. (Ok, I know they just love power and the awesome new taxes that come with this, but for the sake of the idiot "internet kids" pretend I don't know that.)
I am curious though about downstream effects that might become obvious and perhaps wake the rubes up. AT&T for example prioritizes it's IPTV signal over it's uverse network. Is that no longer allowed? (Such that my HD will now stop working due to speed throttling.)
Or what about Verizon Wireless who gives a cost priority to consumers for using various services (certain services don't count towards data limits.) Is that not allowed?
The consumers better be ready to take it on face, that's how the FCC likes to finish.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) and his daughter at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (HDwDg)
272
There are still heroes! Despite the bullshit happening now... there are still heroes:
http://tinyurl.com/pzby3uu
Brit, single-handed, basically saves 20 yanks in A-stan and wins the Victoria Cross.
http://tinyurl.com/pzby3uu
Brit, single-handed, basically saves 20 yanks in A-stan and wins the Victoria Cross.
Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (BZAd3)
273
Right, the main short-term purpose is to drive all the small ISPs out of business.
Fascism works best with a small # of Giganto-Corps for the State to take control of.
Just the regulations and reporting alone will be a massive burden on small ISPs -- of which there are a surprisingly large #.
This is gonna force them to sell out to the Comcasts, Cox, Google's, etc.
Fascism works best with a small # of Giganto-Corps for the State to take control of.
Just the regulations and reporting alone will be a massive burden on small ISPs -- of which there are a surprisingly large #.
This is gonna force them to sell out to the Comcasts, Cox, Google's, etc.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (ZPrif)
274
supercore23 -
Ace responded; please check out his post (#230).
My hypothetical, fleshed out:
You know how restaurants and grocery stores have signs saying you have to wear a shirt and you can't have bare feet? What if Obama wanted to add NO OPEN FLIES ON YOUR PANTS to the law, but Congress won't cooperate for whatever reason? I mean, it's hard to argue against that rule, and to my knowledge it's not a problem that needs to be addressed, but humor me -- what if?
Should we be governed by that additional rule based solely on the president's claim to that authority?
Ace responded; please check out his post (#230).
My hypothetical, fleshed out:
You know how restaurants and grocery stores have signs saying you have to wear a shirt and you can't have bare feet? What if Obama wanted to add NO OPEN FLIES ON YOUR PANTS to the law, but Congress won't cooperate for whatever reason? I mean, it's hard to argue against that rule, and to my knowledge it's not a problem that needs to be addressed, but humor me -- what if?
Should we be governed by that additional rule based solely on the president's claim to that authority?
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (SgXEz)
275
Isn't there a piece of the Government that is supposed to make laws? Nowadays agencies and courts are writing laws.
Posted by: Boss Moss at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (ntuyY)
276
Why shouldn't Internet users be able to pay more to guarantee a better level of quality of service?"
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???
Now back to the peanut gallery, peons. We're laying new lines in DC.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???
Now back to the peanut gallery, peons. We're laying new lines in DC.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (/jpU8)
277
Well, many of us do...
And anyone with a VOIP landline knows that they're paying for QoS which prioritizes VOIP traffic over, say, warez traffic.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (AkOaV)
Exactly.
"Net Neutrality" is a political power grab masquerading as a technical fix to a hypothetical technical problem that does not exist because it has already been addressed by the technology.
And anyone with a VOIP landline knows that they're paying for QoS which prioritizes VOIP traffic over, say, warez traffic.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (AkOaV)
Exactly.
"Net Neutrality" is a political power grab masquerading as a technical fix to a hypothetical technical problem that does not exist because it has already been addressed by the technology.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (h6Mpm)
278
This is called "competition."
Not only that, but the moment Google got serious about fiber in our area, Time Warner sent us all letters letting us know that our plans were being upgraded to faster ones but keeping the same price.
And when it came around time for my introductory rate to go up--another letter, saying, hey, maybe we'll keep it going for a while longer.
I will not be surprised if this sort of competition gets discouraged in the new regime, if not now, then in a few years.
Not only that, but the moment Google got serious about fiber in our area, Time Warner sent us all letters letting us know that our plans were being upgraded to faster ones but keeping the same price.
And when it came around time for my introductory rate to go up--another letter, saying, hey, maybe we'll keep it going for a while longer.
I will not be surprised if this sort of competition gets discouraged in the new regime, if not now, then in a few years.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (J0IP0)
279
The new guy isn't trolling, he's making an argument.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (JtwS4)
It's a fucking stupid argument. But it is an argument.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:01 PM (JtwS4)
It's a fucking stupid argument. But it is an argument.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (M1uf/)
280
Why does "net neutrality" have to be implemented via the Federal jackboot? It should be a feature offered up by ISPs as a competive discriminator or kicker for premium service tiers.
So this goes back to court, where the admin loses again. Then what?
So this goes back to court, where the admin loses again. Then what?
Posted by: Jean at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (ztOda)
281
Like the health insurance crisis, I imagine 90% of internet users are satisfied with their service.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (evdj2)
282
>>Comcast made the investment in the '80s and '90s, and are now seeing fiber optics come along, and they know thats the future of home-based internet connections, so they just want to nip that all in the bud so they don't have to face any real competition.
Back in the 90's, I worked for Cisco and I sold specifically to the ISP community. At&T, Verizon (which acquired UUNET giving it a huge network backbone) and a number of others spent millions and millions. I also worked for a company that built and operated colocation space for carries and peering points.
The Tier 1 network providers touch almost every piece of data transmitted and if they barf everyone, including Comcast, will get impacted. This is going to be a clusterfark.
Back in the 90's, I worked for Cisco and I sold specifically to the ISP community. At&T, Verizon (which acquired UUNET giving it a huge network backbone) and a number of others spent millions and millions. I also worked for a company that built and operated colocation space for carries and peering points.
The Tier 1 network providers touch almost every piece of data transmitted and if they barf everyone, including Comcast, will get impacted. This is going to be a clusterfark.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (g1DWB)
283
digitalcowboy: "...Everything Precedent Bullshit does from now on will be about incitement, pure and simple."
I fear you may be right. He's been trolling America for years. Our "opposition" party isn't one and, in fact, will ride new controls with abandon when they drive the bus.
It's truly a "heads, I win; tails, you lose" situation. If individuals protest, they can be targeted. If the protest rises to some manufactured threshold, martial laws of sorts step in. Conversely, if individuals accept new government modifications, then tyranny is imposed without a shot being fired.
We're in a world of sh*t right now as American foundations are being shattered. It sucks being witness to it all.
I fear you may be right. He's been trolling America for years. Our "opposition" party isn't one and, in fact, will ride new controls with abandon when they drive the bus.
It's truly a "heads, I win; tails, you lose" situation. If individuals protest, they can be targeted. If the protest rises to some manufactured threshold, martial laws of sorts step in. Conversely, if individuals accept new government modifications, then tyranny is imposed without a shot being fired.
We're in a world of sh*t right now as American foundations are being shattered. It sucks being witness to it all.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (1CroS)
284
150 119 I can only hope that the FCC's idea of Muslim outreach looks a lot like Mia Khalifa.
Posted by: Garrett at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (B7PYR)
The FCC will rule that for every minute of Mia Khalifa porn you watch, you must watch 30 seconds of tranny porn, 15 seconds of granny porn, and 10 seconds of couch fucking.
Posted by: wooga at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (XK0dn
And you will have to bake a cake for them. Don't forget the baked goods.
Posted by: Garrett at February 27, 2015 03:35 PM (B7PYR)
The FCC will rule that for every minute of Mia Khalifa porn you watch, you must watch 30 seconds of tranny porn, 15 seconds of granny porn, and 10 seconds of couch fucking.
Posted by: wooga at February 27, 2015 03:40 PM (XK0dn
And you will have to bake a cake for them. Don't forget the baked goods.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (F2IAQ)
285
The govt. will not shut down, Nancy P! She's a stupid witch.
I'm going to go back to reading TWS & shut this off before I throw something at the television.
I'm going to go back to reading TWS & shut this off before I throw something at the television.
Posted by: Carol at February 27, 2015 04:03 PM (sj3Ax)
286
Now back to the peanut gallery, peons. We're laying new lines in DC.
Of coke on a mirror, natch.
Of coke on a mirror, natch.
Posted by: Brother Cavil, Unrepresented Christian Objectivist at February 27, 2015 04:03 PM (DT3rQ)
287
The Soros trolls have been told to be polite and not get caught up in name calling. Do you Soros shit heads get paid for each ridiculous comment you make or by the hour?
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 04:03 PM (MNq6o)
288
Doesn't matter what any "free marketeer" thinks about Net Neutrality.
Doesn't matter if Comcast is the evil empire, throttling your streaming of Orange is the New Black.
Doesn't matter if Net Neutrality will prove to be a boon to humanity.
Unelected bureaucrats don't have the legitimate Constitutional authority to declare the Internet a public utility and regulate it. Nothing in the Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments permits such an act.
That's the bottom line.
Doesn't matter if Comcast is the evil empire, throttling your streaming of Orange is the New Black.
Doesn't matter if Net Neutrality will prove to be a boon to humanity.
Unelected bureaucrats don't have the legitimate Constitutional authority to declare the Internet a public utility and regulate it. Nothing in the Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments permits such an act.
That's the bottom line.
Posted by: Hegemony Cricket at February 27, 2015 04:03 PM (Lre/J)
289
Sigh....I guess we in a few years we'll be back to samizdat.
Posted by: Noam Sayen at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (HFSaY)
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (DL2i+)
291
Yep, the Left has this fantasy about muncipal broadband. Cause all the dirty hippies who can barely run a food bank are gonna be stringing fiber across America.
Government TV and Government Radio have been so great. Let's do Government Internet.
Government TV and Government Radio have been so great. Let's do Government Internet.
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (ZPrif)
292
Someone previously mentioned the FEC is a part of this.
Classifying internet conversations as 'contribution in kind' to political candidates. Clearly the intent is to regulate political content on the 'net. That sword still hangs by a thread overhead.
Classifying internet conversations as 'contribution in kind' to political candidates. Clearly the intent is to regulate political content on the 'net. That sword still hangs by a thread overhead.
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (UYVd+)
293
You're concerned about Comcast throttling Netflix now, wait until the
only games in town are Comcast and ATT, and you don't even have a
choice between those two- just whichever one happens to operate in your
area.
I was literally counting the days until I could sign-up for FiOS and kick Comcast (sorry, xfinity) to the curb. What a bunch of criminals. The day FiOS came available I signed up and literally left my Comcast junk on the front step for them to pick up.
So, the fact that Comcast is behind all this makes me want even more to see them up against the wall first once the serfs have had their fill of this crap sandwich.
only games in town are Comcast and ATT, and you don't even have a
choice between those two- just whichever one happens to operate in your
area.
I was literally counting the days until I could sign-up for FiOS and kick Comcast (sorry, xfinity) to the curb. What a bunch of criminals. The day FiOS came available I signed up and literally left my Comcast junk on the front step for them to pick up.
So, the fact that Comcast is behind all this makes me want even more to see them up against the wall first once the serfs have had their fill of this crap sandwich.
Posted by: DocJ at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (zrsn3)
294
"And you will have to bake a cake for them. Don't forget the baked goods. "
What if you can't bake?
What if you can't bake?
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (LA7Cm)
295
Posted by: ScoggDog at February 27, 2015 03:57 PM (N6Gqp)
I have it on good authority that ace will only stay in a bunker if its stocked with val u rite and busty lesbian pr0n on EMP-proof VHS's
I have it on good authority that ace will only stay in a bunker if its stocked with val u rite and busty lesbian pr0n on EMP-proof VHS's
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (AkOaV)
296
President Obama has saved the internet from right wing Republican patriarchial hate packets!
Posted by: Millennial with it's face stuck in a phone at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (W5DcG)
297
Also... if the FCC suddenly controls the internet (300+ pages of "rules?" WTF?), what do you think that means for new websites, new smartphone apps, and such?
I mean, if everyone is going to have equal access... well, we have to know who "everyone" is, right? Otherwise how can we make sure they're getting equal access?
So... new blog? Here, fill out these forms, pay this "fee" (It's a tax- CJJR) and we'll decide if you can have one.
I mean, if everyone is going to have equal access... well, we have to know who "everyone" is, right? Otherwise how can we make sure they're getting equal access?
So... new blog? Here, fill out these forms, pay this "fee" (It's a tax- CJJR) and we'll decide if you can have one.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (M1uf/)
298
Like the health insurance crisis, I imagine 90% of internet users are satisfied with their service.
I'm not--or at least I wasn't, until Time Warner got some competition--but what I wasn't satisfied with was the result of government regs, not the lack of them.
I'm not--or at least I wasn't, until Time Warner got some competition--but what I wasn't satisfied with was the result of government regs, not the lack of them.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (J0IP0)
299
1. At least mega-corporations* have the money to fight this yet again.
2. Hopefully, the reprisals I've been bleating about since 2012 will happen with Scott Walker 2016.**
* since mega means millions this is a misnomer as each corporation is a single entity that rarely approaches employing a million people. bazinga.
** shit, apparently he's legalizing rape or something on college campuses, so hellooooo hillary.
2. Hopefully, the reprisals I've been bleating about since 2012 will happen with Scott Walker 2016.**
* since mega means millions this is a misnomer as each corporation is a single entity that rarely approaches employing a million people. bazinga.
** shit, apparently he's legalizing rape or something on college campuses, so hellooooo hillary.
Posted by: joe-impeachin44 at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (wlWrh)
300
Wow. There's some weapons grade stupid lib commenters at WaPo.
They're just fine with this crap.
When a commenter said, "If I like my internet can I keep my internet?" a lib replied, "Yeah, well 90% of the people who liked their insurance plans got to keep them."
*head desk*
They're just fine with this crap.
When a commenter said, "If I like my internet can I keep my internet?" a lib replied, "Yeah, well 90% of the people who liked their insurance plans got to keep them."
*head desk*
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 27, 2015 04:05 PM (FsuaD)
301
248
"anyone know what the firearms laws in New Zealand are?"
Looks like they suck and you can not buy a gun without police permission
http://tinyurl.com/nnkbo5c
"anyone know what the firearms laws in New Zealand are?"
Looks like they suck and you can not buy a gun without police permission
http://tinyurl.com/nnkbo5c
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 27, 2015 04:05 PM (0FSuD)
Posted by: Comrade Stephen Price Blair at February 27, 2015 04:05 PM (J0IP0)
303
Begging your pardon ma'am but isn't that what the impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (60Vyp)
*noms lemon bars*
Impeachment does not solve outright regulatory grabs like this. Say Congress impeaches everyone. Every single solitary person that can be involved in this. Well, that doesn't solve the problem of the rules being implemented and impeachment takes a huge amount of time not to mention massive disruption.
Now, I'm all for encourager les autres, but that process is very difficult for excellent reasons.
Look, Congress has been delegating away and delegating away and delegating away and now here we are. It's the same with the EPA being slapped down again and again and just merrily continuing on its way.
Hell, on the state level, Philadelphia keeps passing its own gun control laws even though the city has been told over and over and over and over and over again that it has no power to do so.
When people will decide to play by Calvinball rules while the rest are playing according to Hoyle, well, you end up here.
*looking down and holding out lemon bars*
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM (60Vyp)
*noms lemon bars*
Impeachment does not solve outright regulatory grabs like this. Say Congress impeaches everyone. Every single solitary person that can be involved in this. Well, that doesn't solve the problem of the rules being implemented and impeachment takes a huge amount of time not to mention massive disruption.
Now, I'm all for encourager les autres, but that process is very difficult for excellent reasons.
Look, Congress has been delegating away and delegating away and delegating away and now here we are. It's the same with the EPA being slapped down again and again and just merrily continuing on its way.
Hell, on the state level, Philadelphia keeps passing its own gun control laws even though the city has been told over and over and over and over and over again that it has no power to do so.
When people will decide to play by Calvinball rules while the rest are playing according to Hoyle, well, you end up here.
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 04:05 PM (mf5HN)
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 04:05 PM (DL2i+)
305
The new guy isn't trolling, he's making an argument.
Posted by: Bandersnatch
You misspelled propaganda.
Posted by: Bandersnatch
You misspelled propaganda.
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (MNq6o)
306
Begging your pardon ma'am but isn't that what the
impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS
designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the
thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM
The stench of corruption pervades this regime. Nixon at his worst -- and he was pretty bad in many important respects -- could not have imagined the amount of control of Americans' lives Choom Boy has seized.
Look at any government agency staffed by the Mocha Messiah's co-conspirators and you will see overreach, lawless activities and plain old bias against anyone not of the Oppressed Classes. Any agency.
This is why I say -- and have said, since 2009 -- that Poppin' Fresh and his "optics"-obsessed ilk are fools. They are, in a small but significant way, complicit in the regime's crimes. And they are unable to learn, to simply add two plus two and make four. To them the Game of Politics is all.
But they, too will suffer, and the suffering will worsen when people realize that the peaceable remedies have been taken away. The alternatives are far from pleasant.
impeachment process is for? I respectfully suggest that the system IS
designed for such buffoonery. The system was NOT designed with the
thought that it would be implemented by fools and lick spittle minions.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 03:47 PM
The stench of corruption pervades this regime. Nixon at his worst -- and he was pretty bad in many important respects -- could not have imagined the amount of control of Americans' lives Choom Boy has seized.
