0
33

[–] Courtjester 0 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago 

It looks like the Republicans are working hard to lose their majority.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 47 points (+48|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] lovesyou 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

preach; upvoat

0
0

[–] srsh 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Wish more people can see through the bullshit that you've just explained. So many people line up behind either Republicans or Democrats and point their finger at the "other" group thinking their superior.

0
1

[–] RedSocks157 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's funny, the Republican party has seen a huge upsurge in support - just not the kind of support the establishment wants! They thought that people were sold on letting corporations run amok, restricting personal freedoms, violating privacy (looking at you, NSA) and perpetual war. Instead, the top candidate for their nomination right now is advocating for higher corporate taxes! Their membership is getting tired of government being huge in the areas like surveillance and tiny in areas like the economy. The movement is deeply against political correctness, even as the Republican party scrambles to show how politically correct it is. I could go on but you get the picture.

I think this election will split the party. I hope it does, because I'm tired of only having two choices in most races. Let's see some fresh and interesting politics!

0
6

[–] common_sense 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They thought that people were sold on letting corporations run amok, restricting personal freedoms, violating privacy (looking at you, NSA) and perpetual war. Instead, the top candidate for their nomination right now is advocating for higher corporate taxes! 

But "restricting personal freedoms, violating privacy (looking at you, NSA) and perpetual war" remain unchallenged by Trump.

0
20

[–] goodluvin 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

current state of US politics

protect the people < protect the profits

0
2

[–] Donttazemebro 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah, seriously I realized it the other. The people in the government are more worried about protecting the government than the people.

0
0

[–] Prophet_60091_ 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Current? It's always been like this since the dawn of time, they're just not trying too hard to mask it now.

1
11

[–] lbruiser [S] 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

1
15

[–] lbruiser [S] 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

House Rushes To Gut FCC Authority To Prevent Inquiry Into Comcast Broadband Caps from the protect-the-status-quo dept Historically, the FCC has steered well clear of regulating broadband prices. Hell, for most of the last fifteen years the FCC hasn't even admitted that high prices due to limited competition are a problem, instead focusing on the politically sexier idea of ensuring uniform availability. The FCC certainly collects pricing data from broadband ISPs, but, at the industry's behest, never shares that data with the public. As a result, we get things like our $300 million national broadband map, which will happily show you (largely hallucinated) speed and competitive options in your neighborhood, but won't tell you how much they cost.

And while the FCC did move last year to expand its authority over broadband providers by reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has stated time and time again that the agency has no intention of regulating broadband rates, either in regards to last mile prices or peering and interconnection. But that doesn't mean the threat of broadband price regulations still can't be a useful bogeyman for opponents of net neutrality.

Still fuming from FCC "power grabs" like raising the broadband definition to 25 Mbps and passing relatively basic and loophole-filled net neutrality rules, the GOP is pushing yet another parade of legislation aimed at curtailing the FCC's authority over broadband providers. And while the legislation is being framed by House members (and ex-FCC members now lobbying for broadband providers) as a way to protect small ISPs from a power mad government intent on dictating sector prices, consumer advocate groups note that as worded, the proposals are largely about ensuring the FCC won't actually be able to do its job:

"The two broadband bills use incredibly broad language that endangers the ability of the FCC to protect consumers from fraudulent charges, threatens the ongoing effort to reform the Universal Service Fund to subsidize rural broadband, and potentially deprives millions of consumers of the right to know how their broadband providers make critical decisions about their broadband subscriptions," said Feld.

If you'd fallen asleep during the admittedly monotonous net neutrality debates after the rules were passed, all you really need to know is that net neutrality opponents in Congress have been trying desperately to punish the FCC for daring to stand up to industry incumbents like AT&T and Comcast. This has included an embarrassing parade of so-called fact finding hearings in which FCC boss Tom Wheeler was scolded repeatedly for challenging the broadband status quo. Burying neutrality and FCC authority killing measures in budget riders has also become a popular pastime.

It should be noted that the House's proposals are largely uncooked. Indeed the "No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Act" (tabled by Representative Adam Kinzinger) only states this:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission may not regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet access service."

Why this sudden focus on the menace that is "broadband rate regulation?" Because companies like Comcast continue to not only impose utterly unnecessary broadband caps and overage fees, but Comcast is now trying to run rough shod over net neutrality by exempting its own services from the usage caps. As the pressure mounts on the FCC to wake up and actually enforce the net neutrality rules the public forced it to adopt, loyal allies in Congress are doing their very best to pull the rug out from underneath the FCC.

The irony of course is that the FCC, regardless of what party is in control, has shown time, and time, and time again that it doesn't give two shits about the high cost of broadband. It by and large has also indicated that it thinks usage caps and zero rating proposals are innovative and nifty. The idea that the FCC is going to aggressively start engaging in broadband rate regulations (when it can't even admit high-pricing is a problem) is another straw man put forth by a Congress whose full-time job is to protect the broadband industry duopoly from the remotest possibility of public accountability.

0
5

[–] RedditIsPropaganda23 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Basically, Fuck Comcast.

0
4

[–] escapefromredditbay 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

and then the FCC suddently gave a shit about their actual job.

you sowed it, time for it to reap you.

0
1

[–] gigglehurtz 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Actually, it's only since Wheeler, the former cable and wireless lobbyist no less, became chairman. There are those who think he's still not doing enough, but he is actually doing things that can benefit consumers. And it's a hell of a lot more than what's been done for consumers in the past.

0
1

[–] deltasly 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Give (USA at least) control to NANOG. I've said it before and will continue to say it.

If that's too loosey-goosey, give us offshoots of ISOC (like the IANA/ARIN relationship, but for layer 1). And give ISOC some teeth, of course. They're global, we (the internet users and operators) could do the regional thing as well.

The only people qualified to run the internet are the people that actually run the internet. Eyeball nets are there and will get their say, but won't be able to take full control like they do today.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
7

[–] rwbj 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

A major problem with capitalism is that in a field that has sufficiently large economic barriers to entry companies make far more money not competing and reaping enormous profits at the customer's expense than they do competing in a race to the bottom of profits.

And imagine what happens to somebody who does go in to try and compete? They spend billions of dollars after what would likely be years of organizing the right to dig up public and private land to lay their infrastructure. Now they're finally ready to 'flip the switch'. They announce their new 50% lower price service with 50% faster speeds. Now Comwarner drops their prices by 50% and also matches the speed. That new company that just spent billions of dollars and years of effort getting here suddenly isn't making all that much money.

This is exactly what happened to Google and exactly what they knew would happen. The reason they chose to get involved was not for profit from the endeavor itself, but because improving overall network infrastructure in the US benefits their other interests. Their expansion has been modest at best because they aren't winning this game, nobody would. I think Google's failure is part of the reason Comcast has become increasingly aggressive in screwing their customers. They know they're providing a critical service and other companies cannot realistically hope to compete against them for reasons that go far beyond just government. This is a problem with capitalism itself.

3
-2

[–] HoocOtt 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

in a field that has sufficiently large economic barriers

You misspelled "large government barriers"

"Google's failure"

Stop right there and think. What is Google doing? Lobbying the government to step in and stop ISPs from charging big huge companies like Google from paying them money for access.

Google and Amazon and Micosoft and Apple and etc have huge piles of cash and are perfectly capable of building there own ISPs and laying fiber if they are threatened with fees from the likes of Comcast.

Net Neutrality as it is implemented (with the FCC choosing winners and losers depending on who donated to Obama and Clinton and who didn't) literally removes these huge corporations from having to compete and build viable alternatives to the current group of ISPs.

This is not a failure of capitalism but in fact how it works to increase service and lower prices. The very thing that happened in your "drops their prices by 50%" example. Net Neutrality is designed to stop the very competition that would facilitate more service and lower prices.

0
0

[–] dottel 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So maybe we should gut the authority of the house?