Net Neutrality Is Over Monday, But Experts Say ISPs Will Wait To Screw Us (inverse.com) 243
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inverse: Parts of the Federal Communication Commission's repeal of net neutrality is slated to take effect on April 23, causing worry among internet users who fear the worst from their internet service providers. However, many experts believe there won't be immediate changes come Monday, but that ISPs will wait until users aren't paying attention to make their move. "Don't expect any changes right out of the gate," Dary Merckens, CTO of Gunner Technology, tells Inverse. Merckens specializes in JavaScript development for government and business, and sees why ISPs would want to lay low for a while before enacting real changes. "It would be a PR nightmare for ISPs if they introduced sweeping changes immediately after the repeal of net neutrality," he says.
While parts of the FCC's new plan will go into effect on Monday, the majority of the order still doesn't have a date for when it will be official. Specific rules that modify data collection requirements still have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and the earliest that can happen is on April 27. Tech experts and consumer policy advocates don't expect changes to happen right away, as ISPs will likely avoid any large-scale changes in order to convince policymakers that the net neutrality repeal was no big deal after all.
While parts of the FCC's new plan will go into effect on Monday, the majority of the order still doesn't have a date for when it will be official. Specific rules that modify data collection requirements still have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget, and the earliest that can happen is on April 27. Tech experts and consumer policy advocates don't expect changes to happen right away, as ISPs will likely avoid any large-scale changes in order to convince policymakers that the net neutrality repeal was no big deal after all.
net neutrality was bogus all along (Score:2, Interesting)
So long as ISPs are allowed to discriminate by usage/content/device type in their terms of service, net neutrality is (has always been) a complete joke/bogus. Not being allowed to run an httpd server with *zero* fear that the ISP could legitimately choose to cease accepting you as a customer because of it, *entirely* defeats the intended level playing field net neutrality was touted as providing. The legaleze word games and fragile language that kept getting shot down in courts is an indication of what a
Wait to screw us (Score:1)
Remember: always cook frogs slowly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a common misconception - frogs don't stay in boiling water, even if it's heated slowly. The only time that a frog will not jump out of even a slowly-heated pot is when the sides are too steep. I guess frogs are smarter than humans, in a lot of ways.
Expert textpert choking smokers (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you think the joker laughs at you?
"Net Neutrality Is Over Monday, But Experts Say ISPs Will Wait To Screw Us"
We need experts to tell us this? Are we all blithering idiots who need to be told common-sense business tactics? Hey, we've discovered that there's an apartment shortage in my area. I wish I could find an expert to tell me whether rents will go up in the near future.
As if broadband providers worried about PR (Score:5, Informative)
My neighborhood is served by Spectrum (Charter Communications). They have a whole one-and-a-half stars on Yelp. Their prices suck, and they send lots of junk mail [tinypic.com], even if you're already a customer. Oh, they also frequently call you on your cell phone and attempt to up-sell you, too (even when you're on the do-not-call list, and have told them repeatedly you do not want marketing calls). Their broadband service is also prone to many random brief outages. Short of starting a cable channel where their executives murder kittens on live TV, I can't imagine their reputation sinking much lower.
We have no other choice of land-based high speed provider. AT&T no longer offers DSL, and they have no plans to ever offer U-Verse. The only other competing providers are cellular networks, which don't offer the kind of data allowance you'd need for a home internet connection. Spectrum literally has a monopoly over the markets they serve. If they decided tomorrow that Netflix is now an extra $5/mo, or online gaming is an extra $15/mo, the choices are "cough it up", or "do without."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I have a choice between Comcast and xfinity. /s
Which actually is a choice... Comcast Buisness service, while expensive, is no nonsense and fairly OK. I dropped XFinity in favor of Comcast and have no regrets.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to shell out extra for the business-class connection, most the other providers are just fine too. Most households can't afford to spend $105 per month on a network connection though.
Well that's the thing, after a few years my "low cost" XFinity plan ballooned to 275$ a month. Business class was cheaper.
Comcast is very worried about PR (Score:2)
It's already started (Score:5, Interesting)
They're already priming the pump. I saw a Comcast commercial just two days ago that was claiming how great their new, faster service was going to be and it "included Netflix". I nearly dropped my plate. It's coming. ISPs will treat websites like channels soon enough and you're going to need to buy packaged bundles to get the websites you want.
