FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[The Flutterlands]

He gave us easily debunked and bullshit answers. It is clear that he has done this against the will of the American people because he is a Verizon puppet and will get a nice comfy job from them once he is done in office. He was an attorney for Verizon after all before joining the FCC.

HIs explanation hasn't really been debunked, because many people don't even understand what the argument is.

His explanation is bullshit then because it's nonsense.

[Luminesa]

HIs explanation hasn't really been debunked, because many people don't even understand what the argument is.

His explanation is bullshit then because it's nonsense.

Only to you.

[Uxupox]

He gave us easily debunked and bullshit answers. It is clear that he has done this against the will of the American people because he is a Verizon puppet and will get a nice comfy job from them once he is done in office. He was an attorney for Verizon after all before joining the FCC.

HIs explanation hasn't really been debunked, because many people don't even understand what the argument is.

pretty much.

[Wheelingtown]

Why have so few ISP providers. They shell out the money and had agreements with the government right?

[Salandriagado]

Why have so few ISP providers. They shell out the money and had agreements with the government right?

Infrastructure costs, mostly.

[The Flutterlands]

His explanation is bullshit then because it's nonsense.

Only to you.

No.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-d ... net-works/

[Luminesa]

Only to you.

No.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-d ... net-works/

An opinion article is not a rebuttal.

[The Flutterlands]

No.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/25/fcc-d ... net-works/

An opinion article is not a rebuttal.

My point still stand that even the creators of the internet think that the FCC is full of shit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

An opinion article is not a rebuttal.

My point still stand that even the creators of the internet think that the FCC is full of shit.

The problem is this: the definition used by the FCC is a legal definition, not a technical one.

Legally, Title I's definition makes sense, because you're "[offering a capability] for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing" but what you are not offering is "any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system". The definition of Title I is, therefore, correct for the internet because ISP are offering a capability to do stuff via communication systems, they're not offering the network per se in a legal way.

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, Title II's definition applies to POTS landlines and other analog services which have to be routed by the service provider. Internet services also fail under the second definition in so far as the information inmutability part goes where it says "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” In other words, the information transmitted cannot change form or content. If you know about ISP networking, you know that it is patently untrue to think information doesn't change from point to point in form. It does, legally, if you use the argument that the protocols used at each tier of the line constitute a change of the form of the information transmitted, as opposed to POTS where voice carries over the wire in analog signals no matter how far it is, so it never changes form. It starts as a form of data on one receiver, and it ends as the same form of data on the other receiver.

The technical definition would make the second definition under Title II correct. But the problem is this is where law meets technical experts. You're literally talking about nerds vs. management, and this is an argument the nerds stand to lose because management cares about very different things than the nerds do, and wording reflects that. Technically, there is no difference between the acquisition of a means of "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information" which also includes digital publishing, and "The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing", but legally, there is.

[The Flutterlands]

My point still stand that even the creators of the internet think that the FCC is full of shit.

The problem is this: the definition used by the FCC is a legal definition, not a technical one.

Legally, Title I's definition makes sense, because you're "[offering a capability] for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing" but what you are not offering is "any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system". The definition of Title I is, therefore, correct for the internet because ISP are offering a capability to do stuff via communication systems, they're not offering the network per se in a legal way.

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, Title II's definition applies to POTS landlines and other analog services which have to be routed by the service provider. Internet services also fail under the second definition in so far as the information inmutability part goes where it says "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” In ther words, the information transmitted cannot change form or content. If you know about ISP networking, you know that it is patently untrue to think information doesn't change from point to point in form. It does, legally, if you use the argument that the protocols used at each tier of the line constitute a change of the form of the information transmitted, as opposed to POTS where voice carries over the wire in analog signals no matter how far it is, so it never changes form. It starts as a form of data on one receiver, and it ends as the same form of data on the other receiver.

