Ajit Pai Openly Mocks Net Neutrality Protesters with Dumb New Video

mullet said:
What that I copied and pasted the title off the website? what does the font size have to do with a real bomb threat?
Click to expand...
LOL - dailymail is the equivalent of the National Enquirer... so if you find Lobster Baby I would send it off to them. You could be famous!
 
mavrocket said:
Could [H] make a new news subforum just for Megalith called [H]ardOCP Biased Front Page News?

Gotta admire Pai, he hasn't backed down even with the personal threats to him and his family, and manages to keep his humor intact.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal but in a situation like this you shouldn't have a sense a humor. With so much controversy and division you need to address both sides. Divisiveness is what is driving this country down the shitter.

That's like saying Trump should keep tweeting. Everything out of his mouth just makes him look worse.

And I'm a hard core Republican.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ajit Pai will probably step down now, open a freelance firm specializing in Telecommunications, assisting telecom companies on how to best leverage their data services.

It's how asshole lawmakers do business. Serve the people, then profit off the people.
Just how Trump appointment businessman to serve in his cabinet, to craft bills to help corporations.
 
haste. said:
LOL - dailymail is the equivalent of the National Enquirer... so if you find Lobster Baby I would send it off to them. You could be famous!
Click to expand...


Umm ok. I never go to that site but followed a link to that site. The video clearly shows they had to evacuate the building because of a bomb threat. I am sorry if that site triggered you, it was not meant to make you retreat to a safe space, for that I am sorry.
 
mullet said:
Umm ok. I never go to that site but followed a link to that site. The video clearly shows they had to evacuate the building because of a bomb threat. I am sorry if that site triggered you, it was not meant to make you retreat to a safe space, for that I am sorry.
Click to expand...
Nice try. I'm not a child. You seem to need your safe space. Any critical conversation and you resort to BS replies and then the typical "trigger", "forum warrior", "safe space" bullshit. What you don't realize is the adults are concerned about the fact that we are de-regulating everything... oh and this is coming from an executive in FI who has serious problems with CFPB although doesn't want to roll back everything. Some of us watched what deregulation did last decade (in large part by Billy Boy and really hammered down by Bush 2), but I get you would rather spout your ideology than look at what is concerning about the recent maneuvers by this administration. Cause fucking "snow flakes" right?

Hey if you make well over 500k/year stick too it. If not use some judgement and quit trolling. Maybe learn about how you are getting pounded right now.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
Calls for violence have no place on any computer forum, much less [H]. Matter of fact, it violates forum rules and is subject to permanent banning.
Click to expand...
I never called for violence or condone it. But you literally just liked a post attempting to disparage my character with your groups silly safe place/snowflake sjw bs refute to everything. You can't have it both ways. So you're a moral authority now and can decipher between sarcasm and true threats on an article as polarizing as this? Seems like a bit of a high horse to me.
 
It's obvious that if something nasty did happen to Pai, relatively few, if any, would really feel bad about it. Can't say I was overly impressed by his video myself.

Elsewhere (and not necessarily relevant), somebody asked about the estimated number of rounds of ammunition in private hands in the US. Most answers more or less amounted to nobody really knew for sure, but tens of billions, excluding police and military, was a reasonably low end guess, while more than a trillion wasn't out of the question.

I'll let you wonder why I brought that up...

 
Last edited:
iamjanco said:
It's obvious that if something nasty did happen to Pai, relatively few, if any, would really feel bad about it. Can't say I was overly impressed by his video myself.

Elsewhere (and not necessarily relevant), somebody asked about the estimated number of rounds of ammunition in private hands in the US. Most answers more or less amounted to nobody really knew for sure, but tens of billions, excluding police and military, was a reasonably low end guess, while more than a trillion wasn't out of the question.

I'll let you wonder why I brought that up...
Click to expand...

