Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."

Comments

"Destroy ing innovation"

[ArylAkamov]

"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

Examples plz

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[gweilo8888]

They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Failing campaigns gotta get that Telco money

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[cyber-vandal]

Global megacorps aren't those people. You're thinking of local businesses that employ the majority of people, pay taxes and generally provide a useful service to the community. Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you plan on packin' up and headin' up the mountain to enjoy life as a hand to mouth subsistence farmer, you should be backing their positions. You probably take your paycheck for granted, or consider it your god-given right, but every bit of that money comes from a corporation and anything you or anyone else does that hurts the corporation will also hurt you in the end. I get sick of all the people that fail to understand this because they're blinded by the smokescreen the liberals put out painting corporations as monsters. They're simply a vehicle to get money into your wallet. Treat them well and they'll return the favor.

Are you insane or trolling?

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Teun]

We need a new mod, +1 delusional.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[KGIII]

It kind of looks like that, unfortunately. As I'd mentioned before, Rubio's not completely retarded. However, he's approaching that label with this sort of thing BUT I kind of see where he's coming from. I don't agree with him but I can see it from his perspective.

Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer. He has decent views on privacy, for example. I'm not going to vote for him, not in a million years, but he's actually not that bad. It's too bad that he's gone this route and, even more unfortunately, I suspect that the root of this really is campaign funds.

I think if we take the money out of it then we might get some better results. I'm not really sure how to go about it.

I'm not a single-issue kind of person and I'm still going to support Sanders but it's unfortunate to see Rubio take this step. The Republicans are almost certainly going to end up nominating Trump - which is doubly amusing because the staunch Republicans seem to hate him. Hell, even most of the hosts on FNR hate him.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[epyT-R]

So those radical left wing professors egging students to the brink of chaos over 'racism' and 'sexism' aren't also chicken littles? Hillary Clinton isn't backed by big business? Bernie Sanders doesn't want to sacrifice liberties/raise taxes on the middle class in return for more government nannying?

There're plenty of problems with both parties.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

There're plenty of problems with both parties.

Good point - absolutely true. However this article is about Cruz and Rubio. Two people whose personal philosophies seem to hinge on be on the wrong side of every issue.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[epyT-R]

Right, but the gp post was generalizing the party as a whole, not just cruz and rubio.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[hey!]

Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.

In short, they do whatever maximizes profits and which we permit them to do.

Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for a $50M a year company, then I left and now work for a $5M/year company competing with the old company, neither of them are corporations, and I don't think I've ever worked for a corporation.

To clarify, a corporation is a particular type of company that is insured by the courts, so that all the other companies that supply and do business with them are on the hook when they run up bad debt that they can't pay off. The investors (the public shareholders) are not held culpable as are the shareholders of any other company. And they are typically ran by people with little or no financial stake in the company, as opposed to private companies which are almost exclusively operated by the primary owners.

I own stocks in several corporations, so I don't think they are all bad, but there is something slightly pernicious about having a certain class of companies that can run around running up debt, without any backstop if they run out of revenue. If you run a private company, you do have to be very cautious when doing business with corporations, as it's quite easy for them to gamble and dick you around for months until their bets pay off or they go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, you have nobody to chase for your outstanding invoices.

The more exarcerbating thing about today's corporation (as opposed to 1970s corporation) is the unwillingness (due to warped tax codes) to pay dividends to shareholders, because the tax on capital gains is lower than dividends, which means they use questionable and risky growth demonstrations as a way to reward shareholders, when the more responsible thing would be to stay small, and pay dividends, as those risky growth demonstrations don't always materialise into real growth. I think it would be better if the investors like myself could choose what was a worthy reinvestment, rather than having MY money taken and thrown into new questionable investments on my behalf. It's only getting worse now that corporations are throwing their surplus at hedgefunds, bonds, and other things rather than paying us investors. Sure, I can sell my shares, but then I have a smaller holding, and the CEOs, and other shareholders don't want me doing that, driving down their capital gains by reducing the share price. And why should I, when I invested in the company because they were doing X well, and now they are doing Y and Z poorly.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[mikeiver1]

They both received large donations from the People "corporations" that are trying to force us and content providers to pay for normal access to the very same content we should get unfettered already. Both are shit bags and do not deserve anyones support nor re-election.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[vjl]

I would actually say, on the side of the GOP, the most moderate and sane one in that group, is Kasich. He would be willing to work with a Congress that's not from his political party, and his ideals line up to that of the Republicans, rather than the Tea Party [so they are far less right-wing].

I don't vote Repub, but if I had to recommend someone for that side, he would get my recommendation and vote.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.

Depends on the kind of regulations, of course. Contract enforcement? Preventing fraud? Standardizing weights and measures? Preventing abuse of monopoly? All of that is straight-up beneficial.

Most other things are a trade-off. Some trade-offs are worth it, some aren't. Any new regulation in this environment, where all the low-hanging fruit is long gone, is likely to have a real cost in creation of jobs and wealth. Still might be worth it, of course, but it's nonsense to take an extreme stance in either direction.

If we actually had a competitive free market for ISPs, I'd be right there with Cruz and Rubio on this. If consumer choice was a real thing in the ISP market, net neutrality would be a terrible trade off. But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here, so the trade-off looks very different.

Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one. Clinton's biggest donors after the investment backs are the cable companies, so we know where she'll come down on this. I'm sure Trump has a comically entertaining position here - anyone know what it is?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[bondsbw]

Kasich (and Carson) need to get out of the race. Super Tuesday ballots should not have their names. As much as I don't like the side Cruz and Rubio take on this issue, one of them really really needs to beat Trump. I'm sure his ideals are probably worse... it's like he always takes the dumbest idea and goes with it. Kasich and Carson being in the running are causing too much of a split vote on the no-Trump side, that Trump could win the nomination even though most Republicans would prefer anyone else.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[ArylAkamov]

Normal rationality goes out the window (even more than usual) when Politicians are involved.

Fixed that for you.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[hey!]

Well if you stipulate "over" regulation it's logically impossible to disagree that that would be too much. But that doesn't actually tell you anything; it's just a tautology.

Too much/too little regulation seems a simplistic way of framing the problem. I think it makes more sense to start with does a regulation serve a legitimate purpose; then you proceed to whether it is likely to accomplish that purpose, and whether it's costs and unintended consequences are reasonable, what the alternatives are for accomplishing the same thing, etc Many regulations are clearly poorly conceived or can't justify their costs. You could call that "too much- but really what's going on is that such a regulation accomplishes too little for its costs or distributes costs unseasonably.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[pixelpusher220]

they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us.

