In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Oh don't worry shit rolls downhill so websites and comcast will happily pass any problems down to the average consumer.
So instead of how access works now, you can see how this would likely lead to charging for 'premium access' that's 'guaranteed' to connect you to 'your favorite sites' at 'lightning fast speeds' 'etc...etc...' Individual sites would likely more or less have to do the same. 'Access this site at full speed and with all the best features for only $XX.xx a month'
This is Comcast reaction to the fact that they are becoming obsolete when it comes to content distribution, except for ownership of the cables.
On May 15 2014 19:57 IgnE wrote: Americans are tapping their 401ks at unprecedented rates since the great recession. Maybe that is why debt-load has gone down. Housing lost a ton of value so people don't have access to home equity loans and instead are tapping their 401ks to keep their standard of living. Young workers are tapping at very high rates.
You also have Bloomberg reporting that home prices and sales are only going up on the richest homes, over $1M dollars. Low-end homes, that account for 2/3 of the market have seen a 12% drop since last year. So talk of a housing rebound seems to be illusory, as only the richest, who are the ones who have reaped the benefits since 2008, are the ones who are actually buying houses in this market.
Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits.
I haven't looked into the 401(k) numbers yet but the housing story sounds fine:
Transactions for $250,000 or less, which represent almost two-thirds of the market, plunged 12 percent in the period as house hunters found few available homes in that price range.
New home sales have been doing well. March wasn't a good month (how much do we want to look in to one Month's data?) but if low inventory levels played a role there than we should see increased building in response.
Is it a question of inventory or of builders who know where the demand is?
“With the mortgage headwinds and the lack of job growth and everything else that we dealt with through this housing cycle and now into the recovery, the typical first-time buyer got kneecapped,” Jeff Mezger, CEO of the Los Angeles-based company, said on a conference call in March. “So there is no demand there, and we found a way to go flex up and change product and move as quickly as we could to where the demand was.”
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
So basically they got rid of the ability to throttle websites and they added it right back in?
It's really terrible. Imagine your electricity provider don't powering your refrigerator because he doesn't like the company that produced it . It's bad enough that one or two companies completely control the market, giving them even more power by getting rid of net neutrality is a really bad decision.
Wildfires raged in Southern California on Thursday, keeping thousands of residents and students away from their homes after San Diego County officials maintained evacuation advisories.
Whipped by the wind, flames swept over the parched land close to homes and roads in nine fires across the county, with black smoke filling the sky as California entered the height of wildfire season in the midst of one of the state's worst droughts. No major injuries were reported.
Gov. Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency to free up resources.
A blaze in San Marcos that erupted Wednesday prompted officials to issue evacuation notices for thousands of residents and students at a California State University campus.
Tuzo Jerger was one of thousands told to evacuate as a wildfire ripped across Carlsbad, a suburb north of San Diego. The 66-year-old real estate broker packed files, a surfboard, golf clubs, clothes and photos and sought solace at a friend's hilltop house in nearby San Marcos, only to see another fierce wildfire break out there and force thousands from their homes.
"I thought, 'Oh, my God, it's going to come this way,'" Jerger told The Associated Press at a San Marcos restaurant where he sought relief in a slice of pizza.
The university campus, which has more than 9,000 students, said Thursday that its evacuation orders would remain through Friday and it had canceled commencement ceremonies.
"The fire was right above campus. I could see it reaching over part of the hill, this really dark smoke. It was almost like an explosion," Grant Rapoza, 19, told Reuters.
Wildfires raged in Southern California on Thursday, keeping thousands of residents and students away from their homes after San Diego County officials maintained evacuation advisories.
Whipped by the wind, flames swept over the parched land close to homes and roads in nine fires across the county, with black smoke filling the sky as California entered the height of wildfire season in the midst of one of the state's worst droughts. No major injuries were reported.
Gov. Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency to free up resources.
A blaze in San Marcos that erupted Wednesday prompted officials to issue evacuation notices for thousands of residents and students at a California State University campus.
Tuzo Jerger was one of thousands told to evacuate as a wildfire ripped across Carlsbad, a suburb north of San Diego. The 66-year-old real estate broker packed files, a surfboard, golf clubs, clothes and photos and sought solace at a friend's hilltop house in nearby San Marcos, only to see another fierce wildfire break out there and force thousands from their homes.
