Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:21PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:34PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:34PM (#507028)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @06:52PM (#507043)

    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

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @11:04PM (#507177) Journal

      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)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:02PM (#507147) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @06:55PM (#507678)

      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]