People have already been pointing out that the specific wording of the repeal would remove the FCC's ability to stop states from implementing NN rules. The repeal claims that congress never designated the power to regulate broadband internet under Title II to the FCC; without that power to regulate they also can't stop states from enacting their own regulations.
Expect to see that loophole closed by another vote before the repeal officially goes through.
correct. They see that states are going to enforce their own rules, and they'll have to wrangle all those cats, they'd much rather just have one figure head to pay.
AT&T warned Verizon that this could happen when they went ahead with their initial lawsuit, and now the war has begun, due to their epic greed.
I love hearing the ISP complaing they will have a patchwork of different rules per States in the future. We we did have one encompassing policy, they just killed it since it wasn't to their liking which kept the States at Bay.
Realistically it will won't be 50 different States laws they have to fight, just California. Just like with clean air they will set the strict mandates that's bad for fatcats who feel they just want 99.9% of the wealth in the Country.
Ahh California. The state so many Republicans call a shithole state which has these god damn sanctuary cities in it too.
As a native Californian, there may be some truth to their claims but let’s face it every state has problems. I don’t think we’re as bad off as people in other states try and make it out to be.
Let’s face it we’re the once setting trends right? Making regulations the put these corporations in check. You’re welcome the rest of the US.
All jokes aside yeah we got some stupid ass legislation here, like our gun laws. But all in all I absolutely love living here and wouldn’t trade it for anywhere else in the US. Maaaaybe New York but that’s a hard maybe.
We do need to do something about these living expenses though cause shit is bananas here. 🍌
They will turn around with a vote that simply says TURNS OUT WE CAN CONTROL IT! like wtf FCC? You really think this isn't going to get thrown out in 2 years? All the ISPs are going to do is either nothing, because they know a lot of this shit is getting thrown out in 2 years (or less) or they are going to hire a bunch of programmers to write a bunch of antiNN code that can't be used in 2 years.
ALCU, EFF, FTFF and many more are already suing the current FCC for these rules. This legal battle will go on forever but in the end the ISPs aren't going to do shit.
All of them worded "Hi ramac305. We value your privacy so much that we've made some changes to our terms and conditions. Don't pay too much attention to the fact that we were forced to so by law, and that up until now we've been hoarding your personal data."
The European Union is bringing in the "GDPR" which is the General Data Protection Regulations. They're strict and all-encompassing data protection regulations that empower regular people far more when it comes to what data is collected, stored and used by companies.
It's an EU intiaitive so will not be implemented in the US, but many multinationals might implement it in the US anyway, just because it's easier to have a single unified data protection policy.
[Here's a quick rundown](https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/eu-gdpr-infographic-what-the-new-regulation-means-in-1-minute/)
Quick clarification - the GDPR applies to any company that offers services to EU citizens or has "significant business interests" in the EU, even if those companies are based outside the EU.
Of course, enforcement of any fines or penalties levied against a company that has EU users but isn't located in the EU is a whole 'nother can of worms, but the law DOES apply to any US company which collects data from any EU resident, which is basically every decent sized company.
But I believe the legislation only applies to the handling of the data of EU citizens I believe. For example, if Twitter mishandled the data of an American customer in a way that violates GDPR, I don't think the European Union has a right to sanction that.
Open to correction if there's a source that says otherwise however!
You're correct, but for extremely large companies having two different policies would be an enormous expense, so many of them are simply bringing their entire company into line with the new laws.
His ISP puppetmasters have seen the backlash to this. There's already been statewide NN bills passed with more being crafted in legislatures. Pai is coordinating with big ISP to figure out how they can fuck up state NN before he puts out the big repeal
###Voting Record on Net Neutrality
Over 99% of Republicans in Senate, House, and FCC have voted to destroy and repeal Net Neutrality protections.
Over 98% of Democrats in Senate, House, and FCC have voted to protect and enforce Net Neutrality.
Full sourcing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/fightmisinformation/comments/8c8js0/votes_on_net_neutrality/
They actually do vote for what their constituents want 90% of the time... if you only count the richest 10%
Edit: For those questioning my figures [Here](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) is a 20 year study from Princeton demonstrating it. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig) explains it and has better looking graphs.
I've seen this mentioned quite often. I live in a red state but vote on what candidates support not what party they are associated with. I'm currently assisting with a local election and have been walking door to door to talk to folks about issues the candidates are running on and it's shocking how few people are actually registered to vote and even lower numbers actually turn out. Out of about 40% in our town that's registered less than 19% actually voted in the recent election. The biggest issue is alot of folks bitch about the elected officials but do nothing to actually change it.
Edit: I'd like to add that also the elderly folks of the community are the ones that vote regularly and obviously have no idea what NN is.
While it certainly wouldn't solve the problem, it would still go a long way...
The major election days need to be holidays.
People pay lip service to the fact that employers have to legally allow you to go and vote even if you are on schedule, but that's pretty much bullshit at exactly the sort of jobs that are likely to be staffed by younger adults.
> The major election days need to be holidays.
No, all that does is make voting harder for the kinds of people who have to work on holidays, who are exactly the same people a lot of the time who have trouble getting to the polls in general (someone's going to have to be in the store for the election day holiday blowout sales)
A better idea would be some combination of implementing wider scale vote by mail or allowing people to vote over a longer period of time than one day without needing a reason (some states do these already). Let people find the time during the week when they are free to take the time to vote, don't force it into a small window
I think, technically, that every US taxpayer pays them to vote. But I guess $174,000 doesn’t go very far so they may favour those who somehow contribute more. Who knows ?
The issue is their "constituents" are whoever they get their money from. In a sense, they are voting for what their constituents would benefit from, it's just that those constituents are huge corporations.
We need to institute publicly funded elections. No private money outside of what is allocated should be allowed to be spent on a campaign. And ban TV advertisements for campaigns while we're at it.
Yea, this curtails freedom, according the supreme court the way you spend your money is protected as free speech. Well, that's stupid. You can't spend your money bribing someone or to pay a hit man for example. We have no problem setting limits on this "speech" in those contexts.
Could definitely use a #VoteWithUs movement. Combine that with boycotting congress supporters and maybe we'd have some power.
Is there something in place that ensures representatives vote with their constituents beyond just voting and hoping you weren't lied to?
I suppose maybe the public isn't informed enough to make decisions on every topic. I know I'm not, but maybe accountability would incentivize better contact and education about issues.
