Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

My mistake, 2014, not 2012. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, dismantled the "net neutrality" FCC Open Internet Order, which was only passed in response to Comcast Corp. v. FCC over a 2008 order that violated the Communications Act of 1934. This is all because in 2005, the FCC as a part of the Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services had ISPs considered to be "information service" rather than "telecommunications service", which caused in Comcast Corp. v. FCC for the FCC to not be able to impose particular restrictions on Comcast due to the Communications Act of 1934 not allowing such regulation on "information services", resulting in the FCC issuing the Open Internet Order, resulting in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC determining that the FCC cannot impose the restrictions in that order due to overreach since they can only be applied under Title II to common carriers, not information services.

I believe in all of this the FCC also tried to maintain that ISPs were utility companies, and that this recent ruling simply confirms that ISPs are "information carriers" as covered in that earlier Supreme Court case. It was really rather messy, as much as everyone wants to try and make it clear-cut.

You're still off. This is specifically about the FCC rule from 2015 that classified broadband internet as a Title II service, making ISPs common carriers rather than information providers. It came about because of Obama intervening in internal discussion within the FCC in mid-2014 over whether to explicitly allow non-neutral service or enshrine the classification of ISPs as information services, in part because of the lack of legal protection for net neutrality (which had previously been protected largely because the telecomm corps hadn't yet seriously exploited).

[smjjames]

Still, while a direct declaration of war or a direct attribution of attack is highly unlikely, what IS likely is some sort of miscalculation or accident or other incident that then spirals out of control. Take a look at WWI.

At least one UN official is concerned about some sort of accident or miscalculation, primarily because of a lack of communication between sides, but other reasons too.

[bloop_bleep]

Lindsey Graham is estimating 30% chance that Trump will attack NK after their next missile test, 70% chance that he will attack after their next nuke test.

Is it time to panic yet?

Listen, you can make fun of Trump all you want, but he's most definitely not that stupid. Even if he was that stupid there are many people who would stop him. Lindsey Graham is merely pandering to his supporters; he does not and could not mean that, even remotely. This is the same technique Trump uses; he makes hundreds of outlandish promises to please his far-right base and only attempts to implement the ones that aren't completely impossible or would result in him losing support. Initiating a war with a nuclear-armed state would definitely fall into that second category.

[smjjames]

My mistake, 2014, not 2012. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, dismantled the "net neutrality" FCC Open Internet Order, which was only passed in response to Comcast Corp. v. FCC over a 2008 order that violated the Communications Act of 1934. This is all because in 2005, the FCC as a part of the Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services had ISPs considered to be "information service" rather than "telecommunications service", which caused in Comcast Corp. v. FCC for the FCC to not be able to impose particular restrictions on Comcast due to the Communications Act of 1934 not allowing such regulation on "information services", resulting in the FCC issuing the Open Internet Order, resulting in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC determining that the FCC cannot impose the restrictions in that order due to overreach since they can only be applied under Title II to common carriers, not information services.

I believe in all of this the FCC also tried to maintain that ISPs were utility companies, and that this recent ruling simply confirms that ISPs are "information carriers" as covered in that earlier Supreme Court case. It was really rather messy, as much as everyone wants to try and make it clear-cut.

You're still off. This is specifically about the FCC rule from 2015 that classified broadband internet as a Title II service, making ISPs common carriers rather than information providers. It came about because of Obama intervening in internal discussion within the FCC in mid-2014 over whether to explicitly allow non-neutral service or enshrine the classification of ISPs as information services, in part because of the lack of legal protection for net neutrality (which had previously been protected largely because the telecomm corps hadn't yet seriously exploited).

So we're back to it being something that was only true for 2 years. Again, I fail to see the need for all the melodrama and hysteria.

So, which is it, it's something that hasn't been enforced for five years or it has been enforced for five years?

If it hasn't been enforced for five years, funny that nobody noticed any changes.

[Rolan7]

My mistake, 2014, not 2012. Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC, dismantled the "net neutrality" FCC Open Internet Order, which was only passed in response to Comcast Corp. v. FCC over a 2008 order that violated the Communications Act of 1934. This is all because in 2005, the FCC as a part of the Supreme Court case National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services had ISPs considered to be "information service" rather than "telecommunications service", which caused in Comcast Corp. v. FCC for the FCC to not be able to impose particular restrictions on Comcast due to the Communications Act of 1934 not allowing such regulation on "information services", resulting in the FCC issuing the Open Internet Order, resulting in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC determining that the FCC cannot impose the restrictions in that order due to overreach since they can only be applied under Title II to common carriers, not information services.

I believe in all of this the FCC also tried to maintain that ISPs were utility companies, and that this recent ruling simply confirms that ISPs are "information carriers" as covered in that earlier Supreme Court case. It was really rather messy, as much as everyone wants to try and make it clear-cut.