"I thought, 'Oh, my God, it's going to come this way,'" Jerger told The Associated Press at a San Marcos restaurant where he sought relief in a slice of pizza.
The university campus, which has more than 9,000 students, said Thursday that its evacuation orders would remain through Friday and it had canceled commencement ceremonies.
"The fire was right above campus. I could see it reaching over part of the hill, this really dark smoke. It was almost like an explosion," Grant Rapoza, 19, told Reuters.
On May 15 2014 19:57 IgnE wrote: Americans are tapping their 401ks at unprecedented rates since the great recession. Maybe that is why debt-load has gone down. Housing lost a ton of value so people don't have access to home equity loans and instead are tapping their 401ks to keep their standard of living. Young workers are tapping at very high rates.
You also have Bloomberg reporting that home prices and sales are only going up on the richest homes, over $1M dollars. Low-end homes, that account for 2/3 of the market have seen a 12% drop since last year. So talk of a housing rebound seems to be illusory, as only the richest, who are the ones who have reaped the benefits since 2008, are the ones who are actually buying houses in this market.
Luxury-home sales are climbing as an improving economy and stocks that have almost tripled from 2009 lows bolster confidence among affluent buyers. At the same time, slow wage growth, tight credit standards and escalating prices are putting homeownership out of reach for many Americans. While investors drain the market of lower-end properties, builders are constructing more expensive houses that generate bigger profits.
I haven't looked into the 401(k) numbers yet but the housing story sounds fine:
Transactions for $250,000 or less, which represent almost two-thirds of the market, plunged 12 percent in the period as house hunters found few available homes in that price range.
New home sales have been doing well. March wasn't a good month (how much do we want to look in to one Month's data?) but if low inventory levels played a role there than we should see increased building in response.
Is it a question of inventory or of builders who know where the demand is?
“With the mortgage headwinds and the lack of job growth and everything else that we dealt with through this housing cycle and now into the recovery, the typical first-time buyer got kneecapped,” Jeff Mezger, CEO of the Los Angeles-based company, said on a conference call in March. “So there is no demand there, and we found a way to go flex up and change product and move as quickly as we could to where the demand was.”
The housing recovery seems to be doing fine. Inventories aren't bloating, prices are rising and last winter was pretty shitty so it is reasonable that sales slumped a bit. Vacancy rates have been low so I'd be surprised if demand didn't recover.
In the last cycle people had been buying homes with little money down. Credit standards have since tightened and home ownership rates have fallen. Is that bad or prudent? It's kind of open to interpretation.
Wildfires raged in Southern California on Thursday, keeping thousands of residents and students away from their homes after San Diego County officials maintained evacuation advisories.
Whipped by the wind, flames swept over the parched land close to homes and roads in nine fires across the county, with black smoke filling the sky as California entered the height of wildfire season in the midst of one of the state's worst droughts. No major injuries were reported.
Gov. Jerry Brown has declared a state of emergency to free up resources.
A blaze in San Marcos that erupted Wednesday prompted officials to issue evacuation notices for thousands of residents and students at a California State University campus.
Tuzo Jerger was one of thousands told to evacuate as a wildfire ripped across Carlsbad, a suburb north of San Diego. The 66-year-old real estate broker packed files, a surfboard, golf clubs, clothes and photos and sought solace at a friend's hilltop house in nearby San Marcos, only to see another fierce wildfire break out there and force thousands from their homes.
"I thought, 'Oh, my God, it's going to come this way,'" Jerger told The Associated Press at a San Marcos restaurant where he sought relief in a slice of pizza.
The university campus, which has more than 9,000 students, said Thursday that its evacuation orders would remain through Friday and it had canceled commencement ceremonies.
"The fire was right above campus. I could see it reaching over part of the hill, this really dark smoke. It was almost like an explosion," Grant Rapoza, 19, told Reuters.