Re:It's already started (Score:5, Insightful)
ISPs will treat websites like channels
This, in 6 words, is why we need Net Neutrality, in case anyone is still asking why.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs will treat websites like channels
This, in 6 words, is why we need Net Neutrality, in case anyone is still asking why.
I am sorry, premium access to ./ is not included in your subscription channel. Contents of this website will be uploaded via pigeon carriers. Please....
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe the government will relax the barriers it created so that we can have more start ups.
Oh wait, you want more barriers/regulations right? That way is easier and we are punishing someone which makes us all fill good.
Re:It's already started (Score:4, Interesting)
Creepy nonetheless.
Re:It's already started (Score:4, Insightful)
What does it have to do with net neutrality. If anything, it is a case of product tying, not a net neutrality violation.
Net neutrality is only about discriminating internet traffic, not including a service you may or may not want in their package.
Furthermore, AFAIK, net neutrality says nothing about peering. Peering is the direct connection between your ISP and Netflix's (or whatever) ISP. This is very important for popular services because the global internet isn't fast enough to support them, making them almost unusable during peak hours. So if the "fast Netflix" just means better peering, again, no net neutrality violation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is called Netflix Open Connect [netflix.com], where ISP's with a substantial amount of Netflix traffic can host Netflix Open Connect caches.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it have to do with net neutrality. If anything, it is a case of product tying, not a net neutrality violation.
Agreed. As I admitted, I only half-heard the commercial in passing and *ass*umed they were exclaiming how cool it was that their internet service allowed access to Netflix. Clearly a HUGE, unfounded leap on my part.
If they are, in fact, just offering a bundled Netflix account as a previous poster pointed out, then my response was unwarranted. For now. I strongly suspect we'll see this develop further, though, as I recall Netflix scrambling a while back because ISPs were throttling their servers.
The day that happens will be the end of the web. (Score:2)
Treating sites like channels has happened in the past already, but I expect alternative services to pop up once the douchebags take over the web. ... Ok, they alreay have, but I mean once they prevent normal people from doing their thing with the web. As soon as that happens there will be a move away from the web. And it will happen fast. That's what I expect anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
but I expect alternative services to pop up once the douchebags take over the web
The problem is that in many cities, by law, there can only be one ISP (at least for cable, for DSL you can usually get more than one, and dialup is still an option if you really want to be pedantic). This is basically cities screwing themselves, but it happens a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
That probably just means Comcast agreed to host one of Netflix's Open Connect Appliance CDN servers [netflix.com].
An OCA server host the entire Netflix library so Netflix bandwidth no longer has to go through the ISP's upstream provider. Netflix gives them away for free, which would make it sound like an easy win-win for any ISP wishing to reduce its upstream bandwidth bill. But the
So is anyone going to change how they vote? (Score:2)
Cox or Nothing (Score:1)
I got screwed already by the ISPs.
I can only choose one, and they suck.
I'm pretty sure much like net neutrality laws in the first place, the ISP's lobbied for this situation, too.
Lawsuits (Score:5, Informative)
There are a bunch of lawsuits in the pipeline over net neutrality. I imagine the ISPs will at least wait until they start to see how they will be resolved before they do anything serious to change the current situation.
You would think so... (Score:3)
But I have large doubts that there will be much of a wait. I wouldn't put it past any of them to make changes and then in court argue that going back would cost too much money or be too hard since they've now grown used to having those profits.
That's the sort of scum we're dealing with here.
That's fine (Score:5, Interesting)
TMobile waited exactly 2 days (Score:2)
After the Obama NN law to offer zero rated service for their music/video service and a few weeks later Comcast, AT&T and TWC announced their merging with a bunch of smaller players the FCC had blocked but the FTC allowed eventually culminating in the TWC/Comcast merger.
That's luckily going away so the companies will be broken and the playing field will be leveled, right?
Still more lying headlines (Score:2, Informative)
Merckens specializes in JavaScript development for government and business
That is the only person quoted in the article, and that quote is the only thing establishing his "expert" status. Unclear how that translates to "expert in what ISPs will or will not do".
