|
Ajit Pai is an absolute oval office and the reason why people hate lawyers.
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
The lawsuit thing was great.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Back when Trump was setting up his administration, people described it as captain planet villains who purely want to make the world a worse place for no real reason, and that still holds true.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Cart posted:At the very least it crashed the FCC page. FCC blocked the redirect Its the top one: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/browse-popular-proceedings Its 16x more popular than the previous Net Neutrality one that Oliver pointed people toward, and 140x as popular as the next.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18428T?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews FCC is claiming a denial of service attack. I don't know. That sounds as genuine as representatives claiming no one can call their phones because 'paid protesters' overwhelmed their lines. It's a good effort, but it's not going to amount to anything. Expect them to announcing overwhelming support to relaxing the regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Back when Trump was setting up his administration, people described it as captain planet villains who purely want to make the world a worse place for no real reason, and that still holds true. It's pretty clearly for personal profit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Why do I get the feeling that in a few years, once he's off the FCC, Ajit Pai is going to pivot himself as a Shkreli-esque "you know i'm an rear end in a top hat, but I'll relish every bit of attention" type of persona?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Oh god this episode. Treating something as small as net neutrality and it's affects on your phone bill alongside a health care decision that means life or death for people is cringe-y. They should have split these rants into different episodes. Edit: oh god he just used Google Wallet as an example and that didn't even have anything to do with net neutrality and everything to do with carriers disabling NFC chips on the carrier branded/resold phones you bought on subsidized plans from the carrier. People with unlocked phones were using it fine but oh well don't let that accuracy slow you down, angry British man. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Oh god this episode. I suppose it depends on your worldview, but Internet access is increasingly on the order of things like electricity as something generally considered important to live a successful life. Sure, it won't directly kill you, but the access to information that the Internet provides is something a lot of people take extremely seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Net Neutrality is not just about your phone bill. To use healthcare as an example, say IBM pays ISPs to give preferential treatment to their patent analytics platform. Now IBM has effectively locked out smaller players in the space and created a monopoly on products related to meaningful use, leading to higher healthcare costs for everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Celery Jello posted:I suppose it depends on your worldview, but Internet access is increasingly on the order of things like electricity as something generally considered important to live a successful life. And to tag along with this response: a carrier disabling an NFC chip in favor of their own competing method differs from a carrier disabling (normal, i.e.: full speed) access to a website how? It's a real world example of carrier fuckery.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Anyways, the Google Wallet example wasn't there as an example of net neutrality, the point was to show that carriers will absolutely hamstring competition if they can.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
So it seems like net neutrality comes up every few years over and over (it's not like the first time Oliver talked about it was the first time it had ever been threatened). Is there anything an administration can do that can't just be immediately reversed by the next? Surely they shouldn't have to pass a constitutional amendment just to say "Do not bring this up again".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:And to tag along with this response: a carrier disabling an NFC chip in favor of their own competing method differs from a carrier disabling (normal, i.e.: full speed) access to a website how? It's a real world example of carrier fuckery. Only if you're required to use the carrier's phones. You can bring your own and do whatever on T-Mobile. You have the choice to go buy a phone, carriers and manufacturers can do whatever they want with the SKUs they agree upon and you have a right to not use them. I can't use NFC for anything but Apple Pay on my iPhone either and that's not even carrier fuckery.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Healthcare is important, but it's an issue that they've already covered once pretty recently. Maybe John Oliver will do something about it next week. This is one of those situations where we're under assault on all fronts and it's important to keep watch on all of them. Net Neutrality is the one bit of consumer freedom to rally behind in an already pretty monopolistic market.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Net Neutrality isn't about money, it's about controlling what media the public at large accesses. Media drives public opinion. That's pretty goddamned important. Edit: That is to say, it isn't about the consumer cost of internet access. I mean, of course ultimately it's always about money. zzMisc fucked around with this message at 00:50 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I can't use NFC for anything but Apple Pay on my iPhone either and that's not even carrier fuckery. Apple is a private company who isn't using monopoly grants, right-of-way grants, public subsidies, and so on, to forward their own profit. Think of the Internet as the Highway system. Imagine if Ford could pay the DoT some extra cash, and in exchange, Ford cars get shorter reds, higher speed limits, and non-Ford cars, if the highway is busy, now have to all crowd into the rightmost lane. That's Net Neutrality, and the lack thereof. Your example would be 'Ford should need to offer Hyundai stereos along with Ford stereos as options.' Which is, clearly, not the same thing, and stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:So it seems like net neutrality comes up every few years over and over (it's not like the first time Oliver talked about it was the first time it had ever been threatened). Is there anything an administration can do that can't just be immediately reversed by the next? Surely they shouldn't have to pass a constitutional amendment just to say "Do not bring this up again". This is the result of 2010 giving Obama a Congress who refused to do anything that might help the black man. A huge portion of his administration's efforts were done via executive action, which of course means the next guy can come in and executive action those actions out of action. If Congress wasn't full of a bunch of big dumb babies and actually did something then Trump would have to go and get new laws passed to roll back the Obama years.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Ali Aces posted:Net Neutrality isn't about money, it's about controlling what media the public at large accesses. Media drives public opinion. That's pretty goddamned important. Net neutrality is about my internet bill costing more and getting worse because a bunch of other people subscribe to Netflix, and the ISPs can't demand extra charges from them for their data binging. So they gouge everyone equally for their usage, including non-subscribers like me. At least go back to pre-2015 and and let the ISPs shake down Netflix instead of all the people who buy internet. Whether you make customers bribe ISPs to unlock Netflix, or shake down Netflix for costs that are reflected in the costs of Netflix, either option charges Netflix customers and that is preferable to the Obama compromise where Netflix and it's customers get a sweet deal and I pay more for the same or worse service. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:26 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Net neutrality is about my internet bill costing more and getting worse because a bunch of other people subscribe to Netflix, and the ISPs can't demand extra charges from them for their data binging. So they gouge everyone equally for their usage, including non-subscribers like me. Thats not how infrastructure works at all. Your ISP isn't going to charge you less just because you use data other than netflix, and conversely youre not being gorged because other people do have it. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