I'm just feeling the absurd heat here working in over 100 degrees, not close enough for the fires. One day off work today for those fires and threat of freeway closures. Once they're contained, quite a bit of work after. One hot dry May out on the west coast.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
The fact that it is even moving forward at all is an insult and shows a total lack of reason (or an attachment to high "donations") by the members of the committee.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
The fact that it is even moving forward at all is an insult and shows a total lack of reason (or an attachment to high "donations") by the members of the committee.
Would you go a step further and say the possibility of insensible committee members is proof enough that they should not have had this power in the first place? Or, should there be a transgression on defined limits to their power, they should be fearful of removal?
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
The fact that it is even moving forward at all is an insult and shows a total lack of reason (or an attachment to high "donations") by the members of the committee.
Would you go a step further and say the possibility of insensible committee members is proof enough that they should not have had this power in the first place? Or, should there be a transgression on defined limits to their power, they should be fearful of removal?
A firing squad should do the trick nicely.
In all seriousness, how can anyone find this a good idea worth exploring?
The thing is net neutrality should just be written into statute. The Netherlands have already done it and every country that values their citizens right of free and fair access to information should do the same.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
The fact that it is even moving forward at all is an insult and shows a total lack of reason (or an attachment to high "donations") by the members of the committee.
Would you go a step further and say the possibility of insensible committee members is proof enough that they should not have had this power in the first place? Or, should there be a transgression on defined limits to their power, they should be fearful of removal?
A firing squad should do the trick nicely.
In all seriousness, how can anyone find this a good idea worth exploring?
I don't really want to play devil's advocate on this one, since most of my arguments on social issues are already construed as the same. My only point is that I think these appointed positions with great power cannot be trusted to act responsibly and should have greater checks than already present on abuse of power. No citizen in a free country should be required to pay attention to 4 month comment periods on a referendum of free speech ... none should take place at all! It was parodied with Adam's Hitchhiker's and the planning committee. But I still find well-meaning types arguing that the problem is just getting the right people in the position, and not simply the position itself paired with human fallibility. But hey maybe I'm a negative nancy and companies paying for faster pipelines will never trend towards slower traffic speeds compared to what I'm experiencing now.
FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers. The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.[...]
Wow... so now there going to allow providers to blackmail individual websites? Sounds like the script for a bad mafia movie. "Hey if you don't pay us more then your website might not always be available."
Nothing is allowed yet. It's going into the comment period and will likely be changed during.
The fact that it is even moving forward at all is an insult and shows a total lack of reason (or an attachment to high "donations") by the members of the committee.
Would you go a step further and say the possibility of insensible committee members is proof enough that they should not have had this power in the first place? Or, should there be a transgression on defined limits to their power, they should be fearful of removal?
A firing squad should do the trick nicely.
In all seriousness, how can anyone find this a good idea worth exploring?
I don't really want to play devil's advocate on this one, since most of my arguments on social issues are already construed as the same. My only point is that I think these appointed positions with great power cannot be trusted to act responsibly and should have greater checks than already present on abuse of power. No citizen in a free country should be required to pay attention to 4 month comment periods on a referendum of free speech ... none should take place at all! It was parodied with Adam's Hitchhiker's and the planning committee. But I still find well-meaning types arguing that the problem is just getting the right people in the position, and not simply the position itself paired with human fallibility. But hey maybe I'm a negative nancy and companies paying for faster pipelines will never trend towards slower traffic speeds compared to what I'm experiencing now.
Your right and I would probably point the finger to the power of lobby in the US. Its easy to forget your morals and "abuse" your power when people keep shoving large piles of money into your lap if you "represent" there interests.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.
Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.
But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.
Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.
But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.
Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.
But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.
Yeah the $100 million going into Kentucky is pretty ridiculous. That's more than 3x as much as was spent on McConnell's last election. Put another way it's ~$32.20 PER registered VOTER!? (~$46 per voter with a generous estimate of turnout)
Just to put that into perspective this is what the most expensive election ever looked like
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.
Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.
But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.
Retarded to waste tax payer money sending this to vote just so that you can point at the opponent and say "look we tried, but they blocked it".
Politics for the sake of politics, and it's downright retarded.
In the realm of US politics, there are far more retarded things than gesticulatory campaign finance amendments. Seriously, of all the things to take issue with......
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wFhsmNh.jpg)