Re: (Score:2)
"Wait to screw you"; that's rich - they already do (Score:2)
Compared to the rest of the world, the poor US consumer is already well and truly ass-raped by the cable / ISP cartel.
Having taken bazillions in subsidies and done precisely fuck-all in return, (with fiber a distant dream for most USians), they're effective mono/duopolies in most areas, with high prices, low speeds and terrible customer service.
Now that their bought-and-paid-for politicians/lobbyists have finally managed to kill NN, they'll be opening the dusty box marketed "cable TV 101"...soon you'll only
Re: (Score:2)
Expect higher peering fees (Score:2)
With the demise of Net Neutrality, I kind of expect the big ISPs to try wringing money out of major internet sites. For example, threaten to throttle Netflix unless Netflix agrees to pay some sky-high peering fees, or inject high latency and dropped packets to Facebook and Google unless these companies also pay the insane peering fees. Don't be surprised if the cost of Netflix goes up as a result, even if your ISP isn't one of the big ISPs doing this. Everyone seems to expect ISPs to create fast lanes fo
Re: (Score:2)
It is not called "peering" when you are dumping terabits per second onto someone else's network and have basically zero traffic back into your network in a completely non-asymetrical fashion.
You call that "paid transport"...
Frog boiling 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
Fix it AFTER it breaks (Score:2)
You heard the one about the bulls? (Score:2)
This is an old story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the TrumpVerse in action. November is the last chance to act! Run these bastards back to hell!!
Because government control is soooo much better!
If you like your cable plan, you can keep your cable plan!
We'll all be equal, force-fed the same government-approved shit sandwich on our way to late-stage Socialism, just like Venezuela.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans are the excuses they use for censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
And who they censor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
McConnell, the dixie-fuck, would not let anyone else through. It was tardo-Pai or fucking no one, and unlike the TrumpVerse, no one is worse than a tardo. In theory. Turns out, that was wrong. It is the TrumpVerse after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Net Neutering To-day, Democracy Gone To-morrow (Score:3, Insightful)
No one said you had to vote for a Democrat. There are *some* decent Republicans out there, but most won't ever be nominated because conservitards only care about "muh bortions" and their right to oppress gay rights and freedom of *other* religions. Vote 3rd party every time if you find both parties to be unpalatable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Roberts Supreme Court didn't say free speech included anonymous campaign speech. It's the Republican congress, who thinks they will always win in a money race, that refused to require more disclosure. And nobody thought free speech included Russian trolls pulling for Trump, but pretending to be Black Lives Matter activists explaining why targeted BLM fans on Facebook should stay home instead of voting for Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who, along with Bernie Sanders, campaigned on ove
Also one candidate stood out, attention span (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in this most recent presidential election on the Republican side there were about six "traditional" candidates - successful government and business leaders who basically did what candidates do, and then there was Donald Trump. The votes for "some reasonable choice of a person with a good track record" got spread amongst several primary candidates, leaving Trump to pick up all of the "somebody different" vote. Plus Trump is just good at getting attention.
Also, we're living in a world where most voters have an attention span of 140 characters. People aren't reading in-depth analysis in the editorial pages, they are reading tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why the primary election process needs to be changed to a run-off.
Candidate A: 25% like, 65% maybe, and 10% hate
Candidate B: 30% like, 60% maybe, 10% hate
Candidate C: 33% like, 66% hate
Clearly candidate C should not win. Yet that is what the primary election process picks. But too few Americans have enough attention span to make change like this. 2 days after the election they are already embroiled in some other issue, rather than fixing the root cause.
Yep, a lot of "Never Trump" people (Score:2)
Indeed, there were a lot of "Never Trump" people. They didn't all rally around one candidate, though.
The caucus system, used in 14 states, is more like a run-off, but it has its own problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll look that up, thanks.
Trump won the Primary in a Landslide (Score:3, Informative)
People voted Trump because they're hurting economically and being ignored. Trump won the General because Hilary kept ignoring those people and campaigned in Red States instead of Swing States. There's other factors (Russia, Hillary's poor health, the 30 years of bad press she got) but that's the big one.
