So, like, has it been explained that without net neutrality, ISPs can make you pay more to access porn, right?
Congress and libertarians and whatever understand this? And, they'll be kind enough to bundle it into, streaming services that aren't youtube and netflix, or something. It won't show up on the bill as the porn service, but.
But the ISPs, they are going to hold your porn hostage.
And you will pay.
And you won't complain.
Unless they are stopped now.
If you subscribe to a "the wise and just invisible hand of the free market" mindset, as our neoliberal congress generally does with a few rare exceptions, I don't think this is necessarily considered a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you pay more for something you want more? That's the essence of capitalism: chances are you demand nudity more than you demand, for example, weather information or pop-up ads, and chances are you'll pay more for them versus the other. And as noted before, it's not access you charge for, but speed of service.
So, like, has it been explained that without net neutrality, ISPs can make you pay more to access porn, right?
Congress and libertarians and whatever understand this? And, they'll be kind enough to bundle it into, streaming services that aren't youtube and netflix, or something. It won't show up on the bill as the porn service, but.
But the ISPs, they are going to hold your porn hostage.
And you will pay.
And you won't complain.
Unless they are stopped now.
If you subscribe to a "the wise and just invisible hand of the free market" mindset, as our neoliberal congress generally does with a few rare exceptions, I don't think this is necessarily considered a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you pay more for something you want more? That's the essence of capitalism: chances are you demand nudity more than you demand, for example, weather information or pop-up ads, and chances are you'll pay more for them versus the other. And as noted before, it's not access you charge for, but speed of service.
So, like, has it been explained that without net neutrality, ISPs can make you pay more to access porn, right?
Congress and libertarians and whatever understand this? And, they'll be kind enough to bundle it into, streaming services that aren't youtube and netflix, or something. It won't show up on the bill as the porn service, but.
But the ISPs, they are going to hold your porn hostage.
And you will pay.
And you won't complain.
Unless they are stopped now.
If you subscribe to a "the wise and just invisible hand of the free market" mindset, as our neoliberal congress generally does with a few rare exceptions, I don't think this is necessarily considered a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you pay more for something you want more? That's the essence of capitalism: chances are you demand nudity more than you demand, for example, weather information or pop-up ads, and chances are you'll pay more for them versus the other. And as noted before, it's not access you charge for, but speed of service.
Sure, if competition existed. Yay monopolies!
The danger is that it is, in fact, a desirable goal in principle. "Don't let better be the enemy of good," says the aspiring capitalist, quoting Soviet Admiral Sergey Gorshkov.
EDIT: And now come the death threats to some congressmen (the Syracuse, NY example is getting a lot of coverage) and Ajit Pai himself. I suppose it was inevitable, this is the internet after all.
You can't charge people for special access to a service that already charges you for access to their service.
Edit - Or, things shouldn't work that way, at any rate.
Of course not. You also have to charge the service to let their customers get to them.
Now you're thinking like a telco!
You charge the site a monthly fee to allow unthrottled access from your network, in principle, then you put them in an optional content bundle you can charge your users to have unthrottled access to.
Everyone can still watch throttled content. But you can also pay extra to watch unthrottled content from participating providers.
"Content" there was originally spelled "p-o-r-n," but it could apply to anything.
Pro-level Gatekeeping: Multiple pricing tiers on content and consumer sides, with the lowest tier allowing throttled access at all. Bill it as a category registration fee for the provider, and sell it to the consumer as the free blocking of dangerous, uncategorized content.
I'm still clinging to the unrealistic hope that maybe even in the legislature will object to actually try and bureaucratically impede Ajit Pai's self-appointed mission, but putting that aside...the threats to one of Pai's supporters, Rep. John Katko, are some Jack Bauher-Tom Clancy nut-stomping shit.
Listen Mr. Katko, if you support net neutrality, I will support you. But if you don’t support net neutrality, I will find you and your family and I will kill … you … all. Do you understand?...I will literally find all … of … you and your progeny and t- (sic) just wipe you from the face of the Earth. Net neutrality is more important than the defense of the United States. Net neutrality is more important than free speech. Net neutrality is more important than health care. Net neutrality is literally the basis of the new society. That even if you don’t understand, how important it is, net neutrality is literally the basis of the new … free … society. So if you don’t support it, I am willing to lay down my [life]..."
Holy shit. Obviously this is important and Pai's unleashed something very horrible on us, but holy shit. Apparently, the dad from Taken was too reasonable.
