More than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked

USMCGrunt said:
Make ISPs subject to utility laws, introduce the same universal tax on internet service that utilities have to pay for infrastructure maintenance and open up the pipes for all ISPs to compete all across the country.
Click to expand...

perfectly succinct. love it. the fuck is so complicated about this issue that even people on this tech forum dont grasp the nature of it? if power & sewer followed the regional monopoly model that ISPs currently abuse while adhering to their practices therein, our electricity & water rates/fees would skyrocket while they neglect infrastructure & pocket the profits.

where i live, certain counties have nonprofit power & water companies. thats right - the rates are a tiny bit higher than the for-profit companies, & in return, ALL OF THE REVENUE IS REINVESTED into infrastructure. if we were to implement it via ISP, it sure sounds fucking horrible, right? right??

govt oversight of ISPs is not "muh regulation" or "muh socialism". im a libertarian centrist. its fucking fair. if yall havent called your representatives as well as leaving public comment with the FCC about this, you need to. this is just like the EA/star wars debacle: giant faceless money-grubbing conglomerates are going to ruin things you enjoy & love unless you speak up...except its not some goddamned pew pew game this time, its the precedence to control the entire flow of information disseminated via the internet itself.

...& as the OP states, theyre not afraid to turn to outright fraud as an excuse to do so.
 
Last edited:
gusphase said:
This is very different than the nightmare scenario tiered packages that you people have presented. I'm not saying it's awesome that ISPs may do this, but you don't have a God given right to these things. I also find it odd that THIS is a big deal when we've allowed Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook to create walled gardens left and right. I'd be happy to see NN rules in place only if we hold these entities to a similar standard. Personally, I think that Google etc push NN so hard because they don't want to see across the board enforcement of anti trust laws.
Click to expand...

Not forced to buy from Amazon only.
Not forced to buy Apple products (ever).
Many more search engines out there than Google.
Nobody EVER has to sign up with Fuckbook.

and yes, in this day and age, we have a God given right to unfettered communications.


LigTasm said:
So who here has read the actual repeal paperwork? https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Sounds pretty damn good to me. Much more specific than the vague, loophole filled language of the original NN order. Don't let this get in the way of the totally organic fear mongering though.
Click to expand...

Did you read the entire thing or just the first page summary? The summary screams deregulation for our own good, just like the tax cuts being sold again as trickle down. I'll go ahead and read the other 209 pages over the next few weeks to see how they will accomplish this consumer (not corporate) friendly deregulation that spurs growth and innovation, I bet it reads a lot like the tax cuts summary vs. actual plan details.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Make ISPs subject to utility laws, introduce the same universal tax on internet service that utilities have to pay for infrastructure maintenance and open up the pipes for all ISPs to compete all across the country.
Click to expand...

I don't think there a single utility that is handled at the Federal level, so this is not workable.
Many ISP's are already treated as a monopoly utility in a given municipality, but that is something done at the local level, and the presence, or lack, of competition is usually the deciding factor.
Sadly, the decision to allow competition is often in the hands of the same people who decide to classify an ISP as a monopoly utility.
As such, ISP's have a lot of incentive to woo municipal leadership by promising whatever said leadership wants. That is usually at cross purposes with the residents of that municipality.
 
I'll assume there's at least a couple of crackpot repealers in here as there always are. What I want to know is how do they feel siding with an organization that has to cheat to win? Or is this just another one of those "follow the money" arguments that says the entire world is part of some big conspiracy against poor ISP's, ironically exempting the ISP's themselves from the very same "follow the money" clause. Kinda like defending big-oil against greedy scientists trying to extend their climate change study funding, because ya'know it's not like the most profitable industry on earth might try to spread lies themselves right?
 
As I see it the main issue with the conclusions drawn from the analysis is that they don't consider the effect of some people posting articles (pro as well as con) about the Net Neutrality issue, telling the readers to paste and copy some bit of text and send it to the FCC.
How many of the "exact duplicates" are from individuals that express what they feel by sending a copy of some pre-written text they found?

Skillz said:
How about the ISPs give me the Internet speed I pay for without throttling me or without placing a cap on how much content I can pass through that speed.
Click to expand...
You have a sluggish connection to your DNS? Sluggish up- or download is more likely an issue with the server at the other end...
As for caps on used data that's what you pay for! If you want the "caps lock" to be removed you have to pay more...

Gigus Fire said:
Net neutrality has only been around for what, like 2-3 years?
Click to expand...
Net neutrality has been (and still is) the norm, but it's being challenged!

