General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReddit just put out the call to action against ending net neutrality.
Here's a good infographic explaining net neutrality:
It's unbelievable that we're still fighting this shit a decade or more on.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)accomplishment is undoing others.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)another, far more competent and useful agent, whom the billionaire right has already maneuvered into the succession, takes over and continues the transfer of wealth and power.
This isn't all about making more money, it's a form of seizing the radio stations.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)net neutrality....right??
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Seriously, he has virtually 0 interest in anything he doesn't see as about him and, reportedly, a pathological inability to concentrate. Not only does he apparently average about a 2-minute attention span on those "other," presidential things, but he misses, forgets or just plain does not understand much of the stuff he's supposed to take in.
He reportedly frequently approves the last thing said to him, particularly when he's gotten bored with a topic and wants it over. The 6 or so factions around him are constantly fighting to be the first and the last.
Since he was always an outsider and doesn't know or even know of people to fill offices, and has no requirements beyond astonishingly stupid stuff, like physical appearance or noblesse oblige, his ultimate choices have almost all been presented to him by agents of other power centers.
And, of course, not knowing these people or anything about them guarantees he's frequently quickly bored in making these choices. That's reportedly a factor how he chose Comey's replacement as director of the FBI, btw. Wray was the last one of a series presented to him. (It's also a factor in the many offices he's never filled.)
So, if Trump didn't really choose this person he doesn't know, and he didn't, who did?
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)Thank You Reddit.
LibArts
(27 posts)thank you Democratic Underground thank you Daily Kos.
Lets DO this!
calimary
(81,466 posts)Thank goodness SOMETHING's being done!
I'm seriously worried about activism fatigue. The "How-the-fuck Long Do We Have To Keep Fighting?"
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)you mean back when there was no "net neutrality" regulations and those things depicted didn't happen?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)COMCAST: In 2005, the nations largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
TELUS: In 2005, Canadas second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 20072009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such over-the-top voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstreams own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizons court challenge against the FCCs 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agencys authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a persons search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search services results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 20112013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizons $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&Ts own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agencys existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: Im authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements. Walkers admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
The court struck down the FCCs rules in January 2014 and in May FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler opened a public proceeding to consider a new order.
In response millions of people urged the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers and in February 2015 the agency did just that. Since his appointment in January 2017, FCC Chairman Pai has sought to dismantle the agency's landmark Net Neutrality rules. He must be stopped.
TM + © 20092017 Free Press, Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial ShareAlike license
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
We're talking about what not having these rules in place could result in. I for one don't want various internet protocols or sites throttled.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)Good lord I hope we don't go back down that road.
It would kill small businesses. But of course, that's what the GOP wants.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)My 300 baud telephone connection had to make do.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)I'm sure THAT'S what these companies want back.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)This was around 1992.
In 1994 they started offering dial up connections at a more reasonable price.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)I started dial up in 1995. That was when they allowed a certain amount of MB per month. If you went over, you were charged.
I fear that's what may be returning.
Hopefully, some brilliant minds will create ways to get around it and frustrate the hell out of the big dogs. That's what always seems to happen.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)If there were lots of choices it wouldn't be so bad but isp companies have monopolies in most of the country so you have no alternative.
C Moon
(12,221 posts)and offer alternatives.
Although, the GOP is 100% against small companies.
So they probably already have means of destroying that part, figured out.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)this prick is doing everything with in his ever expanding powers to fuck with every American
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Where THEY get to decide what you can see, and how much you have to pay to see it.