SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it-takes-300-pages-to-redefine-neutrality dept.
The bloom may have already fallen off the Net Neutrality rose. As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled):
When Google's Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama's demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for "net neutrality" learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.
Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.
It seems as though, in their zeal to "stick it" to the ISPs, most proponents didn't consider that when you allow 3 unelected people to issue rulings on something as large and ubiquitous as the Internet, bad things can happen:
Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: "If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that's already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past."
The other dissenting Republican commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, warned: "When you see this document, it's worse than you imagine." The FCC has no estimate on when it will make the rules public.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:28AM
Is that what the Fox Street Journal is going to call the internet now?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:58AM
Seems like the righties have a great talent of shooting themselves in the foot. With heavy artillery, no less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:49PM
It's interesting: I think in the alternate Fox News universe, just the name "Obama" inspires the same kind of hatred usually reserved for Emmanuel Goldstein, so slapping it front of something is a sure way for people to hate it. And it's not entirely wrong: the people of Kentucky were OK with "Kynect" (their state-run exchange), but loathe "Obamacare", even though Kynect is Obamacare! And nationally, "Affordable Care Act" polls a lot higher than "Obamacare".
I get the distinct impression that for many there is some characteristic of Obama personally that has them all riled up. And since he's pretty run-of-the-mill as far as politicians go except for one thing, I have to assume it's that one thing that makes the vitriol directed at Obama much greater than the right-wing hatred of Bill Clinton.
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 March 03 2015, @03:02PM
were you an adult in the 90s? trust me, the vitrol directed at Obama is nothing compared to the vitrol that was directed at Clinton.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:11PM
I remember the 1990's quite well. According to the "vast right-wing conspiracy", Bill Clinton supposedly murdered Vince Foster, had all sorts of extramarital affairs (that one's probably true), engaged in all sorts of shady dealings such as Whitewater in Arkansas, and of course was impeached over a bit of hanky-panky in the White House.
According to the same set of organizations and some of the same people, Barack Obama supposedly organized the death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, is negotiating with Iran because he's a secret Muslim who wants to destroy Israel and America, and would round up all white Christians and put them into concentration camps if he thought he could get away with it.
So yes, the level of vitriol is different with Obama.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Informative) by TLA on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:35PM
Oh, Clinton was quite the Ladies' Man. He fucked one intern, and got impeached over a spunk stain on a cheap frock. His successor fucked an entire nation and got reelected.
(yeah I know old joke but historically accurate)
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Pr. L Muishkin on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:48PM
FTFY
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 06 2015, @06:20AM
The point is that Americans are too stupid and lazy to do anything about it.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:52PM
Pick your Trojan horse:
The US Regulators - working for Total Information Awareness and NSA capture
or
The Telco Industry - working to charge you the most while offering the least and still leasing access for elimination of privacy
Everybody hated Comcast/Verizon so much, they ran RIGHT into the "alternative" - which was another trap. It has nothing to do with left/right, business/consumer, or any other ideological dichotomy.
It has to do with who has first harvest rights to the crop.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:28AM
"Obamanet" is a Fox News neologism and remember who runs the Wall Street Journal. Have there been any warnings from EFF or anyone we have reason to trust?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:15AM
Yes, and it's a damn fine neologism, too! I think we should now use it every chance we get. With any luck it will give the Fox Noise crowd hives every time they try to get anywhere near the internet. Drive them all away! It should drastically improve the signal to noise throughout the 'Obamanet'.
(Score: 1) by Pr. L Muishkin on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:20PM
This is a plan I could get behind.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:28PM
Yes, and it's a damn fine neologism, too!
Wait, I thought it was GoreNet? Why do they keep trying to give us dirty liberals the internet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:56PM
what does www.goregrish.com have to do with anything?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:53PM
Your ideas are of interest to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...
(Score: 5, Informative) by hopp on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:29AM
Let me say Net neutrality isn't about micromanaging us. It's about stopping the double-dealing monopolistic idiots who sully the name ISP (comcast verizon I'm looking at you.
Submitted for your approval... http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/ [economixcomix.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:09AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:59AM
I have already flagged this as redundant... but here it is anyway.
FCC comment page [fcc.gov]
It's right there in hopp's link.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @11:16AM
Yes, at the end of the comics. As good an explanation and using suggesting metaphors as it is, many may not have enough time/patience to reach its end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:02PM
many may not have enough time/patience to reach its end.
Trust me, those type of people aren't even clicking the direct link. They'll just bitch incessantly instead.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @09:14AM
Let me say Net neutrality isn't about micromanaging us.
From your lips to God's ear Mr hopp!
The FCC said their expectation was for lite handed rules. I hope and trust that will be true.