Wow...........
 
lcpiper said:
'
No I am not. I never said the FCC couldn't classify the internet as Title II, in fact, the court said they can switch it however they want to. That isn't what the courts ruled against. What the courts ruled against was rules they tried to create that they were not empowered by congress to make. You are believing a sleight of hand move. Three times the courts struck down NN rules that the FCC tried to enact. They are hard to find on the internet because it doesn't fit what the media is trying to sell us.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-strikes-down-federal-rules-supporting-local-broadband-1470861473


https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-court-strikes-down-fccs-anti-blocking-rules/


All of these were Court of Appeals rulings, all of them represent failed attempts by the FCC to set rules under the umbrella of Net Neutrality.

If I am wrong about any of these and if they were later reversed please point it out. I like to know if my shit stinks.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are talking straight up literal BS now. The first has literally nothing to do with NN and instead has to do with the FCC trying to prevent state laws blocking municipal broadband. The next two have to do with the 2010 order that relied on Title I for NN and ultimately led to the Verizon vs FCC decision that said they couldn't do it under Title I but could under Title II and could change ISPs to Title II if they wanted.

AKA the courts have agreed that the FCC can enact NN rules on ISPs using Title II.
 
So...

What does this mean with my google fiber?

Spectrum, AT&T, and other companies have been giving google fiber in my city a hard time. Google wants to dig and drop a line near a utility pole but AT&T would go through drastic measures to prevent that. Demanding only certain certified folks are allow to touch that soil or whatever.

Google say they will finish expanding their fiber services in the city but it's going at snail pace.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I do agree that the ultimate solution for these problems would be proper competition in the industry, but I wonder how realistic this is. Existing ISP's - even where they don't have state sanctioned monopolies - seem much more interested in not treading on eachothers territories and using and absuing their captive customer base than expanding and competing.
Click to expand...

Realistically the only real option for proper competition is Title II local loop unbundling. This would effectively split ISPs into two virtually separate business entities: line providers and bandwidth service providers. We already have a major utility industry that operates like this in the power industry where multiple power providers all utilize a shared line to the consumer.

I remember reading a while back that there are laws on the books governing how quickly regulatory agencies can change their positions in order to prevent yo-yo back and forths in regulations between administrations.

I can't remember the details, but I wonder if a suit based on these laws can be applied to Net Neutrality and the internet's Title II classification considering they were so recently implemented...
Click to expand...

Of the many lawsuits that will come out of this change, a good number will argue that beyond violations of federal procedure rules, this change was entirely capricious in nature and there in violation of federal law. Pai's ignoring of both complaints and comments along with not presenting any data supporting the change will make this a charge with a reasonable chance of succeeding.
 
Red Falcon said:
I think you are mistaken...


"The push to kill net neutrality’s been led by FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who has been a vocal opponent of the rules ever since he was appointed to the five-member board by then-president Barack Obama."

https://www.pcworld.com/article/324...in-an-unsurprising-move-what-happens-now.html
Click to expand...

Pai was recommended by the senate, specifically Mitch McConnell. Obama simply went with the person recommended as that is the tradition. The opposing party gets to pick their own commissioner and it is up to the president to simply confirm the election barring any serious reason that the person shouldn't be there. "They don't agree with me" isn't a valid excuse to deny the recommendation. Trump was the one that named him chairman of the FCC.
 
Derangel said:
Pai was recommended by the senate, specifically Mitch McConnell. Obama simply went with the person recommended as that is the tradition. The opposing party gets to pick their own commissioner and it is up to the president to simply confirm the election barring any serious reason that the person shouldn't be there. "They don't agree with me" isn't a valid excuse to deny the recommendation. Trump was the one that named him chairman of the FCC.
Click to expand...
Ugh, bad news from both sides.
Welp, time to move to Antarctica where the drinks are cold and one can OC on air! :D
 
otherweeb said:
ty, good read. I like this part:

"...Indeed, despite all the talk about the fear that broadband providers could decide what Internet content consumers can see, recent experience shows that so-called edge providers are in fact deciding what content they see. These providers routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.
Click to expand...


