ugh, hes like the waterboy's mom and climate change is "the foosball."

11/7/2014 11:47:13 AM

Reminds me of this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo

11/7/2014 11:50:18 AM

Quote :

"Senator Ted CruzVerified account ?@SenTedCruz "Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."

https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/531834493922189313

11/10/2014 11:35:32 AM

^additional info:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7185933/fcc-should-reclassify-internet-as-utility-obama-says

11/10/2014 11:49:37 AM

Where can I donate money to Ted Cruz's 2016 Presidential primary run?

11/10/2014 11:49:49 AM

I think i'd side with Obama on this. Net Neutrality = good.

that being said i haven't read through exactly what he is proposing.

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2014 12:20:54 PM

This isn't Obama's "side", this has been the prevailing position of the tech policy groups for a long while now. There's no good reason for net neutrality to be a partisan issue, but it looks like Ted Cruz and Fox News are happy to make this a partisan issue.

11/10/2014 6:10:49 PM

I like the idea of net neutrality. It gives me shivers to think that the FCC could potentially have the power to regulate the internet, so I'm a bit torn here.

11/10/2014 7:49:31 PM

Because as a consumer you trust Comcast and TWC more?

11/10/2014 8:44:21 PM

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

11/10/2014 8:50:45 PM

I trust competition between competing companies to give me better options than I do government enforced monopolies.

Cable service kind of sucks, but it's been forced to improve thanks to competition from dish, directtv, att, etc. If you want to see an example of awful government created monopolies just look at how shitty service is in small local markets where they only allow one provider. It's a rarity now, but it was the norm in the 80s and 90s.

I worry about what's going to happen when the FCC mandates who can provide internet access and for how much and at what speeds. If you think this isn't going to be used to put small providers out of business you're crazy. I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that the current FCC used to be president of a large telecom industry trade group, and one of Comcast's current lobbyists is a former FCC commissioner.

As with most of these bureaucratic positions they basically spend their life bouncing between industry positions and regulatory positions with all the accompanying cronyism and corruption that follows.

It's all fucked anyway. The Oatmeal makes a decent point, but the only reason that Comcast had that kind of power is that they have a bunch of areas where they are a protected monopoly. I count myself lucky that I'm working with a very small ISP in my area and I've got other options. A lot of people in large metro areas really don't, and that's not coincidental.

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

11/10/2014 8:55:09 PM

What competition?

11/10/2014 9:25:28 PM

Quote :

"I worry about what's going to happen when the FCC mandates who can provide internet access and for how much and at what speeds. "

LOL, that's not what's going to happen. Where did you even get this from o.O ? You realize network neutrality isn't actually Obamacare for the Internet??

Quote :

"Wheeler’s proposal said that if it does decide to reclassify ISPs, the FCC would likely forbear from applying all but sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255 of Title II."

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/what-is-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/

This means the price sections that applied to phone call rates definitely wouldn't apply to internet data rates (because they are not really analogous).

The core principles of classification as a common carrier would be to minimize preferential treatment or throttling traffic as a bullying technique.

Title II starts on page 35: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Quote :

"the only reason that Comcast had that kind of power is that they have a bunch of areas where they are a protected monopoly."

In NC at least the GA has recently passed laws protecting the ISPs against municipal broadband, laws they obviously spent lots of money for lobbying. The reclassification could trigger a rescinding or nullification of these protections.

"free market" isn't a religious tenet or a panacea, it isn't a perfectly stable self-correcting mechanism. It can and does fail, constantly, and has failed miserably in the case of the ISP choices.

It will also be interesting too how this affects cell phone data plans. It's cruel irony that websites are getting bigger (sometimes hundreds of MB), cell phones are getting faster, have many MP cameras, can compress and upload video in real time, but data costs are being increased. I would like to see options that don't involve the overhead of all the advertising and coopting content creation by the major network operators. Without common carrier rules, this could never happen.


[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2014 9:27:04 PM

Yeah, you're right, there's never any bureaucratic over reach or spread. I'm sure the 100 year old rules as stated will never change or be re-written when they start to cover internet service providers.

Like i said, I'm in favor of it in theory, but I don't trust the FCC to not completely fuck this up and make it worse.f

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 9:35 PM. Reason : sdfsd]

11/10/2014 9:33:36 PM

If the FCC screws up, we can vote and lobby to change them.

As it is, TWC has been so horrible for me, and I literally have no other option for internet at my apartment. There's nothing I can meaningfully do to affect any change other than to move (and most places i'm looking still only have TWC for high speed internet).

11/10/2014 9:45:21 PM

Yes, because the cable companies don't already control the FCC. They already spend more on lobbying than just about anyone. One of the articles I've read about this mentioned that they were #4 in spending on lobbying alone, not including campaign contributions.

Take a look at the last handful of FCC commissioners and where they came from. Do you think there's any chance they do something that will actually be pro-consumer and hurt the company that they'll be going to work for when the next administration comes in?