It already is you dumass. You're defending Comcast...

What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up

Again, this is Comcast. They HAVE no competition because of policies pushed by the GOP.

Truly Sum Dum Ass.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[speedlaw]

The General election will be expensive. Good to let the remaining old school monopoly media providers know to start bunding for you now, if anyone even bundles anymore in the age of SuperPac..... We don't have ABC, CBS and NBC dictating our media, we have Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner. Best be a known quantity for "freedom of choice", you or nothing, and "deregulation" of anything for the consumer but not for the utility. Our campaign manager will be passing by your table.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Ol Olsoc]

"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

Examples plz

I wonder what size campaign contribution that took?

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Jack Griffin]

They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.

And everything always seems related to freedom, even thought it usually means most people will be worse off. Why? Because freedom!

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jack Griffin]

Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas.

You mean like regulations that mean they can't force you to work 18 hour days? Or the regulations that force them to offer safety equipment in dangerous work environments? Or maybe the regulations that ensure you get paid at the end of the week?
I know the right like to throw around 'regulations' as some bogeyman, but all those rules came about because without them, the little guy was getting fucked over in some way. And unless you are the 1%, you are also the little guy. So be thankful those regulations exist.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[mysidia]

They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary,

No... that's not why... that is not the problem. THE LOBBYISTS who specialize in these officials GOT TO THEM. The democrats will scrap network neutrality just as fast.

We need an outrages populous from both their own party and their own party to speak to them about the publics' concern on network neutrality issues.....

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[rtb61]

However the only award he deserves is for the network neutrality doublespeak award. Where every single claim he makes is the exact opposite of reality, they want to "discourage innovation, eliminate need for investment, and get rid of the competitive environment", so apart from being a lying elephant's sphincter, I suppose he is not to bad. Trump is bad but embarrassingly enough he is still way better than the rest of them.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[cold fjord]

"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

Examples plz

There seem to be some problems.

Net Neutrality - Issues

Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.

Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.

Net neutrality for dummies

Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.

Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.

This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.

At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.

Net Neutrality waivers

As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.

The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.

Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[someone1234]

I cannot imagine Trump to be on the right side of this either.
I simply couldn't.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[ArylAkamov]

I think you're the first person to actually give examples!

Thanks for some interesting reading.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC due to mod points.

Most of Trump stuff is pretty center-oriented and not the hidden right-wing agenda that Cruz&Co are pushing.

But Trump is an asshole and would mess up a lot of relations - especially foreign ones - if the counterparts takes offense. Or they will know from the campaign by now that Trump is a noisy buffoon that they can deal with one way or another. Maybe they will just ignore him and work through the other representatives of the government if he gets elected.

Also realize that the Republican Party actually don't want Trump, so they try to put him down - but he is then on his home field because he's used to that tactics and plays it himself. And they are probably scared shitless of bumping him out of the party because then he's not subject to "sore loser" laws in some states and can continue to run his campaign as an independent, and that would actually save him money for the final battle. "Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine".

At least this attack on the Net Neutrality may be one new nail in the coffin for the Republican Party.

When it comes to the Democrats I'm not so worried about Sanders when it comes to the Net Neutrality. Clinton is another matter, she's in the pockets of big corporations.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[vjl]

Carson won't because of what the Cruz camp did to him. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on - in Iowa, before the polls closed, the Cruz camp told people Carson had dropped out, and many of Carson's supporters therefore voted for Cruz. Making those comments before the polls closed is against the rules, and Trump was not happy.

Neither was Carson, who vowed to stay in it as long as Cruz was in it, to take as many votes away from Cruz as he could.

Kinda feels like 3rd grade recess out there...

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Teun]

Yes I agree, a minute after the post I had similar thoughts.
But some thrive in their delusions and see them as very positive :)

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Falconhell]

Ok, hers a real simple point, we in Australia had good bank regulations, that prevented to behaviour that caused your economic meltdown not so long ago, and we even avoided recession.
Surprisingly, complex industries that sail as close as possible to the edge of legality, need complex laws to control their behaviour.
I'm constantly surprised at your need to have the bleeding obvious explained to you.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[dwillden]

Get your facts straight. CNN published that as news that his campaign staffers picked up and pushed, as did at least two other campaigns.

And Trump did the same thing, but without the benefit of a national news network publishing it first. In Nevada on the night of the Caucus he proclaimed that he was the only candidate still in Nevada campaigning.

If you want to criticize the Cruz campaign do it on the issues and the positions of his that you disagree with, not this bs.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[vjl]

Huh? I was talking about Iowa, not NV. And the Cruz camp admitted it and apologized to Carson, but it was still not legit. Here's the Cruz apology: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[kick6]

They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.

Flip one little word in that whole thing, and it reads just as truthfully.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[dwillden]

So was I. Get your facts straight. Yes Cruz did the honorable thing and apologized. But the source for the info his campaign workers were citing was a CNN news report, not exactly a lie or a bad strategy when the media says "Hey this candidate is leaving, Surely that means he's about to suspend his campaign." The Rubio and Trump campaigns also pushed this line.

Then in Nevada Trump claimed falsely that all the other campaigns had abandoned the state for the Super Tuesday races.

Again, if you want to criticize Cruz, do so based on real issues not this bs. Cruz Apologized for election politics that others did as well based on a publicly available news report.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[cdrudge]

I imagine when they stated this that they sounded a lot like this, snickering and barely being able to get it out with a straight face.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[sumdumass]

Do you really think complex regulation allows corporations to not sail as close as possible to legalities?

If anything it allows them to avoid the spirit of laws and exploit the complexities in ways largely unavailable to firms not already entrenched. Regulation should be succinct and clear as possible to not create undue burdens while still achieving the goals intended.

Oh, I'm not against regulation, I'm against over regulation.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[tao]

I'm sure there are plenty of persons capable of driving a car without having a driver's licence, but I still prefer having such a regulation in place... Not all regulations are good, but abolishing regulations blindly is no panacea either. And in the case of Net Neutrality, the pros definitely outweighs the cons.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[dywolf]

corporations don't exist without consumer demand.
no consumer demand, no corporations.
we aren't beholden to them.
they are beholden to us.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[dywolf]

Oh, he did the honorable thing?
After he did the dishonorable thing...but he apologized so that makes it ok?
the Carson flap isn't the only thing he did, unless of course you weren't aware of the fake voter violations he sent out, or the fake checks.

