SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the public-servants-not-serving-the-public dept.
Common Dreams reports
Last Week Tonight host John Oliver on [May 7] issued another powerful rallying cry to save net neutrality protections, and, repeating the outcome of his 2014 plea, his viewers flooded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) site, causing it to temporarily crash.
[...] Oliver said it's worth noting that [FCC Chairman Ajit] Pai is "a former lawyer for Verizon", a company which "won a lawsuit which meant that if the FCC wanted strong, enforceable protection, its only real option was to reclassify the ISPs, and yet he cheerily insists under questioning that there is just not evidence that cable companies were engaging in rampant wrongdoing".
"Title II is the most solid legal foundation we have right now for a strong, enforceable net neutrality protections", Oliver said, and urged "we, the people, [to] take this matter into our own hands".
To that end, Last Week Tonight bought the domain name gofccyourself.com, which redirects users to the official FCC page[1] where open internet advocates can leave a comment and call for these protections to remain in place. (Oliver notes that it simplifies the commenting process the FCC "has made more difficult since three years ago".)
"Everyone needs to get involved. Comment now, and then maybe comment again when the FCC makes its proposal official. Even call you representative and your senators", Oliver urged.
So successful was the start of his campaign, according to Motherboard, that there was such a high volume of traffic flooding the Federal Communications Commission that the site temporarily went down. As of this writing, it is up and running again.
[1] The fcc.gov page is almost entirely behind scripts.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:29PM (11 children)
LOL no because SoylentNews never uses JavaScript and it is impossible to crash SoylentNews because Linux.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:41PM (8 children)
WTF does "crash" even mean here? Was it returning 500 internal server error? Did any servers go down? Or does DDoS-level traffic from legitimate traffic now count as a "crash?" Were there any actual DDoS attempts that contributed in addition to legitimate traffic?
(Well, I think we may be able to conclude that there were no DDoS attempts as long as nobody's screaming about the Russkies "hacking" the FCC.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:47PM (7 children)
Bad form to reply to myself (but I'm AC! who would know if hadn't said that?!), but I thought I should clarify.
A campaign like this may constitute a DDoS in a loose sense. I typically don't think of something as a DDoS unless there's a botnet involved, especially a botnet doing things to specifically cause the target service to use as many resources as possible to respond to each request in comparison to each request taking a few resources as possible on the botnet's end. Something like syn flooding, but I admit I'm not l337 enough to care to be up to date on the latest DDoS techniques. I'm just aware that putting curl, wget, nc, or similar in an infinite loop on botnet slaves is not the most efficient way to do it.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:57PM
It wouldn't matter if John Oliver told everyone to crash SoylentNews. Absolutely nobody has heard of SoylentNews and nobody jumps on a bandwagon that nobody has heard of. Everyone would assume SoylentNews is a joke that John Oliver made up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:01PM (5 children)
> A campaign like this may constitute a DDoS in a loose sense.
A statement by the FCC's CIO claimed
[...] multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks [...] These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC.
-- http://www.zdnet.com/article/fcc-says-ddos-attacks-not-net-neutrality-comments-tied-up-comments-system/ [zdnet.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:42PM (1 child)
Under Idjit Pai the FCC has really strong incentive to lie about that.
But even if we take it at face value what does that really say? That someone wants to stop citizens from filing pro-neutrality comments.
Who would want that? Could that be the idjit's former employer, Verizon? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:50PM
There's a certain foreign power that's been using botnets and would also take an interest in this issue...
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
The proceeding are not accessible at the moment.
Tried calling to show I was not a bot: apparently it went down again about an hour ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:09PM (1 child)
http://www.webcitation.org/6qLB6oJ5l [webcitation.org]
The CIO's statement is supposed to be readable via
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344764A1.txt [fcc.gov]
but the site told me my "request looked malicious and has been blocked." Here's an archived copy.
http://www.webcitation.org/6qLB6oJ5l [webcitation.org]
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:05AM
The second archived copy is the same as the first. Both have the document (mangled a bit).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:11PM (1 child)
I've been SN for years and have never saw the need to whitelist anything in NoScript.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:44PM
I've been on SN for years and I've never seen SN running on anything except Linux.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:00PM (6 children)
There is a simple and noble reason why the FCC wants to remove net neutrality.