And why do you think it is that you can't find another provider? It's not becasue we have a free market, it's because we have locally protected monopolies all over the place.

You really want to fix this then you start mandating open access and start encouraging companies to lay down new fiber and cable.

http://tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/dont-blame-comcast-and-time-warner-for-cable-monopolies-20140305/

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 10:05 PM. Reason : sfsdfs]

11/10/2014 9:55:12 PM

Quote :

"You really want to fix this then you start mandating open access and start encouraging companies to lay down new fiber and cable. "

These are two of the goals/side effects of network neutrality, depending what you mean by "open access".

The cable companies built their monopolies first, and used their influence to cement it by lobbying politicians. They didn't lobby politicians first, THEN build their monopolies.

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2014 10:13:32 PM

I mean open access to public right of ways to build infrastructure. Verizon didn't just stop doing FiOs because no one wanted it, they stopped because of exorbitant access fees to public conduit and poles.

Google Fiber has gone to certain places based on how much they're going to have to pay for right of way. The actual cost of laying fiber is pretty low, it's all the other bullshit that makes it expensive. The wired article I linked to lays it out in pretty plain terms.

This:

Quote :

"The cable companies built their monopolies first, and used their influence to cement it by lobbying politicians. They didn't lobby politicians first, THEN build their monopolies."

Is patently incorrect when it comes tot cable. They essentially bought their monopolies from local governments which mandated one provider by claiming that cable, like water and electric was a "natural monopoly". Here, read this from way back in the day. It's slightly dated, but it's the same process which played out over and over again as cable grew. From there it was simply a matter of creating an interconnected series of territories and then consolidating. You even saw companies swapping territories to facilitate this anti-competitive growth.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM6309.pdf

[Edited on November 10, 2014 at 10:38 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

11/10/2014 10:33:59 PM

Quote :

"Google showed in Kansas City, and now in Austin and Provo, just what can happen if local governments work with"

This is true, and this is where the megacorps used their influence. This was the exact mechanism used to stifle municipal broadband and new competitors here in NC. Standardizing access rules and making them fair should be a tenant of network neutrality (open access is a different problem though), but this is a problem that primarily exists because the cable companies want it to exist.

Those 2 links are really old analysis, the latest one being 1984, I'm pretty sure there are regulatory changes that happened since then, but the original analog CATV systems, which predate fiberoptics, could have been arguable a "natural monopoly." These type of systems don't lend themselves easily to common carrier practices (because they aren't switchable easily-- not until fiber optic analog CATV backbones started being run in the 90s).

Monopolizing 1-way video signals and a monopoly on data services are different beasts, one born from the other, which is what the current legislation is attempting to correct.

Antiquated cable rulings screwed Aereo, seemingly because the judges couldn't really grasp what the technology was doing (or the absurdity of previous rulings that required a 1:1 mapping of subscribers to antennas), but just because there were some unfortunate or just plain bad decisions made with regards to television service in the past doesn't mean we have to continue making those decisions.

We should be undoing those decisions, which is what the common carrier legislation would allow for.

11/10/2014 10:59:33 PM

Yeah, the aero ruling pissed me off quite a bit and was wrongheaded.

I don't know what the solution is, I just know that I don't trust the FCC (which is largely made up of and led by former cable execs) to fix this nor am I super excited about the idea of our legislature, which is notoriously stupid and bought and paid for.

We're one of the worst developed countries in terms of speed and cost for broadband, which is pretty astonishing considering the amount of money there for the taking and the demand for high speed internet access.

11/10/2014 11:12:20 PM

So, this might just be me not being fully informed about Aereo, but what exactly was wrong about the decision? They were taking the feed OTA and selling it to others without paying the copyright holder for the right to redistribute it. That seems pretty open and shut to me. Aereo's claim that they are just "renting an antenna" rings hollow to me, because they aren't sending you the antenna, they are sending you the received signal from that antenna, and it is the signal that is subject to copyright; how they got the signal is immaterial, I would think.

11/11/2014 7:28:17 PM

haha..this shit shouldn't even be reported on if the Democrats had done it...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/politics/twitter-republicans-outside-groups/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

11/17/2014 8:12:10 AM

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/boehner-kills-internet-sales-tax-bill/


I actually applaud Boehner for this, but considering the nature of the internet i actually do think it makes sense for states to get revenues from out-of-state sites. I predict this will come back to life another day.

11/17/2014 1:25:11 PM

11/18/2014 6:54:51 PM

Any chance keystone will come up again? Hopefully it stays dead.

11/18/2014 11:28:52 PM

I imagine it will come up in about 2 months.

11/18/2014 11:47:00 PM

I haven't read this, somebody give me a synopsis
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/

11/20/2014 8:50:21 AM

The headline seems to miss the bad parts of the bill and highlight something that seems fine. It seems appropriate that a board member not be allowed to review their own work, that doesn't mean that they couldn't be called as a person outside the board if someone has questions about their research.