Cruz is the best liar in politics today, and possibly ever.
He makes slick willy look like an amateur.

But we should criticize on issues only and not the character of the man and thing's he's done, right?
Even though you yourself don't follow your own advice:

Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.

(note that the third sentence is completely made up, probably by yourself)

but yeah...we should stick to the issues, and not BS that comes from crazies, right?

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

> and promoting the competitive environment

Which, apparently, you do by getting rid of a law against a seriously anti-competitive practice. #republicanlogic.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

Over regulation may cost somebody a paycheck in a few years.

Under regulation WILL kill a thousand people tomorrow. It has never failed to do so.
And whom it doesn't kill - it enslaves.

One of the last bastions of bona-fide "grabbed from their homes and chained up" slavery in the world is the cocoa bean farms of the DRC - staffed almost entirely by kidnapped child slaves. They are a source of nearly all the chocolate that Hershey's, Cadburrys and Nestle sell. This was first exposed in 2000. All three companies pledged to clean up their act. Bernie Sanders used the popular sentiment to drive through a law prohibiting US companies from importing goods produced by child labour. Then GW pointed at the marketing blitz of "cleaning up our supply chain" ads the the companies were running, said "clearly this industry is self regulating so there's no need to enforce the law" and never enforced the law - 8 years later it was basically languishing in the realm of the forgotten.
It's now 16 years later, not one of the companies have done anything about the problem - in fact, it's only gotten MUCH worse. There are now tens of thousands of these kidnapped child-slaves working those farms under whip, with no payment, little food and no adequate shelter. Almost all of them dying on the job before they hit puberty.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

>Preventing abuse of monopoly

Aaah, so you're in favour of net neutrality then.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[NotDrWho]

Well, Comcast wants to innovate with their own version of the internet that has Comcast ads plastered everywhere, all Comcast-sponsored content, and banners at the top of every page proclaiming how great Comcast is. And they want the diversity of being able to charge extra if you want to leave Comcast-net and go to one of those icky non-Comcast sites. And this will in turn prompt them to invest more in their network.

If only they could stop those party-poopers at the FCC from standing in their way.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

Aaah yes, the classic libertarian fairy tale.

In the real world, it's bullshit. You could possibly argue that consumer demand created them, but there's a point where it ceases to be a factor because choosing NOT to buy no longer has any actual impact on the corporation - in fact even killing it would have zero impact on the founders. A point where punishing it for doing wrong is almost useless because the people who actually have the authority to be responsible for the wrongdoing feel no pain - they just respond to the fines by cutting wages and salaries so you end up punishing a bunch of people who had no power or authority to prevent the bad behavior.

You end up in a scenario where they are the largest employer so everybody HAS to keep them happy, or face a major unemployment issue, they biggest bank account so they can buy more political influence in a minute than you can get with a decade's worth of campaigning. More money than almost any government. And the ability to shuffle themselves around the world picking the laws they like - so instead of competing for our demand - our elected governments are competing for the privilege of letting them be the most lawless.

Corporations are what happens when you take all the worst evils humans are capable off - and remove the fucking leash.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

He is also on the wrong side... just further along. He's the guy who said he wants to have government effectively curate the internet remember - great firewall of china style.
Because literally the only thing worse than ISPs deciding what internet services do or do not work well for you (based on double-pay kickbacks) is having government decide which services you can access.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a worse example of that kind of post, yours.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[jriding]

The same was said for slave labor.
Funny thing is when a company or mega corp actually does look out for its employees they get more in return then just profits.
More pay and better benefits show that the employees work harder, produce more, and the quality of the work improves. They also have more money to spend so that money goes right back to the company producing more profits.

imagine if the companies treated us well and we returned the favor. In stead you would rather us to beg the rich for our small crust of bread, and hope that if we treat them well they will return the favor.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jason Levine]

You are correct, they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us. What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up. It protects the already entrenched and places all sorts of barriers to entry for others that require huge amounts of capital investment and hoops to jump through.

"We're playing baseball with Timmy but he said that since the ball is his he should get ten strikes before he's out, not one. He also wants every hit of his to come with one free base advance. If we tell him no, then he's leaving with his ball and will play with some boys down the street who will give him all the special rules he's demanding."

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jason Levine]

That and "too much regulation" is entirely subjective. Let's suppose a company wants to dump its waste into a local river. Doing this is cheap and they don't need to worry about any cleanup. Unfortunately, people get sick due to the waste dump and regulations are written about proper waste disposal. This will cost the company money, which eats into profits. Of course the company will call these regulations "too much." To the people who are getting sick, though, the regulations might even be not enough. (e.g.. There isn't a strong enforcement provision or there's a loophole that lets them subcontract to another company who dumps the same waste into the same river.)

"Too much regulation" could be that the regulations really are burdensome and don't serve a valid purpose. Or "too much regulation" could mean that the company just wants to take the quick and easy path regardless of who gets hurt in the process because that will make them a few bucks more in profits.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Rockoon]

THE LOBBYISTS who specialize in these officials GOT TO THEM.

The lobbyists wrote the current net neutrality law.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[stealth_finger]

They are only being fed lies by the corporations against net neutrality. I'd love to see how Comcast and time Warner have "donated" (bribed) to lobbyists as well as directly and indirectly to the candidates parties

I'd love to hear what they are being told net neutrality actually is and how that is being sold to them. Basically all this is is corps trying to get government blessing to fuck over their customers even more, extract as much money as possible while giving as little service as possible. It's no wonder the US internet situation is seen as a joke internationally, especially that they practically invented it and gave it to the world. That genie is well and truly gone and no amount of anything can get it back in the bottle. I wonder how long it will be before they try and extend it to GPS signals? If you want accuracy you have to pay, the free version will add random time delays to signals giving you a 500 mile radius circle you could be anywhere in.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[stealth_finger]

Not neccessary. Its obvious, looking back over the last 20 years of net neutrality, that theres been a complete lack of innovation, absolutely no diversity and no investment in the internet as a result of this government legislative stranglehold...

Maybe where you live, look outside the US and you'll see a thriving internet. So how do you think being able to charge more, block/change whatever traffic you want and essentially removing the barriers to entry and replacing it with a vast gaping chasm is going to help?

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Ol Olsoc]

"An offer you can't refuse".

