Day By Day

Comments

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    What happened? Did net “neutrality” kill the power at the Double Dee?
    (yeah….right…..net “neutrality” my left testicle)

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    Sam has it right. Libtards and “projection”.
    Not sure how G-d will feel about this, but here goes……
    I’m trying to remember a Biblical scripture about “the sins of the fathers being visited upon the heads of the children”. Seems to fit in my twisted imagination.
    Obviously I’m not a scriptural scholar, and I’m too lazy to look it up right now.
    Been some busy washing the bed linens, one of our older cats peed on the bed this morning.

    • silvergreycat

      *…I’m trying to remember a Biblical scripture about “the sins of the fathers being visited upon the heads of the children”.* You may be referring to *Numbers*, Chapter 14, verse 18… https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers%2014:18

  • David

    I actually think that net neutrality was one of the very few things that Obama’s people did that was right.

    The mega ISPs have forgotten that the users pay them and are treating the users as if they are the product to be sold.

    Even the telco monopolies were not this bad because you could move a few miles and be in some other area. But now that we are down to low single digit companies nationwide, it’s very hard to move to a better place.

    • Bill

      There’s more competition now for phone service and being connected generally then there’s ever been in the history of our planet you don’t have to move anywhere and you can get phone service or Internet service from probably 5 to 10 different providers in most areas This whole net neutrality discussion has to do with the way the data is managed on various networks as opposed to simple accessibility

      • David

        Bill, I don’t know where you live, but the majority of the county has access to one or to options for ISPs, and as the mergers continue, that selection keeps shrinking.

        Very few places have more ISPs available, and the main two (cable and telco in an area, assuming both are available) are doing their best to block any competition, including trying to get the feds to prevent communities that they don’t serve from forming their own ISPs

        I am no fan of Obama, and it may be purely accidental, but the stated goals of the ISPs are very bad for the Internet .

        Personally, I think ISPs should be given a choice

        1. be a “common carrier” and hands of the bits I have payed you to transport, and you have no liability

        or

        2. you have full control over ‘your’ network, but since you now have full control, you are liable for anything anyone does that’s illegal on that network (since you are blocking things you don’t approve of)

        right now, the ISPs want full control and no liability.

    • pyrodice

      Net Neutrality boiled down to Netflix getting people riled up that it MIGHT cost extra to suck up 30% of the gross internet bandwidth available in one app, and getting congress to favor their corp over the ISP corps.
      Just ask someone on the table for remote open heart surgery whether they think their doctor’s connection to the stent and scalpel waldoes should be at the same priority level as a Mumbai botnet farm, or nah.

      • David

        If I’ve already paid my ISP for X amount of bandwidth, why should they be able to charge more if I go to site A instead of site B?

        The lawsuits against the ISPs weren’t for things they may do, they were for actually doing things to hurt their users.

        • pyrodice

          You pay your phone company for texts, calls, and data separately, and if you go over on one, by using more than you paid for… you pay more. Sorry about the contract, but if you sign it, the fault’s yours. The lawsuits were (as the meme going around contained) 7 instances over seven YEARS where companies had competitors using their services to sneak an undercutting service through, like using DSL to sneak free calls on magic jack, while the user was also carrying phone service. In a fair market, the ISP could certainly charge for the ability to do that… After all, how much would you charge a rival for the same job interview in order to punch up his résumé so he gets their business, and not you?
          Would you do it for free?

  • Chris Muir

    Someone just posted a link to a Penn State source on Net neutrality.Academia is notoriously biased and such posting is not only not an alternate viewpoint but a trolling diversion.I have banned the poster and will ban any one who links to such sources.

    Leftists excel in their strategy in which they waste your time as you track down their bullshit sources and parse their ‘language’-as today’s toon points out.They then accuse you of being biased. After years of this game-in which the point is for you to waste your time on them-I will not allow such here, and will ban you if you do such.

    Enough.

    • Epador

      Amen. I went to Penn State. Their links are worthless.

    • Delilah T.

      There seems to be a lot of worthless stuff at Penn State. Not naming any names, mind you, but….

      I’m confused about the fuss over “net neutrality”, myself. If it isn’t going to restrict my access to the internet, then what is the fuss all about?

  • JackDeth 72

    “Net Neutrality” is nothing more than the much vaunted, Democrat funded, bribed and backed, Conservative thought killing “Fairness Doctrine” applied to the Internet.

    And it needs tyo die a quick and painful death!