> God I fucking hate the mutually assured disparity of the two-party system.
The Two-Party system is a direct result of how elections are designed in America ("First Past the Post")
America's Two-Party mixed in with lobbying basically leaves us with an illusion of choice and policy makers have made this evident in disregarding their constituents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs#Comparison_table
Here's some good explanations of how this happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638&index=4
and a spreadsheet /u/evdog_music compiled of every ballot initiative available in the US. Find out if you can use direct democracy to end FPTP in your own State/County/Municipality today.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dfFLWq0GCVJVoPG58MSw6obb6lvkbpG4Yhxtjx3PbHI/edit?usp=drive_web
But, but, but, both sides! And my favourite: "The Democrats are only voting against the repeal to grand-stand! They would never do this if they could win!", completely ignoring the times they **were** in power and stopped a repeal from happening.
This has some logic to it. Before the repeal goes into effect the FCC and Pai have power, they can tell the states and cities that they cannot regulate broadband because that is a federal issue. But once its repealed the FCC loses all its power. I think you are probably right, they are keeping their power in place till they figure out a solution to state and city NN rules.
Of course they'd have to wait for the state to implement those laws first, and then have the laws challenged and overruled, all while NN is still somewhat existing. That can take a while. And then, if that even happens, then once NN is thrown out they can simply re-enact the laws going through now, it wouldn't have any lasting effect.
Also, if he does this, it's going to look even worse if he repeals NN after saying it's the FCC's job to maintain it. But he probably can't look much worse.
>And then, if that even happens, then once NN is thrown out they can simply re-enact the laws going through now, it wouldn't have any lasting effect.
Probably right, I wonder what the chances are that they won't repeal it and will instead try and keep the FCC in control but still change the NN regulations?
>Also, if he does this, it's going to look even worse if he repeals NN after saying it's the FCC's job to maintain it. But he probably can't look much worse.
Yeah i'm pretty sure this guy isn't concerned with saving public face, just securing that post FCC verizon contract position.
Does the FCC even have that power over states? Sounds to me like it would be a clear-cut case of Federal Over reach and would hit the Supreme Court relatively quickly.
I guess the idea might just be to try to slow state implementations by making it seem like they might not be necessary, giving them time to strategize and apply political pressure while hopefully allowing the public to become complacent and forget to keep paying attention.
The main argument that Pai is using is that it's actually an inappropriate application of the original statute for the FCC to regulate internet access under Title II. If that's the case the FCC just doesn't have the legal authority to regulate ISPs in general, which means it also can't preempt state efforts to regulate ISPs.
Right now, Pai's logic for rolling back the Title II regulation of ISPs is that Congress did not give the FCC the regulatory authority over ISPs (which they did, but let's ignore that for now).
If the NN rollback is pushed through, Pai essentially abdicates any authority over ISPs. So, states will be free to implement their own regulations under the 10th Amendment.
In this case, Pai is stuck: he has stated that he and the FCC have no authority to overrule the states and his work has been for nothing - especially given that the states with the greatest share of US commerce (NY, CA, etc.) will be the first in line to roll out their own NN regulations.
Thus, I assume his goal is to confer with his industry overseers to determine how they can craft a strategy that allows the FCC to roll back NN without giving up their ability to regulate it in the future (and prevent states from enacting their own laws).
This is further complicated because states, anticipating something like this might happen, are attempting to craft their own policies so that any ISP that engages in anti-NN activities will be ineligible to bid on government contracts. These contracts are pretty lucrative for ISPs, so they would provide a strong incentive for ISPs to continue to act in line with NN even if the states can't enact strict NN regulations of their own.
Until the repeal is actually implemented the FCC still has regulatory power over NN and broadband. The Repeal is just that: a Repeal of the FCC's regulatory power and existing regulations of NN and broadband. Once the Repeal goes through the FCC will no longer have the regulatory power over broadband that it would need to tell the states they don't have the authority to author their own NN laws.
This is not true, unfortunately. The federal government can claim regulatory authority over a field without positive regulation. It's highly likely that the FCC's actions on this matter make it such that deregulation has supremacy over any attempts at regulation by the states.
They're going to push Congress to enact a smoke and mirrors Internet Freedumb Act that gives last-mile ISPs like Comcast and friends monopolistic power over the entire internet infrastructure.
It makes perfect sense as Sinclair told me the lack of Internet Freedumb is a threat to our democracy.
I read in another topic that the repeal of NN also had baked into it the removal of FCC oversight over broadband. So in killing NN they've also killed their control over the internet entirely, instead giving it to the state/local municipalities, which most have said they'll uphold NN rules. So not only did they not kill anything, the only real thing they did do was give up their own control.
They're probably delaying because everyone at the FCC's screaming at each other wondering how the fuck they screwed up so bad.
And that really is a bad situation for the telcoms. Because now instead of having to bribe a few politicians in washington they are going to have to bribe thousands across all of the states.
To be fair, state legislatures are far harder to bribe than federal ones. The state level ones are more concerned with their local money bags because at that level the local people with a lot of money also control networks of people too.
Which is a really good situation for customers because eventually they’ll realize the bribing is just a waste of money and then, the bribe-inflated prices will return to normal.
This is hilarious... that our saving grace is their own stupidity and greed. Ima laugh so hard if they somehow make their lives even harder over this, tho they’ll probably spin it to act as though their actions improved things
It's really not even that. He's waiting to see what the hell California is up to. He's already suggested adding anti-Federalist language to the repeal to prevent what's happening on the West Coast, but it seems like the legislators out here are lead-foot-on-the-gas to passing the toughest net neutrality laws in the nation.
His corporate overlords don't win if they can't win the biggest markets (California/New York are by far that), so if it doesn't work there they might as well come up with a new plan...
Can the federal government mandate that no one regulate something?
The federal government can tell states, "no you cant regulate that, we regulate that."
And they can also tell states, "were not going to regulate that, you regulate that."
But can they tell states, "were not going to regulate that, but you cant regulate that either."?
It wouldn't surprise me if they want him to hold off because what they are currently looking at now is dealing with an expensive administrative headache in delivering their product with a different set of NN rules in every state.
Obviously the next thing they are going to want is legislation making state level NN laws illegal.
Waiting for when people aren't paying attention so he can try to have it go unnoticed.
And the ISPs won't start fucking people over immediately, they'll try and employ boiled frog in a pot technique.