But a foot in the door and a camels nose under the tent, and if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the big ISPs in line.
But the method (hammer) used by bringing these mostly private networks under public regulation may end up being bigger than the fly swatter that was needed. It was the only tool the FCC had in hand. To do anything different would have taken new legislation, and that would have been much worse. Much much worse.
But there is PLENTY of room in the regulations the FCC is using to start messing with end-users pocket books, their rights, their privacy, and regulating content. These same regulations have already done ALL of those things to phone service. They have padded your bill, they have limited your rights to what you can do on the phone, they have sold your privacy down the river, and they have certainly limited what you can connect to over the phone.
Post back in 10 years, after a change in administration, new political appointees, and years of industry lobbying and let us know how you feel then.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:07PM
Better an organization that is answerable to the people, than a monopolist. You think phone service is bad now? Try the bad old days before the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984. We had to fight their ridiculous rules. The acoustic modem was created only to get around AT&T rules that nothing except their property and their approved devices could be connected to a phone jack. You had to keep quiet about using a modem. If AT&T found out, they used that as an excuse to move you to a "better" quality line and charge you more, never mind that the modem didn't need it. You could not add another phone to your line without AT&T charging you more, and they would check up on you by sending a little trickle down the line to see how many ringers you had. Many a time I heard the phone ring with just one soft tap on the bell at 1 AM. So people made sure the extension had an off switch for the ringer. You could not even switch to a longer cord for the handset without AT&T wanting to charge more money. Another excuse for rent seeking was an upgrade from pulse dialing to touch tone. Oh, and if you wanted to call overseas? Does $3 per minute sound like a fair price? Then there was the whole hacker sub culture of phone phreaking, in part a response to such high rates. AT&T took a very dim view of that and would sic the FBI on phreaks.
After Ma Bell was broken up, phone service was liberated, and innovation really took off. All kinds of phones appeared on the market. Cell phone service started. Competition for long distance service started.
That's not to say that there haven't been some backward steps. However, the net result has been a huge plus for us all. AT&T was stifling innovation. If they'd had their way, the BBS scene of the 1980s would have never happened, as they would have kept modems too expensive for most people.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:32PM
All good points.
But the internet is different. It comes with the presumption that anything can travel on the internet. Its all just data packets.
All we really need is to protect that.
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:04PM
Force them to compete on price and speed alone.
That sure as hell isn't/wasn't happening now and before whatever comes of this. How exactly do we do what you suggest?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:21PM
Go read the things that the new ruling subjects ISPs to.
Not only does the FCC rules prevent preferential treatment of some traffic over others, it also mandates cable/fiber companies access to the physical plants, (at reasonable price) the same way as different phone companies are required to share the local loop.
It worked for phones. Could not that work for internet connections?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:13PM
Could you provide an authoritative citation for your wild-ass claim? The FCC decision SPECIFICALLY SAYS it is NOT unbundling the local loop for broadband.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:14PM
Can you cite something believable?
If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
What they assert they are doing (well ahead of the actual regulations being released) has no bearing on what will be in the final regulations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:33PM
I hope it will as well but I absolutely do not trust that it will. Trusting the government is a fool's last mistake.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:43PM
trusting the big businesses is going to be BETTER than trusting the government?
they both suck, but we have no real control over big business, they are independant and there is no 'voting' or any say in how they do business.
otoh, business cannot arrest or detail you or truly ruin your life like a government can.
both of them suck, when it comes to our freedom.
thing is: the gov has not been much involved and the net has been mostly run by business, to this point. they have done a VERY bad job on it, too, trying to monetize every last fucking cent from it. ads everywhere! do you think that if the net was government run, you'd be flooded by popups and ads and malware? spyware, yes, but not ads, at least. and the businesses still install spyware, so that's a 'constant'.
lets give the other big bad guy a chance. the big bad guy running things (mr. big isp) has done a bad job and we want him out of the loop, as much as possible.
the new guy, we'll watch over him carefully. we know to be cautious. but right now, he's helping us reel in the wrongdoings of the bad guy #1.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM
Nah, I'd say go trust-busters on them like Teddy Roosevelt did back in the day. Monopoly powers in practice if not by the literal definition are what have caused this to ever become an issue and competition alone would solve it quite nicely.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:42PM
It is the very nature of businesses is to invest in their future success, which includes doing whatever is possible to ensure little to no competition can arise, like raising the barrier to entry in any way possible. Monopolies are an inevitable result of markets; the free market cannot be free without regulations to prevent this.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:37PM
You don't have any influence with the government either. You may think you do because you can vote for the people who confirm the appointments. But that is a weak tool.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:51PM
> Trusting the government is a fool's last mistake.
