Uncovered emails reportedly show FCC made up DDoS claim and lied to reporters to cover...

[DelJo63]

Frankly im fed up (no pun intended) with our democracy that isn't run by the people but by the corporations. They are the ones who motivate these political actors, the ones who lobby for right and wrong and the ones who push (legal) issues when it affects their bottom line. How much control do "We the people" have anymore? "Public outcry" might as well be a internet catch phrase to mean "not going to change a damn thing".

YES! Strict term limit (like one), outlaw all lobbyists, proof of conflict of interest results in 5yrs in Leavenworth.

Also take down the idealistic Colossus poem from lady Liberty and install "We were just kidding".

Sorry - - this one punched my buttons - - hope it did to you too.

 

[Xclusiveitalian]

So when are they all going to jail?

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I would love to live in a world where people and corporations can be trusted to always act in an ethical manner; so far, people and corporations have proven, to me, anyway, that they are not worthy of that trust, and the only mediator in ensuring ethical behavior that is in any way even remotely effective is government regulation.

I agree that we need govt to stop corporations from taking advantage of people and using unethical business practices. But this is not one of those cases. This is not the ISPs vs you. This is the ISPs vs Google. Big Corporation vs. Big Corporation. I know we don't like to think of Google as a big evil corporation, but if you're against a big company pushing people around, then you should be against Google as well.

Google essentially paid (lobbied) the govt to pass regulation that favors them so the ISPs couldn't raise their rates. They didn't want to pay more for using more. YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth and the ISPs were going to charge Google (and Netflix) more for having to rework their networks to account for it. Google was doing as you expect - acting in 100% of their best interest.

I'm not suggesting the govt should favor ISPs - I'm saying they should stay out of it. The internet was working just fine before this regulation went in, and since it was taken back out - have you noticed your youTube subscription fees going up? No? Then they're not really protecting you from much, are they?

 

[HugsNotDrugs]

I would love to live in a world where people and corporations can be trusted to always act in an ethical manner; so far, people and corporations have proven, to me, anyway, that they are not worthy of that trust, and the only mediator in ensuring ethical behavior that is in any way even remotely effective is government regulation.

I agree that we need govt to stop corporations from taking advantage of people and using unethical business practices. But this is not one of those cases. This is not the ISPs vs you. This is the ISPs vs Google. Big Corporation vs. Big Corporation. I know we don't like to think of Google as a big evil corporation, but if you're against a big company pushing people around, then you should be against Google as well.

Google essentially paid (lobbied) the govt to pass regulation that favors them so the ISPs couldn't raise their rates. They didn't want to pay more for using more. YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth and the ISPs were going to charge Google (and Netflix) more for having to rework their networks to account for it. Google was doing as you expect - acting in 100% of their best interest.

I'm not suggesting the govt should favor ISPs - I'm saying they should stay out of it. The internet was working just fine before this regulation went in, and since it was taken back out - have you noticed your youTube subscription fees going up? No? Then they're not really protecting you from much, are they?

It's really simple: users pay ISPs to access the internet and do whatever they would like to do on the internet. Some users pay, for example, for 500GB of data they can use doing whatever they would like, whether it's gaming, Netflix, streaming YouTube etc. If they do a lot of it they have to pay for more gigabytes. Providing that access costs money, so ISPs require payment from consumers in the form of a monthly fee. ISPs already receive payment for this service.

What ISPs obviously want is to be able to do is shake down profitable web services and sites for extra money, not unlike what they did with Netflix a few years ago. It's naive to think ISPs don't want to extract further profits from web services and sites - for a service that is already paid for by the consumer.

The most important aspect of the internet is that users can do whatever they like with it. It's an absolute equalizer and has been responsible for the golden age of the internet.

Once you allow ISPs to shake down websites and services it's no longer equal. Consumers no longer have the access they want and the speeds they paid for. To succeed, businesses will have to pay ISPs extra money of which those costs will be ultimately passed along to the consumer as hidden ISP costs.

Respectfully, I think it's insane to believe that ISPs aren't doing this to get into a position to profit from successful web services. In other words, to piggyback on the whole of the internet and get a cut of every profit any service or site generates. That would certainly be more profitable than simply providing dumb pipes that aren't permitted to manipulate.

Think about it...

 

[m3tavision]

The FCC didn't make it up, this treasonous Corporate shill Ajit Pai …!


He is not bargaining in good faith for "We the People...", but for how Billionaire Corporations... want the internet to be run.