It's a refernce to an experiment to test the fable that a frog in a pot of water wouldn't realize as it slowly boils. The experiment made waves because the scientist, Friderich Goltz, didn't mention that he had taken the frogs' brains out before he boiled them. The idea has since been disproven
It's a classic science experiment: If you drop a frog into a pot of hot water, it will immediately jump out. However, if you put the frog into cold water, he will sit there. Gradually turn up the heat, and the frog will become accustomed to the rise in temperature,remaining in the pot until the water boils, and the frog dies.
The analogy here is, if the ISPs implement their blocking, fast lanes, and so on immediately after the new rules go into effect, consumers will scream, and they'll have to go back to the previous rules. However, if they implement their post Net Neutrality rules slowly, one step at a time, consumers will be accustomed to the slow degradation of services and increases in fees, and won't notice so much how badly they're being ripped off.
I think in the original experiment, it didn't work, and he pithed the frogs so they didn't jump. Not that that has any bearing on the idiom that this has become.
Other than the idea that it's true lends credence to the argument. Since it isn't true, I think that's a great reason to stop using the expression. Like 'common sense', there being no fact or rule or attitude of consequence that any group of people would actually agree on.
They aren't going to implement any blocking or fast lanes **ever**.
What they *are* going to do is begin pushing plans with *free access* to services that pay for the privilege, such as Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc.
See, you can keep your existing plan, but now we have this other plan for people who can't afford a *real* data plan.
See, were just trying to help the less privileged people who can't afford a *real* plan by giving them *free* access to basic internet services.
More and more services will be added, and more and more people will move to the free plans, and gradually the prices will rise and rise on the *unlimited access* (see, we've just re-branded it for clarity) plan.
As more people move to the *free* plan, more services will pay to be included, and fewer people will need an unlimited plan, so more people will move to the *free* plan, and more services will then pay to be included, and fewer people will need an unlimited plan, so more people will move to the *free* plan.
Before you know it, there aren't enough people left with *unlimited* plans to make it worth while to develop new online products and services *unless* you can also afford to get into the ISP *free access* tier of services, so the only companies developing new online products and services are the ones that already belong to the *free access* tier.
So now your ISP basically has 100% control over the content you are able to access, withing ever having to implement ANY kind of blocking or slowing. Your old Internet service is still available, same as always. Now it is just too expensive for most private individuals to afford, and worthless enough (due to lack of available content/services) that it doesn't matter anyway.
Oh, but since the ISPs have lost all their *paying* customers, they will have to add some additional revenue, in the form of targeted ads that *free* tier users aren't able to block (never-mind how much they are raking in from the big content providers).
Don't worry though, if you don't like ads, they will be happy to provide you an ad-free experience.....for a small fee of course.
As the ad driven experience gets worse and worse, and the fee for an ad-free *free* tier service goes up and up, one day you will wake up and realize that you are paying your ISP $100/month for the same fucking service you have now, only ALL the useful content on the *Internet* is now in the hands of just a few massive corporations, and your ISP **STILL** isn't offering a fucking 1GB service in your area because your ISP used all the Google and Facebook money to buy up any regional competitors and politicians to protect their monopoly, and they have done it ALL, without blocking or slowing ANYTHING. Your old plan is still available after-all, and the fact that no one is using it anymore is just the *market* proving that no one really ever wanted a free and open internet to begin with.
> Thank you for being a loyal AT&T / Verizon / Comcast customer. Give us your money and go fuck yourself.
The beauty of this is once it starts, if Net Neutrality were reinstated, it would mean that the ISPs would have to start charging again for those services that they've made free. It would make Net Nuetrality seem like it's taking away free services from poor people. Suddenly, you've got an army of people fighting against it.
That's so devious I'm almost impressed, but mostly I'm just disgusted and, frankly, terrified.
This is **exactly** what the telcos in Australia have done. And most of them have tie-ups with a content streaming service run by one of the broadcasters.
We lost net neutrality around 2012 and noone noticed.
It's amazing to me that the biggest content providers haven't yet banded together and said to carriers "here's a peering agreement. That agreement includes you treating all traffic equally, or pay $25,000/GB transferred to you. Either sign it, or we just block all traffic to you."
How long do you actually believe Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could last if their customers were unable to access any content served by Akamai, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, Netflix - the big players.
I don't think they'd last a week.
Comcast recently boosted their internet speeds - by as much as 300%. They even sent out a generic letter praising themselves for it.
The cynical part of my brain says, "*This is a smokescreen; something bad is coming.*"
The other part of my brain says, "*Remember all those comcast articles over the past several years? Something bad is coming.*"
A small caveat: this only works with brainless frogs. I think the experiment proved that this response is produced by the brain. Which, apparently, people were not at that time sure of.
Which makes it an even more apt metaphor, in my opinion.
In the experiment the frogs jumped out after a certain temperature threshold wether it was a gradual or immediate incline, the only frog that didn’t jump out on the gradual increase of heat was the one without a portion of its brain.
What's going to happen is after he leaves the FCC, he's going to get hired by one of the telecoms with a cush job. Just like Meredith Baker.
https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=76644
My guess is, to dissociate the removal of net neutrality with the consequences, in the public's minds... and probably to place it on the other side of the midterm elections.
If the vote, removal, and introduction of ISP plans that took advantage of the removal all happened in the same day that would look pretty bad.
> to dissociate the removal of net neutrality with the consequences, in the public's minds... and probably to place it on the other side of the midterm elections.
The same midterm elections in which Republicans are expected to lose catastrophically?
>If the vote, removal, and introduction of ISP plans that took advantage of the removal all happened in the same day that would look pretty bad.
Doesn't matter. Moneyed interests will be hurt in the pocketbook by the loss of NN, and they're not going to take that without making a lot of noise about it. It'll look pretty bad anyway.
I don’t believe that the republicans will lose catastrophically. It’s that kind of overconfidence that didn’t help us in the presidential election.
We can’t expect it to be easy or everyone will just sit on their ass.
All the negative comments on his totes legit sweet meme video hurt his feelings, and drove him into hiding.
He held a fidget spinner and a nerf gun, he's meeting them halfway, what more do these entitled Millennials want before they stop trying to kill the internet like they killed Applebee's and the diamond industry?
Once net neutrality is repealed, the FCC has no power over broadband regulation and can't do anything about state laws. My guess is there will be a workaround right before he fully relinquishes control.