    • David

      how is prohibiting ISPs from charging for some data twice (at their discretion) anywhere close to the “fairness doctrine” that required them to treat airtime differently based on who was talking?

      • pyrodice

        Why aren’t you crusading for airlines to make baggage check free, since you’re being charged for the same flight twice?
        Because it has an actual cost of doing business associated with it? It’s the same thing.

  • Deplorable B Woodman

    Net “neutrality” has about as much to do with neutrality as putting suspenders and sneakers on a snake. (From Rush Limbaugh, I think)
    But it had EVERYTHING to do with throttling the companies that run their portion of the internet in their corner of the world, making them run every bandwidth the same, nobody faster, nobody slower, everyone being charged the same. So what happens then? Innovation is stifled, for both the internet bandwidth producer, and the consumer. The ‘net becomes slower and more expensive, until we’re back in the days of 28k dialup.
    For anyone who is pro net neutrality, go read Ayn Rand’s “Ego”, which describes a dystopian future, the ultimate in communism, where a man’s future profession is decided for him/her, in spite of their talents. One curious man finds an ancient artifact, and reinvents the battery and light bulb. When he presents his invention to the village elders, he is chased out of town, being decried for attempting to make jobless the candle makers. There is more, but that’s a good start.

  • “Net neutrality” was nothing but the left wanting to control the language, and neuter the speech on-line. Boom. The Donald has freed the air to be able to breathe!!!!!! My ONLY thing about the First Amendment is “Say what you will, so long as it’s true”. No lies, truth. Say what you will, so long as it’s true.

  • Pete231

    Harvey Weinstein – Pork : The Other White Meat……

  • jdow

    Chris, consider for a few moments what happens when Verizon and Comcast each act as content providers and blocks the competition. Then consider where DBD stands with respect to getting its bits and BYTEs through the gateways, which almost assuredly will have corporate biases. It’s far better if the Internet backbone and service providers treat all bits and BYTEs equally. That is what allows you to talk to Aunt May during the business day when the telco services are jammed. It is what allows your pages to be downloaded at my place without interminable delays due to video streamers. The transport should be agnostic regarding sources of data streams. Otherwise totally legal political restrictions on data access will take place. Remember amendment 1 protects us ONLY from GOVERNMENTAL censorship. Private entities are allowed to restrict what they will subject only to public relations debacles vs corporate profits.
    This is worth contemplating in a world of mega-monopolies.
    {^_^}

    • eon

      Except that’s not the way it works in the “real world”. Like the Fairness Doctrine, “Net Neutrality” actually means that the “broadcasters” (the ISPs) are free to decide that they won’t allow “political speech”, and claim they are just “being fair”.

      But they get to define what is or is not “political speech”. Thus, pro-2nd Amendment “speech” can be defined as “political”, while people demanding the abolition of civilian firearms ownership can be presented as “humanitarian”, “public safety”, “doing it for the children” or (Insert Your Least Favorite Progressive Catchphrase Here).

      Similarly, NARAL can be called a “public interest” group, while an anti-abortion group can be vilified as being “anti-women’s health”.

      Obama further stacked the deck by packing the FCC board with progressives from both parties, in anticipation of handing control of this odious statute to what amounts to a Ministry of Truth. Incidentally, as with so many things The Self-Exalted One did, the model for this was Red China, specifically their Communications Ministry. Stating that he was just following the example of the European Union, Germany, and etc. doesn’t change that- what do you think their “model” was? (Other than Joseph Goebbels, that is.)

      One of the basic principles of propaganda is that only one side gets to speak. The opposition is told to Shut up Or Else. “Net Neutrality” was exactly that. “Our Evil Opponents are engaged in “‘Political Speech’- we, the Enlightened Ones, are simply telling you The Truth As Revealed To Us Alone.”

      NB1; You should always beware of people who tend to Think In Capital Letters. They inevitably form cults that divide the world into those who are “innately fit to rule” (themselves) and “everybody else”, who’d better shut up and obey if they know what’s good for them. They also define “everybody else” as less than human; in the end, this generally is used to justify genocide.

      NB2; If you want to read an even more direct SF prediction of “Net Neutrality’s” intended end result than Ayn Rand’s, look up Doomsday Morning by C.L. Moore. COMUS (COMmunications U.S.) was the first example of an ISP-type system in SF- and it was dominated and controlled by a totalitarian United States government.

      clear ether

      eon

      • Chris (Not That One)

        Can someone provide links to the verbiage or documented abuse of FCC “neutrality” rules that actually suppress political speech?