As you might expect, Pai himself is being subjected to some very intense racist drivel too for his proposal--which will probably only serve to reinforce the notion that those opposed to his "brilliant plan" are, in fact, racist nutjobs and make him even less willing to compromise on anything. :bigfrown:
There's always some percentage of that sort of nonsense but I would absolutely be skeptical if Pai tried to claim that, especially after all those fake FCC comments and such. He's going to push this through knowing full well what it is going to do. I don't think he is under any illusion that what he's doing will actually help. We have to hope it gets reversed quickly, or the Dems stand up and loudly announce they're going to reverse that ASAP to try and make the cable companies hold off out of uncertainty. Net Neutrality is extremely important for stuff like free speech and people like Pai absolutely understand that and want to get rid of it anyway. Otherwise, he'd be far more concerned about the obvious FCC manipulation.
There's always some percentage of that sort of nonsense but I would absolutely be skeptical if Pai tried to claim that, especially after all those fake FCC comments and such.
Eh, it's not really "a claim", because you can go online and find the actual racist attacks on him on Twitter fairly easily (note: this is separate from death threats, which as I am at work, I'm a bit wary of looking up). They're...there. Unless we've decided they're all secretly from Pai's wife. Racism on Twitter, what a shock, right? You're not mistaken about the direness of the situation, at least I don't think so, but that really doesn't change the fact that we've got a few people going full Mel Gibson in The Patriot with a touch of The Passion of the Christ now. Putting aside the fact that they're not helping (they don't realize that even killing Pai wouldn't magically secure net neutrality), it's a case of train wreck can't-look-away syndrome for me.
Mildly off topic: For anyone else who studies Indian history or culture, there's also some interesting cases of Indian-American media personalities awkwardly walking back/apologizing for their previous racist jibes (basically of the "I'm of Indian descent, so I can say you're totally not," variety) on twitter, covered on in the Hindustan Times and elsewhere. I'm skeptical of plenty of what Pai has said in the past weeks, but this is fascinatingly clear as day.
+1
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
There's always some percentage of that sort of nonsense but I would absolutely be skeptical if Pai tried to claim that, especially after all those fake FCC comments and such. He's going to push this through knowing full well what it is going to do. I don't think he is under any illusion that what he's doing will actually help. We have to hope it gets reversed quickly, or the Dems stand up and loudly announce they're going to reverse that ASAP to try and make the cable companies hold off out of uncertainty. Net Neutrality is extremely important for stuff like free speech and people like Pai absolutely understand that and want to get rid of it anyway. Otherwise, he'd be far more concerned about the obvious FCC manipulation.
The second a Dem says they're going to repeal Net Neutrality, the ISPs will block all knowledge of that candidate. Block or slow down their website, block or slow down web pages on newspapers' sites. Block or slowdown their search results from Google or whichever other search engine you choose to use. While not the same thing, look at what Google did to Rob Quist, who ran against Greg "Punch all the Reporters" Gianforte (via https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-montana-special-election_us_59f1fdcae4b077d8dfc7ea04)
The Dems will no longer be able to win.
If this is actually the case...god damn. :bigfrown: It was one thing when this was happening to WSWS and the like, no one was surprised by that, but an actual Democrat?
There's always some percentage of that sort of nonsense but I would absolutely be skeptical if Pai tried to claim that, especially after all those fake FCC comments and such. He's going to push this through knowing full well what it is going to do. I don't think he is under any illusion that what he's doing will actually help. We have to hope it gets reversed quickly, or the Dems stand up and loudly announce they're going to reverse that ASAP to try and make the cable companies hold off out of uncertainty. Net Neutrality is extremely important for stuff like free speech and people like Pai absolutely understand that and want to get rid of it anyway. Otherwise, he'd be far more concerned about the obvious FCC manipulation.
The second a Dem says they're going to repeal Net Neutrality, the ISPs will block all knowledge of that candidate. Block or slow down their website, block or slow down web pages on newspapers' sites. Block or slowdown their search results from Google or whichever other search engine you choose to use. While not the same thing, look at what Google did to Rob Quist, who ran against Greg "Punch all the Reporters" Gianforte (via https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-montana-special-election_us_59f1fdcae4b077d8dfc7ea04)
The Dems will no longer be able to win.
That's why they need to do it now while they still can but yes, it's certainly going to be a challenge.