The technical definition would make the second definition under Title II correct. But the problem is this is where law meets technical experts. You're literally talking about nerds vs. management, and this is an argument the nerds stand to lose because management cares about very different things than the nerds do, and wording reflects that. Technically, there is no difference between the acquisition of a means of "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information" which also includes digital publishing, and "The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing", but legally, there is.

Still bullshit. There is only one correct technical definition of the internet and only one correct legal definition. Nerds are correct and the management is dead fucking wrong.

[Luminesa]

The problem is this: the definition used by the FCC is a legal definition, not a technical one.

Legally, Title I's definition makes sense, because you're "[offering a capability] for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing" but what you are not offering is "any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system". The definition of Title I is, therefore, correct for the internet because ISP are offering a capability to do stuff via communication systems, they're not offering the network per se in a legal way.

Under the Telecom Act of 1996, Title II's definition applies to POTS landlines and other analog services which have to be routed by the service provider. Internet services also fail under the second definition in so far as the information inmutability part goes where it says "without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.” In ther words, the information transmitted cannot change form or content. If you know about ISP networking, you know that it is patently untrue to think information doesn't change from point to point in form. It does, legally, if you use the argument that the protocols used at each tier of the line constitute a change of the form of the information transmitted, as opposed to POTS where voice carries over the wire in analog signals no matter how far it is, so it never changes form. It starts as a form of data on one receiver, and it ends as the same form of data on the other receiver.

The technical definition would make the second definition under Title II correct. But the problem is this is where law meets technical experts. You're literally talking about nerds vs. management, and this is an argument the nerds stand to lose because management cares about very different things than the nerds do, and wording reflects that. Technically, there is no difference between the acquisition of a means of "generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information" which also includes digital publishing, and "The transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing", but legally, there is.

Still bullshit. There is only one correct technical definition of the internet and only one correct legal definition. Nerds are correct and the management is dead fucking wrong.

I'm pretty sure someone who has worked with computers and IT since basically forever has more of an idea of what they're talking about than someone who simply says everything is "bull****" simply because they're not getting the answer they want. You want nerds, Soldati is a massive nerd. XD

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Still bullshit. There is only one correct technical definition of the internet and only one correct legal definition. Nerds are correct and the management is dead fucking wrong.

Management still pays for the equipment, and actually owns it, and has lawyers to decide the law instead of computer nerds.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Still bullshit. There is only one correct technical definition of the internet and only one correct legal definition. Nerds are correct and the management is dead fucking wrong.

I'm pretty sure someone who has worked with computers and IT since basically forever has more of an idea of what they're talking about than someone who simply says everything is "bull****" simply because they're not getting the answer they want. You want nerds, Soldati is a massive nerd. XD

I'VE BEEN FOUND!

But yes, I am very much a nerd hahah. Not a stereotypical nerd, but a nerd regardless.

[The Flutterlands]

Took two comments and combined them from this site out of loose agreement: https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... 1&start=40

"The problem here is obvious - ISPs should be Title II and content providers should be unregulated. The problem is that some ISPs own content providers. A monopoly ISP owning a content provider is the definition of conflict of interest.

The test for common carrier is also obvious. Look inside the pipe. Is it carrying data that is not to or from your end node servers? Then you are a common carrier. ISPs are clearly common carriers and need Title II.

The fix for this is also simple. Regulate the ISPs as Title II. If Comcast and Verizon don't like this, split into two entities - regulated ISP and unregulated content provider.

Now we get to the crux of the problem. Verizon and Comcast don't want to split like this because they want to generate excessive profits by exploiting the monopoly control an ISP has on its end node customers. And now we're back to that definition of conflict of interest.

