quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

madcow stupidity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

madcow stupidity

Millennial Asks for Net Neutrality Explanation

RUSH: We start on the phones today with Rob in Colorado Springs. Great to have you, sir. How you doing?

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Doing well. How are you?

RUSH: Fine and dandy. Thank you.

CALLER: I wanted to speak to you about net neutrality. Being a Millennial, I have friends who are so scared that evil corporations are going to regulate the internet now that net neutrality is not going to happen, and I was wondering if you can give me a brief synopsis of why we don’t want net neutrality that I can give to my Millennial friends —

RUSH: Happily.

CALLER: — instead of me trying to explain it all the time.

RUSH: Happily. But I guarantee you they are not going to accept what you tell them is true, unless you use the word “sustainability” somewhere in your answer. But first, I just ended up interviewing for the next issue of my newsletter, Thomas Hazlett. He’s a professor of the broadcast spectrum, the communications spectrum. He’s an expert. He’s written a book called The Political Spectrum, and it’s in lay terms to explain the history of regulation over the spectrum — radio, TV, two-way, internet, wireless, cellular, and all of that, so that people can understand what exactly has and has not happened.

Here it is in a nutshell. Net neutrality as advocated by the people that your friends like and support is asking for the government to regulate it. Corporations don’t regulate things; they compete. It’s the federal government that regulates, and your pals are seeking that. Your pals believe that government enforces fairness and equality and sameness, and that’s not at all what’s gonna happen; and the history of the spectrum is all the proof that you need.

The internet, up until two or three years ago when people started getting crazy about net neutrality, the internet is the one communications medium that was not regulated, and look at how it expanded, and look at how free it was, Rob. The New York Times, the Washington Post, you name it, enter the internet and everything is free. They’re charging their subscribers the same thing, but on the internet it was free. Everything was. Everybody got on board. There wasn’t any regulation. There wasn’t any limitation. It was the wild west. It was the essence of customer and market freedom. Do you know when cellular technology was invented?

CALLER: I can’t say I do.

RUSH: Well, would you be surprised to learn that it was first invented in 1940?

CALLER: Wow.

RUSH: It was suppressed by the government, in collusion with broadcast communities, broadcast companies, to keep it from coming to market until the nineties — well, the late eighties, actually. FM radio was invented and shelved for 30 years by a consortium of the government and AM broadcasters who did not want competition.

Net neutrality would equal the government making partnerships with various corporations based on the politics of the president and the administration at the time, and they would make deals to benefit the corporations. You do not want the government involved in this at all. If you want a free internet, if you want an internet that’s gonna be affordable at what rates you have the ability to pay, if you want different tiers. But if you want the internet to become your cable company, then support net neutrality.

More

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR

It always amazes me how American comes up with terms that is so damn only in America.

Like Net Neutrality.

Like Common Core in Education.

The weird shit is.

For example, Common Core is a given in my country. No debate, no argument. We WANT common core and think it makes sense, so it's not even a word. We believe Common Core is the the KEY to maintaining high quality education in all levels. That's why we year after year keep consistently churning out students who top the world in all subjects. Because of Common Core. No matter how poor you are, you get the BEST. Your parent's poverty level should not dictate the quality of education you get. That's what common core guarantees in my country.

Net neutrality too is like the biggest WTF to me!

If I pay my internet providers to provide me with internet. They better not control for example, only their paid content gets higher speed and shit. Like OMG. It's unthinkable.

I think my whole country will disown the whole government IF they ever allow this shit!

Unless the internet provider is providing you with FREE INTERNET, of course they can dictate that their paid content gets higher speed. And free content gets slower speed. But I don't think Americans get their internet for free right?

This feels like abuse of monopoly. Because those providers are probably the only places who supply internet access. They shouldn't get so much power.

quote:

Will rates go up?

quote:

Will we have less choices, with more monopolies?

quote:

More big brother watching us, as if we did not know that was coming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

When the internet was first opened to the public in the early 1990s, the backbone providers were government contractors funded by a combination of university computer science departments and the federal government who were the primary users. Bossig and Primenet were the two I had dealings with back in the 90s.

Quietly, the backbone companies have been bought out by the two largest ISP companies, AT&T and Comcast. The system that was developed with taxpayer money is now poised to be owned in toto by two companies that can easily form a cartel.