Look at any government agency staffed by the Mocha Messiah's co-conspirators and you will see overreach, lawless activities and plain old bias against anyone not of the Oppressed Classes. Any agency.
This is why I say -- and have said, since 2009 -- that Poppin' Fresh and his "optics"-obsessed ilk are fools. They are, in a small but significant way, complicit in the regime's crimes. And they are unable to learn, to simply add two plus two and make four. To them the Game of Politics is all.
But they, too will suffer, and the suffering will worsen when people realize that the peaceable remedies have been taken away. The alternatives are far from pleasant.
Posted by: MrScribbler at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (P8YHq)
307
The originator of this fifteen year odyssey is a Marxist professor who started this push right before Netflix was even a concept.
15 years ago, I had dialup. Now I have 70MBs broadband.
15 years ago, I had dialup. Now I have 70MBs broadband.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (evdj2)
308
Imagine when we have municipal Government Broadband. All the Left SJWs are gonna demand that this share Government Internet not be used to spread Hate Speech and Troll Speech.
Logic will be we don't let the KKK give speeches on NPR, why should we let the anti-gay marriage homophobes use Government Property to spread their Hate?
Logic will be we don't let the KKK give speeches on NPR, why should we let the anti-gay marriage homophobes use Government Property to spread their Hate?
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (ZPrif)
309
It's a fucking stupid argument. But it is an argument.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (M1uf/)
It's lefty talking points.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly anymore, (to the extent they were during dialup anyway.)
In addition to AT&T completely reworking it's network to compete directly with cable providers, new wireless tech is making competition much more likely.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM (M1uf/)
It's lefty talking points.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly anymore, (to the extent they were during dialup anyway.)
In addition to AT&T completely reworking it's network to compete directly with cable providers, new wireless tech is making competition much more likely.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) and his daughter at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (HDwDg)
310
I'm seriously interested to know if we believe there is going to be an election in 16. I'm no nut case but how can you not look at the direction we're going an presume that an election will not be taking place.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (5Qqbu)
Why would the Democrats suspend elections? They're especially good at winning elections. Besides, elections bestow legitimacy and give the rubes the illusion of fair play and rule of law.
These people steal your freedoms like the stealthiest of pickpockets. You don't know it's gone until the time comes to pay the waiter.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (5Qqbu)
Why would the Democrats suspend elections? They're especially good at winning elections. Besides, elections bestow legitimacy and give the rubes the illusion of fair play and rule of law.
These people steal your freedoms like the stealthiest of pickpockets. You don't know it's gone until the time comes to pay the waiter.
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (CAJL/)
311
Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (ZPrif)
My city is lucky to be able to remove snow from the roads without any mishaps, I can't imagine them having the money, expertise, and ability to run and manage something as complicated as internet connections.
But whatever.
My city is lucky to be able to remove snow from the roads without any mishaps, I can't imagine them having the money, expertise, and ability to run and manage something as complicated as internet connections.
But whatever.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 04:06 PM (AkOaV)
312
I am confident the federal takeover of the internet will improve it. Just look at how much better education and healthcare have gotten the past 40 years or so since the feds got involved. Why all the negativity?
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (1BQGO)
313
The problem for Verizon, et al? Reid has packed the Court of Appeals in DC with Obama toadies that are hard core lefties.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (0FSuD)
314
It's a fucking stupid argument. But it is an argument"
Only if you grant that "argument" equals "unintelligible gibberish and feces tossing"...
Only if you grant that "argument" equals "unintelligible gibberish and feces tossing"...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (/jpU8)
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (g1DWB)
316
When people will decide to play by Calvinball rules while the rest are playing according to Hoyle, well, you end up here.
The problem with this thesis, which you've presented in several versions today, is that there is not a ready solution.
So, you're right, but we're emphuckened.
When people will decide to play by Calvinball rules while the rest are playing according to Hoyle, well, you end up here.
The problem with this thesis, which you've presented in several versions today, is that there is not a ready solution.
So, you're right, but we're emphuckened.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (JtwS4)
317
Never mind.
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (DL2i+)
318
All this internet madness, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings are still coming. Thunderdome. ..
Posted by: jmel at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (cfFqn)
319
Nixon was impeached for using the IRS against his enemies.
The JEF could rape a baby and eat it on the steps of the WH and still complete his presidency.
The JEF could rape a baby and eat it on the steps of the WH and still complete his presidency.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (FsuaD)
Posted by: Lurkingestlurker at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (k8xvx)
321
how about in the other direction-- can a president raise the rates as he sees fit? Can IRS head John Kostinen?
Posted by: ace at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (E+pqw
The correct answer is "NO". But......with TFG there is always a butt. I would bet a Benjamin that if they would do so, the GOP wouldn't utter a word. Someone would sue the administration and it would be tied up in the courts for years.
I have lost all hope for the GOP senate when I heard my Senator Ron Johnson R-WI being interviewed today by a WI conservative radio show host. Basically, the GOP is too afraid of the MSM when it comes to the amnesty DHS spending bills.
Although Harry Reid is no longer Senate leader he is in fact the Senate leader.
Thank you for the interview Mr. Johnson. The begathon letters i have in the bill pile will go in the circular file. Also you will not have my vote in 2016 or my congress critter Sean Bozo Duffy
how about in the other direction-- can a president raise the rates as he sees fit? Can IRS head John Kostinen?
Posted by: ace at February 27, 2015 03:54 PM (E+pqw
The correct answer is "NO". But......with TFG there is always a butt. I would bet a Benjamin that if they would do so, the GOP wouldn't utter a word. Someone would sue the administration and it would be tied up in the courts for years.
I have lost all hope for the GOP senate when I heard my Senator Ron Johnson R-WI being interviewed today by a WI conservative radio show host. Basically, the GOP is too afraid of the MSM when it comes to the amnesty DHS spending bills.
Although Harry Reid is no longer Senate leader he is in fact the Senate leader.
Thank you for the interview Mr. Johnson. The begathon letters i have in the bill pile will go in the circular file. Also you will not have my vote in 2016 or my congress critter Sean Bozo Duffy
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (F2IAQ)
322
On a positive note, Intolerable Acts II should be a great read. (Haha, who the fcuk am I kidding?)
Posted by: Burn Booker at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM (a57bf)
323
Sigh....I guess we in a few years we'll be back to samizdat.
Posted by: Noam Sayen at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (HFSaY)
I've been looking for an excuse to buy an old-school Royal Manual typewriter and a mimeograph machine.
Not kidding. I really miss the zzzzt-ding! clickety-clickety-click of a typewriter.
Posted by: Noam Sayen at February 27, 2015 04:04 PM (HFSaY)
I've been looking for an excuse to buy an old-school Royal Manual typewriter and a mimeograph machine.
Not kidding. I really miss the zzzzt-ding! clickety-clickety-click of a typewriter.
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 04:09 PM (CAJL/)
324
I hope my mom is not embarrassed when "Bruce Jenners Plastic Vag" is listed as an alias on my Wanted poster. Ah, she rarely goes to the post office anyways!
Posted by: Bruce Jenners Plastic Vag at February 27, 2015 04:09 PM (oij5w)
325
15 years ago, I had dialup. Now I have 70MBs broadband"
In 1959, I had pulse dial and party lines. Twenty years of "fairness" later, I still had them.
Oddly enough, I had to pay "extra" if I wanted a dedicated line and touch tones. Or a princess phone...
In 1959, I had pulse dial and party lines. Twenty years of "fairness" later, I still had them.
Oddly enough, I had to pay "extra" if I wanted a dedicated line and touch tones. Or a princess phone...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:09 PM (/jpU8)
326
Yes.
at best I have 20 years left at worst I'll be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow. All I want is to be left the f*** alone and to be able to piss off the front porch and shoot out the back porch until I die.
this country isn't worth saving 52% of the population want to suck their own assholes clean and I hate every last one of them with every ounce of my being.time marches on history marches on and it's time for those of us who are utterly sick of this bullshit to simply go elsewhere. Let the rest of these f****** scum moulder in their own filth and decompose minute by minute while the rest of us look on with both pitty and celebration.
at best I have 20 years left at worst I'll be diagnosed with terminal cancer tomorrow. All I want is to be left the f*** alone and to be able to piss off the front porch and shoot out the back porch until I die.
this country isn't worth saving 52% of the population want to suck their own assholes clean and I hate every last one of them with every ounce of my being.time marches on history marches on and it's time for those of us who are utterly sick of this bullshit to simply go elsewhere. Let the rest of these f****** scum moulder in their own filth and decompose minute by minute while the rest of us look on with both pitty and celebration.
Posted by: Some Dude at February 27, 2015 04:09 PM (lbgjb)
327
Note that Congress did not make this important change in definition. An agency charged with executing the law as Congress passes it has decided that it itself would change the law.
____________________
Yeah, so what? That's been SOP here at DHS for years now. Immigration laws? WTF do we care? Court orders for deportations? LOL. Yeah, let's see the judge execute that order. No authorizations for SS numbers, work permits, etc., for millions of illegal aliens? Who gives a shit? We just put out an order, and it's done. We don't need no stinkin' authorization. Just like Treasury paid out over $3 billion in Obamacare pay-offs to insurance companies, without any appropriation for the money. Where did it come from? LOL. We pulled it out of our asses. Same place we get the billions of dollars we knowingly pay out to illegal aliens every year in food stamps, Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits, tax credits, welfare, etc.
Game over, bitches. The constitution and federal laws don't mean squat anymore. We Are The Law, and you will do whatever we tell you to do.
____________________
Yeah, so what? That's been SOP here at DHS for years now. Immigration laws? WTF do we care? Court orders for deportations? LOL. Yeah, let's see the judge execute that order. No authorizations for SS numbers, work permits, etc., for millions of illegal aliens? Who gives a shit? We just put out an order, and it's done. We don't need no stinkin' authorization. Just like Treasury paid out over $3 billion in Obamacare pay-offs to insurance companies, without any appropriation for the money. Where did it come from? LOL. We pulled it out of our asses. Same place we get the billions of dollars we knowingly pay out to illegal aliens every year in food stamps, Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits, tax credits, welfare, etc.
Game over, bitches. The constitution and federal laws don't mean squat anymore. We Are The Law, and you will do whatever we tell you to do.
Posted by: The criminal cabal that calls itself the Obama "administration" at February 27, 2015 04:09 PM (Fnyc2)
328
Should we be governed by that additional rule based solely on the president's claim to that authority?
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM
Nothing that hasn't already been stated. President Smith has no constitutional power to make law yet he does, and the congress refuses to hold him accountable for it. And yet in the absence of any presidential accountability or action by the congress, citizens are held accountable for a law that was unjustly passed.
Whether or not is was a 'good law' is irrelevant. It's just a typical straw man argument.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:02 PM
Nothing that hasn't already been stated. President Smith has no constitutional power to make law yet he does, and the congress refuses to hold him accountable for it. And yet in the absence of any presidential accountability or action by the congress, citizens are held accountable for a law that was unjustly passed.
Whether or not is was a 'good law' is irrelevant. It's just a typical straw man argument.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (60Vyp)
Posted by: DaveA/i] at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (DL2i+)
330
127 So, what are the real reasons Obama and the Prog Fascists did this?" Posted by: Costanza Defense at February 27, 2015 03:36 PM (ZPrif)
________________
To crush their Enemies, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of their women. That's why.
Democrats bare their fangs and claws, and fight dirty for everything they want. They don't give up, and they don't fear going to jail or being injured.
For these reasons, alone, the feeble, chicken-hearted Republican Party's days are numbered. It will fizzle out in disgrace, calling to the bartender for another Martini.
________________
To crush their Enemies, to see them driven before them, and to hear the lamentations of their women. That's why.
Democrats bare their fangs and claws, and fight dirty for everything they want. They don't give up, and they don't fear going to jail or being injured.
For these reasons, alone, the feeble, chicken-hearted Republican Party's days are numbered. It will fizzle out in disgrace, calling to the bartender for another Martini.
Posted by: Bad Dog Puppy Treats at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (Xrkvx)
331
Troyriser, it's not about Democrats, it's about Obama. Do you truly believe they could have done half of what they've been able to do with anybody else in power. I don't.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (5Qqbu)
332
Not kidding. I really miss the zzzzt-ding! clickety-clickety-click of a typewriter."
I could go for the "mimeograph smell". Brings back memories...
I could go for the "mimeograph smell". Brings back memories...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (/jpU8)
Posted by: boulder terlet hobo at February 27, 2015 04:11 PM (xnsN9)
334
Nixon was impeached for using the IRS against his enemies.
He was impeached for discussing using the IRS against his enemies.
He was impeached for discussing using the IRS against his enemies.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 04:11 PM (evdj2)
335
ATT just installed a Fiber line right in front of my home. TWC is taking notice. My internet has been iffy for about a year.
Funny I called TWC and a guy came out and replaced my entire line to the pole. Should have been done a year ago, but now. Not a problem sir.
Works great now.
Funny I called TWC and a guy came out and replaced my entire line to the pole. Should have been done a year ago, but now. Not a problem sir.
Works great now.
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 27, 2015 04:11 PM (0FSuD)
336
"You can either eat at an all-you-can-eat restaurant, or you can't eat at all." Or, It's Obamacare part deux.
Posted by: Outspoken Red at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (BhtTT)
337
9 >>When does the internet strike back?
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (lHHyw)
This is one of those times when I'll concede that those crazy Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing hacker mofuggers have a point.
Anonymous, are you out there? Wanna truly strike the establishment????
Posted by: Lizzy at February 27, 2015 03:15 PM (lHHyw)
This is one of those times when I'll concede that those crazy Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing hacker mofuggers have a point.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (2Ojst)
338
I heard some moronic radio talk show host in LA saying: well if all the big corporations are against this, it must be a really good thing for us!
Yeah that's right idiot.
Yeah that's right idiot.
Posted by: keena at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0A9Bw)
339
I heard some moronic radio talk show host in LA saying: well if all the big corporations are against this, it must be a really good thing for us!
Yeah that's right idiot.
Yeah that's right idiot.
Posted by: keena at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0A9Bw)
340
Don't worry, Ace. The Republicans will save us!
I've go it all under control. I'm writing McConnell and Boehner now.
I've go it all under control. I'm writing McConnell and Boehner now.
Posted by: Nomennovum at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0z+LY)
341
The new guy isn't trolling, he's making an argument.
For more government (which equals less freedom).
If he can stop sucking Soros's dick long enough, he can tell him he didn't so good of a job trolling here.
For more government (which equals less freedom).
If he can stop sucking Soros's dick long enough, he can tell him he didn't so good of a job trolling here.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this sh1t at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0HooB)
342
257 I'm seriously interested to know if we believe there is going to be an election in 16. I'm no nut case but how can you not look at the direction we're going an presume that an election will not be taking place.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (5Qqbu)
Or if it will be on the up-and-up.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 03:59 PM (5Qqbu)
Or if it will be on the up-and-up.
Posted by: rickl at February 27, 2015 04:13 PM (zoehZ)
343
Nude Pod People
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 04:13 PM (evdj2)
344
Remember when that baby burner, Janet Reno, told us Microsoft was a monopoly? It's common ploy that works on retards.
Posted by: Dang at February 27, 2015 04:13 PM (MNq6o)
345
The problem with this thesis, which you've presented in several versions today, is that there is not a ready solution.
So, you're right, but we're emphuckened.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (JtwS4)
*narrows eyes*
Are you questioning my ability to fixate? Because surely, surely, you are not doing that.
Also, nope, there is no solution. At least no non-horrific ones.
As to the competition question and are there still monopolies, I have exactly one option for phone (yes, I still have and need a land line), internet and tv services. One.
My apartment complex does not allow satellite. There is no FIOS service. There is no U-Verse service. There is no Century Link service.
I have my choice of Time Warner or Time Warner. That's it. Why is that it? Because the regulations and the like in place effectively prevent other services from competing.
Oh how happy I am that soon my only choice will be Comcast. Oh how happy.
So, you're right, but we're emphuckened.
Posted by: Bandersnatch at February 27, 2015 04:07 PM (JtwS4)
*narrows eyes*
Are you questioning my ability to fixate? Because surely, surely, you are not doing that.
Also, nope, there is no solution. At least no non-horrific ones.
As to the competition question and are there still monopolies, I have exactly one option for phone (yes, I still have and need a land line), internet and tv services. One.
My apartment complex does not allow satellite. There is no FIOS service. There is no U-Verse service. There is no Century Link service.
I have my choice of Time Warner or Time Warner. That's it. Why is that it? Because the regulations and the like in place effectively prevent other services from competing.
Oh how happy I am that soon my only choice will be Comcast. Oh how happy.
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (mf5HN)
346
This is one of those times when I'll concede that those crazy Guy-Fawkes-mask-wearing hacker mofuggers have a point.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (2Ojst)
Fun Fact: Every Guy Fawkes mask you see on an anarchist idiot represents a copyright check to Time Warner.
You may laugh hysterically now.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (2Ojst)
Fun Fact: Every Guy Fawkes mask you see on an anarchist idiot represents a copyright check to Time Warner.
You may laugh hysterically now.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (h6Mpm)
347
@337
The problem is that a lot of those Anonymous types tend to confuse anarchy with far-left moonbattery. (Not that the two are that far apart, tbh. Anarchists in the early part of the 20th century were, to the degree that you could define them as such, creatures of the political left)
The problem is that a lot of those Anonymous types tend to confuse anarchy with far-left moonbattery. (Not that the two are that far apart, tbh. Anarchists in the early part of the 20th century were, to the degree that you could define them as such, creatures of the political left)
Posted by: Lurkingestlurker at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (k8xvx)
348
This is what happens when we vilify and alienate the majority of our own society in celebration of the "other."