But whatever, It doesn't matter what is said, Pai like all the rest is just going through the motions. They know, and we know the Law has always been a sham when it comes to what the rich and powerful want. They are going to gut all regulations and also try to make it set in stone by some ridiculous by-law because they own the game. Soon, wither it be this year or next year, if the GOP manages to stay in power one way or another, or if the Courts rule against us, despite the comment fraud, the internet will be cable TV 2.0 and you'll pay for every little thing, service and site you access. And like all the other monopolist markets in the U.S. you'll have no choice to move to another provider. Even if you could, it'll be one of the cartel members anyhow.

This country sucks and the problem is that other countries have state sponsored censorship, including European countries."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Took two comments and combined them from this site out of agreement: https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... 1&start=40

"The problem here is obvious - ISPs should be Title II and content providers should be unregulated. The problem is that some ISPs own content providers. A monopoly ISP owning a content provider is the definition of conflict of interest.

The test for common carrier is also obvious. Look inside the pipe. Is it carrying data that is not to or from your end node servers? Then you are a common carrier. ISPs are clearly common carriers and need Title II.

The fix for this is also simple. Regulate the ISPs as Title II. If Comcast and Verizon don't like this, split into two entities - regulated ISP and unregulated content provider.

Now we get to the crux of the problem. Verizon and Comcast don't want to split like this because they want to generate excessive profits by exploiting the monopoly control an ISP has on its end node customers. And now we're back to that definition of conflict of interest.

But whatever, It doesn't matter what is said, Pai like all the rest is just going through the motions. They know, and we know the Law has always been a sham when it comes to what the rich and powerful want. They are going to gut all regulations and also try to make it set in stone by some ridiculous by-law because they own the game. Soon, wither it be this year or next year, if the GOP manages to stay in power one way or another, or if the Courts rule against us,the internet will be cable TV 2.0 and you'll pay for every little thing, service and site you access. And like all the other monopolist markets in the U.S. you'll have no choice to move to another provider. Even if you could, it'll be one of the cartel members anyhow.

This country sucks and the problem is that other countries have state sponsored censorship, including European countries."

Both comments are wrong.

First of all, we're not going to see an advent to TV 2.0, as it has been explained to you many, many times and you keep stubbornly ignoring it for some unfathomable reason.

Secondly, the internet is an information service under Title I, not a common carrier under Title II. Instead of bitching about how unfair it is to not define internet service providers as common carriers you should push for congress to actually update the Telecom Act to reflect the place of ISPs in the modern digital age.

[The Flutterlands]

Took two comments and combined them from this site out of agreement: https://arstechnica.com/information-tec ... 1&start=40

"The problem here is obvious - ISPs should be Title II and content providers should be unregulated. The problem is that some ISPs own content providers. A monopoly ISP owning a content provider is the definition of conflict of interest.

The test for common carrier is also obvious. Look inside the pipe. Is it carrying data that is not to or from your end node servers? Then you are a common carrier. ISPs are clearly common carriers and need Title II.

The fix for this is also simple. Regulate the ISPs as Title II. If Comcast and Verizon don't like this, split into two entities - regulated ISP and unregulated content provider.

Now we get to the crux of the problem. Verizon and Comcast don't want to split like this because they want to generate excessive profits by exploiting the monopoly control an ISP has on its end node customers. And now we're back to that definition of conflict of interest.

But whatever, It doesn't matter what is said, Pai like all the rest is just going through the motions. They know, and we know the Law has always been a sham when it comes to what the rich and powerful want. They are going to gut all regulations and also try to make it set in stone by some ridiculous by-law because they own the game. Soon, wither it be this year or next year, if the GOP manages to stay in power one way or another, or if the Courts rule against us,the internet will be cable TV 2.0 and you'll pay for every little thing, service and site you access. And like all the other monopolist markets in the U.S. you'll have no choice to move to another provider. Even if you could, it'll be one of the cartel members anyhow.

This country sucks and the problem is that other countries have state sponsored censorship, including European countries."

Both comments are wrong.

First of all, we're not going to see an advent to TV 2.0, as it has been explained to you many, many times and you keep stubbornly ignoring it for some unfathomable reason.