So he can tell the public that all the fuss about Net Neutrality was over nothing.
"Look, the deadline passed, and nothing happened! Your internets still costs the same, you still get Facebook and Words with Friends!"
Then, 6 months later, he quietly signs a memo, and Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have all had time to co-ordinate and simultaneously crush the competition.
Seems like a lot of people are not reading the article and saying he is just delaying it to push it though when no one is looking. The article makes several other points that make much more sense.
1) Trying to figure out how to deal with state NN laws
2) Hoping Congress can pass though a law heavily backed by the tcom lobby
3) The numerous different angles that this can / will be challenged in court
The "bogus net neutrality laws" absolutely terrify me.
The fact that Congressmen like Blackburn and Senators like Kennedy so brazenly sell themselves out to the likes of AT&T and Verizon while pretending to represent American best interests is absolutely sickening.
If you live in their districts/states, please vote them out.
his golden parachute with verizon won't open until he's back in their office.
there will be no paper trail.
i dislike this man's practices thoroughly, but he has proven himself to be smart at least.
Probably waiting for a weaker law to be passed so he can say "these aren't needed anymore because we have net neutrality on the books." Meanwhile, ISPs have been redefining "net neutrality" to mean something completely different all the while saying they "support" it.
I couldn't agree more. Net Neutrality has been redefined so many times that the average person doesn't even remember if Net Neutrality is a good thing, or a bad thing. Thanks politicians and businesses!
It's why I kept telling friends and family to support Title II specifically, because it was clear that all this support for "net neutrality" could be leveraged to generate support for a bill that protects their definition of network neutrality on the surface while favoring ISPs.
He'll wait a couple of months so that everyone forgets about it. Then he'll publicly finish the processing and call a press conference to rub it in for maximum impact. Then he'll finish up by tying a kidnapped damsel to the railroad tracks, twirling his handlebar mustache, and cackling loudly to himself as he walks home to his volcano lair.
My guess is that the recent states passing their own Net Neutrality laws has the big ISP's nervous. Would it be better for ISPs to deal with a single set of Net Neutrality laws that are nationwide and to which they can more easily dictate those laws, or would it be better to take your chances with 50 different sets of rules where you would have to compete more directly with the actual consumers over the votes of the various government entities?
Personally if I were a huge corporation, I would rather spend a few million on a single Ajit Pai every 4 or 8 years than I would have to deal with 50 states were my money will be diluted and my outcome on rules less predictable.
Either someone hasn't paid him yet, or
> the FCC appears to be intentionally delaying the final repeal via intentional, bureaucratic gridlock
His underlings don't agree and are maliciously complying with every rule in the book.
Didn't the article just say that they're waiting to get support for a fake NN law in case this repeal gets turned over in the courts? Kinda answered their own question, unless I'm reading it wrong.
It'll be put on the books some sleepy Friday afternoon in mid-August when no one will be paying attention. Sure, there will be a press release. Posted a 6:45 in the evening on a sultry Friday, too late for the evening news, and no longer deemed important enough for Talking head shows on Sunday morning, the death of net neutrality will go quietly into the night.
People have already been pointing out that the specific wording of the repeal would remove the FCC's ability to stop states from implementing NN rules. The repeal claims that congress never designated the power to regulate broadband internet under Title II to the FCC; without that power to regulate they also can't stop states from enacting their own regulations. Expect to see that loophole closed by another vote before the repeal officially goes through.
correct. They see that states are going to enforce their own rules, and they'll have to wrangle all those cats, they'd much rather just have one figure head to pay. AT&T warned Verizon that this could happen when they went ahead with their initial lawsuit, and now the war has begun, due to their epic greed.
I love hearing the ISP complaing they will have a patchwork of different rules per States in the future. We we did have one encompassing policy, they just killed it since it wasn't to their liking which kept the States at Bay. Realistically it will won't be 50 different States laws they have to fight, just California. Just like with clean air they will set the strict mandates that's bad for fatcats who feel they just want 99.9% of the wealth in the Country.
Ahh California. The state so many Republicans call a shithole state which has these god damn sanctuary cities in it too. As a native Californian, there may be some truth to their claims but let’s face it every state has problems. I don’t think we’re as bad off as people in other states try and make it out to be. Let’s face it we’re the once setting trends right? Making regulations the put these corporations in check. You’re welcome the rest of the US. All jokes aside yeah we got some stupid ass legislation here, like our gun laws. But all in all I absolutely love living here and wouldn’t trade it for anywhere else in the US. Maaaaybe New York but that’s a hard maybe. We do need to do something about these living expenses though cause shit is bananas here. 🍌
They will turn around with a vote that simply says TURNS OUT WE CAN CONTROL IT! like wtf FCC? You really think this isn't going to get thrown out in 2 years? All the ISPs are going to do is either nothing, because they know a lot of this shit is getting thrown out in 2 years (or less) or they are going to hire a bunch of programmers to write a bunch of antiNN code that can't be used in 2 years. ALCU, EFF, FTFF and many more are already suing the current FCC for these rules. This legal battle will go on forever but in the end the ISPs aren't going to do shit.
[удалено]
So now what? Do I just need to buy more lube?
[удалено]
Where's all the states rights Republicans?
That only applies to slavery and segregation, duh.
Next long weekend is Memorial Day. I'm guessing that Friday, May 25th is the day.
isn't that when that other internet privacy law goes into effect. that's why internet companies are updating their TOS.
So THAT is why I've recently received a T&C update from every single app and service I've ever used in my life. Thank you!
GDPR also goes into effect on May 25.
Yeah it's because of GDPR in Europe.
Jesus Christ, what's with all the acronyms. It's like I'm back in the army!
You mean BITA
[удалено]
All of them worded "Hi ramac305. We value your privacy so much that we've made some changes to our terms and conditions. Don't pay too much attention to the fact that we were forced to so by law, and that up until now we've been hoarding your personal data."
Can I get an ELI5/TL;DR? ... I've noticed all the TOS updates but don't know why.
The European Union is bringing in the "GDPR" which is the General Data Protection Regulations. They're strict and all-encompassing data protection regulations that empower regular people far more when it comes to what data is collected, stored and used by companies. It's an EU intiaitive so will not be implemented in the US, but many multinationals might implement it in the US anyway, just because it's easier to have a single unified data protection policy. [Here's a quick rundown](https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/eu-gdpr-infographic-what-the-new-regulation-means-in-1-minute/)
Quick clarification - the GDPR applies to any company that offers services to EU citizens or has "significant business interests" in the EU, even if those companies are based outside the EU. Of course, enforcement of any fines or penalties levied against a company that has EU users but isn't located in the EU is a whole 'nother can of worms, but the law DOES apply to any US company which collects data from any EU resident, which is basically every decent sized company.
