'Face Reality! We Need Net Neutrality!' Crowd Chants Across the Country (arstechnica.com) 296
ArsTechnica staff took to the streets in Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco to capture rallies in support for net neutrality, a week before the FCC is scheduled to take a historic vote rolling back network neutrality regulations. From their report: Protestors say those regulations, which were enacted by the Obama FCC in 2015, are crucial for protecting an open Internet. Organizers chose to hold most of the protests outside of Verizon cell phone stores. Ajit Pai, the FCC Chairman who is leading the agency's charge to repeal network neutrality, is a former Verizon lawyer, and Verizon has been a critic of the Obama network neutrality rules. The protest that got the most attention from FCC decision makers took place on Thursday evening in Washington DC. The FCC was holding a dinner event at the Hilton on Connecticut Avenue, just north of the city's Dupont Circle area. Protestors gathered on the street corner outside the hotel, waving pro-net neutrality posters to traffic, blaring chants, projecting pro-net neutrality messages on a building across the street, and telling personal stories about what net neutrality meant to them via a megaphone. The FCC's two Democratic commissioners also joined the demonstration, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel. They both gave brief speeches to the protestors, rallying for the cause and discussing the importance of a neutral Internet.
Chants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chants (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, these are the same kinds of people that think Shouting at the Sky [newsweek.com] is an effective tool to get Trump impeached.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chants (Score:5, Funny)
Homeless dude's Resume:
Participated in Anti-Trump Rally. Looked very upset.
Participated in BLM Rally. Looked very sincere.
Participated in Climate Rally. Looked very scared.
Participated in Net Neutrality Rally. Looked very confused.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Funny. That's almost identical to Trump's Resume for PotUS.
Re:Chants (Score:5, Insightful)
As it turns out, chanting and protesting can draw media attention. And when the media actually does cover protests, that's when politicians start to feel the heat - when they start to realize that the issue might affect their re-election, at least a little bit. And that's when they'll start to care.
So protesting matters in that sense. It also helps the public see what others in society think is important enough to protest about, which can affect the viewers' own thinking on the issue. Protesting also matters in that sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Chants (Score:5, Insightful)
Chanting does a lot of good. It really changes things, because the government really cares what you think.
See: Gandhi, MLK, John Woolman, Emmeline Pankhurst, Ned Ludd, and the "can't pay won't pay" chants that took down Margaret Thatcher - http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]
I think that chanting is the most effective means we have to change society, second only to "having lots of money". (albeit a distant second).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't chanting that made MLK or Ghandi effective or created change.
?? If you mean specifically "chant some words" then no of course not. But chanting as part of a protest gathering -- this is exactly what caused change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chanting does a lot of good. It really changes things, because the government really cares what you think.
I think the effectiveness depends on where it happens. For example, many top-level Republicans are chanting "rape, pillage, plunder", but *only* in private. In public, they quietly write/pass bills and endorse people to make it happen. So, as with many thing, know your audience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Chants (Score:4, Insightful)
How would net neutrality, as currently defined by the FCC (the rules proposed to be repealed) stop internet tracking?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No epiphany for me. Alas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... or an SMC with horribly broken IPv6 support (it does, however, work with a single IPv6 client...).
So get that one and only attach your own router to it and your equipment to your router.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? How often do dramatic predictions of future doom come true?
All too often.
Re:Chants (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us are old enough to remember 1000 dramatic predictions of the future, and then the future happened and none of those dramatic predictions came true.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you dramatically predicting that dramatic predictions never come true? Please tell me that you are...
Re: (Score:2)
No. That would be too dramatic. They almost never come true.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn. A logician has to go ruin my paradox of the day...
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us are old enough to remember back when any sort of communication cost you out the ass and then the internet opened up for commerce and rapidly destroyed these exploitative business models while simultaneously making most people involved even more money.
Now they want all the new business with the old business model. You're such a patsy bro. There is literally no way you're a real nerd.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't tell me that 20 years ago. You aren't making the case that you can predict the future.
... tracked ... profiled ... monitored ... laughed ... laughing ... dumb ...
Fanaticism and zeal don't sound credible and factual. You can probably get an "Amen" though.
Re: (Score:2)
Kohath is not one of us. (Score:2)
There are a lot of things they COULDN'T predict but being tracked on the internet is some shit that 4/5ths of slashdotters have cried about since the site launched.
Kohath is showing his true colors.
Koath is a fraud and probably a narc. (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, every single car is being tracked. Yes it is, I've seen the system in action.
Nice try. They have had the ability to track most cars since the 1990s but the AMPS system lacked the bandwidth to track all of them. I remember being a hacker in the 90s, we thought that the government had massive capabilities way beyond our own. Turns out we were way better at breaking into computers than the NSA or CIA was. They're still struggling to catch up.
