Review internet dating

National Review

Don’t believe the arguments pushed by ‘net neutrality’ activists: The government does more harm than good by interfering in the World Wide Web.

I n late April, FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced at a press conference at the Newseum that his agency would revisit its 2015 determination that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 gave it broad authority to regulate the Internet, including the ability to scrutinize online content, routine negotiations between firms, and cutting-edge services. The American public will hear howling all summer from D.C., New York, and San Francisco, as tech bloggers, lobbyists, late-night talk-show hosts, and leading newspapers attempt to spin the decision as some kind of corporate giveaway. They would be wise to ignore it, because Chairman Pai’s announcement is welcome news for Congress and anyone who believes that new Internet services and speech online should not require the approval of the nation’s media regulator.

The leading Internet-regulation advocates are outraged that President Trump’s FCC is loosening its grip on the web and restoring oversight to the country’s primary competition and consumer-protection agency, the Federal Trade Commission. They decry the loss of “net neutrality,” a tremendously fuzzy and misunderstood concept. When self-anointed “net neutrality” proponents use the term, they mean far-reaching Internet regulation by the FCC, the so-called Open Internet rules created when broadband service was determined to fall under Title II in 2015.

Young people appear most susceptible to the siren song of the Open Internet rules. Part of the problem is that older generations have not warned them about the FCC’s history as an enemy of free speech and a tool of special interests. I recently spoke to a group of political-science majors about why I opposed FCC regulation of the Internet. To illustrate the pernicious creep of innocent-sounding FCC regulation, I asked how many had heard of the Fairness Doctrine, the erstwhile FCC policy that for decades required radio and TV broadcasters to make “reasonable provision for the discussion of controversial issues.” I expected that most of these politically engaged young people would be familiar with this dark time for free speech. Few raised their hands.

The period during which the Fairness Doctrine reigned offers an important lesson about agency overreach. Many advocates tried to abuse the use of these modest-sounding rules, but the DNC and the progressive press successfully coordinated to use them as a weapon against conservative and religious broadcasters. Complaints to the FCC rose from about 400 in 1966 to over 60,000 by 1970. Bill Ruder, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, frankly noted that:

Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.

The Reagan administration shelved the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Democrats briefly created a government shutdown over the issue, but they lost, and FCC reform continued apace. The 1990s saw the deregulation of phone, TV, and Internet companies, which planted the seeds for the era of technological dynamism we enjoy today.

Congress learned long ago that the FCC interprets silence about a new technology as an invitation to regulate. The FCC, for instance, nearly crushed the budding cable-TV industry with regulation in the 1960s because cable threatened to disrupt the FCC’s carefully planned national system of over-the-air broadcast TV. It took 20 years before Congress could bring itself to repeal much of the FCC’s anti-competitive cable regulations.

What happened to leaving the Internet ‘unfettered from Federal or State regulation’?

To prevent history from repeating itself, in 1996 a Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton amended the Communications Act of 1934 and announced a new U.S. policy, loud enough for the FCC and state public-utility commissioners to hear: The Internet — including “specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet” — should be “unfettered from Federal or State regulation.”

That declaration hasn’t stopped FCC officials and pro-regulation advocates in the years since. The agency’s areas of regulation — telegraph, telephone, broadcast-TV, and cable-TV providers — are dead, dying, or using Internet technology to reinvent themselves. With the AT&T monopoly broken up, the Clinton administration welcomed the prospect of a diminished future role for the FCC, and even progressive scholars such as Professor Lawrence Lessig called on Congress to “demolish” the agency and replace its antiquated laws with something more modern.

FCC defenders inside and outside the agency realized that they needed new problems to “solve.” The Internet, that powerful incubator for new media, music, videos, and TV shows, presented an obvious target. Media-regulation advocates, while appreciating the Internet’s democratic possibilities, have long regarded the prevailing Internet culture, like early TV and radio, as too libertarian, too disruptive, and too trollish to leave to market forces. “Net neutrality,” invented and coined by Professor Tim Wu in a 2003 technology-law journal, offered media advocates and regulators the technical-sounding justification needed to bring the Internet’s major firms to heel.

