The FCC is expected to pass the new regulations, as all three Republicans on the commission have said they support the measure. So much for not being a partisan decision.
At least we will have the FCC and FTC to protect us. Ajit Pai heads the FCC. Pai is a well-known opponent of net neutrality of course.
Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Jon Tester (D-MT) voted to reconfirm former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai as chairman of the FCC.
I don't think this is about partisan positions but instead neoliberal positions.
The way these things work is that Democrats designate enough members to support such measures, giving the other members "shelter" to pretend they are with the people when they really aren't. For the best result they choose sacrificial lambs least vulnerable to voter action based upon the position taken. They have a horde of industry lobbyists and consultants to game various scenarios for the best result before instructions are issued and such a "vote" is held. This leaves the other members free to virtue signal all they want to keep your votes.
Republicans work essentially the same way.
Don't be fooled. This is a representative body but one that represents industry interests, not your interests.
Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Jon Tester (D-MT) voted to reconfirm former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai as chairman of the FCC.
I don't think this is about partisan positions but instead neoliberal positions.
The way these things work is that Democrats designate enough members to support such measures, giving the other members "shelter" to pretend they are with the people when they really aren't. For the best result they choose sacrificial lambs least vulnerable to voter action based upon the position taken. They have a horde of industry lobbyists and consultants to game various scenarios for the best result before instructions are issued and such a "vote" is held. This leaves the other members free to virtue signal all they want to keep your votes.
Republicans work essentially the same way.
Don't be fooled. This is a representative body but one that represents industry interests, not your interests.
I'm not going to argue your point, but, just on face value.
Neutrality was secure while the Democrats were in office, less than a year after Republicans get in, it is being trashed. You can word it anyway you want but if a Democrat was in office, in my opinion, we wouldn't be discussing this.
I'm not going to argue your point, but, just on face value.
Neutrality was secure while the Democrats were in office, less than a year after Republicans get in, it is being trashed. You can word it anyway you want but if a Democrat was in office, in my opinion, we wouldn't be discussing this.
Really? I remember just a couple years ago everyone was in a tizzy about this same thing... and there was a Democrat in the White House then too...
Really? I remember just a couple years ago everyone was in a tizzy about this same thing... and there was a Democrat in the White House then too...
-tg
Gee...was it still in place when they left? Will it be in a few weeks now that Republicans are in? I can appreciate your position and see some of your points but to me; the bottom line is the Republicans are changing it.
A Democratic government put the current regulations in place, yes i suspect there was some disagreement even with the Democratic party on it, but in the end they did the right thing and supported and enacted net neutrality.
The current Republican government is now trying to dismantle that regulation in some part probably just because the Democrats supported it but also because of intense lobbying & funding by ISP's to the Republican party.
Having Net Neutrality is pro consumer and is pro citizen, it looks after our interest over corporate interests. Removing those protections will in the end lead to policies that are the opposite.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
The reason this is an issue is because it's all just rule making. There is NO legislation on the subject, so each president gets to appoint people who then get to do whatever they feel like. If we wanted this to be solved, it should be solved by Congress.
Democrats take at least as much money as Republicans from the vested interests (Comcast, Verizon, etc.). Trying to pretend that Obama didn't fully expect this to be ash-canned is just naive. Given that expectation, his actions cost him nothing and fooled the gullible.
The reason this is an issue is because it's all just rule making. There is NO legislation on the subject, so each president gets to appoint people who then get to do whatever they feel like. If we wanted this to be solved, it should be solved by Congress.
Yeah...maybe that could be another big beautiful Christmas present...
Right, but Dil makes a good point: This wasn't done under the Democrats, either. I doubt that either party feels any heat over this, so they aren't doing anything. This is HUGE business against HUGE business, so I don't see anything particularly partisan or nefarious about it. I just feel that nobody has complained enough for any legislative action to have been taken. We've been uncomplaining under net neutrality. We'll either start complaining once it goes away....or we won't. The changes may be slow enough that people will just get used to it.
The world we have is far from ideal, but it's the world we are used to.
Democrats take at least as much money as Republicans from the vested interests (Comcast, Verizon, etc.). Trying to pretend that Obama didn't fully expect this to be ash-canned is just naive.
In my opinion Obama didn't expect a Trump presidency and without a Trump presidency the regulation would probably just have been left alone.
Of course the Democrats take a money from vested interests, but what was clear to me was the Obama directed the push towards title 2 regulation, pushing it through Congress may have been considered but then he would have to be sure to have the votes and its not clear he had them.
Anyway it doesn't really matter why or how the regulations where enacted, what is more important in my opinion is that they are now being torn down so soon afterwards in what looks like a purely vindictive and vested interest move.
I haven't seen anyone come up with a good reason as to how this is will be good for the general public, you can talk about it being big business vs big business but on one side of the equation is also the general public who will lose out if ISP are allowed to charge different prices for different lanes of internet traffic.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
Nobody is suggesting that Pai is any sort of "good guy." But he has served in the FCC since being appointed by Obama in 2012.