I've often thought that politicians should wear NASCAR style jumpsuits, so we could see who owns them.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Rhipf]

To clarify, a corporation is a particular type of company that is insured by the courts, so that all the other companies that supply and do business with them are on the hook when they run up bad debt that they can't pay off. The investors (the public shareholders) are not held culpable as are the shareholders of any other company. And they are typically ran by people with little or no financial stake in the company, as opposed to private companies which are almost exclusively operated by the primary owners.

Just a slight clarification here. A corporation is any business entity that is incorporated. This could be a public business (one that offers shares to the public) or a private corporation (one that does not offer public shares). So just because your a private company does not mean you aren't also a corporation.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[stealth_finger]

....

Where do you people get this shit from? It's like you want to be charged more for less and are ok with that because hey it's the american way to have corps fuck everyone and do what they want because it's their god fucking given right to maximise profits at the expense of all else. It's always 'hyper regulation' 'strict' regulation as if somehow every packet is going to have to through 50 more hops to validate or whatever. The situation you guys have now is so shit precisely because you have 2 main companies nationwide that hold the bulk the power and you think the fix for the situation give them more?!? It doesn't help they're so misleading in what they say (patriot act round 2)

Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.

What makes fox news or cnn more valid than icanhazcheezburger? who decides? the isps based on who's paying more I'd wager. The only one of those that needs specific treatment is netflix for the streaming video. This works fine now without paying extra. This basically says there's no problem at the moment. Net neutralities aim to keep it as it is by ensuring no company can charge more for certain traffic, basically keeping the network neutral. What you are pushing for is their ability to do exactly the opposite. You want to get to site x but they have an issue with provider y who in your scenario are perfectly able and justified in shutting down access as punishment or whatever.

The against crowd keep saying that without that the internet will starve and die because ...and then lead into a bunch of intelligent sounding babble that isn't really relevant or mean much at all, all hyperbole and strawmen. How is paying a premium to get youtube instantly and making the users who pay less wait 5 mins for buffering going to help 'innovation'? It can't. Basically what will happen long term if this goes through is create another net, like china, irans or one which cant leave the country without being inspected. The rest of the world will duplicate whatever infrastructure is only available in the US, duplicate any services (basically the big websites, that is if they just don't move out on their own) and route around the fucking problem. Meanwhile you're left with slower internet, less sites and higher costs, and for what? The corporations?

The real strawman is, the against net neutrality crowd aren't trying to keep it as it is like they might pretend. They are trying to charge more and monetise more and punish those who won't and net neutrality is a response to stop that. Not the other way around. We don't have these problems in the UK and no one else does either. God knows we all have companies that would love to have a go at it and if it goes through there they might have a crack. But at the moment we have enough healthy competition in the ISP market that it wouldn't even get put on a memo. Anyone suggesting it would quickly lose customers to any of the other ISP (of which there are plenty in competition helping to keep prices down, gee now what does that remind me of).

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Phantom of the Opera]

Perhaps you should be against specific regulations then?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[MachineShedFred]

Abolishment of all regulation is just as ridiculous as those saying that enforcing Net Neutrality is some kind of draconian over-regulation. Nobody is calling for that, because there are many regulations that are just common sense, and prevent bad actors from doing shit they shouldn't ever do.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

No, I'm in favor of ending the local monopolies - it's right there in my post.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[MachineShedFred]

He probably was correct that he was the only one left in Nevada - he had that sewn up by a big margin, and the rest of the candidates moved on to Super Tuesday states.

Saying someone got on a plane and left Nevada is very different from saying that someone has packed it in completely...

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, but I'm sure the Democrats will fix it. No wait, Time Warner is a Top 10 donor for Hillary, underneath 5 wall street banks.

But clearly this is a Republican problem.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[microbox]

But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here

The root problem with ISPs is that the cost of infrastructure creates a huge barrier of entry to new players in the market. This means that, in a perfectly free market, a natural monopoly/duopoly will form, and they will engage in rent seeking behavior. The amount of rent will be precisely that which the barrier to entry allows. The bigger the barrier to entry, the larger the rent. Now, think how many billions it costs to lay fibre-optic cable everywhere. There is a strong argument that the pipes should be managed in the same way as electricity, water, and sewage.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

Yeah... that's never going to happen. Look up the concept of a natural monopoly.

Telecoms is practically THE textbook example.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Ichijo]

Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one.

Wouldn't blocking net neutrality would make it politically easier to fix the root problem?

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[blackomegax]

The stockholm syndrome really took hold in you, damn son.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Nethemas the Great]

Internet/cable service providers are one of the best ways to demonstrate how your assertions are completely specious.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[sudon't]

Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer.

Which is why his campaign is failing. The Right loves Trump because he eschews the dog whistle Republicans have using to lure the racist, the lunatic, and the paranoid into their party, the party of the rich. Instead, he's saying it out loud. The Republicans have long been throwing sops to these people, as they worked on their true agenda, but these people are not sitting quietly anymore. We, on the left, ought to take a cue from them.

Incidentally, I love how all these bills are given doublespeak titles: "Restoring Internet Freedom Act", "Right to Work", "Defense of Marriage", etc. It would be hilarious in a novel.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

So, basically,

make last-mile service a utility like any other

then?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

Telecoms (last mile) are somehow different than power and water in terms of "natural monopoly"?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[rochrist]

Cite please? Otherwise, I might think you're blowing it out your ass.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

Nope, those too are natural monopolies, though power is gradually ceasing to be thanks to new technologies making the initial capital outlay potentially much smaller (home solar and such).
A natural monopoly exists anytime you have an industry where you have a relatively massive initial capital investment required and very low per-unit margines so that it would take decades to recover your investment (remember - you don't count "profit" until after that happens). Anybody who is thinking of competing is now going to be deterred because they will take even LONGER - after all, you have an entrenchment boost already, so with less potential customers - that means instead of 20 years it may now take 40 years to start making a profit (and that's on the very generous assumption that you can take a full 50% of the incumbent's customers in year one - actual projections are more like 2.5%).

In those cases - giving state monopolies are actually *better* for consumers. They are going to have a monopoly anyway, at least if you do it this way you can attach conditions to the deal to reduce the negatives a bit, like forcing them to deploy to regions with few potential customers that private industry would have avoided, regulating certain minimum product quality standards and maximum prices etc. etc.

It's far from ideal - but when the ideal is impossible, it's the best out of two bad deals.