Around 2005, when it was clear the FCC had little interest in regulating the Internet and Internet providers, the “net neutrality” movement leapt into action. Small disputes between broadband and Web companies, incidental and expected in any young, fast-moving industry, suddenly became national scandals, and D.C.-area activists started inviting the FCC to intervene, even after the tech companies had resolved their disputes.

After courts struck down the FCC’s previous two attempts to regulate Internet providers, the reticent FCC, pushed by President Obama after the brutal 2014 midterms, decided to regulate Internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Classification as a Title II “telecommunications service” means that Internet providers become subject to reams of federal and state telecom laws, the same laws regulating telephone and telegraph companies, many of them dating back 80 years.

Perhaps more alarming is the extreme, and widespread, deference of courts to the administrative state. In a 2–1 decision last year, the D.C. Circuit upheld the classification of “broadband Internet access service” as a telecommunications service. Title II laws and regulations, largely drawn up to restrain the government-blessed AT&T long-distance monopoly, constitute one of the most restrictive regulatory regimes in the country. The substance of the new rules is almost immaterial, save one, the “general conduct” rule, which with vague language swallows all the others and allows the agency to investigate and prohibit any online service, app, or business practice that it determines is “unreasonable.” When asked which activities the Internet-conduct standard could regulate, the FCC’s then-Democratic chairman replied that “we don’t really know.”

What happened to leaving the Internet “unfettered from Federal or State regulation”? Is there any combination of words Congress could string together that would prevent a determined regulator from using Title II against an Internet provider?

Any student of FCC history knows roughly how this story will end if the rules are not repealed. The dominant Web and Internet providers will muddle through, perhaps more profitable but also more sclerotic and risk-averse. Their armies of attorneys, many of whom used to work at the FCC, will closely read the thousands of pages of orders, declaratory rulings, and press releases to anticipate shifting legal winds. Smaller providers and mom-and-pop tech startups, focused on customers and services rather than compliance, will be left in the dark.

At the Newseum press conference in April, one of these imperiled innovators told his story before introducing Chairman Pai to the microphone. Garrett Johnson and two friends created an enterprise-communications app in Florida and managed to gain funding for it from Ycombinator. His former company was compelled to register as a common carrier with the FCC, complete some 50 hours of paperwork annually, and pay fees and respond to inquiries from state public-utility commissions. Internet services and apps offer an open frontier where anyone with a good idea and persistence can find success. No startup or broadband provider should spend precious time and capital navigating the Title II labyrinth. Hopefully, the FCC will ignore the noise and restore the Internet, free of federal regulation and special interests.

— Brent Skorup is an attorney and a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Review internet dating

This is the best way to manage and repair your business reputation. Hiding negative complaints is only a Band-Aid. Consumers want to see how a business took care of business.

All business will get complaints. How those businesses take care of those complaints is what separates good businesses from the rest.

Consumers love to do business with someone that can admit mistakes and state how they made improvements.

Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program.

  1. Home > Reports >Services >Dating Services >Victoria Brides Ukraine Dating Service >Victoria Brides Ukraine Dating Service Victoria Brides Victoria Brides Usually Comes Inot Your Computer By Post Links It Does Not Cost Much Per Month To Join (apprx 14 00) But When Chatting With Women You Get Charged Credits Of 2 Credits > Minute These Credits Begin To Add Up And There Is No Follow Up Program Like How You Will Ever Meet The Woman, How You Can Arrange For A Trip To The Ukraine Or How To Apply For A Visa To Bring Her To This Country All You Get Is Chat Time, Or E Mails And You Are Charged Up Tremedously For Just A Chat Service Internet


20/20 exposes the real BBB

  • Victoria Brides Ukraine dating service

Victoria Brides Ukraine dating service Victoria Brides Victoria Brides usually comes inot your computer by post links. It does not cost much per month to join (apprx. $14.00) but when chatting with women you get charged credits of 2 credits/minute. These credits begin to add up and there is no follow up program like how you will ever meet the woman, how you can arrange for a trip to the Ukraine or how to apply for a visa to bring her to this country. All you get is chat time, or e-mails and you are charged up tremedously for just a chat service. Internet

*Consumer Comment: All of these are fake and boiler room shift work. Communitainment Inc. is a Virginia Domestic Corporation filed on November 15, 2013 .

