Media hysteria/fake news over "net neutrality" is inciting death threats.

Quote:Federal authorities have reportedly arrested a man who threatened Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his children.

Scott MacFarlane, an investigative reporter for NBC 4, tweeted on Friday that a man was arrested after sending an email to Pai threatening to find and kill his children. The email included the addresses of preschools in Arlington, Virginia, where Pai lives.

“I will find and kill your children,” the email allegedly said.

According to a Department of Justice press release, Markara Man was “angry” that Pai repealed net neutrality and wanted to “scare” him. One email from the 33-year-old Californian included a framed photograph of Pai’s family.

“The first email accused Chairman Pai of being responsible for a child who allegedly had committed suicide because of the repeal of net neutrality regulations,” the release said. “The second email listed three locations in or around Arlington, and threatened to kill the Chairman’s family members. The third email had no message in its body, but included an image depicting Chairman Pai and, in the foreground and slightly out of focus, a framed photograph of Chairman Pai and his family.”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/man-ar...-ajit-pai/

(06-29-2018 05:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Media hysteria/fake news over "net neutrality" is inciting death threats.

Not really sure where the 'fake news' comes in regarding net neutrality. The man sounds clearly deranged.

(06-29-2018 05:46 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Media hysteria/fake news over "net neutrality" is inciting death threats.

Not really sure where the 'fake news' comes in regarding net neutrality. The man sounds clearly deranged.

Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I dont think you understand this at all.

(06-29-2018 06:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I dont think you understand this at all.

Enlighten me.

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Has that happened? What is wrong for paying for what you use? Why should a non gamer pay the same as a basic internet user?

(06-29-2018 06:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Has that happened? What is wrong for paying for what you use? Why should a non gamer pay the same as a basic internet user?

Hasn't happened, but it's possible now that NN no longer exists. Closest thing to it right now is mobile plans where AT&T, for example, has zero rated DirecTV Now. In other words, you can watch as much DTVN as you want on AT&T without penalty, but services like Sling (DISH Network), YouTube TV (Google), etc will count against your data cap.

Paying for what you use doesn't really apply to internet, and isn't affected by Net Neutrality. ISPs have been going down the path of 'making it fair' the past few years, especially Comcast, enacting data caps on home internet service. They want consumers to picture internet service similar to water or natural gas. "Those who use more, should pay more." Even Comcast itself has been on record stating that this argument holds no water.

The problem with that logic is that internet is not a finite resource. Whether 100 people are using the internet, or 10,000 people are, the same equipment is running. There is no limit in the way there is for actual finite resources like water. On top of that, the cost for ISPs to transmit this data has been going down for a long time. It's basically negligible at this point.

You could argue that ISPs incur the cost of installing the 'last mile' (ie. from their equipment to your home), but a lot of the time the last mile is subsidized by local or state government if you're talking fiber, or already in place for a long time if you're talking cable. Even if it weren't, the fact that they are often the only option for internet means they are going to recoup their investment at some point.

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Free college. Why not free internet?

Jugheads rule!

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

How much time has to pass without that happening before you would admit that you're wrong?

(06-29-2018 06:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  How much time has to pass without that happening before you would admit that you're wrong?

Why does that thought even enter your head?

(06-29-2018 07:03 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:57 PM)Kronke Wrote:  How much time has to pass without that happening before you would admit that you're wrong?

Why does that thought even enter your head?

Because the democrats and fake news media are working people that don't know any better into a frenzy over something that's never going to happen, and it's irresponsible.

Like the article in the OP says, apparently a kid committed suicide over this crap. This nothing issue. All for political points and to own the cons.

Currently there’s no reason to be upset over it. No home internet company, to my knowledge, has enacted any policies that would be struck down under the old net neutrality rules. Then again, retaining the rules has passed in the Senate and is currently awaiting a House vote. Companies may be simply biding their time until the dust settles.

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Free college. Why not free internet?

Jugheads rule!

(06-29-2018 06:50 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Has that happened? What is wrong for paying for what you use? Why should a non gamer pay the same as a basic internet user?

Hasn't happened, but it's possible now that NN no longer exists. Closest thing to it right now is mobile plans where AT&T, for example, has zero rated DirecTV Now. In other words, you can watch as much DTVN as you want on AT&T without penalty, but services like Sling (DISH Network), YouTube TV (Google), etc will count against your data cap.

