US Senators Are Working to Secure Enough Votes to Reinstate Net Neutrality Rules

Repealing Net Neutrality is a step towards removing the corrupt tentacles of an expanding federal bureaucracy from our lives and returning control to the people. If corporations are becoming too big and powerful than "bust" them with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Just say no to a Police State made possible by corrupt use of NN...
 
Taldren said:
As a tax payer, I already pay for the roadways. I still pay the toll to use them. I would pay more if I was a heavy users (ie trucks). You speak as if this is a new concept.
Click to expand...

There's no damage to the hardware by being a heavy user. It's more like having dozens of bike couriers delivering packets, their effect on the pavement is completely negligible.
 
Taldren said:
The same way as trucks pay more to use toll roads as cars, ISPs charge the heavy users of their roadways more as normal users. They increase the costs to netflix so they can pass that fee onto their users. Thus the heavy users pay the higher rate as it should be.
Click to expand...

Not a good analogy IMO . Large trucks cause more wear to the roadways, using more bandwidth does not cause more wear to the internet
 
Crosshairs said:
using more bandwidth does not cause more wear to the internet
Click to expand...


no, but it does cause congestion at peering points, that slows things down for everyone.

but the kicker is.. both sides are already paying for access, content provider and consumer.

dont know why they cannot increase the costs upfront for said service if there is trully a need to do so to keep up with demand
 
Gorankar said:
No, he is saying that Netflix needs to pay for what it uses. It is Netflix not giving you the content you paid for at the speed you want it.
Click to expand...

Netflix pays a non-last mile ISP, yet the last mile ISP wants to charge Netflix more? For the consumer who pays the last mile ISP for service for using their service as advertised...
 
Gorankar said:
No, he is saying that Netflix needs to pay for what it uses. It is Netflix not giving you the content you paid for at the speed you want it.
Click to expand...

Which Netflix pays for to there bandwidth provider, not the last mile ISP. Yet the last mile ISP wants more money for the already paying consumer using the service...

"Rather, the ISPs were allowing for Netflix traffic to bottleneck at what’s known as “peering ports,” the connection between Netflix’s bandwidth provider and the ISPs."

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Wow, you're right. We'd all better vote for the party of open borders, BLM thug worshipping, elimination of 2nd Amendment rights, so we can reverse the "destruction" we're all witnessing of an open and free internet.

I'll bet when Tom Wheeler promised that while reclassification of internet service under Title 2 rules would allow the FCC to BAN CONTENT , they would refrain from using that power, you believed him.
Click to expand...

Well if you're going to use a broad stupid brush to paint all democrats, the same can much more easily be done with republicans, using facts instead of f(au)x news talking points...... But who the fuck does that really help, seriously? Stop eating up their bullshit rhetoric about how it's the other side causing all the problems, so we can try and have BOTH sides work together to try and improve things for everyone......


Flogger23m said:
Yup. The Democrat's platform is that anyone who sets foot in this country for 5 seconds should be granted citizenship regardless of how illiterate or low skilled they are, which is contrary to every other developed country. And why is that? Because the low skilled, uneducated people will vote for whoever gives them citizenship for free even though they did nothing but set foot in this country. The Democrat party will bring anyone into the country at any cost if it means they can secure another vote to stay in / gain power. That is about as corrupt and scummy as you can get. Imagine trying that in Singapore or Australia.

Obviously the Republican party has its issues, but to say the Democrat party is much better is a farce. They'll kick you down the road as soon as the next big voting demographic crops up to keep themselves in power.
Click to expand...


So you mean their platform is the constitution? You know that thing created by the founders giving visitors/outsiders constitutional rights? That was put there on purpose, but sure F the dems for wanted to uphold that.
 
tetris42 said:
Neither party likes to do that anymore. Their donors would see it as a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
The slippery slope is federal control of the internet. The more de-centralized the internet remains the less likely it can be politicized and censored.
 
tetris42 said:
Point #2 kind of negates point #1 doesn't it? Since there's no employee bargaining, who are you going to hire between two equally qualified candidates: the regular citizen, or the one who can get deported if he loses his job, thus allowing you to get more work for less? You say more people with more money is the fastest way to grow the economy. Agreed. However, I think we're looking at more people with LESS money. Race to the bottom economics is very much how we seem to be running things.