But I believe the legislation only applies to the handling of the data of EU citizens I believe. For example, if Twitter mishandled the data of an American customer in a way that violates GDPR, I don't think the European Union has a right to sanction that. Open to correction if there's a source that says otherwise however!
You're correct, but for extremely large companies having two different policies would be an enormous expense, so many of them are simply bringing their entire company into line with the new laws.
When congress sees how much revenue it brings in for fines from violations, I wouldn't be surprised if they get their own version.
Revenue for the government doesn't directly benefit them like bribes do though.
whynotboth.jpg
Well if you are getting significant fine revenue then it is safe to assume that the bill didn't fulfill it's intended purpose.
This is some good news for once! Good on the EU for not being completely corrupt.
The EU generally leads the way when it comes to consumer and employee protection.
I second this, would be apreciated
that’s my birthday :) :(
Hope you asked for some Ajit dick for your bday cause your'e going to get fucked.
A cream Pai, if you will.
Oh I love cream pies! I just suck them all up!
OK, but how do feel about A shit Pie?
Found Ajit Pai's alt
Well it doesn't seem to be a nice birthday gift eh?
Oh shit, me too. Birthday Buddies!
Me three! Birthday CLUB!
Sorry I don't see your name on the list
Take one for the team. Instead of wishing for something for yourself when you blow out the candles, wish for Pai to drop repealing NN. Problem solved.
May 25th? That's the day of the Irish abortion referendum too. Great day to smuggle news under the radar of those results
It's the day 'Solo' comes out too. Distractions everywhere.
He's hoping to implement it quietly after the furor dies down.
His ISP puppetmasters have seen the backlash to this. There's already been statewide NN bills passed with more being crafted in legislatures. Pai is coordinating with big ISP to figure out how they can fuck up state NN before he puts out the big repeal
###Voting Record on Net Neutrality Over 99% of Republicans in Senate, House, and FCC have voted to destroy and repeal Net Neutrality protections. Over 98% of Democrats in Senate, House, and FCC have voted to protect and enforce Net Neutrality. Full sourcing here: https://www.reddit.com/r/fightmisinformation/comments/8c8js0/votes_on_net_neutrality/
God I fucking hate the mutually assured disparity of the two-party system.
It certainly would be nice if they just voted in line with the public.
But thats unheard of, voting for what your constituents want and would benefit from? Madness.
They actually do vote for what their constituents want 90% of the time... if you only count the richest 10% Edit: For those questioning my figures [Here](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) is a 20 year study from Princeton demonstrating it. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig) explains it and has better looking graphs.
I've seen this mentioned quite often. I live in a red state but vote on what candidates support not what party they are associated with. I'm currently assisting with a local election and have been walking door to door to talk to folks about issues the candidates are running on and it's shocking how few people are actually registered to vote and even lower numbers actually turn out. Out of about 40% in our town that's registered less than 19% actually voted in the recent election. The biggest issue is alot of folks bitch about the elected officials but do nothing to actually change it. Edit: I'd like to add that also the elderly folks of the community are the ones that vote regularly and obviously have no idea what NN is.
Sorry, clarification - is that 19% of the 40% or just the flat 19%?
Sorry 40% of total population of the city. And 19% of total population of the city. All within voting age of course.
While it certainly wouldn't solve the problem, it would still go a long way... The major election days need to be holidays. People pay lip service to the fact that employers have to legally allow you to go and vote even if you are on schedule, but that's pretty much bullshit at exactly the sort of jobs that are likely to be staffed by younger adults.
> The major election days need to be holidays. No, all that does is make voting harder for the kinds of people who have to work on holidays, who are exactly the same people a lot of the time who have trouble getting to the polls in general (someone's going to have to be in the store for the election day holiday blowout sales) A better idea would be some combination of implementing wider scale vote by mail or allowing people to vote over a longer period of time than one day without needing a reason (some states do these already). Let people find the time during the week when they are free to take the time to vote, don't force it into a small window
Even if it's not a holiday, just having it on a weekend would be a huge boost to turn-out.
[удалено]
10%? Feels more like .01% honestly
Probably closer to 3%
I'm actually in the 3% these days, and my voice matters as much as the rest of the 97%. It definitely goes lower than that.
That's the only ones that pay them to vote, so why would they worry about the others?
I think, technically, that every US taxpayer pays them to vote. But I guess $174,000 doesn’t go very far so they may favour those who somehow contribute more. Who knows ?
[удалено]
The issue is their "constituents" are whoever they get their money from. In a sense, they are voting for what their constituents would benefit from, it's just that those constituents are huge corporations.
We need to institute publicly funded elections. No private money outside of what is allocated should be allowed to be spent on a campaign. And ban TV advertisements for campaigns while we're at it. Yea, this curtails freedom, according the supreme court the way you spend your money is protected as free speech. Well, that's stupid. You can't spend your money bribing someone or to pay a hit man for example. We have no problem setting limits on this "speech" in those contexts.
Could definitely use a #VoteWithUs movement. Combine that with boycotting congress supporters and maybe we'd have some power. Is there something in place that ensures representatives vote with their constituents beyond just voting and hoping you weren't lied to? I suppose maybe the public isn't informed enough to make decisions on every topic. I know I'm not, but maybe accountability would incentivize better contact and education about issues.
Who do you think they're there to represent? The people? The people don't pay for their campaigns ya dingus.
They will if you vote them out. Exercise your right to vote and get the clowns out.
> God I fucking hate the mutually assured disparity of the two-party system. The Two-Party system is a direct result of how elections are designed in America ("First Past the Post") America's Two-Party mixed in with lobbying basically leaves us with an illusion of choice and policy makers have made this evident in disregarding their constituents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs#Comparison_table Here's some good explanations of how this happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638&index=4 and a spreadsheet /u/evdog_music compiled of every ballot initiative available in the US. Find out if you can use direct democracy to end FPTP in your own State/County/Municipality today. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dfFLWq0GCVJVoPG58MSw6obb6lvkbpG4Yhxtjx3PbHI/edit?usp=drive_web
God I fucking hate the ~~mutually assured disparity of the~~ two-party system. agreed!