Which is why only a fool would drive on public roads.
100% government management guarantees they are death traps.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:33AM
It'll have to get really bad before it matches how gamed the system is currently.
On the plus side, that same day that they switched the classification, the FCC also trumped those unfair state laws you've heard about.
FCC Overturns State Laws That Protect ISPs From Local Competition [wilsontimes.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:51PM
It'll have to get really bad before it matches how gamed the system is currently.
The government infringing upon free speech rights and regulating content is unconstitutional and therefore would be worse if such a thing is happening.
This isn't an either/or scenario, anyway; reject the government's plan to obtain powers it shouldn't have, and accept powers that are okay for it to have.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:10PM
The government infringing upon free speech rights and regulating content is unconstitutional and therefore would be worse if such a thing is happening.
This isn't an either/or scenario, anyway; reject the government's plan to obtain powers it shouldn't have, and accept powers that are okay for it to have
Please point me at the place in the Communications Act of 1934 As Amended [fcc.gov] where the FCC has the authority to "infringe upon free speech rights" or "regulate content". Perhaps I missed that part of the law?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:28PM
You can't hit people like this with facts and data. It is foreign to them and evokes a fight or flight reflex.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:48PM
Businesses are already doing that. At least there are laws in place, known as the Constitution, to prevent the government from doing that. That the government has been rogue and acting above the law for quite a while is another matter entirely.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by spamdog on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:44AM
Hi,
I feel SN has recently had a lurch to the right - there's some pretty fringe articles being approved.
What happened? This didn't used to be the case.
(Score: 4, Informative) by isostatic on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:48AM
It always has been to the right. But the problem is there's very little in the way of editing going on, submit your favourite fox news piece of crap, or some rabid foaming "guy gets shot" piece, or some Katzesque introspective, and it will get posted. From a buried Amiga from 1992 (in between the downloading of modern movies)
The editors don't employ good journalistic practices, which is a shame.
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:00PM
We work with the submissions we get. I'm not saying I was a fan or this story, or the second source especially but I try to remove my personal bias from my editing. Which I think shows quite well here, with the accusation being right wing. I'm european, and fairly liberal by even european standards. So i'm pretty sure i'm not part of the right-wing propaganda machine.
In my opinion it was worth airing the viewpoint. My hope was it would get dismissed easily, but thats hard to do when the 300-pages of relevent rules are not available to the public. In many ways, this story has as much substance as the people claiming it doesn't, because from where i'm sitting no one really knows the end game for this bit of regulation.
We might know what we want the legislation to contain or achieve, but that doesn't mean the 300-pages wont weasel word their way around that. I mean what could go wrong with The Patriot Act? The name says it all, you can't vote against that.
Good journalistic practices are an art, and I personally do try, but I am not in a position to do investigative journalism. When the vast majority of sources are bought and paid for because they are commercial interests, or just reprinting press releases from vested interests because of budget cuts (like the BBC does now). It's a losing battle, but it really is one i'm trying to fight and get right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:53PM
>right-wing propaganda machine
Do seriously believe that exists? Or do you call overtly left-wing biased media, such as The New York Times or MSNBC, a "propaganda machine"?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by n1 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:15PM
They're the same machine really, serving the same agenda from slightly different perspectives, divide and conquer. Not all participants necessarily are aware of being part of it either, it helps when our political indoctrination begins when we are still in the cradle.
If we had run an opposite story from an MSNBC source or the NYT about the joys of this new regulation (still with it not being public), there would be some complaints 'of course they would say that, being the liberal media who is in bed with the Obama administration'. We're screwed either way, smart money donates to both parties and lobbies/influences accordingly.
This to me seems much like the U.S healthcare reform (or indeed any political campaign), you vote for or support it on what you hope it contains, or what you think it should contain, or what you've been lead to believe it contains. The reality is not that at all, but it still might be better than what we have now, for some people. There is going to be lots of room to manuver in this legislation, if we still need to interpret the Constituion which is a reasonably consice document. How much will be open to interpretation in this several hundred page piece of industry regulation?
On a side note when doing some googling on this story. I ended up on the RushLimbaugh website which had a similar story to TFA. Rush was complaining that Google being a bunch of liberals would never let his site appear high up the search rankings because of their agenda. The only reason I got onto his site was because it was the second result served up by google news on a search for "neutrality".
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:47PM
I agree with the need to post this article. I'm not much for the slant, but we Americans now have an additional 300-pages of secret laws that the government can hold against us. What do they regulate and what rights do they take from the people? Who knows, they're secret. This is the bull shit that should get both sides pissed at Legislative and Executive branches, and then get pissed at the Judicial branch for not allowing the people to have the precedent to challenge such legal atrocities.