As for the military, the point is there's no substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats on that issue. Both have expanded the wars we're in, and both vote to increase the military's budget. You say they needed a funding increase, fine. Trump wanted 636 billion, the DOD wanted 639 billion, 89% of Senate Democrats voted to INCREASE that number to 696 billion. Yeah, the military must be barely scraping by with funding like that. BOTH parties are pro-war, pro-military expansion, because that's what their donors want. That's all there is to it.

It's a misnomer framing the bailout the way you do. We had 3 basic options:
1. Not intervene (would have led to a far worse collapse, but would have prevented things from ballooning even worse later).
2. Bail out key institutions out with massive restrictions (nationalize institutions, pass highly restrictive legislation to make sure this never happens again, etc.).
3. Bail out the banks and give them almost everything they wanted.

We went with option #3. And calling Dodd-Frank a "tough law" is a joke. After all, the banks are BIGGER and more consolidated under 8 years of a Democratic administration. Remember, it's a DEMOCRATIC president who killed Glass Steagall in the first place. It was a DEMOCRATIC administration that didn't prosecute anyone for the 2008 crash and voted to continue bailouts started under Bush. At least during the Savings and Loan scandal, people went to JAIL.

But hey, let's pretend Dodd-Frank was enough. Good thing DEMOCRATS working with Republicans voted to weaken it. Again, both parties have donors on Wall Street and tough regulation is not what they want.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying both parties are the same. On economics, the Democrats are much more 1 step forward, 3 steps back, while the Republicans tend to be 4 steps back. We're still going backwards and on some issues, both Democrats and Republicans are completely in lock step if it what's their donors want.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are very wrong with regards to military spending and the competence of democratic economic policies. Military spending is an investment that pays off with technological innovations. We can see by the recent increased accidents by the Navy and Air Force that equipment needs more maintenance and manpower needs more training than past budgets have allowed. Under Obama the military was being depleted.

Likewise we can see reversing Obama's over-regulation and reducing taxes on businesses and corporations that jobs are coming back. Unemployment is at low levels not seen in years. Democrats are economically incompetent. They are drunk on Marxist dogma.
 
EODetroit said:
You're a fucking liar: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171122-htmlstory.html
Click to expand...
Pai was put on the Board by Obama , see my earlier link. Admit you are wrong or you're a WILLFULLY IGNORANT LIAR and defamer!

Yes Trump elevated him, but he had to elevate one of Obama's picks. If you think this wasn't pre-planned by Obama to work out this way, for the vote swing back to pro-industry, you're smoking crack.

jpm100 said:
"Ajit Pai is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was designated Chairman by President Donald J. Trump in January 2017. He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012.." McConnell may have given the recommendation but I'm sure the propaganda talking point tell you to inflate the importance of the recommendation, but ultimately Obama PICKED him and was his boss. Like the others on the board.
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/ajit-pai
Click to expand...
 
thejokker said:
Sorry but you are very wrong with regards to military spending and the competence of democratic economic policies. Military spending is an investment that pays off with technological innovations. We can see by the recent increased accidents by the Navy and Air Force that equipment needs more maintenance and manpower needs more training than past budgets have allowed. Under Obama the military was being depleted.

Likewise we can see reversing Obama's over-regulation and reducing taxes on businesses and corporations that jobs are coming back. Unemployment is at low levels not seen in years. Democrats are economically incompetent. They are drunk on Marxist dogma.
Click to expand...

You mean the Obama budget that raised spending on personnel and the VA that the Republicans blocked because it didn't spend enough on shiny new toys? Meanwhile the Republican version was to decrease spending on personnel and the VA while increasing shiny new toy allocation.

Just FYI, I had issues with Obama too. But there are crappy Democrats and Republicans. They both try to cut there noses off to spite their face.
 
jpm100 said:
Pai was put on the Board by Obama , see my earlier link. Admit you are wrong or you're a WILLFULLY IGNORANT LIAR and defamer!

Yes Trump elevated him, but he had to elevate one of Obama's picks. If you think this wasn't pre-planned by Obama to work out this way, for the vote swing back to pro-industry, you're smoking crack.
Click to expand...

You're delusional.
 