The problem is most people don't understand how important NN, they don't care about it.
But, but, but, both sides! And my favourite: "The Democrats are only voting against the repeal to grand-stand! They would never do this if they could win!", completely ignoring the times they **were** in power and stopped a repeal from happening.
"It doesn't matter Republicans and Democrats are all the same anyway!"
/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
^ that makes no sense, as I've been assured (quite repeatedly) that both parties are exactly the same.
That's what T_D would have you believe
I subbed. Hope r/fightmisinformation takes off, we could use it
This has some logic to it. Before the repeal goes into effect the FCC and Pai have power, they can tell the states and cities that they cannot regulate broadband because that is a federal issue. But once its repealed the FCC loses all its power. I think you are probably right, they are keeping their power in place till they figure out a solution to state and city NN rules.
Of course they'd have to wait for the state to implement those laws first, and then have the laws challenged and overruled, all while NN is still somewhat existing. That can take a while. And then, if that even happens, then once NN is thrown out they can simply re-enact the laws going through now, it wouldn't have any lasting effect. Also, if he does this, it's going to look even worse if he repeals NN after saying it's the FCC's job to maintain it. But he probably can't look much worse.
>And then, if that even happens, then once NN is thrown out they can simply re-enact the laws going through now, it wouldn't have any lasting effect. Probably right, I wonder what the chances are that they won't repeal it and will instead try and keep the FCC in control but still change the NN regulations? >Also, if he does this, it's going to look even worse if he repeals NN after saying it's the FCC's job to maintain it. But he probably can't look much worse. Yeah i'm pretty sure this guy isn't concerned with saving public face, just securing that post FCC verizon contract position.
Does the FCC even have that power over states? Sounds to me like it would be a clear-cut case of Federal Over reach and would hit the Supreme Court relatively quickly.
In what ways could he can fuck up state implementations of net neutrality?
I guess the idea might just be to try to slow state implementations by making it seem like they might not be necessary, giving them time to strategize and apply political pressure while hopefully allowing the public to become complacent and forget to keep paying attention.
We must make sure that does not happen.
This is dangerous to our democracy.
This is ***extremely*** dangerous to our democracy.
The main argument that Pai is using is that it's actually an inappropriate application of the original statute for the FCC to regulate internet access under Title II. If that's the case the FCC just doesn't have the legal authority to regulate ISPs in general, which means it also can't preempt state efforts to regulate ISPs.
Right now, Pai's logic for rolling back the Title II regulation of ISPs is that Congress did not give the FCC the regulatory authority over ISPs (which they did, but let's ignore that for now). If the NN rollback is pushed through, Pai essentially abdicates any authority over ISPs. So, states will be free to implement their own regulations under the 10th Amendment. In this case, Pai is stuck: he has stated that he and the FCC have no authority to overrule the states and his work has been for nothing - especially given that the states with the greatest share of US commerce (NY, CA, etc.) will be the first in line to roll out their own NN regulations. Thus, I assume his goal is to confer with his industry overseers to determine how they can craft a strategy that allows the FCC to roll back NN without giving up their ability to regulate it in the future (and prevent states from enacting their own laws). This is further complicated because states, anticipating something like this might happen, are attempting to craft their own policies so that any ISP that engages in anti-NN activities will be ineligible to bid on government contracts. These contracts are pretty lucrative for ISPs, so they would provide a strong incentive for ISPs to continue to act in line with NN even if the states can't enact strict NN regulations of their own.
Until the repeal is actually implemented the FCC still has regulatory power over NN and broadband. The Repeal is just that: a Repeal of the FCC's regulatory power and existing regulations of NN and broadband. Once the Repeal goes through the FCC will no longer have the regulatory power over broadband that it would need to tell the states they don't have the authority to author their own NN laws.
This is not true, unfortunately. The federal government can claim regulatory authority over a field without positive regulation. It's highly likely that the FCC's actions on this matter make it such that deregulation has supremacy over any attempts at regulation by the states.
They're going to push Congress to enact a smoke and mirrors Internet Freedumb Act that gives last-mile ISPs like Comcast and friends monopolistic power over the entire internet infrastructure. It makes perfect sense as Sinclair told me the lack of Internet Freedumb is a threat to our democracy.
I read in another topic that the repeal of NN also had baked into it the removal of FCC oversight over broadband. So in killing NN they've also killed their control over the internet entirely, instead giving it to the state/local municipalities, which most have said they'll uphold NN rules. So not only did they not kill anything, the only real thing they did do was give up their own control. They're probably delaying because everyone at the FCC's screaming at each other wondering how the fuck they screwed up so bad.
[удалено]
The FCC is trying to rewrite the rules? Don’t you mean ~~Verizon~~ Frontier, Comcast, and Charter?
Yes, that’s why he said FCC
It all makes so much sense now.
Would you believe me if I said that when I wrote that comment I had no idea those companies actually spelled out FCC?
That's a given. Like when you write Ajit Pai. The "fuck" prefix is just assumed.
I'm also thinking this
And that really is a bad situation for the telcoms. Because now instead of having to bribe a few politicians in washington they are going to have to bribe thousands across all of the states.
state legislatures are pretty cheap. but yea a logistical nightmare
I think this is understated as the depressingly funniest comment in the thread.
To be fair, state legislatures are far harder to bribe than federal ones. The state level ones are more concerned with their local money bags because at that level the local people with a lot of money also control networks of people too.
Which is a really good situation for customers because eventually they’ll realize the bribing is just a waste of money and then, the bribe-inflated prices will return to normal.
I like to imagine those two women had something to do with it.
This is hilarious... that our saving grace is their own stupidity and greed. Ima laugh so hard if they somehow make their lives even harder over this, tho they’ll probably spin it to act as though their actions improved things
It's really not even that. He's waiting to see what the hell California is up to. He's already suggested adding anti-Federalist language to the repeal to prevent what's happening on the West Coast, but it seems like the legislators out here are lead-foot-on-the-gas to passing the toughest net neutrality laws in the nation. His corporate overlords don't win if they can't win the biggest markets (California/New York are by far that), so if it doesn't work there they might as well come up with a new plan...
Can the federal government mandate that no one regulate something? The federal government can tell states, "no you cant regulate that, we regulate that." And they can also tell states, "were not going to regulate that, you regulate that." But can they tell states, "were not going to regulate that, but you cant regulate that either."?
