FCC Throttled By NeoCities In Net Neutrality Protest

[Gezzer]

Well everyone stating their opinion that this won't work have a point, I only have one question, got any better ideas?

Thing is, sometimes the stupidest/silliest ideas if they actually gain a bit of traction can surprise you. Like others have said it'll just take a couple of the big boys that have the balls to put their money where their mouth is (I'm looking at you Google. And Microsoft, don't think I don't see you trying to sneak out of the room.) and this could really work.

Personally I think the most effective group could be anyone providing the FCC with "cloud" services. I remember using my Sportster 33.6 and having a CD's worth of data take overnight to download. Think what a monkey wrench it would be if Dropbox throttled them. It'd almost be as good as redtube doing it, but I think if redtube throttled they'd get mostly elected officials, you know, the ones with all the time on their hands.

 

[Erttheking]

There's no cause to start waving white flags just yet!

Nor is there any reason to predict victory, but I bet you won't chastise the people who are claiming that.

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

 

[FalloutJack]

foit

No idea if what you said there was a legit response my statements, and it sure as hell wasn't an apology. Sounded more like accusation and insult. I'm fairly certain you shouldn't do that to people.

 

[MorganL4]

If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

 

[dyre]

If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't remember "chastising" anyone, so, uh, yeah, I won't chastise people who claim that (though I would probably point out that there's no reason to wave victory flags either).

Ah. Word games. Still, I'm yet to see you live up to that claim of a single standard, even if we dismiss the sophistry.

No idea if what you said there was a legit response my statements, and it sure as hell wasn't an apology. Sounded more like accusation and insult. I'm fairly certain you shouldn't do that to people.

Really, if you're not going to address my posts, why reply?

Also, why accuse me of accusations when they were a response to you making accusations?

 

[Something Amyss]

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

I wasn't aware your only alternatives were "wave the victory flag" or "admit defeat."

I mean, I'm fairly sick. I'm not sure I'm going to survive the long term. I'm actually fairly convinced of the opposite. I have not, however, given up entirely, forgoing medication and medical intervention. Unless I'm breaking some sort of law, I'm pretty sure there are more paths available for exploration here.

 

[Erttheking]

Most likely because assuming defeat means you do nothing when victory was possible, and assuming victory means you do something even if defeat is assured. Frankly, I'd rather play it safe and give it everything I've got instead of just lying down and clamping my teeth around the curb as the FCC raises its mighty boot over my head.

I wasn't aware your only alternatives were "wave the victory flag" or "admit defeat."

I mean, I'm fairly sick. I'm not sure I'm going to survive the long term. I'm actually fairly convinced of the opposite. I have not, however, given up entirely, forgoing medication and medical intervention. Unless I'm breaking some sort of law, I'm pretty sure there are more paths available for exploration here.

I don't seem to recall making that claim. I was explaining why it was preferable to assume victory than to assume defeat. To use your example, if you walked into a hospital and found two very sick people, one convinced she/he was going to make it and one convinced she/he wouldn't, which one would you rather change their mind?

 

[dyre]

I don't remember "chastising" anyone, so, uh, yeah, I won't chastise people who claim that (though I would probably point out that there's no reason to wave victory flags either).

Ah. Word games. Still, I'm yet to see you live up to that claim of a single standard, even if we dismiss the sophistry.

1. How would I "live up" to that? I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.
2. What is your problem? Are you looking for some kind of fight? I swear, half the time I talk to you you're reasonably civil, and the other half of the time you seem to think I'm some kind of hated enemy. Are you bipolar or something?

 

[MorganL4]

If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

You are right it does not give specifics, but the specifics are already known. Tom Wheeler SAID he was going to ensure that ISPs were reclassified under the law (something the FCC DOES have the power to do) so that we could maintain net neutrality. But then he reneged on it. And since Obama is Wheeler's boss he CAN pretty much tell him what to do.