No one gives a shit. The federal employees who would have revolted at this sort of thing are all fired or retired, and the institutional mentality of the bureaucracies has created a complete workforce of drones. "Just following orders" see?
There was a reason people opposed all the social experimentation we've been doing for the last 50 years, but now we are all products of it and can't see that there were reasons for the old rules, even if we didn't always like the results.
The corrosion of our morality has led to the exact place that the icky mid-20th century conservatives said it would.
Enjoy your open marriage and genderless humanity, peon.
This is what happens when we vilify and alienate the majority of our own society in celebration of the "other."
No one gives a shit. The federal employees who would have revolted at this sort of thing are all fired or retired, and the institutional mentality of the bureaucracies has created a complete workforce of drones. "Just following orders" see?
There was a reason people opposed all the social experimentation we've been doing for the last 50 years, but now we are all products of it and can't see that there were reasons for the old rules, even if we didn't always like the results.
The corrosion of our morality has led to the exact place that the icky mid-20th century conservatives said it would.
Enjoy your open marriage and genderless humanity, peon.
Posted by: imp at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (XIXZz)
349
Seriously, I do not know how this gets solved without violence.
Can someone give me some real suggestions?
Can someone give me some real suggestions?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (M1uf/)
350
So, the fact that Comcast is behind all this
In order for Comcast to merge with NBC they had to agree to 'redistribute' about 10 bucks a month from their paying customers to the 'monetarily challenged'.
Once a whore to the government, always a whore.
In order for Comcast to merge with NBC they had to agree to 'redistribute' about 10 bucks a month from their paying customers to the 'monetarily challenged'.
Once a whore to the government, always a whore.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (zxQ4h)
351
Net neutrality is not about silencing people. It's the complete opposite. It's requiring ISPs to treat all data on their network *no matter where it originates* exactly the same.
------
Treat every body the same.... with justice for all.
So was the:
IRS: Ever heard of Lois Lerner???
FDIC: Denying credit services to gun stores and manufacturers.
EPA: Ever heard of Gibson guitars??? Raided at gun point.... over lumber.
HHS: Obamacare. Perhaps youve heard of it.
NSA: How are YOUR phone records these days.
TSA: How about a little preflight foreplay while we steal your shit in steerage.
FTC: No, Boeing.... you cant choose your new plant site in the Carolinas because.... UNIONS.
BATF: Most popular 5.56 ammo you wingers like???? Banned as armour peircing... even tho it doesnt meet our legal definintion of AP.
And the list goes on and on and on and on.
Now the FCC deems itself Lord of The Interwebs.
What the Fuck.Could.Possibly.GO.Wrong.
You sir, are an idiot.
------
Treat every body the same.... with justice for all.
So was the:
IRS: Ever heard of Lois Lerner???
FDIC: Denying credit services to gun stores and manufacturers.
EPA: Ever heard of Gibson guitars??? Raided at gun point.... over lumber.
HHS: Obamacare. Perhaps youve heard of it.
NSA: How are YOUR phone records these days.
TSA: How about a little preflight foreplay while we steal your shit in steerage.
FTC: No, Boeing.... you cant choose your new plant site in the Carolinas because.... UNIONS.
BATF: Most popular 5.56 ammo you wingers like???? Banned as armour peircing... even tho it doesnt meet our legal definintion of AP.
And the list goes on and on and on and on.
Now the FCC deems itself Lord of The Interwebs.
What the Fuck.Could.Possibly.GO.Wrong.
You sir, are an idiot.
Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (NaV4z)
352
Podcast nood.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (h6Mpm)
353
O/T
This will piss you off. US sending Ukraine spy pics that are degraded and a day old, cause they don't want to upset Russia.
You can NOT make this shit up.
http://tinyurl.com/onq6jvl
This will piss you off. US sending Ukraine spy pics that are degraded and a day old, cause they don't want to upset Russia.
You can NOT make this shit up.
http://tinyurl.com/onq6jvl
Posted by: Nip Sip at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (0FSuD)
354
Nixon was impeached for using the IRS against his enemies.The JEF could rape a baby and eat it on the steps of the WH and still complete his presidency. Posted by: Jane D'oh at February 27, 2015 04:08 PM
This is mainly true, though IIRC the House had four articles of impeachment, and Barry Goldwater admitted he was prepared to vote "yes" on at least one.
I remember the Nixon years pretty well, and he was not a good person or, in many ways, a good President. He deserved to fall for the impeachable offenses he was charged with. He took the only way out, which saved the country a lot of misery, and that is to his credit.
But he was George Washington when compared to Choom Boy.
This is mainly true, though IIRC the House had four articles of impeachment, and Barry Goldwater admitted he was prepared to vote "yes" on at least one.
I remember the Nixon years pretty well, and he was not a good person or, in many ways, a good President. He deserved to fall for the impeachable offenses he was charged with. He took the only way out, which saved the country a lot of misery, and that is to his credit.
But he was George Washington when compared to Choom Boy.
Posted by: MrScribbler at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (P8YHq)
355
I have my choice of Time Warner or Time Warner. That's it. Why is that it? Because the regulations and the like in place effectively prevent other services from competing.
Vonage?
I mean, you'd still have to have TW for internet, I suppose, but they wouldn't be your home phone provider anymore.
Vonage?
I mean, you'd still have to have TW for internet, I suppose, but they wouldn't be your home phone provider anymore.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (M1uf/)
356
335 ATT just installed a Fiber line right in front of my home. TWC is taking notice. My internet has been iffy for about a year.
Funny I called TWC and a guy came out and replaced my entire line to the pole. Should have been done a year ago, but now. Not a problem sir.
Works great now.
See how great Net Neutrality is?!
335 ATT just installed a Fiber line right in front of my home. TWC is taking notice. My internet has been iffy for about a year.
Funny I called TWC and a guy came out and replaced my entire line to the pole. Should have been done a year ago, but now. Not a problem sir.
Works great now.
See how great Net Neutrality is?!
Posted by: LIV at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (0NdlF)
357
CrotchetyOldJarhead @ 328 - "Whether or not is was a 'good law' is irrelevant."
Agreed. (I tried to make the strawiest man I could but that part of the argument is, as you said, irrelevant.)
Agreed. (I tried to make the strawiest man I could but that part of the argument is, as you said, irrelevant.)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (SgXEz)
358
well, f***. Ok what are the most corrupt countries in the world? I have no problem paying bribe money to be left the f*** alone and take care of my own business.
Posted by: Some Dude at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (lbgjb)
359
Will the current Obamaphone user whose phone I pay for also be dipping into my wallet for an Obamamodem? Maybe an Obama PC and an Obama HD TV as well? Wouldn't want them to have to use an inferior connection and display when they use the stuff they got with the iTunes card paid for with their EBT Cash benefit.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (Q9qpj)
360
Troyriser, it's not about Democrats, it's about Obama. Do you truly believe they could have done half of what they've been able to do with anybody else in power. I don't.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (5Qqbu)
I strongly doubt Obama has any intention to suspend elections for any reason whatsoever. For one thing, there's no precedent for such a drastic action. Even Lincoln, in the middle of a bloody civil war, ran for reelection. For another, there is no way the American far-Left would ever give us a straight-up, irrefutablecasus belli, which is what a suspension of elections would be.
Posted by: Stourma at February 27, 2015 04:10 PM (5Qqbu)
I strongly doubt Obama has any intention to suspend elections for any reason whatsoever. For one thing, there's no precedent for such a drastic action. Even Lincoln, in the middle of a bloody civil war, ran for reelection. For another, there is no way the American far-Left would ever give us a straight-up, irrefutablecasus belli, which is what a suspension of elections would be.
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 04:17 PM (CAJL/)
361
>>He took the only way out, which saved the country a lot of misery, and that is to his credit.
The only reason Nixon was forced to resign is because Republicans turned on him. Democrats will never turn on Obama. Never.
The only reason Nixon was forced to resign is because Republicans turned on him. Democrats will never turn on Obama. Never.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:17 PM (g1DWB)
362
Welcome to Amerizuela. Obama got elected and re-elected. We have the exact government the American people want.
And so, as Victoria Jackson sings on YouTube, "There's a Communist Living in the White House". Also, that Communist has useful idiots running the House of Representatives and the Senate.
And so, as Victoria Jackson sings on YouTube, "There's a Communist Living in the White House". Also, that Communist has useful idiots running the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Posted by: OCBill at February 27, 2015 04:18 PM (rFipM)
363
Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned when the leaders of the Republican party went to the White House and told him they would not defend him.
Posted by: Economics Loo at February 27, 2015 04:19 PM (UYVd+)
364
Boss Moss: "Isn't there a piece of the Government that is supposed to make laws? Nowadays agencies and courts are writing laws."
Agencies, courts, and enterprise (aka interests) have been writing the laws for many decades. Technically, our Legislative Branch has been relegated to Rubber Stampers of Others' Work.
However, you're right. We don't even have the pretense of that anymore. Apparently, rubber stamps aren't even in vogue now.
Agencies, courts, and enterprise (aka interests) have been writing the laws for many decades. Technically, our Legislative Branch has been relegated to Rubber Stampers of Others' Work.
However, you're right. We don't even have the pretense of that anymore. Apparently, rubber stamps aren't even in vogue now.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at February 27, 2015 04:19 PM (1CroS)
365
The only reason Nixon was forced to resign is because Republicans turned on him. Democrats will never turn on Obama. Never.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:17 PM (g1DWB)
The Democrats learned from Nixon's resignation. The Republicans didn't.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:17 PM (g1DWB)
The Democrats learned from Nixon's resignation. The Republicans didn't.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 04:20 PM (h6Mpm)
366
so Google helps write the regs for the worldwide net
and insurance companies help write the obamacare law?
and insurance companies help write the obamacare law?
Posted by: willow at February 27, 2015 04:20 PM (nqBYe)
367
Yeah that's right idiot.
Posted by: keena at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0A9Bw)
Oh, it's not all of the big corporations. Like everything that happens in DC, winners and loser will be chosen based on
a) campaign contributions
b) how many former DC political staffers and connected people the company has hired
c) how many lobbyists they have on staff
d) and how liberal-friendly their "corporate image" is
Posted by: keena at February 27, 2015 04:12 PM (0A9Bw)
Oh, it's not all of the big corporations. Like everything that happens in DC, winners and loser will be chosen based on
a) campaign contributions
b) how many former DC political staffers and connected people the company has hired
c) how many lobbyists they have on staff
d) and how liberal-friendly their "corporate image" is
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 04:20 PM (AkOaV)
368
The spirit of Hugo Chavez lives on in King Barry.
Posted by: Insomniac at February 27, 2015 04:20 PM (2Ojst)
369
"If Cankles gets her and Bill elected it's Doom City."
From here on they're just making the rubble bounce.
From here on they're just making the rubble bounce.
Posted by: despair at February 27, 2015 04:20 PM (J6suc)
370
Why would the Democrats suspend elections? They're especially good at winning elections. Besides, elections bestow legitimacy and give the rubes the illusion of fair play and rule of law.
These people steal your freedoms like the stealthiest of pickpockets. You don't know it's gone until the time comes to pay the waiter.
_______________________
I've been thinking about that. You know what is really great about the Cloward-Piven strategy? You don't have to be a lefty to use it.
The Obama cabal has basically destroyed the rule of law in the country. Anybody paying taxes and playing by the rules at this point is just a damn sucker. They want to burn down the existing system? Great, lets help them do it. Let's burn the sucker to the ground.
The flaw in the C-P strategy is that C & P just assumed that the lefties who burn the current system down will be the same people who get to be in charge of rebuilding the new system. But there are more of us than there are of them.
So I say let it burn. In fact, help burn it down faster. The sooner we rid ourselves of the current hopelessly-corrupted system, the sooner we can be rid of the stench and start building something better.
These people steal your freedoms like the stealthiest of pickpockets. You don't know it's gone until the time comes to pay the waiter.
_______________________
I've been thinking about that. You know what is really great about the Cloward-Piven strategy? You don't have to be a lefty to use it.
The Obama cabal has basically destroyed the rule of law in the country. Anybody paying taxes and playing by the rules at this point is just a damn sucker. They want to burn down the existing system? Great, lets help them do it. Let's burn the sucker to the ground.
The flaw in the C-P strategy is that C & P just assumed that the lefties who burn the current system down will be the same people who get to be in charge of rebuilding the new system. But there are more of us than there are of them.
So I say let it burn. In fact, help burn it down faster. The sooner we rid ourselves of the current hopelessly-corrupted system, the sooner we can be rid of the stench and start building something better.
Posted by: Civil Disobedience at February 27, 2015 04:21 PM (Fnyc2)
371
At some point in the near future Obama will make a public statement about how access to fast, reliable internet service is a right and this move by the FCC will guarantee that because all too often .. fairness... inclusive ... drone .. blah blah, blah.
Shortly after, 100 million LIV's and lefties will start flooding twitter, Facebook and blogs proudly yapping that "Access to fast, reliable internet service is a right. Period!"
And this county will die a little more.
Shortly after, 100 million LIV's and lefties will start flooding twitter, Facebook and blogs proudly yapping that "Access to fast, reliable internet service is a right. Period!"
And this county will die a little more.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 04:22 PM (1BQGO)
372
Can someone give me some real suggestions?
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (M1uf/)
Non-violent protests of a sort guaranteed to get some of us killed by clearly identifable government agents with guns. The MSM can usually ignore patriotic protests but not if enough people die making them.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:14 PM (M1uf/)
Non-violent protests of a sort guaranteed to get some of us killed by clearly identifable government agents with guns. The MSM can usually ignore patriotic protests but not if enough people die making them.
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 04:22 PM (CAJL/)
373
Posted by: troyriser at February 27, 2015 04:17 PM (CAJL/)
Besides, there's no reason to. No matter who we elect, the government keeps growing and "evolving" and "progressing" in to a socialist utopia.
Besides, there's no reason to. No matter who we elect, the government keeps growing and "evolving" and "progressing" in to a socialist utopia.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 04:22 PM (AkOaV)
374
yep, very pathetic, funny so many people on reddit think they're "libertarian" then fall over themselves cheering something like this.
---
Regulating the internet is the only way to flush out the ruling Zionists and finance our way back to the gold standard.
---
Regulating the internet is the only way to flush out the ruling Zionists and finance our way back to the gold standard.
Posted by: Pon Raul at February 27, 2015 04:22 PM (VAsIq)
375
The only safe way of organizing resistance will be face to face meetings, so expect travel restrictions and the revocation of the right of free assembly.
Posted by: despair at February 27, 2015 04:23 PM (J6suc)
376
But we're doing it for your own good.
Posted by: FCC at February 27, 2015 04:25 PM (VAsIq)
377
Just remember. As John McCain might say, we can't not vote on Lynch just because of other illegal acts of Obama. They aren't related. That's how these people think.
Posted by: ejo at February 27, 2015 04:25 PM (rsGj7)
378
As I heard someone more brilliant than me say recently, the O administration will continue to poke their finger in our eye until we make them stop. The sad part is that the so called conservative voice in congress is all too willing to roll over and concede defeat, hence, the O will not stop poking until he has control over when and how we wipe our bottoms. It is a sad time in our history, and it will only get worse over the next 2 years unless the GOP and SCOTUS stand up to these power grabs.
Posted by: SHAVEDAPE at February 27, 2015 04:25 PM (fu382)
379
Ok what are the most corrupt countries in the world? I have no problem paying bribe money to be left the f*** alone and take care of my own business.
---
*beckons*
---
*beckons*
Posted by: Washington, D.C. at February 27, 2015 04:26 PM (VAsIq)
380
He resigned when the leaders of the Republican party went to the White House and told him they would not defend him.
Not the hill to die on.
Not the hill to die on.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:26 PM (Q9qpj)
381
I love America. The USGov can go eat a dick. Fuck the FCC.
Posted by: X at February 27, 2015 04:26 PM (UqJ2q)
382
Will the current Obamaphone user whose phone I pay for also be dipping into my wallet for an Obamamodem? Maybe an Obama PC and an Obama HD TV as well? Wouldn't want them to have to use an inferior connection and display when they use the stuff they got with the iTunes card paid for with their EBT Cash benefit.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (Q9qpj)
They already do in quite a few cities. As far as I know there's not yet an official federal program, but yeah, you can get free innernet if you black and po.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (Q9qpj)
They already do in quite a few cities. As far as I know there's not yet an official federal program, but yeah, you can get free innernet if you black and po.
Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 27, 2015 04:27 PM (Q819Q)
383
Vonage?
I mean, you'd still have to have TW for internet, I suppose, but they wouldn't be your home phone provider anymore.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (M1uf/)
The cost of the phone service is minimal. It's more the point that I, right now, right this very second, have no competition for my various services. I am highly doubtful that adding more regulations will improve that situation.
Also, no, I am not for a law mandating that the apartment complex allow satellite dishes. Plus while my building is at the top of the hill with a nice field next to it, about half of the buildings are down the hill with no clean line of sight due to angles and trees. Management doesn't want to have to listen to the bitching or have a field of dishes with lines running all over. I can't blame management for that.