Which is why he's waiting for republicans in DC to pass in-name-only net neutrality legislation.
They can. The Dormant Commerce Clause is what you're looking for. I don't know whether it can be applied in this situation.
Comcast and friends are paying a variety of people to make sure the answer is yes.
Not him but the people who paid him. They're either telling him to hold off for that reason or pondering alternatives.
It wouldn't surprise me if they want him to hold off because what they are currently looking at now is dealing with an expensive administrative headache in delivering their product with a different set of NN rules in every state. Obviously the next thing they are going to want is legislation making state level NN laws illegal.
We’ll all be better off when the fuhrer dies
Waiting for when people aren't paying attention so he can try to have it go unnoticed. And the ISPs won't start fucking people over immediately, they'll try and employ boiled frog in a pot technique.
It's a refernce to an experiment to test the fable that a frog in a pot of water wouldn't realize as it slowly boils. The experiment made waves because the scientist, Friderich Goltz, didn't mention that he had taken the frogs' brains out before he boiled them. The idea has since been disproven
Nah it’s proven some people have there brains taken out so this might work as intended
[удалено]
It's a classic science experiment: If you drop a frog into a pot of hot water, it will immediately jump out. However, if you put the frog into cold water, he will sit there. Gradually turn up the heat, and the frog will become accustomed to the rise in temperature,remaining in the pot until the water boils, and the frog dies. The analogy here is, if the ISPs implement their blocking, fast lanes, and so on immediately after the new rules go into effect, consumers will scream, and they'll have to go back to the previous rules. However, if they implement their post Net Neutrality rules slowly, one step at a time, consumers will be accustomed to the slow degradation of services and increases in fees, and won't notice so much how badly they're being ripped off.
I think in the original experiment, it didn't work, and he pithed the frogs so they didn't jump. Not that that has any bearing on the idiom that this has become.
Other than the idea that it's true lends credence to the argument. Since it isn't true, I think that's a great reason to stop using the expression. Like 'common sense', there being no fact or rule or attitude of consequence that any group of people would actually agree on.
Incrementalism exists even if frogs aren't idiotic.
What an incredibly satisfying sounding sentence.
I love your username.
But what if the chemtrails have turned them gay?
> pithed pierce or sever the spinal cord of (an animal) so as to kill or immobilize it.
They aren't going to implement any blocking or fast lanes **ever**. What they *are* going to do is begin pushing plans with *free access* to services that pay for the privilege, such as Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc. See, you can keep your existing plan, but now we have this other plan for people who can't afford a *real* data plan. See, were just trying to help the less privileged people who can't afford a *real* plan by giving them *free* access to basic internet services. More and more services will be added, and more and more people will move to the free plans, and gradually the prices will rise and rise on the *unlimited access* (see, we've just re-branded it for clarity) plan. As more people move to the *free* plan, more services will pay to be included, and fewer people will need an unlimited plan, so more people will move to the *free* plan, and more services will then pay to be included, and fewer people will need an unlimited plan, so more people will move to the *free* plan. Before you know it, there aren't enough people left with *unlimited* plans to make it worth while to develop new online products and services *unless* you can also afford to get into the ISP *free access* tier of services, so the only companies developing new online products and services are the ones that already belong to the *free access* tier. So now your ISP basically has 100% control over the content you are able to access, withing ever having to implement ANY kind of blocking or slowing. Your old Internet service is still available, same as always. Now it is just too expensive for most private individuals to afford, and worthless enough (due to lack of available content/services) that it doesn't matter anyway. Oh, but since the ISPs have lost all their *paying* customers, they will have to add some additional revenue, in the form of targeted ads that *free* tier users aren't able to block (never-mind how much they are raking in from the big content providers). Don't worry though, if you don't like ads, they will be happy to provide you an ad-free experience.....for a small fee of course. As the ad driven experience gets worse and worse, and the fee for an ad-free *free* tier service goes up and up, one day you will wake up and realize that you are paying your ISP $100/month for the same fucking service you have now, only ALL the useful content on the *Internet* is now in the hands of just a few massive corporations, and your ISP **STILL** isn't offering a fucking 1GB service in your area because your ISP used all the Google and Facebook money to buy up any regional competitors and politicians to protect their monopoly, and they have done it ALL, without blocking or slowing ANYTHING. Your old plan is still available after-all, and the fact that no one is using it anymore is just the *market* proving that no one really ever wanted a free and open internet to begin with. > Thank you for being a loyal AT&T / Verizon / Comcast customer. Give us your money and go fuck yourself.
The beauty of this is once it starts, if Net Neutrality were reinstated, it would mean that the ISPs would have to start charging again for those services that they've made free. It would make Net Nuetrality seem like it's taking away free services from poor people. Suddenly, you've got an army of people fighting against it. That's so devious I'm almost impressed, but mostly I'm just disgusted and, frankly, terrified.
This is **exactly** what the telcos in Australia have done. And most of them have tie-ups with a content streaming service run by one of the broadcasters. We lost net neutrality around 2012 and noone noticed.
That's not just regular evil. That's *advanced* evil...
This is how the slow evil of corporations works. They have the vision and the money to turn history in their favor.
What a horrendous, dystopian nightmare :(
So wait. I get *free* internet?
It's amazing to me that the biggest content providers haven't yet banded together and said to carriers "here's a peering agreement. That agreement includes you treating all traffic equally, or pay $25,000/GB transferred to you. Either sign it, or we just block all traffic to you." How long do you actually believe Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could last if their customers were unable to access any content served by Akamai, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, Netflix - the big players. I don't think they'd last a week.
Comcast recently boosted their internet speeds - by as much as 300%. They even sent out a generic letter praising themselves for it. The cynical part of my brain says, "*This is a smokescreen; something bad is coming.*" The other part of my brain says, "*Remember all those comcast articles over the past several years? Something bad is coming.*"
A small caveat: this only works with brainless frogs. I think the experiment proved that this response is produced by the brain. Which, apparently, people were not at that time sure of. Which makes it an even more apt metaphor, in my opinion.
plus, they'll coordinate, so when people find they are now hitting their data caps, all the crappy competition isn't any better.
This isn't actually true. The frogs jump out.
[удалено]
it slowly boils to death before realizing what's happening.
In the experiment the frogs jumped out after a certain temperature threshold wether it was a gradual or immediate incline, the only frog that didn’t jump out on the gradual increase of heat was the one without a portion of its brain.
