SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We're a bit late to the party, but for those who haven't seen on the Internet, today is a protest day for Net Neutrality, where sites across the internet are disrupting their normal operations to get the word out and get people to send a message. Ars Technica already has a fairly decent summary of who's doing what, and we stand with them and the rest of the Internet.
Due to real life issues, I was late on getting this together, but for the rest of the day, this article will remain on the top of the page and we will be blacking the theme of the site in protest [Technical issues among others precluded our doing so today --martyb].
If you're a US citizen, and want to get the word out, check Battle for the Net, and get the word out. In addition, there are long discussions going on reddit and other sites throughout the internet
Let's get the word out!
~ NCommander
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:35PM (20 children)
Sign me up for the side with the FCC Chair. If there was doubt, a look at the supporters of Network "Neutrality" ends it. They have been on the wrong side of pretty much every question, doubt this is the exception.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:40PM
We're just trying to have a good time, narc.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:44PM (10 children)
Aren't the supporters pretty much everybody but Comcast and a few other double-dippers?
But anyway, people are acting like it's the internet as we know it, but the title 2 reclassification is newer than SN. Was the internet that bad before title 2?
(Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:46PM (4 children)
The FCC had de-facto created NN before Title II classification under an act I can't be bothered to look up in 2011-ish. Verizon sued that it was an overstrech of the FCC's power to do that. They won, but the court said the FCC could reclassify them as Title II and re-instate Net Neutrality. So they did.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:00PM (3 children)
The FCC had *actual* Title II for ISPs until 2002. When that was changed, things started going south pretty fast.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:03PM (2 children)
Did they?
I normally would look up the answer myself; but as I said elsewhere, I feel very sick, and I'm only here because I can't sleep. I thought pre-2002 that they were basically in a legal gray area because there was a lot of belief on /. that ISPs were essentially common carriers but there was no legal grounds to specifically state that.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:24PM
See my response to your other request. And I hope you get some rest and feel better soon!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:57PM
I've heard that there's a liquid that is not only known to kill pathogens, it also is consumable by humans and has a tranquilizing effect.
Hope you feel better soon.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:58PM (4 children)
Actually, ISPs were covered under Title II until 2002. And since they were reclassified under Title I and despite having tens of billions of dollars thrown at them, ISPs have very significantly *slowed* new infrastructure roll out since 2002.
Why is it that no one seems to have a clue as to what happened more than two years ago? Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NCommander on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:13PM (3 children)
Could have sworn I replied to this, but can you cite the Title II to TItle I change in 2002?
I know ISPs were under a variant of Title II up until roughly that point, but I don't think they were actually designated it. I'd like to have the link for quick reference.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:22PM (2 children)
It was actually done in two parts, first cable Internet, then DSL.
Cable Broadband (2002):
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-77A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
DSL Broadband (2005):
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf [fcc.gov]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
Imagine if libel wasn't libel if it was written using a quill and squid's ink on vellum.
Imagine if child pornography wasn't child pornography if it was done using a mosaic of Skittles.
Imagine if pickpocketing wasn't pickpocketing if it was done using magnets on strings on fishing-rods (sorry, too much Beano as a kid).
Imagine if murder wasn't murder if it was performed with a plastic knife.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:01PM
The issues surrounding this are a little more complex than that. There were historical reasons for the more stringent regulation of "telephone lines" (DSL). Whereas that wasn't the case for "Cable TV"
Because of the interstate nature and monopoly status of the old AT&T, the FCC had much more involvement in the use of "telephone lines" as compared with Cable TV lines, as those were generally governed by local government franchise grants.
History and context matter. What's more, we're talking about lawyers and lobbyists drawing up the regulations, not engineers. Without historical context, it may seem ridiculous to you in hindsight, but looked at in the context of prior regulation, historical events and the boot licking of the Bush II Administration to all and sundry corporations, it makes more sense.
That there was only a three year lag before the rules were normalized between DSL and cable Internet shows that this was recognized (in governance terms) pretty quickly.
The fact that the regulations (reclassifying to Title I) were anti-competitive and encouraged abuse of customers is a different issue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
Hmm.... somebody else said that, sure I have seen it somewhere. But I guess something that awesome and true needs to be reposted to the ends of the Earth.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:29PM
Don't worry. The rest of us will protect sites like Soylent for you.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:58PM (3 children)
Don't try to post anonymously jmorris you said exactly the same thing in the last NN thread [soylentnews.org] with your name on it. Troll.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)
He didn't repost it anonymously. I did, because I found it amusing, especially in the context of the SoylentNews editors joining the protest. Sorry, I didn't mean to troll or make jmorris look sneaky.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:15PM
Next time cite your references, and maybe use /sarcasm tags. :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:02PM
You are a high quality person and I applaud your transparency.
(Score: 2, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)
Hey jmo, we can see through your "submit anonymously" checkbox.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:05AM
[Begin message so cleverly encrypted that no Soylentil will see it!] Trans-National Globalized Anthroponic Social Justice Warrior Strike Force, Special jmorris Unit, 2nd Left-tenet reporting: Major setback. jmorris seems to have found the "submit anonymously" button. This could complicate surveillance immensely. The other possibility is that others are posting jmorris material, cut and pasted, under an anonymous facade. But the second scenario is unlikely, since no one could be that insane. So the two possibilities are, jmorris as AC, or AC going for satirical effect. Like if I were to say, " I cannot even visit London". - satirical quotation of a jmorris. Further developments will be conveyed as they develop, and we sincerely hope that the jmorris can be saved. [End message so cleverly encrypted that no Soylentil will see it!]