Net Neutrality:
"Pick up your packet, comrade! The next packet for your web browser will be delivered sometime later!"
Posted on 12/15/2017 6:39:39 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
WILKES-BARRE -- For the past few months, the Federal Communications Commission asked for comments from the public on whether it should end net neutrality. Thousands of comments came from people in northeastern and central Pennsylvania. But it appears many, if not most of these comments, are fake.
We called 12 people whose names were listed as making comments with the FCC and none of them said they even contacted the agency. That includes a woman from Wilkes-Barre who admits she doesn't even know what the FCC does. The Christmas spirit runs through the home of Darlene Mapes in Wilkes-Barre, but her smile goes away when she learns her name is on a government document to the federal communications commission.
"I never did that," Mapes said.
But FCC files show that in August, Mapes wrote, "the Obama-era FCC regulations (known as net neutrality) enable the federal government to exert an unnecessary amount of regulatory control of the internet."
The FCC file shows Mapes writing, "I support Chairman Pai's proposal."
"I don't know a Chairman Pai," she said.
The FCC lists more than 500 people from Dunmore as commenting on net neutrality, including former borough council member Paul Nardozzi. He believes most of his neighbors on the list did not contact the agency.
"If they can use my name and have my address idiotic as that, God only knows what someone else could use your name for," Nardozzi said.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro believes so many fake comments hurt people who opposed the FCC. He wants to see a federal investigation into how the names of so many people were used without their knowledge.
"Approximately one million fake accounts were created, and really it influenced their decision to gut net neutrality," Shapiro said.
Darlene Mapes hopes the new rules don't slow down her internet which she only uses to play games. And she's still concerned about her name being listed on a government document taking a stand on an issue she knows nothing about.
"They don't have a right to use my name." You may be concerned that your name is connected to a comment with the FCC and there's an easy way to find out. The attorney general's office has set up a web page where you can check to see if a fake comment has been made in your name.
McDonalds has permission to charge you anything they want for a BigMac, and put whatever the want in it. What do they do?
People have choices about which providers to use, including those people running major sites. A provider that doesn't server their interests will lose their business. This is what socialists never understand.
Some people have to get their a$$ burned by the fire before they wake up to the fact that they need an ointment to treat the burns.
I made a couple of additions to your excellent list.
The short list of NetNeutrality supporters:
1) People who don’t know what Net Neutrality is
2) Socialists/fascists/communists see #3
3) People who want their neighbors to pay for their 24hr-a-day Netflix habit or intensive internet use for games.
4) Twitter bots
5) Countries/Americans, who hate the US & want to ensure it loses its technology edge
The government also wants to store a sample of your DNA because it might never be misused in a crime scene.”
So quickly sign up for the DNA tests on Holiday sale from Ancestry.com, 23andme, and any other so called ancestry site peddling dna tests.
They find ways to CONTROL THEIR COSTS and MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS. Using 73% burger rather than 80%, cheaper buns, etc, etc ) It's the nature of business to CONTROL their COSTS so as to MAXAMIZE PROFIT.
This is what socialists never understand.
Think about this.. currently I have friends with cell phones and tablets employing 4G and wi-fi connections to the Internet.
In most case they pay a monthly fee and received a certain amount of bandwidth usage. ( example: it's an unbeatable data deal for a trio -- a shared 12GB data plan with unlimited calls and text in the US for $85. Phones,though, need to be compatible with CDMA network.)
I have a desktop computer I use to access the Internet instead of a phone or tablet. I PAY $62 dollars a month for 100 MB/S connectivity and have a usage allowance of ONE TERABYTE a MONTH.
Removing net neutrality can and will turn, what you pay and how you access upside down, in ways consumers have nary a clue. Wait and see. Time will tell the tale.
The comments are NOT fake. They are real comments. The posters maybe misrepresenting themselves so the sources are fakes but the comments are not.
Net Neutrality:
Net Neutrality, ObamaCare, Climate Change: all the same.
