Net Neutrality

[StCapps]

No, just you. For spamming.

I've seen you wish for other people to banned for merely disagreeing with you, so you're a liar. You also apparently can't tell the difference between trolling and spamming.

He does a have a point about spamming some topics with things that do absolutely nothing about defending your position. Instead it looks like a troll's attempt at humor, something normally left at FB, or Reddit.

I am not saying he is 100% right, because he is guilty of it as well in a lot of cases, my posts are proof of that... but yet should you really stoop to Cybil's level?

I am trolling, ain't nothing wrong with that. I add plenty to the discussion that isn't trolling, throwing in a little trolling for fun is not stooping to StA's level.
/shrugs

[Speaker to Animals]

This is what kind of corporations we deregulated even further:

AT&T in particular has had a rough month. In July, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of AT&T customers in California to stop the telecom giant and two data location aggregators from allowing numerous entities — including bounty hunters, car dealerships, landlords and stalkers — to access wireless customers’ real-time locations without authorization.

Aaron Mackey, a staff attorney at the EFF, said that on the location data-sharing issue, federal law already bars the wireless carriers from sharing this with third parties without the expressed consent of consumers.

“What we’ve seen is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is well aware of this ongoing behavior about location data sales,” Mackey said. “The FCC has said it’s under investigation, but there has been no public action taken yet and this has been going on for more than a year. The major wireless carriers are not only violating federal law, but they’re also putting people in harm’s way. There are countless stories of folks being able to pretend to be law enforcement and gaining access to information they can use to assault and harass people based on the carriers making location data available to a host of third parties.”

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/08/who ... crooks-do/


That fucking pajeet Trump put in charge of the FCC should be shot for incompetence.

lolbergs and neocohens have no place at the driver's wheel of the republican party either.

[Speaker to Animals]

The past month has seen one blockbuster revelation after another about how our mobile phone and broadband providers have been leaking highly sensitive customer information, including real-time location data and customer account details. In the wake of these consumer privacy debacles, many are left wondering who’s responsible for policing these industries? How exactly did we get to this point? What prospects are there for changes to address this national privacy crisis at the legislative and regulatory levels? These are some of the questions we’ll explore in this article.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission under the Obama Administration reclassified broadband Internet companies as telecommunications providers, which gave the agency authority to regulate broadband providers the same way as telephone companies.

The FCC also came up with so-called “net neutrality” rules designed to prohibit Internet providers from blocking or slowing down traffic, or from offering “fast lane” access to companies willing to pay extra for certain content or for higher quality service.

In mid-2016, the FCC adopted new privacy rules for all Internet providers that would have required providers to seek opt-in permission from customers before collecting, storing, sharing and selling anything that might be considered sensitive — including Web browsing, application usage and location information, as well as financial and health data.

But the Obama administration’s new FCC privacy rules didn’t become final until December 2016, a month after then President-elect Trump was welcomed into office by a Republican controlled House and Senate.

Congress still had 90 legislative days (when lawmakers are physically in session) to pass a resolution killing the privacy regulations, and on March 23, 2017 the Senate voted 50-48 to repeal them. Approval of the repeal in the House passed quickly thereafter, and President Trump officially signed it on April 3, 2017.

In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, Ajit Pai — a former Verizon lawyer and President Trump’s pick to lead the FCC — said “despite hyperventilating headlines, Internet service providers have never planned to sell your individual browsing history to third parties.”

“That’s simply not how online advertising works,” Pai wrote. “And doing so would violate ISPs’ privacy promises. Second, Congress’s decision last week didn’t remove existing privacy protections; it simply cleared the way for us to work together to reinstate a rational and effective system for protecting consumer privacy.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) came to a different conclusion, predicting that the repeal of the FCC privacy rules would allow broadband providers to collect and sell a “gold mine of data” about customers.

“Your mobile broadband provider knows how you move about your day through information about your geolocation and internet activity through your mobile device,” Nelson said. The Senate resolution “will take consumers out of this driver’s seat and place the collection and use of their information behind a veil of secrecy.”

Meanwhile, pressure was building on the now Republican-controlled FCC to repeal the previous administration’s net neutrality rules. The major ISPs and mobile providers claimed the new regulations put them at a disadvantage relative to competitors that were not regulated by the FCC, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

On Dec. 14, 2017, FCC Chairman Pai joined two other Republic FCC commissioners in a 3-2 vote to dismantle the net neutrality regulations.

As The New York Times observed after the net neutrality repeal, “the commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options.”

“We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/05/why ... r-private/


I feel so much better off now that Trump's neocon pajeet made it possible for my psychopathic ex wife to buy my real time location data without my consent.

Fucking great outcome, guys. You fucking dumbasses.


Let that shit sink in:

"it simply cleared the way for us to work together to reinstate a rational and effective system for protecting consumer privacy"

So allowing cyberstalkers to buy people's real time location data and potentially inflict harm on them is a "rational and effective" system for protecting consumer privacy.

That's what level of mind fuck you reach when you worship money.

[StCapps]

I do not spam threads with videos and hockey talk to bury people's arguments. I make arguments and defend them. If I reply to your argument, I will specifically quote your argument I am responding to so that it does not get buries.

Capps is nothing but a herpes virus on this entire forum.

He has no arguments. He has nothing to contribute here, and when he fails he just buries arguments with music videos and hockey talk.

He is essentially like a guy who shouts people down rather than engage honestly in debates. He's that mangina who shows up at conferences to bang on pots and pans, and pulls fire alarms, so that nobody can talk. You cannot make arguments because his go-to tactic is to quickly bury arguments with music videos.

I would ban him for that until he agrees to cut it out.