1984: The chocolate ration has increased to 20g this week.
Trump: The internet ration has increased to 20 MB this week. It's the best! Trust me! You'll love it! I promise!
Without the scourge of net neutrality, you will only be able to connect to approved sites. And share approved ideas. No more badmouthing corporations or their government puppets. No more widespread dissemination of inconvenient facts. Everyone will be happy drinking their Victory Coffee [youtube.com] while discussing more important national issues like which Kardashian has the most massive backside. And no more fast forwarding commercials.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:06PM (2 children)
Zero rating != a blacklist
A bunch of tired net neutrality slippery slope stuff in your post. What will really happen is that if the govt. does not like a site, such as a video streaming or dark web site, they will seize the domain name or hack it to install malware on visitors' computers.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:38PM
Zero-rating + low cap = blacklist (or overage fees).
"You are totally free to watch Netflix or Amazon until your 200MB cap expires. If you watched Comcast programs instead, you would keep all 200MB of your cap for banking, playing and FB. Optionally, you may subscribe to our Gluttony-is-bad plan, which will give you 50GB for $100, or 150GB for $300. Did we mention our Cable package is a cheap $99?"
That sound in the distance? a Comcast exec jizzing his pants just thinking about it.
That zero here -> 0 - ? The odds the Comcast would not screw their customers for giant profit, killing Amazon video and Netflix as a bonus.
Me needs to buy some stocks. Where's my gas mask?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:43PM
Zero rating is evil and should not exist.
Suppose, let's say, Netflix negotiates a dirty smoke filled back room deal to get Netflix content zero rated on AT&T. Now AT&T subscribers don't pay for bandwidth used to watch Netflix. But Netflix is paying AT&T. And Netflix is going to pass that cost on to its customers.
If Netflix only passed that cost to its AT&T customers, the scam would be exposed. So as part of the dirty deed, AT&T will require Netflix not to charge AT&T-Netflix customers differently. That means that Verizon-Netflix users are subsidizing the costs of AT&T-Netflix users.
Now suppose HBO negotiates a nasty deal with Verizon to have HBO content zero rated on Verizon. Now AT&T-HBO users are subsidizing Verizon-HBO users.
Eventually ever big player will get into bed with every big ISP. All this does is conceal and shift costs around. It doesn't save anybody anything. Why can't I pay Netflix for what they provide me, and pay AT&T for what they provide me?
If AT&T isn't making enough money because of Netflix usage, then CHARGE ME for that. It is ME that is using that bandwidth, not Netflix. Netflix is paying handsomely on their end of the connection. AT&T should charge me for the bandwidth I use in exactly the same way whether I use Netflix or HBO or something that clueless AT&T doesn't even know about yet.
Zero Rating also disadvantages new entrants into the streaming video or streaming audio markets. Or streaming anything, really. This kinid of disadvantage hurts innovation. What if a new streaming VR service were to emerge.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:16PM (2 children)
Of course, it's not controlling thoughts that is their main goal.
It's robbing us fucking blind by deregulating in a way that's designed to kill the very competition they think makes free-market approaches to problems great in the first place.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)
they don't believe in competition. they are crony capitalists. just because they talk about free markets to lie to their base doesn't mean anything.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @11:15PM
No, free markets are *exactly* what they want, and they want it *because* they don't believe in competition. That's the whole point of all this deregulation, in every single market from net neutrality to mortgages. These massive corporations already own the market. They can easily crush any competitors -- they already produce at a larger scale, which often gives greater efficiency, meaning lower prices. If that doesn't work, they have enough cash in the bank and diversity of products that they can sell at a loss for a while. If that doesn't work they can sign exclusivity deal with retailers to lock the competitors out of the market. Or they can just buy the competitor. Or they spend some of those cash reserves to do real R&D until they're back on top (which would certainly be a nice change if they ever got that desperate...) Or they can try to eliminate the market entirely (like M$ did to browsers by bundling IE.) There's a lot of regulations preventing them from doing all of that. They want those regulations gone.