I mean they absolutely can raise prices or do caps or whatever, that's not what net neutrality was ever about. It's about ISPs not being able to say "hmmmm I like this data more than that data so I'm gonna screw over the second one". So no throttling Netflix because you have your own streaming service you want people to use instead.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Net neutrality is about my internet bill costing more and getting worse because a bunch of other people subscribe to Netflix, and the ISPs can't demand extra charges from them for their data binging. So they gouge everyone equally for their usage, including non-subscribers like me. What you're referring to is bandwidth consumption, and net neutrality has nothing to do with that. You know this because the common carrier classification has not prevented ISPs from implementing data caps, which is exactly what they've been doing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Ali Aces posted:What you're referring to is bandwidth consumption, and net neutrality has nothing to do with that. You know this because the common carrier classification has not prevented ISPs from implementing data caps, which is exactly what they've been doing. There's also been disputes over peering and other infrastructure, particularly with Netflix and Google/YouTube because those two sources produce such an inordinate amount of volume. My ability to watch YouTube at night went to absolute poo poo a few years ago because my ISP and Google were having a peering dispute over who should pay for costs for more connections. It's inconvenient, but I accept it in the same way many Dish Network customers support (or at least tacitly accept) losing TV networks in the name of letting them play hardball in carriage negotiations. Does net neutrality have anything to do with that? I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Celery Jello posted:I suppose it depends on your worldview, but Internet access is increasingly on the order of things like electricity as something generally considered important to live a successful life. Considering I can't apply for jobs with out the internet and therefore provide for myself, I would say internet is important.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Regardless of what messed up point of view or irrelevant anecdotes, everyone must support Net Neutrality, period. It is the bedrock idea that the Internet is built on.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:There's also been disputes over peering and other infrastructure, particularly with Netflix and Google/YouTube because those two sources produce such an inordinate amount of volume. I feel like technically, it would not violate net neutrality if ALL video streaming services were throttled by the ISP as a way of controlling volume. The key point is that it would have to be all of them, including any service provided by another branch of the company that owns the ISP.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Wouldn't a good way to fight them with their own narrative be to bring up a cloud services provider scenario? An ISP might be paid by Microsoft to give Azure artificially faster speeds or AWS artificially slower speeds (or vice versa) unless they pay up? Of course they might make them both suck in comparison to their own services, too. The biggest issue I have with all of this is that I don't have choices of providers because I live in a rural area. How else am I going to be protected from corporate city franchise monopoly fuckery?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
That would violate NN. All traffic must be treated equally.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:So it seems like net neutrality comes up every few years over and over (it's not like the first time Oliver talked about it was the first time it had ever been threatened). Is there anything an administration can do that can't just be immediately reversed by the next? Surely they shouldn't have to pass a constitutional amendment just to say "Do not bring this up again". When or if Congress ever becomes functional again, yes this could be made into law. Even outside of partisan fuckery the reason this hasn't been pursued aggressively through Congress is because you straight up can not trust old white dudes to know poo poo about the internet. A not insignificant portion of them have their email printed out because they don't know how to access it. Basically once enough Boomers die we might actually stand a chance of politicians who know anything about modern society and not their view of how it worked based on Leave it to Beaver re-runs.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Does net neutrality have anything to do with that? I honestly don't know. Net Neutrality shouldn't have anything to do with peering arrangements, though I guess some disagree, and since the two might conceivably be intertwined it's possible the one could impact the other. I'm having a really hard time finding out for sure what the Edit: Sorry, I think I drifted off into the future there for a second. zzMisc fucked around with this message at 11:17 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LastWeekTonight/status/863158113393930241 So much for that
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Some idiot (perhaps deliberately) programmed a bot and flooded the database with successive identically-worded comments.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
quote:In the interim, you’ll have to find something else to be mad about on the internet. Lol EDIT: I stand corrected, but Ajit Pai is still a giant toolbag Die Sexmonster! fucked around with this message at 15:33 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
They call it a Sunshine Period, and amazingly, it's a proper part of FCC procedural rules and not something that Ajit Pai pulled out of his rear end. Although I don't blame any of you, since everything sounds suspicious these days. In the meantime, the EFF is running a page called Dear FCC, which will take and hold your comments until the record opens back up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
tonight's episode is chapter 25 in "why for-profit healthcare is immoral"
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:tonight's episode is chapter 25 in "why for-profit healthcare is immoral" With a sub-chapter entitled "Yes, Money Does Make People Crazy" about how there will be Thunderdomes when we finally go no-joke Neo-Feudal.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
gently caress, now I kind of wanna try a blueberry-onion pizza.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
That lady in the beginning is a pretty big rear end in a top hat for threatening to hurt someone for not knowing what dialysis is though like isnt just going "dialysis is a blood filtering operation for my malfunctioning kidneys" too difficult to say?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
Given her description she was already annoyed at the neighbour and viewed her as nosy, or at least a nuisance in that instance so further ignorance driving her to be an rear end in a top hat isn't surprising.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Teikanmi posted:That lady in the beginning is a pretty big rear end in a top hat for threatening to hurt someone for not knowing what dialysis is though The neighbor was being an rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 13:04
|
|