Secondly, the internet is an information service under Title I, not a common carrier under Title II. Instead of bitching about how unfair it is to not define internet service providers as common carriers you should push for congress to actually update the Telecom Act to reflect the place of ISPs in the modern digital age.

They are going to create fast lanes, then, which is just as horrific and lethally poisonous to the internet. All of our favorite websites are going to disappear because they can't pay the toll.

Also, anything Congress makes involving anything will be heavily influenced by lobbyists. No doubt an update to the Telecom Act will be more favorable to the ISPs than to us. Because whoever has the gold makes the rules. That is the golden rule.

[Telconi]

Both comments are wrong.

First of all, we're not going to see an advent to TV 2.0, as it has been explained to you many, many times and you keep stubbornly ignoring it for some unfathomable reason.

Secondly, the internet is an information service under Title I, not a common carrier under Title II. Instead of bitching about how unfair it is to not define internet service providers as common carriers you should push for congress to actually update the Telecom Act to reflect the place of ISPs in the modern digital age.

They are going to create fast lanes, then, which is just as horrific and poisonous to the internet. All of our favorite websites are going to disappear because they can't pay the toll.

Also, anything Congress makes involving anything will be heavily influenced by lobbyists. No doubt an update to the Telecom Act will be more favorable to the ISPs than to us. Because whoever has the gold makes the rules. That is the golden rule.

I highly doubt ATT.com is going to get throttled off of my AT&T Internet service...

[The Flutterlands]

They are going to create fast lanes, then, which is just as horrific and poisonous to the internet. All of our favorite websites are going to disappear because they can't pay the toll.

Also, anything Congress makes involving anything will be heavily influenced by lobbyists. No doubt an update to the Telecom Act will be more favorable to the ISPs than to us. Because whoever has the gold makes the rules. That is the golden rule.

I highly doubt ATT.com is going to get throttled off of my AT&T Internet service...

Because AT&T owns ATT, right? The internet will become tired and internet companies will deliberately sabotage rivals through blocking and throttling websites. They have the business incentive to do so.

[The Flutterlands]

If you trust ISPs to not fuck up and wreck havoc on the internet with blocking and throttling to make more profit then you clearly haven't heard of the Frog and the Scorpion...

[Telconi]

I highly doubt ATT.com is going to get throttled off of my AT&T Internet service...

Because AT&T owns ATT, right? The internet will become tired and internet companies will deliberately sabotage rivals through blocking and throttling websites. They have the business incentive to do so.

Well, right, but the point being your chicken little story isn't going to happen...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you trust ISPs to not fuck up and wreck havoc on the internet to make more profit then you clearly haven't heard of the Frog and the Scorpion...

Literally noone who has pointed you're wrong is arguing this.

[The Flutterlands]

Because AT&T owns ATT, right? The internet will become tired and internet companies will deliberately sabotage rivals through blocking and throttling websites. They have the business incentive to do so.

Well, right, but the point being your chicken little story isn't going to happen...

I again note you to the Frog and the Scorpion story...

[The Flutterlands]

If you trust ISPs to not fuck up and wreck havoc on the internet to make more profit then you clearly haven't heard of the Frog and the Scorpion...

Literally noone who has pointed you're wrong is arguing this.

Then what the fuck should be done? We can only hope that Democrats win in November and Courts rule on our side, but what can be done in the meantime? I'm telling you we have been sold out and betrayed by the FCC.

[Telconi]

Well, right, but the point being your chicken little story isn't going to happen...

I again note you to the Frog and the Scorpion story...

It's in the ISP's nature to block or throttle their own website?

[The Flutterlands]

I again note you to the Frog and the Scorpion story...

It's in the ISP's nature to block or throttle their own website?

No but it's in their nature as a corporation to use their monopoly to extort consumers by wrecking havoc on other services to make more profit. Because that is what companies do, make profit at all costs. It is in their nature.