US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1421
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 11 2014 15:39 IgnE wrote: Such as? Most of the 'service' part. Yeah, we don't need multiple broadband lines heading into each household, but beyond that I don't see where the 'natural monopoly' kicks in. If you listen to the NPR story I linked, the UK has considerable ISP competition. | ||
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
How is a law that tells every isp to treat all the information the same and not,for example, charge companies or end users for specific services, empowering the government? What happens when an ISP decides to act contrary to that? | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
If the network is a public good why would you allow a few companies to offer "competing services" for access to it? Those are the perfect circumstances for collusion. There really isn't much to say about distinctions in service. You either have satisfactory internet service or you do not. Distinctions between providers are illusory. There is no scarcity of bandwidth; it's a lie. What we should be doing is building a 21st century network to provide far more bandwidth than everyone here could possibly use. It would be a tiny investment in the infrastructure that has revolutionized the last 20 years. Edit: for accuracy. | ||
![]()
GreenHorizons
United States23274 Posts
On November 11 2014 16:28 IgnE wrote: Yeah the NPR story you linked is with a former FCC board member who now is head of some division at Time Warner and a British guy who speaks about the wonders of allowing different companies to offer "services" over the same pipes. It has no in depth discussion at all, no opposing viewpoints, and seems to misunderstand the very nature of the service being offered. They simplify the issues to a facile question: "do you want a choice or are you happy with Comcast?" If the network is a public good why would you allow a few companies to offer "competing services" for access to it? Those are the perfect circumstances for collusion. There really isn't much to say about distinctions in service. You either have satisfactory internet service or you do not. Distinctions between providers are illusory. There is no scarcity of bandwidth; it's a lie. What we should be doing is building a 21st century network to provide far more bandwidth than everyone here could possibly use. It would be a tiny investment in the infrastructure that has revolutionized the last 20 years. Edit: for accuracy. Kind of reminds me of the interstate highway. I mean it was once called the "information super highway" If only we would of built an national "Information highway" in 1994 or even 2004 on the scale we did the interstate highway... Plenty of things we wasted money on instead, and we would in no way regret having spent billions/trillions on keeping up on the best networks Like for instance, if you asked people even before the war (and especially after) if they would of rather went to war in Iraq (Even for the $100 billion bullshit price-tag) or spent a trillion dollars on broadband for every home it would of been a no-brainer. The Irony of this video and where we ended up... @0:44________@2:15 net neutrality piece________@2:35 specifically____@2:50 regulations___@3:30 Video On Demand | ||
![]()
Doublemint
Austria8554 Posts
On November 11 2014 08:53 Chewbacca. wrote: @Doublemint Crack and heroin hurt a much larger percentage of people than state run lottery does, and in a much more severe way. No real problems with state run brothel. Human trafficking doesn't apply because that implies that it isn't voluntary as nobody signs up to be "trafficked" Sorry, got a bit late on the other side of the Atlantic. Yes I went a bit overboard with some of my examples, the moral/ethical arguments still stand however. What's very intriguing is that so far pretty much all Conservative posters are totally fine with it, kinda similar with the Liberal ones, though here it's at least controversial to some. Over here it would be unthinkable to even suggest something like this as a policy on both sides of the political spectrum. And some of the contra net neutrality arguments are hilarious. | ||
![]()
Doublemint
Austria8554 Posts
On November 11 2014 14:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Well, keep in mind that the current market structure is heavily influenced by past FCC regulations / decisions. So it's largely a swap of this regulation for that regulation. On past FCC reg decisions: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-529-the-last-mile Edit: I mean you could argue that what we have now is a 'regulated industry' like airlines or railroads were (government regulates the competition) that needs to be deregulated. That is indeed a problem. But a different one, and ending net neutrality won't solve it. In all likelihood it will make services even worse for average joe if you prioritize certain data streams based on who is willing to pay for it. | ||
Simberto
Germany11546 Posts
Also, google does not "hog the tubes and should pay more for that". The internet connections to them are already paid for. By the customers. And those customers then decide what they want to look at on the internet. | ||
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On November 11 2014 16:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Most of the 'service' part. Yeah, we don't need multiple broadband lines heading into each household, but beyond that I don't see where the 'natural monopoly' kicks in. If you listen to the NPR story I linked, the UK has considerable ISP competition. I work (to an extent) in the telecoms industry in the UK and I can tell you it's a fucking mess. Specifically the monopoly of the... entity that controls the wiring/infrastructure. For a tiny (advanced) country our broadband capability is woeful. | ||
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
On November 11 2014 19:47 Simberto wrote: The FCC is chaired by a lobbyist that represents the corporations the FCC regulates. Yeah, it's like some of the conservative americans don't even realize how shitty their internet situation is due to the monopoly they have going on, and think that giving those monopoly companies more power to fuck even more people over is a good idea. I can not even wrap my head around this. How can you be both for a free market and against net neutrality? Is regulation only bad if it comes from a government, and not bad if it comes from a monopoly company? Also, google does not "hog the tubes and should pay more for that". The internet connections to them are already paid for. By the customers. And those customers then decide what they want to look at on the internet. Hi Marv :3 | ||
![]()
Doublemint
Austria8554 Posts
On November 11 2014 20:59 Sprouter wrote: The FCC is chaired by a lobbyist that represents the corporations the FCC regulates. Hi Marv :3 Ye but most people don't know or care. And that's just the tip of the iceberg if you look at the landscape/market of ISP's in your country. It puts pretty much all "uncompetitive" European markets to shame. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/531149930703118336/photo/1 | ||
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
| ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