Important point in that whole roll of BS is "so-called". Why are they "so-called"? Because if they aren't "so-called", it would make the BS statement so obviously BS that everyone would see it as the BS that it is. The reality is the actual edge providers are ISPs. Pai is trying to group things that the FCC has the authority and mandate to regulate with things that the government in its entirely literally does not have the mandate or authority to regulate.

His "so called edge providers" are more commonly known as content providers and/or websites. I know you might find this shocking, but content providers have literally been deciding what content their audiences see for thousands of years. Yes, sadly, dating back thousands of years theaters and stages would select what performances they would put on. You couldn't go to any given theater and see any play that you wanted. You had to find the theater that was showing the play you wanted to see.

And sadly, this practice of content providers and/or websites is literally enshrined within the constitution as the 1st amendment preventing us from forcing websites like HardOCP to do what we want. That evil constitution and that evil Kyle won't allow me to fill every page on either the forums or website with Kyle's face pasted into bestiality porn. It a god damn affront to my rights that I can't dammit! Kyle bestiality porn should be the #1 content of this forum and website and I for one am glad that Ajit Pai is going to work to force it into existence.

(lots of sarcasm for those impaired)
 
Red Falcon said:
I think you are mistaken...


"The push to kill net neutrality’s been led by FCC chairman Ajit Pai, who has been a vocal opponent of the rules ever since he was appointed to the five-member board by then-president Barack Obama."

https://www.pcworld.com/article/324...in-an-unsurprising-move-what-happens-now.html
Click to expand...

Oh no he wasn't. He was appointed by McConnell as part of the tradition going back literally decades where the vacant opposition seats for the FCC are nominated by the opposition party leader of the senate. Yes, technically Obama appointed him, but he didn't select him nor did any member of Obama's staff. He was selected and put forth by the republicans. He was no more appointed by Obama than the democrat members of the FCC were nominated by Trump.
 
aaronspink said:
Oh no he wasn't. He was appointed by McConnell as part of the tradition going back literally decades where the vacant opposition seats for the FCC are nominated by the opposition party leader of the senate. Yes, technically Obama appointed him, but he didn't select him nor did any member of Obama's staff. He was selected and put forth by the republicans. He was no more appointed by Obama than the democrat members of the FCC were nominated by Trump.
Click to expand...
Not too surprising anymore.
Bought and paid for.
 
Derangel said:
Pai was recommended by the senate, specifically Mitch McConnell. Obama simply went with the person recommended as that is the tradition. The opposing party gets to pick their own commissioner and it is up to the president to simply confirm the election barring any serious reason that the person shouldn't be there. "They don't agree with me" isn't a valid excuse to deny the recommendation. Trump was the one that named him chairman of the FCC.
Click to expand...

Right, this is why Tom Wheeler was such a surprise to a Republican-controlled legislature. They select ALL his options for FCC chief..
 
oh man... butt hurt snowflakes be trippen. Now pregnant teens wont be able to find abortion clinics
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-net-neutrality-could-cripple-abortion-rights
OJ9gNE8K



oh man... oh the humanity ...BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH
 
Bdonedge said:
Why is this funny?

Jesus Christ I think I might have to stop looking at this section of [H]
Click to expand...
Really?... women could not find or search google previous to NN? its as if everyone forgot the internet has been around commercially since 1989... and grew exponentially..yahoo, ebay, amazon, youtube, google, netflix, hulu, broadband, streaming, online gaming, FB, myspace, e-comerce....and countless other advances and companies pushing tech forward...all without being federally regulated under Title II of the federal communications act of 1934.. How soon we forget our history.
 
cptnjarhead said:
Really?... women could not find or search google previous to NN? its as if everyone forgot the internet has been around commercially since 1989... and grew exponentially..yahoo, ebay, amazon, youtube, google, netflix, hulu, broadband, streaming, online gaming, FB, myspace, e-comerce....and countless other advances and companies pushing tech forward...all without being federally regulated under Title II of the federal communications act of 1934.. How soon we forget our history.
Click to expand...