Paying for what you use doesn't really apply to internet, and isn't affected by Net Neutrality. ISPs have been going down the path of 'making it fair' the past few years, especially Comcast, enacting data caps on home internet service. They want consumers to picture internet service similar to water or natural gas. "Those who use more, should pay more." Even Comcast itself has been on record stating that this argument holds no water.

The problem with that logic is that internet is not a finite resource. Whether 100 people are using the internet, or 10,000 people are, the same equipment is running. There is no limit in the way there is for actual finite resources like water. On top of that, the cost for ISPs to transmit this data has been going down for a long time. It's basically negligible at this point.

You could argue that ISPs incur the cost of installing the 'last mile' (ie. from their equipment to your home), but a lot of the time the last mile is subsidized by local or state government if you're talking fiber, or already in place for a long time if you're talking cable. Even if it weren't, the fact that they are often the only option for internet means they are going to recoup their investment at some point.

You don't appear to understand the massive amount of capital invested in data equipment and other infrastructure components that delivers your porn to you. I worked for AT&T for 21 years and I'm pretty sure no governments subsidized any of the cost of their infrastructure. In fact, as a regulated entity we were required to lease equipment to LEC's for less than it cost to operate said infrastructure.

(06-29-2018 08:02 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Free college. Why not free internet?

Jugheads rule!

No one is asking for that? What we are asking for is open access when we go onto the internet.

No one should threaten family members of anyone. I do not agree with Ajit Pai and think he is nothing more than a corporate mouth piece that would screw every free speech loving American.

(06-30-2018 07:32 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 08:02 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Free college. Why not free internet?

Jugheads rule!

No one is asking for that? What we are asking for is open access when we go onto the internet.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with open access. The net neutrality order was issued in 2015 and rescinded in 2017. Prior to 2015, there was complete and open access, and there has been in the 7 months since it was rescinded.

Most of what you guys are referring to as "net neutrality" (the throttling of service based upon use type) is already covered in anti-trust law. There was a provider that blocked vonage because they also had a competing phone service. This would be covered under anti-trust. You can not block, price differently, or otherwise manipulate pricing of the ISP service in order to restrict other product offerings in the mix. That is a violation of anti-trust laws.

If an ISP wants to block your use of bit torrent, they can. If an ISP wants to block or raise your ISP price to access bittorrent because they sell a competing product, that would be unlawful.

(06-29-2018 06:06 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 05:52 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Are you kidding? For weeks leading up to the vote, the media sold the lie that Pai was about to rob Americans of their free and open internet, driving the left hysterical.

I mean, that isn't inaccurate. Right now we're at the mercy of ISPs on whether or not they feel like being good citizens. There's currently nothing to stop AT&T, for example, from saying that DirecTV Now has a performance guarantee for AT&T internet customers; Pay $4.99 per month to guarantee top speeds for other video services like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Uhhhh,

What else do you not want to pay for?


Leeches gonna leech, I guess.

(06-29-2018 06:50 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 06:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Has that happened? What is wrong for paying for what you use? Why should a non gamer pay the same as a basic internet user?

Hasn't happened, but it's possible now that NN no longer exists. Closest thing to it right now is mobile plans where AT&T, for example, has zero rated DirecTV Now. In other words, you can watch as much DTVN as you want on AT&T without penalty, but services like Sling (DISH Network), YouTube TV (Google), etc will count against your data cap.

Paying for what you use doesn't really apply to internet, and isn't affected by Net Neutrality. ISPs have been going down the path of 'making it fair' the past few years, especially Comcast, enacting data caps on home internet service. They want consumers to picture internet service similar to water or natural gas. "Those who use more, should pay more." Even Comcast itself has been on record stating that this argument holds no water.

The problem with that logic is that internet is not a finite resource. Whether 100 people are using the internet, or 10,000 people are, the same equipment is running. There is no limit in the way there is for actual finite resources like water. On top of that, the cost for ISPs to transmit this data has been going down for a long time. It's basically negligible at this point.

You could argue that ISPs incur the cost of installing the 'last mile' (ie. from their equipment to your home), but a lot of the time the last mile is subsidized by local or state government if you're talking fiber, or already in place for a long time if you're talking cable. Even if it weren't, the fact that they are often the only option for internet means they are going to recoup their investment at some point.

Yea, good points.

Both My gas and water lines have been in place nigh on 20 years, now.

Ima go demand free gas and water...

As was once very famously said-

“Ummm, drugs are baaad”.


Geeezus, people.