*Consumer Comment: Owner: regarding your reply to the dissatisfied user

*Consumer Comment: My Victoria brides experience.

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: I believe

*Consumer Comment: it does not work like that

*General Comment: are you kidding me

This is the best way to manage and repair your business reputation. Hiding negative complaints is only a Band-Aid. Consumers want to see how a business took care of business.

All business will get complaints. How those businesses take care of those complaints is what separates good businesses from the rest.

Consumers love to do business with someone that can admit mistakes and state how they made improvements.

Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program.


Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors.

I happen to join a dating service called victoria brides advertising about meeting woman from the ukraine. it came to me by a post link. all of a sudden all these beautiful pictures of all these woman came flooding in. i picked one I was intersted in around my age and we began to chat on a chat room. in fact, all victoria brides offer is chat room and e-mail. writing an e-mail was very expensive so I just used the chat room. I found out i get charged a cost of chatting 2 credits per minute. I enjoyed chatting with this woman and then a charge comes in where I have to buy more credits. after about a cost of nearly $300.00 from my bank card, my bank became suspicious and called me asking about all this expensive activity. i wrote the woman that we should get on another chat room, one that would be free and she said she would try but didn't know how to do this. when i offered her other chat rooms or even facebook, this sight blocked it out. i tried giving her my address, or phone number and the sight blocked this out also. i asked if she was charged and she told me no. although I had her first name, her age and the city in the ukraine where she lived, the web-sight would not give me her last name. when she wrote me her last name, the sight blocked it out The websiite gave no provisions as to how we could meet, any travel tips to the ukraine, or how she could apply for a visa to come here. all i could do was chat and keep getting charged for it. i believe this is not a ligitmate dating web sight but a scam just to suck someone like me and anyone else, who probably resides in the ukraine or somewhere getting money from poor suckers like me and others. i told the lady i can not afford the cost of this chatting but she told me she did not want to lose me and I told her the same. i tried everything i could to keep in contact with her, but the cost of chatting was ruining the whole relationship. eventually i just had to drop out and let everything go as is. all i can say is i spent $300.00 worth of loneliness and not a thing to show for it. someone should investigate this web sight and seriously shut it down!

line of defense

Does your business have a bad reputation?

Set the record straight:

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/30/2015 04:50 AM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

#1 UPDATE Employee ..inside information

AUTHOR: VB and several listed are FAKE - (USA)

POSTED: Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The websites under this group have their own separate fake promotional comments domains and websites, just take note ofcthe names in the list provided. Ex-female workers supplied affidavits that they pretended to be multiple female members. Shift work is normal. IP shows via e-mail track that fraudulent scam occured with a female member profile or group of them were written by third parties and that they were writing or answering from a different location than they claimed. They admittes being the answering entity for multiple parties or that AI algorithm answers were common and pushed messages onto men to use credits. Women/Agencies were paid commiasions from message count, gifts purchased, photos that men posted, wtc. All of these commission forms are both fraudulent ans illegal in many countries. How can a female profile be messaging me she is sitting across the table with cellphone in her purse or intubated in a coma or without connection to internet in Crimea. Answer: FRAUD!

All of these are fake and boiler room shift work. Communitainment Inc. is a Virginia Domestic Corporation filed on November 15, 2013 .

SUBMITTED: Monday, September 18, 2017

The company's filing status is listed as 00 Active and its File Number is 0771455-3. Check and see also that Dmitri Dubogarev is attorney listed for arbitration and several of these type of websites. Shell game of sorts! The Registered Agent on file for this company is Dmitri Dubograev and is located at 901 N Pitt St Ste 325, Alexandria, VA 22314-0000. The company's principal address is 901 N Pitt St Ste 325, Alexandria, VA 22314. The company has 2 principals on record. The principals are Vladimir Mnogoletniy and Yuri Bakay organization: communitainment inc There are 42 domains associated with the organization field within Whoisology's September 2017 archive. Click any of the domains below to view the specific details of each domain name. Administrative

AUTHOR: 2smart4U - (United Kingdom)

POSTED: Thursday, September 07, 2017

Nik, your statement is vague and not addressing the real issue: That the entire site is a fraud.