Obama had to nom an R. Period. There can't be 4 dems as commissioners and in 2012 when Pai got nommed the FCC already had Genachowski, Clyburn, and Rosenworcel, all dems.

The notion that Obama "pre planned" the democrats losing the presidency so that the next commissioner would be an R is retardation at its purest. Obama didn't put Carr in, Trump did, and Carr was the third vote.

e: EODetroit is right: you're a liar.
 
JackNSally said:
You mean the Obama budget that raised spending on personnel and the VA that the Republicans blocked because it didn't spend enough on shiny new toys? Meanwhile the Republican version was to decrease spending on personnel and the VA while increasing shiny new toy allocation.

Just FYI, I had issues with Obama too. But there are crappy Democrats and Republicans. They both try to cut there noses off to spite their face.
Click to expand...
No I mean the general over-all cut in military spending that reduced military readiness. Spending money on "shiny new toys" in reality also means spending on spare parts, fuel and ammunition. People die when equipment isn't properly maintained because of budget cuts. People die when there isn't enough money for training exercises. Obama was a terrible commander-in-chief.
 
thejokker said:
No I mean the general over-all cut in military spending that reduced military readiness. Spending money on "shiny new toys" in reality also means spending on spare parts, fuel and ammunition. People die when equipment isn't properly maintained because of budget cuts. People die when there isn't enough money for training exercises. Obama was a terrible commander-in-chief.
Click to expand...

Especially when the Republicans tried to block everything. Both sides sabotaged each other.
 
thejokker said:
The slippery slope is federal control of the internet. The more de-centralized the internet remains the less likely it can be politicized and censored.
Click to expand...
The point was donors don't like to see government officials breaking up trusts, because that hits too close to home for them. Of course that's something that would be beneficial overall and make the market more competitive, that's why they don't want it.

thejokker said:
Sorry but you are very wrong with regards to military spending and the competence of democratic economic policies. Military spending is an investment that pays off with technological innovations. We can see by the recent increased accidents by the Navy and Air Force that equipment needs more maintenance and manpower needs more training than past budgets have allowed. Under Obama the military was being depleted.
Click to expand...
Obama is just one president, although even under him, he expanded the number of wars we were involved in. Democrats also praised Trump when he bombed Syria. I don't think you can make the argument that modern Democrats aren't pro-military when they're giving MORE than everything the Republicans asked for in the latest budget. I know I'd love to have "opposition" like that; giving me more than everything I ask for. I can believe the Democrats have shifted further to the right since Obama's time however.

thejokker said:
Likewise we can see reversing Obama's over-regulation and reducing taxes on businesses and corporations that jobs are coming back. Unemployment is at low levels not seen in years. Democrats are economically incompetent. They are drunk on Marxist dogma.
Click to expand...
Your facts are so mixed I'm not sure it's worth getting into it here. A few things:

-I agree Democrats have become economically incompetent, but probably not for the reasons you think. We bailed out the banks with almost no strings attached (as did the Republicans) and didn't fix the fundamentals that allowed it to occur. The Democrats basically repealed Glass Steagall (with support from Republicans), which directly contributed to the 2008 crash. Democrats (along with Republicans) have voted to repeal most of the effectiveness of Dodd-Frank.

-Much of the regulations under the Obama administration were to protect clean air and water. Repealing those are good for business in the short to medium term, bad for average lifespans, and takes us closer to being like a third world country over time. Some weren't of much value, but again, he basically gave in to almost everything Wall Street wanted. He should have broken up the banks and prosecuted financial institutions engaged in fraud; THAT would have been some good regulation. Instead they're even larger than before the crash. His financial regulations didn't fix anything. Removing them wouldn't have either.

-Unemployment is currently down, but most of the tax cuts on businesses have gone to stock buybacks. It's not a sustainable situation and the reduced regulation is creating another casino-like environment. We're creating the environment for a 2008-style crash as we speak.

-Comparing modern Democrats to Marxists is complete hyperbole. On economic issues they're farther to the right than Eisenhower or Nixon. Marxists want the eradication of capitalism, economic classes, and wages, with all industry and production falling under public control. Is that what the Democrats were doing when they bailed out Wall Street and didn't break up the banks (or telcoms for that matter)? A first step for an ACTUAL Marxist would be to nationalize the failed industries, which I think modern Democrats would consider unthinkable.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
The point was donors don't like to see government officials breaking up trusts, because that hits too close to home for them. Of course that's something that would be beneficial overall and make the market more competitive, that's why they don't want it.