TL;DR: They do honestly want free markets, they just define "free" as the freedom to rape and pillage and murder.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:02PM (27 children)
John Oliver should run for president. Let's see how big his audience really is.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:48PM (13 children)
He's not a natural-born US citizen, so he cannot be president.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:27PM (8 children)
No, but I do think a lot about how well a mediocre comedian like Jon Stewart would have done as the democratic candidate compared to the one we actually got.
I don't buy into the "Save us TV funnyman" mentality much, but the left's strongest selling point right now(due, in part, to decades of policy dilution in compromise-seeking with utter lunatics) is mocking the actual falsehoods that underlie almost every major republican position now.
A sincere leftist revival stealing the underclass base could hypothetically work, I guess. Maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:35PM
Al Franken has done a pretty damn good job as a senator.
Whether or not Stewart was "mediocre," that guy knew his shit, definitely more than Franken did before he was elected to the senate.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:49PM
I don't buy into the "Save us TV funnyman" mentality much
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:50PM (4 children)
the democratic candidate
That's one thing.
leftist
That's something entirely different.
Here's your chance to identify the candidate whom you noticed talking about the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers.
Hint: Both The Blues and The Reds (who should be colored Confederate gray) are in sync with Crony Capitalism, seek to expand The Police State, and are very much into Imperialism.
None of those are Leftist positions.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)
Ok, so maybe not leftist, but I think you agree that they are at least lefter, right?
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:50PM
No, LEFT.
:)
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:55PM (1 child)
I'm very much aware of the difference. I didn't delineate it in my post. Sorry.
My attitudes towards hard-left ideologies like Anarcho-whatever and commu-whatever are uncertain: they've sold me on the problems existing, they haven't sold me on their solutions.
But a revival of such attitudes in the left-leaning part of the US could hypothetically win a lot of the people who feel ignored right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:37PM
No. Clearly you are not.
hard-left ideologies like Anarcho-whatever
You just demonstrated that you are clueless.
Anarcho-whatever isn't on the Left-Right axis.
That's 90 degrees opposite. [politicalcompass.org]
You couldn't possibly be more badly informed about politics.
"Thinking" in 1 dimension isn't thinking at all.
"Left" means "Capitalism is a failed system and I reject it".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:25PM
I thought that Stephen Colbert would be a good candidate. If you need to convince a conservative demographic, you can just pull up old clips of the Colbert Report and cut before the crowd laughs.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:42PM (3 children)
Perfect!
Everybody wins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
Do you understand the word "oxymoron"?
Examples:
military intelligence
jumbo shrimp
lefty liberal
A Liberal is fine with Capitalism and just wants to redistribute wealth after folks have aggregated that.
(I'd say "earned", except that there are a bunch of folks who receive money without producing anything.)
A Leftist seeks to make a system where redistribution is unnecessary because of Democracy in the Workplace:
In that system, only workers own the means of production and they democratically make the decisions about
- what will be produced
- where it will be produced
- how it will be produced
- what will be done with the profits
That's nothing like Liberalism (which is still on the Right-hand side of the political divide--on a palate that is still NOT one-dimensional).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:19PM (1 child)
Don't blame him that all the Communists in US self-identify as Liberals. It confuses everyone. But the main problem is the Communists are truly not self-aware, so they have no idea that they are influenced by Marxist ideology.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:48PM
all the Communists in US self-identify as Liberals
How could you possibly have swallowed so much shit and not be dead?
First, the "Communists" in the USA aren't Communists.
They can -call- themselves whatever they want, but until they achieve Democracy in the Workplace--or are at least working hard to achieve that, they aren't even Socialists.
...and Communism follows widespread Socialism.
.
...and if you thinks that there is ANY overlap between Communists and Liberals, you have clearly been consuming Lamestream Media's still-stuck-on-stupid Cold War bullshit.
Stop that. It's turning your brain into mush.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:49PM (11 children)
Should TV audience size really be a factor for running for president?