The biggest potential problem comes in if new technology changes the industry and makes true free market competition a genuine possibility. In that case, it's important that there be some sort of escape clause in the monopoly deal that allows government to end it when it no longer benefits consumers. Power is rapidly moving in that direction. In practise such clauses are sadly rare (and they are most rare in countries like the US where the political system is for sale to the highest bidder) but the smarter and better run countries do put them in, in fact they do one better and generally add something like a renewal requirement to the deal - so every 20 years or so they can choose to not renew it if it no longer makes sense - or even give your infrastructure to another company if that company is offering consumers a better deal (which is perfectly acceptable considering the only reason they could build that infrastructure in the first place is because you used your eminent domain as a government to give them access to loads of private property).

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

1) I call bullshit on either Obama or Bernie ever saying that or anything that remotely enough resembles it to make this satire as opposed to just flagrant lies.
2) Or do you mean West Africa ? Because I got news for you - West Africa is, if anything, actually MORE capitalist than the USA - take it from somebody who has lived there and travelled the region extensively.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

I'm not sure if that was meant for me or the AC.
Just in case - a simple google for "child slavery in the chocolate industry" will get you an overwhelming number of articles detailing the things I said.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[rochrist]

It was directed toward the anonymous coward who said the Obama and Sanders both 'said communism is good". Your comment was one thousand percent correct.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[lgw]

No sure what you mean by "state monopolies", but the model used for water and power utilities sure seems like a better model for "last mile" for telecoms than what we have now. Let the last mile be an independent utility company, and certainly "just a pipe". Let the ISPs compete behind that, where there's no natural monopoly.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

I mean a scenario where there is laws granting a company an exclusive right to trade in a given area, or industries actually owned by the state - in both cases it's a monopoly with the power of the state. A natural monopoly is pretty much the only scenario where that's a good thing.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[silentcoder]

I thought so, just figured I'd make sure.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[unixisc]

Trump's position has nothing to do w/ Net Neutrality. It's not clear that even Rubio or Cruz know what it is. Net Neutrality means that if I get Charter Internet service, I should be able to access TV content on, say, CNN.com w/o having to have a full cable subscription to Charter. It's not about the Internet should be equally supportive of Democrats & Republicans.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[unixisc]

That's why we need Trump or Sanders to replace them, and send them all to Chaeeena

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Rockoon]

The guy who fears that lobbyists will write the net neutrality laws is still modded "insightful" even though its been well publicized right here on slashdot that AT&T/etc wrote the net neutrality laws.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[Hognoxious]

The more exarcerbating thing about today's corporation

That's not a word, and even if it was it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Some thing goes for most of what you wrote, actually. You don't seem to understand that there are different kinds of corporations, and as for them being insured by the courts, that's garbage.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[cyber-vandal]

There was no such law here in the UK and yet banks here were falling over themselves to lend stupid amounts of money to people who had no hope of paying it back.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[painandgreed]

Well, if I had to bet money on whether politicians or professors had the peer reviewed articles to back up their claims, I know which one my money would be on.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[KGIII]

Hmm... I'm very, very far to the left - as in, further left than any elected official at the Federal level - even left of Bernie. I'm just there for different reasons. (Don't take this wrong, I like to phrase it that I used logic and reasoned my way to my political position. I can elaborate if needed.)

I say that to point out that I think you might be a little off. If my memory is correct (and it might not be) the Republicans learned their tactics from the Democrats. They just have a different target but the tactics are the same. Hell, even the "Free Speech Zones" came from the Democrats. They were first used at the DNC in 1988, New York as I recall.

It amuses me to no end when the Dems bitch about the Reps tactics. "Oh, they're stalling!" Yes, yes they are... I wonder where they picked that up from? More current, the SCOTUS nominee? Biden rings a bell. No, the Republicans had a good mentor. I believe I said something like this back in the early 1980s, "This is not going to end well." That's probably fairly close to verbatim though it was a bit more nuanced in context. Now? I guess if I had to make a statement (and I feel inclined to) I'd say, "The chickens, they have come home to roost." Or, maybe, "You reap what you sow."

Don't read into that what I didn't say. That is not excusing their behavior, that's the reason for their behavior. It has escalated since in a tit-for-tat from both sides.

Seeing as I've already typed this much... I also must admit that I set a trap earlier but nobody fell for it. *sighs* I pointed out that Clinton, according to PolitiFact, tells the truth only about 25% of the time. I even linked to it. I was hoping someone would look up Sanders' rating. According to them, he tells the truth about 18% of the time. I was hoping someone would point out that the guy I support lies more often than Hillary. I'd already prepared my response, "Yes, but I like his lies better."

Alas, nobody noticed. I do think it's segues into this same line of thought nicely. Though, I should add that I think truth is a very binary thing where politics is concerned. "Mostly true" means not-true to me. It's either the truth or it isn't. There is no leeway where those entrusted with running the country is concerned. I do hold them to a high standard and I think I'm justified in doing so. I was really hopeful about using that line. I've not yet read all of the replies so I've still got a little bit of hope!

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[KGIII]

Hmm... I want to play Devil's Advocate?

If an ISP wants to sell their service and it gives you limited access or intentionally degrades content that is not on its own network and, for example, wants to offer this at a lower price - then why shouldn't they be allowed to sell that service to someone who is a willing consumer of that service? Why are we restricting the freedom of choice from people?

To use the Free Basic thing, why would we take away the freedom of choice where, for example, someone could pay $1/mo for access to just Facebook and Wikipedia? Why not allow them to make that choice? If the customer only wants to pay to access those services (or might only be able to pay for those services) then why shouldn't they be free to do so?

Full disclosure: I've had parts of this conversation before so it's a semi-formalized debate. I've managed to "win" with it but I don't really hold a strong opinion either way. I can see both sides of the argument and I'm inclined to support neutrality but I feel that we have to keep logic and reason in the argument so someone has to play Devil's Advocate. If nobody does so, then how are we sure that we're being logical and not just operating based on emotions?

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[rtb61]

Because it requires an extensive infrastructure, it is not like delivering milk where any can turn up with a truck. It is access to public space for the infrastructure. It is predatory pricing where price drops only when there is competition and goes through the roof once competition is bought out or bankrupted. It is about pricing cabals where the price and service is negotiated behind doors and take your pick and it makes no difference. It is about bankrupting anyone who attempts to enter the market by dropping price during their high debt build and the raising once they are bankrupt. So in a corporate monopoly service, corporate censorship take it or have nothing, it is about denial of service to competitors, is about about ISP becoming gate keeping publishers pay or your content dies, it is about purposefully degraded service because no competition, it is about horrible, absolutely appalling customer service, it is about blatant political corruption by dick head psychopaths greed their only motivation and when it comes morals well they are just utterly absent. No different in the favourite parlance of slashdot of privatising each and every single road, don't pay the toll can't use the road, highest bidder wins the road. Consider a freeway moron, buy a 1 kilometre stretch in a major public area and what is the limit on the toll, $100 because you have to buy kilometres of developed land and turn it into a road and the minute they start buying you drop your toll and for some selectively the toll is $1,000 or $10,000 because you want to bankrupt them to take their business, they don't like it they can spend a billion dollars building their road because you have carefully selected a choke point.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[Jack Griffin]

Excessive regulation can and does hurt the little guy. I expect that isn't something you've really looked into or thought much about.

Having spent a bit of time in state and federal government I can assure you couldn't be further from the truth.
The trouble with the Right is all this catch phrase politics, "Small Government!", "Less Regulations!", "Freedom!". None of these words mean anything without context.
Sure there exists a concept of over-regulation, but just screaming "too many regulations!", isn't really a solution.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[dwillden]

Ted Cruz was still in Nevada and remained so until the Caucuses closed.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[dwillden]

Cruz stood like a man and apologized for something his campaign staff did, not him. Yes he did the honorable thing. He accepted the blame for the actions of a few people in a very large staff of mostly volunteers. Where is the apology from Rubio or Trump for their campaign staff doing the same thing? Where is the apology from Trump for claiming Tom Coburn made statements about Cruz that Tom refuted and repudiated as soon as he did. Where is the apology from Trump for his lie about everyone else having left Nevada (Cruz was still in the state).

What is inconsistent about my line on Hillary? And no the third line is not made up? Hillary is a felon. I spent a career in the Army focused on the safe handling of Classified information. What she did is a felony several times over. She is a soon to be indicted (unless the Obama Justice Dept covers for her) felon. Where is the inconsistency.

Here is the difference: Hillary committed a felony and instructed her staff to commit felonies. Is someone under investigation for multiple felonies a valid candidate for President. Meanwhile some volunteers on Ted's campaign staff picked up a CNN report and started citing it to encourage Carson voters, who supposedly just lost their candidate, to vote for Cruz instead. If you can't see the difference in those acts you are a lost cause.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[MachineShedFred]

Fair enough.

I'm absolutely shocked that someone running for a political office would lie in their own favor.

Re: "Destroy ing innovation"

[pixelpusher220]

My 'tude' is mostly directed at sumdumass as he's just a troll As for what's better, net neutrality is better and it shouldn't be scrapped as the thread is discussing.

Re:"Destroy ing innovation"

[gweilo8888]

I LOL'ed. You couldn't have been more wrong if you tried. I'm self-employed, and have been for close to two decades.

"Consumers should be driving the market"

[iCEBaLM]

How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection? There's no choice, and no transparency, that's the whole fucking problem. If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Lunix Nutcase]

Not to mention the passing of the rules was based on numerous consumer complaints.

Re: "Consumers should be driving the market"

[Zaowulf]

Shhhh.... Don't bother with those troublesome facts and naughty reasoning. Only the large cash donations matter.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the consumer can't drive the market when there is no market. I don't even like network neutrality regulations, but with monopolies in control there's no other way to keep the Internet open.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection?

Well gee! They can start by not reelecting the politicians who grant and enforce those monopolies. It's pretty easy to be informed these days.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[GuB-42]

If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. Nerds like us don't want ISPs to fuck with our connections but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Dragonslicer]

...but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.

That's because many people can't do math.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[retchdog]

Eh, it's not worth it for me to save $8, but it might be for some people. I know a few people from the old BBS scene who were still using dial-up well into 2010. I guess it was enough for them; who am I to judge?

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Pseudonym]

"Consumers should be driving the market"

...unless they want strong encryption. Then screw the consumers and screw the market.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[mrchaotica]

Okay, then what? Tear out all the publicly-funded infrastructure those monopolists have been using? Or force the incumbents to subsidize their competitors so they can catch up?

After all, if you think regulation is wrong then all the existing infrastructure is ill-gotten gains and that illegal advantage must be eliminated. At least, if you're going to be ideologically consistent it does. Otherwise, if you think society should just pick one winning corporation to steal public funds and then allow it to fuck over all of us with them, maintaining a permanent oppressive monopoly because nobody else can catch up, just say so.

Face it, a "free market" for ISPs is no longer an option -- if indeed, it ever was. The choice is between monopoly with regulation to protect the public, or monopoly without regulation to protect the public.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

I don't know what you're going on about. Publicly funded infrastructure can be leased to qualified private operators on a nonexclusive basis. Seems pretty straight up to me.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[jrumney]

"Consumers should be driving the market" is exactly why we need net neutrality. Without it, mega-corporations are the only ones with deep enough pockets to be driving the market.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Rockoon]

That's because many people can't do math.

It is because their variables are different from your variables that you dont understand their math.

Such a plan would be ideal (save them money.. you know, the fucking math you were waving your hands ignorantly about) for almost every one of my friends.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[dave420]

It's really easy - you can take a look at the many countries with saner, functioning internet providers.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[MachineShedFred]

I don't think it's that they can't do math - they just don't see the value. Why spend $60 on a smartphone monthly plan if you're never going to use the smartphone for the "smart" bit and just want to make phone calls?

Why pay for more than you're likely to use? If all you do is the occasional Facebook whatever, some email, and some web searching, why would you give a shit about if Netflix gets a better deal to your neighbor?

That's the problem with issues like this - some people (the Slashdot crowd) are affected disproportionately to other people. So we care a great deal, where others couldn't give a rats ass.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Nethemas the Great]

That would make sense, if a very large portion of the population wasn't under the belief that the President is in charge of all levels and branches of government, from federal, state, municipal, even right down to your HOA. As the worlds largest democratic nation the US recognizes the need for and places a high priority on civics education. Unfortunately, mostly only those outside of the US, say in India, will recognize the irony laced within that statement.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Nethemas the Great]

Name one market where Time Warner and Comcast co-exist.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

They are state protected monopolies in their markets with exclusive contracts. How can there be any competition?

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Nethemas the Great]

That's precisely the point.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

So, you elect people that will eliminate exclusive contracts.. That way Time Warner and Comcast will have to face some competition. What part of that did you not understand?

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[Nethemas the Great]

Perhaps you're not a US resident and can be forgiven for your ignorant and irrational assertion... Suffice to say even painted in the best possible light that is a naive suggestion. Name one state where this has been successfully executed. There have however been local municipalities wherein attempts have been made in that direction only to see a state legislature shut them down.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

You don't get it. All those people, muni, state, whatever, who make the rules are elected officials. People have the power to vote them out, but they freely and expediently and irrationally choose not to. So if there is a problem with your internet, you have to go to the root cause instead of trying to pass blame.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[silentcoder]

Except that it wasn't... you can't retroactively change a contract, even governments are careful about that - and especially so with very powerful companies who can afford long running supreme court cases^H^^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbig donors.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[fustakrakich]

you can't retroactively change a contract

You most certainly can! Prenuptials and wills are changed all the time. We have eminent domain. And we have to work on the judges that would hear such cases also. We have the power, but have learned to feel helpless. If we don't fix it, nobody will.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[mgcarley]

I (or you, if you were so inclined) could get the necessary numbers from the FCC and the necessary insurance then go to any town and get a franchise agreement and start building infrastructure next to any incumbent (because exclusive franchises haven't been legal for a while now).

If I/you had/have/were able to raise the funding, of course.

Problem with doing that is the incumbents tend to be a bit litigious. But that's a private anti-competition issue, not a protected monopoly/exclusive contract thing.

Unfortunately, they are right in that they don't have 100% of the US ISP market, therefore are not a monopoly at a federal level, despite the situation in any given ZIP code (which is where the problem lies).

If things were changed to prevent incumbents from suing potential competition out of business, though... that would probably help.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[mgcarley]

And yet ISPs change terms of service and their contracted rates all the time.

Re:"Consumers should be driving the market"

[mgcarley]

People pay for way more than they're likely to use all the time - it's practically the business model for 3 of the 4 major US cellular providers.

And also why people rent/lease $700 devices for little more than accessing texts Facebook/Instagram/etc (despite a $100 device does that adequately), in addition to the $60/mo smartphone plan (and let's be honest, that's being pretty conservative). All this, whether they can afford it or not.

The only hope

[BasilBrush]

It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you rooting for then?

Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty. The rest of them outright want to strip you of privacy and rewrite the constitution.

Re:The only hope

[NotInHere]

I think Trump makes lots of facist noise in order to appeal for the republican voters so that he gets the candidacy. Once he is candidate he will talk more about his other topics, which are mostly left from popular republican positions. Think of obamacare, he does want a system like that (with small adjustments, which probably even make sense), while rubio and cruz don't.

But the danger in voting for Trump is that it would promote and introduce more facist talk into the political business.

Hillary is establishment. Bernie says that evil evil word "socialism" but he also calls europe socialist, and as an european I pretty much like the systems we have, so I'd probably vote for Bernie if I were american and must chose between all candidates in the race.

Re:The only hope

[hairyfeet]

Nope sorry not gonna happen and here is why...the DNC is NEVER EVER gonna let old Bernie have the nomination, he isn't in bed with the right insiders (in a way he is the left's Trump, disliked by his own side for not playing their reindeer games) while Hillary never met a check she didn't like so Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.

She is 1.- Waaay too stiff and uptight, even when she is trying to come off as friendly her body language just screams "get away from me you peasant!" and her discomfort can be seen a mile away, 2.- she has done even more shady deals than trump has in the past, see Goldman Sachs, the deal with the private prison corp, and the worst one, the one that guarantees her failure in the election? 3.- She has done waaaaay too many flip flops right on camera which makes her look like nothing but a slimy liar trying to say whatever it takes to win. Just look at how quickly that 16 year old kid completely screwed her with the #whichhillary hashtag where they use her own words against her by showing her in the 80s, 90s, and 00s kissing these corps and right wingers by spewing hard right rhetoric, which of course she is now trying to run a campaign where she is against everything she was for.,...not gonna work.

So unless something happens to take Trump out of the race, where Hillary has to face Cruz or Rubio, both of which are even worse at performing than she is? You better get used to saying President Donald.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher taxes and more government spending != liberty

Re:The only hope

[NotInHere]

I don't want to defend him (he's racist), but:

* He is not stupid. Its almost impossible to be stupid and a successful business owner the same time.
* Trump wants to get an ordered immigration system. America had this before the war, when most immigrants came from europe (either because of their religion or because of poverty), you were really privileged with having the atlantic in between. Now the immigrants come from mexico, and mexico is a country which is in a very bad shape. Building a wall is not a solution, but it can be part of a good concept to get order into the immigration process. A nation should have the right to require its immigrants to be registered.
* I don't care about somebody's hairdo

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

We're always going to get higher taxes and more government spending. Cruz's tax plan gives huge cuts to the wealthy and increases taxes on the poor. But his plan doesn't give me anything. It gives the rich plenty. I'm not out "to get" the rich, but why should I vote for someone who tells me he's going to support them and hope I see some benefits? At least with Sanders wants to give me, a member of the middle class, something. I'll take increased taxes as long as I know what I am getting in return and not what the RICH are getting in return. The rich can handle themselves; it's about time the middle class voted for themselves instead of worrying about how much money we give to the already wealthy.

And if you don't like Sanders or the other candidates there is always Gov Johnson the Libertarian candidate. I like some of Sanders' stuff and some of Johnson's stuff. Don't much care for the rest.

Re: The only hope

[Billly Gates]

Trump is the only candidate who wants to force 40% tax on h1b1 candidates to encourage American employment. Just saying

Re: The only hope

[jxander]

Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.

Case in point: this article. Dollars to donuts says Cruz and Rubio don't sincerely hold the beliefs espoused in the proposed bill. Hell, I'd be honestly surprised if either of them could explain the basic concepts of net neutrality and the ramifications of gaining/losing it.

That's not to say that I fully agree with Sanders' plan. Not even remotely. But I'll vote for sincere optimism instead of cynical money-grabbing any day. And twice on Tuesday.

Re:The only hope

[jedidiah]

Bernie's policies don't just require "higher taxes" or "more government spending", they would require a PROFOUND increase in both. There's simply no free lunch, even in societies that believe in that sort of thing. The piper is paid.

Americans have this strange idea that they can have things both ways, spend like drunken sailors, and never have to pick up the tab.

The idea that you can "cut waste" or "cut fraud" just leads to the degredation of whatever program you're trying to gut.