I've talked with numerous friends who went on to contract for the NSA, they've said disturbing things but they certainly aren't in awe of ou
Re: Chants (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chants (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The government is the reason you couldn't own a phone for a long time in the first place. You started being able to own a phone once government started to de-regulate the phone system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You said "What is coming next: you will only be allowed to connect to the Internet by rented "approved" devices provided by a handful of companies"
Did that happen before Net Neutrality to a greater extent than it does now?
The US does have a problem with competition - but that's because companies like Comcast are given a regional monopoly of high speed internet access. Net Neutrality won't fix that. It won't even stop 'zero rating', which is the thing companies like Google are worried about.
T-Mobile Binge On [digitaltrends.com]
Re: (Score:2)
These data packages are a clear win for mobile subscribers, especially pre-paid subscribers who tend to be at a lower income level than post-paid subscribers. They allow consumers to customize their plan beyond their mobile broadband subscription, enabling them to consume data in ways that are better attuned to their preferences. Without access to these data packages, consuming an additional 10 GB of data would cost each user an additional EUR 26 per month and require her to enter into a two year contract.
Isn't that a ridiculous argument by its author? I thought the costly limitation was on the wireless end of the whole route. How does it follow that "without access to these data packages, consuming an additional 10 GB of data would cost each user an additional EUR 26 per month"? Does the wireless end somehow handle the data in those packages more efficiently than without them?
Re: (Score:2)
"And reality has a well-known liberal bias."
-- Stephen Colbert
Were they in the form of legal opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, Ajit Pai doesn't care about what you have to say. Anti-net-neutrality bot comments are acceptable in any form however.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
s/opinions/tender/
Re:Were they in the form of legal opinions? (Score:5, Informative)
There's no indication that the FCC cared in any way about comments from the public.
But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network.
https://boingboing.net/2017/11... [boingboing.net]
Re:Were they in the form of legal opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
But someone sure went to a lot of effort to post over a million anti-Net Neutrality comments to the FCC using stolen identities a bot network.
And there were at least 7.5 million auto-generated pro-NN comments [futurism.com] as well. Both sides were replete with folks with far more tech savvy than common sense who thought that the comment mechanism was a ballot box, which, ironically enough, made it significantly harder for the FCC to sort though the mess to find any comments actually providing meaningful information.
Re:Were they in the form of legal opinions? (Score:5, Informative)
They dont matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians can safely ignore them. And they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They dont matter (Score:5, Informative)
Be like NRA members. They are a force to be reckoned with. Organize under a banner, and show that you believe. In a democracy only voters count.
Protests don't help. Showing up at a campaign for the Municipality Sanitation board candidate and pester that candidate about net neutrality. If they think you are a voter they will pay attention. If they know you will definitely show up to vote they will court you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as simple as that. I have many issues that I care about, some more than others. When trying to decide who to vote for, or which party more correctly, it's trying to weigh up how they compare to my weighted list of issues. The party that best matches my list gets my vote. That means I'm going to have to sacrifice some issues on election day but that doesn't mean I no longer care about them.
Referendums aren't the answer. They're costly, people aren't going to research the topic, and you aren't always
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their mentality is, "If you are not perfect, there is no difference between the two candidates, I am going to stay home or vote for some useless candidate to send a message".
What state do they live in? In at least 40 out of 50 states, a person's vote doesn't count, since there's no question about which candidate will win in their state.
Re: (Score:2)
They will never show up to vote. Their mentality is, "If you are not perfect, there is no difference between the two candidates, I am going to stay home or vote for some useless candidate to send a message". They are easily defeated in elections.
Politicians can safely ignore them. And they do.
Oh you're one of those people who vote for someone because they are part of "your party"? You're easily ignored too. Politicians can say and do whatever they want because you're an automatic vote.
test driven policy (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so let's say the proposed change is crafted to increase competition, improve service, reduce prices, and put a chicken in every pot before 18 months are up. All these things are testable. All significant policy changes from any side should come with a test plan, a rollout plan, a success criteria and a backout plan for every stage of the rollout.
And if the effect of the policy change is too small to determine among all the other noise in the system take specific steps to address that by bundling policy changes or testing it in a smaller environment - I believe even the Chinese do that. For example, ask for state governors to volunteer their state as a testbed for policy that they believe is a great idea for the US as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open internet means ... (Score:2)
... also not regulating what people SAY on that open internet. And yet, many of these same protesters would also rally to shut down internet access for [insert unpopular group here].
And we really have not had a "neutral" network since someone discovered their network was saturated by SOMEONE ELSE'S TRAFFIC, and figured out how to make sure theirs had priority.