That sounds like what got us into the current mess. (*cough* Trump *cough*)
How about picking someone who understands government rather than a professional comedian? (Or a professional huckster / reality tv star.)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:00PM
That particular professional comedian is making a career out of explaining how the US system works, and why some parts of it are Hard.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:39PM (3 children)
Understanding government is trivial and can be described in three little words: *Follow the money*. In Spanish it's only slightly different: plata ó plomo. And really, all the superficial drama isn't too difficult to figure out either.
Either way, this 'current mess' is ours to fix. After all, we really do have the power to clean up the House every two years, should we ever decide to use it.
And just because a guy makes his living as a comedian, it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. One of the things about good comedy is the underlying truth behind it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:38PM (2 children)
Understanding government is trivial and can be described in three little words: *Follow the money*.
Oh fuck off.
Understanding corruption is about following the money.
But that is only a small fraction of understanding governance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
Oh fuck off yourself! Corruption and blackmail and appeasement are the major motivators in government. Politicians do what they are told, or the money dries up and the newly financed 'opposition' takes his place. Leave your naive grade school civics books at home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @09:33AM
I'm posting from home, you insensitive clod!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:14PM (4 children)
A person can be both a professional comedian and somebody who understands how government works. The strongest example of that would be now-senator Al Franken, who as senator has been a fairly serious and dedicated legislator doing stuff like ensuring Zika got treated and trying to better link mental health care with crime prevention.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:53PM (3 children)
Back in the 90's I enjoyed Al Franken's book: Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot, And Other Observations.
The most memorable part that springs back to mind is the "simulated interview". (That may not be the exact description used, but I'm not going to go look it up.)
Rush did a "simulated interview" with Hillary Clinton. Rush would ask loaded questions, followed by Hillary's responses. Now the responses used direct quotes from Hillary, and cited the sources. He tried to make it seem like it was fair in some delusional way.
So Al Franken did a simulated interview with Rush, and it was hilarious. Rush's responses were direct quotes cited from Rush.
Al: So Rush, are you an idiot?
Rush: Yes [1]
Footnotes:
[1] some source where Rush at one time answered "Yes".
Of course, the whole point was that the whole simulated interview thing is a farce no matter how much you try to make it look fair. And no matter how easily your stupid gullible audience accepts it as gospel truth.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:39PM (2 children)
And no matter how easily your stupid gullible audience accepts it as gospel truth.
I no longer think that "guillible" is the right adjective for the talk-radio zombies.
It seems to be closer to wishful. Frustrated by reality's stubborn insistence on not cooperating with their prejudices, dittoheads and the like searched out someone who told them that reality was wrong and that they were right. Limbaugh didn't lead them into idiocy, he followed the money and no one has ever gone broke telling people what they want to hear.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:38PM (1 child)
Apparently by telling people what they want to hear you can become president, even if you are an illiterate inarticulate maroon.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:40PM
Apparently by telling people what they want to hear you can become president
That's hardly news.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @11:20PM
...why start now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:50PM
'Offtopic'? How? Is this some moderator stalker thing?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:10PM (1 child)
(Oliver notes that it simplifies the commenting process the FCC "has made more difficult since three years ago".)
Hell, I have that page open in two browsers, with javascript enabled on both of them. I can't find the button to click to leave a comment.
"For assistance with using ECFS, please contact the ECFS Help Desk at 202-418-0193 or via email at ECFSHelp@fcc.gov."
WTF, before I can leave a comment, I have to write to them, to ask permission? Maybe there's a Youtube tutorial. They have tutes for damned near everything today . . . EFCS returns some interesting hits on photography and front or rear curtain syncs. I don't see anything for the FCC.
AHH-HA - the first link in TFS is a Youtube video! Ahhhh - click the link, and then click "express". Geez, Louise, how about "comment? Got that, people? If you want to leave a comment, you have to click the "express" button.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 10 2017, @06:05PM
"Click on the link that says express, and then, and only then, can you leave your comment"
Doesn't make it any less dumb, but at least it's documented dumb.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:13PM (3 children)
It's going to take a Google/FB/Netflix/Amazon coordinated campaign to raise enough of a stink to make Pai consider whether Verizon's dollars are worth it.
Nothing short of SOPA/PIPA-level awareness will work. The decision has been made, and Pai is the lapdog who's dilligently obeying Cable orders, and expecting his treat afterwards.
