FCC to Halt Rule That Protects Your Private Data from Security Breaches

[Krazy925]

You have a better solution, besides doing nothing? I think you would find Comcast would bend over backwards to accommodate a few extra miles than be shut down and sold off to companies that would or become nationalized.

As for the anti-government rhetoric, that's a very simplistic way of looking at things. Government can be absolutely terrible, or it can be a life-saver, all depends on how it's being run and what the agenda is. Corporations are consistently always in it for maximum profit, far more predictable.

I mean, my good idea is keeping the government out of it. But of course some people would rather have them involved in more.
If there was profit in running lines into the middle of nowhere they would be there. I also like how you ignored the part where I pointed out that in some places phone/electricity weren't ran and people manage to figure it out. My friends? They use Hughesnet or some bullshit, water power/solar, and cellphones to get around those issues.
There has to be population density for these things to make sense. There isn't, so goodbye economies of scale.
I'm sure the government will sort it out like Lake County, CA where it became too expensive to have home mail delivery so they gave people PO boxes.

 

[tetris42]

I mean, my good idea is keeping the government out of it. But of course some people would rather have them involved in more.
If there was profit in running lines into the middle of nowhere they would be there. I also like how you ignored the part where I pointed out that in some places phone/electricity weren't ran and people manage to figure it out. My friends? They use Hughesnet or some bullshit, water power/solar, and cellphones to get around those issues.
There has to be population density for these things to make sense. There isn't, so goodbye economies of scale.
I'm sure the government will sort it out like Lake County, CA where it became too expensive to have home mail delivery so they gave people PO boxes.

I wasn't intentionally ignoring it, I just didn't see the relevance. Of course things can be done on an INDIVIDUAL level without government. I'm talking about national level stuff, not anecdotal examples. Did you ignore the part where I pointed out 40% of people in rural areas don't have access to broadband, whether they want it or not?

Things that don't make sense for economies of scale is EXACTLY the sort of thing government helps with ideally. It doesn't have (or rather, it's not SUPPOSED to have) a profit motive, hence it can do things corporations can't. There wasn't a profit motive in running electrical lines and telephone lines to everyone's house, but government did that because it saw the benefits for society. ISPs only care about the bottom line, so that means not servicing a huge portion of rural areas. They don't have a solution because the profit incentive isn't there.

As for your Lake Country example, that sounds like an example of government functioning poorly and either mismanaged or underfunded, I don't know the specifics. That's why I said just blaming "government" is a simplistic way of looking at things. Of course mismanaged or corrupt government can be bad. Government with the right priorities and oversight can be good. I don't know why this is such an impossible concept to grasp here. I mean with ISPs, we have a situation where the free market simply isn't stepping up to the plate and most of your arguments seem along the lines of attacking any sort of solution that involves government rather than providing one yourself. Your example of the people in Oregon obviously isn't a NATIONAL solution because logically if everyone would handle it the way they could, we wouldn't have such a gap in people being able to get broadband in the first place.

 

[Krazy925]

I wasn't intentionally ignoring it, I just didn't see the relevance. Of course things can be done on an INDIVIDUAL level without government. I'm talking about national level stuff, not anecdotal examples. Did you ignore the part where I pointed out 40% of people in rural areas don't have access to broadband, whether they want it or not?

Things that don't make sense for economies of scale is EXACTLY the sort of thing government helps with ideally. It doesn't have (or rather, it's not SUPPOSED to have) a profit motive, hence it can do things corporations can't. There wasn't a profit motive in running electrical lines and telephone lines to everyone's house, but government did that because it saw the benefits for society. ISPs only care about the bottom line, so that means not servicing a huge portion of rural areas. They don't have a solution because the profit incentive isn't there.

As for your Lake Country example, that sounds like an example of government functioning poorly and either mismanaged or underfunded, I don't know the specifics. That's why I said just blaming "government" is a simplistic way of looking at things. Of course mismanaged or corrupt government can be bad. Government with the right priorities and oversight can be good. I don't know why this is such an impossible concept to grasp here. I mean with ISPs, we have a situation where the free market simply isn't stepping up to the plate and most of your arguments seem along the lines of attacking any sort of solution that involves government rather than providing one yourself. Your example of the people in Oregon obviously isn't a NATIONAL solution because logically if everyone would handle it the way they could, we wouldn't have such a gap in people being able to get broadband in the first place.

