www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
The internet is fucked (again)
By Thom Holwerda on 2017-07-12 13:37:27

FCC chairman Ajit Pai is fond of saying that "the internet was not broken in 2015" when he argues for repeal of our nation's net neutrality rules. This is particularly funny to me, because in 2014 I literally wrote an article called "The internet is fucked".

Why was it fucked? Because the free and open internet was in danger of becoming tightly controlled by giant telecom corporations that were already doing things like blocking apps and services from phones and excusing their own services from data caps. Because the lack of competition in the internet access market let these companies act like predatory monopolies. And because our government lacked the will or clarity to just say what everyone already knows: internet access is a utility.

Most of these things are still true, even after the Obama-era FCC under Chairman Tom Wheeler reclassified internet access as a Title II telecommunications service and imposed strict net neutrality rules on wired and wireless internet providers. And most of these things will get even worse when Pai pushes through his plan to rescind Title II and those rules, despite widespread public outcry.

Hey look, another case of corporations actively working to undermine society by bribing politicians with huge amounts of money that individuals would never (or only rarely) have access to. As long as politicians' power is derived not from the people, but from money, shit like this will continue to happen. Trying to stop Pai's obviously horrible and destructive anti-consumer plans is a noble goal, but these plans are only a symptom, not a cause. We're playing whack-a-mole, while they are playing Jenga.

These corporate criminals and their political lapdogs will keep throwing money at the wall until it breaks - and they have more money than we have bricks and mortar.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-45
.
RE[4]: .
By JLF65 on 2017-07-14 00:36:51
Obama was infamous for claiming one thing while doing the opposite. The Dems had protecting whistleblowers as part of their platform, and yet Obama prosecuted more than TWICE as many whistleblowers as ALL PREVIOUS administrations PUT TOGETHER. While his people may have claimed he wanted Net Neutrality, he tried to work against it with his appointee, but it backfired on him.

By the way, I'm not a Rep. I voted third-party the last 25 years... and not a single person I've voted for has won. It's not very encouraging to be a third-party in the US.

And for the record, I firmly believe that as bad a Obama was (and man was he bad), Trump is gonna make him look good by comparison... and he's already off to a "good" start at that.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: .
By fmaxwell on 2017-07-14 01:52:37
> Obama was infamous for claiming one thing while doing the opposite.
Obama claimed, both in speeches and White House press releases, that he was for net neutrality. He appointed an FCC Chairman who put regulations in place to make it happen. I don't see any evidence that he claimed he was for it and then tried to 'do the opposite'.

Edited 2017-07-14 01:54 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[4]: Comment by kurkosdr
By dionicio on 2017-07-14 13:32:43
Quite a political lesson, GrandmasterPHP: Didn't matter the Referendum "thing" was technically about nothing.

Tories have themselves been "cornered" to deliver on what British people THINK Brexit is.

If well myths are by definition unreal, have the potential to become REAL FORCES, and the reason they're permanently EXPLOITED.

It's a mistake to believe our personal cosmology is built from IDEAS. As individuals, We lack the resources -and lifespan- to transform it into knowledge.

Edited 2017-07-14 13:49 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Comment by kurkosdr
By dionicio on 2017-07-14 14:08:44
Magnificent Apocalypto cinema work is very well into the spirit of this "apocalyptic" way of governance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apo...
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Comment by kurkosdr
By dionicio on 2017-07-14 14:33:29
Only cultures can afford the cost of truth. On destroying truth, culture itself crumble down. Back to you, Donald.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Why stop at condemning capitalism?
By CaptainN- on 2017-07-14 14:38:31
We disagree on the definition of capitalism (to an extent). I would define it in terms of how power is allocated. In the economic system of capitalism, power is allocated exclusively to owners. The owner of capital gets to make all the decisions about when, how where, and what to do with his capital. Not the workers, not the communities. It's that simple.

Corporations are simply a way of sharing ownership and a way of distributing power by allocating decision power by share. One share gets one vote, but it's still capitalism. Workers, who don't own the companies for which they work get no power.

Democracy is meant to distribute power by deography, 1 vote per person. But democracy and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible.

My preferred hack as a fix would be to distribute the power of ownership equally among workers at a capitalist institution, one share per worker, to gain them one vote per person per share. Collectively, the idea is these companies would be less willing to do shitty things like grind up their local environments or outsource their jobs, or automate their jobs away and hand over all the benefits of that to just the owners (because they are the owners, they'd reap the benefits)

Marxism through central planning arguably doesn't work (I'd argue it works pretty well for Russia given it's harsh trading geography, but that it has other crappy side effects I don't want) but what I described above is a pretty simple private form of democratic socialism

Edited 2017-07-14 14:43 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Why stop at condemning capitalism?
By CaptainN- on 2017-07-14 14:47:25
These are all problems we see time and time again in capitalism and have even solved multiple times, usually through kaynesian economic policy (applying external controls to capitalism). Nothing about automation means people should have to live a crappier life, and that history goes back over a century. All we need to do is make sure we all share in the benefits of automation, but capitalism (defined in my other response) doesn't allow for that because of the way power is allocated. When we have solved these problems in the passed it has been a separate political system (which allocates power differently) applying the fixes in an external way.

Edited 2017-07-14 14:48 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: Why stop at condemning capitalism?
By grandmasterphp on 2017-07-14 16:25:01
> We disagree on the definition of capitalism (to an extent).

Well there is very little point continuing the conversation if you cannot agree to use well understood definitions.

Edited 2017-07-14 16:26 UTC
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[4]: Why stop at condemning capitalism?
By CaptainN- on 2017-07-14 17:47:14
There's nothing wrong with discussing terms to start with - they do it in university frequently. I'm actually not sure what your problem with that is. Most content on the subject talks about multiple different kinds of capitalism, so it's clearly not something easy to define.

Additionally, most definitions isolate the system to economics and don't use it to define a political system, which itself contradicts your "well understood definition", so if I can't even challenge that, then I guess you have your desired trump card...

Also, capitalism is an economic system. It's not a religion.

Edited 2017-07-14 17:48 UTC
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: Why stop at condemning capitalism?
By fmaxwell on 2017-07-14 17:54:04
> My preferred hack as a fix would be to distribute the power of ownership equally among workers at a capitalist institution, one share per worker, to gain them one vote per person per share.

So a form of a worker cooperative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wor...
Permalink - Score: 2

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-45

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?