The FCC's current repeal also rolls back protections that have been in place since Regan was in office. Maybe you should learn a little history as well.
 
Derangel said:
The FCC's current repeal also rolls back protections that have been in place since Regan was in office. Maybe you should learn a little history as well.
Click to expand...

And what "protections" would that be?
 
Red Falcon said:
Ugh, bad news from both sides.
Welp, time to move to Antarctica where the drinks are cold and one can OC on air! :D
Click to expand...

Maybe this is something that can move to the states. There is already a push to bring up a NN law in congress, though it will probably fail, despite an overwhelming majority of people being in favor. When it does however, maybe we'll see state legislatures bring it up.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Maybe this is something that can move to the states. There is already a push to bring up a NN law in congress, though it will probably fail, despite an overwhelming majority of people being in favor. When it does however, maybe we'll see state legislatures bring it up.
Click to expand...

Maybe the ISP's colluded with the Russians to repeal NN... or they sexually assaulted someone years ago.... We need a special counsel!
 
mullet said:
This just shows how sad of a situation we are in! The internet is soooooo important in our lives that we call for the death or to beat a person up over it? Holy SHIT PEOPLE go outside, push the keyboard in and go hunt, fish, play sports, hike, get a boat, ride a bike just get outside!! If the internet shut down tomorrow, yes I would be bummed but my life wouldn't end. I didn't have cell phones or internet when I grew up THANK GOD!!
Click to expand...

1.) "stop getting upset about the potential of having intellectual pursuits diminished, and go outside and kill something" :p

You know, not everyone is into that outdoorsy crap. Many of these things sound dreadfully boring, and one doesn't just "get" a boat. These thigns are expensive.

2.) Yes, the internet is VERY important today. It wasn't 20 years ago, but it is now. Many traditional sources of information have moved over to the internet, and the loss of Net Neutrality is a potential long term threat to our very democracy. While I am opposed to violence, some might argue - without sounding completely crazy - that this is a tyranny worthy of armed revolt. You know, one of those things the 2nd amendment types always say they keep their guns for.


3.) The truth is this. The internet won't disappear or be destroyed overnight now that this has passed. Statements to this effect have largely been hyperbole. That being said, you bet ISP's are happy about this. They arent going to do anything big right away, but they are going to sit around and wait for peoples emotions to die down, wait for the "see nothing happened" crowd to do their victory laps, and later when no one is paying attention start chipping away at their roles as neutral carriers one tiny bit at a time, just like they were before 2015.

They can't risk doing anything big all at once, as it would trigger a public relations nightmare and a mass outrcry. They also cant invest too much in the technology between fast lanes and other ideas, because for all they know, this could be overthrown by the courts, or the political landscape will shift, and the next congress or administration will reverse this yet again. They can't spend money on IT folks setting up systems, QoS type firewall rules, etc. etc. they can't charge money for if the climate changes.

So, without Net Neutrality, it becomes more of a slow death of a billion paper-cuts over decades. ISP's are hoping that it will be small enough and slow enough that we don't notice or care until it is too late.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
ISP's are hoping that it will be sm,all enough and slow enough that we don't notice or care until it is too late.
Click to expand...

Oh the evil ISP's....charging customers for providing a service. Only the federal tax funded government can save us.
 
cptnjarhead said:
Oh the evil ISP's....charging customers for providing a service. Only the federal tax funded government can save us.
Click to expand...

The free market is great, but it only works when there is competition. The very nature of ISP's and territories mean that true competition will likely never happen, and requires us to look at ways to regulate them to prevent them from taking advantage of their monopolistic powers, just like we have with telephone networks, and power lines in the past.

The free market is great, and rules to stop monopolists from taking advantage of their powers protects the free market Completely unfettered capitalism is never a good idea. It needs to be given a strongly regulated sandbox in which to play, with clear and enforceable rules, otherwise we just go back to the bad old days where people were free to sell snake oil, and no one could trust anyone.
 
defaultluser said:
By electing bullies and idiots.