The problems with the bill that I see are:
Requiring the board to be balanced in beliefs
Allowing special interests to be on the board so long as people disclose their association in writing, they can participate on actions even if they directly benefit their interest (as long as they are not the specific party)
Requiring that 10% be made up of members of local, state, or tribal government

11/20/2014 9:55:50 AM

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6193592

Who elects these people...

11/20/2014 5:03:11 PM

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6193592

Who elects these people...

11/20/2014 5:03:11 PM

So if Republicans don't like Obama's legal executive order, it's up to them now to pass a bill on immigration

Lol

11/21/2014 7:34:12 AM

^^Cliven Bundy and friends

^cant wait for the excuses, I always love the creativity.

11/21/2014 8:21:43 AM

Quote :

"Speaker John A. Boehner said Friday that President Obama was “damaging the presidency itself” by using his executive authority to prevent the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. Mr. Boehner said that the House would act to counter the president, but he declined to be specific. “With this action, the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms that he claims to seek,” Mr. Boehner told reporters. “And as I told him yesterday, he’s damaging the presidency itself.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/22/us/republicans-immigration-obama.html?_r=0

LOL, so the tactic at this point is not to comment on the merits of the law, but to attack the idea of the action itself.

That being said, the republicans have pulled some pretty slimily clever things so far, so maybe they have something up their sleeve.

11/21/2014 5:01:37 PM

I love the things they are threatening to do. Defund the agencies carrying out the executive orders? Ok INS, we're not going to pay you to not deport people. Somehow I don't think it's going to require any extra funding to do less work.

Also I am soooooooooooooooo glad this is how they are interpreting the midterm election results,

Quote :

"After Democrats and the White House blamed congressional Republicans for the 16-day government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act last year, Mr. King said, “The punishment for that apparently was 15 new seats in the House and winning the majority in the Senate, so I can handle that kind of punishment.”"

Yep, let's just keep on keepin' on folks, America loves us!

[Edited on November 21, 2014 at 6:45 PM. Reason : :]

11/21/2014 6:40:33 PM

Whose leading from behind now?

11/22/2014 4:17:49 AM

I know the majority of our stupid public thinks the Republicans are in control right now, but you people do realize they don't control both houses until January, right? Until then they're as powerless to pass anything as they've been for the last few years. How about we hold off criticism of the new Congress until they're actually there.

Now, I fully expect it to be a shitshow with lots of vetoes and political grandstanding from the prez and the possible Republican candidates (like, shudder, Ted Cruz), but for now it's a divided partisan legislature with a Senate that refuses to vote on house bills and a house that won't pass Senate bills.

11/22/2014 6:01:42 AM

Republicans have been in control of congress for a few years now

11/22/2014 9:22:19 AM

Quote :

"but you people do realize they don't control both houses until January, right?"

who has acted as if this wasn't known?

11/22/2014 10:04:44 AM

Apparently dtownral for one.

It's been at minimum a divided congress since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007. They had total control of congress for Obama's first two years.

It's been a little while since we had both houses of congress under the control of one party.

[Edited on November 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM. Reason : sdfsf]

11/22/2014 10:06:42 AM

woosh

11/22/2014 1:35:07 PM

Hard to tell with you.

11/22/2014 1:41:54 PM

If two people are in a stationary car, one has the steering wheel with a foot on the gas and the other person with a foot on the brake, who is in control of the car?

Sorry just wanted to get all philosophical for a second..

[Edited on November 22, 2014 at 11:21 PM. Reason : Woah man.]

11/22/2014 11:20:35 PM

I would wonder why two people are trying to drive a stationary car.

11/23/2014 1:54:22 AM

RAWR RAWR STATES RIGHTS

WAIT DC LEGALIZED POT???

SHUT IT DOWN

12/9/2014 11:02:56 PM

The GOP's House Majority Whip was the honored guest at a 2002 White Supremacy convention in New Orleans, confirmed by his office today.

12/29/2014 3:35:47 PM

Where do you see his office had confirmed it?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/steve-scalise-113854.html

Seems all but confirmed, but still not officially confirmed.

12/29/2014 4:02:43 PM

but, but, but the democrats supported slavery and the kkk!!!!

12/29/2014 4:04:31 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/29/house-majority-whip-scalise-acknowledges-speaking-at-white-nationalist-event-in-2002/?postshare=4511419886090562

Confirmed allegedly. Will be funny to see how they respond to this.

[Edited on December 29, 2014 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2014 4:26:25 PM

House GOP Whip Steve Scalise addressed white supremacists in 2002,

Rep. Michael Grimm announced late Monday night plans to resign from Congress, after pleading guilty to a felony tax evasion.

[Edited on December 30, 2014 at 7:14 AM. Reason : -]

12/30/2014 7:14:13 AM

just as a FYI it was confirmed by the WaPo's Robert Costa when I posted that

https://twitter.com/costareports/status/549661881179602945

12/30/2014 9:39:18 AM