News Flash: Comcast and other "Internet Providers" are nothing more than connecting you to the internet. Comcast and other are NOT the internet. As they (meaning Corporations) are trying to lead you to believe. Their ONLY purpose is connecting the consumer. Any "other" services they provide (email address, Cloud storage, etc) is just value-added service, for marketing.


These Corporation and have broken the law and now have their own routers in our homes... spying on us and accumulating that data, when they have no legal right to do so. It is the Federal Government's job to protect citizens, & their privacy. No Corporation has the right to know anything about you. It is discriminatory practice and already in the books.


Comcast doesn't need to know who you are, before they will quote you a Price on their service. It is illegal... yet their WHOLE ENTIRE business is set up that why.


Comcast representatives simple refuse on the phone to discuss pricing with you, unless you give them an address. You area code, or even street isn't good enough....


I bet if you surveyed each home on the same street, everyone is paying a different price... because Comcast and others are 100% discriminatory and predatory on "We the People..."


Ajit Pai is a traitor & is going to prison.

 

[wiyosaya]

I would love to live in a world where people and corporations can be trusted to always act in an ethical manner; so far, people and corporations have proven, to me, anyway, that they are not worthy of that trust, and the only mediator in ensuring ethical behavior that is in any way even remotely effective is government regulation.

I agree that we need govt to stop corporations from taking advantage of people and using unethical business practices. But this is not one of those cases. This is not the ISPs vs you. This is the ISPs vs Google. Big Corporation vs. Big Corporation. I know we don't like to think of Google as a big evil corporation, but if you're against a big company pushing people around, then you should be against Google as well.

Google essentially paid (lobbied) the govt to pass regulation that favors them so the ISPs couldn't raise their rates. They didn't want to pay more for using more. YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth and the ISPs were going to charge Google (and Netflix) more for having to rework their networks to account for it. Google was doing as you expect - acting in 100% of their best interest.

I'm not suggesting the govt should favor ISPs - I'm saying they should stay out of it. The internet was working just fine before this regulation went in, and since it was taken back out - have you noticed your youTube subscription fees going up? No? Then they're not really protecting you from much, are they?

If you search my comment history, you will see that on virtually every article, and perhaps every article, that TS has posted on gagme, I come out squarely against them. As I see gagme, they are vile, parasitic scum in the same league as fakebook and crapAzon. I do not subscribe to youtub and never will. gagme, as I see it, needs some regulations tossed its way along with fakebook and the other internet parasites that are out there to keep them under control since they have, to me, anyway, demonstrated that they are unable to act in ethical manners and keep themselves under control without it. It is a disappointment to me that most of the current crop of politicians in DC are clueless when it comes, at least, to technical matters.

I do, however, subscribe to Netflix and I have seen rates rise. I am sure you are familiar with the news that Netflix had to negotiate term with their ISP to receive the service that they were already paying for? If the rise in rates had anything to do with these negotiations and the subsequent settlement, then any Netflix subscriber, not just me, is paying twice for internet access.

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but it sounds like you hate gagme perhaps as much as I do, However, this is a country that is supposedly founded on equal justice for all. If it becomes about targeting companies that are hated in preference to companies are liked, equal justice goes out the window.

To me, that any corporation can lobby, read - grease the palms of politicians with cash, for their cause is emblematic of the serious problems that exist in the modern political system if not also in the modern economic system.

Even so, Pai is a lawyer. What he has done in this is to, essentially, give complete control to the ISPs even though he claims that the FTC will be able to field complaints.

I am not a lawyer, but I have gone toe-to-toe with a few in my life, successfully, and as I read Pai's ruling, all an ISP needs to do is post exactly what they are doing on their web site. In its extreme, that means they can simply post that they are charging in addition for base access, or they are blocking certain traffic, etc., on a page on their web site and any supposed recourse that anyone has through the FTC goes out the door.

Please tell me how this is fairness.

As I see it, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot support something as good that was done illegally.

So you don't support candy? All because one box was stolen.

Is this sarcasm, or are you really comparing a government official who may have acted illegally to subvert the will of the people to stealing a box of candy?

 

[wiyosaya]

The FCC didn't make it up, this treasonous Corporate shill Ajit Pai …!


He is not bargaining in good faith for "We the People...", but for how Billionaire Corporations... want the internet to be run.


News Flash: Comcast and other "Internet Providers" are nothing more than connecting you to the internet. Comcast and other are NOT the internet. As they (meaning Corporations) are trying to lead you to believe. Their ONLY purpose is connecting the consumer. Any "other" services they provide (email address, Cloud storage, etc) is just value-added service, for marketing.