I guess the second half of the story is this issue is getting spun as a partisan issue when really it should be a bi-partition outrage to learn that title II reclassification came with nasty strings attached. Now while the Republicans and Democrats bicker outside the china shop about the merits of title II reclassification, I mean the merits of Italian porcelain verses Chinese china--to keep the allegory, the bulls still have full reign in the china shop.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:55PM
What secret laws? You mean the Communications Act of 1934? [fcc.gov]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:22PM
Please do not spread BULLSHIT. Most of the 300+ pages everyone is talking about - over 98% if it - is supporting reasoning. No one has pointed to 300+ pages of actual regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:51PM
Seriously? Just look at Fox News and everything else owned by Rupert Murdock, and everything the Koch brothers touch.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:24PM
Does PR and bias exist? Yes, it's a profession. There are people who literally spend every waking moment thinking how to spin everything, spend money astroturfing, and create false or new controversy where none existed.
That is not an exclusive right wing trait in America, but they sure have a heck of a lot more of it. All of the AM spectrum major talk shows are right wing. Almost all the FM and satellite talk channels are right wing, two liberal stations tried and have by and large, been largely unsuccessful. Of the major television networks that claim to be news, Fox is the undisputed leader, by a long shot, which is then trailed by CNN, then CNBC which each have roughly a third of the viewership of Fox. This is easily verifiable.
Let's please stop talking about some supposed liberal media bias now please. In America there is a huge conservative bias. There is an overwhelming amount of conservative wall of noise on television, radio, and at the pulpit. Denying this just shows your bias, and discounts your own opinions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:17PM
I'm perfectly OK with reading stories that have a left or right wing slant as long as there are facts and decent arguments, not just insinuations that something bad might happen and that George Soros or the Koch brothers are involved.
Then the commenters can try to pick apart TFA. But in this case there's really nothing to take apart.
(Score: 1) by Pr. L Muishkin on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:44PM
I couldn't agree more. I source news from a number of different sites/ststions/channels/newspapers, this means I read, listen to, and watch a lot of copy that doesn't do my blood pressure much good but it's the only way I've found to get as much information, that's available, as possible. I won't claim to have access to all the information on any given subject but I quite often find something of interest in one article/report, not found in a similar article/report on the same subject from a source on the opposite end of the political playing field.
Disclaimer: I am an idiot, while this method of news gathering works for me, your results may vary. Please store in a cool dark place and away from sources of ignition.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:18PM
While I appreciate your response, you don't need to explain yourself, n1.
Regardless of the slant of the summary and TFA(s), this is an important topic and assuming good discussion is the goal, I think Spamdog and Isostatic might want to consider making reasoned arguments for their points of view rather than complaining about the political bent of particular stories.
Even better, they could submit their own stories.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to live in an echo chamber. I'd rather hear a wide range of positions and opinions and discuss the relative merits of same. This gives one an opportunity to both hone the arguments one has for their point of view and to examine those points of view in light of contrasting views.
In an environment where healthy discussion is encouraged, the truth will generally out, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by everdred on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:47PM
The only criticism I would provide on the summary is the line "As reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal," specifically with the word "reported." It's important to point out that this was a WSJ's opinion piece, not news reporting... something just about everyone who commented seems to have missed.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:49PM
Firstly thanks for not opening with a questioning of my sanity for offering a potentially contrary viewpoint.
You're absolutely right about the press release and the news cycle. It's more insipid than just landing a story on an overworked journalist's desk though, PR firms leak their viewpoints through the news in various ways, the wires, direct to news organisations, and more subtle ways. Often these are all perfectly true, they just emphasise certain points and de-emphasise others, and over time it changes perceptions in favour of the PR firms. That's why they get paid.
As the people who get the news in place are the ones with the money to hire the PR firms, I tend to give more weight to left-leaning sources like the guardian and independent to attempt to counteract it.
What I'd like to see in these stories would instead be submission from both sides. On certain stories that's just dumb (for instance Mr X says the earth is round, Mr Y says it's flat, both equal viewpoints. It's the kind of argument that creationists use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance) [wikipedia.org]
However I think on this story there's plenty of discussion on both sides, so present it in the summary. And don't use such an inflammatory headline.
Words like "Obamanet" are not the words I'd expect to see in a fair and balanced summary either.
Put some stuff from EFF in as well as the usual fox news claptrap and you might have a Worf/Martok situation - But what could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!"