In Sweden we have some phone companies offering "free" mobile phone data traffic to select partners, such as FaceBook, Spotify and Instagram. If you want to use other social media your paid for data will be consumed.
This has been taken to court and the verdict is still to come.
 
gathagan said:
I don't think there a single utility that is handled at the Federal level, so this is not workable.
Many ISP's are already treated as a monopoly utility in a given municipality, but that is something done at the local level, and the presence, or lack, of competition is usually the deciding factor.
Sadly, the decision to allow competition is often in the hands of the same people who decide to classify an ISP as a monopoly utility.
As such, ISP's have a lot of incentive to woo municipal leadership by promising whatever said leadership wants. That is usually at cross purposes with the residents of that municipality.
Click to expand...

Not many of us have seen a landline phone bill and cell phone bills don't exactly spell out what the taxes are we have to pay but in there is a Universal Service Fund tax that is intended to facilitate everything we want from our ISPs; affordability, reliability, and accessibility. Some utilities are handled by federal agencies under common carrier laws; telecom, oil, natural gas. Regulation in my part of the country on power plants allows other companies to have access to the power lines. One company may own the power plant but multiple companies have access to the power distribution system, including the power plant company. I can contract with any one of them to have power delivered to my house. Common carrier laws would prevent ISPs from discriminating against websites and services. Classifying ISPs as common carrier would make them adhere to those laws and place them under Title II regulation, allowing use of USF tax funding...which I'm sure could use the injection of money. These two together would accomplish what net neutrality is all about, fair and equal access to the internet.
 
Last edited:
Gigus Fire said:
Lol whut? Internet is a stupid pipe and is sold as a stupid pipe. If people start utilizing the stupid pipe as per the agreements they signed up for (Typically unlimited bandwidth which is only limited by the speed you're paying for), why is there any discussion of subsidizing utilization habits? Are you trying to suggest that ISPs oversold their capacity? Say it ain't so! Are you suggesting that the services which people are using should pay for this oversold capacity? LOL. That's not how it's supposed to work.
I really doubt there's any real bandwidth issues currently. More than likely the increase of minimum bandwidth requirements were sold to customers without the backend infrastructure improvements that were needed in the past few years mainly due to the FCC reclassification of what's considered broadband. Now they want to double dip because they're used to not paying directly for any backend improvements without being paid by the government for it.
This net neutrality crap doesn't mean anything. The internet was functioning fine prior to 2015 and was functioning fine after 2015.
Click to expand...
ISP sell PEAK bandwidth ... keyword = PEAK. When you put a demand that is SUSTAINED at that value, you are exceeding the "reasonable" expectation. Regardless, people like you think that everyone should pay for your needs. I don't use netflix and stream 4k video, so get your damn packets off my lawn. Once they are put on their own pipe with priority on that pipe, the original pipe will be far better for everyone else.
 
I'm opposed to "net neutrality" on the simple principle that the government wants its hands in it. That's never a good thing.
 
bildad said:
I'm opposed to "net neutrality" on the simple principle that the government wants its hands in it. That's never a good thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah privatise everything! Because having private, for-profit companies in charge of the emergency services, the military, etc etc, would work out brilliantly, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, there's some kind of effective middle ground between full on anarchy and all knowing totalitarian state?
 
bildad said:
I'm opposed to "net neutrality" on the simple principle that the government wants its hands in it. That's never a good thing.
Click to expand...


You do know that the telecomm. environment that we have today is thanks to government intervention of Bell System's complete monopoly over the telephone industry, right?
Bell system telephones and related equipment were made by Western Electric, a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Co. Member telephone companies paid a fixed fraction of their revenues as a license fee to Bell Labs.

As a result of this vertical monopoly, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves. This allowed Bell to prohibit its customers from connecting phones not made or sold by Bell to the system without paying fees. For example, if a customer desired a type of phone not leased by the local Bell monopoly, he or she had to purchase the phone at cost, give it to the phone company, then pay a 're-wiring' charge and a monthly lease fee in order to use it.
Click to expand...


How about one an example of unregulated company behavior prior to the Communications Act of 1934:
The Communications Act of 1934 followed the precedents of trial cases set under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), regulating commerce "among the several states". Twenty years earlier, in 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court had set limits on price discrimination that were effectively interstate commerce in Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States. The railway was setting lower prices for intrastate carriers within Texas while charging more for carriers that were going through or out of the state.
Click to expand...

Do you not see the similarity of behavior in the ISPs in the years leading up to NN enforcement as previously stated in this thread?
 