The purpose of a forum is debate. A person who's regular tactic is to bury debate with music videos is trying to kill the forum, not engage with it. You can hate me for my ideas, but I am here to discuss ideas. This retard is here to stop discussion because he knows he cannot argue anything.

You don't defend your arguments at all, and you don't make many arguments either. The few arguments you do make are arguments that have been torn apart ad nauseum, or the arguments are of little relevance to the discussion, you just hate when that is pointed out and people don't talk about the exact subject you wish to discuss as much as you want to discuss it.

If you aren't in complete control of what people are discussing and how much they discuss it, you get really mad. You're a control freak who has to control every discussion or temper tantrum.

I add far more substance than you, you're just mad that the flash I throw in is better than the flash you throw in.

Adding sizzle to the steak doesn't mean there is no steak.

[Speaker to Animals]

Can the adults get back to intelligently debating an issue, or do you plan to continue spamming threads?

[StCapps]

Can the adults get back to intelligently debating an issue, or do you plan to continue spamming threads?

The FCC doesn't crack down on big business, AT&T is one exception, a token exception, but you'll note that the phone companies are still an oligopoly getting blowjobs from the FCC. Naming a single exception does not disprove the rule.

The FCC ain't breaking up the big internet providers, they are going to entrench them further, and one day, they might trust bust one of them, but the rest of the time they'll be giving them blowjobs and preventing competition from rising up to dethrone the big boys. All while censoring folks far more than social media dares to now.

You advocate for making the problem worse.

You won't address these points though, you don't want to debate this subject, you dodge debating it far more than I do when you repeat irrelevant nonsense and keep bringing up arguments that are destroyed on several occasions as if no one has addressed them yet. Either start engaging in good faith debate or stop getting mad when people disagree in good faith while you shit up the forum.

[The Conservative]

I've seen you wish for other people to banned for merely disagreeing with you, so you're a liar. You also apparently can't tell the difference between trolling and spamming.

He does a have a point about spamming some topics with things that do absolutely nothing about defending your position. Instead it looks like a troll's attempt at humor, something normally left at FB, or Reddit.

I am not saying he is 100% right, because he is guilty of it as well in a lot of cases, my posts are proof of that... but yet should you really stoop to Cybil's level?

I am trolling, ain't nothing wrong with that. I add plenty to the discussion that isn't trolling, throwing in a little trolling for fun is not stooping to StA's level.
/shrugs

Well, calling the kettle black isn't great on you when you are willing to stoop to his level. Got to be the better person, which in a lot of cases is easy.

[StCapps]

He does a have a point about spamming some topics with things that do absolutely nothing about defending your position. Instead it looks like a troll's attempt at humor, something normally left at FB, or Reddit.

I am not saying he is 100% right, because he is guilty of it as well in a lot of cases, my posts are proof of that... but yet should you really stoop to Cybil's level?

I am trolling, ain't nothing wrong with that. I add plenty to the discussion that isn't trolling, throwing in a little trolling for fun is not stooping to StA's level.
/shrugs

Well, calling the kettle black isn't great on you when you are willing to stoop to his level. Got to be the better person, which in a lot of cases is easy.

Not stooping to his level. His level is boring trolling and no substance, my level is entertaining trolling and plenty of substance.

Selling the sizzle as well as the steak, doesn't mean I ain't selling the steak. Adding flavor to the discussion does not negate the substance.

[The Conservative]

Can the adults get back to intelligently debating an issue, or do you plan to continue spamming threads?

The FCC doesn't crack down on big business, AT&T is one exception, a token exception, but you'll note that the phone companies are still an oligopoly getting blowjobs from the FCC. Naming a single exception does not disprove the rule.

The FCC ain't breaking up the big internet providers, they are going to entrench them further, and one day, they might trust bust one of them, but the rest of the time they'll be giving them blowjobs and preventing competition from rising up to dethrone the big boys. All while censoring folks far more than social media dares to now.

You advocate for making the problem worse.

You won't address these points though, you don't want to debate this subject, you dodge debating it far more than I do when you repeat irrelevant nonsense and keep bringing up arguments that are destroyed on several occasions as if no one has addressed them yet. Either start engaging in good faith debate or stop getting mad when people disagree in good faith while you shit up the forum.

Well there are examples of where the government/fcc did break up a big company, but they are far and few in-between. The reason is because doing so can cause a bit of chaos, and unless its controlled chaos the government and markets as a whole don't like it.

[StCapps]

Can the adults get back to intelligently debating an issue, or do you plan to continue spamming threads?

The FCC doesn't crack down on big business, AT&T is one exception, a token exception, but you'll note that the phone companies are still an oligopoly getting blowjobs from the FCC. Naming a single exception does not disprove the rule.

The FCC ain't breaking up the big internet providers, they are going to entrench them further, and one day, they might trust bust one of them, but the rest of the time they'll be giving them blowjobs and preventing competition from rising up to dethrone the big boys. All while censoring folks far more than social media dares to now.

You advocate for making the problem worse.

You won't address these points though, you don't want to debate this subject, you dodge debating it far more than I do when you repeat irrelevant nonsense and keep bringing up arguments that are destroyed on several occasions as if no one has addressed them yet. Either start engaging in good faith debate or stop getting mad when people disagree in good faith while you shit up the forum.

Well there are examples of where the government/fcc did break up a big company, but they are far and few in-between. The reason is because doing so can cause a bit of chaos, and unless its controlled chaos the government and markets as a whole don't like it.

They only do token break ups, and the rest of the time they are keeping the competition to big companies down, and sheltering big business from competition is most of what they do when they aren't censoring shit left and right.

StA would have us believe that a token break up now and then means the FCC mission is to protect the consumer and small competition, but he's lying to himself and everyone else.