What's funny is if you look at Trump's policy he's pretty much Hilary Clinton but with a tinge of Racism and bigger tax cuts for the rich. He supports DACA, TPP,
Re: (Score:2)
> He supports DACA, TPP, backed down on health care & H1-Bs
He cancelled DACA, then the court said he can't. In January, days after he was inaugurated, he pulled the US out of TPP. In February he tightened the rules on H1-B and recently signed an executive order intending to tighten them further. Is it opposite day where you live?
> See here. Your narrative is incorrect.
If you look there, you'll see that the normal/reasonable/traditional candidates got 25%, 14%, and 11%. So 50% wanted one of the t
Untrue (Score:2)
The "normal" candidates (who would have done all the same policies as Trump but been nice about it) would have stayed in and fought if they thought they had a chance. They dropped out because Trump was destroying them. And the reason why is because those economic reasons I mentioned.
The #nevertrump crowd didn't stay home, so muc
Re: (Score:2)
As for splitting the vote, you linked to a really long wikipedia page without any explanation about what we should be looking for. Nate Silver's guess [fivethirtyeight.com] about why Trump won the primary is mostly in agreement wit
Re: (Score:2)
Funny story about that. It turns out we don't actually have a two-party system, we just have a system where the biggest current two parties have been getting away with saying that while illegally strangling additional parties in crib for over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you are realistic. Banning abortion or cutting access to abortion services doesn't result in a decrease of abortions, just an increase in complications. And the accompanying lack of birth control causes MORE abortions.
Plus, there are far more natural "abortions" than medical ones. Finally, regarding late term abortions, there are roughly 100 a year, and they are pretty much all health complications that will kill the mother and/or fetus. You'll save far more children improving vehicle safety st
Re: (Score:2)
Lucky you, here's what you've been missing. [freepress.net] You'll soon have another chance to experience them first hand.
Re:Statist Control of Internet Access Now Loosened (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it isn't as catchy as "Will wait to implement site level throttling."
and Comcast Sucks ins't news is is just matter of fact.
The thing is people get emotional because Net Neutrality is touted as killing off your netflix and your youtube. But the real damage is all the stuff that your ISP handle that isn't consumer level.
I have 100mbs internet connection at home. I will VPN into work to do my work. If my ISP decides to throttle VPN Connections (because it is what bad people do too) And my work doesn't have the money or the willingness to pay the ISP ransom amount. I am stuck using a product Advertised as 100mbs but only getting 10mbs because they decide to throttle it.
I could care less if Netflix takes an extra 5 seconds to load, or I don't get 4k resolution. But If I am transferring hundreds of megs of information back and forth of work data, then having to wait is wasting my time, and costing my company money. And I am getting ripped off, because I chose that ISP because of the bandwidth promised me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also worry about blocking sites. Here in Canada, they're trying to get permission to block sites because of piracy. Thing is their site blocking is usually to broad and once they're blocking sites, they can block them for political reasons. Block the other parties site or even worse, target certain neighbourhoods and block (or really slow down) the voters registration sites.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also worry about blocking sites. Here in Canada, they're trying to get permission to block sites because of piracy. Thing is their site blocking is usually to broad and once they're blocking sites, they can block them for political reasons. Block the other parties site or even worse, target certain neighbourhoods and block (or really slow down) the voters registration sites.
Your basic point is correct, but in most other countries with this kind of censorship, the ISPs only implement DNS blocking which can be avoided by choosing a DNS other than the one provided by your ISP. However Russia and China are more hard core in their censorship activities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm expecting that you're right that it'll be at the DNS level. Still while you and I might know enough to change our DNS servers, most people aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they disable VPN entirely unless you're paying the extra $150/month for a "VPN capable" connection. I mean it's not *that* much more, not after paying the $10/month for access to Slashdot, the $20/month for Netflix access, the $7.95 for email service access, etc,etc,etc. (fine print: access charge does NOT cover any applicable fees for the various sites/services, just your ISP allowing you to access them)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because AT&T and Verizon are just as eager to come up with new add-on charges for their service contracts as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So just to clarify, the FCC rules for the Internet going back to what they were a few years ago isn't going to be the end of the Internet and won't cause the economy to tank and won't make it so that no one can communicate ever again?