If the big guys don't get involved Bigly right now, they're in major trouble.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:31PM (2 children)
Public executions for anyone in the government not recusing themselves in cases with an appearance of conflict of interest is both just and necessary approach to this problem. Corruption is my one exception to thinking that the death penalty solves no problems.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:26PM (1 child)
The death penalty would not solve that problem, so long as the enforcement mechanism can also be corrupted.
For a simple example, consider a corrupt president that is the leader of the thoroughly corrupt Alpha Party. His opposition in congress consists of the also thoroughly corrupt Beta Party. The president and the Alpha Party would both like to consolidate their power. End result: all Beta representatives are tried for corruption and executed while the Alphas are never investigated, and the Alphas get 1-party rule that is at least as corrupt as it was when there was still Beta opposition around.
But, you cry, what happens when some non-corrupt Gamma Party comes around and challenges the Alphas? And the answer is that that never happens, because while the Alphas use the thoroughly strengthened anti-corruption laws (with the demonstration of the corruption of the Beta Party used as a reason) to strictly and constantly investigate any Gamma candidates that might crop up. And of course if the Alpha government finds one tiny thing wrong with the Gamma, guess what, they're headed to the guillotine. Meanwhile, the Alphas can continue to be as corrupt as they like with impunity, buying off, say, media pundits and organizations to make Gammas look bad to the electorate and of course organizing the election to ensure the "correct" (i.e. pro-Alpha) outcome.
Many attempts have been made to create a system of government immune from corruption. So far, none have succeeded.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:09PM
I know it wouldn't work, but it would be so satisfying.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:36PM (7 children)
Someone has given people a countervailing script against net neutrality. A cursory Internet search doesn't find this specific text, however it does echo the mendacious narrative of those who want to gut net neutrality.
There are quite a number of identical comments which read:
The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone.
The interesting part is that all of these comments are exactly the same. The sad part is that the message is disingenuous at best.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:54PM
That is astroturfing 101: The idea is that the ISP lobbyists can now say "Commissioners, we've had 75,000 public comments backing our position." and pretend those represent 75,000 concerned individuals when they in fact represent 1 corporation with access to Tor and/or a botnet and some basic scripting technology. Or alternately, pay 75,000 people $5 apiece to post something like that comment.
The commissioners, of course, could call BS on that, because those comments are suspiciously similar, but won't because they already want to do what the ISP wants to, and the fake public comments give them some political cover to do what they already want to do for other rea$on$.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:01PM (5 children)
An interesting point in Oliver's coverage was the quote from a Verizon shareholders meeting, by the CEO, where they said Title II regulation had no effect on their expansion/upgrade plans.
If you lie at a shareholders meeting it's considered fraud and can result in jail time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:29PM (4 children)
I do find it fascinating how lying to shareholders is a criminal offense or at least a civil tort, while lying to the press is called "Public Relations", lying to employees is called "Human Resource Management", and lying to the government is called "Regulatory Compliance".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
Two words: Fiduciary Duty
Its such a big deal that Turmp is rolling back the requirement [businessinsider.com] that investment advisors to grandmas be required to meet that same standard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:52PM
I understand full well that what I stated was legally just fine. That doesn't automatically make it moral or logical or reasonable.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:36PM (1 child)
Hey now! I never lied to the government in a compliance situation!
So.....um......what does lying to Thexalon get? Asking for a friend...
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:52AM
Often, an embarrassing reply post.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:34PM (5 children)
as a libertarian/possible anarchist i find this situation confusing. the result i want is an open and free internet but the two current choices are government overreach and crony capitalism/monopoly. kind of like voting for a republican or democrat for office. it's a false choice set by the enemy of free humanity. i wonder if we'll start getting a "propaganda of the deed" response to ISP offices if things continue to get worse?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:52PM
Libertarianism does not mean denying the reality of natural monopolies.
Being a libertarian means believing that government should not get involved when there is a better way but it does not mean pretending that government is not appropriate in cases where there is not a better way.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:12PM (1 child)
as a libertarian/possible anarchist i find this situation confusing. the result i want is an open and free internet but the two current choices are government overreach and crony capitalism/monopoly. kind of like voting for a republican or democrat for office. it's a false choice set by the enemy of free humanity. i wonder if we'll start getting a "propaganda of the deed" response to ISP offices if things continue to get worse?