I dunno,i just like to sometimes post links or comments in this thread in the hope it will chance something one day I don't take part in the discussion as I find it rather useless but I do hope to raise some awareness. Even though there are a few democrats in this thread I find this thread very one sided,almost every regular poster on this thread is higher middle class I get the feeling, and the few who are not don't ask any questons either. Forum should have a block option, that way people can simply block me if they don't like it while I can continue to post something now and then without disturbing the discussion for those who are not interested in my posts ![]() The context here is the growing inequity in the usa and the effects it has on ordinary peoples lifes. I think it is close to reaching a climax, and the chart of the economist twitter page seems to confirm this. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 11 2014 23:57 Rassy wrote: Yes I have to agree, I kinda regret posting the vid as I now discovered it is pretty old (2013 or before) I dunno,i just like to sometimes post links or comments in this thread in the hope it will chance something one day I don't take part in the discussion as I find it rather useless but I do hope to raise some awareness. Even though there are a few democrats in this thread I find this thread very one sided,almost every regular poster on this thread is higher middle class I get the feeling, and the few who are not don't ask any questons either. Forum should have a block option, that way people can simply block me if they don't like it while I can continue to post something now and then without disturbing the discussion for those who are not interested in my posts ![]() The context here is the growing inequity in the usa and the effects it has on ordinary peoples lifes. I think it is close to reaching a climax, and the chart of the economist twitter page seems to confirm this. Couple comments: Inequality has been a really hot topic for years and exploded after the financial crisis, so Americans are pretty aware of it. Poverty has also been a big topic for decades, with social programs expanding all along the way. Just don't want you to have the impression that no-one cares about the poor in the US ![]() | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 11 2014 16:28 IgnE wrote: Yeah the NPR story you linked is with a former FCC board member who now is head of some division at Time Warner and a British guy who speaks about the wonders of allowing different companies to offer "services" over the same pipes. It has no in depth discussion at all, no opposing viewpoints, and seems to misunderstand the very nature of the service being offered. They simplify the issues to a facile question: "do you want a choice or are you happy with Comcast?" If the network is a public good why would you allow a few companies to offer "competing services" for access to it? Those are the perfect circumstances for collusion. There really isn't much to say about distinctions in service. You either have satisfactory internet service or you do not. Distinctions between providers are illusory. There is no scarcity of bandwidth; it's a lie. What we should be doing is building a 21st century network to provide far more bandwidth than everyone here could possibly use. It would be a tiny investment in the infrastructure that has revolutionized the last 20 years. Edit: for accuracy. You seem to be saying that all the service providers do is create artificial barriers to access and than charge for the access. Is that technically true? If so than you have a valid point, if not than your argument has a faulty foundation. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
NEWARK, N.J. — In a small, brightly lit office in Newark, Ojore Lutalo lays out sheet after sheet of paper covered in disquieting words and images — collages made from photographs and cutouts from magazines pasted alongside the text of legal documents and blueprints and Lutalo’s words. They are the product of his incarceration for nearly 30 years in a New Jersey prison, 22 of them in solitary confinement. “I would create these collages to help maintain my sanity,” said Lutalo. “I would get up every morning. I would read and write, exercise. I’d write letters. Some days I would do collages all day long. I’d just cut and paste, cut and paste.” On Nov. 12 and 13, the practice of holding incarcerated people in prolonged isolation will come under international scrutiny when the U.S. government goes before the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva, part of a periodic review to assess the country’s compliance with the Convention Against Torture and the first U.S. review under Barack Obama’s administration. This year the 10-person U.N. committee has repeated its concerns about imposing prolonged isolation on prisoners. In a list of issues to be addressed with the U.S. — including the use of secret detention facilities, Guantánamo Bay and the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” — the committee has asked the government to “describe steps taken to improve the extremely harsh regime imposed on detainees in ‘Supermax security prisons,’ in particular the practice of prolonged isolation.” The U.S. government insists that “there is no systematic use of solitary confinement in the United States.” There is abundant evidence to the contrary; Latulo can attest to that. He is just one of tens of thousands of men and women who have spent years, sometimes decades, in solitary confinement in the U.S. One of Latulo’s collages features a drawing of a detention cell where he was held while awaiting a disciplinary hearing. The blood of a previous occupant, who attempted suicide, was smeared on the walls and floor. In the bottom right-hand corner of the picture, the dimensions of the cell, 9 by 15 feet, are written along with the words “Management Control Unit at Trenton State Prison” and “No touch torture.” Another compares the blueprints and disorienting radial architecture of the once notorious Eastern State Penitentiary with Colorado’s ADX Florence Supermax prison. Source | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 12 2014 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: You seem to be saying that all the service providers do is create artificial barriers to access and than charge for the access. Is that technically true? If so than you have a valid point, if not than your argument has a faulty foundation. Pay attention to what Time Warner and the privatization people say that the cables companies do. There's a reason that most people have no fucking clue what they do. They install a box in your home, monitor the network they've been granted stewardship of, and collect your money. | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 12 2014 05:39 IgnE wrote: Pay attention to what Time Warner and the privatization people say that the cables companies do. There's a reason that most people have no fucking clue what they do. They install a box in your home, monitor the network they've been granted stewardship of, and collect your money. What do you mean by 'privatization people'? Time Warner is already a private business. What makes 'the network' (isn't there more than 1?) a public good? What makes access a 'natural monopoly'? From browsing around on the topic (ex. the UK has competition) it seems as though you've gotten a few things wrong. | ||
| ||