SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1
Verizon was one of several giant ISPs that
paidlobbied the GOP and Trump administration to gut consumer broadband privacy rules earlier this year. Lawmakers admitted they utilized the public's focus on losing health care to quickly dismantle the rules, which would have required ISPs be more transparent about what personal data is collected and sold, and provide working opt out tools for those interested in privacy. The rules were crafted after Verizon was caught covertly tracking users around the internet and AT&T tried to make privacy a luxury option for an additional fee.After killing the rules, numerous states came forth with their own privacy proposals, and ISP lobbyists have been busy trying to kill those, as well.
Lobbyists for Google, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T collectively killed one such proposal in California, after falsely telling lawmakers the new law would embolden nazis, increase pop ups, and harm consumers. Now Verizon is taking things one step further, by lobbying the FCC to step in and prevent states from protecting consumer privacy.
In a letter and white paper sent last week to the FCC (pdf), Verizon insists the FCC has ample authority to pre-empt state efforts to protect consumer privacy, and should act to prevent states from doing so.
"Allowing every State and locality to chart its own course for regulating broadband is a recipe for disaster," cries Verizon. "It would impose localized and likely inconsistent burdens on an inherently interstate service, would drive up costs, and would frustrate federal efforts to encourage investment and deployment by restoring the free market that long characterized Internet access service."
(Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:37PM (1 child)
Even Verizon wants her e-mails!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 03 2017, @02:06AM
aka, "buttery males"
(lol)
if you don't get it, say it out loud and you'll get it.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:42PM (2 children)
The ISPs are at least arguably correct. The Internet is most definitely interstate by its very nature and the feds have legitimate claim on regulating interstate commerce.
They're also arguably incorrect though. My ISP and its upstream connections are all state-local. The only interstate thing about it is the data and that's not what I'm paying for from my ISP; I'm renting their tubes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by https on Friday November 03 2017, @05:27AM (1 child)
Your second point is the relevant and correct one. The first is a red herring that they'll cream their shorts if they can get you to believe.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 03 2017, @09:36AM
My ISP is somewhat unique like that. Yours is most likely not and there would be no arguing that your commerce was entirely local. Like it or don't, the feds really are legally justified in regulating interstate commerce.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:15PM (4 children)
What we need is some sort of representative of the people to provide a voice for the common welfare in our federal and state governments. Has such a system ever existed? Can an oligarchy of robber barons and investment bankers be motivated to move to such a system?
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:00PM (2 children)
Good thing those Republicans are so pro-states-rights, eh? They'll never let something like this pass!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 03 2017, @04:35PM (1 child)
Pro-states when it's time to let states makes laws against muni broadband.
Pro-small-gov when it's time to prevent states from making laws allowing muni broadband.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday November 03 2017, @05:32PM
Ajit Pai, my FCC guy, loves municipal broadband. But he says Title II, the net neutrality, has been holding it back horribly. So he's repealing that. I have no opinion on municipal broadband. It’s like the transgenders. It's a new issue and right now I just don’t have an opinion, but what I would like to do is see the states make that decision. But I'm committed to eliminating regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome and harmful to the economy. To easing the regulatory burden on individuals, companies and governments. Including the governments of Bagley, Minnesota and Tullahoma, Tennessee. Believe me, we’re going to get real results when it comes to removing job-killing regulations and unleashing economic opportunity. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:26AM
FTFY
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday November 03 2017, @12:55AM (6 children)
Healthcare? That doesn't exist except for the rich any more. Just got a thing in the mail that says my monthly health insurance payment is going to be almost doubled next year.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 03 2017, @02:13AM (4 children)
it exists, mostly affordably, IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED by a mid sized co or larger.
if you are on your own, it can depend.
when I was out of work for an extended period of time, in silicon valley, I qualified for free health care from the state. (I wish I knew this sooner! I stupidly paid COBRA for many years, while I was between jobs, as they say; and no one told me I could qualify for 'poor folk' insurance, which in calif is pretty damned good).
anyway, it costs zero per month if you can convince them (for me, it was not hard) that you are mostly unemployable and it will be a long time before you will get your next job.
see, you guys understand: I'm a straight white male over 50. basically, the last one to get hired by bay area managers.
for nearly a year, I was out of work and had that free insurance. I was able to get prescriptions for next to nothing or actually nothing. it was pretty good and I was able to use my savings to pay rent and food and NOT have to pay the ultra expensive insurance.
now, if you are not so 'lucky' and you are seen as employable, you will not get the free insurance. I have no idea how much that stuff costs, but if you are out of work, I think you do get a break on the 'group' discount.
paying COBRA rates ($700+/mo for one person) was just NUTS but I was not informed I had other options. and being always-employed in the past (when I was under 35), I never had any training on how to be a poor person..
the US is one of (or the only one) who ties health insurance to your job. we have never been able to break free from that since we started it all. fucking shame that we continue to overlook the main problem with our HI. remove the job tie-in issue and many others will solve themselves.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:55AM
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/dnc-white-men-shouldnt-apply-for-tech-jobs/news-story/7a220cd54fb904afae662663695fac05 [news.com.au]
These days they even go so far as to tell people in writing that white males are to be excluded.
Discrimination much?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:09PM
Are you kidding me! Obamacare saved EVERYBODY! /sarc
I had a private PPO before Obamacare that was pretty decent. A small deductible and no copay. Obamacare canceled it, and I was sent a threatening letter after that demanding I make payments on a different plan that was half the coverage at twice the price.
Pretty much the entire trades sector got fucked over by Obamacare, but also a lot of I.T. people. Particularly software engineers, because a lot of them are private contractors. Which was what the DNC/RNC alliance intended. The only thing they really do is take turns fucking over each others constituencies. There are long term solutions, but those solutions are always absent from both sides arguments. This isn't accidental.
They are the same party. Yes they say different things. That is how the two man con works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:14PM
DING! DING! DING! You win the internet for the week!!!
Preach it, bro!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:59PM
The state I live in (Georgia) doesn't have that unless you are disabled. Those that are unemployed year round must play FULL PRICE for obammacare. Even the plans that cover didley jack squat cost big $$$. And the last time I checked, being a white male who stupidly got in to IT still doesn't qualify as a disability, although at this point it should.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:46AM
From what price now to how much in the future?
Policy costs increase around 5% a year here, costing at least $1000 a year for a person, more likely $2000 to $2500 for a mminimum decent plan to over $4000 a year.