I'm in favor of continuing the internet with a "public utility" status to prevent the monopoly that now controls the internet backbone from being greedy shites. Well, they already are greedy shites, but administering access to a public utility under FCC jurisdiction is a far cry from being a commercial service only accountable only to the stockholders under FTC (Federal Trade Commission) oversight.

quote:

The perpetual outrage mob on the left has adopted an unlikely target of late – the brainy, affable head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Chairman Ajit Pai. Pai is now flanked by a Homeland Security protective detail everywhere he goes because of a deluge of specific, credible threats of violence toward him and his young children. He's also facing an onslaught of racist smears and attacks too obscene to quote – including an image asserting that Pai is Osama bin Laden after shaving his beard.

Members of Congress are coming under similar attack for supporting Pai's signature proposal. The most outrageous example resulted in a criminal indictment after Congressman John Katko received a message threatening: "I will find you and your family and I will kill you all. Do you understand? I will literally find all of you and your progeny and just wipe you from the face of the earth."

So what is the apocalyptic, world-changing Pai proposal that is inspiring violent, unhinged attacks from the left? He wants to rescind Obama Internet regulations that have only been in place for two years and return to the approach that was in effect since the Internet was privatized in the mid-1990s until 2015, treating net neutrality as a consumer protection and antitrust issue.

Personally, I recall the Internet improving pretty dramatically over those two decades, but the consensus on the left is that it was a hellscape.

How did that happen? How did so many people become passionately convinced of the plainly illogical proposition that the Internet would be destroyed if we went back to the light-touch regulatory approach that was in place for nearly all the Internet's commercial history until just two years ago?

For over a decade, professional liberal organizers told the bizarre scare story that without heavy-handed government regulation, Internet service providers (ISPs) will start blocking what websites you can go to and impede free speech on the Internet. No such thing happened. To the contrary, robust competition between phone and cable companies – and later wireless companies – drove speeds dramatically higher and consumers benefited from an Internet that innovated beyond our wildest dreams.

Nonetheless, in 2015, ultraliberal advocacy groups (fueled by $196 million from the Soros and Ford Foundations) and Silicon Valley giants like Google (which cycled a shocking 250 personnel through the Obama administration and saw regulating ISPs as a way to guarantee themselves access to below-market-rate downstream bandwidth) succeeded in getting the FCC to reclassify ISPs as regulated public utilities.

This was done under a Depression-era law designed for the old Ma Bell telephone monopoly. Thousands of requests to micromanage every aspect of the Internet piled up at the FCC Enforcement Bureau and the commission was set to adopt a sweeping new broadband tax to replace the private investment it scared off – with strings attached of course – during a Hillary Clinton administration.

The liberal organizers of the phony scare campaign had even bigger plans; Robert McChesney, the founder of Free Press – the group that was cited 46 times in the Obama net neutrality order – openly bragged: "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

It wasn't meant to be.

The American people elected President Trump who in turn elevated free-market champion Ajit Pai to undo the mischief of the Obama FCC.

Of course, the noise machine won't go down without doing what noise machines do, so the hysterical claims from the left are proliferating.

One puzzler is an image of deeply discounted limited data plans offered by a mobile carrier in Portugal. People sharing the image fail to note the same carrier also offers unlimited plans, and that limited data plans are legal here even under the Obama regulations. But those simple facts aside – would banning six-dollar limited data plans for people who can't afford unlimited offerings be a good idea? It's hard to see why it would be, but if you say that publicly you could face threats of violence.

Liberal money to demonize and attack Chairman Pai and his allies is flowing like water. Gigi Sohn, a top adviser to the Obama FCC, is now on the payroll of George Soros's foundation, no doubt helping shovel head-spinning amounts of money to liberal advocacy groups out of the $18 billion Soros recently donated in one of the largest tax dodges in history.

Let's just hope sanity can prevail before somebody gets killed, and the Internet can go back to innovating and improving without micromanagement from bureaucrats in Washington.

quote:

Dec 01, 2017 · A Syracuse man is facing charges for allegedly making death threats toward Congressman John Katko...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

yeah, the congressmen is lying. good one!

way to deal with the content troll!

did you get your quota of meaningless insults in yet today? or more to go?

just like the mnottertroll we remember...yes?

quote:

Dec 01, 2017 · A Syracuse man is facing charges for allegedly making death threats toward Congressman John Katko...

http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/news/u-s-attorney-s-office-man-threatened-to-kill-congressman/article_0f6e07ac-d551-11e7-987f-8bb0864b1c44.html

fool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

FR:
Has anybody explained why paying your ISP more money for shittier service is a good thing yet? Doesn't look like it, but I might have missed something...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yep death threats should only be taken seriously if they happen to the rw side of the equation.
/sarcasm