That's a false equivalence.
Title II classification was just fine for broadband providers until 2002, when they were reclassified under Title I. Investment in broadband actually fell after that.
What's more, the net neutrality rules were most certainly not an overreach. Rather, they were quite measured in an attempt to protect consumers (including you) from unsavory practices, like allowing ISPs to double-dip (charging you for your bandwidth, then charging content providers for the same bandwidth) or preferring their own content properties over others, which increases barriers to entry.
I know it's pretty much de rigueur these days to just accept whatever narrative is offered by ${trustedmediasource}, rather than getting the information and judging for yourself.
I went ahead and actually read the FCC rulemaking from last year WRT Title II and net neutrality. The FCC took great pains to focus only on the issues of net neutrality and promoting an open Internet. Those rules specifically exempted pretty much all the things (price regulation, censorship, onerous reporting, etc., etc., etc.) that opponents claimed they were doing.
So, before you condemn everyone, perhaps you should do a little research. If you do, you'll find that one side (at least in this particular case) is promoting competition and fairness, and the other is supporting crony capitalists.
But don't take my word (or anyone else's, for that matter) for it. Read the actual documents and decide for yourself.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 09 2017, @11:04PM
But don't take my word (or anyone else's, for that matter) for it. Read the actual documents and decide for yourself.
Good starting-point here. [fcc.gov]
It provides a good overview and links on the right to the actual order, as well as related court decisions, etc.
Expect this stuff to disappear fairly soon. (not necessarily nefariously since the govt's position will have changed)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:02PM (1 child)
Surely you don't want to leave everyone enslaved to the false choice. What is the third way that has been so carefully hidden?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @06:55PM
the two current choices are government overreach and crony capitalism/monopoly
There is no 3rd way.
To start, I disagree with the use of "overreach".
There are some things that are natural monopolies.
People of my (Socialist/Communist) persuasion hold that a natural monopoly should belong to ALL the people collectively.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is run by city gov't and, to my observation, is doing a better job in the area that it serves than SoCal Edison is doing where it holds a monopoly.
Internet service is currently a duopoly in most places.
Wilson, NC and Chattanooga are examples where the local gov't assumed responsibility for that and it worked well (though Reactionary forces in state gov't have limited expansion).
N.B. If they had a working Democracy in those states, one which served ALL of the people (and wasn't allowed to be bought off by oligarchs), those would be even better examples.
{Plug for Anti-Capitalism goes here: People before profits}
Mineral rights in Alaska and The Alaska Permanent Fund is a fine example of how to handle a natural monopoly:
The gov't takes charge of the ownership/permissions and private companies pay into the fund to do the extraction.
The public-ownership-and-private-services-delivering/competing notion would also give smaller companies (worker-owned cooperatives?) a more-accessible entry point.
ISTM that I could get Libertarians to meet me in the middle on widespread adoption of this model for natural monopolies.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:22PM (1 child)
Oliver is full of great ideas as always. As I recall he dared Trump to run for the President. Thank You Oliver, without your enticement MAGA would not be possible at all.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @07:44PM
Trump had been talking about running for president for 30 years. [npr.org]
Oliver had nothing to do with it.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:28AM (1 child)
I wonder if John Oliver called them ahead of time and asked about their API:
- Consumer And Governmental Affairs Bureau Guidance On Filing Comments In The Restoring Internet Freedom Proceeding (txt vesion) [fcc.gov]
Looks like his site directs to the individual comment section:
I have not yet found guidance on what people are supposed to be commenting on...
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday May 10 2017, @12:56AM
Think I may have found the subject of the comments:
- FCC ANNOUNCES TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MAY OPEN MEETING [fcc.gov]
YouTube gives me "This video is not available." on the original video with 2.6 million views. No reason is given.
I think if a video is taken down, the view counter is not usually included.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:22AM
How much does each comment value in the bank? $0? Ah, these fat cats don't give a fuck about comments.