Wow, who would have predicted that!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um.... if you're going to accuse someone of liking Comcast, then you probably need to have them having said something in favor of Comcast, which I haven't. Ever.
So for the record, I've never had service from Comcast, nor worked for them, but I don't like them on general principles because 1. I don't like cable companies in general (and) 2. People I know who have had Comcast didn't like them.
I'll even go ahead and stipulate that I don't like the vast majority of cable internet and DSL providers in the U.S. I
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true to a certain extent, and certainly less true for monopolists, especially when they have conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
No, pretty sure you call me a shill because you can't muster any actual arguments. Traditionally on the left, that leads to name calling.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is just a bunch of unsubstantiated right-wing talking points, which don't apply at all to such a non-free market like ISPs. The paperwork will be a rounding error compared to power of holding users/sites hostage, the contracts are worthless due to things like mandatory arbitration clauses and terms being subject to change, the choice in ISPs is pathetic, and states have banned many of the most effective means of starting competing ISPs. I made an argument with actual evidence: municipal bro
Re: (Score:2)
1. If the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation. Having the FCC regulate things just leads over time to regulatory capture of the FCC by the entrenched ISPs at the expense of newer or more innovative ones. See as an example every Federal regulatory body ever which existed for more than a year or two and the well-documented phenomenon of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].
2. If the real issue is State and local level monopolies given to companies (and that is a major issue in s
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you are basically going to throw out any kind of possibility for rational discussion, since you can't handle more complexity than a bumper sticker. The actual problem is that ISPs are primarily infrastructure projects, and for-profit, unregulated entities work poorly for managing infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
You're empirically and factually wrong.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly. If they actually were, there would have been be no need for exclusive and monopoly franchise agreements with local governments, the first mover would just win automatically. There are places where there is _actually_ competition, so obviously not a "natural" monopoly, just a legally created one.
Internet access was never under Title II until a couple of years ago, so if anything it thrived because of no NN/FCC Title II rules. I was there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and they did pretty much all the time. You are arguing that BECAUSE monopoly agreements existed, that they weren't natural monopolies, which is not evidence.
No, there aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Since this has literally never happened either in the U.S. before the FCC's NN rules, nor anywhere else in the world which doesn't have NN rules, I'm pretty sure we're safe, but if it does, I'll just, you know, stop contracting with that company if they aren't providing the service I want at the price I'm willing to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is NN gonna be oever worldwide? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to look at the source code, as nearly every browser has "Mozilla" in the user agent.
Though I'd be surprised if any current browser still shares any actual source code with the old Netscape.
Re:Back in the real world (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think things are black/or/white.
They won't block websites using this words. They will turn this into some kind of euphemism. Like: "You exceeded your monthly quota of broadband". At the same time, they will give you a few websites where this quota doesn't apply. It's already happening - slowly and in a very polite way, but it's happening.
I'm from Brazil. Here we have companies that give you unlimited data on WhatsApp. But if you want to use Telegram or Signal or whatever-the-fuck-you-want, your data will be charged. Think about it: after 25 days on the month, it is very likely that a significant amount of people on such kind of plans won't have access to Telegram/WhatsApp-competitor. This IS a BLOCK. It's bad for business, it's bad for us and it is bad for free speech.
Re: Back in the real world (Score:2)
Protection money (Score:5, Insightful)
Five years from now, none of the major fears like blocking sites they don't like will have materialized, but Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. will be more one sided than ever.
That's adorable you actually seem to believe that. If there is money to be made in blocking content then it will be blocked. The precise nature of the block is yet to be determined but it will happen in some form or fashion. Do you seriously think Comcast isn't going to prioritize their own content over everyone else's who doesn't pay them an arm and a leg? They've effectively gotten a government endorsed protection racket. "Nice website. Would be a shame if no one could see it..."
Re: (Score:2)
You're less than half right. There will be nightmare scenarios within a year, AND the social media megacorps will have a tighter grip on online discourse than ever before, because they'll be the only companies wealthy enough to get into zero-rating deals with all the big ISPs. Smaller sites including deplorable cesspools like Gab and Mind will have their traffic count towards your data cap or theoretically could be blocked altogether.