NN never went far enough anyway (Score:2)
When vid.me shutdown, it was another piece of evidence that if NN was going to be implemented, it should have been implemented from the ISPs all the way to many of the big tech companies as well. Platform companies are all either platform companies or they aren't. ISPs should not be singled out for discrimination on being "dumb pipes" in terms of not being allowed to discriminate against legal content.
As it turns out, it's even harder to build an unsubsidized YouTube competitor (YouTube would have been bank
So a bunch of people in states (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I know a bunch of liberals who were upset that the 1000 year part was a thinly veiled reference to the Third Reich, again, missing the point entirely...
No it wasn't. It was a reference to something a liberal said about being in power for ending segregation.
Appeal to what he believes (Score:2)
There are two ways to lick this problem. Either complete government regulation, or complete free market (any ISP which tries to throttle Netflix unless Netflix paid them would be sho
Re:Appeal to what he believes (Score:5, Informative)
The problems with that are twofold: 1. Nobody wants a hundred companies digging up their yard. 2. Even if they did, most areas are not dense enough to viably support more than one infrastructure provider.
So the "market-based" approach basically translates to, "Screw poor areas. You don't get fast Internet. Screw rural areas. You don't get fast Internet. Screw everybody in suburbia. You don't get fast Internet. But if you live in dense housing in one of about twenty or thirty major cities, you'll get three or four choices." You cannot create competition in a natural monopoly market. It can't be done no matter how much you deregulate, because the incumbent will always be able to cut costs to nothing until the newcomer goes out of business, then raise rates to make up that money and more. I've watched this happen in smaller markets.
The only viable semi-market-based approach is one in which the government builds the infrastructure and leases access to ISPs in a nondiscriminatory fashion. But the Republicans don't like that approach because it doesn't produce monopolies for their cronies, so appealing to their desire for competition won't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. 1) they can blame netflix. "oh netflix doesnt want to partner with us, we are the victims of this! would you work for "free"? so why should we as poor ISPs?"
2) they will simply develop multiple "tiers" of internet service. The exact same as you can buy a cable package today, tomorrow you can pay an extra $7
In the meantime barely a blip on news networks (Score:2)
In the meantime there is barely a blip on news networks. Between the news networks being owned by the 'big boys' and possibly a lack of effort of trying to connect with the non-IT crowd, there is a risk the message is just going to be lost in the noise of everything else trying to grab headlines. I don't want to be negative, but I really feel the money won and the people lost, and the FCC failed to uphold what it was meant to stand for.
Better way to protest: (Score:2)
Send all your upset chants in packets to the IP addresses of the devices of the people who aren't listening to you. ;)
The IRS did it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freudian Slip (Score:2)
You completely understand what America is supposed to be about.
Yes. Yes I do.
You should probably go back to grade school.
I have been back - to help teach computer programming to children. You should try it sometime, as it helps ground you in reality.
Re:Freudian Slip (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I posted above. Wasted "mod insightful" points again. Or is it "mod funny". Hard to say...:-)
Re: (Score:2)
I have been back - to help teach computer programming to children. You should try it sometime, as it helps ground you in reality.
The evidence presented so far, indicates otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We Can Has Freedom? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't force you to buy electricity or running water either. What's your point?
Re:We Can Has Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
So by that logic if we pass an addition million laws we will somehow become more free. That doesn't ring true. A certain level of law is needed true but once the basics are covered you get less freedom with each additional law.
Re: (Score:3)
Improving the practical freedom of the average human has always involved adding laws to the books. Aimless minimization of laws only benefits the most powerful at the expense of the rest of society.
So by that logic if we pass an addition million laws we will somehow become more free. That doesn't ring true. A certain level of law is needed true but once the basics are covered you get less freedom with each additional law.
I don't think you understand how logic works. "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A".
You might want to brush up on your Boolean Algebra.
Re: (Score:2)
A practical example is protection from violence and intimidation by those more powerful.
Ironically, that doesn't apply to internet access since there are multiple opportunities to get that and you enter into any agreement voluntarily. But it DOES apply to government since you are subject to the power of the government always and the government definitely does use violence and intimidation.
So Gameboy is actually arguing for protection from the government, not internet providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, see above:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Voluntary agreements can be a tyrant's tool.
Re: (Score:2)
If you voluntarily commit to something, then you have only yourself to blame.
Re:Practical freedom comes from technology (Score:5, Insightful)
This assertion relies on what I call "The Unabomber option." In order to participate in society, you will have to "opt into" certain agreements - usually for utility services, housing, and some form of employment. The only alternative is to live alone in a shack deep in the woods, like the Unabomber. This incredibly undesirable alternative is presented as a perfectly good and reasonable option for the purpose of making an unfair agreement seem more consensual than it really is.