You're still off. This is specifically about the FCC rule from 2015 that classified broadband internet as a Title II service, making ISPs common carriers rather than information providers. It came about because of Obama intervening in internal discussion within the FCC in mid-2014 over whether to explicitly allow non-neutral service or enshrine the classification of ISPs as information services, in part because of the lack of legal protection for net neutrality (which had previously been protected largely because the telecomm corps hadn't yet seriously exploited).

Thanks FD.  I knew 2015 was key from a recent NPR broadcast, but I had some trouble tracking down the details.

This probably isn't good, though.  Technically we were only legally protected in 2015 (thanks _to Obama).  Surely if the ISPs wanted to violate net neutrality, they would have done so earlier, right?

Well, I argue such actions would have been shot down under Obama.  They waited to make a move - they have capital, they can do that.
Also a lot else has changed in the last two years, too.  Netflix is still strong, but broadcasting companies are trying hard to fight back.  It's a ripe field for ISPs to turn mercenary.

There's also the amazing migration to mobile devices, which I never would have predicted.  Why's that relevant?  Normal people are used to mobile data plans.  As absurd as it sounds, most people see ISPs as providers of cable TV, with unlimited internet on the side.  Data caps would make perfect sense to them.

Hell, they make sense to me, but I remember Prodigy and America Online.  People are dang spoiled with all this unlimited
...Except that it's *really* about neutrality, IE your ISP can throttle any content they disagree with now.  THAT ain't kosher.  That IS a loss for freedom.
And they WILL get away with it under this administration.

[WealthyRadish]

It's oligarchies all the way down really.

[Rolan7]

And Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon already regulate a lot of the content you can access online. We're already under one oligarchy. These complaints about a possible second one ring rather hollow.

I refuse to have anything to do with three of those, and Google has been pretty good so far.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, and I'm aware Google sees my search history.  There's a reason it's easy to turn GPS off on Android devices.  Well, that's one reason.

Free services in exchange for data collection - but they're upfront about it, and I can control it (even without rooting).

[smjjames]

Your ISP maybe? It has to know the location in order to communicate with it or something.

[Criptfeind]

And Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon already regulate a lot of the content you can access online. We're already under one oligarchy. These complaints about a possible second one ring rather hollow.

This doesn't seem like a very apt comparison. These companies are bad and all, but it's on a whole different level. I can sorta choose to not use any of these if I don't want too. If I want to take part in modern society I really can't choose not have the internet.

[Criptfeind]

Who knows? That's pretty bad. How is this an argument though? Thing A being bad isn't a good reason for thing B to be bad, even if they are similar.

Additionally, I'm not saying "tech companies are bad, therefore this additional bad thing is not bad." If anything, I take a bit of delight in the fact that this decision goes against big tech.

Isn't that literally exactly what you're saying though? If not, I think I've misunderstood what you were saying.

Edit: Sorry about the editing back and forward, I edited, saw your post, and then edited it out to put it as a response to that post, I'm guessing you saw my edit, edited in your response, saw my edit and edited out your response. Awkward chain if I read what happened there correctly.

[Rolan7]

The particular concern that I'm mentioning was not related to your phone's GPS, and cannot be disabled.

It's a recent discovery, too.

Ah, fair enough.  Thank you!

[smjjames]

Can you, though? If I start a restaurant, and then not have it listed on Apple Maps, Google Maps, or Bing Maps, people would find it... how? No mention on Bing/Google, no Facebook page, et cetera.

Sounds more of a monopoly of a different type than a forced monopoly, more like the one that develops because everybody else and so many others are using it.

Amazon though, they're being like a blob that is trying to eat everything and BE everything all at once. The definition of monopoly needs a better legal definition in the digital age because they can be a monopoly and at the same time, not a monopoly.

[Folly]

Listen, you can make fun of Trump all you want, but he's most definitely not that stupid.

Are we talking about the same Trump here? Since he entered the political scene, we've rarely gotten through a day without him saying or doing something profoundly stupid.

Even if he was that stupid there are many people who would stop him.

Does anyone actually have the authority/ability to stop him if he decides to start launching nukes?

[smjjames]

@ispil: And yet why aren't we breaking up said monopolies?? pfft.... Rhetorical question because I know what the answer is.

Listen, you can make fun of Trump all you want, but he's most definitely not that stupid.

Are we talking about the same Trump here? Since he entered the political scene, we've rarely gotten through a day without him saying or doing something profoundly stupid.

Even if he was that stupid there are many people who would stop him.

Does anyone actually have the authority/ability to stop him if he decides to start launching nukes?

If it were illegal, yeah they could try to convince him that it's a bad idea, but if he still wants to go through with it, theres no stopping him.