I mean, you'd still have to have TW for internet, I suppose, but they wouldn't be your home phone provider anymore.
Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at February 27, 2015 04:15 PM (M1uf/)
The cost of the phone service is minimal. It's more the point that I, right now, right this very second, have no competition for my various services. I am highly doubtful that adding more regulations will improve that situation.
Also, no, I am not for a law mandating that the apartment complex allow satellite dishes. Plus while my building is at the top of the hill with a nice field next to it, about half of the buildings are down the hill with no clean line of sight due to angles and trees. Management doesn't want to have to listen to the bitching or have a field of dishes with lines running all over. I can't blame management for that.
Posted by: alexthechick - Jazz Hands Gojira at February 27, 2015 04:28 PM (mf5HN)
384
>The new guy
I've been here for YEARS. I just don't wade into the comments very often.
To answer Ace's question:
>How does the fact that there *may be* a problem in the future cause an
Executive agency to gain power to draft and execute legislation on its
own initiative?
>If a law is needed, why do we not get a law?
The FCC, whether we like it or not, does have the power to classify services. The courts specifically said that the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality since *cable company* ISPs were not included under the same classification that *phone company* ISPs were. The courts have not decided one way or another whether new neutrality per se is incompatible with the first amendment. For the record, I think that there is a good argument to be made that net neutrality *does* infringe on the first amendment.
The reason that we do not get a law is because, as the law stands today, the FCC is fully within their power to do what they've done.
Now, Republicans could certainly get together and pass a law removing the FCCs power to classify service providers and that would be fine. That's how the law works. I would have zero problem with that from a legal standpoint. I think it would be a bad idea in general since it'd pretty substantially neuter the FCC but that's just my opinion.
Net Neutrality is NOT the Fairness Doctrine. Net neutrality is not about the government deciding what speech is allowed. Net neutrality is about the government preventing ISPs from prioritizing traffic to favor certain services or sites. Net neutrality has been the de facto state of the internet since the internet was invented. Net neutrality *changes nothing* as the internet currently exists and operates today. This is about *preventing* changes that I and many many other believe would be damaging to the openness of the internet.
I've been here for YEARS. I just don't wade into the comments very often.
To answer Ace's question:
>How does the fact that there *may be* a problem in the future cause an
Executive agency to gain power to draft and execute legislation on its
own initiative?
>If a law is needed, why do we not get a law?
The FCC, whether we like it or not, does have the power to classify services. The courts specifically said that the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality since *cable company* ISPs were not included under the same classification that *phone company* ISPs were. The courts have not decided one way or another whether new neutrality per se is incompatible with the first amendment. For the record, I think that there is a good argument to be made that net neutrality *does* infringe on the first amendment.
The reason that we do not get a law is because, as the law stands today, the FCC is fully within their power to do what they've done.
Now, Republicans could certainly get together and pass a law removing the FCCs power to classify service providers and that would be fine. That's how the law works. I would have zero problem with that from a legal standpoint. I think it would be a bad idea in general since it'd pretty substantially neuter the FCC but that's just my opinion.
Net Neutrality is NOT the Fairness Doctrine. Net neutrality is not about the government deciding what speech is allowed. Net neutrality is about the government preventing ISPs from prioritizing traffic to favor certain services or sites. Net neutrality has been the de facto state of the internet since the internet was invented. Net neutrality *changes nothing* as the internet currently exists and operates today. This is about *preventing* changes that I and many many other believe would be damaging to the openness of the internet.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:29 PM (ikbhD)
385
It's funny, but I recall the Democrats stopping everything Bush wanted to do butt-cold once they won the House and Senate.
Could our current crop of bozos stop...something, anything? A nominee to some second tier post or ambassador to Liechtenstein maybe? Just to prove they can do it?
Could our current crop of bozos stop...something, anything? A nominee to some second tier post or ambassador to Liechtenstein maybe? Just to prove they can do it?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:29 PM (Q9qpj)
386
382 Will the current Obamaphone user whose phone I pay for also be dipping into my wallet for an Obamamodem? Maybe an Obama PC and an Obama HD TV as well? Wouldn't want them to have to use an inferior connection and display when they use the stuff they got with the iTunes card paid for with their EBT Cash benefit.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (Q9qpj)
Its been a long week, i read that as an Obamacondom.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:16 PM (Q9qpj)
Its been a long week, i read that as an Obamacondom.
Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at February 27, 2015 04:30 PM (F2IAQ)
387
I know I'm paying too much for internet service from TW. And they are the only game in town if Verizon with FIOS comes I doubt it will get much better. Aside from the 1/2 price for the first year come ons.
The problems is who owns the infrastructure or 'plant' as they call it. They put it in and they own it. No matter who they 'allow' to hop on it in the form of competition the price of maintaining the plant is baked in the cake.
On the other hand, our air waves have been sold for really great money to the huge providers. Now they own them.
I'm not the only one who has ideas on this, the airwaves could opened up. There are ways to allow multiple users on the same bandwidth. Innovation here could be stunning and complete with competition.
We can just vote, but the big companies can buy.
The phone and cable companies have but in billions of dollars worth of plant to connect with customers, I'm not for stealing it from them. Making it obsolete maybe.
The problems is who owns the infrastructure or 'plant' as they call it. They put it in and they own it. No matter who they 'allow' to hop on it in the form of competition the price of maintaining the plant is baked in the cake.
On the other hand, our air waves have been sold for really great money to the huge providers. Now they own them.
I'm not the only one who has ideas on this, the airwaves could opened up. There are ways to allow multiple users on the same bandwidth. Innovation here could be stunning and complete with competition.
We can just vote, but the big companies can buy.
The phone and cable companies have but in billions of dollars worth of plant to connect with customers, I'm not for stealing it from them. Making it obsolete maybe.
Posted by: Bob from table9 at February 27, 2015 04:32 PM (WNERA)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:34 PM (Q9qpj)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:34 PM (Q9qpj)
390
Net neutrality has been the de facto state of the internet since the internet was invented"
Bullshit.
You made an assertion, now back it up.
Oh wait, you can't.
Bullshit.
You made an assertion, now back it up.
Oh wait, you can't.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:35 PM (/jpU8)
391
The Republicans didn't.
Posted by: filbert
They burned themselves on Clinton's impeachment and have been failing since.
Posted by: filbert
They burned themselves on Clinton's impeachment and have been failing since.
Posted by: DaveA at February 27, 2015 04:35 PM (DL2i+)
392
>>Now, Republicans could certainly get together and pass a law removing the FCCs power to classify service providers and that would be fine.
And Obama could get his pen and his phone and veto it.
Even if I agreed with your points about the net getting out of control without the government putting on restrictions, and I don't, why would you possibly think this is the last thing they are going to do?
And Obama could get his pen and his phone and veto it.
Even if I agreed with your points about the net getting out of control without the government putting on restrictions, and I don't, why would you possibly think this is the last thing they are going to do?
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:36 PM (g1DWB)
393
The FCC, whether we like it or not, does have the power to classify services"
Moar Bullshit As Well...
Moar Bullshit As Well...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:37 PM (/jpU8)
394
Oh wait, you can't.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:35 PM (/jpU
It's not in the script these people are using, and there is one of them in the comments section of almost every article on web on this topic repeating the same talking points.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:35 PM (/jpU
It's not in the script these people are using, and there is one of them in the comments section of almost every article on web on this topic repeating the same talking points.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:37 PM (Q9qpj)
395
>Bullshit.
The definition of Net Neutrality is that ISPs treat all data the same and deliver it at the same speed regardless of source. That is exactly how the internet has always worked. If you don't know that very basic fact then you really don't understand what net neutrality even means.
The definition of Net Neutrality is that ISPs treat all data the same and deliver it at the same speed regardless of source. That is exactly how the internet has always worked. If you don't know that very basic fact then you really don't understand what net neutrality even means.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:38 PM (ikbhD)
396
#394,
Indeed. They wish to make assertions and then react in Quelle Horreur! when asked for proofs.
Indeed. They wish to make assertions and then react in Quelle Horreur! when asked for proofs.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:39 PM (/jpU8)
397
They all mention they think it might be a first amendment problem as a sort of an aside. You know, so you think are being all thoughtful and stuff, rather than just repeating the FCC's justification for the new regulatory regime.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:40 PM (Q9qpj)
398
If people would just realize that "net neutrality" is just another Orwellian bullshit phrase that means the opposite of what it seems to mean, everything would be much clearer.
Posted by: rickl at February 27, 2015 04:40 PM (zoehZ)
399
Seriously, I do not know how this gets solved without violence.
Can someone give me some real suggestions?
SMOD 2016.
I mean, it's violent for the world to end in fiery destruction, but it's not violent-violent, yeah?
Can someone give me some real suggestions?
SMOD 2016.
I mean, it's violent for the world to end in fiery destruction, but it's not violent-violent, yeah?
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 04:41 PM (0NdlF)
400
The definition of Net Neutrality is that ISPs treat all data the same and deliver it at the same speed regardless of source. That is exactly how the internet has always worked"
And you have no evidence with which to back up that assertion, so it's just...
bullshit.
Of course, realizing that AOL, Prodigy, GENet, etc. all favored their own business would kind of poke a hole in your tale, nes't ce pas?
And you have no evidence with which to back up that assertion, so it's just...
bullshit.
Of course, realizing that AOL, Prodigy, GENet, etc. all favored their own business would kind of poke a hole in your tale, nes't ce pas?
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 04:41 PM (/jpU8)
401
Remember when I said Fast and Furious couldn't be anything but a government conspiracy and that the administration had to be behind it, and everybody called me a tinfoil hat loon? Yeah, good times, good times.
Posted by: An Observation at February 27, 2015 04:42 PM (ylhEn)
Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2015 04:42 PM (NaV4z)
403
"The FCC, whether we like it or not, does have the power to classify services"
Yeah, my understanding is that under the 1934 law, the FCC couldn't have pushed this thru, but under the 1996 congress said "Go Forth and give everybody highspeed internet" and basically gave the FCC carte blanche to do so. The argument last time was whether the FCC had exercised that power properly and the court said that they needed to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II. The FCC said "Thanks for the helpful suggestion" and went and did what the courts said.
tl/dr: Congress gave them the power, why are we surprised they used it.
ps: I don't think the lefties are going to be near as happy with this outcome as they think they are.
Yeah, my understanding is that under the 1934 law, the FCC couldn't have pushed this thru, but under the 1996 congress said "Go Forth and give everybody highspeed internet" and basically gave the FCC carte blanche to do so. The argument last time was whether the FCC had exercised that power properly and the court said that they needed to classify ISPs as common carriers under Title II. The FCC said "Thanks for the helpful suggestion" and went and did what the courts said.
tl/dr: Congress gave them the power, why are we surprised they used it.
ps: I don't think the lefties are going to be near as happy with this outcome as they think they are.
Posted by: chad at February 27, 2015 04:44 PM (gic3/)
404
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:38 PM (ikbhD)
According to the WSJ, the FCC claims it can act if in its opinion there is "unreasonable discrimination." Nice vague wording there, yes?
Next stop: requiring a license to have a website, and the Fairness Doctrine.
This is just the camel's nose in the tent. As you say, the putative goal of "net neutrality" has always been the case. Doesn't that alone suggest that the Reds have something further in mind with this regulation?
According to the WSJ, the FCC claims it can act if in its opinion there is "unreasonable discrimination." Nice vague wording there, yes?
Next stop: requiring a license to have a website, and the Fairness Doctrine.
This is just the camel's nose in the tent. As you say, the putative goal of "net neutrality" has always been the case. Doesn't that alone suggest that the Reds have something further in mind with this regulation?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 04:44 PM (oKE6c)
405
The internet has always worked this way, so let's create 300 pages of new regulations to maintain the status quo.
Why are the two Republican members of the FCC completely against this, Mr. atheist conservative Voxsplainer?
Why are the two Republican members of the FCC completely against this, Mr. atheist conservative Voxsplainer?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 04:45 PM (Q9qpj)
406
402 Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:29 PM (ikbhD)
---
Tell Mr Soros hello for me.
Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2015 04:42 PM (NaV4z)
Without having studied the issue, the most alarming aspect of "net neutrality" is the fact that Soros and the (far left) Ford Foundation spent $196 million to help push it through.
To zeroth order, anything Soros (or the Ford Foundation, for that matter) is for, I'm against.
---
Tell Mr Soros hello for me.
Posted by: fixerupper at February 27, 2015 04:42 PM (NaV4z)
Without having studied the issue, the most alarming aspect of "net neutrality" is the fact that Soros and the (far left) Ford Foundation spent $196 million to help push it through.
To zeroth order, anything Soros (or the Ford Foundation, for that matter) is for, I'm against.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 04:47 PM (oKE6c)
407
Oops. Here's the link: http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-Ford-Foundation-net-neutrality-FCC/2015/02/25/id/626898/
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 04:48 PM (oKE6c)
408
Net Neutrality is NOT the Fairness Doctrine. Net neutrality is not about the government deciding what speech is allowed. Net neutrality is about the government preventing ISPs from prioritizing traffic to favor certain services or sites. Net neutrality has been the de facto state of the internet since the internet was invented. Net neutrality *changes nothing* as the internet currently exists and operates today. This is about *preventing* changes that I and many many other believe would be damaging to the openness of the internet.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:29 PM (ikbhD)
you are correct, that is what Net Neutrality is... but we all know that is merely a mechanism they are using to sell their take over, Net Neutrality has NEVER been a concern of the Ruling Class, it's the same methodology they use to cram all kinds of unconstitutional insanity down our throats.
look, the big ISPs took up bandwidth throttling because they could, because the government protects (by various avenues) their competition from punishing them for the practice.
so government created the problem of bandwidth throttling and now they are benevolently "saving" us from the problem it created.
gee, it's almost like they do one so they can do the other.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:29 PM (ikbhD)
you are correct, that is what Net Neutrality is... but we all know that is merely a mechanism they are using to sell their take over, Net Neutrality has NEVER been a concern of the Ruling Class, it's the same methodology they use to cram all kinds of unconstitutional insanity down our throats.
look, the big ISPs took up bandwidth throttling because they could, because the government protects (by various avenues) their competition from punishing them for the practice.
so government created the problem of bandwidth throttling and now they are benevolently "saving" us from the problem it created.
gee, it's almost like they do one so they can do the other.
Posted by: Shoey at February 27, 2015 04:49 PM (vA94g)
409
"The FCC, whether we like it or not, does have the power to classify services. The courts specifically said that the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality since *cable company* ISPs were not included under the same classification that *phone company* ISPs were. "
"The reason that we do not get a law is because, as the law stands today, the FCC is fully within their power to do what they've done. "
Those two statements are not compatible.
"The reason that we do not get a law is because, as the law stands today, the FCC is fully within their power to do what they've done. "
Those two statements are not compatible.
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 27, 2015 04:50 PM (8rRE+)
410
The definition of Net Neutrality is that ISPs treat all data the same and deliver it at the same speed regardless of source. That is exactly how the internet has always worked. If you don't know that very basic fact then you really don't understand what net neutrality even means.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:38 PM (ikbhD)
Now, I'm not an expert in layer 3 protocols, but you sound like a wikipedia expert. What does QOS mean to you?
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:38 PM (ikbhD)
Now, I'm not an expert in layer 3 protocols, but you sound like a wikipedia expert. What does QOS mean to you?
Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 27, 2015 04:50 PM (Q819Q)
411
>>The definition of Net Neutrality is that ISPs treat all data the same and deliver it at the same speed regardless of source. That is exactly how the internet has always worked. If you don't know that very basic fact then you really don't understand what net neutrality even means.
And you still don't get the problem. What the internet was or is is not what is relevant. It is a group of privately owned networks, the key word there being private, and they should have the right to do whatever they want with their property.
If Comcast and Netflix want to make a deal to prioritize Netflix's traffic on Comcast's network, what possible business is that of the government?
And you still don't get the problem. What the internet was or is is not what is relevant. It is a group of privately owned networks, the key word there being private, and they should have the right to do whatever they want with their property.
If Comcast and Netflix want to make a deal to prioritize Netflix's traffic on Comcast's network, what possible business is that of the government?
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 04:51 PM (g1DWB)
412
but in the process of "saving" us, they take control, like always... and then, the ratchet.
Posted by: Shoey at February 27, 2015 04:51 PM (vA94g)
413
How many divisisions do the Courts and Congress have?
Posted by: Iosif Obama at February 27, 2015 04:52 PM (cL79m)
Posted by: Aviator at February 27, 2015 04:52 PM (sQzB6)
415
The quantity of food I consume should not be dependent on what I am willing to pay for.
Posted by: soroscore23 at February 27, 2015 04:54 PM (Q9qpj)
416
>And you have no evidence with which to back up that assertion, so it's just...
You're asking me to prove a negative. ISPs have never charged specific sites more money in order to have their traffic prioritized. I can't provide "evidence" because the evidence is literally the entire history of the internet.
>AOL, Prodigy, GENet, etc
I'm not familiar with GENet but AOL and Prodigy both existed by using phone company lines. Those phone company lines were *dun dun dun* classified under Title II and so couldn't discriminate against AOL and Prodigy. Things didn't change until internet service moved from phone lines to cable lines. Even though it was the exact same internet, because the main transmission lines moves from Title II carriers to non-Title II, that opened the possibility of the cable companies throttling content based on where it originated or what it contained.