And I'm not saying there aren't people being racist assholes towards Pai, just that he'll use those few jerks as an excuse to sweep all the legitimate complainers away and will play up the few jerks as being the majority when in fact they are just a few vocally loud assholes on twitter. I agree that they aren't helping, I just won't trust Pai at all if he claims they were a huge percentage of people opposed to his plan and tries to paint Net Neutrality supporters as racist geese.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
This is worth reading. Yes, Republicans took more than Democrats from ISP donors, but not a lot... and some of the worst offenders in both house and senate are democrats.
This is the oligarchy in full swing, fucking up an international resource for purely profit-driven motivations.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+3
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
Ed Markey was a Rep for years before becoming a senator, but has only been a senator for 4 years... yeah, its hard to know how this data came together.
But the fact that the ISPs have invested 9 figures into a body of only 535 people is pretty fucking telling. they spent an average of 200,000 per person.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
Ed Markey was a Rep for years before becoming a senator, but has only been a senator for 4 years... yeah, its hard to know how this data came together.
But the fact that the ISPs have invested 9 figures into a body of only 535 people is pretty fucking telling. they spent an average of 200,000 per person.
But it's okay! Comcast said they have no plans of changing anything. They just had moral (?) issues with net neutrality. /sarcasm
This is worth reading. Yes, Republicans took more than Democrats from ISP donors, but not a lot... and some of the worst offenders in both house and senate are democrats.
This is the oligarchy in full swing, fucking up an international resource for purely profit-driven motivations.
And yet whoops all the Dems appoint people in favor of NN. Don't both sides this.
+20
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
This is worth reading. Yes, Republicans took more than Democrats from ISP donors, but not a lot... and some of the worst offenders in both house and senate are democrats.
This is the oligarchy in full swing, fucking up an international resource for purely profit-driven motivations.
If this is like all the claims about Wall Streets payments to congress it’s less than useful
This is worth reading. Yes, Republicans took more than Democrats from ISP donors, but not a lot... and some of the worst offenders in both house and senate are democrats.
This is the oligarchy in full swing, fucking up an international resource for purely profit-driven motivations.
If this is like all the claims about Wall Streets payments to congress it’s less than useful
Yeah, one thing to remember is that private donations from people employed in an industry get rolled up in these totals.
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I am not both sidesing this all that hard; on the whole, dems are more likely to support net neutrality than republicans.
But almost all of them are getting significant campaign financial support from this industry, and these industries rarely donate to people without any expectation of a payback, legislative or otherwise.
This should be a clarion call to ring the FUCK out of the phones of everyone on this list who will have a vote on the issue. I don't trust any of them
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
Ed Markey was a Rep for years before becoming a senator, but has only been a senator for 4 years... yeah, its hard to know how this data came together.
But the fact that the ISPs have invested 9 figures into a body of only 535 people is pretty fucking telling. they spent an average of 200,000 per person.
But it's okay! Comcast said they have no plans of changing anything. They just had moral (?) issues with net neutrality.
It's honestly not much different than this thing I saw on Twitter (which I can't find to direct post atm)
Comcast: We aren't going to murder anyone.
FCC: Okay cool.
Comcast: So, you should make murder legal.
FCC: Wait, what?
Comcast: What's the problem? Just said we won't murder anyone.
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
I'm not sure contributions from the dial-up era are necessarily indicative of pressure on NN.
Though it does continue to impress how little it
takes for those that do bow to donor pressure to do so.
Warren Davidson getting all of $15 bucks is amusing. Without details though it's not a very useful chart. It covers 28 years but there's no information on how many years each Rep or Senator has/had been in office during that period, so there's no easy way to identify who has a lot of contributions simply by dint of being in office for a couple decades.
I'm not sure contributions from the dial-up era are necessarily indicative of pressure on NN.
Though it does continue to impress how little it
takes for those that do bow to donor pressure to do so.
It's not a shock that politicians can be bought; the shock is how cheap they are.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+5
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality repeal
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced an agreement on Monday to coordinate their efforts to police the internet once the latter agency has repealed its net neutrality rules.
...
Once the repeal is passed, the FTC will be tasked with going after internet providers that engage in unfair or deceptive practices, but net neutrality supporters argue the agency is not equipped to prevent companies from abusing their power over web traffic.
Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a statement, “The agreement announced today between the FCC and FTC is a confusing, lackluster, reactionary afterthought: an attempt to paper over weaknesses in the Chairman’s draft proposal repealing the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality rules.”
Pai’s plan will require companies such as Comcast and Verizon to disclose to their users whether they plan to block or slow down certain sites, and the FCC will be tasked with overseeing their transparency.
“There is no comfort in this announcement from the FTC,” said Chris Lewis, vice president of the consumer group Public Knowledge. “Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public. This gives free reign to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it."
Once the repeal is passed, the FTC will be tasked with going after internet providers that engage in unfair or deceptive practices, but net neutrality supporters argue the agency is not equipped to prevent companies from abusing their power over web traffic.
or, now hear me out because i understand this is complicated, maybe don't repeal the net neutrality rules.
Seriously, we desperately need a democratic announcement to say "the very instant we take power, all violations of net neutrality are illegal. The equipment you used to do it is illegal. The employees in charge of it are illegal. The documents ordering it are illegal. The profits you make from it are retroactively seized. The executives who ordered it will go to jail."
Seriously, we desperately need a democratic announcement to say "the very instant we take power, all violations of net neutrality are illegal. The equipment you used to do it is illegal. The employees in charge of it are illegal. The documents ordering it are illegal. The profits you make from it are retroactively seized. The executives who ordered it will go to jail."
Ex post facto.
As nice as that sounds, it's not allowed.
You can say what you're going to do, you can't make it retroactive.
Seriously, we desperately need a democratic announcement to say "the very instant we take power, all violations of net neutrality are illegal. The equipment you used to do it is illegal. The employees in charge of it are illegal. The documents ordering it are illegal. The profits you make from it are retroactively seized. The executives who ordered it will go to jail."
Ex post facto.
As nice as that sounds, it's not allowed.
You can say what you're going to do, you can't make it retroactive.
But you can make it so they are illegal at the moment a law becomes The Law. Any fees any customer pays to access a site after that point? Fine them 10x the amount and have them give the customer their money back. It may not actually stop any company from taking advantage of the situation while they can and rolling it all back afterwards, but it should at least give them pause and stop the worst possible outcomes from happening.
Plus, it's kinda all we have at this point anyway.
Seriously, we desperately need a democratic announcement to say "the very instant we take power, all violations of net neutrality are illegal. The equipment you used to do it is illegal. The employees in charge of it are illegal. The documents ordering it are illegal. The profits you make from it are retroactively seized. The executives who ordered it will go to jail."
Ex post facto.
As nice as that sounds, it's not allowed.
You can say what you're going to do, you can't make it retroactive.
But you can make it so they are illegal at the moment a law becomes The Law. Any fees any customer pays to access a site after that point? Fine them 10x the amount and have them give the customer their money back. It may not actually stop any company from taking advantage of the situation while they can and rolling it all back afterwards, but it should at least give them pause and stop the worst possible outcomes from happening.
Plus, it's kinda all we have at this point anyway.
You can also retroactively tax all profits at 100%, seize any equipment involved in implementing the now criminal activity, and implement a rule which says (as I described a while ago)...
1) From the moment this law applies, any contract which allows varying data rates, data speeds or data download groups are illegal.
2) Any customers of yours can immediately renegotiate all illegal contracts you have signed with them on their terms
3) If they like the terms they have now, they may keep them
4) If they wish, they may change ALL items to be the fastest, cheapest, and most available data type available to them
5) Renegotiated customers may keep their renegotiated contracts and rates for two years
At this point there is literally nothing to do about it. The FCC refuses to listen to people or tech companies. The congress critters are actively ignoring their constituents whenever possible. They have the power to do it and there's not amount of talking to them, calling them, shouting at them, or protesting in the streets that will prevent them from just ignoring us and doing it if they want to.
H.R.4585 - To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from relying on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the matter of restoring internet freedom to adopt, amend, revoke, or otherwise modify any rule of the Commission.
Sponsor: Rep. Maloney, Sean Patrick [D-NY-18] (Introduced 12/07/2017)
Committees: House - Energy and Commerce
Latest Action: House - 12/07/2017 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
At least someone in the House is making an attempt, even though the House Democrats are still very outnumbered even when they are all in agreement.
The only possible deterrent is the thought that a Democratic administration would immediately restore said net neutrality rules, so why even invest the capital creating tiered packages in the first place.
Once this line is crossed, though, it's going to be hard as fuck to get it back.
The only possible deterrent is the thought that a Democratic administration would immediately restore said net neutrality rules, so why even invest the capital creating tiered packages in the first place.
