Fenxis 99 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 a. Rules were introduced because ISPs were starting to look at it; there already was shenanigans on the backend. The spate of vertical integration acquisitions is only going to make it more beneficial to stifle competitors b. There is no competition in the ISP market; for the most part just regional monopolies c. The internet is evolving from a optional place to be to almost utility-like d. The technology to this is always evolving; eg for Portugal: Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 https://www.theverge...g-apart-society Another former Facebook executive has spoken out about the harm the social network is doing to civil society around the world. Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels “tremendous guilt” about the company he helped make. “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” .. He went on to describe an incident in India where hoax messages about kidnappings shared on WhatsApp led to the lynching of seven innocent people. “That’s what we’re dealing with,” said Palihapitiya. “And imagine taking that to the extreme, where bad actors can now manipulate large swathes of people to do anything you want. It’s just a really, really bad state of affairs.” TRUE, been warning my kids for years about this, stay away from social media. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 RIP internet (Net Neutrality) And LOL? and TrumpJrs gaslighting that the current FCC chairman was an Obama appointee. WELL DUH...........Last time I checked Obama appointed him. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted December 16, 2017 Share Posted December 16, 2017 lol at people even thinking "rip internet". NN rules weren't in place from 1970 to 2015 and nobody cared. The FCC doesn't matter and will be completely replaced as soon as Trump leaves office. The issue is competition. As long as there is competition, the internet will be totally fine because ISP have to compete for business. Also, ISPs can’t differentiate between two streams of encrypted data just by looking at it. An encrypted blob is an encrypted blob. ISPs can’t differentiate by looking at your DNS queries if your name resolution is local (as with Blockstack). Math and code will win against no net neutrality rules. Remember when NN was done and everything was withheld from the public..........oh I forgot Google got a crack at it before finalizing. Typical Obama. Enjoy this beat down. https://youtu.be/-Fyiv1LvR-A Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted December 18, 2017 Author Share Posted December 18, 2017 Enjoy this beat down. https://youtu.be/-Fyiv1LvR-A Wait. You think the interviewer won this argument? I thought the guest made a very clear argument and the interviewer was too stupid to understand what he was saying. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 WELL DUH...........Last time I checked Obama appointed him. Because the FCC requires 3 / 2 party split -- Anjit was probably put forward by the GOP and confirmed by Obama. But it was the GOP that confirmed him as the Chairman and therefore set the agenda. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Wait. You think the interviewer won this argument? I thought the guest made a very clear argument and the interviewer was too stupid to understand what he was saying. I didn't listen for long but according to the Fmr Chair NN is redundant because of existing laws... a. What was included the Title II / NN legislation that was different that the Sherman, anti-trust laws, etc. b. Why the need to remove it (since it's so "bad") if it just rehash of existing laws c. Is there a rebuttal somewhere from an actual lawyer, and not TV host, on the applicability of the other laws in this case since I'm assuming they've never been tested in court. One of the fundamental issues I take issue with is that the whole anti-NN argument hinges on the fact that 4G Wireless Cap-ex is down significantly. This is not because of NN, this is because 5G is around the corner (Samsung, and other vendors that failed at 4G are jumping to 5G), and most of the build-out of LTE in the United States is done. Also saying that the existing "Big" Internet companies came into being w/o NN rules conveniently ignores the life-cycle stages of internet and the trend toward vertically integrated ISP + media companies (eg: Verizon buying Yahoo) Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Question: Many articles tell about myriad potential consequences of the Net Neutrality/Title II vote on 12/14. However, a couple writers claim that many of those consequences are likely already legal. One is this article in Medium. (soft paywall) The primary source for this author is a CATO scholar's article, that argues restricting access to certain sites or charge you to access others is probably currently legal as long as the company is transparent about it.The author did not mention preferential treatment of websites, which may be telling (though another reference seems to liken it to T-Mobile's binge on program). Is this claim (that restricting access and giving preference is legal as long as it is done transparently) true? Has that claim been tested? If so, what are ISPs now legally able to do that they were not before? Answer: This was argued in 2015 and ruled on in 2016, pages 114 and 115 talk about editorial discretion: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-339799A1.pdf The way I understand it is that as long as the ISP didn't claim to be neutral and publicly described their service accurately to their consumers, they can claim editorial discretion. EDIT: An example of a service that I believe would fall under this category, your ISP gives you a 10GB limit each month with 35Mbps connectivity for $45, for $5 more they offer the same plan but Netflix doesn't count towards your monthly limit. I could be wrong but that's how I understand it. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Wait. You think the interviewer won this argument? I thought the guest made a very clear argument and the interviewer was too stupid to understand what he was saying. LOL.....the interviewer totally had his lunch handed to him. Total beat down. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted December 21, 2017 Share Posted December 21, 2017 Because the FCC requires 3 / 2 party split -- Anjit was probably put forward by the GOP and confirmed by Obama. But it was the GOP that confirmed him as the Chairman and therefore set the agenda. LOL......yes parties suggest names on judges and positions like this. But no matter what contortions you go through, President's appoints and Senate confirms. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted December 22, 2017 Share Posted December 22, 2017 Trumpgret Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted December 22, 2017 Author Share Posted December 22, 2017 There is no way in hell that dude finished college with a 4.0. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 Why aren't they from the same year? That feels like a narrative is being pushed. Let's see what Trump said in 2013. Edit: https://twitter.com/...676655588622336 Awkward indeed. Awkward is a weird word. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-confronts-questions-about-trumps-mental-fitness?cid=sm_fb_maddow What does it tell us about the state of the nation that the White House press secretary was asked about the president’s mental fitness and she responded by changing the subject? Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 Why aren't they from the same year? That feels like a narrative is being pushed. Let's see what Trump said in 2013. Edit: https://twitter.com/...676655588622336 Awkward indeed. Awkward is a weird word. Not really. Considering that a big part of his election babble was that Obama wasn't a "true" Christian (and whisper: quite possibly a Muslim) you really haven't refuted the awkwardness in any way shape or form. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (reports are out that Bannon is writing a tell-all book calling Trump's meetings with the Russians Treasonous) Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (reports are out that Bannon is writing a tell-all book calling Trump's meetings with the Russians Treasonous) LOL.......Surprised you missed this https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/ Link to post Share on other sites
Dubey 1,035 Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 oh no that might really hurt his re-election campaign. Keep deflecting. You helped elect a lunatic, but keep bringing up Obama and Clinton. It's all you have. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 oh no that might really hurt his re-election campaign. Keep deflecting. You helped elect a lunatic, but keep bringing up Obama and Clinton. It's all you have. meanwhile on the State TV propaganda news station this is the biggest story. Brian Stelter @brianstelter 8h8 hours ago Fox News can always be trusted to cover the night's biggest news Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Bob; Trump won the election, you should move on /s Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted January 6, 2018 Author Share Posted January 6, 2018 (reports are out that Bannon is writing a tell-all book calling Trump's meetings with the Russians Treasonous) Did he? Do you have the exact quote? Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 7, 2018 Share Posted January 7, 2018 https://www.theguard...n-michael-wolff Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian. He is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.” Bannon also speculated that Trump Jr had involved his father in the meeting. “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.” -- Sorry; looks like it was Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner but the connection Trump himself is circumstantial in these quotes... Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 https://www.theguard...n-michael-wolff Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting between the president’s son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”, according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian. He is particularly scathing about a June 2016 meeting involving Trump’s son Donald Jr, son-in-law Jared Kushner, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.” Bannon also speculated that Trump Jr had involved his father in the meeting. “The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.” -- Sorry; looks like it was Trump Jr, Manafort and Kushner but the connection Trump himself is circumstantial in these quotes... Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Apparently many of the conversations were recorded but still, with all of the different factions in the WH, I'm not sure how fair picture of the administration as a whole. It appears that the book is very much the POV of Bannon ... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now