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday March 04 2015, @03:15AM
I thought it was interesting if only because I have mixed feelings about the whole thing myself. :/
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:27PM
You, me friend, are insane. I'm neither right nor left (on account of I think both wings are both wrong and insane) and it's always, always appeared leftist to me. Which is why I go out of my way to sub things that challenge the echo chamber, groupthink mentality. Sitting in a little bubble of comfort, only hearing what you already believe is a good way to never learn anything and fail to grow as a human being.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:58PM
Thats because you're so far off to the right that everything looks leftist to you. Its extremely obvious from your posting history, at least have enough integrity to admit it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:14PM
To the right? To quote my favorite politician: I think gay married couples should be able to protect their pot farms with their guns.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:50PM
Sitting in a little bubble of comfort, only hearing what you already believe is a good way to never learn anything and fail to grow as a human being.
There there is one of us who is constantly exposed to contrary facts and is so much of an ideologue that it has the opposite affect and only reinforces his delusions. [boston.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:31AM
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my Dad when I was a kid. I asked, "Daddy, are we conservative or liberal?" He just said, "I'm neither one. I'm strictly middle of the road. It's everybody else who is either right or left of me!" I appreciate that insight more and more as I get older.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 06 2015, @06:29AM
Boo fucking hoo, I don't like to read things I don't agree with.
Agree with this: VAGINAL JESUS: Happy Hanukaust! [youtube.com]
And this: A Brief history of American Influence [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fishybell on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:49AM
I for one am okay with getting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint from time to time. After all, I don't come here for the news so much as the discussion about the news. Since the signal to noise ratio is so good here, I gladly welcome all sides of every story.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:32PM
I for one am okay with getting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint from time to time.
This one is pretty straigt-up flamebait, though.
We just had this discussion (on the factual stories) + not newsworthy (nothing has changes in 2 days) + Obamanaet (really??) = Flamebait.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:55AM
Well, feel free do something instead of whinging, mate, let your creative juices running... (ew, did I say this?).
As capable as I am to "push feminist claptrap and libtard bullshit" [soylentnews.org] on my own, any helping hand will be appreciated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:43AM
"I am not a racist because I am an article on Soylent News! "
OK, I really have to stop. But I am reminded of the Grandpa in the Lost Boys movie with Kieffer Sutherland: "One thing I could never stand about Santa Clara, all the damn vampires!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:06AM
The Might Buzzard has spread its wings.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by schad on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:50PM
I've noticed it too. Perhaps it's a desire to balance out all the gewg_ stuff?
With that said, there is merit to challenging the groupthink. I would say that a huge majority of us here are in favor of net neutrality in general, and a solid majority of Title II classification in particular. It's a good thing that we see well-reasoned opposition to our points of view, even if it doesn't change a single mind.
But with that said, the WSJ's editorial page is, when it comes to pretty much all things technology, batshit fucking crazy. Crovitz is particularly infuriating, because the man actually knows what he's talking about. He's not one of those oped writers who clearly doesn't know anything about computers. He actually knows this shit, and yet he contorts reality until "the free market" is the solution for whatever problem it is that he's facing. He rails against government interference even when no one is suggesting it. He wants to privatize things that are already private. I'd speculate that he's on somebody's payroll, but he's always been like this; I think he's just a true believer, too blinded by his ideology to admit that it might be leading him astray. I can usually make it through anything on the oped page of the WSJ, but Crovitz is just so powerfully and completely wrong, all the time, that he's the one guy I simply cannot ever read.
So while I appreciate the desire to hear a stirring defense of "the other side" -- if that is, in fact, what we're doing here -- the WSJ isn't offering it. Not sure if they even can any more. As far as I can tell (long-time subscriber), Murdoch has, in fact, left the news parts alone, but he's definitely completely ruined the editorial stuff.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by beardedchimp on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:57PM
I'm a socialist Northern Irish man and I am actually amazed at how far the slashdot/soylentnews readership has moved towards the left over the years.
Slashdot used to be so rightwing compared to anything from Britain that I used to read it in a sort of incredulity. Everything government was bad, global warming is a myth, free market solves all problems etc. But since the banks shafted everyone up the arse there has been a real change in direction.
The reaction to this FCC regulation simply amazed me compared to times of old and if anything it's the wingnuts who now get downvoted. I hope this phase of posting fringe 'Obamanet' articles ends and I think it will based upon the communities reaction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mth on Tuesday March 03 2015, @12:58PM
The problem with this submission is not that it's against regulation, but that it contains nothing but spin: "Obamanet", "secret", "3 unelected people", "worse than you imagine". If there would be a story of net neutrality blocking innovation that benefits the public (not just innovative ways of increasing cable industry profits), I'd like to read about it: while I am in favor of net neutrality, that doesn't include being deliberately deaf to potential negative effects.