These Corporation and have broken the law and now have their own routers in our homes... spying on us and accumulating that data, when they have no legal right to do so. It is the Federal Government's job to protect citizens, & their privacy. No Corporation has the right to know anything about you. It is discriminatory practice and already in the books.


Comcast doesn't need to know who you are, before they will quote you a Price on their service. It is illegal... yet their WHOLE ENTIRE business is set up that why.


Comcast representatives simple refuse on the phone to discuss pricing with you, unless you give them an address. You area code, or even street isn't good enough....


I bet if you surveyed each home on the same street, everyone is paying a different price... because Comcast and others are 100% discriminatory and predatory on "We the People..."


Ajit Pai is a traitor & is going to prison.

To that end, I just contacted one of my senators asking him to investigate these allegations. Anyone who feels the same should get on your senator's/congressional representative's web site and ask for the same.

Here is the link from this article to the Gizmodo article - https://gizmodo.com/fcc-emails-show-agency-spread-lies-to-bolster-dubious-d-1826535344 I put that in the letter to my senator.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I do, however, subscribe to Netflix and I have seen rates rise. I am sure you are familiar with the news that Netflix had to negotiate term with their ISP to receive the service that they were already paying for? If the rise in rates had anything to do with these negotiations and the subsequent settlement, then any Netflix subscriber, not just me, is paying twice for internet access.

There are plenty of reasons Netflix would raise rates - the biggest one being if they can do it without losing customers. If they continue to do well they will raise rates every so often to keep up with inflation anyway. I'm sure they'll blame ISPs, but you mention fairness... why is it fair for Netflix to pay the same for an internet connection to an ISP as say HomeDepot.com when they have 10,000 times the traffic? Why is paying for what you use unfair? It'd be like going to an all-you-can eat buffet and instead of getting 1 meal you get to eat there for 3 months. That's fair?

To me, that any corporation can lobby, read - grease the palms of politicians with cash, for their cause is emblematic of the serious problems that exist in the modern political system if not also in the modern economic system.

I completely agree... this is why I'm against the Google lobbyists convincing the Obama administration to regulate the internet as a utility. We call it 'Net Neutrality' but it's the govt picking sides. Remember that there was no actual problem they were solving at the time... nothing had gone wrong, the ISPs weren't blocking content or picking favorites.

I am not a lawyer, but I have gone toe-to-toe with a few in my life, successfully, and as I read Pai's ruling, all an ISP needs to do is post exactly what they are doing on their web site. In its extreme, that means they can simply post that they are charging in addition for base access, or they are blocking certain traffic, etc., on a page on their web site and any supposed recourse that anyone has through the FTC goes out the door.

Please tell me how this is fairness.

I consider this extremely unlikely. Note the complete sh!t-storm that Facebook is facing right now for blocking conservative groups and news. Did you see the story about the baker who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? The case went to the Supreme Court. There are already laws on the books prohibiting unfair business practices - The chances that the ISPs would block content for any reason (even a court order) would be zero. They are already legally protected from criminal activity on their networks... no one can sue Comcast for transmitting stolen credit cards. They would never block content.

 

[wiyosaya]

There are plenty of reasons Netflix would raise rates - the biggest one being if they can do it without losing customers. If they continue to do well they will raise rates every so often to keep up with inflation anyway. I'm sure they'll blame ISPs, but you mention fairness... why is it fair for Netflix to pay the same for an internet connection to an ISP as say HomeDepot.com when they have 10,000 times the traffic? Why is paying for what you use unfair? It'd be like going to an all-you-can eat buffet and instead of getting 1 meal you get to eat there for 3 months. That's fair?

I highly doubt that Home Depot's pipe is as big as the pipe for Netflix by a long shot. That's bandwidth and Home Depot does not need nearly as much bandwidth as Netflix - not by a long shot as I see it, and that was not the intent of NN. The intent of NN was to prevent an ISP from charging different rates to different clients that require the same bandwidth. How is that fair?

As in the stories below, how is it fair for someone who wants to view Netflix to have to pay extra to ensure that their feed is not throttled or interrupted?

I completely agree... this is why I'm against the Google lobbyists convincing the Obama administration to regulate the internet as a utility. We call it 'Net Neutrality' but it's the govt picking sides. Remember that there was no actual problem they were solving at the time... nothing had gone wrong, the ISPs weren't blocking content or picking favorites.