Therefore, if Comcast wanted to start their own Netflix competitor they could just degrade Netflix's data streams and leave their own streams running smoothly. There's speculation that this has actually happened but no definitive proof so I'll just leave that as a hypothetical.
Net neutrality is a FREE MARKET policy because it prevents ISPs from using their monopoly power to favor their own services over competitors or throttle services that don't pay extra for "fast lane" service.
There should be no "fast lane" on the internet. All traffic should move at the same fast speed so that smaller sites and services can't be priced out of competing before they even start.
You're asking me to prove a negative. ISPs have never charged specific sites more money in order to have their traffic prioritized. I can't provide "evidence" because the evidence is literally the entire history of the internet.
>AOL, Prodigy, GENet, etc
I'm not familiar with GENet but AOL and Prodigy both existed by using phone company lines. Those phone company lines were *dun dun dun* classified under Title II and so couldn't discriminate against AOL and Prodigy. Things didn't change until internet service moved from phone lines to cable lines. Even though it was the exact same internet, because the main transmission lines moves from Title II carriers to non-Title II, that opened the possibility of the cable companies throttling content based on where it originated or what it contained.
Therefore, if Comcast wanted to start their own Netflix competitor they could just degrade Netflix's data streams and leave their own streams running smoothly. There's speculation that this has actually happened but no definitive proof so I'll just leave that as a hypothetical.
Net neutrality is a FREE MARKET policy because it prevents ISPs from using their monopoly power to favor their own services over competitors or throttle services that don't pay extra for "fast lane" service.
There should be no "fast lane" on the internet. All traffic should move at the same fast speed so that smaller sites and services can't be priced out of competing before they even start.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 04:54 PM (ikbhD)
417
so fucking sickening
Posted by: some guy at February 27, 2015 04:54 PM (q177U)
418
Now that the internet is a utility, the next step will be licensing of
websites. And why wouldn't they? I can already hear the arguments:
You are operating in the public sphere
Every other entity business, non-profit, charity, ... ne.ds a license. Why shouldn't websites
The govt needs to maintain standards to protect the public.
And
you can guess the rest. No, this is not in this round of regulation
but why wouldn't it happen in the future? With every other aspect of
our life becoming more managed by the govt why wouldn't this happen?
websites. And why wouldn't they? I can already hear the arguments:
You are operating in the public sphere
Every other entity business, non-profit, charity, ... ne.ds a license. Why shouldn't websites
The govt needs to maintain standards to protect the public.
And
you can guess the rest. No, this is not in this round of regulation
but why wouldn't it happen in the future? With every other aspect of
our life becoming more managed by the govt why wouldn't this happen?
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 04:58 PM (1BQGO)
419
supercore23 @ 395 - "If you don't know that very basic fact then you really don't understand what net neutrality even means."
Fine. I'll concede the point.
But the theme of this post is not about what's in whatever rule, it's about how that rule (however splendid) came to be a rule that governs a portion of our society.
Fine. I'll concede the point.
But the theme of this post is not about what's in whatever rule, it's about how that rule (however splendid) came to be a rule that governs a portion of our society.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:59 PM (SgXEz)
420
for the children, and the middle class
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 04:59 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: eman at February 27, 2015 05:00 PM (0T6Zx)
422
Internet Takeover: Check
AR-15 Ammo Banned: Check
Amnesty for "Americans-in-Waiting": Check
Republicans cowering under desks: Check
That's what I call a productive day!
Now, watch this drive!
King Putznet
AR-15 Ammo Banned: Check
Amnesty for "Americans-in-Waiting": Check
Republicans cowering under desks: Check
That's what I call a productive day!
Now, watch this drive!
King Putznet
Posted by: Bad Dog Puppy Treats at February 27, 2015 05:01 PM (Xrkvx)
423
But the theme of this post is not about what's in whatever rule, it's about how that rule (however splendid) came to be a rule that governs a portion of our society.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:59 PM
Lotta words to say the ends justifies the means...
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 04:59 PM
Lotta words to say the ends justifies the means...
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 05:01 PM (60Vyp)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:01 PM (SgXEz)
425
Net neutrality is a FREE MARKET policy because it prevents ISPs from
using their monopoly power to favor their own services over competitors
or throttle services that don't pay extra for "fast lane" service.
Soros is pushing the free market? Stop press.
I think the disagreement here lies in what "net neutrality" is right now, and what it is going to be. How confident are you that government regulation of the speed of the Internet won't soon morph into control over the content of the Internet?
Put another way, has any government initiative ever resulted in the government not accumulating more and more power over time? It's a serious question; I can't think of any.
using their monopoly power to favor their own services over competitors
or throttle services that don't pay extra for "fast lane" service.
Soros is pushing the free market? Stop press.
I think the disagreement here lies in what "net neutrality" is right now, and what it is going to be. How confident are you that government regulation of the speed of the Internet won't soon morph into control over the content of the Internet?
Put another way, has any government initiative ever resulted in the government not accumulating more and more power over time? It's a serious question; I can't think of any.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 05:01 PM (oKE6c)
426
You're asking me to prove a negative"
Incorrect. You made an assertion. Now back it up, or it's just vapor.
existed by using phone company lines"
Not always, no, and I notice that you fail again to back your assertion that providers never made accommodations based on source.
"I'll just leave that as a hypothetical"
Unlike the 300 plus pages of rulemaking, which are real.
"All traffic should move at the same fast speed "
Why?
Incorrect. You made an assertion. Now back it up, or it's just vapor.
existed by using phone company lines"
Not always, no, and I notice that you fail again to back your assertion that providers never made accommodations based on source.
"I'll just leave that as a hypothetical"
Unlike the 300 plus pages of rulemaking, which are real.
"All traffic should move at the same fast speed "
Why?
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:02 PM (/jpU8)
427
The FCC was originally created to manage a scarce resource: The radio frequency spectrum. They allocated chunks of spectrum for different uses (TV, radio, maritime, law enforcement, air-traffic control, etc). And since it's a limited resource they could regulate over-the-air TV stations since they are only stewards of a scarce resource (spectrum). That is how the 'family hour' was mandated back in the 1970s, where all TV programming had to be kid-safe until at least 9 p.m. local time.
However, the Internet's bandwidth is potentially infinite. Except for WiFi and cell phones (which use the radio spectrum) there is absolutely NO justification for the FCC's power grab of wired communication.
The FCC is using the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. sec 151) to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges..."
See how they slipped in the word 'wire' like that? It was a one-word amendment. You can thank Bill Clinton and the 1996 Democratic Congress for that one.
(Aside: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the same law that instituted the infamous 'Al Gore Tax' on telephone lines, to give libraries and schools free Internet access, free computers, and a bunch of other free goodies.)
Before 1996, wired telecommunication was under the jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which owned ICANN and ran the top-level Internet DNS servers. The ICC has always been benevolent agency regarding the Internet. It has never abused its authority over ICANN. And thus the Internet blossomed across the world.
This is a classic setup for the capture of a regulatory body (the FCC) by its regulated entities (Comcast, TWC).
However, the Internet's bandwidth is potentially infinite. Except for WiFi and cell phones (which use the radio spectrum) there is absolutely NO justification for the FCC's power grab of wired communication.
The FCC is using the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. sec 151) to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges..."
See how they slipped in the word 'wire' like that? It was a one-word amendment. You can thank Bill Clinton and the 1996 Democratic Congress for that one.
(Aside: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is the same law that instituted the infamous 'Al Gore Tax' on telephone lines, to give libraries and schools free Internet access, free computers, and a bunch of other free goodies.)
Before 1996, wired telecommunication was under the jurisdiction of Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which owned ICANN and ran the top-level Internet DNS servers. The ICC has always been benevolent agency regarding the Internet. It has never abused its authority over ICANN. And thus the Internet blossomed across the world.
This is a classic setup for the capture of a regulatory body (the FCC) by its regulated entities (Comcast, TWC).
Posted by: HuuskerDu at February 27, 2015 05:03 PM (gYAkw)
428
Fine. I'll concede the point."
Why concede? Dipstick hasn't read the rule either, but is willing to tell us all about it...
Why concede? Dipstick hasn't read the rule either, but is willing to tell us all about it...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:04 PM (/jpU8)
429
"Lotta words to say the ends justifies the means..."
Yeah, but when you use worn-out aphorisms, the message gets washed away.
(Perhaps related: I think that anyone who says "boots on the ground" should have their shoes forcibly removed from their feet and have said footwear sent to the Middle East where it would be dropped on ISIS.)
Yeah, but when you use worn-out aphorisms, the message gets washed away.
(Perhaps related: I think that anyone who says "boots on the ground" should have their shoes forcibly removed from their feet and have said footwear sent to the Middle East where it would be dropped on ISIS.)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:05 PM (SgXEz)
430
"I think the disagreement here lies in what "net neutrality" is right
now, and what it is going to be. How confident are you that government
regulation of the speed of the Internet won't soon morph into control
over the content of the Internet?"
Yes, that is the point of this. Getting the foot in the door. Much like Obamacare was meant not to fix healthcare (it hasn't fixed anything) but to get people used to govt. controlling healthcare and eventually complete takeover, which many leftists are already calling for... Same thing here.
now, and what it is going to be. How confident are you that government
regulation of the speed of the Internet won't soon morph into control
over the content of the Internet?"
Yes, that is the point of this. Getting the foot in the door. Much like Obamacare was meant not to fix healthcare (it hasn't fixed anything) but to get people used to govt. controlling healthcare and eventually complete takeover, which many leftists are already calling for... Same thing here.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 05:05 PM (1BQGO)
431
"I'm not familiar with GENet but AOL and Prodigy both existed by using phone company lines. Those phone company lines were *dun dun dun* classified under Title II and so couldn't discriminate against AOL and Prodigy. Things didn't change until internet service moved from phone lines to cable lines. Even though it was the exact same internet, because the main transmission lines moves from Title II carriers to non-Title II, "
And the courts have said the FCC does not have authority under existing law to regulate cable because it is not a telecommunications service. End of debate.
No, the FCC does not have authority to cancel out federal court rulings by declaring that they are redefining their own terminology to cancel out the facts at the base of the decision. The FCC cannot declare that meatpacking is broadcast media. It cannot declare that aviation is broadcast media.
And the courts have said the FCC does not have authority under existing law to regulate cable because it is not a telecommunications service. End of debate.
No, the FCC does not have authority to cancel out federal court rulings by declaring that they are redefining their own terminology to cancel out the facts at the base of the decision. The FCC cannot declare that meatpacking is broadcast media. It cannot declare that aviation is broadcast media.
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 27, 2015 05:06 PM (8rRE+)
432
So I go into the hardware/lumber store looking for a hoe handle. No luck. Then the cashiers say internet is down. I say 'no wonder after what the FCC did yesterday'. Cashier girl says 'what's the FCC?' Yeah, we're fooked.
Posted by: Eromero at February 27, 2015 05:06 PM (go5uR)
433
The FCC was originally created to manage a scarce resource: The radio frequency spectrum"
Was nothing more than a scare tactic by "progressives" to control communications.
Otherwise, you're correct - the only expressed legal Federal authority over "the internet" is thru the ICC, not the FCC.
Was nothing more than a scare tactic by "progressives" to control communications.
Otherwise, you're correct - the only expressed legal Federal authority over "the internet" is thru the ICC, not the FCC.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:07 PM (/jpU8)
434
I've been here for YEARS. I just don't wade into the comments very often.
Says every ball licking troll who suddenly appears out of nowhere.
Says every ball licking troll who suddenly appears out of nowhere.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 05:07 PM (zxQ4h)
435
The FCC cannot declare that meatpacking is broadcast media. It cannot declare that aviation is broadcast media."
Stick around. Don't you know it's unfair that some get to eat steak while others eat ground chuck?
Stick around. Don't you know it's unfair that some get to eat steak while others eat ground chuck?
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:09 PM (/jpU8)
436
Says every ball licking troll who suddenly appears out of nowhere."
Along with the "concerned Republican conservative"...
Along with the "concerned Republican conservative"...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:10 PM (/jpU8)
437
Don't you know it's unfair that some get to eat steak while others eat ground chuck?
Both are killing the planet. Have a soy stick, prole.
Both are killing the planet. Have a soy stick, prole.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 05:10 PM (evdj2)
438
"Why concede?"
Because he's missing it.
I don't want to pile on the guy arguing minutiae. We have a president with a Cincinnatus complex and Supercore is arguing the details of the content of such-and-such edict.
I don't care about the details, so for the sake of discussion I'll assume he's 101% right.
Because he's missing it.
I don't want to pile on the guy arguing minutiae. We have a president with a Cincinnatus complex and Supercore is arguing the details of the content of such-and-such edict.
I don't care about the details, so for the sake of discussion I'll assume he's 101% right.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:11 PM (SgXEz)
439
without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex,
So there's the catch they'll use to tax others to provide free high speed service to the ghetto. See, e.g., Obamaphones.
So there's the catch they'll use to tax others to provide free high speed service to the ghetto. See, e.g., Obamaphones.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 05:11 PM (oKE6c)
440
I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
So let's see:
Ace has a plan where he pays a fee to have his website hosted. The host company says he has X in bandwidth to use, and if the usage of bandwidth goes over X+1, they will slow down access for the remainder of the month.
Big Jim's Faphouse has a plan with the same company where he pays 3 times as much as Ace to receive 4X in bandwidth to use, and if the usage of bandwidth goes over 4X+1, they will slow down access.
What is the problem?
Big Jim's pays for more bandwidth, Ace pays for less.
In the net neutrality world, we would all be driving Yugos on the interstate rather than some in Fords, some in Lincolns, some in Chevys, some in Toyotas, some in Mercedes, a few in Bugattis, and some in Hyundais.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 03:41 PM (ikbhD)
So let's see:
Ace has a plan where he pays a fee to have his website hosted. The host company says he has X in bandwidth to use, and if the usage of bandwidth goes over X+1, they will slow down access for the remainder of the month.
Big Jim's Faphouse has a plan with the same company where he pays 3 times as much as Ace to receive 4X in bandwidth to use, and if the usage of bandwidth goes over 4X+1, they will slow down access.
What is the problem?
Big Jim's pays for more bandwidth, Ace pays for less.
In the net neutrality world, we would all be driving Yugos on the interstate rather than some in Fords, some in Lincolns, some in Chevys, some in Toyotas, some in Mercedes, a few in Bugattis, and some in Hyundais.
Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at February 27, 2015 05:12 PM (+Fae7)
441
"What is truly shocking is the complete disdain this Administration has for the rule of law and for our constitutional processes."
What is truly shocking is that a usurper with a forged birth certificate, stolen SSN#, and a forged selective service card is squatting in the White House and people call him POTUS.
What is truly shocking is that a usurper with a forged birth certificate, stolen SSN#, and a forged selective service card is squatting in the White House and people call him POTUS.
Posted by: Birthers were right at February 27, 2015 05:12 PM (w9GWK)
442
"All traffic should move at the same fast speed "
Based on that, there shouldn't be different service speeds available in at your home/business. Why should a poor person only get 6 Mbps while the privliged person with money down he street gets 30 Mbps. That certainly isn't fair. Do water utility provide better water pressure to people that pay more? Do poor people get electrical service form a tranforme that provides a lower voltoge? Of course not. Why should there be differences in internet speed at you house?
Based on that, there shouldn't be different service speeds available in at your home/business. Why should a poor person only get 6 Mbps while the privliged person with money down he street gets 30 Mbps. That certainly isn't fair. Do water utility provide better water pressure to people that pay more? Do poor people get electrical service form a tranforme that provides a lower voltoge? Of course not. Why should there be differences in internet speed at you house?
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 05:13 PM (1BQGO)
443
>And the courts have said the FCC does not have authority under existing
law to regulate cable because it is not a telecommunications service.
End of debate.
You're right that that is what the courts said. However, the whole point of this thread is discussing the fact that the FCC *reclassified* the ISPs. The Telecommunications Act of '96 gives them the power to do that.
Nothing that was done here was against the law. The court's said, "You have to do this first before you can regulate them." The FCC did it so now they have the power.
For fuck's sake. If you want to change the Telecommunication Act then start by pushing for that. Stop acting like this was illegal when, at least so far, they've done what the courts told them they had to do.
law to regulate cable because it is not a telecommunications service.
End of debate.
You're right that that is what the courts said. However, the whole point of this thread is discussing the fact that the FCC *reclassified* the ISPs. The Telecommunications Act of '96 gives them the power to do that.
Nothing that was done here was against the law. The court's said, "You have to do this first before you can regulate them." The FCC did it so now they have the power.
For fuck's sake. If you want to change the Telecommunication Act then start by pushing for that. Stop acting like this was illegal when, at least so far, they've done what the courts told them they had to do.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:13 PM (ikbhD)
444
so for the sake of discussion I'll assume he's 101% right."
You're very kind.
Me, (impacted by this crapfest) not so much.
You're very kind.
Me, (impacted by this crapfest) not so much.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:13 PM (/jpU8)
445
The new guy still hasn't said anything about Quality of Service.
"Packets all treated the same", heh.
SPAM filters, IP black/whitelists ... Internet traffic has never been treated the same regardless of source.
The Internet a network of networks, and that means some people run their own networks how they please.
"Packets all treated the same", heh.
SPAM filters, IP black/whitelists ... Internet traffic has never been treated the same regardless of source.
The Internet a network of networks, and that means some people run their own networks how they please.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:14 PM (0NdlF)
446
Why would a criminal usurper be lawful. He can't and he won't?