In general, I think the whole left vs right take on politics is unhealthy. It tries to make people into loyal followers of a political brand, instead of actually thinking about what policies would benefit them and society as a whole.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:46PM
The way I read the crazy summary was "some Republicans are terrified of this", to which I immediately thought, "good, then that must mean it's actually a good idea."
Yeah, I know, mod me down as flamebait. But the difference between me regarding anything the Dems do with extreme suspicion and anything the Reps do as probably lies in the service of big business, the frothing and screaming and finger-pointing is a major contributing factor.
As with a fair number of things in the last few years, the viewpoint can be succinctly summarized as "we lost and we're pissed about it."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:21PM
Yeah, $deity_of_choice forbid you should have your little echo chamber bubble burst by ideas and opinions that don't conform to what you already think. The tragedy! And, for the record, I'm a libertarian and every last blessed staff member is firmly to the left of me. If you think they're right-wing you're way, way, way the hell out on the leftist loony fringe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:08PM
Buzzard, we may disagree on all sorts of other things, but well frickin' said that man!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:46AM
The only ones lamenting the FCCs decision are businesses and fraudsters.
What's been mentioned about the EFF is this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules [eff.org]
Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule
For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, [eff.org] but its role must be firmly bounded.
Two weeks ago, [eff.org] we learned that we had likely managed [eff.org] the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," [fcc.gov] the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter [eff.org] with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .
Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.
Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters [reuters.com] is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.
There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:29PM
But you repeat yourself.
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 March 03 2015, @04:10PM
What, every fraudster is a business?
(Score: 1) by Lukehasnoname on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:59PM
Eh, there are many people wary of secret rulings. I'll wait until all 322 pages of "QoS can't be applied to specific parties" typed over and over before I rejoice.
(Score: 3, Funny) by shortscreen on Tuesday March 03 2015, @06:52AM
The rules are not yet public. But according to one FCC repub who voted against it, they're bad. Therefore, it's time to REPEAL OBAMANET OMG!!!!1
Is it because Obamanet has death panels?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:15AM
Not sure why the regulations aren't public now, given that apparently they now have the force of law.
And certainly we [the unimportant people] have no real idea of whether or not the new regulations are good or bad for us, given that we haven't seen them. Everyone should know by now that the title of a bunch of laws can say one thing, but actually do something quite different [see Patriot Act]. Only once we see them, and then see how they are actually applied, will we know if they are what we want. And that will only take a couple of years...
(Score: 5, Informative) by Ryuugami on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:06AM
Not sure why the regulations aren't public now, given that apparently they now have the force of law.
I don't know if it's an actual rule or just a tradition, but it seems they only release the rules somewhat later, with all the edits and opinions included... and the people loudly protesting the "secrecy" are the ones holding it back. In other words, business as usual.
Via Techdirt [techdirt.com] (emphasis mine):
Despite claims by neutrality opponents that this is some secret cabal specific to net neutrality, the agency historically has never released rules it votes on until well after the actual vote. It's a dumb restriction that's absolutely deadly to open discourse, but it's not unique to one party or to this specific issue.
(...)
"In fact, it could take weeks before the final rules are published, the official said. That’s because the two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Mike O’Rielly—who oppose net neutrality of any sort—have refused to submit basic edits on the order. The FCC will not release the text of the order until edits from the offices of all five commissioners are incorporated, including dissenting opinions. This could take a few weeks, depending how long the GOP commissioners refuse to provide edits on the new rules."
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:10PM
Thats just par for the course. How many times now have Republicans shut down the government and blamed it on Democrats? And that's just the first thing that comes to mind. That said, I wish DHS would get shut down but even if it did I wouldn't cheer Republicans for doing it because regardless of the result its still just another damn temper tantrum that they'll never have the integrity to claim, and they're not trying to shut it down because its totalitarian bullshit but just to try to make the president look bad.
(Score: 4, Informative) by goody on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:34PM
The regulations aren't public right now because the two Republican commissioners, the ones who were complaining about it not being public prior to vote, are withholding their document edits. So the FCC can't release it yet. Ajit Pai complained about the lack of transparency but failed to mention the FCC never releases rulemakings prior to a vote, and the FCC released an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) that received public comment, prior to the rulemaking. They followed standard FCC procedure, and Pai is just being a jerk so he can score political points with the right.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:58PM
It's not like how we regulate our communications industries has anything to do with national security, does it? (as compared to those secret TLA NDAs or whatever) What rational excuse do they use for not making public the exact wording of laws people are bound by?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:27AM
"I see," said the blind man to his deaf friend, who signed back, "Huh?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:26PM
death panels run by comcast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:47PM
"Is it because Obamanet has death panels?"
