Mike Masnick at Techdirt reports on yesterday's internet slowdown day protest:
The final numbers are now in [...] it shows 303,099 calls made to Congress, 2,167,092 emails sent to Congress, and another 722,364 comments filed with the FCC.
FCC is still taking comments through Sept 15. Mike recommends using EFF's DearFCC.org website.
Mike also notes that Newsweek's Lauren Walker got every single detail wrong in her "report".
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Internet Slowdown Protests: An Updated Tally
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @09:33PM
Those really nice telcom and cable people gave us big bags of money and vacations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday September 12 2014, @10:07PM
Actually, "going against the protests of my constituents" is a great argument to raise bribe rates.
Your congressman would like to thank you all for his future successful Contribution Campaign.
(Score: 1) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:17AM
True, but posting via a site like EFF just puts you in a bucket, and that bucket is easy for Congress to disregard because they think of them like they think of the NRA "Bunch of crazy Gun Nuts".
Even emails are not read, simply glanced at and filed into the Yea / Nay bucket by low level staff. Nobody tries to figure out if they are constituents or just nut jobs (unless you make threats).
Nothing speaks to a congressman more than a letter with an envelope and stamp, and a return address via which they can solicit funds next week.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @10:50PM
Wanna change things? There is a (midterm) election in November.
In 2012, you folks had a chance to vote against both the Reds and the Blues.
Most of you didn't take the opportunity to vote against the status quo. [wikipedia.org]
For an example of the people you *could* have had in government, look at e.g. Jill's Stein's Shadow Cabinet. [greenshadowcabinet.us]
...or you can vote yet again for obstructionists who spend their time feathering their own nests, preparing to pass back through the Revolving Door. [wikipedia.org]
You already have the facts: What over 99 percent of the people want isn't being enacted.
On other issues, supermajorities of Americans are being ignored by the incumbent parties. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [popularresistance.org]
Why do you continue to vote in favor of the status quo?
Take the opportunity and kick out one of the incumbent parties like in 1852 [wikipedia.org]--or (my hope), both of them.
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Saturday September 13 2014, @09:38AM
I have a number of family members and friends who vote pretty much exclusively red or blue and I don't understand it. They are obviously disgruntled, but they are so ingrained in their thinking that they continue to vote for the party that "isn't as bad as the other one". I keep asking why they don't vote for a person (not a party) who stands more for what they believe. "Because they aren't as bad as the other" and "You're throwing your vote away if you don't vote for X party" are only answers I receive. They look at my suggestions like I'm an alien.
It was that kind of WTF thinking that led me to write a parody [jb-wolf.com] that not only blasted both major parties, but the people who voted them into office too. My goal was to make people laugh at the whole situation (including themselves), and then after the laughter stopped, they could go back and think about what they were really doing.
The important take away is that people have forgotten how to vote for a specific person. Until we remember how to vote for a person instead of a party (whether it is republican, democrat, or 3rd party), we'll keep shooting ourselves in the foot as a nation.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TestablePredictions on Friday September 12 2014, @09:37PM
The only number I care about is how many internet providers have been reclassified as common carriers.
This will all have been for nothing if, as is typical, government / industry does whatever the hell it wants regardless of popular opinion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday September 12 2014, @09:45PM
Common carriers were telephone service providers.
Most cable companies offer a package including internet, cable, and phone (specifically, a VOIP telephone solution).
Many people use VOIP phone systems that rely on the internet separately from their cable provider (just like people used different long distance carriers separately from whatever phone company installed the wires).
Despite the fact that the internet actually is to vast numbers of people, a telephone system, there is no doubt in my mind that Congress and the FCC will eschew logic and fairness to rule in favor of cable companies and do nothing to prevent cable companies from monopolizing local markets to ensure that there is no choice between providers.
(Score: 4, Informative) by dmc on Saturday September 13 2014, @05:13AM
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] -
I think it is more important to think of the basis of "common carrier" in old school railroad terms. In that arena, it is about a railroad having to provide service to the general public without discrimination. I.e. not charging 10% of it's average price to it's parent corporation's oil field subsidiary. From that analogy, one can see the motivation for applying it to e.g. GoogleFiber ISP, such that Google would not be allowed to have other divisions use the same service at a lower cost than what it is offered to the public for. I.e. to prevent collusion of dominating corporate interests in multiple fields the ability to put artificially high barriers to entry to competitors. Or more pathologically, to prevent e.g. 50% pricing discounts to christians over islamists, because that is what the board of directors either favors, or rationally believes would be the most profitable given the current local to world politics spectrum.
I used to be an Ayn Rand inspired libertarian in my youth. Wow did she hate the concept of 'common carrier'. In her philosophy, all businesses should be allowed to pick and choose all customers, and price differentially as they like. I.e. racist and religious biased pricing is just part of freedom, and those that choose to are by her logic doing themselves a disservice in the long run. Unfortunately a lot of decent members of minorities can get shafted for long periods of time as we wait for that theoretical long run to play out.
(Score: 2, Informative) by resignator on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:04AM
Congress has a 84% disapproval rate, atm. I wish I could believe this sort of thing will make a difference but I wont be holding my breath. I commend everyone on their effort, though. One thing is for certain...being apathetic isnt going to solve the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday September 14 2014, @01:29AM
What we have learned from the last couple of weeks on planet Earth is that if you want to get attention from Washington DC you need to behead people. So, I propose that we need to behead a few executives from Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon if we want net neutrality to be addressed.
Hmm, perhaps we ought to behead Wall Street bankers, oil executives, lawyers, and members of Congress, too. We could combine it all into one event and call it a revolution.
Washington DC delenda est.