Why is any surprised? He should be in GITMO.
Why is any surprised? He should be in GITMO.
Posted by: Birthers were right at February 27, 2015 05:14 PM (w9GWK)
447
In the net neutrality world, we would all be driving Yugos on the interstate
Maybe a dirt road instead.
Maybe a dirt road instead.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 27, 2015 05:14 PM (W5DcG)
448
Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at February 27, 2015 05:12 PM (+Fae7)
If they slow down access to Big Jim's Faphouse the Revolution is on. Oh yes, it's so on.
If they slow down access to Big Jim's Faphouse the Revolution is on. Oh yes, it's so on.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 05:14 PM (oKE6c)
449
Piss off, Joe.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 05:15 PM (evdj2)
450
In the net neutrality world, we would all be driving Yugos on the interstate
While our betters - i.e., Party members and race hustlers - whiz by in their Zils.
In the net neutrality world, we would all be driving Yugos on the interstate
While our betters - i.e., Party members and race hustlers - whiz by in their Zils.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at February 27, 2015 05:15 PM (oKE6c)
451
they've done what the courts told them they had to do."
No, they've moved outside of what the courts have ruled.
Big difference there bunky.
No, they've moved outside of what the courts have ruled.
Big difference there bunky.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:15 PM (/jpU8)
452
If we no longer have safety of the law then we have the freedom of the wolf. I say we wet our fangs and howl at the moon.
Posted by: Achilles at February 27, 2015 05:15 PM (TpeIH)
453
>>I don't care about the details, so for the sake of discussion I'll assume he's 101% right.
He's not. When he can start demonstrating his knowledge of peering vs transit and why some peering arrangements are free and some are fee based he will see that much of what he is saying is just flat wrong.
He's not. When he can start demonstrating his knowledge of peering vs transit and why some peering arrangements are free and some are fee based he will see that much of what he is saying is just flat wrong.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 05:16 PM (g1DWB)
454
"I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof."
See, that is your problem here: We have read more.
"I would seriously recommend that you read more about the reasons for these rule changes and the implications thereof."
See, that is your problem here: We have read more.
Posted by: soroscore23 at February 27, 2015 05:16 PM (Q9qpj)
455
"You're very kind."
Thanks. It's just rhetorical. In the real world where I use my real name, I'm a jerk. At least, that's what people say.
Thanks. It's just rhetorical. In the real world where I use my real name, I'm a jerk. At least, that's what people say.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:16 PM (SgXEz)
456
While our betters - i.e., Party members and race hustlers - whiz by in their Zils."
Exactly so. Speeds in and around Panem, er, the Capitol district would surprise most...
Exactly so. Speeds in and around Panem, er, the Capitol district would surprise most...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:17 PM (/jpU8)
457
"We no longer live in a democratic republic"
We haven't since the Coup of 2008.
Sooner or later that fact needs to be addressed. Of course tyranny has followed.
We haven't since the Coup of 2008.
Sooner or later that fact needs to be addressed. Of course tyranny has followed.
Posted by: Birthers were right at February 27, 2015 05:17 PM (w9GWK)
458
_National Review burnishing its conservative creds...
[ Phil] Robertson marked receiving his reward with a long rambling speech.
he nearly derailed CPAC's pageantry.
Let me count the ways.
[ Phil] Robertson marked receiving his reward with a long rambling speech.
he nearly derailed CPAC's pageantry.
Let me count the ways.
Posted by: Ralph at February 27, 2015 05:17 PM (TiOn5)
459
>Based on that, there shouldn't be different service speeds available in at your home/business
You're misunderstanding what this is. Here's the scenario:
You pay for 20mbps download speeds.
HuffPo pays Comcast $4m a year so that their site loads at 20mbps.
Ace says, "Fuck you Comcast. I don't have that kind of money." Ace of Spades HQ loads at 5mbps.
This is independent of whatever connect HuffPo has on their end vs. Ace or what servers are being used. Because Ace doesn't pay Comcast, AOSHQ will *never* load faster than 5mbps for any Comcast customers regardless of what tier of service they have.
Now, obviously, this is all hypothetical since no ISP has gone ahead and actually tried to implement these sorts of pay-to-play schemes yet. It is, however, an accurate representation of the situation net neutrality is designed to prevent.
You're misunderstanding what this is. Here's the scenario:
You pay for 20mbps download speeds.
HuffPo pays Comcast $4m a year so that their site loads at 20mbps.
Ace says, "Fuck you Comcast. I don't have that kind of money." Ace of Spades HQ loads at 5mbps.
This is independent of whatever connect HuffPo has on their end vs. Ace or what servers are being used. Because Ace doesn't pay Comcast, AOSHQ will *never* load faster than 5mbps for any Comcast customers regardless of what tier of service they have.
Now, obviously, this is all hypothetical since no ISP has gone ahead and actually tried to implement these sorts of pay-to-play schemes yet. It is, however, an accurate representation of the situation net neutrality is designed to prevent.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:18 PM (ikbhD)
460
When he can start demonstrating his knowledge of peering vs transit"
Hush. He's furiously perusing WikiStupida and other resources in a vague attempt to claim some sort of knowledge base.
IT professional it is not...
Hush. He's furiously perusing WikiStupida and other resources in a vague attempt to claim some sort of knowledge base.
IT professional it is not...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (/jpU8)
461
Why would the Ford Foundation allocate 190+ million dollars to this?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (Q9qpj)
462
Yeah, but when you use worn-out aphorisms, the message gets washed away.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:05 PM (SgXEz)
Ha! I think you're shape shifting...are you a jooo?
You started with a straw man in the form of whether or not President Smith could enact a law that seemingly had 'no down side' even though congress refused to legislate such a law. Then...you asked whether or not we should be bound to obey President Smith's law even though it has apparently good effects. The analogy you used was something akin to pants up in the grocery store. Now, you've seemingly agreed that the end justifies the means.
I hope you realize that when the laws that are made no longer matter, people who felt like the ends justified the means will not feel the same way when that axiom is applied to them. Ask the French.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:05 PM (SgXEz)
Ha! I think you're shape shifting...are you a jooo?
You started with a straw man in the form of whether or not President Smith could enact a law that seemingly had 'no down side' even though congress refused to legislate such a law. Then...you asked whether or not we should be bound to obey President Smith's law even though it has apparently good effects. The analogy you used was something akin to pants up in the grocery store. Now, you've seemingly agreed that the end justifies the means.
I hope you realize that when the laws that are made no longer matter, people who felt like the ends justified the means will not feel the same way when that axiom is applied to them. Ask the French.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (60Vyp)
463
none of these people commit suicide like Argentinian prosecutors; when that starts happening, their power grabs will end
Posted by: Grad School Fool at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (A9KzJ)
464
Heh. House fails to pass 3 week DHS bill. Money runs out at midnight and there is no Plan B.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (g1DWB)
465
The new guy still hasn't said anything about Quality of Service.
Because it blows the entire concept of "Net Neutrality" completely out of the water, perhaps?
Because it blows the entire concept of "Net Neutrality" completely out of the water, perhaps?
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 05:19 PM (h6Mpm)
466
The rules are that the FCC commissioner MUST make any proposal public 30 days prior to any vote.
Even now, after the vote, it still is not public.
The courts will stuff this vote down their throats.
Even now, after the vote, it still is not public.
The courts will stuff this vote down their throats.
Posted by: Gordon Gecko at February 27, 2015 05:20 PM (e8kgV)
467
Now, obviously, this is all hypothetical ...
You have a very wild imagination. Now go play in the playground and leave the real world alone.
You have a very wild imagination. Now go play in the playground and leave the real world alone.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:20 PM (0NdlF)
468
Is this still going on?
Yeah, we know the stated reasons for "net neutrality."
That's not what happened. the FCC reclassified "the internet" as a public utility. In 5 years, no one will remember "why" it was done, just that it is now a public utility and that means the FCC has a lot more control over it then they did before it was.
Oh, and the netflix / comcast shit would have worked itself out, but probably now won't. Instead, ISPs will just stop investing in upping the bandwidth and we'll be stuck with 2015 netflix instead of whatever we would have had in 2020.
Easy.
Yeah, we know the stated reasons for "net neutrality."
That's not what happened. the FCC reclassified "the internet" as a public utility. In 5 years, no one will remember "why" it was done, just that it is now a public utility and that means the FCC has a lot more control over it then they did before it was.
Oh, and the netflix / comcast shit would have worked itself out, but probably now won't. Instead, ISPs will just stop investing in upping the bandwidth and we'll be stuck with 2015 netflix instead of whatever we would have had in 2020.
Easy.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:20 PM (AkOaV)
469
Now, obviously, this is all hypothetical since no ISP has gone ahead and actually tried to implement these sorts of pay-to-play schemes yet."
OMG. It's full of stupid.
OMG. It's full of stupid.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:20 PM (/jpU8)
470
The Internet operates at the speed of light. Impressive? Not really. If we ever put a man on Mars it will take over 15 minutes for a simple "Hello" to reach our astronauts. Another 15 minutes for their reply to reach us.
But the left wing conspiracy theorists believe that Internet Service Providers are going to insert code to personally inspect every packet of data and either give or deny priority to each and every packet of data headed for your household -- the net effect being you'd long for the days of 300 baud modems.
It's all about the money -- and redistributing it to win elections. Period.
But the left wing conspiracy theorists believe that Internet Service Providers are going to insert code to personally inspect every packet of data and either give or deny priority to each and every packet of data headed for your household -- the net effect being you'd long for the days of 300 baud modems.
It's all about the money -- and redistributing it to win elections. Period.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron LLAP at February 27, 2015 05:21 PM (zxQ4h)
471
>The new guy still hasn't said anything about Quality of Service.
Quality of service and paid priority are completely different.QoS is used to relieve network congestion. Paid priority gives priority to specific sites because they've paid the ISP an extra fee for the privilige. QoS is done to ensure the health of the network as a whole. No one has any problem with that. Paid priority favors entrenched interests with deep pockets and hurts sites without the resources to pay for priority over their competitors.
Quality of service and paid priority are completely different.QoS is used to relieve network congestion. Paid priority gives priority to specific sites because they've paid the ISP an extra fee for the privilige. QoS is done to ensure the health of the network as a whole. No one has any problem with that. Paid priority favors entrenched interests with deep pockets and hurts sites without the resources to pay for priority over their competitors.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:23 PM (ikbhD)
472
The rules are that the FCC commissioner MUST make any proposal public 30 days prior to any vote"
Actually, there's no "rule" - it's called "Notice and Comment", but the FCC can enact without following the process.
Actually, there's no "rule" - it's called "Notice and Comment", but the FCC can enact without following the process.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:23 PM (/jpU8)
473
If you like your broadband you can keep your broadband. It will just be slower and with less content, will cost more, and you will be subsidizing access for that guy across the street who just bought the new season of Game of Thrones with the money he saved from not having to pay for his own groceries. You're welcome.
Posted by: Teleprompter Jesus at February 27, 2015 05:24 PM (Q9qpj)
474
I still don't know why I'm being called a new guy either. Ace has quoted my comments on the front page before for pete's sake...
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:25 PM (ikbhD)
475
"You're misunderstanding what this is. Here's the scenario:"
I'm not misunderstanding anything. I am aware of the theoretical scenario you present and that the current regulations are meant to prevent. What I and others are pointing out is what having the FCC involved can and most likely will lead to, especially with a govt run by progressive control freaks.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. I am aware of the theoretical scenario you present and that the current regulations are meant to prevent. What I and others are pointing out is what having the FCC involved can and most likely will lead to, especially with a govt run by progressive control freaks.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 05:25 PM (1BQGO)
476
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:18 PM (ikbhD)
Your hypothetical situation as not happened, and most likely would not happen.
The actual situation that pushed the low info voters who read a quick blurb on Vox to support this was the ISPs and some content providers (namely netflix) are in a minor pissing match over bandwidth. The ISPs feel that netflix is using their network to distribute their product, and its clogging up the network for other traffic. Netflix feels like "screw you, customers pay for the bandwidth and this is how they chose to use it"
However that was going to work out, it's ALL A SIDE SHOW.
What just happened in DC was not legislation from congress telling Comcast they can't use QoS and traffic shaping to maximize the utilization of their bandwidth.
It was 3 unelected bureaucrats saying, "hey you know what? This internet thing is becoming pretty popular... lets make it a public utility so that we can regulate every aspect of it." And people said, "what do you mean by that?" and they said, "oh, nothing. We have these 300 pages of rules, but don't worry yourself about them or any future rules that can come around at any point now that this is a public utility... just trust us."
And we get voxplainers coming to the comments to tell us we're uninformed.
Idiot.
Your hypothetical situation as not happened, and most likely would not happen.
The actual situation that pushed the low info voters who read a quick blurb on Vox to support this was the ISPs and some content providers (namely netflix) are in a minor pissing match over bandwidth. The ISPs feel that netflix is using their network to distribute their product, and its clogging up the network for other traffic. Netflix feels like "screw you, customers pay for the bandwidth and this is how they chose to use it"
However that was going to work out, it's ALL A SIDE SHOW.
What just happened in DC was not legislation from congress telling Comcast they can't use QoS and traffic shaping to maximize the utilization of their bandwidth.
It was 3 unelected bureaucrats saying, "hey you know what? This internet thing is becoming pretty popular... lets make it a public utility so that we can regulate every aspect of it." And people said, "what do you mean by that?" and they said, "oh, nothing. We have these 300 pages of rules, but don't worry yourself about them or any future rules that can come around at any point now that this is a public utility... just trust us."
And we get voxplainers coming to the comments to tell us we're uninformed.
Idiot.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:25 PM (AkOaV)
477
>>This is independent of whatever connect HuffPo has on their end vs. Ace or what servers are being used. Because Ace doesn't pay Comcast, AOSHQ will *never* load faster than 5mbps for any Comcast customers regardless of what tier of service they have.
And this bothers you, why? You're familiar with capitalism aren't you? If ace wants better access he will have to pay for it. Radical concept.
This is the same bullshit the left pulled with health care. Scream over and over that the internet is a birth rite and that we need to have fairness for everyone.
The internet is not a utility. It is a series of privately owned networks that you must purchase access to. If the owners of the networks don't feel that they are getting a good return for their investment they will stop investing in the network. It is that simple.
And this bothers you, why? You're familiar with capitalism aren't you? If ace wants better access he will have to pay for it. Radical concept.
This is the same bullshit the left pulled with health care. Scream over and over that the internet is a birth rite and that we need to have fairness for everyone.
The internet is not a utility. It is a series of privately owned networks that you must purchase access to. If the owners of the networks don't feel that they are getting a good return for their investment they will stop investing in the network. It is that simple.
Posted by: JackStraw at February 27, 2015 05:26 PM (g1DWB)
478
Quality of service and paid priority are completely different"
*insert facepalm here*
dude, seriously. Give it up. Some of us here are conversant in network. You clearly are not.
"But the left wing conspiracy theorists believe that Internet Service Providers are going to insert code to personally inspect every packet of data and either give or deny priority to each and every packet of data headed for your household "
Yeah, that too - if our troll actually knew what it took to configure RED or WRED...
*insert facepalm here*
dude, seriously. Give it up. Some of us here are conversant in network. You clearly are not.
"But the left wing conspiracy theorists believe that Internet Service Providers are going to insert code to personally inspect every packet of data and either give or deny priority to each and every packet of data headed for your household "
Yeah, that too - if our troll actually knew what it took to configure RED or WRED...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:27 PM (/jpU8)
479
Quality of service and paid priority are completely different.
QOS is packets getting treated differently based on content. Which was "never done before" because the Net Neutrality principle of Packet Equality governed the Internets.
Except that Net Neutrality didn't.
QOS is packets getting treated differently based on content. Which was "never done before" because the Net Neutrality principle of Packet Equality governed the Internets.
Except that Net Neutrality didn't.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:29 PM (0NdlF)
480
>This internet thing is becoming pretty popular... lets make it a public utility so that we can regulate every aspect of it
Except the FCC tried to enforce net neutrality without making the ISPs Title II. The courts smacked that down.
Except the FCC tried to enforce net neutrality without making the ISPs Title II. The courts smacked that down.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:29 PM (ikbhD)
481
C.O.Jarhead @ 462 -
I expressed myself poorly. I tried to set up a straw man whereby proper means are circumvented but the ends are awesome, but Supercore didn't bite.
I'm a means guy - that is, I see the means to an end at least as important as the end itself.
I expressed myself poorly. I tried to set up a straw man whereby proper means are circumvented but the ends are awesome, but Supercore didn't bite.
I'm a means guy - that is, I see the means to an end at least as important as the end itself.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:30 PM (SgXEz)
482
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:23 PM (ikbhD)
No, QoS prioritizes packets on a network.
For example, if you're a business, your layer 3 switches decide that "voice over IP phones" get priority of network traffic over, say, "youtube videos" or "spotify".
on the ISP scale, they say their VoIP home phone users get priority over, say, warez and porn. Because having a phone that works is more important than being able to stream porn in 1080.
The complaint against ISPs is that a while back some of them tried to throttle bit torrent and peer to peer connections (almost all used for pirating software), but backed off due to consumer outrage.
The ISPs said, "look, we have to build out infrastructure for peak traffic -- if everyone gets home from work and tries to log on at 6 PM, but their connections are super slow because the kid down the street is downloading 10 high def 2 hour porn flicks, the other 99 out of 100 customers not doing that will be pissed."