Does the MPAA count?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Chromium_One on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:09AM
They're seriously bitching about having too much competition already? When most areas have ONE or less solution for high-speed access (the cable company, in areas where that actually is high-speed) and the cable company has ONE competitor, usually the local telephone company ...
Fuck them with rusty sporks.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:09AM
TFS has no content whatsoever. All innuendo and zero substance. Fuck submitter and fuck n1.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:53AM
I beg to differ. TFS clearly establishes that since the FCC has reclassified the Internet, it should now be rebranded as "Obamanet".
I used to hate this type of thing, but now I think it's alright.
When people talk about something with a -gate suffix, an Obama- prefix, or they take a mundane thing and add "cyber" in front of it to make it sound more tech-oriented, I can be certain that there's an agenda involved. This doesn't just apply to Soylent; I mean, it's just a universal rule.
Now I know, with certainty, how to identify the wolves trying to spread fright and dismay. It makes ignoring them easier.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:11AM
> TFS clearly establishes that since the FCC has reclassified the Internet, it should now be rebranded as "Obamanet".
If that sticks it would be fucking hilarious.
First the republicans tried to kill healthcare reform by calling it Obamacare, but the name was so catchy that Obama eventually embraced it and now everybody uses the term. If Obamanet becomes as popular the end result will be that long after Obama is out of office, his name will be all over two of the most important policy changes in recent history. By trying to use his name to vilify, they republicans are ultimately giving the guy way more credit than he deserves. His name isn't pulling the policies down, the policies are pulling his name up. They are making him into an idol.
(Score: 4, Funny) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:25AM
We don't want to piss off Al Gore, do we?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:00AM
It will be even better if they decide that they loathe the 'Obamanet' so much that they will have nothing to do with it ever again. Ok, Wall Street Journal! Ok, Faux News! Ok, breitbart.com! You were right. The 'Obamanet' is a socialist plot concocted by that Muslim Kenyan in the Whitehouse. Booga booga! Run for your lives! Get off the internet before you catch Obama cooties! And there will be NO vaccine for this one; it will mean referral to the death panels for you if you should get the taint of 'Obamanet' all over you. Now don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:31AM
CyberObamaNetGate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:20PM
Ooh! My turn! InformationSuperhighway... SamuraiSyberSquad?
I got nothin'.
(Score: 1) by Pr. L Muishkin on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:53PM
Ooh ooh, are we trading oxymorons? How's about that old family favourite, Microsoft Works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @05:18PM
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @02:45AM
Shamalamadingdong!
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:31PM
Well, he is kinda hot but I don't think you're his type. He prefers mature and intelligent partners last I checked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:20AM
The day the net was nationalized I posted here that it was a dark day. That and the two followup posts were both modded flamebait. Care to get any action on the bet that when the three hundred some odd pages of rules that I knew about then, but you idiots said I was a nutcase for talking about... but I notice from the article here nobody outside of the FCC, Google and a few select folk, still haven't seen the light of day.. anyway, when they finally come out there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth here? Anybody want to bet against that? Or that I'll be gloating with lots of "I TOLD YOU SO!"
If it was a good thing they would be bragging and proudly publishing the new rules. Anything the government does tends to be bad, anything trying to regulate things like tech that they are more clueless than usual about doubly so. And pretty much everything with Obama's stench on it triple bad. This is going to be BAD. Courts have whacked other attempts, maybe they will save the day again, certainly ain't expecting the hapless Republicans in Congress to do anything useful at this point.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:34AM
That's not what happened.
It was sunny here. If you're being metaphorical, you were very most likely wrong.
You're an idiot and a nutcase because there were links all over the net explaining that there were single-digit pages of actual legislation and the rest was to have been background info and justification. If you didn't know about those then you were intentionally misinformed / uninformed; likely to suit your political biases.
Anything anyone or anything does tends to be bad. "90% of _x_ is crap" is fairly true. Not sure why you single out government. Oh, right - once again, your juvenile political bias.
Yep, my previous statement confirmed, and I don't even care for everything Obama's done by a long shot.
I'm not even American and I'm aware that the document will be posted to the Federal Register (or something similarly named) and that this is standard procedure. You're one hell of a dumb fuck to not know this yourself since you pretend to be so informed on the topic.
(Score: 5, Informative) by SGT CAPSLOCK on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:35AM
I'll gladly bet against everything you just said.
You sound just like my old man after he has an extended session of listening to the fear-mongering and hate-spreading on FOX News, which is his primary hobby.
There's no conspiracy here. Actually, there's not even any content in TFS whatsoever besides some random anti-Title II drivel. It didn't scare me; don't let it scare you.
