Unless there is a direct constitutional question, scotus has no business
being involved. The fact that scotus is even in play is a direct
consequense of the decades of judicial politicking
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 12:14 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Supremes are going to refuse to get involved; if they are asked, which
> I'm on the fence about.
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 11/23/2020 10:06 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> This shit is neverending entertainment. They put the crazy lady up as the
> lead, then shitcanned her, but she didnt stop and theres no infighting.
> Pennsylvania is back in play in the courts. Media runs with some judge
> dismissing something like it's relevant, theyve bending it for 4 years,
> that's just a step in the process to get things to the supreme court.
> Either way I see armed conflict prior to inauguration. One side wants to
> bury everything and one side wants sunlight on everything, then if it
> doesnt bear fruit they want it dissected and sunlight on its guts.
>
> They're gonna fuck around and get biden disqualified after it's to late
> and then the bigot harris will be in play. We dont want that
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 11:29 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-gop-challengers-we-faced-open-intimidation-detroit
>>
>>
>> https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc
>>
>> Two poll challengers in Detroit with different perspectives about what
>> they saw at the exact same polling place.
>>
>> I do see general agreement on the events though. A volunteer busybody
>> follows people around and questions everything they do. They get annoyed
>> and say, "buzz off, talk to my supervisor". The Democratic challenger
>> says, "the GOP poll challenger was being douchey and asking accusatory
>> questions. Also racism."
>>
>> The Republican challenger says "All I did was ask questions and they got
>> all douchey about it. Also I was intimidated/oppressed."
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/2020 11:33 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>
>> That's the sort of thing you'd expect from Huffpost or TheOnion.
>>
>> Kind of apropos though.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>> On 11/23/2020 7:50 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>> Back to the press conference, either Fox News has totally turned against
>> DJT, or someone paired the wrong headline and photo.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On
>> Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 9:06 AM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com>
>> <af@af.afmug.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference
>>
>>
>>
>> The intent was that an isp couldn't throttle competitor traffic in
>> preference of their own, but in true bureaucratic fashion they purposefully
>> left it vague so it could be reinterpreted at whim.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 7:55 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The 2015 Open Internet Order didn't do even 1/10th of the things
>> attributed to it. It had nothing to do with congestion, censorship,
>> freedom, service pricing, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> The rules were no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization.
>> All three rules had the exception for "reasonable network management".
>> Reasonable management was not specifically defined, but in discussion it
>> was said to be driven by a technical need rather than a business one. So
>> the blocking and throttling we all do to make traffic flow properly was ok
>> and nobody was ever going to pay any of us for prioritization. I've never
>> been convinced that the rule was necessary. It seemed like a rule saying
>> ISP's can't build moon rockets....like ok I'll stop my Apollo project
>> immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>> The actual rules were trivial to obey and I'd bet almost nobody here was
>> ever breaking them My only concern was Title II status could open the door
>> on additional rules that might be more onerous later.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/2020 8:40 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> The original Net Neutrality had nothing to do with congested upstream or
>> peering ports.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why force your competition to be less bad?
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>
>> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com>
>> <af@af.afmug.com>
>> *Sent: *Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:48:05 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference
>>
>> If net neutrality comes back, there will likely be similar exemptions for
>> ISP's less than 100k subscribers or whatever the number was before.
>>
>>
>>
>> It shouldn't affect us in any real way. It will force the big ISP's to be
>> good (better?) guys and not let peering cross connects fill up and become
>> congested for example.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 9:45 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/20 7:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > But as amusing as this may be, it might be time to start looking at how
>> > the next administration could affect WISPs. Like a 3-2 Dem FCC and a
>> > new Chairman (woman?). Will Net Neutrality and Title II return? Does
>> > it matter?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Net neutrality seems likely to make a comeback. Would it change anything
>> I do? No, but it might add annoying paperwork. Worst case someone thinks
>> I'm doing something and files a formal complaint, which would waste time
>> having to answer it.
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