Let me directly respond to your rebuttal:

*Impossibly stunning beautiful women that look as though they are Models.

*The photos of these women were in poses (and a state of undress in some cases) that said to me they were photos from a modelling portfolio and not meant for a dating site.

*No details on their profile stating what they were looking for, to match what was requested of myself.

No profile pic, no description beyond being overweight and grey hair. Did NOT purchase any credits (And still haven't)

And they were all so keen to start a relationship straight away! Oh My God how lucky was I.

But to my horror (Oh, the HORROR!), the 20 credits I was awarded when I signed up were gone in a flash. and I wasn't allowed to send my email address to any of them.

There are several other reasons that point to this page being a fake:

*No video chat - you are unable to confirm the person in the photos is actually the person you're chatting to. In this age, there is no excuse for that.

*Search criteria is extremely basic and rudimentary.

*The quality and type of photos used are FAR beyond what anyone would expect for a dating site.

*Unable to contact the other party except through a very expensive payment to the site.

*Chat from girls is minimal and designed to tease you into chatting to them and use up your credits

there have been many agency rip-off tales in the past, and this seems to be the latest twist in the story.

Owner: regarding your reply to the dissatisfied user

SUBMITTED: Sunday, July 09, 2017

You comment to the effect that 'complainants work for competitors, and want to discredit VB' is absurd. Chatting with the ladies is enjoyable and fun, but your credit accounting is terrible and opaque. I recently purchase 50 credits, and they were very quickly gone. I think I understand you policy of blocking links to websites and personal email addresses, and think I see the sense in it, but the credit use rate you apply to chat and for extras (virtual gifts) used during those sessions makes me feel as if I have to make a serious investment just to enter into a conversation that goes nowhere. I enjoy your site very much, but connecting with the ladies beyond the most basic level is a waste. Everet, Virginia Beach, Viginia

Dating site can not be completely free, it is the norm

SUBMITTED: Monday, February 20, 2017

I have been chatting with a lot of girls at VictoriaBrides, hours and hours but I never spent that amount that the author of the comment says. I believe that dating sites cannot be free because you can only get very basic local dating for free. I think VB is very advanced site and I do not mind paying money for the service.

My Victoria brides experience.

SUBMITTED: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The above standing report is also true for my experience. When chatting with ladies they are slow to respond and when sending pictures, which cost extra the pictures are uploaded 3 or 4 times in row, billing each picuture apart.

So at the end of 4 hours chat with sending pics i was billed a near $280 dollar. I contacted customer helpservice about the abnormal high billing and they came up with the issue of error of multiple uploading the pics, which ( i remembered indeed but not paying attention to it ) was a known error to them. I asked: So no uploading of pics for the time? Their answer: no you can upload and if it occurs again IMMEDIATELY contact us for a refund. Thats not practical in my opinion when chatting with a lady to hold it to ask your money back. Not logical.

The lady sending pics had the error of multiple uploading her picure too. When i asked customer service if she was not billed extra, they answered: no, for ladies other rules apply, they dont have to pay for uploading pics. Hmmm. Most of the time the group that has to be attrackted gets favor, being the foreign men here, because according to the site for every russian man are 4 russian ladies.

Also little mistakes are made by the girls.

ALL girls are ALL online ALL night till about 5.30 then start to go offline. As its said they have work, nobody has to go to bed early? about 0.00 hours? Hmmmmm.

When chatting with them they dont answer for a time and returning say: I was getting tea. Ok , but without saying to the one you talk to? Duh.

On all the pics of the ladies you never get to see their hands (rings) and surely not the righthand. not one of 30 pics i saw.

I got 9 times the same standard written meetingmail in my inbox from a lady. Without any comments. i received no answer when i contacted her about it in the chat? She was online all night?

After i contacted customerhelp the chat- and mailinvitations stopped abrupt. Ohh?? Hmmm.