 

[dyre]

If you like this thread go here we need to force a response from the white house: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-protect-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

Unfortunately, the petition doesn't exactly mention what it wants the administration to actually do. I don't think the White House has any authority over the FCC. Obama might be able to issue a (politically costly) executive order on the matter but that would only last until the next administration, and it's not really a permanent fix.

You are right it does not give specifics, but the specifics are already known. Tom Wheeler SAID he was going to ensure that ISPs were reclassified under the law (something the FCC DOES have the power to do) so that we could maintain net neutrality. But then he reneged on it. And since Obama is Wheeler's boss he CAN pretty much tell him what to do.

Actually, the FCC is an independent government agency, so although Obama is technically Wheeler's "boss," he's not legally allowed to tell him what to do. It would be a bad precedent anyway...if that sort of conduct were allowed, then a pro-ISP president could totally wreck net neutrality. The White House can't do much in this situation.

Wheeler did say try say he would reclassify ISPs, and for the past few years the FCC has been regulating ISPs alongside other telecommunications carriers...but just this January, the DC Circuit court declared that regulating ISPs was outside the FCC's mandate.

The whole situation is much more complicated than people think, and it's been going on for longer than most people realize. This isn't the first legal setback the FCC has faced, but it is a pretty tough one. From my understanding, the FCC has its hands tied as long as the DC Circuit's decision remains in effect...they need to bring this to the Supreme Court. That's what people should be rallying for.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Good to see NeoCities is following the 9th rule of acquisition!

"Opportunity + instinct = profit"? Not quite sure that's the best one for this.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

Because I've been keeping score and pretty much finding you to be the one at fault. You kill conversation, dude. I see alot of put-downs and posts made to be contradictory rather than discussion of opinions in a friendly environment. Like Dyre says, you attack people, and with posts that may not hold a good point. And when you're called out like now, you act victimized. Well, you're not the victim, so cut it out. Enough already.

 

[s_h_a_d_o]

Well done, that man!

*stands* *applauds*

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't seem to recall making that claim.

You presented it in a binary fashion.

I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.

Convenient. Is this based on the same literalism as before? Because it looks like it. And that's bad faith.

Zoop

Apology accepted.

 

[Erttheking]

I don't seem to recall making that claim.

You presented it in a binary fashion.

Because it was fitting for the conversation that we were having. You were complaining that people got on those who were pessimistic and not those who were hopeful, and I explained why. I only talked about two options because those two options where the only ones that had been brought up? What was I supposed to do, bring in alternative options when they had nothing to do with what we were talking about?

Also, not to butt in, but the other guys you're replying to have a point. You do have a really bad habit of being condescendingly passive aggressive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because it was fitting for the conversation that we were having.

And therefore, I went with relevance to the conversation at hand.

You do have a really bad habit of being condescendingly passive aggressive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

You have a really bad habit of inferring things of others. You've apologised to me twice via PM, PMs I ignored because I knew that you weren't going to stop. So don't infer things again here. If you want a good conversation, your inferences will not help.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I don't how you can complain about people not getting on people's rears for being pessimistic and not for being hopeful, I explain why hope is seen as preferable to despair, and then you move onto criticizing me for assuming those were the only two options. I just don't follow.

I'm not inferring anything. I haven't even read that conversation all the way through, I'm speaking from experience. You have a bad habit of acting that way all throughout the website. We've talked several times before and I've been on the receiving end of this attitude. I'm just telling you what I see.

Also, could you please not talk about what I have included in private messages? I put it in a private message specifically because I didn't want it to be seen by anyone else besides you.

 

[dyre]

I haven't seen any posts declaring that victory is assured (why would there be? That attitude makes no sense at all), so there's not much to reply to.

Convenient. Is this based on the same literalism as before? Because it looks like it. And that's bad faith.

What are you even talking about? And why are you acting like I owe you some kind of explanation, when my post wasn't even addressed to you?

Again...what's your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight?