|
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. |
On January 08 2017 08:56 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has tried to overturn net neutrality rules and help states impose limits on municipal broadband, will be the new chairperson of a Congressional telecommunications subcommittee.
Blackburn will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, committee leadership announced yesterday. She'll take over from Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), another frequent critic of the Federal Communications Commission who was recently selected by fellow Republicans to become chair of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Blackburn has consistently tried to unravel FCC attempts to regulate broadband providers. In 2015, she filed legislation titled the "Internet Freedom Act" to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's then-new network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The net neutrality rules still remain in effect, but Republicans are expected to attack the rules again under President-elect Donald Trump. Blackburn has claimed that the FCC's net neutrality order is an attempt to "set all the rates" that broadband providers charge for Internet service, even though the FCC hasn't tried to do that and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he had no intention of doing so.
Blackburn has also worked to preserve laws in about 20 states that make it difficult for cities and towns to offer their own broadband Internet services. She filed legislation to prevent the FCC from preempting such state laws, saying, "I strongly believe in states' rights." After the FCC went ahead with the proposal anyway, saying it was necessary to improve broadband connectivity in areas with little competition, Blackburn filed another bill to overturn the FCC decision. She wasn't able to get legislation passed, but that FCC decision ended up being overturned in court. Source
Blackburn is a tool, but messing with folks internet is probably the one way Republicans could actually activate enough new left leaning voters to lose everything, probably a good fight for Democrats.
That said, it's unusual for you to leave things I say (related to Hillary) unaddressed. Your thoughts on the whole Russia is anti-US-fracking, so they wanted Trump (not Clinton) to win part of the report?
Also, are you supporting Hillary's (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be one of the Democrats telling her that's a terrible idea?
|
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god
|
On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god
Their corporate/big money sponsors want to. Comcast wants to also, which is why I wont be surprised to see it get some Democratic support from folks like Manchin (who will likely be a key vote in a lot of terrible legislation coming from Republicans).
|
On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god
You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this.
|
On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this.
You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality?
|
On January 08 2017 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god Their corporate/big money sponsors want to. Comcast wants to also, which is why I wont be surprised to see it get some Democratic support from folks like Manchin (who will likely be a key vote in a lot of terrible legislation coming from Republicans).
i just moved to the USA recently and was looking for isps. i read a bunch of horror stories on comcast (data caps and random bill hikes). things are going backward not forward
|
On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality?
Speaking of not answering questions, are you, or hell, any of Hillary's supporters (particularly the ones that said she was done) supporting her (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be advising her against it?
|
On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality?
You might remember the article quoted immediately preceding his comment. You originally posted the article. Tell me, how many times were consumers mentioned? I'll give you a hint from the title: (Congresswoman) (smear description on legislation she wrote) "Name of Legislation" (New position in legislative committee).
So, to restate, my problem lies not in fuzzy feelings of neutral traffic everywhere, but who is empowered to police it and how it is done. Which is why I brought up the current methods of bringing this to the fore (the biased source's unstated basis for current net neutrality rules). I will help donate money to send supporters of this method to a house with 1996 or 1934 technology and live there for a year with the great communications technology of the 30s or 90s.
Find me some sinless angels of heaven, and I will immediately support empowering them to keep ISPs in line on internet traffic. No problem there.
|
Norway28561 Posts
she's popular in nyc. I certainly don't have problems with her running for mayor.
|
On January 08 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? Speaking of not answering questions, are you, or hell, any of Hillary's supporters (particularly the ones that said she was done) supporting her (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be advising her against it?
I'm not interested in discussing every random unsubstantiated rumor about HRC with you. Was that not clear enough?
|
On January 08 2017 10:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
she's popular in nyc. I certainly don't have problems with her running for mayor.
Would you agree that it means she's not done, like many suggested after she lost?
If she used it as a platform for her 2020 run for president (I think she will), would you support her nomination?
|
On January 08 2017 10:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? Speaking of not answering questions, are you, or hell, any of Hillary's supporters (particularly the ones that said she was done) supporting her (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be advising her against it? I'm not interested in discussing every random unsubstantiated rumor about HRC with you. Was that not clear enough?
Doesn't have to be a discussion, I was just curious if you supported it and if Hillary supporters would admit they were wrong about her being done?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The only way I could possibly see Hillary be nominated in 2020 is if the DNC learned nothing and decided that Trump is so weak that they don't really have to try... again. The stench of being a general election loser is not easy to shake, and even the DNC won't be quite so forgiving of being a loser.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On January 08 2017 10:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 10:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:
she's popular in nyc. I certainly don't have problems with her running for mayor. Would you agree that it means she's not done, like many suggested after she lost? If she used it as a platform for her 2020 run for president (I think she will), would you support her nomination?
I don't think she's gonna run for president in 2020 at all. As far as the presidency goes, I still think she's done. Mayor of NYC is a completely different job. And as far as supporting her nomination, that'd depend who she runs against? (I really don't think she'd have a shot though, the experience from this election invalidates much of the reasoning for supporting her over other democrats).
I still think Hillary is a very competent politician. She's as smart and knowledgeable as they get and has a long history of working pragmatically for small incremental improvements. Even if this type of politician was not really trending in 2016, I still believe this is how societal improvement is best accomplished. I don't really believe in revolutions nor populism and I don't want to support a revolutionary or populist candidate.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
She might be able to get the "vindicated loser" position a la Romney if the course of Trump's presidency is conducive to Hillary's talking points. I find it hard to think of any widely mocked proclamations of her that could possibly seem prophetic to the right people though (like Romney's "Russia is the number one geopolitical threat" one). The most memorable quote of hers that I can think of is "deplorables" and that simply won't go down well. It could possibly still happen but I'm just not seeing it - Trump's win was as much a factor of people not liking Hillary as anything else.
|
On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this.
So to be clear, you think blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are rights that ISPs should retain? Or you just think those things should be stopped by... who, exactly? Who would have jurisdiction over that if not the FCC?
|
On January 08 2017 10:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 10:08 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? Speaking of not answering questions, are you, or hell, any of Hillary's supporters (particularly the ones that said she was done) supporting her (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be advising her against it? I'm not interested in discussing every random unsubstantiated rumor about HRC with you. Was that not clear enough? Doesn't have to be a discussion, I was just curious if you supported it and if Hillary supporters would admit they were wrong about her being done?
I said she won't run in 2020. I'll admit to being wrong if she does.
On January 08 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? You might remember the article quoted immediately preceding his comment. You originally posted the article. Tell me, how many times were consumers mentioned? I'll give you a hint from the title: (Congresswoman) (smear description on legislation she wrote) "Name of Legislation" (New position in legislative committee). So, to restate, my problem lies not in fuzzy feelings of neutral traffic everywhere, but who is empowered to police it and how it is done. Which is why I brought up the current methods of bringing this to the fore (the biased source's unstated basis for current net neutrality rules). I will help donate money to send supporters of this method to a house with 1996 or 1934 technology and live there for a year with the great communications technology of the 30s or 90s. Find me some sinless angels of heaven, and I will immediately support empowering them to keep ISPs in line on internet traffic. No problem there.
They were mentioned twice. They're also at the center of the debate over net neutrality (along with the various internet actors, obviously), which is what Incognito's question was about. Also, how is it a smear to state that she's against net neutrality considering that's her own stated position? In any case, I'll ask again: forget the FCC. Are you against net neutrality or not?
|
On January 08 2017 10:44 LegalLord wrote:
She might be able to get the "vindicated loser" position a la Romney if the course of Trump's presidency is conducive to Hillary's talking points. I find it hard to think of any widely mocked proclamations of her that could possibly seem prophetic to the right people though (like Romney's "Russia is the number one geopolitical threat" one). The most memorable quote of hers that I can think of is "deplorables" and that simply won't go down well. It could possibly still happen but I'm just not seeing it - Trump's win was as much a factor of people not liking Hillary as anything else.
I actually think if race riots, anti-Semitism, and the like become prominent enough in the next four years (and it sure seems like that element has been growing lately), "deplorables" might start to seem a bit prophetic. I don't think anything will shake the conventional wisdom that it was a mistake to say though. It's a bit like how as far as everyone is concerned, Dan Quayle can't spell potato(e) and Al Gore thinks he invented the internet. It doesn't matter if it's true, it would be virtually impossible to change people's perception of it at this point.
|
On January 08 2017 10:46 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. So to be clear, you think blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are rights that ISPs should retain? Or you just think those things should be stopped by... who, exactly? Who would have jurisdiction over that if not the FCC?
Congress should write and debate new legislation for limited protections on web traffic limiting and paid prioritization. Like I've said before, we should cast a wary eye on who decides what constitutes unfair practices, lest you help create a worse government-enforced red tape boondoggle to rival the greatest of abuses thus far.
On January 08 2017 10:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 10:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2017 10:08 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? Speaking of not answering questions, are you, or hell, any of Hillary's supporters (particularly the ones that said she was done) supporting her (yet to be officially announced) run for Mayor of NYC or would you be advising her against it? I'm not interested in discussing every random unsubstantiated rumor about HRC with you. Was that not clear enough? Doesn't have to be a discussion, I was just curious if you supported it and if Hillary supporters would admit they were wrong about her being done? I said she won't run in 2020. I'll admit to being wrong if she does. Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:35 kwizach wrote:On January 08 2017 09:19 Danglars wrote:On January 08 2017 09:11 Incognoto wrote:
Are there any actually legitimate reasons to mess with net neutrality? Swear to god You mean using phone company laws from decades ago to apply to ISPs? Transferring regulatory authority from bills of Congress to the FCC? Yeah I'm against the FCC asserting false authority in this manner and I'm in favor of new legislation and discussion on the means of enforcement. The solution to being worried about how ISPs currently and in the future prioritize traffic ... is not to hand it to the feds like this. You're not actually answering his question. He didn't ask about the FCC, he asked about net neutrality. So tell me, how exactly would consumers benefit from moving away from net neutrality? You might remember the article quoted immediately preceding his comment. You originally posted the article. Tell me, how many times were consumers mentioned? I'll give you a hint from the title: (Congresswoman) (smear description on legislation she wrote) "Name of Legislation" (New position in legislative committee). So, to restate, my problem lies not in fuzzy feelings of neutral traffic everywhere, but who is empowered to police it and how it is done. Which is why I brought up the current methods of bringing this to the fore (the biased source's unstated basis for current net neutrality rules). I will help donate money to send supporters of this method to a house with 1996 or 1934 technology and live there for a year with the great communications technology of the 30s or 90s. Find me some sinless angels of heaven, and I will immediately support empowering them to keep ISPs in line on internet traffic. No problem there. They were mentioned twice. They're also at the center of the debate over net neutrality (along with the various internet actors, obviously), which is what Incognito's question was about. Also, how is it a smear to state that she's against net neutrality considering that's her own stated position? In any case, I'll ask again: forget the FCC. Are you against net neutrality or not?
On January 08 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:
Find me some sinless angels of heaven, and I will immediately support empowering them to keep ISPs in line on internet traffic. No problem there.
|
Ok, I wasn't sure that by "keep ISPs in line" you meant enforcing net neutrality rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
