|
Why are people so in love with corporations being the grand rulers who only care about profit? Why yes, id love it if Wal-Mart controlled everything.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Why are people so in love with corporations being the grand rulers who only care about profit? Because they are the sort of people who believe in the Zombie Apocalypse they would be the leaders of the survivors through sheer force of will alone and not one of the billions ravenous hordes. They think that eventually they will be on top and be rich in those corporations and bringing it down will bring down their chance at their goal of success.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Buncha middle American mouth breathers who have never worked for corporations (and discovered that they're at least, if not more, incompetent and inefficient than government).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Buncha middle American mouth breathers who have never worked for corporations (and discovered that they're at least, if not more, incompetent and inefficient than government).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I will happily say I was dead wrong and assumed the worst about him when he was appointed, given his CV. It's the good kind of wrong. He's a good dingo. Same, I expected him to be a full on Telcom shill, very pleased to see that was not the case. I'm still going to refer to him as Tom "Hotwheels" Wheeler in conversation though. It's just affectionate instead of derogatory now.  If I have a gripe, it's that if I understand correctly, even between these two votes there is still no last mile unbundling. So I'm still stuck with Comcast forever unless this city actually decides to fire up a fiber network (they won't) or Google decides to grace us with their presence (maybe, they've been teasing it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Same, I expected him to be a full on Telcom shill, very pleased to see that was not the case. I'm still going to refer to him as Tom "Hotwheels" Wheeler in conversation though. It's just affectionate instead of derogatory now. I can't speak authoritively on this but telecom being functional is becoming increasingly important from an economic development angle. Further the FCC Connect America initiative is showing some positive signs too thanks to the broadband classification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I can't speak authoritively on this but telecom being functional is becoming increasingly important from an economic development angle. Further the FCC Connect America initiative is showing some positive signs too thanks to the broadband classification. Came across this article that basically claims the FCC will lose like the EPA did and for the same reasons: http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc-will-lose-in-court-again-on This reads a bit hysterical and all but is Wheeler's proposal really the same as the EPA case this refers to? It seems absurd to suggest that the FCC isn't supposed to have authority to classify internet and regulate it but it could easily be an out for the conservative/business friendly judges to use as a means of striking down the FCC's reclassification. I don't see it having any effect on the FCC overruling state laws that help cement monopolies for ISPs though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
It's a no-name libertarian tech website. It is not an authoritative source and it definitely is not going to know anything about law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Bleh. Half of the other websites I browse have, for some reason, decided to become terrified because "we didn't get to read the proposal before it was voted on" and "but now the evil gubmint will get to ban porn" and "obamacare for the internet." Even places like Imgur, which I'm flabbergasted even has a community. It's frustrating,
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Bleh. Half of the other websites I browse have, for some reason, decided to become terrified because "we didn't get to read the proposal before it was voted on" and "but now the evil gubmint will get to ban porn" and "obamacare for the internet." Even places like Imgur, which I'm flabbergasted even has a community. It's frustrating, Pretty much everybody who understood what Net Neutrality was, even at a basic level, supported it until Obama came out in favor of Title II. The second that happened, conservatives were all against the exact same thing they were for five minutes ago, because politics in this country has managed to boil down to "being with/against Obama on [insert issue]". Regardless of what the issue actually is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Bleh. Half of the other websites I browse have, for some reason, decided to become terrified because "we didn't get to read the proposal before it was voted on" and "but now the evil gubmint will get to ban porn" and "obamacare for the internet." Even places like Imgur, which I'm flabbergasted even has a community. It's frustrating, Mark Cuban sang the content censorship line on CNBC before the vote, but that wasn't nearly as galling as when he said that under Net Neutrality, you're going to need a BOX to make TV look like TV because that extra bandwidth you've been begging for has to come from somewhere, and if the corporations can't tack on extra infrastructure without jumping through new fed-mandated hoops, we are hosed. The problem with that line of thinking is that my cable company has been peeling off analog channels from the basic TV package for years before Internet Title II status started looking like a doable thing, and to get your "full package" you're already going to need some type of box or their Roku app (that's their genuine alternate suggestion). So Cuban's predicting the horrible dystopia of what the market started doing on its own a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
I don't remember seeing it anywhere: Where is everyone getting the idea that the new regulations will force providers to go full throttle on the "bandwidth for everyone" train? They changed the definition of "broadband" and made it a little more transparent regarding what we can see in relation to what isp's are doing with their client connections. Chasing the definition doesn't mean everyone needs to throttle up. It means that the isp's stop caging their sub par service a broadband service. Please. Someone fix me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:Mark Cuban sang the content censorship line on CNBC before the vote, but that wasn't nearly as galling as when he said that under Net Neutrality, you're going to need a BOX to make TV look like TV because that extra bandwidth you've been begging for has to come from somewhere, and if the corporations can't tack on extra infrastructure without jumping through new fed-mandated hoops, we are hosed. So the loving box thing has already come, gone, and clawed extra money into my cable company's pocket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:I don't remember seeing it anywhere: Yeah, changing the definition just means changing what it's called. Nothing stops companies from charging the same price for the same service. If you're currently somewhere with poo poo-slow service, don't expect any increases in speed soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
