[Chicago] Thanks for having me!

Sat Aug 12 23:38:40 EDT 2017

I think it's a wash. Is Netflix bound by some code of ethics not to take
advantage of rules in their favor? Weren't they putting an excessive burden
on ISPs by their service at on point? Netflix is also another gigantic
company. Is there really any way the average person won't get screwed?

Either way, I'll probably just go with the flow. I wouldn't be wholly
dissatisfied if all smartphones imploded or the internet ceased to exist
and people suddenly had to look at each other on the train. Although, I'd
probably be out of a living... kind of a Catch-22.

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Nick Timkovich <prometheus235 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Because everything's in the future, it's basically the land of
> hypotheticals and who you trust more. Do you trust that telecom companies
> like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will spend the money it takes to comply
> with Title II (how much has this cost in the past couple years) into
> providing better service? If it's to the people that aren't getting
> internet service right now, those are likely the most expensive per
> subscriber, as it hasn't made sense to until now.
>
> Do you believe that telecom companies will not throttle competitor
> services? Comcast's parent organization owns part of Hulu, so why not limit
> connection speed to Netflix so you're unable to stream at 1080p, but
> unfetter access to Hulu? Or, "Only $5 more month to get quick access to
> Facebook so you can see and share photos and videos from your family!"
> Title II, Section 202, paragraph (a) states that common carriers can’t
> “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices,
> classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”
>
> Right now telcos can just say "we won't do anything you don't like, and
> we'll only do things you do like" and they can't be disproven.
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Tamillow <
> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, staying on the topic of net neutrality, and the specific issues
>> relating to its possible upheaval, what would be the argument in favor of
>> reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I?
>>
>> John Oliver has been having a pretty poor record lately. And some of the
>> issues he latches onto are too little, too late, and too much bias. Though
>> I do think he's funny, I don't think he's honest.
>>
>> Ajit Pai says the people it would help are those not getting internet
>> service now. If he's right, then you wouldn't expect these people to
>> comment on the FCC website anyways...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Aug 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Nick Timkovich<prometheus235 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like you're conflating this with a third, unrelated title. The
>> argument wasn't to change "Title II", which in the context of net
>> neutrality refers to "Title II of the Communications Act of 1934", but to
>> stop the FCC from reclassifying ISPs as only subject to Title I (of the
>> Communications Act) laws. The FCC cannot change law, and that law only had
>> seven titles.
>>
>> Your initial email seems to be in reference to titles I and II of the
>> "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005", which I'm not
>> sure how is connected.
>>
>> Then, title 47 with respect to the FCC usually means "Title 47 of the
>> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)" which I'm only familiar with from the
>> rules it sets out regarding radio transmissions, both for ham radio and ISM
>> bands. It looks a great deal larger though; could you help us out and point
>> to the specific section you're referring to: https://www.law.cornell.ed
>> u/cfr/text/47/
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tamillow <
>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know, I don't know that much about it. I think it may be related to
>>> Title 47. Maybe Title 2 should stay the way it is.
>>>
>>> I don't want to live in a world where the internet belongs to those who
>>> can afford it either, when there is more than enough to go around for
>>> everybody's true interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve read extensively about the various lawsuits, etc, involving
>>>> Backpage, I have I yet to see anywhere they claim Title II “protects” them.
>>>> I believe they have appealed more to First Amendment rights and DMCA safe
>>>> harbor provisions. What about Title II ISP net neutrality regulations can
>>>> “protect” them from abetting human trafficking? I’m not asking to watch a
>>>> movie on the subject, and I don’t think it’s unfair to explain the
>>>> reasoning behind such an incredible claim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Foresman
>>>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is explained in the movie, I Am Jane Doe, which is generally a legal
>>>> movie.
>>>>
>>>> Backpages has been sued many times, and continues to win every lawsuit
>>>> on the defense that Title 2 protects them.
>>>>
>>>> Title 2 is not causing the Human Trafficking. It is just not preventing
>>>> it adequately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Chris Foresman <foresmac at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have failed to establish any causal link between the implications
>>>>> of Title II and human trafficking. Please explain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Foresman
>>>>> foresmac at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Michael Tamillow <
>>>>> mikaeltamillow96 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would take everything John Oliver says with a grain of salt. Looks
>>>>> like your analysis is most likely correct but I don't see any code, and the
>>>>> level of fraud seems very amatuer - including the FCC's filtering of
>>>>> comments. Do we live in 1960?
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the strongest outcries against title 2 is human trafficking,
>>>>> which is being perpetrated on and by Backpages.com
>>>>> <http://backpages.com/>, but they repeatedly deny it because they
>>>>> hide behind vague terminology. Likewise, there are some sites that have
>>>>> sprung up as a chance to extort people based on lewd photos. You've got to
>>>>> crack a few eggs to make an omelette, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com/
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/parents-found-missing-
>>>>> daughter-backpage-fight-justice-part-44753036
>>>>>
>>>>> Google's corporate policy used to be "Don't be evil
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil>" but it seems they
>>>>> have succumbed to the hypocrisy of the world. Can't everyone get behind
>>>>> what's right? It's not changing title 2 that matters. It is how is it
>>>>> changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Chris Sinchok <chris at sinchok.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for having me last night to talk about my FCC project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone is interested, you can view the slides here:
>>>>>> https://gitpitch.com/csinchok/chipy-fcc-presentation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My original blog post is here: https://medium.com/@csin
>>>>>> chok/an-analysis-of-the-anti-title-ii-bots-463f184829bc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For further reading on this issue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html
>>>>>> https://medium.com/@nhf/whats-up-with-all-of-those-identical
>>>>>> -comments-on-the-fcc-net-neutrality-docket-105835f59c3e
>>>>>> http://gizmodo.com/can-john-oliver-s-pro-net-neutrality-comm
>>>>>> enters-compete-1795095982
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For anyone with questions, etc, feel free to reach out, this is a
>>>>>> topic I am pretty obsessed with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Sinchok
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20170812/e1ae2540/attachment-0001.html>