Net Neutraily at risk again
- Thread starter Adam Jensen_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
To be fair, republicans have a much easier job, they get elected by saying government cant do anything and should be lessened and then just spend the whole time there not doing anything to prove it.albino boo said:
Republicans also started the really political redistricting. I live in one major city and my district is mostly in another major city because there was a democratic congressmen they really wanted to knock out of office. Far as I know it hasn't worked, but hes no longer my congressman because of how they drew the district.
I have one very important question. Do we even know what the 332 page FCC plan says yet? Because I think I'll be hilarious if it finally gets released to the public and it turns out the republicans were right about some stuff. It'll suck for us, no doubt, but it'll make some people look rather foolish...Adam Jensen said:
Ok, what about Microsoft and Google being two of the top contributors to Obama's campaign? How did you put it... "You don't think that has anything to do with anything?"Dr. Thrax said:
When will people learn both sides are just as fucked as the other?
Probably, considering that other countries would begin succumbing due to pressure like the UK.Zhukov said:
OT: It's funny hearing politicians talk about the internet. Most of them don't know what the fuck it is yet they somehow have the gall to try and make their own arguments on how it should and shouldn't be run.
Like, Blackburn is incredibly full of shit:
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Let's drop the politics here for a second and ask ourselves who benefits if net neutrality is scrapped. Is it the ISPs, the content providers or the consumer? My money is not on the latter 2. The only western nation with shittier internet than the US is Canada, and that's not by much. Are the bribes for a faster pipeline supposed to get them off their asses to get broadband out to everyone? I doubt it. It's just going to line some CEOs' wallets with no net benefit to consumers. Meanwhile everyone else pays more to get their content out there.
There is no scenario where this benefits anyone but the ISPs. So if we can assume that the GOP who are sponsoring this bill are not the fucking idiots that are acting like, how much are they being bribed to back this backwards and corrupt scheme?
There is no scenario where this benefits anyone but the ISPs. So if we can assume that the GOP who are sponsoring this bill are not the fucking idiots that are acting like, how much are they being bribed to back this backwards and corrupt scheme?
I'm not sure what country you're form, but elections in America, especially ones for Congress, are a near complete joke. Only 1/3rd of the population of a state will vote, at best. Most of those people voting are pretty uninformed and just vote for the party lines they support. Not to mention that many times in elections it's the politician with the most money who wins, not the politician with the best thought out policies. There is also a lot of problems in many state elections with gerrymandering.albino boo said:
We're a Democratic Oligarchy. The rich and powerful have a voice, the average citizen does not. I'd rather the FCC manage net neutrality then a bunch of congressmen who mostly got elected because of the support of rich corporations and special interest groups.
Ehhh it's american politics which never cease to confuse me... you have all these people shouting at each other about the country going to shit because of Republicans or because of Democrats, and yet less than 1/3rd of Americans ACTUALLY VOTE, I will never understand why you americans can't just let the 2 sides split into more parties like we have here in Canada, it's much easier to find a party you can get behind, I find you american's are rather torn on which side to support since both sides have stuff you agree with but some stuff you disagree with, huh seems that trying to split our incredibly complex world into a simple "Left Vs. Right" debate doesn't work that well does it? (Snarky canadian comment)
Seriously though I have given up trying to figure out american politicians, all I see is 2 groups of corrupt individuals arguing over who is taking more bribes from corporations or "Special interest groups"
Seriously though I have given up trying to figure out american politicians, all I see is 2 groups of corrupt individuals arguing over who is taking more bribes from corporations or "Special interest groups"
I don't quite get how or why you're arguing republican vs liberals vs IT'S JUST UR OPINIONSalbino boo said:
, but it is a fucking horrible thought that congress could control what happens to the internet with a right or left majority.You do realise they are not trying to save us from the FCC right? They're trying to make it easier to throttle it with payment plans and control it for "the good of the people who democratically voted them in" because we want the "option" to pay the companies more money.
They are literally accusing the FCC of wanting to do EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO DO. That's not a fucking opinion man, that's what's literally happening.
Frankly, the American system needs multiple parties, but also less carrot and more stick. The stick I'm referring to needs to be the political equivalent of the NCAA "death penalty" for colleges.
In order for a new party to exist in America would require any given group to pool their money together and keep special interests totally out. They will, in effect, have to reject any and all trappings of the current political system in favor of actual integrity and honesty. There's too much of a drive to take shortcuts to get to that point.
In order for a new party to exist in America would require any given group to pool their money together and keep special interests totally out. They will, in effect, have to reject any and all trappings of the current political system in favor of actual integrity and honesty. There's too much of a drive to take shortcuts to get to that point.
Indeed, this thread devolved into pure politics too fast. But yes, this whole Net Neutrality deal will not affect high paid executives near as much as the worse case scenario will make low income individuals will be unable to choose how to enjoy content (or even access important stuff) during what's probably the rare times when they can relax.jklinders said:
OT: The thing many people forget or don't know is almost all of the ISPs pushing against Net Neutrality are content providers themselves. They either own TV networks, provide cable TV, have internet streaming services of their own, or a combination of more than one of those. Their fight against Net Neutrality and Title II classification is not just to make petty extra profits off of higher traffic sites and to stop local ISPs from competing, but to directly stifle the competition in the content sector. The big ISPs fear the "cable cutters," who turn to internet streaming as their preferred way to watch content, increasing in numbers, which they are. Instead of doing logical business moves like making (proper, non-extortionist) deals with companies like Amazon and Netflix, or making their streaming services more appealing than Amazon's and Netflix's, the ISPs have decided to take the tried and true route of using the government as a weapon to wield against any competition.
And the funny thing is they don't really need that weapon. Comcast for years has charged almost the same rate for high speed internet access as their triple play package, where you get cable TV, VOIP phone service, and that same internet connection. Title II, AFAIK, will still let them do that. The FCC might be able to regulate that someday, but currently rates for ISP are still mostly unregulated. Also, people were up in arms at the Net Neutrality deal, since it was a national issue. Rate hikes won't seen near as much attention (unless an ISP gets stupidly greedy) as they can increase it incrementally without much notice to each user. This bill is their way to guaranty that they still have control, which they should never have had as much of to begin with.
This war will probably never really be over. We'll see some more hot battles, like the FCC ruling that just past and this. Then a decision that holds for years will be made, and the war will go cold, with only minor details being argued over, until one day, someone royally fucks it up again.
uh what? You realize that the seats the republicans won last election were seats traditionally republican that they lost the previous election, who have now become upset at the Democratic party and Obama by extension. There is a reason why the democrat candidates were throwing Obama under the bus so hard that their ads could be confused for a Tea Party candidate.Dr. Thrax said:
btw, the opposite is going to be true next election I believe with republican candidates fighting to retain traditionally democrat seats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2014
two Democrat politicians were arrested, ARRESTED, for voter fraud. So dont act like the Republicans cheated a win. That is nothing more than blind fanatical bias, and this is coming from someone on the moderate left. Besides its highly doubtful they will keep congress in two years (or take the presidency for that matter)
You basically hit the nail on the head already by mentioning corrupt. The system exists to protect the interests of corporations, because that is where the money comes from. Corporations can donate massive amounts to any candidate regardless of political leaning/affiliation. Once said candidate wins an election, he is already in the pocket of <corporation/rich person> and will cater to their whim. It doesn't matter what the American people want, because they won't get it. The American people aren't rich; the American people aren't corporations. No judges or politicians are in the pocket of the American people. They exist to serve corporations.thewatergamer said:
Which brings us back to the "election" system. You mention the fact that only 1/3 of Americans vote. Do you know why? Because it doesn't matter. It didn't matter that Obama beat Romney. It didn't matter that Bush beat Gore (he didn't, by the way). No matter who wins, they're already in the pocket of the corporations, and will do nothing to defy them. The intelligent Americans have figured this out already, and wrote the system off as a lost cause. The electoral college system, in addition to gerrymandering, already renders actual voting moot. For example, did you know that Gore beat Bush? He had hundreds of thousands more votes - it was close, but Gore won. Guess why Bush got "elected?" Right in one; electoral colleges, hampering the ability of Americans to participate in their own democracy. It wouldn't matter if 100% of Americans voted. Nothing would change.
The stupid Americans, unfortunately, exist in droves. They're the ones who think that political parties actually matter. They're the mouthbreathers who will write angry rants about "hurr durr libtards" or "republicanz r evil" while completely missing the point that neither party cares about, or indeed will do anything to benefit, them as citizens. Anyone that has ever blamed the problems of the country on either party, or by extension, the President attached to either party, is a massive fucking idiot who literally has no idea what the fuck they're talking about and, unfortunately, is the target demographic of the "two-party" election system. Retards that blamed Bush for xyz things he had no control over, retards that blame Obama for xyz things he has no control over. A common occurrence among said mouthbreathers is their ignorance of the actual political system, particularly what branch of government is responsible for various specific decisions (protip; it isn't the President all the time, you morons).
A quick glance at this thread will show you copious amounts of said ignorant people, who seriously believe there's any appreciable difference between parties full of people who care nothing, and will do nothing, for them. If you see anyone that unironically tries to blame the other party for every problem in the country, you can safely ignore everything they say, because they're sorely misinformed at best or intentionally ignorant and deceitful at worst.
That's the American political system in a nutshell. Offering more political parties to "choose from" won't matter; it just means corporations would have to write a few more checks every few years.