So instead, they throttle everyones speeds at peak times based on what you pay for.
Again, this minor irritant for a small minority of Comcast or whoever customer would work itself out in time, but instead the govt just says, 'oh, hey... don't worry about any of that noise, the internet is now a public utility, so it's all good'
No, QoS prioritizes packets on a network.
For example, if you're a business, your layer 3 switches decide that "voice over IP phones" get priority of network traffic over, say, "youtube videos" or "spotify".
on the ISP scale, they say their VoIP home phone users get priority over, say, warez and porn. Because having a phone that works is more important than being able to stream porn in 1080.
The complaint against ISPs is that a while back some of them tried to throttle bit torrent and peer to peer connections (almost all used for pirating software), but backed off due to consumer outrage.
The ISPs said, "look, we have to build out infrastructure for peak traffic -- if everyone gets home from work and tries to log on at 6 PM, but their connections are super slow because the kid down the street is downloading 10 high def 2 hour porn flicks, the other 99 out of 100 customers not doing that will be pissed."
So instead, they throttle everyones speeds at peak times based on what you pay for.
Again, this minor irritant for a small minority of Comcast or whoever customer would work itself out in time, but instead the govt just says, 'oh, hey... don't worry about any of that noise, the internet is now a public utility, so it's all good'
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:30 PM (AkOaV)
483
Netflix feels like "screw you, customers pay for the bandwidth and this is how they chose to use it"
Actually it's more like "We don't want to pay for this as that would reduce our price advantage"
Billion dollar firms are battling this out and we get fvcked by Mandarins wishing for more control.
Actually it's more like "We don't want to pay for this as that would reduce our price advantage"
Billion dollar firms are battling this out and we get fvcked by Mandarins wishing for more control.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:31 PM (/jpU8)
484
Except the FCC tried to enforce net neutrality without making the ISPs Title II. The courts smacked that down.
And now we'll need the courts to smack down the FCC trying to arbitrarily reclassify ISPs as Title II.
And now we'll need the courts to smack down the FCC trying to arbitrarily reclassify ISPs as Title II.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:31 PM (0NdlF)
485
Actually, there's no "rule" - it's called "Notice and Comment", but the FCC can enact without following the process.
In an emergency situation, like this crisis.
In an emergency situation, like this crisis.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 05:32 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:33 PM (/jpU8)
487
Except the FCC tried to enforce net neutrality without making the ISPs Title II. The courts smacked that down.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:29 PM (ikbhD)
No, they didn't!
They never have tried to pass a rule that said 'ISPs can not prioritize traffic'.
They tried to establish regulatory control over ISPs and got smacked down because they're not a public utility.
So the FCC said "okay, then we'll make them a public utility"
Get the phrase "net neutrality" out of your head. Whatever you think it means, it doesn't. It's a bullshit phrase to trick uneducated people in to thinking its something it's not.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:29 PM (ikbhD)
No, they didn't!
They never have tried to pass a rule that said 'ISPs can not prioritize traffic'.
They tried to establish regulatory control over ISPs and got smacked down because they're not a public utility.
So the FCC said "okay, then we'll make them a public utility"
Get the phrase "net neutrality" out of your head. Whatever you think it means, it doesn't. It's a bullshit phrase to trick uneducated people in to thinking its something it's not.
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:33 PM (AkOaV)
488
Quality of service and paid priority are completely different.QoS is used to relieve network congestion. Paid priority gives priority to specific sites because they've paid the ISP an extra fee for the privilige. QoS is done to ensure the health of the network as a whole. No one has any problem with that. Paid priority favors entrenched interests with deep pockets and hurts sites without the resources to pay for priority over their competitors.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:23 PM (ikbhD)
Wrong.
On numerous points.
And no, I will not help you by pointing out the mistakes in your comment.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:23 PM (ikbhD)
Wrong.
On numerous points.
And no, I will not help you by pointing out the mistakes in your comment.
Posted by: filbert at February 27, 2015 05:33 PM (h6Mpm)
489
Think of it as an Enabling Act for the twenty-first century.
Posted by: Herr Reichsmarschall Goering at February 27, 2015 05:34 PM (Q9qpj)
490
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:31 PM (/jpU
Right! This is such a silly bullshit excuse. ISPs and content providers will WORK IT OUT. It's in everyones best interest to!
Govt doesnt give a fuck
Right! This is such a silly bullshit excuse. ISPs and content providers will WORK IT OUT. It's in everyones best interest to!
Govt doesnt give a fuck
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:34 PM (AkOaV)
491
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:31 PM (/jpU
Right! This is such a silly bullshit excuse. ISPs and content providers will WORK IT OUT. It's in everyones best interest to!
Govt doesnt give a fuck
Right! This is such a silly bullshit excuse. ISPs and content providers will WORK IT OUT. It's in everyones best interest to!
Govt doesnt give a fuck
Posted by: mynewhandle at February 27, 2015 05:34 PM (AkOaV)
492
I don't even know what Supercore is talking about. What's the FCC? Is that the Fish Conservation Commission? And does "net neutrality" have something to do with whether or not I get a little dolphin in my cans of tuna?
Because tuna used to taste better back in the day.
Because tuna used to taste better back in the day.
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 05:34 PM (SgXEz)
493
Eliminate the FCC along with the IRS, EPA, DHS, NEA, PBS/NPR and the Departments of Energy and Education.
Posted by: Beef at February 27, 2015 05:35 PM (/q4N3)
494
but backed off due to consumer outrage."
And, BTW, built out more robust networks, all without the FCC.
Here's a hypothetical: imagine the same under Ma Bell.
You would get poorer service, and like it.
And, BTW, built out more robust networks, all without the FCC.
Here's a hypothetical: imagine the same under Ma Bell.
You would get poorer service, and like it.
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:35 PM (/jpU8)
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 05:35 PM (evdj2)
496
Did ace quote this guy on the front page to compliment him or to ridicule?
Posted by: Herr Reichsmarschall Goering at February 27, 2015 05:36 PM (Q9qpj)
497
I'm suddenly reminded of getting into a FB argument with a schoolteacher on NN.
Someone with minimal technical knowledge has no business trying to pass rules on how the world's global communication network should be run.
Someone with minimal technical knowledge has no business trying to pass rules on how the world's global communication network should be run.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:37 PM (0NdlF)
498
Wrong.
On numerous points. "
It's throwing one metric ton of bullshit up - by the time someone cleans it up, it's off to the next ton...
On numerous points. "
It's throwing one metric ton of bullshit up - by the time someone cleans it up, it's off to the next ton...
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:37 PM (/jpU8)
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:38 PM (0NdlF)
500
Eliminate the FCC along with the IRS, EPA, DHS, NEA, PBS/NPR and the Departments of Energy and Education.
Do me a favor? Write all those acronyms on the back of my hand for the next time I give a speech.
Thanx, by
Do me a favor? Write all those acronyms on the back of my hand for the next time I give a speech.
Thanx, by
Posted by: Rick Perry at February 27, 2015 05:39 PM (zxQ4h)
Posted by: anon a mouse at February 27, 2015 05:39 PM (/jpU8)
502
Beginning in 2009, the American Government went to war with the people it supposedly "served;" in 2015, it won that war.
You don't win a war without paying an adequate cost in blood to secure that victory. The foreign power in DC has not yet done that.
You don't win a war without paying an adequate cost in blood to secure that victory. The foreign power in DC has not yet done that.
Posted by: Methos at February 27, 2015 05:41 PM (A6vWB)
503
>So what?
I was just trying to point out that I'm not some drive by concern troll trying to piss everyone off for the sake of it.
I agreed with most of you guys about most things. I just think you're wrong in this case.
I was just trying to point out that I'm not some drive by concern troll trying to piss everyone off for the sake of it.
I agreed with most of you guys about most things. I just think you're wrong in this case.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:41 PM (ikbhD)
Posted by: Helen Thomas at February 27, 2015 05:45 PM (zxQ4h)
505
Supercore is suffering one of the classic Liberal Flaws (no matter what philosophy they adhere to): The inability to distinguish between means and ends.
It's why the left always responds to "this government bureaucracy serves its constituents poorly" with "WHY DO YOU HATE BABIES!" There's no allowance that one method of doing something may be better or worse than others - if you question the method, you are assumed to be questioning the goal.
Regulating ISPs as Utilities and the 300+ page secret regulatory grab has fuck-all to do with "Net Neutrality" except that the latter is a propaganda justification for the former.
Everything, *EVERYTHING* the left does is a power grab. Period. Everything is an expansive regulation or agency or whatever, you never just *do a thing*, you have to do 10,000 things.
ASSUMING there were a problem, a problem even proponents describe as hypothetical, you do not need masses of regulations and reclassification and Soros bribes to deal with it. It's *all* a power grab, and the millions doing a victory lap now will regret it, but they won't learn from that disappointment.
And, because they can't tell the difference between means and ends, you can't even explain it to them.
Of course I don't want my ISP manhandling my connection speed based on what I'm looking at. I also don't want the government doing it, or anything else that's likely in that 300+ page secret regulation.
It's why the left always responds to "this government bureaucracy serves its constituents poorly" with "WHY DO YOU HATE BABIES!" There's no allowance that one method of doing something may be better or worse than others - if you question the method, you are assumed to be questioning the goal.
Regulating ISPs as Utilities and the 300+ page secret regulatory grab has fuck-all to do with "Net Neutrality" except that the latter is a propaganda justification for the former.
Everything, *EVERYTHING* the left does is a power grab. Period. Everything is an expansive regulation or agency or whatever, you never just *do a thing*, you have to do 10,000 things.
ASSUMING there were a problem, a problem even proponents describe as hypothetical, you do not need masses of regulations and reclassification and Soros bribes to deal with it. It's *all* a power grab, and the millions doing a victory lap now will regret it, but they won't learn from that disappointment.
And, because they can't tell the difference between means and ends, you can't even explain it to them.
Of course I don't want my ISP manhandling my connection speed based on what I'm looking at. I also don't want the government doing it, or anything else that's likely in that 300+ page secret regulation.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 27, 2015 05:46 PM (bLnSU)
506
Is this thing on?
Posted by: Pastorius at February 27, 2015 05:46 PM (gMAUH)
507
I agreed with most of you guys about most things. I just think you're wrong in this case.
Given that you want the FCC to take the power to regulate the Internet over hypothetical abuses, I don't give a fig leaf how wrong you think we are.
You're increasing the problem, which makes you part of the problem.
Given that you want the FCC to take the power to regulate the Internet over hypothetical abuses, I don't give a fig leaf how wrong you think we are.
You're increasing the problem, which makes you part of the problem.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:46 PM (0NdlF)
508
>You're increasing the problem, which makes you part of the problem.
Well, at least we're not descending into personal attacks.
/s
Well, at least we're not descending into personal attacks.
/s
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:47 PM (ikbhD)
509
Hey Mero! Hope you're doing well.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:48 PM (0NdlF)
510
Seat belts are for your own protection so a law is needed to make you wear it. However the only way that will be enforced is if you are not wearing one when stopped for another violation. Small inconvenience really.
In which case you will just be issued a warning.
Never will you be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.
And never,ever will there ever be traffic checkpoints to make sure you are wearing. If you belive that could happen you are paranoid, even crazy.
Oh, BTW seat belt checkpoints are regular occurrences in here in Georgia and many other states.. And you are not issued a warning. Ticket with fine every time.
But no, the govt would NEVER require licensing of websites.
In which case you will just be issued a warning.
Never will you be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.
And never,ever will there ever be traffic checkpoints to make sure you are wearing. If you belive that could happen you are paranoid, even crazy.
Oh, BTW seat belt checkpoints are regular occurrences in here in Georgia and many other states.. And you are not issued a warning. Ticket with fine every time.
But no, the govt would NEVER require licensing of websites.
Posted by: George Orwell de Leon at February 27, 2015 05:49 PM (1BQGO)
511
Haven't read comments, and this is probably implicit in ace's post, but the Administration that has disdain for the rule of law and our Constitutional processes and realizes that these are the moves of a fascist tyranny and are ok with that is not just Obama and his cabinet and the high-up managers and political appointees.
It is also the millions of "ordinary" federal employees. They know that these are illegal orders, and they follow them anyway **without complaint**
I was strongly struck by that when I read this from the earlier IRS post: "As Mr. Camus states, when he went to the storage facility in West
Virginia, which is "exactly where you'd expect [the tapes] to be," the
IT people there found them immediately, and furthermore said that no one had ever before asked for the tapes."
Those useless, malicious, politically- and characterologically-inbred bastards working at that facility have known about Congress's demands for the tapes for years, and just sat there with their thumbs up their asses. Any one of them could have at any time in the last two years sent an anonymous letter to the press, Congress, Drudge, Facebook, AoSHQ, PuffHo, -- wherever -- and halted the ongoing destruction of what little is left of America's faith in its government.
And the fucking bastards simply said, "well, no one ever before specifically asked me specifically for these specific tapes. Did I do wrong?"
Except they didn't even bother with the did-I-do-wrong part. Fucking bastards.
It is the whole lot of them.
It is also the millions of "ordinary" federal employees. They know that these are illegal orders, and they follow them anyway **without complaint**
I was strongly struck by that when I read this from the earlier IRS post: "As Mr. Camus states, when he went to the storage facility in West
Virginia, which is "exactly where you'd expect [the tapes] to be," the
IT people there found them immediately, and furthermore said that no one had ever before asked for the tapes."
Those useless, malicious, politically- and characterologically-inbred bastards working at that facility have known about Congress's demands for the tapes for years, and just sat there with their thumbs up their asses. Any one of them could have at any time in the last two years sent an anonymous letter to the press, Congress, Drudge, Facebook, AoSHQ, PuffHo, -- wherever -- and halted the ongoing destruction of what little is left of America's faith in its government.
And the fucking bastards simply said, "well, no one ever before specifically asked me specifically for these specific tapes. Did I do wrong?"
Except they didn't even bother with the did-I-do-wrong part. Fucking bastards.
It is the whole lot of them.
Posted by: revolting peasant at February 27, 2015 05:50 PM (n18EQ)
512
I don't want my ISP manhandling my connection speed based on what I'm looking at.
I want to pay less for jerky porn.
I want to pay less for jerky porn.
Posted by: DaveA at February 27, 2015 05:51 PM (DL2i+)
513
"entrenched interests with deep pockets and hurts sites without the resources to pay for priority over their competitors."
If you can write that sentence, or think that "thought", then you are fundamentally unfamiliar with the entire concept of a private and free market and economy. Period.
Why should sites without deep pockets get govt. protection or help of any sort?
"entrenched interests with deep pockets and hurts sites without the resources to pay for priority over their competitors."
If you can write that sentence, or think that "thought", then you are fundamentally unfamiliar with the entire concept of a private and free market and economy. Period.
Why should sites without deep pockets get govt. protection or help of any sort?
Posted by: rhomboid at February 27, 2015 05:51 PM (afQnV)
514
Why should sites without deep pockets get govt. protection or help of any sort?
Free markets run on fairness and equality, obviously.
Free markets run on fairness and equality, obviously.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:53 PM (0NdlF)
515
>If you can write that sentence, or think that "thought", then you are
fundamentally unfamiliar with the entire concept of a private and free
market and economy. Period.
If the ISP market resembled anything like a free market with plenty of competition, I would agree with you. The fact that nearly everyone is stuck with one of a handful of monolithic companies changes the calculus.
Companies in industries with very high barriers to entry are, and should be, held to a higher standard.
fundamentally unfamiliar with the entire concept of a private and free
market and economy. Period.
If the ISP market resembled anything like a free market with plenty of competition, I would agree with you. The fact that nearly everyone is stuck with one of a handful of monolithic companies changes the calculus.
Companies in industries with very high barriers to entry are, and should be, held to a higher standard.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 05:54 PM (ikbhD)
516
Hey Mero! Hope you're doing well.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:48 PM (0NdlF)
Creaky and wobbly roller-coaster ride.
Hope you are doing well, though!
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 27, 2015 05:48 PM (0NdlF)
Creaky and wobbly roller-coaster ride.
Hope you are doing well, though!
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 27, 2015 05:55 PM (bLnSU)
517
"Companies in industries with very high barriers to entry are, and should be, held to a higher standard."
Nonsense. Examples, please.
The mostly outdated concept of technical or natural monopoly leads to considerations of price and consumer/user welfare, period. It has not and logically does not get into details such as the "solutions" for hypothetical "problems" you have asserted. There is no disconnect between "deep pockets" and ability to get different/better service. Please examine a few public utility commissions and how they regulate electrical utilities, for example.
You tellingly used "pay to play". That phrase has a negative connotation only in contexts where equal access is the very basis of a system - petitioning of government re grievances, etc. It is meaningless and vanilla in this context - where "pay to play" is exactly how it should work. Which leads right back to ....
Again, please, why do "sites without deep pockets" or their concernconstitute a market "failure" (mostly a bogus concept in itself, always) requiring public intervention, help, protection?
"Companies in industries with very high barriers to entry are, and should be, held to a higher standard."
Nonsense. Examples, please.
The mostly outdated concept of technical or natural monopoly leads to considerations of price and consumer/user welfare, period. It has not and logically does not get into details such as the "solutions" for hypothetical "problems" you have asserted. There is no disconnect between "deep pockets" and ability to get different/better service. Please examine a few public utility commissions and how they regulate electrical utilities, for example.