In the case of labor laws, the choice would've been to sign up for, or compete with, the aforementioned exploitative labor practices; or take the Unabomber option.
Coming back to housing, we have housing regulations for the same reason. Without them, landlords and homebuilders would minimize the safety and privacy of the housing they offer to maximize their own profit (at least on the low end of the market). The alternative was to construct your Unabomber shack on a squatted plot of land and hope you wouldn't be found out.
Re:Practical freedom comes from technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at any labor law or environmental law, just off the top of my head. In the absence of any such laws, any labor arrangement at least down to indentured servitude, if not slavery, of adults and children, would be enforceable as a private contract between individuals, and corporations would save money by heavily polluting the environment. These things did happen in the past in the absence of such laws.
Re:Practical freedom comes from technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Slavery and indentured servitude are constructs of the government and only exist and are enforced through government force.
How is slavery a construct of the government when slavery is illegal? Does it "exist and [is] enforced through government force" when criminal gangs force people into slavery in countries where it is illegal?
Environmental law amounts to a license to pollute; traditional English common law property rights are far more effective at protecting the environment.
History disagrees with your delusions.
Re: (Score:3)
- False advertising
- Jaywalking
- Murder
- Property rights / leeways
- FOI laws
Of course laws restrict freedom... that's kind of their definition. Especially in the US system where the starting point is that all are equal, free, and are considered to have many fundamental rights from birth (sometimes conception). A proper law is designed to restrict individual freedom at the increased benefit, freedoms, & prosperity of society at large. Examples above.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a remarkably good point! The printing press was technology that eventually brought about (in my opinion) huge social changes like the scientific method, democracy, free markets, and universal suffrage. Plus lots of propaganda, hate, and war, because there are always jerks who will ruin it for everyone. All in all, the printing press was instrumental in creating
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Child like nonsense.
Corporations are legal entities which were created to project a government sanctioned level of protected abstraction from of businesses away from individuals. In exchange for the protected abstraction, corporations must adhere to a set of restrictions. Fundamentally the only reason why corporations exist at all was to create a legal entity that is not a person. Ironically your ignorance actually highlights exactly one of the benefits corporations enjoy in exchange for these restriction
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, telling other people what they can, can not, and must do is how certain people exercise their own liberty!
The history is rich with examples.
Re: (Score:2)
"Internet"!
censored!
"Freedom"!
"we did it to ourselves!"
Re:We Can Has Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very often, both sides in a conflict can shout "freedom" and claim the moral high ground. Remember the Confederate monuments? Those brave Southern heroes were fighting for their freedom -- their freedom to own other people. Freedom and tyranny are in the eye of the beholder.
I agree, saying "freedom from regulation" sounds a lot better than saying "corporations' right to prey on their own customers is more important than the customers' right to choose what information they can access." When you put that way, it's hard to get behind.
For my part, I care a lot more about my own freedom than I do about Verizon's.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out similarities between certain segments of society and Orwell's 1984 novel is now considered cliche these days.
Sad.
Re:We Can Has Freedom? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty interesting shift of position. Netflix was one of the original proponents of NN back when it was still building critical mass and wanted to keep externalizing the bandwidth load it was creating on the internet/ISPs. Yes, whilst advocating, it did what it had to do to make sure it would keep appearing in people's living rooms at acceptable bandwidths. But if you think that Netflix wouldn't rather go back to that externalized model, backed by the full force of government and now having had
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much true. And also true for Google and Facebook for different reasons. They're too big to block. It's the small companies that can't afford to pay for pref
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the shit you're saying equates to freedom in any meaningful sense of the word, you're a fucking moron. This is nothing more than an utterly broken and corrupt form of capitalism which is out of control, and corrupt lawmakers stacking the deck for corporations.
He's a libertarian, that practically means he's a fucking moron, by definition.
There is nothing like an idiot who believes there is one simple solution to every complex problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet 2.0 is people! - Charlton Heston
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
v2.0 is an infinitely small version increase over v2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is one thing i can guarantee its that regular people will pay more. How the corporations structure it between eachother is irrelevant. If corporations are allowed to ask for more money for prioritization, there ain't no company that is going to eat that loss.
However as consumers, you don't have a choice when your bill goes up. You don't get to pass that on to anyone. You are the bottom of the pile. Any other perspective is wishful thinking to put it mildly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is going to work really well in a state where telcoms donate roughly twice as much money to its senators' and reps' campaigns as all of the people in the state making less than $200,000 a year put together.
Which is -- wait for it -- most of the states in the US. That's the problem. With net neutrality, the playing field is not level and there are limits on competition that might or might not benefit the consumer. Without net neutrality, the playing field will not be level because there will b