... You reap what you sow.
Click to expand...
I'd hate to see what we'd reap if we elect a warmonger and person who openly laughs about assassinations during breaks between interviews.



That being said, there's still hope people will get off their asses and write to their congress representatives about this issue. Have you written yet since you're concerned about reaping what you sow? Doing nothing would lead to well....

TordanGow said:
He has lobbyist bribe syndrome.
Click to expand...
I thought it was Lobbyist Asphyxiation Syndrome with how far they have their ****s shoved down his throat. ;) :p
 
lcpiper said:
I honestly can't believe you guys are all still thinking this way.

If it goes the way he says it will, and there are more than enough others saying this same thing;

The FCC is voting right now, at this moment, to reclassify the Internet as Title I, and roll back some of the rules, not all of them, for instance they are keeping most of the transparency rules.

Then the 9th Circuit is going to rehear the FTC vs AT&T case and the appeals court is going to reverse the prior court decision because now Section 5 will no longer apply and AT&T will lose Common Carrier protections and all those people that AT&T fucked by throttling their unlimited broadband connections will get some money back. The FTC will get their teeth back.

I swear, you guys know that the media lies to you. You know it, but you still listen to what they try and sell you even when actual events to the contrary suggest that you should take a harder look.

What was it about the courts no longer allowing the FTC to help those people, and the FCC not being able to, and AT&T getting away with just fucking them, that makes you guys think that what the FCC did in the name of NN was turning out to be a good thing?

Pai is in the telecoms pockets but the media isn't? This is what I find amazing.

There, I said it. If it plays out wrong I'll be eating crow later (y)

EDITED: OH, on a side note, I don't think the video was in good taste just like I think the President needs to stay the fuck off Twitter. I'm just old fashioned that way, this bullshit is the wrong vehicle for government officials to use when communicating with the country.
Click to expand...

All I see are valid fears and peoples opinions. Media stay awfully quiet about this. Not sure what you talking about? Political tribalism is the biggest threat to our society. Try to think for yourself sometimes, quit repeating babble about "fake media" and end of ISP monopolies, as this has nothing to do with the topic. NN is about treating ALL traffic equally. Period. Yesterday was a very sad day for all of us.
 
scan13 said:
All I see are valid fears and peoples opinions. Media stay awfully quiet about this. Not sure what you talking about? Political tribalism is the biggest threat to our society. Try to think for yourself sometimes, quit repeating babble about "fake media" and end of ISP monopolies, as this has nothing to do with the topic. NN is about treating ALL traffic equally. Period. Yesterday was a very sad day for all of us.
Click to expand...

The irony is that you are telling him to think for himself when your position is the defacto accepted position online with a lot of heavy peer pressure to not buck it. There are serious issues with net neutrality as the FCC implemented it. It removed all privacy and anti-competitive practice protections that protected us from companies like Facebook and Google. It damaged small business ISPs forcing them to raise prices and reduce investment because they couldn't throttle traffic that ate up their much more limited bandwidth.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
The free market is great, but it only works when there is competition. The very nature of ISP's and territories mean that true competition will likely never happen, and requires us to look at ways to regulate them to prevent them from taking advantage of their monopolistic powers, just like we have with telephone networks, and power lines in the past.

The free market is great, and rules to stop monopolists from taking advantage of their powers protects the free market Completely unfettered capitalism is never a good idea. It needs to be given a strongly regulated sandbox in which to play, with clear and enforceable rules, otherwise we just go back to the bad old days where people were free to sell snake oil, and no one could trust anyone.
Click to expand...