Once this line is crossed, though, it's going to be hard as fuck to get it back.
They already have the technical capability to do so.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
The only possible deterrent is the thought that a Democratic administration would immediately restore said net neutrality rules, so why even invest the capital creating tiered packages in the first place.
Once this line is crossed, though, it's going to be hard as fuck to get it back.
They already have the technical setup and the plans in place to do tiered packages. They were trying to extort Netflix and YouTube to buy those plans not even two years ago.
Tiered access would be a software change. Probably a large one, but still just a software change
The question of how much this would affect access to websites for external customers is still open, but traffic is routed according to peering agreements between various autonomous systems so it really depends on if your traffic even passes through a system that would impose restrictions and what the agreement says
The only possible deterrent is the thought that a Democratic administration would immediately restore said net neutrality rules, so why even invest the capital creating tiered packages in the first place.
Once this line is crossed, though, it's going to be hard as fuck to get it back.
Yeah, the clear threat needs to be that all contracts will be immediately renegotiated in the clients favor. So sure, sign those contracts. They become illegal the moment we take power.
Posts
If you subscribe to a "the wise and just invisible hand of the free market" mindset, as our neoliberal congress generally does with a few rare exceptions, I don't think this is necessarily considered a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you pay more for something you want more? That's the essence of capitalism: chances are you demand nudity more than you demand, for example, weather information or pop-up ads, and chances are you'll pay more for them versus the other. And as noted before, it's not access you charge for, but speed of service.
Sure, if competition existed. Yay monopolies!
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Edit - Or, things shouldn't work that way, at any rate.
Of course not. You also have to charge the service to let their customers get to them.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The danger is that it is, in fact, a desirable goal in principle. "Don't let better be the enemy of good," says the aspiring capitalist, quoting Soviet Admiral Sergey Gorshkov.
EDIT: And now come the death threats to some congressmen (the Syracuse, NY example is getting a lot of coverage) and Ajit Pai himself. I suppose it was inevitable, this is the internet after all.
Now you're thinking like a telco!
You charge the site a monthly fee to allow unthrottled access from your network, in principle, then you put them in an optional content bundle you can charge your users to have unthrottled access to.
Everyone can still watch throttled content. But you can also pay extra to watch unthrottled content from participating providers.
"Content" there was originally spelled "p-o-r-n," but it could apply to anything.
Pro-level Gatekeeping: Multiple pricing tiers on content and consumer sides, with the lowest tier allowing throttled access at all. Bill it as a category registration fee for the provider, and sell it to the consumer as the free blocking of dangerous, uncategorized content.
Holy shit. Obviously this is important and Pai's unleashed something very horrible on us, but holy shit. Apparently, the dad from Taken was too reasonable.
As you might expect, Pai himself is being subjected to some very intense racist drivel too for his proposal--which will probably only serve to reinforce the notion that those opposed to his "brilliant plan" are, in fact, racist nutjobs and make him even less willing to compromise on anything. :bigfrown:
Eh, it's not really "a claim", because you can go online and find the actual racist attacks on him on Twitter fairly easily (note: this is separate from death threats, which as I am at work, I'm a bit wary of looking up). They're...there. Unless we've decided they're all secretly from Pai's wife. Racism on Twitter, what a shock, right? You're not mistaken about the direness of the situation, at least I don't think so, but that really doesn't change the fact that we've got a few people going full Mel Gibson in The Patriot with a touch of The Passion of the Christ now. Putting aside the fact that they're not helping (they don't realize that even killing Pai wouldn't magically secure net neutrality), it's a case of train wreck can't-look-away syndrome for me.
Mildly off topic: For anyone else who studies Indian history or culture, there's also some interesting cases of Indian-American media personalities awkwardly walking back/apologizing for their previous racist jibes (basically of the "I'm of Indian descent, so I can say you're totally not," variety) on twitter, covered on in the Hindustan Times and elsewhere. I'm skeptical of plenty of what Pai has said in the past weeks, but this is fascinatingly clear as day.
The second a Dem says they're going to repeal Net Neutrality, the ISPs will block all knowledge of that candidate. Block or slow down their website, block or slow down web pages on newspapers' sites. Block or slowdown their search results from Google or whichever other search engine you choose to use. While not the same thing, look at what Google did to Rob Quist, who ran against Greg "Punch all the Reporters" Gianforte (via https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-montana-special-election_us_59f1fdcae4b077d8dfc7ea04)
The Dems will no longer be able to win.
If this is actually the case...god damn. :bigfrown: It was one thing when this was happening to WSWS and the like, no one was surprised by that, but an actual Democrat?
(If it matters, the World Socialist Website is also mad as hell about overturning Net Neutrality.)
That's why they need to do it now while they still can but yes, it's certainly going to be a challenge.
And I'm not saying there aren't people being racist assholes towards Pai, just that he'll use those few jerks as an excuse to sweep all the legitimate complainers away and will play up the few jerks as being the majority when in fact they are just a few vocally loud assholes on twitter. I agree that they aren't helping, I just won't trust Pai at all if he claims they were a huge percentage of people opposed to his plan and tries to paint Net Neutrality supporters as racist geese.
This is worth reading. Yes, Republicans took more than Democrats from ISP donors, but not a lot... and some of the worst offenders in both house and senate are democrats.
This is the oligarchy in full swing, fucking up an international resource for purely profit-driven motivations.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Ed Markey was a Rep for years before becoming a senator, but has only been a senator for 4 years... yeah, its hard to know how this data came together.
But the fact that the ISPs have invested 9 figures into a body of only 535 people is pretty fucking telling. they spent an average of 200,000 per person.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But it's okay! Comcast said they have no plans of changing anything. They just had moral (?) issues with net neutrality. /sarcasm
Edit: just wanted to emphasize the sarcasm
And yet whoops all the Dems appoint people in favor of NN. Don't both sides this.
At least Welch didn't take any?
If this is like all the claims about Wall Streets payments to congress it’s less than useful
Yeah, one thing to remember is that private donations from people employed in an industry get rolled up in these totals.
But almost all of them are getting significant campaign financial support from this industry, and these industries rarely donate to people without any expectation of a payback, legislative or otherwise.
This should be a clarion call to ring the FUCK out of the phones of everyone on this list who will have a vote on the issue. I don't trust any of them
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It's honestly not much different than this thing I saw on Twitter (which I can't find to direct post atm)
Comcast: We aren't going to murder anyone.
FCC: Okay cool.
Comcast: So, you should make murder legal.
FCC: Wait, what?
Comcast: What's the problem? Just said we won't murder anyone.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I'm not sure contributions from the dial-up era are necessarily indicative of pressure on NN.
Though it does continue to impress how little it
takes for those that do bow to donor pressure to do so.
It's not a shock that politicians can be bought; the shock is how cheap they are.
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364336-fcc-ftc-announce-partnership-to-police-internet-after-net-neutrality-repeal
or, now hear me out because i understand this is complicated, maybe don't repeal the net neutrality rules.
Ex post facto.
As nice as that sounds, it's not allowed.
You can say what you're going to do, you can't make it retroactive.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
But you can make it so they are illegal at the moment a law becomes The Law. Any fees any customer pays to access a site after that point? Fine them 10x the amount and have them give the customer their money back. It may not actually stop any company from taking advantage of the situation while they can and rolling it all back afterwards, but it should at least give them pause and stop the worst possible outcomes from happening.
Plus, it's kinda all we have at this point anyway.
You can also retroactively tax all profits at 100%, seize any equipment involved in implementing the now criminal activity, and implement a rule which says (as I described a while ago)...
1) From the moment this law applies, any contract which allows varying data rates, data speeds or data download groups are illegal.
2) Any customers of yours can immediately renegotiate all illegal contracts you have signed with them on their terms
3) If they like the terms they have now, they may keep them
4) If they wish, they may change ALL items to be the fastest, cheapest, and most available data type available to them
5) Renegotiated customers may keep their renegotiated contracts and rates for two years
At least someone in the House is making an attempt, even though the House Democrats are still very outnumbered even when they are all in agreement.
Once this line is crossed, though, it's going to be hard as fuck to get it back.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
They already have the technical capability to do so.
They already have the technical setup and the plans in place to do tiered packages. They were trying to extort Netflix and YouTube to buy those plans not even two years ago.
The question of how much this would affect access to websites for external customers is still open, but traffic is routed according to peering agreements between various autonomous systems so it really depends on if your traffic even passes through a system that would impose restrictions and what the agreement says
Yeah, the clear threat needs to be that all contracts will be immediately renegotiated in the clients favor. So sure, sign those contracts. They become illegal the moment we take power.
Fun fact, when this gets out of hand over the next few years, that is exactly what will happen.