LCL-Dead posted:I don't remember seeing it anywhere:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Came across this article that basically claims the FCC will lose like the EPA did and for the same reasons: quote:The question before us is whether EPA's decision to require BACT for greenhouse gases emitted by sources otherwise subject to PSD review is, as a general matter, a permissible interpretation of the statute under Chevron. We conclude that it is. EPA won some and lost some in that one. Regardless, I don't really see how the positions of the agencies are comparable. What EPA lost on was interpreting a term in a way that generated a result that couldn't work, and issuing a rule where they just used their own numbers instead of the ones in the statute that didn't work. What they specifically didn't have was what the FCC has in its back pocket: explicit statutory authorization to not apply some regulations if they make certain determinations. Hell, the Clean Air Act lets private citizens sue to enforce the thing if EPA doesn't. Very different circumstances. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah all it really does is redefine what 'broadband' is, so now some companies won't be able to call their garbage service 'broadband' anymore. Nowhere are they forcing companies to adhere to a certain standard or face consequences. They face consequences, but it's in the form of lesser tax credits/grants for new build projects. So if they already weren't planning to expand, no penalties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Johnny Cache Hit posted:Tom Wheeler: I was hung up on the lobbyist thing too, but looking at Wheeler's career span in full he's more like a humongous telecommunications obsessive who was also a telecom lobbyist because he was a telecom everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Its really disturbing to me to watch the reactionaries turn against net neutrality over the past 8 months. Like this used to be something policy wonks and tech people cared about in opposition to the telecom shenanigans and now we have every stupid fucker imaginable trying to drown consumer rights in the bathtub screaming their heads off about how I don't know anything about the subject I'm in a career for and had an opinion on a decade ago when they decided it matters 5 minutes ago. I can't even think of a real world example of someone suffering this historically that I can make an anology with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
I had to listen to my right wing talk radio listening anti-democrat (not just republican, that we could handle, but actively anti-democrat) coworker go off about how this was passed without anyone reading it, government takeover of the internet, I know that's what they SAY they're doing but I don't trust them spiel after lunch today. And we work in IT where he should be able to understand this poo poo, it was absolutely insane. It was like listening to a crazy person. "They say that's what their doing, but I don't believe them and it gives them all this new power to do X and Y and Z and soon they're going to be telling websites what they can post just like they tell radio and TV what they can broadcast." Craziness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Enjoy what this moron congressman from Michigan had to say. Congressman Fred Upton posted:In reference to the FCC's unprecedented regulation of the Internet:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Well I was wrong about Wheeler... so far. My cynicism is still waiting for some secret part of the arrangement to show up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I had to listen to my right wing talk radio listening anti-democrat (not just republican, that we could handle, but actively anti-democrat) coworker go off about how this was passed without anyone reading it, government takeover of the internet, I know that's what they SAY they're doing but I don't trust them spiel after lunch today. And we work in IT where he should be able to understand this poo poo, it was absolutely insane. It was like listening to a crazy person. However they say they feel about Wheeler, that's how I feel about Comcast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
This guy I know has been plopping this article onto Facebook as the Final Word on the matter, but it looks like the author is willfully misinterpreting major aspects of all three charts. Treating mobile and fixed connections as equivalent is horseshit, the FCC's data there is basically just a census of total connections, not service customers. Having two "fixed and/or mobile" providers in your area doesn't matter when one is poo poo-tier unstable DSL and the other is your data-capped cell company. The traffic per user metric is completely worthless given the sheer number of automated/headless/server-to-server gigabytes slung between businesses in the US.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
So long as we're posting idiotic editorials: "Welcome to the Obamanet" http://www.wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-the-obamanet-1424998484
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Tuna_Fish_Odyssey posted:So long as we're posting idiotic editorials: Sure, we're all laughing now, but who will be laughing when Obamanet gains self-awareness and becomes sentient?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
It's just nice to be on the side not getting kicked in the nuts for once
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Tuna_Fish_Odyssey posted:So long as we're posting idiotic editorials: Non paywall link available to this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Tuna_Fish_Odyssey posted:So long as we're posting idiotic editorials:  Holy crap, it's happening already. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:
I did a smile inside when I clicked on the C-SPAN video earlier today and the bottom informed me that "C-SPAN was created in 1979 by America's cable companies as a public service." The symmetry between that and your picture pleases me greatly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I had to listen to my right wing talk radio listening anti-democrat (not just republican, that we could handle, but actively anti-democrat) coworker go off about how this was passed without anyone reading it, government takeover of the internet, I know that's what they SAY they're doing but I don't trust them spiel after lunch today. It really wouldn't have mattered if they'd released it and literally made every single person in the US read it. For most people, politics is like religion and they just believe what they are told regardless of anything else. I had a friend of a friend go on a rant about one of the random made up scares that right wing circles passed around before ACA came out. I said I was 99% sure it was completely made up after spending a fair amount of time reading the bill(mostly from other arguments or fact checking summaries I'd read). His response was pretty much "That's cute, you think they'd let someone like you read the real law.  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Is it a named author? It might be, but if you want to find out, it's gonna cost ya.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