If you don't like the power of private censorship on the Internet, the NN [wired.com]
Re: Back in the real world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the government runs it, then "free speech" actually applies.
Unless they decide "free speech" doesn't apply like the 4thA doesn't apply regarding civil asset forfeiture nor does the 1stA apply regarding freedom of religion if you run a business.
All that's required is for government to outlaw "hate speech" on the internet and then expand the definitions of what constitutes "hate speech".
Handing the internet to the government is the same thing as handing the freedom of the press to the government.
Too bad you didn't pay attention in civics class.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Civics is no longer taught in many schools nor is any meaningful account of our nation's history. Consequently, we have a growing number of ahistorical citizens who have no notion of how govt works. They are easy marks for fake news, conspiracy theories, cults, and dumbed-down or outright false assertions in textbooks because they have no frame of reference, the one once provided by education.
Totally agree. Spot-on.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think commies actually have it.
Actually on any kind of monopoly of internet service, you won't have net neutrality naturally.
What the US had was literally the government pointing their guns at the monopolies and saying "you NN or we nuke you", and now there's no such thing anymore.
The real fix of course would be to break the monopolies, but as that's not possible, nukes it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it not possible to break the monopolies? Just stop treating ISPs as utilities, lower the artificial barriers to entry, and we'll have an explosion of local ISPs just like we had back in the old days, before we erected a regulatory wall to stop mom-and-pop internet providers and force us into these monopolies.
It's too complicated and expensive for government to perform mass data collection & tracking if they have to deal with thousands of small mom-&-pop ISPs.
Once the US internet is in the hands of just a very small handful of mega-ISPs then they can collude and/or be pressured to limit whose speech they will allow on their networks just as a small handful of major banks/CC corporations have decided they will no longer provide any financial/CC/loan services of any kind to those businesses involved in pro
Re:Just like Global Warming (Score:4, Informative)
It's screwing us already, the people in Puerto Rico, Barbuda, Dominica, NYC and California wildfire country have already been screwed hard.
Re: (Score:2)
First link is denialist bunk. Not surprised, I mark Slashdot users as foes as a way to keep track of the denialists. Accumulated cyclone energy hasn't increased but it sure as hell hasn't decreased either:
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Of course you had to cherry pick for your second argument. "Last year's Santa Ana fires in particular weren't made worse by global warming! Everything's fine, nothing to see here, pay no attention to all the other wildfires linked in the same article!" [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the messenger, the interpretation. Your crank sees a decline where there is none.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the actual scientists at skepticalscience are cranks, and some dude on a climate conspiracy blog is trustworthy? Off to a great start.
Which graph shows a slight negative slope? Certainly not the '70-'17 global ACE graph. [wx.graphics]
Beware of "skeptical" slope interpretation, [skepticalscience.com] and good luck with that Santa Ana house.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole "net neutrality" thing was supposed to go down under Queen Clinton's regime where they could have properly leveraged the fake Russian threat into more government control. The "Muh Russia" narrative, as well, was supposed to emerge during a Clinton regime in order to garner more Federal control over the election process and social media platforms.
That's the main reason, IMO, that the whole "Muh Russia" narrative was so nonsensical and disjointed under Trump, he wasn't supposed to actually
Re: (Score:2)
I should think her advisers and handlers would come up, and largely execute, such strategies. That's what she pays them for.
Things started falling apart for the "establishment" when Trump refused to go down after they "went nuclear" with accusations of sexual impropriety, etc. He was supposed to quit in the face of such attacks, as any normal politician would do. This took them completely by surprise, especially when the public failed to care about the substance of the media smear tactics.
As far as consp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, perhaps, the ISPs want to avoid a PR disaster. The question is whether or not ISPs can be trusted, and the answer is no.
So which motive is stronger? ISP's wanting to avoid the PR problem or wanting to put one over on their customers? Which is the stronger motive?
Just a thought... IF the PR disaster is enough, then we don't really need federal oversight... I'm not saying it is enough, but you brought it up...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NN paper insulated wireline was kept safe from new networks.
The end of federal NN rules should see more new innovative network services in different cities and states.