I mean google is hard but here's an article that's several parts long talking exactly what we are talking about.

https://www.cnet.com/news/bringing-broadband-to-the-boonies-part-3-fibers-not-free/

I really enjoy the conclusion. Regional coops seem to work in certain areas, and as we saw in the Midwest some municipalities tried to form their own. My objection is to the federal government getting more into this. I haven't heard much about the municipalities since they started them.

I provided solutions, just because you don't like them doesn't mean that I give a shit. Don't like your choices? To parrot the author, move.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

.

sorry Blunt...your king Obonehead ...turned over the internet to the FCC...demanding and getting it regulated as a utility...so you got what you voted for...your 'user tax' will be showing up on your bill soon...

besides you can't really think that the last 8 years of income redistribution , NSA data collection , IRS targeting , the justice department not enforcing federal law , et al...was a "good" thing...

besides II...your Sandinista democrats have been in control of Congress for the majority of the last 100 years...and as we all know , Congress is where the rubber meets the road...

For the record, I'm an independent voter with no affiliation to any party. (D) or (R) it doesn't matter - the qualifications and integrity of the candidate do. Biden's cronyism with the media mafia and feds, and Obama's massive expansion of mass surveillance against his own country has really bothered the hell out of me. But I think he has done some good to counter at least a portion of the bad, as I am one of the tens of millions are able to get insurance through the ACA - before I was either denied coverage or could not afford it. As for the internet "use tax" - fine, I'd rather pay a flat $5 extra on my bill than $4.99-14.99 extra (per website) for access to major or bandwidth intensive website. And that's exactly how it's go down, pal. AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have all expressed a foaming at the mouth to bend you over every which way that they legally can. And your best buddy Ajit Pai is going to give them every little thing they want ala carte to fuck us consumers over.

But if you really think Trump is better than Obama, you're in for a rude awakening. Unless, that is, you're part of the demographic that will stand to benefit from the current administration's policies.

But I'm not going to argue with you, as you seem to have your mind made up already. Capitol Hill needs an enema, Bob's your uncle, and have a wonderful rest of your day.

 

[tetris42]

I mean google is hard but here's an article that's several parts long talking exactly what we are talking about.

https://www.cnet.com/news/bringing-broadband-to-the-boonies-part-3-fibers-not-free/

I really enjoy the conclusion. Regional coops seem to work in certain areas, and as we saw in the Midwest some municipalities tried to form their own. My objection is to the federal government getting more into this. I haven't heard much about the municipalities since they started them.

I provided solutions, just because you don't like them doesn't mean that I give a shit. Don't like your choices? To parrot the author, move.

Your whole tone is just antagonistic now, so I doubt you really want to discuss this seriously. But I'll to try to communicate anyway:

Where did I say I have a problem with regional coops or competition? I'm talking about the areas that STILL don't get service, no matter who is operating. You say you provided solutions already. Really. What are your solutions to resolve 40% of rural residents who can't get broadband? What I've heard you say is for the government to fuck off and to point to a couple of small people who were able to set up their own internet. Did I miss something? How do we go from a small handful of people coming up with their own solution and less government intervention to servicing 34 million people, many of whom have wanted internet for decades now? Even if there are 10,000 stories like the ones you provided across the country, that's still a LONG ways off from where we need to be. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say we may have a misunderstanding here: I'm not for government intervention in things that are already working. So if a community has their own utilities and they're running well; great, no need for government. I'm talking about situations where things are NOT working, the free market has failed, and nobody's stepped up to fix anything. Maybe we define "solution" differently. To me, a solution solves the problem, not just helps a small percentage of people.