        I realize we’re largely picking which monopolies we think are less terrible.

        I’m in a location with exactly one high-speed internet provider, who has a habit of interfering with specific services, and setting data caps that are the same regardless of how much you pay to blow through it faster. Oh, and it was up and down more than a roller coaster until I upgraded to “business class” for an extra $100/month, and now it’s magically reliable over exactly the same wires. How strange. Can’t get DSL, reliable cellular broadband, etc. So any rules to keep the monopoly ISP from making me bend over even further seem like a good idea.

        And given how much I’m paying to get the content I want delivered, the ISP can upgrade their network or let Netflix co-locate a cache if they don’t like the data transfer situation. Granted, “unlimited” data for peanuts may be unsustainable, but if so, the industry really ought to stop advertising it, and come up with a sustainable pricing model.

        So the publicly advertised benefits resonate. But it’s government, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there is something in the rules to control what content is allowed. Just looking for references from the horse’s orifices, not dystopian novels that may be related only by the political affiliation of the instigators.

        I’d prefer a market to exist, so the market can solve the problem. I’m desperately waiting for the various LEO satellite internet swarms, because apparently you have to go into space to get around the government-granted local monopolies. Even if I don’t switch, if the option exists, competition may finally rein in the incumbents.

      • David

        Except Net Neutrality wasn’t about them being able to block one type of content in the name of ‘fairness’, it was about treating all data the same, no matter who it’s from.

        That doesn’t require any judgement on the part of ISPs, and doesn’t allow them to block something and claim they are being fair. As soon as they start blocking or slowing something down, they are no longer being neutral

        • pyrodice

          Frankly, if I were running the business, you’d pay me TO block certain types of data… And believe me, I could block botnets and limewire viruses from the first few minutes. It’ll make your experience way better.

    • pyrodice

      Do you regularly have to carry an AT&T and Verizon phone, because in order to compete they’ve refused to carry each other’s traffic? No, and you didn’t BEFORE net neutrality, either. It was bad for business.

    • PaulS

      Eon comprehensively covered it, but all distilled down to “Some animals are more equal than others.” And who gets to define “equality “.
      Just look at all the claimers of moral high ground that have immoral acts wrapped around their necks as that ground crumbles, couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

  • Halley

    Regarding latin by pigs: does “metoo!” really mean “meat-ew!”? Just asking.

  • Bill G

    I’ve read too may tech arguments for and against net neutrality to separate the chaff from the wheat. But one argument running through the Anti side said that the way the system runs means that the big boys already do what we’re supposed to be afraid of, and NN does nothing about it; Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are cited.
    Okay, I don’t know enough on that level, particularly so when the particulars are still fluid. I’m just staying against it, since I cannot believe that anything the left and the big companies want is good for anyone but them.

  • Farmist

    Ingo-Bay!

  • Rod

    DBW – don’t you mean Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”?

  • Pamela

    “Net Neutrality” as in stuck in neutral not going anywhere or a play on words to neuter making everyone pliable, biddable and docile…

  • Big Jim

    From Bill G above: “Okay, I don’t know enough on that level, particularly so when the particulars are still fluid. I’m just staying against it, since I cannot believe that anything the left and the big companies want is good for anyone but them.”

    Also my general approach in ‘issues’ elections; high-speed rail boondoggles, changing State constitutions etc. “Follow the Money”.

  • Joheim

    First off, as a open statement of possible bias, my city spent quite a lot of money on building a municipal fiber optic network in the early 90’s and was planning to run an ISP themselves, until they were sued by Adelphia (now comcast) and state laws were changed so municipalities werent allowed to run an ISP, so now comcast gets the fruits of my area’s tax dollars, and we get.. ehh service at times. I do work with the internet as a livelihood, and I use it probably more then most.

    Most people seem to be missing the general idea of forcing a company to operate as the ISP’s are currently as a utility. Do any of you want to pay for a water hookup, only to find out it is grey water, or unfiltered/sanitized? and that getting clean drinkable water costs X amount more? Probably not. the internet is not water obviously, but I believe you all pay to have whatever you look for served to you as the site creator intended.
    Guess what? Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Rogers, etc, pretty much every major ISP got busted for excessive traffic throttling or flat denial of service to websites due to such slow speeds before the FCC rules were changed. and most of those companies signed no compete agreements to enforce their prices and practices to keep that bullshit going.