No argument about monopoly, dont forget about crony capitalism either. But the term "stongly regulated" sends chills. As for snake oil... Caveat emptor - The federal gov deciding what is fair and what isnt..is a bad idea. Political, and ideological motivations blur what should be common sense when these regulatory decisions are decided. The free market is self regulating by design. Products that are obsolete, unsafe and so on fall by the wayside yielding to better safer and less expensive. I would rather have private sector CEO fighting for market share than bureaucrats deciding who wins and who loses.
 
variant said:
The irony is that you are telling him to think for himself when your position is the defacto accepted position online with a lot of heavy peer pressure to not buck it. There are serious issues with net neutrality as the FCC implemented it. It removed all privacy and anti-competitive practice protections that protected us from companies like Facebook and Google. It damaged small business ISPs forcing them to raise prices and reduce investment because they couldn't throttle traffic that ate up their much more limited bandwidth.
Click to expand...


They passed legislation a few months ago removing our privacy and allowing our data to be sold. And funny how none of the small ISPs were for repealing NN either..... If the ISP needs to throttle connetions to meet the demand, then they have oversubscribed their network, and they need to upgrade infrastructure to handle it. That's what ISPs are supposed to do, expand their network to meet the demands of their subscribers. More subscribers, higher requirements for network equipment. It's not like wireless which does have actual limits, they can continue to add more equipment to expand their network any time they need.

Oh, and NN has nothing to do with google/FB services, it's about the giant corporate ISPs and how they handle the data flowing through their pipes (which was already paid for by the user).

I guess thinking for yourself isn't quite enough when you base it on bad info......
 
cptnjarhead said:
No argument about monopoly, dont forget about crony capitalism either. But the term "stongly regulated" sends chills. As for snake oil... Caveat emptor - The federal gov deciding what is fair and what isnt..is a bad idea. Political, and ideological motivations blur what should be common sense when these regulatory decisions are decided. The free market is self regulating by design. Products that are obsolete, unsafe and so on fall by the wayside yielding to better safer and less expensive. I would rather have private sector CEO fighting for market share than bureaucrats deciding who wins and who loses.
Click to expand...

The free market literally doesn't exist. It is an imaginary theoretical exercise in which only those regulations wanted by the imagineer exist but none the imagineer doesn't want to exist do. The purest form of a free market is anarchy because even basic laws like don't murder are regulations that can interfere with business.

Nor do ISPs exist in anything like even a regulated market economy as they literally have no competition, the barriers for entry are extremely high, incumbent flexibility is also extremely high via both cost shifting and investment shifting, etc. The only real possibility for robust regulated market competition in ISPs is local loop unbundling effectively breaking up current ISPs into two separate entities with on operating similar to current power line providers thus owning the physical wire plant and the other keeping everything else.
 
Biznatch said:
They passed legislation a few months ago removing our privacy and allowing our data to be sold. And funny how none of the small ISPs were for repealing NN either..... If the ISP needs to throttle connetions to meet the demand, then they have oversubscribed their network, and they need to upgrade infrastructure to handle it. That's what ISPs are supposed to do, expand their network to meet the demands of their subscribers. More subscribers, higher requirements for network equipment. It's not like wireless which does have actual limits, they can continue to add more equipment to expand their network any time they need.

Oh, and NN has nothing to do with google/FB services, it's about the giant corporate ISPs and how they handle the data flowing through their pipes (which was already paid for by the user).

I guess thinking for yourself isn't quite enough when you base it on bad info......
Click to expand...

ISPs were for repealing net neutrality. Just because the biased tech journalists never report on it, doesn't change the fact that these small ISPs have been major advocates for reversing the FCC's net neutrality.

"A group of rural broadband providers in the Midwest wrote to Pai in the spring in support of his plans, urging him to proceed in a way that allows for continued investment in rural broadband networks while at the same time ensuring a smarter path to net neutrality."

...

"President Dick Sjoberg said that the new regulations have brought on extra expenses for attorneys, consultants and borrowing fees, and led to a climate of uncertainty.

“It’s just so onerous — the cost to everybody is so great — and at the end of the day [the expense] trickles down to the consumer,” Sjoberg said."
​


http://www.startribune.com/franken-...-moves-to-dismantle-net-neutrality/441196013/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top