EasyEW posted:It might be, but if you want to find out, it's gonna cost ya. ITS ALREADY HAPPENING!!! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
I am honestly extremely confused; I had only vaguely heard stuff about the net neutrality going on last year with all the SCOTUS talk, but it passed right? Isn't that a good thing? Someone give me a cliffnotes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:I am honestly extremely confused; I had only vaguely heard stuff about the net neutrality going on last year with all the SCOTUS talk, but it passed right? Isn't that a good thing? Someone give me a cliffnotes. The FCC has decided to classify ISPs like Verizon and Comcast as Title II utilities which puts them in the same category as phone companies, and subjects them to specific regulations. The most visible result is that companies will not be able to throttle Internet speeds and charge extra for faster connections. It has to still be added to the Federal Registry (last I checked) and then goes into effect in 60 days time. ISPs are naturally upset and are definitely going to sue the FCC, and Republicans are upset because it's more regulations and also Obama supported it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The FCC has decided to classify ISPs like Verizon and Comcast as Title II utilities which puts them in the same category as phone companies, and subjects them to specific regulations. The most visible result is that companies will not be able to throttle Internet speeds and charge extra for faster connections. It has to still be added to the Federal Registry (last I checked) and then goes into effect in 60 days time. Specifically, it prevents ISPs from throttling content providers outside of their networks. This means they can still have service tiers on the consumer side but cannot, say, limit Netflix to 10 mbps max when you have 30 mbps service and require Netflix to pay extra to use the full capacity of the connection you are already paying for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Specifically, it prevents ISPs from throttling content providers outside of their networks. This means they can still have service tiers on the consumer side but cannot, say, limit Netflix to 10 mbps max when you have 30 mbps service and require Netflix to pay extra to use the full capacity of the connection you are already paying for. Note that they weren't doing it before. They just wanted to be able to do it in the future. This is why the whining about not being able to do it now is so funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:Republicans are upset because it's more regulations and also Obama supported it. To add to this, this is how my Republican friend, who "supports the concept of net neutrality" explained why he's still upset at what happened: quote:I think I support net neutrality, if I understand it, but I'm not particularly fond of government agencies assuming new powers for themselves, nor of Congress writing laws that allow agencies to do so. Regulating internet providers as public utilities may or may not be a good idea (how great is your phone/power company?), but it certainly wasn't debated and decided through our elected representatives.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Zombie #246 posted:I am honestly extremely confused; I had only vaguely heard stuff about the net neutrality going on last year with all the SCOTUS talk, but it passed right? Isn't that a good thing? Someone give me a cliffnotes. I'm assuming you know what net neutrality is. If not, the extreme basic version would be: if I send data to you, it doesn't matter if I'm Netflix and you're a Comcast customer, if I'm on Sprint and you're on AT&T, if I'm an iPhone user and you have an Android, etc. The data would be treated the same. Companies have hosed around with this in the past so it's not an abstract problem. The FCC passed a pro-net neutrality order in 2010 that was struck down by courts because they didn't justify the regulatory framework that they used to make the order. The FCC in 2014 was then going to try to pass some regulations under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - a two paragraph law (literally) that basically says "the FCC needs to remove barriers to broadband internet adoption!" and pretty much nothing else. No one liked this approach and people got pissed. Today the FCC applied Title II of the Communications Act 1934 to ISPs, which is A Real loving Law, not two paragraphs that say "yea broadband woo!!". This officially classifies ISPs as common carriers. This means ISPs cannot do the bad things above - blocking / throttling traffic based on content, source, etc; and can't charge more money to prioritize internet traffic. It also has some serious loving teeth: privacy requirements, a legal requirement for ISPs to interconnect (basically before this your ISP could charge my ISP extra money or else they wouldn't hook us up), and universal service, which could help rural/high cost areas get broadband access. The FCC also gets to come in and tell states and municipalities that try to put up impediments to access, like laws blocking communities to make their own broadband service, to gently caress right off. That was actually the first decision today - also decided 3-2 with the Republicans on the dissent. The FCC isn't going to apply all the laws in the Act because lots don't really make sense to things that aren't telegraphs, so many will be forbeared. The FCC has a memo out about this (https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-wheeler-proposes-new-rules-protecting-open-internet) but the actual rules have to get the two opposing Commissioner's objections rolled in before it can be published in the Federal Register, and then 60 days later the rules are enacted. This really shouldn't make a big difference to most people today - ISPs have done some of the bad things (blocking/prioritization) but not too often and typically in a limited fashion. But this will prevent them from doing it in the future. It'll also get the FCC sued, because an ISP will almost certainly put a test case out literally seconds after the 60 day window closes. But it's important to note that previous court decisions that have gone against the FCC haven't said "we won't support net neutrality", they've said "you need to be clear under what authority you're making these rules" and there's no real reason to think Title II won't hold up because it's pretty well proven.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 06:01
|
|