Finally, if you want to google things, look up "broadband scandal", here are some starting points:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml
https://www.createspace.com/5129829

The ISPs already taken hundreds of billions to fix this very problem and haven't, just keeping the money instead. That's really the summary of things. In a different age, this would be considered fraud on a massive scale, not "people bitching." But whatever, feel free to project something I didn't say, argue against it, and continue acting snide about it the whole time; I guess I shouldn't expect much different from the internet.

 

[kinjo]

Yet More proof that both parties are garbage and there is basically no one on either side looking out for the average American. Wake up people either way you are just picking who's screwing you. granted on the whole the D's tend to at least lube it a bit and will tell you you're pretty before they ease it in whereas the R's will just flat out Raw Dog you and not even call you the next day; but either way you are still getting screwed.

 

[Krazy925]

Your whole tone is just antagonistic now, so I doubt you really want to discuss this seriously. But I'll to try to communicate anyway:

Where did I say I have a problem with regional coops or competition? I'm talking about the areas that STILL don't get service, no matter who is operating. You say you provided solutions already. Really. What are your solutions to resolve 40% of rural residents who can't get broadband? What I've heard you say is for the government to fuck off and to point to a couple of small people who were able to set up their own internet. Did I miss something? How do we go from a small handful of people coming up with their own solution and less government intervention to servicing 34 million people, many of whom have wanted internet for decades now? Even if there are 10,000 stories like the ones you provided across the country, that's still a LONG ways off from where we need to be. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say we may have a misunderstanding here: I'm not for government intervention in things that are already working. So if a community has their own utilities and they're running well; great, no need for government. I'm talking about situations where things are NOT working, the free market has failed, and nobody's stepped up to fix anything. Maybe we define "solution" differently. To me, a solution solves the problem, not just helps a small percentage of people.

Finally, if you want to google things, look up "broadband scandal", here are some starting points:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240.shtml
https://www.createspace.com/5129829

The ISPs already taken hundreds of billions to fix this very problem and haven't, just keeping the money instead. That's really the summary of things. In a different age, this would be considered fraud on a massive scale, not "people bitching." But whatever, feel free to project something I didn't say, argue against it, and continue acting snide about it the whole time; I guess I shouldn't expect much different from the internet.

I know it's hard to read but I pointed out hughesnet was an option. That provides high speed. I'm sure there are others but living in non butt fuck Egypt I don't really give a shit. I know the ISPs took millions of dollars. What are you going to do about it? Many of them spent money as well on infrastructure upgrades, partially, even by the most conservative estimates.

I know it's hard to follow. Rather than act like I don't give a shit, try to follow. Hundreds of billions is probably the most egregious over estimate I've seen lately. But hey, why be honest.

 

[Jehuty]

hahaha...nice bit of pablum and drivel..."you'd be paying $5 a month just so you can access HardOCP without it being a shit connection"...haha , maybe you would be on your shitty mom's basement wi-fi , I am pretty sure , my connection and pay check could handle whatever [H] had to do for me to participate , and I would rather do it without you and your government knows best leftists getting your fingers in it. When you get a little older your views will change , but then I don't really give a shyte

Awwwww look at you being so cute and completely blind about the issue at hand. Citing HardOCP was a poor example though, but the premise had NN not been implemented remains. And, if this is the best you've got at trolling (and who spells shyte anyway?), you've got some soul searching to do. My internet connection is fine, thanks. I will still support the need for ISPs to be regulated and for access to be more readily available. Is this where I make some remark about Faux News and you asking people to get off your lawn?

 

[Exavior]

To me this seems like a piss poor article. It doesn't seem to even be trying to stay on point. At one point it is referring to CPNI and the inability of being able to sell a list of your customers to another party without getting permission first. But then jumps to talking about securing SSN and credit card data. Which is not part of CPNI.

I am pretty sure no matter what this ruling is, it is illegal to sell your credit card number or SSN number. The only thing this ruling would change is can a ISP do the same thing that Google does right now? If you are logged into Google it records everything that you do and every site that you visit and sells that information to 3rd parties, same as facebook and many others out there. The ISP would be allowed to do the same and sell your surfing habits also. So they would be doing nothing that Google or anyone else is doing right now. That is very different from selling your personal information such as your SSN, name, address and all other private information.