Then all stories about Netflix being approached by their ISP where their ISP was telling Netflix we want you to pay us more to ensure that your subscribers get your data at reasonable speeds like the following are fake news?
https://www.cinemablend.com/televis...Netflix-Too-Much-Get-Charged-Extra-97617.html
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...will-pay-tolls-to-more-isps-not-just-comcast/

How is the government picking sides in this by saying that such "additional" charges are not allowed? That is what they were saying - not that everyone should have access to the internet at the same cost no matter what their bandwidth needs are as it sounds like you are implying.

So, assuming I am incorrect, where is your source of information that says that NN was about charging the same rates for everyone regardless of how much bandwidth they need? If it is as you say, then there should be a source out there to cite.

I don't get it. What are your objections to this? No, really. It sounds like you support some form of anarchy. Lets just get rid of all government, right? Then what about roads and all that goes with them like traffic control? What about police/public safety services? Are we to go to gangs of armed militia for such services? There are quite a few things that are necessary to society that government supplies, IMO.

I consider this extremely unlikely. Note the complete sh!t-storm that Facebook is facing right now for blocking conservative groups and news. Did you see the story about the baker who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? The case went to the Supreme Court. There are already laws on the books prohibiting unfair business practices - The chances that the ISPs would block content for any reason (even a court order) would be zero. They are already legally protected from criminal activity on their networks... no one can sue Comcast for transmitting stolen credit cards. They would never block content.

Yes, I saw the story about SCOTUS decision in the cake case, but I am not on fakebook, I do not get my "news" from fakebook, and I never will be on fakebook even if someone offered me money for it. I am also aware that the decision in the case was very narrow - in fact - based on what was an apparent bias of the lower court. It was a 7-2 decision in favor of the plantiff. Why would I care if that story is on fakebook when it can be gotten from several other sources? No source of "news" can possibly cover all news stories. It is a physical impossibility, and as I see it, it is a straw man argument in this case.

You have at least one example above where an ISP was noted for charging additional for access to Netflix. In light of how Pai and his fellow commissioners have crafted the language for the rules, it will be legal for ISPs to do whatever they want to access. Sure, there will be uproar about it, but it will be legal. They were doing it before, and Netflix saw no other means but to give in to the blackmail. If you think it will not happen again, I think you are kidding yourself.

That said, you seem biased toward supporting conservative viewpoints. Well, what happens if your ISP happens to be owned by a liberal and they decide that they will block flow from networks that are biased conservative? It will be legal to do so.

 

[Athlonite]

The FCC Inspector General is also investigating Pai for possible corruption relating to Sinclair Broadcast Group.

See I said months ago it was about padding his pocket with great wads of cash or hookers on yachts in warm climbs

 

[benefitthirteen]

The majority of people here in the US who could potentially make a difference by getting involved and using their voice can't be bothered with any of this. It's not "me" centric enough.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I highly doubt that Home Depot's pipe is as big as the pipe for Netflix by a long shot. That's bandwidth and Home Depot does not need nearly as much bandwidth as Netflix - not by a long shot as I see it, and that was not the intent of NN. The intent of NN was to prevent an ISP from charging different rates to different clients that require the same bandwidth. How is that fair?

No... NN was passed to ensure that all users of the internet could access everything at exactly the same speed - meaning... fast. NN was a law designed to force the ISPs into making sure Netflix is delivered to people's homes just as fast as HomeDepot.com. Of course the pipes aren't the same size... that's the whole point. NN forces the ISPs to create huge pipe for Netflix (and YouTube) just so it can be as fast as everything else, and they wouldn't be able to charge Netflix for it.

Back to the all-you-can eat buffet analogy - if you pay $10 for a meal, how is it fair for a big fat Netflix to walk in the door, pay their $10 and eat a month's worth of food? Shouldn't they have to pay more? Even if you don't think so... should the govt really be making laws to force the restaurant from charging them more? The issue isn't even should they pay more... the issue is should the govt be making laws forbidding it.

I don't get it. What are your objections to this? No, really. It sounds like you support some form of anarchy. Lets just get rid of all government, right? Then what about roads and all that goes with them like traffic control? What about police/public safety services? Are we to go to gangs of armed militia for such services? There are quite a few things that are necessary to society that government supplies, IMO.

You realize if disagreeing with a law means you're against all laws, then every politician in office right now everywhere is an anarchist. No one is in favor of absolutely everything on the books.