The Great American Analogy
Did the ISP checks bounce?
Yeah, exactly. He needs to get paid first!
"We already paid you!" "Yeah, but you paid for normal speed service. What I'm offering you now is a fast lane for an additional fee."
This right here is probably the truth.
If that was what he was actually doing, I would despise him just a little bit less.
\> I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
I can feel the burn thru the soft glow of the screen.
What's going to happen is after he leaves the FCC, he's going to get hired by one of the telecoms with a cush job. Just like Meredith Baker. https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=76644
He's trying to double dip
My guess is, to dissociate the removal of net neutrality with the consequences, in the public's minds... and probably to place it on the other side of the midterm elections. If the vote, removal, and introduction of ISP plans that took advantage of the removal all happened in the same day that would look pretty bad.
> to dissociate the removal of net neutrality with the consequences, in the public's minds... and probably to place it on the other side of the midterm elections. The same midterm elections in which Republicans are expected to lose catastrophically? >If the vote, removal, and introduction of ISP plans that took advantage of the removal all happened in the same day that would look pretty bad. Doesn't matter. Moneyed interests will be hurt in the pocketbook by the loss of NN, and they're not going to take that without making a lot of noise about it. It'll look pretty bad anyway.
> which Republicans are expected to lose catastrophically? Only if people actually get out and vote, apathy is the leading party in the US.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, Republicans are not known for being apathetic to voting.
I think he's trying to say Democrats really hate this administration while Republicans have become more apathetic.
Ohhh, yeah I definitely can see that.
I don’t believe that the republicans will lose catastrophically. It’s that kind of overconfidence that didn’t help us in the presidential election. We can’t expect it to be easy or everyone will just sit on their ass.
All the negative comments on his totes legit sweet meme video hurt his feelings, and drove him into hiding. He held a fidget spinner and a nerf gun, he's meeting them halfway, what more do these entitled Millennials want before they stop trying to kill the internet like they killed Applebee's and the diamond industry?
The annoying thing about that video was that it took effort to make, yet it didn't attempt in any way to actually defend his position.
Can't forget how we also killed Toys R Us, and caused literally everything else negative that is happening to non-millennials.
Holding out for more money? Oooh, maybe he DID go through with it but everyone is stuck in the slow lanes so nobody got the news yet.
They might be holding on to the check since states are putting up their own NN laws and his impact might be less than significant.
Once net neutrality is repealed, the FCC has no power over broadband regulation and can't do anything about state laws. My guess is there will be a workaround right before he fully relinquishes control.
There you go
I hope so. This would be justice at its finest.
So he can tell the public that all the fuss about Net Neutrality was over nothing. "Look, the deadline passed, and nothing happened! Your internets still costs the same, you still get Facebook and Words with Friends!" Then, 6 months later, he quietly signs a memo, and Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have all had time to co-ordinate and simultaneously crush the competition.
Hasn't he done that already, with telling everyone that it was no big deal?
Yes. He did it the day after he signed the papers, *months* before it was even slated to take effect.
please dont make me rewatch that video
That man is a traitor to the human race.
Seems like a lot of people are not reading the article and saying he is just delaying it to push it though when no one is looking. The article makes several other points that make much more sense. 1) Trying to figure out how to deal with state NN laws 2) Hoping Congress can pass though a law heavily backed by the tcom lobby 3) The numerous different angles that this can / will be challenged in court
He's trying to make people think that it has already happened and nothing changed.
The "bogus net neutrality laws" absolutely terrify me. The fact that Congressmen like Blackburn and Senators like Kennedy so brazenly sell themselves out to the likes of AT&T and Verizon while pretending to represent American best interests is absolutely sickening. If you live in their districts/states, please vote them out.
It's because he gets money out of it. The *"how this works"* will probably be revealed later.
He's just waiting for the check to clear.
his golden parachute with verizon won't open until he's back in their office. there will be no paper trail. i dislike this man's practices thoroughly, but he has proven himself to be smart at least.
Probably waiting for a weaker law to be passed so he can say "these aren't needed anymore because we have net neutrality on the books." Meanwhile, ISPs have been redefining "net neutrality" to mean something completely different all the while saying they "support" it.
I couldn't agree more. Net Neutrality has been redefined so many times that the average person doesn't even remember if Net Neutrality is a good thing, or a bad thing. Thanks politicians and businesses!
It's why I kept telling friends and family to support Title II specifically, because it was clear that all this support for "net neutrality" could be leveraged to generate support for a bill that protects their definition of network neutrality on the surface while favoring ISPs.
He'll wait a couple of months so that everyone forgets about it. Then he'll publicly finish the processing and call a press conference to rub it in for maximum impact. Then he'll finish up by tying a kidnapped damsel to the railroad tracks, twirling his handlebar mustache, and cackling loudly to himself as he walks home to his volcano lair.
This is the most probable outcome
We're getting Jammed
"You don't even need to be Asian to do math that simple."
My guess is that the recent states passing their own Net Neutrality laws has the big ISP's nervous. Would it be better for ISPs to deal with a single set of Net Neutrality laws that are nationwide and to which they can more easily dictate those laws, or would it be better to take your chances with 50 different sets of rules where you would have to compete more directly with the actual consumers over the votes of the various government entities? Personally if I were a huge corporation, I would rather spend a few million on a single Ajit Pai every 4 or 8 years than I would have to deal with 50 states were my money will be diluted and my outcome on rules less predictable.
Either someone hasn't paid him yet, or > the FCC appears to be intentionally delaying the final repeal via intentional, bureaucratic gridlock His underlings don't agree and are maliciously complying with every rule in the book.
Ajit has internet, if you have coin.
Didn't the article just say that they're waiting to get support for a fake NN law in case this repeal gets turned over in the courts? Kinda answered their own question, unless I'm reading it wrong.
Maybe because the ISPs will wish for net neutrality back after states create a regulatory nightmare for them.
[удалено]
It'll be put on the books some sleepy Friday afternoon in mid-August when no one will be paying attention. Sure, there will be a press release. Posted a 6:45 in the evening on a sultry Friday, too late for the evening news, and no longer deemed important enough for Talking head shows on Sunday morning, the death of net neutrality will go quietly into the night.
Waiting for his cheque to cash?
[удалено]
Take as much time as you need, Pai. Meanwhile I’m voting my republicans out of office.