Obama is just one president, although even under him, he expanded the number of wars we were involved in. Democrats also praised Trump when he bombed Syria. I don't think you can make the argument that modern Democrats aren't pro-military when they're giving MORE than everything the Republicans asked for in the latest budget. I know I'd love to have "opposition" like that; giving me more than everything I ask for. I can believe the Democrats have shifted further to the right since Obama's time however.

Your facts are so mixed I'm not sure it's worth getting into it here. A few things:

-I agree Democrats have become economically incompetent, but probably not for the reasons you think. We bailed out the banks with almost no strings attached (as did the Republicans) and didn't fix the fundamentals that allowed it to occur. The Democrats basically repealed Glass Steagall (with support from Republicans), which directly contributed to the 2008 crash. Democrats (along with Republicans) have voted to repeal most of the effectiveness of Dodd-Frank.
Click to expand...
Actually if you care to look you will see during the first week of July, 2008 both the value of the Euro and the price of a barrel of oil was at a record high. At the end of that first week both the Euro and Oil began a steep and rapid decline. Trillions of dollars evaporated with the revaluation of that currency and commodity. That is what caused the Banking crisis. Bush pursued weakening the dollar to counter the currency manipulation of the Chinese Yuan but the Europeans did not. This resulted in a Euro bubble of sorts which in turn created the oil bubble which burst during the first week of July, 2008. This is all public record. Go ahead and see for yourself.
-Much of the regulations under the Obama administration were to protect clean air and water. Repealing those are good for business in the short to medium term, bad for average lifespans, and takes us closer to being like a third world country over time. Some weren't of much value, but again, he basically gave in to almost everything Wall Street wanted. He should have broken up the banks and prosecuted financial institutions engaged in fraud; THAT would have been some good regulation. Instead they're even larger than before the crash. His financial regulations didn't fix anything. Removing them wouldn't have either.
Click to expand...
I was in school in the 1960's and the air and water quality has improved dramatically since then. The EPA should now wind down to maintenance mode but under Obama they sought to further expand their power beyond their original mandate. Those regulations were strangling small business.

Yes Bankers are greedy bastards but they never the less provide an important and vital service to our economy. Making Bankers the scapegoats serves no purpose.
-Unemployment is currently down, but most of the tax cuts on businesses have gone to stock buybacks. It's not a sustainable situation and the reduced regulation is creating another casino-like environment. We're creating the environment for a 2008-style crash as we speak.
Click to expand...
Unemployment is down because businesses are expanding in large part because of the tax cuts. As more people find work the pool of workers seeking jobs decreases creating a labor shortage. When the supply of jobs exceeds the supply of labor wages grow. The growth of small and medium business is a good thing. What was a factor in the 2008 crash was the bursting of the euro and oil bubble. Today we see a potential Tech bubble but that has been forming over the last few years. The housing bubble burst in late 2007 but was mitigated by increased exports due to a weak dollar and a strong euro. If we experience a bursting of the Tech bubble a strong small and medium business sector could similarly mitigate the burst.
-Comparing modern Democrats to Marxists is complete hyperbole. On economic issues they're farther to the right than Eisenhower or Nixon. Marxists want the eradication of capitalism, economic classes, and wages, with all industry and production falling under public control. Is that what the Democrats were doing when they bailed out Wall Street and didn't break up the banks (or telcoms for that matter)? A first step for an ACTUAL Marxist would be to nationalize the failed industries, which I think modern Democrats would consider unthinkable.
Click to expand...
No... Marx outlined a process a capitalist society would undergo as it transitioned into a communist society. The first step is to become a socialist (fascist) society. Eisenhower and Nixon were definitely not socialists and to suggest today's progressive (socialist) democrats are to the right of those presidents is absurd. Socialists (fascists) want big government to control privately owned industry and production through heavy regulations. Socialists want government control of Healthcare. No... The democrats want to move America away from a free market lassiez faire capitalist society to the first step of a Marxist transition: socialism.
 
jpm100 said:
Pai was put on the Board by Obama , see my earlier link. Admit you are wrong or you're a WILLFULLY IGNORANT LIAR and defamer!

Yes Trump elevated him, but he had to elevate one of Obama's picks. If you think this wasn't pre-planned by Obama to work out this way, for the vote swing back to pro-industry, you're smoking crack.
Click to expand...


Uh, no..... The FCC board is 5 people, 3 nominated by the party in power, 2 nominated by the other party. REPUBLICANS nominated the shit bag pai, and like all previous administrations, Obama did not push back against their nominees. If he had pushed back, the republicans would have lost their shit and made a huge deal. But he followed the norm, and now suddenly it's "OMG PAI WAS HAND PICKED BY OBAMA TO STEAL OUR INTERWEBS!!!!".... Turn off the F(au)X news and stop regurgitating bullshit talking points. Do you think hillary sold russians all our uranium too?


thejokker said:
No I mean the general over-all cut in military spending that reduced military readiness. Spending money on "shiny new toys" in reality also means spending on spare parts, fuel and ammunition. People die when equipment isn't properly maintained because of budget cuts. People die when there isn't enough money for training exercises. Obama was a terrible commander-in-chief.
Click to expand...

So we don't already have that with our current military budget that's larger than with the next 10 countries combined (most of them are (were?) our allies)? If we can't get it done with that, something is seriously wrong with our military and how they waste that fucking money.
 
Question: Now that the big ISPs realize that Obama style network neutrality will cost them less than a myriad of local regulations.... how do you think this will all play out?

I think it's an interesting question.
 
Pai worked for and will be rewarded by Verizon. He was appointed by and supports the republican party.

So, that being cleared up. Support this measure and fuck the man.
 
cjcox said:
Question: Now that the big ISPs realize that Obama style network neutrality will cost them less than a myriad of local regulations.... how do you think this will all play out?

I think it's an interesting question.
Click to expand...

I hope we end up with 50 different versions of net neutrality, one from every state. I think it would be hilarious.
 
They are aware, right, that to really implement a useful regulatory scheme to combat the problems they imagine they could, you know PASS LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT ?

Apparently not.
 
TordanGow said:
I hope we end up with 50 different versions of net neutrality, one from every state. I think it would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

It would be funny, and very "states rights" - ish. I heard that ATT in particular wanted something a bit more than what the FCC did, they wanted a Federal law. Didn't get it. At least not yet. Would be ironic if the real losers ended up being the big ISPs.
 
spaceman said:
Pai worked for and will be rewarded by Verizon. He was appointed by and supports the republican party.

So, that being cleared up. Support this measure and fuck the man.
Click to expand...

Marsha Blackburn is running to replace Bob Corker, two of her top three career donors are AT&T and Verizon.
 
Anyone think that the senate will actually pass anything about this is delusional......Dems and Republicans alike only care about how they look in public.
The biggest and most obvious reasons I hate politics is because the only real interest is how much these guys want their money and money for their friends who make them money.
The democrats only care about keeping their party in power and don't vote on clear conscious only play party line voting.

Republican's can't agree on anything end up fighting each other and democrats about stupid issues that distract from the real problems at hand.

On topic:
Net neutrality should be about fines accessed for trying to pull a fast one on customers and anti-competitive behavior. We already see it from Comcast with the you have to have a cable service or phone to get our cheapest prices for internet. THAT'S the real issue. Its already happening and has been happening for years and they need to deal with it. None of that will change though because the lobbyists already bought their members.
 
Biznatch said:
So we don't already have that with our current military budget that's larger than with the next 10 countries combined (most of them are (were?) our allies)? If we can't get it done with that, something is seriously wrong with our military and how they waste that fucking money.
Click to expand...
We saw with the reduction in military spending under Obama an increase in the instability of the world. The over-whelming military power of the United States is a stabilizing influence in the world.

In addition military spending is an investment that pays dividends. Virtually all of the high technology we take for granted was initially funded by military research dollars. The more we spend on military research the safer we get and the richer America becomes.
 
TordanGow said:
I hope we end up with 50 different versions of net neutrality, one from every state. I think it would be hilarious.
Click to expand...
Actually that would be the traditional American way. It would represent a decentralized solution that would limit the power of governmental abuse of the system. The Federal Governments only role should be to promote fair interstate commerce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top