-
12-15-2017, 08:20 AM
#141
Originally Posted by
BeastMan
This is the move that should make every rational gop voter leave for the Libertarian Party. This shit enfuriates me.
Originally Posted by
dawgs
Some of y’all should recognize it’s ok to agree with a pansy ass liberal on some issues
I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.
-
12-15-2017, 08:47 AM
#142
Originally Posted by
Dawgface
I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 09:16 AM
#143
Originally Posted by
Jack Lambert
Wasn't this passed seven years ago or so? It's wasn't resent.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 09:22 AM
#144
Originally Posted by
Doggie_Style
Are we going to debate abortion next? This kind of political BS should NEVER appear on this site......delete!
Why is everyone so scared of political debates?
-
12-15-2017, 09:25 AM
#145
Originally Posted by
Churchill
Are you saying we had a choice and should have voted for Hillary Clinton ?
I'm not saying you had to vote for Hillary, but you can put pressure on your elected officials and let them know that if they don't fix this you'll gladly primary them for someone who isn't on their knees for Comcast and AT&T next cycle.
WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING?!?
-
12-15-2017, 09:39 AM
#146
Originally Posted by
BulldogDX55
I'm not saying you had to vote for Hillary, but you can put pressure on your elected officials and let them know that if they don't fix this you'll gladly primary them for someone who isn't on their knees for Comcast and AT&T next cycle.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 09:46 AM
#147
Originally Posted by
Lord McBuckethead
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.
Yeah, most of the arguments I've seen against Net Neutrality rank up there with the old Tea Party slogan "Get your government hands off my Medicare!"
-
12-15-2017, 09:46 AM
#148
Originally Posted by
Dawg-gone-dawgs
Why is everyone so scared of political debates?
Because there is no winner. Both sides suck.
-
12-15-2017, 11:09 AM
#149
Originally Posted by
Cooterpoot
Because there is no winner. Both sides suck.
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.
All Aboard and Soft Landings!
-
12-15-2017, 11:16 AM
#150
Originally Posted by
iPat09
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.
Tribalism is a hell of a drug
-
12-15-2017, 11:46 AM
#151
Originally Posted by
Maroons
The FCC will still have punitive power for egregious violations like you're talking about.
No it won't...
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.
Pai told reporters complaints that were protected by Net Neutrality are now the problem of the FTC. If you find out about it...
-
12-15-2017, 11:49 AM
#152
Originally Posted by
Gutter Cobreh
Does everyone pay higher rates for any kind of electricity? Or do you get a discount for using Nuclear Friendly Electricity?
-
12-15-2017, 11:51 AM
#153
Originally Posted by
BiscuitEater
All this does is de-regulate government control of the internet and go back to the way it was in 2014!
Back when ATT blocked Facetime, When Netflix had to bribe Comcast, When Comcast blocked P2P traffic. When ATT had secret Data caps on Broadband....
-
12-15-2017, 11:57 AM
#154
Originally Posted by
sonofozarka
I see the opposite of your power company argument. Repealing NN is going to allow ISP's to charge more to consumers that use the internet and stream more, as well as the content providers that are the ones that need the high speed. Use more, pay more.
Sure it's not fair to us consumers, but as I understand it's not necessarily fair to the ISP's that are having to put millions into infrastructure in order for streaming services like Netflix to work (streaming services are supposedly taking up 50% of internet usage now)
Why shouldn't Netflix have to pay the ISP a fee when it costs the ISP's millions more to deliver their content than it does for them to deliver elitedawgs
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.
-
12-15-2017, 12:00 PM
#155
Originally Posted by
Dawgface
I've always been a Republican but it's issues like this that has me thinking more like a pansy ass liberal.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 12:22 PM
#156
Originally Posted by
SheltonChoked
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.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 01:19 PM
#157
Originally Posted by
Johnson85
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.
WHY IS EVERYONE YELLING?!?
-
12-15-2017, 02:32 PM
#158
Originally Posted by
BulldogDX55
The ISPs make non compete deals with each other and generally have the country divided up into neat sections with very little overlap.
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?
Originally Posted by
BulldogDX55
I don't think a state would have the ability to forced an ISP to provide to a certain area.
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.
-
12-15-2017, 02:46 PM
#159
Originally Posted by
Political Hack
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.
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?
-
12-15-2017, 03:46 PM
#160
Originally Posted by
BrunswickDawg
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?
when did earmarks end?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.