    The censorship of the internet is not because of the rules around being a utility, it is about control period. and being under utility rules means they cant one day say, our viewpoint is one way, hope you all enjoy MSNBC only. Seriously, what if you are only able to access websites of that viewpoint? In a world where the internet has become the way we all collect, outside of our personal area, information reliably, do you want your ISP choosing what you can access reliably? maybe the Washington post loads fine, or the NY times, but not dbd?

    Many of you that agree with the “well you have telephone compatibility across companies comment, were at least old enough to remember Bell telephones and their being forced to break as a monopoly, most of those baby bell companies all rejoined up, either by buying each other up, or agreeing to no compete agreements and a price floor for services. it isn’t capitalism, it is cronyism. ISPs are carving up their own geographic fiefdoms, and agreeing that they wont bother other ISP fiefdoms so they don’t fight.

    The only way to force all of those companies to play fair, when they were already slowing traffic, already censoring sites, and already changing the way your data is delivered to you, is to force them all to be open to any traffic.

  • JackDeth 72

    Test. Test. Test.

  • writeby

    1941 Nippon doesn’t have a monopoly on sneak attacks.

    Newspeak (obfuscation; disingenuousness, etc.) has been the rage for … eons.

    “Gender Identity”
    “Hate Speech”
    “Cultural Appropriation”
    “Cultural Genocide”
    Sociology
    Social “Science”
    Right to Life (for a zygote)
    Balance of Trade (a mercantilist concept)
    The truth® (funded by looting “Big” Tobacco)
    Patriot Act (war is nasty; let’s make America a bunker & a prison instead)
    Fair Wage, Reasonable Wage, Minimum Wage, etc.
    Poverty Line
    Obscene Profits
    Asbestos Kills (see: Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco, etc., fires)
    Drug War (see: Prohibition)
    War on Poverty
    _Unsafe at Any Speed_
    New Frontier (see: Moral Philosophy of Naziism, Oct. 7, 1933 speech, Adolf Hitler: Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.))
    Fair Deal
    New Deal
    National Parks
    Monopoly* / Anti-Trust / Trust Buster
    (*OED: “A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.” Example: See Boston Tea Party.)
    The Problem of the Commons
    Critique of “Pure” Reason
    Plato’s “Republic” (“The best ordered state will be one in which the largest number of persons … most nearly resembles a single person. The first and highest form of the State … is a condition in which the private and the individual is altogether banished from life, and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and blame and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasion, and whatever laws there are unite the city to the utmost …”)

    &c.

  • Joheim

    Chris, I don’t get how your link applies to Isp net neutrality, That is private websites/social media controlling the “message” ? or did I get the wrong link? ISP neutrality isn’t the same as website neutrality /safe harbor provision stuff, private companies websites are bubbles of whatever their owners believe. Twitter and facebook are no exception, and I am not surprised at all they are the new “battlefield” of yellow journalism

  • JTC

    Two phrases mentioned here say it all about this and virtually all other issues of access and control (and of course that’s all we’re really talking about):

    Ministry of Truth

    Follow the Money

    Seemingly disconnected (heh) premises, but actually one and the same. The only real questions are, “Whose truth?” and “Whose money?”.

  • JTC

    Off-topic but topical:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-military-mission-accomplished-islamic-state-defeated-in-syria/ar-BBGlAa2?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

    The Russkie report is accurate as far as it goes, but unsaid is exactly why that major push occurred and resulted in such yuge success…and the first letters are coll.

    It began on about 11/9/16 and was and still is labelled “collusion” by all the usual leftist suspects. They don’t know the difference between that and “collaboration” which is the key ingredient for Statesmen and the art of making successful deals. And even faced with hard evidence like this, with a yugely positive effect for America, you will never see or hear them admit it.

    Because they are not only stupid, but evil.

  • JTC

    “Today, our entire nation pauses to REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR — and the brave warriors who on that day stood tall and fought for America…God Bless our HEROES who wear the uniform, and God Bless the United States of America.”

    Well, not the entire nation…scant mention among the leftist institutions of media. Maybe he should have said “all Americans”…but thank you President Donald J. Trump, for your remembrance.

  • Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah

    Karl Denninger has a post that helps explain Net Neutrality and the problem of who pays for bandwidth:
    https://tinyurl.com/y8joegbb

    It helped me understand something about the problems web companies face, anyway.