One of two ladies was slow to answer sometimes 15 to 45 minutes: yes i have a bad line. not apologizing for it and when the chat was going to an end, she just disappeared.

The customer help refunded me 300 points, so no money back.

truth about victoriabrides

SUBMITTED: Monday, September 05, 2016

Interesting site that has more negatives than positives. Ever seen a so called dating site that has no posted success stories. The site operates to find Ukraine women husbands. Have you ever seen Victoriabrides post any success stories? That is because there are none. The site is a total scam. The site is set up to do one thing and that is take your money. They use auto generated messages from fake profiles. Granted some of the women are real but many are what the site calls staff profileds. Just go read the fine print in terms of use. They will tell you just that. They operate using a pay per minute service. You must accumulate a certain number of chat time minutes to gain personal e-mail of a particular woman. Very few of the woman have any skill regarding the english language. They use a translation program to chat. Once they are with out the translation program they are lost. Take the time to look online at the adds for pay per line chatting in Ukraine. Services offer the woman money to chat with foreign men. So many red flags with Victoriabrides, very fague rules and they actually claim they protect the women via what is called the IMBRA form for international marriage. In fact Victoriabrides is like a pimp, they take money from men for chatting with woman who are either fake profiles or have no idea what they are invloved in---BEWARE--STAY AWAY---THE SITE IS RIGGED AND JUST WANTS TO TAKE YOUR MONEY

#8 REBUTTAL Owner of company

SUBMITTED: Monday, August 15, 2016

М I believe that people who complain simply work for other dating services and their job is to write negative stuff about certain services. I am using Victoria Brides and this is the most honest dating site I have ever used.

At the start you know that this fee

SUBMITTED: Friday, May 13, 2016

I registered on Victoria Brides but I knew that I had to pay credits to chat so it wasn’t a surprise like some guys here say the money disappeared from the account. I agree that sending e-mail cost more so I used chat room and each message cost 2 credits.

However, the team is very supportive and they helped me to find a girl from Ukraine (I send them my requirements). Apparently, I didn’t fancy the girl after chatting to her but I am aware that any dating site can’t give 100% guarantees to find a person you actually want. It all depends on your personal preferences but not the system.

it does not work like that

SUBMITTED: Monday, April 18, 2016

It is not surprising that now you have to pay for dating. I think if you want to meet about 100 people in one day and have chat with a half of them, you wouldn’t mind to pay $15. If you want to invite a woman where you live or come to her place, dating sites help to arrange visa and a trip.

So, I think if a man wants to meet a woman on a dating site, he should be prepared to pay for the service, otherwise he can look for a girl himself by coming to Ukraine, Russia wherever or use social medias for free. I guess all services become paid to avoid fraud, false photos and false names. So now singles have a choice to pay and meet people online or do it themselves and don’t complain.

I had the same experience

SUBMITTED: Friday, March 25, 2016

You are lucky that you only wasted a few hundred dollars with that Ukrainian site. I have wasted thousands of dollars on Ukrainian dating sites.

Anyway I learned my lesson. and so should you.

Since you were not allowed to see her on a web camera nor speak with her and hear her voice, it's very much possible that you were not communicating with the woman whose photos you saw. You were probably communicating with someone who works for her marriage agency. It's even possible you were communicating with a man.

From now on, you should avoid sites that don't allow you to exchange contact information. If you like Ukrainian women, try contacting Ukrainian women on Facebook, on vk.vom or or get the Tinder app.

are you kidding me

SUBMITTED: Friday, February 26, 2016

I am amazed that anyone would think that there is a website that magically will put them in touch with

beautiful (fill in the blank in this case Ukranian) women and this report I was shocked that the writer ws complaining

how "" The website gave no provisions as to how we could meet, any travel tips to the ukraine, or how she could apply for a visa to come here""

are you kidding me. Boy was PT Barnum right


  • Fix Your Reputation The Right Way:

Total Visits since 1997: 8,986,978,521

Estimated amount consumers saved since 1997: $ 15,590,010,907

Commenting on the news review internet dating sign up. Website for dating.

Related News

Comments 0