Government’s attempt to grab control of more aspects of our lives and our country.
Sad that so many people cannot see this.
Just caught Rush’s opening monologue. He’s tearing into Net Neutrality. Doing an excellent job of deconstructing the arguments put out by the morons who support it.
So far the “Affordable Care Act” has cost me over $40,000 in increased Premiums and Co-Pays.
As far as Net Neutrality goes, the Government isn’t Neutral.
“Yes, Comcast might slow down or charge more for Netflix so Comcast’s TV service gets priority and is cheaper.
That means there is a business opportunity to offer internet that supports Netflix.
Someone else could offer internet service without any streaming at all. There are people who just want email and Facebook, nothing else. A very low cost service would be perfect for them.
Open markets breed competition and innovative solutions. That is why our healthcare system works the same way as it did in the 1970s....because government control and regulations have forced it to stagnate and not innovate in the way it operates.”
I agree, in theory, as I said above. The problem is that there’s an enormous barrier to entry in the form of last-mile cabling. You might recall the exodus of many smaller ISPs years ago after deregulation denied them access to the cable infrastructure (Netcom etc.).
There is simply no way for a new ISP to start up in most places. Even Google with all its resources is backing away from Google Fiber. AT&T did run fiber through our neighborhood not too long ago...amazingly with NN in place at the time... I’m all for less government and less regulation. However, there are times when regulation is necessary.
Your story about Apple fails to talk about the COST of accessing the Internet.. and of course the $800 dollar cost of the device needed ( the Apple iphone ) to access the Internet.
My point: The story makes a point for technology.. NOT COST!
Of course they do. But more importantly they have to provide a product, at a price, that people will voluntarily come in and buy. To do that they can't charge $20 for a Big Mac, even though technically they are free to do so.
It's no different with any other business that has to compete for customers. If Comcast throttles Netflix too much then people won't use Comcast. Comcast may get Netflix to pay a little extra fee. And given how much of the bandwidth Netflix uses that's not really unreasonable. But even without it, Comcast knows they can't break Netflix for their customers or they won't have any. There doesn't need to be a government rule to enforce that. This is how markets work.
Thanks. When Russ is through, could you summarize the important parts with short bullet points in a reply to this thread. (Please ping me)
Thanks as usual.
Just wait in a week when no one will be even talking about this.
It was manufactured from the first day.
AT&T is putting something new cable wise in, all over town. The AT&T guys/gals won’t say what it is. They are saying that it will be fastest internet connection in town.
What, we see is a new and very large in diameter about 2”’s cable going from pole connecting to large and long rectangular boxes.
No connections to any homes yet.
That price and speed has nothing to “net neutrality.” However, you may have been limited under net neutrality from having a more consistent Internet experience, because people paying $10/month got the exact same access to the bandwidth as you. You paid more for only “burst” availability and not minimal bandwidth.
The problem with the Net Neutrality rules is that they were only enacted in 2015. I was a Netflix streamer long before that, and I never had a problem. And my carrier is Time Warner, so they theoretically lost some revenue. I used to be a Time Warner voip customer, too. I switched that a few years ago and have never had a problem with that. The Net Neutrality lobby makes up these horror stories, and then attacks the carriers. I think that is called the straw man argument. I ma not swayed.
Now if the carrier actually did try some hanky-panky with Netfix, there is already an easy solution. Get a VPN account and set it up on your router. Then your carrier cannot know what you are doing. They can’t ban vpns, either, because these days everyone who works at home has to use one. I stream stuff over a vpn all the time and it works just fine. All the carrier sees is this pipe going somewhere with encrypted data.
If there actually seems to be a problem, then we can talk about regulation. AFAIK there isn’t, so, these control freaks need to leave it alone.
As far as Net Neutrality goes, the, our Government isn’t Neutral.
Just look at what the DOJ/FBI did to candidate Trump before the election and after he won the election and became our president.
If these Seditious Scumbags are not arrested for this outrage it’s Banana meet Republic time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.