This not not partisan, both "teams" in the D.C. League are a part of the problem.
I can see you are not going to concede it is partisanship even though it plainly is. I guess I'll have to concede I'm not going to change your mind about that.
Last edited by TysonLPrice; Dec 13th, 2017 at 06:10 AM.
But unless something very surprising happens; say good-bye to net neutrality. At least until a Democrat is in the White House again. Not to imply that it was a partisan decision.
Last edited by TysonLPrice; Dec 13th, 2017 at 07:43 AM.
I can see you are not going to concede it is partisanship even though it plainly is. I guess I'll have to concede I'm not going to change your mind about that.
You missed my point, too: The FCC only has a say on this because Congress hasn't done anything. Those links you posted are just details. Everybody has lived under net neutrality. This is the normal we know. A few people have talked about the importance of it, but not so many as to move Congress to implement it in law. Frankly, I don't feel that this is partisan enough that you wouldn't see pretty strong bipartisan support if people started squawking about it. We just haven't, because we literally haven't experienced anything else. We don't know what we stand to lose, so we don't value what we have. That's the only reason that this is a matter of FCC rule making.
After all, even within the FCC it isn't necessarily partisan. Across pretty nearly everything, the only consistent policy that Trump has pursued is to do the exact opposite of whatever Obama did, without regard to whether they actually liked the policy.
What's probably going to happen, sort of piggybacking what I think Shaggy Hiker is saying:
Technically there are no laws defending or denying net neutrality. But FCC regulations currently act like laws protecting it. However, the FCC is an appointed body and as part of Donald Trump's promise to fight corruption he appointed only one of the many positions and selected a representative of a major telecommunications company for that position. Now, completely free of corruption, this previous employee of a major telecommunications company believes that same company is right, and the FCC regulations should be scrapped.
There's not really much we as citizens can do, because this is an appointed position and the nation sort-of-kind-of decided on a coastal elite with a proven, court-supported history of corruption instead of a coastal elite with a fabricated, never-found-guilty of corruption candidate to be the person who made the appointment. Fake news, fart noises, etc.
After this totally fair decision is made and impacts the entire economy and citizenship of America, people might be pissed. But they'll be liberals, mostly, and we'll be informed that the media is lying and trying to hide that the economy's doing the best it's done in history thanks to net neutrality being destroyed, and by the way he totally legitimately won the election and it's sour grapes from loser Hillary.
So it'll be gone forever and the bulk of America's going to squeal with glee as they watch money fly overseas as if someone untied the mouth of the balloon that is our tech economy and squeezed. So bend over. The GOP invited this monster in, and he's not taking 'no' for an answer.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
I am amazed that so many people haven't twigged to the reality that neither the Democrats or Republicans are your friends. The last election only proved that and everything since has driven the point even further home.
Time to exit The Bubble, take the Red Pill, etc.
Last edited by dilettante; Dec 13th, 2017 at 10:10 PM.
Reason: hilarious typo
Honestly after Roy Moore what I've been saying to people is:
"You know, you can be 'a conservative' without being 'a Republican', right?"
Same with the Democrats. I align with a lot of the platform goals, but in a lot of races it's still lining up to be the "Bernie candidate" vs. "the other guy" and no matter who runs it ends with half the Democrats pouting in a corner on Election Day swearing their protest vote isn't helping the Republican win.
I wish I could vote for a third-party candidate who had half a chance, but I have to vote for one of the parties if I want to feel like I did anything remotely responsible. I wish we voted on "issues", not "parties". It'd be nice if you could say, "Well I want a candidate that's fiscally conservative but I'd also really like it if I could smoke some weed while blaming it all on the Mexicans."
Fat chance. Weed's the Democrats' issue.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
You missed my point, too: The FCC only has a say on this because Congress hasn't done anything. Those links you posted are just details. Everybody has lived under net neutrality. This is the normal we know. A few people have talked about the importance of it, but not so many as to move Congress to implement it in law. Frankly, I don't feel that this is partisan enough that you wouldn't see pretty strong bipartisan support if people started squawking about it. We just haven't, because we literally haven't experienced anything else. We don't know what we stand to lose, so we don't value what we have. That's the only reason that this is a matter of FCC rule making.
After all, even within the FCC it isn't necessarily partisan. Across pretty nearly everything, the only consistent policy that Trump has pursued is to do the exact opposite of whatever Obama did, without regard to whether they actually liked the policy.
I suppose these is a good chance I missed some of the points made. I have tried to just look at it in a simple, straight forward way. As soon as the Republicans got into office they began the effort of taking away the net neutrality that was kept in place by the Democrats. Sliced and diced anyway someone wants it doesn't change that simple fact.
Color me obtuse but it is that cut and dry to me. This post wouldn't exist if a Democrat was in the White House.
The expression you are reaching for is "cut and dried."
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
This post wouldn't exist if a Democrat was in the White House.
I agree, except that what you seem to want is called a New Democrat. You have a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome on top of a serious case of Neoliberalism. Almost a Perfect Storm of political illness.
Lefties have already pointed out over and over again how Obama and the Clintons have been as bad or worse for the country as any Republican. This is not a partisan issue due to the simple fact that we have only one Corporate Party that shows two false faces.
Gallant has strongly held beliefs and attacks issues, not people.
Goofus jams prefixes and suffixes together to invent entirely new names for his opponents like "Neoislamictranscendentalistsheeple", and never actually talks about the same thing as anyone else in the conversation. The only argument he ever presents is, "Well, THEY did it first!" because we all know two wrongs make a right.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
I wish I could vote for a third-party candidate who had half a chance, but I have to vote for one of the parties if I want to feel like I did anything remotely responsible.
In this state, I vote to feel like I've done my civic duty in that regard. The vote doesn't make a bit of difference. I have yet to vote in an election that wasn't a rubber stamp of the candidate with an R beside their name. Only the primary is contested, and the Republicans closed their primary several years ago because they were afraid that an open primary was allowing in candidates that weren't sufficiently far right. That's not opinion, either. It was a fight within the leadership of the party, and it was pretty much fought out in the open.
Admit it, the entire thread is only here to try to keep the past election on life support. Let it go, it's dead and you couldn't be more wrong.
IT professionals concerned about a technology event that is happening as I type is trying to keep the last election alive? I think of it as we are discussing one of the effects of the last election.
As FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was in the middle of giving his comment on the net neutrality proposal, someone handed him a note. He quickly said that on advice of security, the Commission needed to take a break. The feed was then cut off. Politico kept its feed of the evacuated room up and it showed law enforcement and bomb-sniffing dogs searching the room.
Thursday's 3-2 vote along party lines -- it was 3-2 on the Republican-led panel -- marks a big shift from more than a decade of federal oversight. Under net neutrality, broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T were regulated like telecommunications companies, but the new rules will treat them like information services.
When a vote is along party lines does that mean the vote was partisan?
Thursday's 3-2 vote along party lines -- it was 3-2 on the Republican-led panel -- marks a big shift from more than a decade of federal oversight. Under net neutrality, broadband providers like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T were regulated like telecommunications companies, but the new rules will treat them like information services.
So we're back to 2014 rules...
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
When a vote is along party lines does that mean the vote was partisan?
Well, let's see what happens when all the God-fearing people in evangelical states have to figure out how to pay their ISP for the Pornhub package without it showing up on their bill for their wife to find it.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
This could have world wide impact which we haven't discussed. For example I believe Canada has fairly strict net neutrality laws but our "wires" cross. I haven't seen many articles on it either. I'll try looking a little more.
My understanding is since the US has been flirting with it (and several other issues), several of the countries that matter are already embarking on projects to build new infrastructure so their data doesn't have to pass through the US.
Speaking from an "open internet" perspective it's probably for the better that they have multiple routes. Speaking from an infrastructure perspective the costs of implementing that were prohibitive.
It's one more arena where everyone was happy letting the US be the global influencer, but our relentless pursuit of monetizing everything is convincing the world to find a different steward.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
The whole thing is really weird and I think it goes back to that attempt of a simple overview.
There's no legal protection or discouragement for net neutrality, before or after this decision.
But there are regulations the FCC requires carriers to follow, and they were written in such a way that net neutrality was protected. I can't speak with authority but I think net neutrality existed in these regulations by accident, rather than by design. But because they were there, even though there were no real laws on the books to protect net neutrality, you could be harassed and fined by the FCC if you didn't comply.
Now those regulations don't exist. Technically, legally, nothing has changed. But without regulatory pressure, carriers could decide to do the things the regulations previously denied, like charge extra money for tech corporations to access Windows Azure, Amazon AWS, and Google's... whatever their cloud stuff is called.
But technically nothing stops Congress from deciding, based on public outcry, to establish law either way. Or, lawsuits over bad behaviors could make it to SCOTUS and result in a landmark ruling that establishes it anyway.
But we have to get there, and to get there we have to wait for someone to be the company that finds the line the government feels obligated to punish them for crossing. Right now they're too busy working on other things.
So yes, there're going to be a lot of lawsuits.
This answer is wrong. You should be using TableAdapter and Dictionaries instead.
The only thing we like better than making money is suing people, so I can't imagine that there wouldn't be a whole bunch over this.
How's this...Ford makes a deal with AT&T to have the fastest speed possible for their driver-less vehicles and to throttle back GM and the others. Ford advertises their vehicles have a proven superior safety record. That's because their vehicles get the data faster. Then GM and the others sue Ford...
There's got to be a pun in there somewhere
Last edited by TysonLPrice; Dec 14th, 2017 at 04:50 PM.
Well, Ford might do that, but the results wouldn't be immediately obvious to everybody. It might be just a statistical thing that would appear over the course of decades. Therefore, in two decades we might look back and say, "Ford scored, and twenty years ago..."