You tellingly used "pay to play". That phrase has a negative connotation only in contexts where equal access is the very basis of a system - petitioning of government re grievances, etc. It is meaningless and vanilla in this context - where "pay to play" is exactly how it should work. Which leads right back to ....
Again, please, why do "sites without deep pockets" or their concernconstitute a market "failure" (mostly a bogus concept in itself, always) requiring public intervention, help, protection?
Posted by: rhomboid at February 27, 2015 06:02 PM (afQnV)
518
Quiz for our (nearly certainly) quite young and not very experienced commenter: how long is the Sherman Anti-Trust act, and what is the sole problem it was enacted to prevent or reduce?
Posted by: rhomboid at February 27, 2015 06:03 PM (afQnV)
519
One would think that someone who agrees with us on most things would at least concede it is odd that the two of "us guys" who sit on that commission are both positively horrified by this decision.
Posted by: Herr Reichsmarschall Goering at February 27, 2015 06:04 PM (Q9qpj)
520
The fact that nearly everyone is stuck with one of a handful of monolithic companies changes the calculus.
Stupid, meaningless bafflegab. Strangely reminds me of everything else this "stupidcore32" character says on the entire issue. Odd that.
Stupid, meaningless bafflegab. Strangely reminds me of everything else this "stupidcore32" character says on the entire issue. Odd that.
Posted by: Anderson Cooper's Rascal Scooter Brigade at February 27, 2015 06:06 PM (Q819Q)
521
Goering, there is absolutely no reason to accept his assertion that he agrees with us on anything.
Do not trust. Always verify.
Do not trust. Always verify.
Posted by: revolting peasant at February 27, 2015 06:08 PM (n18EQ)
522
Once upon a time -
I used to work for a small non-profit. Actually, I used to run this group, and I had no idea what was going on most of the time. My background didn't overlap with the mission of this group at all. My expertise at the time lay in running small non-profit groups, making sure the i's got dotted and the t's got crossed.
Two members of the board of directors did pretty much everything else. They had the vision, the strategy, the contacts, etc. There were three others who would attend meetings and cast votes. The board had four others who couldn't be bothered.
One day, the president of this little organization got together with the VP and me and put together an action plan. I said that disbursement of funds at the level they were talking about required board approval. One of them said, "Fine. We'll have a vote."
I piped in and said, "We only have 5 coming to the meeting. We need 6." Then we got into a friendly argument about what constitutes a quorum and how a motion gets passed according to the by-laws. Finally, the guy (my boss) said, "You're nitpicking."
I said, "That's what you pay me for."
So we went back and forth and finally he said, "Two directors' terms expire next month. What if we don't replace them? Can we pass motions with 5 votes?"
"Sure. That works."
The other director asked why we had to do all this this, and I explained that the process is important. Whoever said "one more than half of the directors" were needed to pass a motion worded it wrong, but those were the words and we HAD TO abide by the rules as written. No one would ever know the difference otherwise but legally it would be misappropriating funds, and do you really want to do that?
They all agreed to do it the right way. Pain in the ass, but right.
So that's my story about process and procedure and following the rules, and that's my background. Maybe that explains why I'm otherwise inexplicably loud on some things and quiet on others.
(Thanks for indulging.)
I used to work for a small non-profit. Actually, I used to run this group, and I had no idea what was going on most of the time. My background didn't overlap with the mission of this group at all. My expertise at the time lay in running small non-profit groups, making sure the i's got dotted and the t's got crossed.
Two members of the board of directors did pretty much everything else. They had the vision, the strategy, the contacts, etc. There were three others who would attend meetings and cast votes. The board had four others who couldn't be bothered.
One day, the president of this little organization got together with the VP and me and put together an action plan. I said that disbursement of funds at the level they were talking about required board approval. One of them said, "Fine. We'll have a vote."
I piped in and said, "We only have 5 coming to the meeting. We need 6." Then we got into a friendly argument about what constitutes a quorum and how a motion gets passed according to the by-laws. Finally, the guy (my boss) said, "You're nitpicking."
I said, "That's what you pay me for."
So we went back and forth and finally he said, "Two directors' terms expire next month. What if we don't replace them? Can we pass motions with 5 votes?"
"Sure. That works."
The other director asked why we had to do all this this, and I explained that the process is important. Whoever said "one more than half of the directors" were needed to pass a motion worded it wrong, but those were the words and we HAD TO abide by the rules as written. No one would ever know the difference otherwise but legally it would be misappropriating funds, and do you really want to do that?
They all agreed to do it the right way. Pain in the ass, but right.
So that's my story about process and procedure and following the rules, and that's my background. Maybe that explains why I'm otherwise inexplicably loud on some things and quiet on others.
(Thanks for indulging.)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 06:20 PM (SgXEz)
523
(Holy crap, I didn't think it was that long.)
Posted by: FireHorse at February 27, 2015 06:21 PM (SgXEz)
524
I'm not familiar with GENet but AOL and Prodigy both existed by using phone company lines. Those phone company lines were *dun dun dun* classified under Title II and so couldn't discriminate against AOL and Prodigy.
----------
Fun fact that demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about... I once briefly worked for a third party contractor doing customer and tech support for Compuserve. When I started there, Compuserve had just been bought by H&R Block. I wondered why Block would want to own a dying online service/ISP. Until tax season hit and my performance-based pay went down the drain because the tax people were using all the bandwidth and my customer service computer was the step-child on the network. Sometimes took me over 5 minutes just to pull up a Compuserve customer account on my Compuserve customer service computer to assist an irate Compuserve customer whose online service for which they had paid was so damn slow.
I quit that job when I realized it was a fool's errand and Compuserve ceased to exist as a (public facing) online network shortly after, because H&R Block bought a large, national, stable network and then prioritized its bandwidth for it's own use. Perfectly justifiable
SINCE THEY BOUGHT IT and IT BELONGED TO THEM.
One could argue if it was smart business on the part of the tax people, but it was certainly none of the government's business and the free market fixed it.
----------
Fun fact that demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about... I once briefly worked for a third party contractor doing customer and tech support for Compuserve. When I started there, Compuserve had just been bought by H&R Block. I wondered why Block would want to own a dying online service/ISP. Until tax season hit and my performance-based pay went down the drain because the tax people were using all the bandwidth and my customer service computer was the step-child on the network. Sometimes took me over 5 minutes just to pull up a Compuserve customer account on my Compuserve customer service computer to assist an irate Compuserve customer whose online service for which they had paid was so damn slow.
I quit that job when I realized it was a fool's errand and Compuserve ceased to exist as a (public facing) online network shortly after, because H&R Block bought a large, national, stable network and then prioritized its bandwidth for it's own use. Perfectly justifiable
SINCE THEY BOUGHT IT and IT BELONGED TO THEM.
One could argue if it was smart business on the part of the tax people, but it was certainly none of the government's business and the free market fixed it.
Posted by: digitalcowboy at February 27, 2015 06:30 PM (b1a3S)
525
Those useless, malicious, politically- and characterologically-inbred bastards working at that facility have known about Congress's demands for the tapes for years, and just sat there with their thumbs up their asses.
In fairness, did the librarians really know that Congress wanted the contents of square tape #SD017231?
In fairness, did the librarians really know that Congress wanted the contents of square tape #SD017231?
Posted by: toby928(C) predicts at February 27, 2015 06:48 PM (rwI+c)
526
Look, Obviously I'm not going to convince you guys. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion anyways.
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 06:49 PM (ikbhD)
527
Wow, you really are terminally stupid, supercore23, aren't you?
Assuming for a moment that "net neutrality" is a justifiable government interest, it would take 5-10 pages at most to promulgate the necessary regulations.
What do you suppose the additional 209+ pages of regulations are for, hmmm?
As I said previously: terminally stupid. You are.
Assuming for a moment that "net neutrality" is a justifiable government interest, it would take 5-10 pages at most to promulgate the necessary regulations.
What do you suppose the additional 209+ pages of regulations are for, hmmm?
As I said previously: terminally stupid. You are.
Posted by: ChicagoRefugee at February 27, 2015 06:58 PM (faQdQ)
528
Oops, 290+, not 209.
Posted by: ChicagoRefugee at February 27, 2015 07:00 PM (faQdQ)
Posted by: supercore23 at February 27, 2015 07:04 PM (4V4gl)
530
Smiley face fascism wrapped up in your Netflix streaming. Now isn't that special.
Posted by: Chocolatepretzel at February 27, 2015 07:16 PM (6VJV0)
531
So what federal statute should they be prosecuted under? Something like : "18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law" doesn't quite fit, but there must be something that is a "color of law" violation that could land the suckers in jail if a prosecutor had the balls to push it.
Posted by: Rolf at February 27, 2015 07:48 PM (H+WqQ)
532
the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about & haven't seen the proposed rules, but I'm still cheering them on like Sasha Grey cheering on Mandingo should tell you everything you need to know
Posted by: supercare24 at February 27, 2015 08:03 PM (Q819Q)
533
As always, late to the party, but was fortunate to find someone had already used the water utility analogy - completely ass backwards -
#442 ...Why should a poor person only get 6 Mbps while the privliged person with
money down he street gets 30 Mbps. That certainly isn't fair. Do water
utility provide better water pressure to people that pay more...
Simplest explanation may be that the ISP charges less for 6 Mbps than for 30 Mbps. Obviously the higher rate is valued more by poster of 442.
Now, water utility analogy - you want 6 gal/sec or 30 gal/sec or 500 gal/sec or whatever flow capacity - why would one cost more than another?
Infrastructure.
Flow capacity at any given delivery point depends on system distribution piping (size and length of the network) reservoir and pumping capacity.
You want more than than that little 3/4" or 1" service entrance pipe can deliver to your home, you can try running a 4" line out to the main running down your street, but you are probably not going to get the utility's permission to connect as you will starve others users - you are going to be paying for infrastructure upgrades, possibly all the way back to the water plant to service your demand alone.
Onto the electrical nonsense - typical home service is 200A 125V (2 phases) and the homeowner does pay for the transformer (either directly or prorated through their monthly electric bill) or as part of the lot price as it was installed by the developer and passed onto the owner as part of the property cost. Likewise a business developer will be either paying directly for their 1000A 460V (3 phase) transformer or the utility may prorate it through monthly billing.
#442 ...Why should a poor person only get 6 Mbps while the privliged person with
money down he street gets 30 Mbps. That certainly isn't fair. Do water
utility provide better water pressure to people that pay more...
Simplest explanation may be that the ISP charges less for 6 Mbps than for 30 Mbps. Obviously the higher rate is valued more by poster of 442.
Now, water utility analogy - you want 6 gal/sec or 30 gal/sec or 500 gal/sec or whatever flow capacity - why would one cost more than another?
Infrastructure.
Flow capacity at any given delivery point depends on system distribution piping (size and length of the network) reservoir and pumping capacity.
You want more than than that little 3/4" or 1" service entrance pipe can deliver to your home, you can try running a 4" line out to the main running down your street, but you are probably not going to get the utility's permission to connect as you will starve others users - you are going to be paying for infrastructure upgrades, possibly all the way back to the water plant to service your demand alone.
Onto the electrical nonsense - typical home service is 200A 125V (2 phases) and the homeowner does pay for the transformer (either directly or prorated through their monthly electric bill) or as part of the lot price as it was installed by the developer and passed onto the owner as part of the property cost. Likewise a business developer will be either paying directly for their 1000A 460V (3 phase) transformer or the utility may prorate it through monthly billing.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 27, 2015 08:34 PM (NaeCR)
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 27, 2015 08:35 PM (NaeCR)
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 27, 2015 08:36 PM (NaeCR)
536
"If the ISP market resembled anything like a free market with plenty of competition, I would agree with you. The fact that nearly everyone is stuck with one of a handful of monolithic companies changes the calculus."
By your own argument, it is at least bilateral not unilateral or monolithic: cable, and phone.
Phone is FCC regulated and must be fair.
Cable was wide open.
I defy you to name a part of the US that has cable without phones. If cable internet was as bad as you claim it could be, it would face immediate competition from phone internet.
By your own argument, it is at least bilateral not unilateral or monolithic: cable, and phone.
Phone is FCC regulated and must be fair.
Cable was wide open.
I defy you to name a part of the US that has cable without phones. If cable internet was as bad as you claim it could be, it would face immediate competition from phone internet.
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 27, 2015 08:54 PM (8rRE+)
537
"533
As always, late to the party, but was fortunate to find someone had
already used the water utility analogy - completely ass backwards -"
Actually I'm in compleytely agreement with you. I was sarcstically pointing out what the liberals will be saying once the internet is a utility. Of course there are different charges for larger water and electrical service sizes but typical liberals are unaware of that and would like everybody to pay the same because fairness. They will make the same argument about internet speeds, unaware of the infrastructure costs.
As always, late to the party, but was fortunate to find someone had
already used the water utility analogy - completely ass backwards -"
Actually I'm in compleytely agreement with you. I was sarcstically pointing out what the liberals will be saying once the internet is a utility. Of course there are different charges for larger water and electrical service sizes but typical liberals are unaware of that and would like everybody to pay the same because fairness. They will make the same argument about internet speeds, unaware of the infrastructure costs.
Posted by: George Orwell at February 27, 2015 09:30 PM (oG53/)
538
Thanks Orwell, didn't catch the sarcasm and I don't have the time and/or mental bandwidth to read every post when late.
Posted by: Burnt Toast at February 27, 2015 09:54 PM (NaeCR)
539
toby @525 "In fairness, did the librarians really know that Congress wanted the contents of square tape #SD017231?"
Yeah, being librarians, they probably didn't see the news for any of the last 24 months.
Also: "You mean that there's data from IRS emails on these here tapes what arrived here at the government email backup archiving place in the box from the IRS? And the card catalog (the one that we just used to find these here tapes [ from the original post "the IT people there found them immediately"]) tells us whats on them? Well, shucks! Whoda thunk it?!"
So, in fairness, they are everything I called them above.
Yeah, being librarians, they probably didn't see the news for any of the last 24 months.
Also: "You mean that there's data from IRS emails on these here tapes what arrived here at the government email backup archiving place in the box from the IRS? And the card catalog (the one that we just used to find these here tapes [ from the original post "the IT people there found them immediately"]) tells us whats on them? Well, shucks! Whoda thunk it?!"
So, in fairness, they are everything I called them above.
Posted by: revolting peasant at February 27, 2015 09:59 PM (n18EQ)
540
Also: "You mean that there's data from IRS emails on these here tapes what arrived here at the government email backup archiving place in the box from the IRS? And the card catalog (the one that we just used to find these here tapes [ from the original post "the IT people there found them immediately"]) tells us whats on them? Well, shucks! Whoda thunk it?!"
That's not how tape libraries work. I guarantee the tape librarians don't know which tapes have what on them.
I'm sure that given the tape numbers, which the IG got from some documents that were withheld be the IRS, the librarians went and pulled them. Easy peasy.
Also: "You mean that there's data from IRS emails on these here tapes what arrived here at the government email backup archiving place in the box from the IRS? And the card catalog (the one that we just used to find these here tapes [ from the original post "the IT people there found them immediately"]) tells us whats on them? Well, shucks! Whoda thunk it?!"
That's not how tape libraries work. I guarantee the tape librarians don't know which tapes have what on them.
I'm sure that given the tape numbers, which the IG got from some documents that were withheld be the IRS, the librarians went and pulled them. Easy peasy.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 11:02 PM (rwI+c)
541
My facility uses maybe 40 square tapes a day, on a rotating basis, to back up changes to 25TB of storage. We put them in a box and the storage courier comes and takes them away to a distant vault along with a list of what tapes we want him to bring back. Nobody at the storage facility has any idea of what is on those tapes. That's all kept on the catalog here. Ask me for a particular file and I can tell you which tape it's on (in truth, the catalog will tell me, and the catalog is also on a backup tape, but they don't have the software to read it). Ask the librarians at the vault and they will give you a blank stare.
Posted by: toby928(C) at February 27, 2015 11:13 PM (rwI+c)
Posted by: revolting peasant at February 27, 2015 11:35 PM (n18EQ)
543
"They understand that these are the moves of a fascist tyranny, and they're okay with that."
They are OK with anything that promotes socialism, whether its from the left or the right.
They are OK with anything that promotes socialism, whether its from the left or the right.
Posted by: iowaan at February 28, 2015 09:53 AM (hXclJ)
544
Hillary is happy.
Posted by: ethos at February 28, 2015 09:55 AM (t9c06)
545
"House fails to pass 3 week DHS bill. Money runs out at midnight and there is no Plan B."
So we don't fund illegal amnesty. Smells like win.
So we don't fund illegal amnesty. Smells like win.
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 28, 2015 02:49 PM (8rRE+)
546
The bad news is that Obama has 2 more years with nobody to stop him, and he's just getting started.
Posted by: Random Thought Generator at February 28, 2015 03:10 PM (wLLbf)
547
...but I do wonder at what point people stop resisting fascist tyranny, and simply give in to it, when the out of control and frankly terrifying government demonstrates that it simply will not stop until it collects all political power into its hands.
Or the people, having been pushed to the breaking point, say enough is enough and take matters into their own hands.
Or the people, having been pushed to the breaking point, say enough is enough and take matters into their own hands.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at February 28, 2015 03:30 PM (Sx7uB)
Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.066 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.023 seconds, 555 records returned.
Page size 311 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat