I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.
Printable View
That's because both parties are dominated by their extremes - who are in reality the minority. They are vocal and demanding, and our leaders equate that with power. It shows with issues like this. Most people agree, or are very close to agreement on about 75% of the issues that face this country. The parties have also bastardized too many of the things people actually agree on in an attempt create some sort of self-aggrandizing value for themselves. When one party takes an extreme position on an issue that is way out of step with the public (like Net Neutrality,which polls show 75-85% of Americans agree with) it does make you wonder WTF that party is doing.
Not exactly, but that's right -- net neutrality have been in play for some time now. The FCC first promoted internet "freedom" without regulation, ultimately started fining companies in the W. Bush era, and promulgated rules nearly a decade ago. The most recent version of the net neutrality rules were enacted in 2015, but FCC made numerous such attempts years before that.
Good point. It depends on which basic principals of our country people are willing to stand up for. Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, equality for all people, right to bear arms, right to have free and open elections, hard work, empathy for unfortunate, prison reform, etc. Some of these will detract from this issue, but know that this is the clearest issue of bought and paid for against the US people I have ever seen. I still have seen a single argument against these rules that makes even a common sense case.
I have a fear that people will let something like abortion sway their resolve on this issue. Abortion is a difficult issue that has been discussed for 50 years in this country with no end in sight. It will not be solved anytime soon, nor do politicians want to solve it. Right now it is a wedge issue and they like it that way. They use it to get their people to vote a certain way so they can continue to do this Net Neutrality sort of thing in the background without ever addressing the wedge issue directly.
Honestly, and I know this will never happen, but things will never improve as long as there is a "us versus them" mentality. People need to stop determining if they will listen to someone based on the R or the D next to their name. We are all people. We are all Americans. It's time to grow up, put our big boy pants on, and act like it. Once this country, and I'm including politicians as the main group, decides to stop fighting each other, and arguing nonstop because, "you're a Republican, therefor you're wrong" or "you're a Democrat, therefor you're wrong", the possibilities are endless. Growing up, one of the main things taught is that we should put aside our differences and work together to make things better and to make things right and to take ideas from both sides. When that way of life ended is when this county, and its leaders, began to fail everyone who lives in it.
No it won't...
Pai told reporters complaints that were protected by Net Neutrality are now the problem of the FTC. If you find out about it...Quote:
The rules prohibited the following practices:BLOCKING Internet service providers could not discriminate against any lawful content by blocking websites or apps.
THROTTLING Service providers could not slow the transmission of data based on the nature of the content, as long as it is legal.
PAID PRIORITIZATION Service providers could not create an internet fast lane for companies and consumers who pay premiums, and a slow lane for those who don’t.
I don't know how you get your internet, but I pay for Bandwidth. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to use that in any legal way I wish. I can pay more for 1 Gbps, or less for 18 Mbps. Before Net Neutrality, I could not watch Netflix after work because it ate up 60% of all backbone traffic, and my ISP at the time would throttle them. That's not my problem. I pay for 100 Mbps. I should be able to stream at that rate all day.
If all I wanted to do was look at elitedawgs, I could pick a lower plan, I didn't. And I should be able to get those bits, and not pay extra for some over others.
I was a staunch republican when I got to DC in 2004. By the end of Bush’s 2nd term I had registered as an independent. I was and still am a big states rights advocate. When the GOP abandoned that platform after taking power in DC, and started pandering to special interests for campaign contributions, I was done. I don’t support either party now, have worked for both, but generally find myself siding more and more with Dems on most issues outside of entitlement spending. The middle needs a voice and the two party system doesn’t provide that.
Can a state not regulate internet providers? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the issue, but to me it seems like if you have used gov't granted eminent domain rights (or just franchises allowing you to use public rights of way), then the decision on how to regulate should be at the state level. Alternatively, if you're using federally auctioned spectrum, then maybe there should be some federal requirements. But if the ISP isn't using a federally granted right or privilege, then I'm not clear on why the federal government should regulate it? I guess maybe for the really large companies that are ISPs and content providers/owners, maybe it should be an antitrust issue.
The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap. I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area. Also, smaller ISPs can't really do anything truly independent because they rent the hardware from the big boys, and if they do become a hassle, they just get bought out.
Pretty sure there would have to be an antitrust exemption for them to do this. I'm guessing you are referring to maybe how cable companies used to work, when they were treated more like a utility than they are now?
States have much more leeway than the feds. Unless there is a preemption issue, they can require service in a certain area as a condition of being allowed to serve in a different area. They may not have the law set up to do this, but they can.
Since you worked up there I?d like your opinion on a theory of mine. Here it goes: The elimination of earmarks has killed the incentive for politicians to work together. In the old days, earmarks and support for pet projects in sub committees was how the parties bargained with each other. I?ll swap you this for that. With nothing to trade, the incentive to cooperate is eliminated.
Thoughts?