Last edited:
Taldren said:
ISP sell PEAK bandwidth ... keyword = PEAK. When you put a demand that is SUSTAINED at that value, you are exceeding the "reasonable" expectation. Regardless, people like you think that everyone should pay for your needs. I don't use netflix and stream 4k video, so get your damn packets off my lawn. Once they are put on their own pipe with priority on that pipe, the original pipe will be far better for everyone else.
Click to expand...
Um, this isn't basic QoS for a service agreement from an ISP for a data transmit rate peak...
Destroying Net Neutrality is basically a full-on socialist totalitarian dictatorship fully run by these mega corporations for specific services on the Internet, which is basically something the Nazi party would do.

Are you a Nazi?
I'm only asking because by being in support of destroying Net Neutrality, and what you are supporting and touting right now in all of your posts (which everyone here has since 100% countered you on), is basically socialist nationalism (aka, the Nazi party) on a technological-level which is being created by these mega corporations, in favor of these mega corporations.

I don't know about you, but I don't support the Nazi party, evil mega corporations, monopolies, or the destruction of Net Neutrality.
But if you enjoy that mega corp-sized cock fucking you in the ass without lube and having the Internet destroyed as we know it, then I hope you enjoy! :D
 
Taldren said:
ISP sell PEAK bandwidth ... keyword = PEAK. When you put a demand that is SUSTAINED at that value, you are exceeding the "reasonable" expectation. Regardless, people like you think that everyone should pay for your needs. I don't use netflix and stream 4k video, so get your damn packets off my lawn. Once they are put on their own pipe with priority on that pipe, the original pipe will be far better for everyone else.
Click to expand...
Lol whut? WTF is Peak bandwidth? Max bandwidth the dumb pipe they're selling can reach? Reasonable expectation of sustained max bandwidth? Then they shouldn't advertise it as unlimited.

You're trying to equate bandwidth as power, where as power companies have peak hours when power is desired the most and non-peak such as the middle of the night when power is cheaper because the demand is much lower. This doesn't match. The power it takes to send a packet is almost nill. The majority of the power goes to the routers and the transmission lines/pipes regardless if any data goes through them or not. So utilization of bandwidth hardly matters. What matters is capacity. The wider the pipes, the greater the backbone needs to be to accommodate them. If you start selling gigabit connections to your customer base with no caps, don't expect them to be happy if your backbone can't handle it and can't reach those advertised speeds except within your own network.

So to recap, bandwidth is not a limited resource like power or water. Someone utilizing their purchased bandwidth more than you doesn't dry up the pool of available bandwidth nor does it cost the ISPs hardly anything extra for utilization of said bandwidth.

My packets are never "on your lawn". You don't get to say how someone else uses their dumb pipe. If you have complaints about your ISP not meeting your contracted speeds, then it's up to the ISP to add capacity which it has already sold to it's own customers.

Your logic is silly. Next you'll be complaining that athletes use more oxygen than you and thus are ruining the enviornment.
 
Taldren said:
If you don't know, they how are you claiming to know with any certainty? Psychic? Dead relative tell you in a dread?
Click to expand...

So your logic is essentially this:
It is very, very important to the ISPs that they are able to discriminate on traffic for profit and anti-competitive reasons, even though they never would do it. That is why they have spent so much money lobbying for being allowed to have prioritized access, because they won't do it. They just like spending lots of money for the ability to do things that they certainly aren't ever going to do.​

Does that make any sense at all?
 
gusphase said:
This is very different than the nightmare scenario tiered packages that you people have presented. I'm not saying it's awesome that ISPs may do this, but you don't have a God given right to these things. I also find it odd that THIS is a big deal when we've allowed Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook to create walled gardens left and right. I'd be happy to see NN rules in place only if we hold these entities to a similar standard. Personally, I think that Google etc push NN so hard because they don't want to see across the board enforcement of anti trust laws.
Click to expand...

I do have the right to not provide these corporations with the right to use public property to deliver internet access to the public and not get raped in the process. Amazon, Google, etc may have walled gardens but the public has a choice to enter those walled gardens. If my ISP blocks my VOIP provider in favor of their service, I have no other ISP and my ISP knows this.
 
gusphase said:
You do realize that Google already has a monopoly on video streaming, right? Network effects basically guarantee this, and they have already done a lot to block views and punish viewpoints that they don' like. But you guys only seem to get your panties in a wad over ISPs.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, well as Google already has the monopoly, then we can all shut the fuck up and let these trustworthy, honest politicians and corporations to sort it out themselves... No need to "get our panties in a wad"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top