Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 May 5

= May 5 =

movie trivia

 * Which lightweight drama involves a male stripper who yearns to set up a business that allows him to keep his clothes on?
 * In which movies does Dorothy Lamour own a gold mine? is it Road To Utopia (1945) or Road To Zanzibar (1941)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.254.250 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Magic Mike. We have articles about Road to Utopia and Road to Zanzibar so just see for yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

open internet
In a radio interview today, FCC chairman Pai maintains that although he favors an "open internet" he opposes the current push to retain what is commonly known as net neutrality because his changes would protect the interests of small content providers. How? Richard Odin Johnson (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That sounds like political doublethink. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the interview, and had trouble following his convoluted logic. The interviewer mentioned the huge number of people who commented on the proposed change, almost exclusively saying they supported net neutrality, and he didn't seem to care about that either. StuRat (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reading the Ajit Varadaraj Pai article, it's pretty clear whose pocket he's in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, a former employee of Verizon Communications, and apparently still loyal to them. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When listening to these discussions, it is important to separate all the various issues. Pai has been and is almost always talking about the push to make internet service providers in Title II regulation. Pai has argued multiple times to place them under Section 706 regulation. Neither of those issues has to do with net neutrality. Section 706 is easier to understand. It simply means that the Federal government will have authority to boss the ISPs around as long as they feel that they have the public's interest in mind. In my opinion, it is obvious why politicians and the FCC like Section 706. It gives them a blank slate to extort favors and kickbacks from ISPs. Comcast wants to put in new fiber in Omaha? Well, the FCC doesn't think it is in the public's interest... until Comcast slips some cash, drugs, and prostitutes into the right hands. Then it will pass. Section II is more stringent. It states that that the Federal government will still regulate the ISPs. It states that the ISPs cannot make any unreasonable demands. Is asking Netflix to pay a little for higher bandwidth unreasonable? I bet the lawyers for the major ISPs can argue that it isn't. Slip cash, drugs, and prostitutes into the right hands and I'm sure most people in the Federal government will agree that Netflix should pay the ISPs because it is a reasonable thing to do. Net neutrality states that all traffic is equal. It doesn't matter where it comes from or where it goes to. It is very clear that neither Section 706 nor Title II guarantee net neutrality. It places net neutrality at the hands of the Federal government. Some people believe that government has the public's interest at heart. Others don't. Regardless, if you understand the three issues being discussed (Section 706, Title II, and Net Neutrality), these interviews and debates make a lot more sense. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What a block of propaganda.
 * You seem to expect us to be shocked that enforcement of our current regulations is "placed in the hands of the government". That's not some shocking revelation, that's how laws work. ApLundell (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The US Constitution expressly grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. (That's not exactly a news flash, but maybe the IP is unaware of it.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed the point was obvious. Title II allows the regulators to ignore net neutrality if the ISP is being "reasonable". Section 706 allows the regulators to ignore net neutrality without giving any good reason. What is not proposed is a law requiring net neutrality. Then, the regulators cannot use the blatant loopholes in Title II and Section 706 to kill off net neutrality. It isn't an issue of WHO the regulators are. It is an issue of the laws being enforced. Right now, only two are being seriously proposed and neither guarantee net neutrality. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And the Congress has the power to strengthen, weaken, or demolish net neutrality as they so choose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if you are purposely avoiding the point or not. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Try stating your point in 25 words or less. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Pai was discussing Title II vs Section 706. He was not discussing net neutrality. Is that short enough? 71.85.51.150 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)