For now, the "Obamanet" crowd are just having a temper tantrum for the sake of having a temper tantrum, and there has been zero evidence [b]whatsoever[/b] that [b]any[/b] of their claims are substantiated. For now, this entire campaign against Title II is based solely on conjecture, lies, and a desire to enforce the sentiment that "the Government is taking over the Internet," hence the idea to reaffirm it through re-branding the Title II decision as "Obamanet" in the first place.
I don't like the Government any more than you, but my distaste for them is rooted firmly in facts, not conspiracy.
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:38AM
You're absolutely right. This is the end of Western Civilization as we know it. Before long, jackbooted thugs from the FCC will be sitting on your couch making you watch "Dancing With The Stars" and live blogging it under penalty of death.
We will all be required to submit for approval lists of web sites we wish to visit that aren't on the FCC's list of "appropriate" sites. All network connections will have built-in monitoring/censoring devices and all fixtures which use electricity will be fitted with microphones and cameras to make sure we're following all those rules in that 300+ page document.
What's more, the FCC is going to start implanting V-chips in our brains, censoring not just the Internet, but the real world too. No more checking out your neighbor's daughter sunbathing in the back yard. No more reading the headlines on the newspaper at the convenience store while waiting to purchase your Ho-Hos -- You read it, you buy it!
We're all completely in shock jmorris. You were right and we were wrong. Can you ever forgive us for not listening to you?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Pr. L Muishkin on Tuesday March 03 2015, @01:45PM
I'll take that bet, but if you do somehow win, (which I seriously doubt,) you'll have to trave to Scotland to collect. Those are my terms and I will not budge.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM
I don't think you know what nationalized means.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 03 2015, @08:20AM
And it was pretty much fact-free [thenewstalkers.com]. It was filled with unverified statements and unsubstantiated claims by those who opposed the FCC's decision.
The most amusing part was the claim they make about "1930's era regulations." Which may seem reasonable if you just look at the name of the law giving the FCC its authority: Communications Act of 1934 [wikipedia.org]. What no one mentions is that that act has been amended numerous times, most recently in 1999.
It's a shame we can't use moderation on articles outside of SN. This one could really use a '-1 troll'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Informative) by Ryuugami on Tuesday March 03 2015, @10:19AM
The most amusing part was the claim they make about "1930's era regulations."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's one thing in particular that's been bugging me with that rhetoric:
aren't they currently regulated under Title I... of those same "antiquated" regulations?
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by paulej72 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:56PM
Team Leader for SN Development
(Score: 4, Funny) by rts008 on Tuesday March 03 2015, @11:52AM
Wow, those Republicans must really idolize Obama, the way they are always naming stuff in his honor!
I just finished signing up for Obamacare on my Obamanet!!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snick on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:18PM
srsly.
Go back and read the submission. It is an overwrought headline followed by content-free name calling.
There will probably be problems with the implementation of the new rule, but "All your base are belong to Obamanet"?
Grow the fuck up.
(Score: 1) by TLA on Tuesday March 03 2015, @03:30PM
...Darknet. Sorry about that, message titles are still too short guys, can we get another dozen characters up there, please? :) Kthxbai.
Back again. Yes, when more people use alternatives and the World Wide Web as we know it *now* becomes the minority feed for all our digital entertainments, read back on this message and remind yourselves that it was a three letter acronym who predicted such an eventuality. Kthxbairealigoinnow.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday March 03 2015, @04:43PM
Don't forget that the WSJ is the official propaganda organ of anti-network neutrality. They are owned by the kind of big-media, copyright-industry owners who want to keep other voices in the "slow" lane while they keep themselves in the "fast" lane. For the past several years, Holman Jenkins has essentially written the same editorial over and over against network neutrality. The WSJ's position has been firmly against it in every possible way. So they're not a reliable source.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:10PM
The Twitter crowd and the 21st century has some horrid naming sense and lack of imagination, no doubt fueled by inadequate education, stifling of rational independent thought, etc.
Seriously?
Obama-
Obamacare
Obamanet
-gate
Gamergate
Nipplegate
Deflategate
Donglegate
Bendgate
i-
iPhone
iPad
iPod
iMac
I'm sure the more social-media-involved can list more examples.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @07:51PM
no doubt fueled by inadequate education, stifling of rational independent thought, etc.
Education standards were never good (it was always about rote memorization), and people are no more lacking in rational independent thought than they were in the past. Most people are unintelligent, and most people were unintelligent in the past as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2015, @11:32PM
Wow. First, the guy works for the FCC and he sounds like he's against legislation that would give him more "authoritay". Second, he has the balls to call what exists now "already competitive". Mr. Ajit Pai, I must admit... I admire your machismo. A person can only wonder how much money you've made under the table.