Re:The only hope

[DigiShaman]

Bernie doesn't have a fucking clue, and neither do the fast majorty that support him. Like most politicians, he's just full of platitudes without any serious plan. Same could be said of Clinton and Trump. Cruz has a plan, but he's a bit of a snake in the grass to be sure. I'm not saying who you should or shouldn't vote for, but don't delude yourself in that Bernie "has a plan". No! No he fucking doesn't!! Never had, never will.

Re: The only hope

[nehumanuscrede]

The Democrat Team has a big dilemma at the moment.

They have to consider the very real possibility of the DOJ bringing the hammer down on their favorite candidate. It is no surprise it hasn't happened yet, they're waiting to see if she gets the nomination or not.

If she does, then you bring the inditement and watch the Democrat hopes for the Presidency go down like a ship who just tangled with an iceberg.

They KNOW this is a very good possibility so they have a difficult decision to make. Their favorite candidate ( Hillary ) comes with a lot of risk. Their secondary ( Bernie ) may not be able to overcome Trump.

My guess is Hillary will get the nod, the DOJ will play their ace and it will get real stupid real fast.

Ultimately, it will probably be Bernie vs Trump in the end. Bernie has some great ideas but:

Without congressional support they'll never come to pass and I really don't want to pay more taxes than I already do to fund them. If they can find other ways to pay for them then great. ( back off that defence budget a bit would be a great start )

Pushing me into paying 1/3 of my salary into a bloated and inefficient system without some serious oversight on their wasteful spending isn't going to win a vote from me anytime soon.

As it stands, I might have enough to retire on. Maybe. Voting for someone who wants to take even more money from me makes no sense at all as I prefer not to work until I die.

Re:The only hope

[Nyder]

Who are you rooting for then?

Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.

Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit. Yes, we will pay a slightly higher tax under Bernie, but we will NOT have to pay for healthcare, and that makes it so even with a higher tax, we are paying less a month then currently.

Let's do some math.

Let's say you currently pay $200 a month taxed and 400 a month for healthcare. $600 a month is what you are paying. Except under Bernie, taxes might be $300 but then you don't for healthcare. So what are you total cost under Bernie? $300. Which is $300 less then what you are currently paying.

So ya, fuck you Hilliary because you say you are for the people, but you want me to pay an extra $300 a month.

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.

I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

Hillary will get the nomination....and then promptly get SLAUGHTERED in the general election.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but my experience of trying to pick winners tells me she has it in the bag (and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is here).
My reasons:
Trump is clearly the best Republican candidate. Even if he was Satan himself, the guy has a certain no-nonsense charm that people are attracted too. Cruz and Rubio are too much of the old party that (Churchie, anti gay/abortion) that people are getting sick of. Trump may be a buffoon, but he is a fresh take, and has a personality for TV that sells. So he'll win the Republican ticket.

For the Dems, Sanders just makes too much sense and American voters can't deal with that. They aren't used to it so will be suspicious. Hillary will walk the middle of the road, Ma Kettle, familiar friendly face you all know, and win on the numbers (ie the middle is always fatter than the fringes).

For the same reason, come the big race Hillary is a pro and will continue the trusting old mother routine (regardless of facts, this is her gimmick), while giving Trump plenty of rope to hang himself.
Ignore the policies, the history, and your personal opinion, Hillary has the experience in the game, and for that reason she'll win.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites.

You seem to not understand where Bernie gets his campaign money from...

Re: The only hope

[mishehu]

If I'm not mistaken, Cruz has already publicly demonstrated that he doesn't understand a single thing about what net neutrality is.

Re: The only hope

[cold fjord]

Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.

And what is your ... "basis"... for that claim? Your statement seems to be nonsense to me unless the only way you think the US could be improved would be to turn it into a "workers paradise" as various socialist countries were styled in previous decades. I assume you are aware that "workers paradise" should be understood as being ironic.
 

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no real stake in this contest, but I'm curious as I see this point often trumpeted. I don't think anyone believes that increased government services are free, obviously they require an increase in taxes - isn't a moderate increase in taxes for healthcare better than the current system you have now? Every other first world country has this and their systems are leagues ahead in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. A good healthcare system that runs on your taxes would lower private insurance costs too (if you decide you need it).

You're trading a social healthcare system (among other things, but this is the big one) for a false image of 'liberty' that you don't really have.

Re:The only hope

[BasilBrush]

Trump has the clearest case of narcissistic personality disorder I've ever seen. As such he will only do whatever aggrandises Donald Trump the most. You'de probably right that he'll change track after the primaries. But the trouble is he's completely unpredictable, ad there are no limits to what he will do. That's what makes him so dangerous.

Re: The only hope

[johannesg]

Bernie. He seems to be the only one who genuinely has his shills posting openly on slashdot. The rest of them don't have a pre-canned message they can easily post here to sway our minds.

Case in point: compare #51604627 and #51605469.

Re:The only hope

[BasilBrush]

GOP would never let Trump have the nomination, if they could stop it. But they can't. The same could apply to Bernie.

I think it won't for 2 reasons. 1. His cash is limited. 2. Americans have been trained to equate socialism with evil.

Re:The only hope

[Anonymous Coward]

No taxes and no government != liberty

Re: The only hope

[BasilBrush]

How much do you spend on healthcare?

I have coronary heart disease. Yet I still only spend the equivalent of about $20 per month. (My contribution to the 3 daily drugs I take.) And nothing for visiting a doctor or the hospital. Thanks to the "socialist" UK NHS.

Re: The only hope

[BasilBrush]

Protectionism. Fool's gold.

Re:The only hope

[NotInHere]

Not every business he ran ended in bankruptcy. He at least had some successes.

And he does want an ordered immigration system. He wants people to "go through a process". He does not want to close the border completely.

Re:The only hope

[NotInHere]

He says stuff like "mexicans bring crime into america" or "close the border for muslims". That clearly is racist. Yes he then says that "I like the mexican people" stuff and "I have thousands and thousands of mexicans working for me", but from my standards that sentence alone is racist.

The reason why so many mexicans are criminals is not an ethnic or cultural problem, its a social problem. Its about missing oppurtunity for a legal job and a weak mexican state.

Re:The only hope

[hairyfeet]

She has NO chance in hell. Just go to Twitter and look up the "#whichhillary" tag and see for yourself, you can be DAMNED sure Trump's PR team is busy writing down every single one of those flip flops she pulled and WILL use them in the general election.

This isn't even bringing up the email scandal, the transcripts of the paid lectures she gave the big bankers (which you know someone is gonna leak and they way she is fighting anybody reading them? I bet she promised them a bunch of shit which will bite her right on her well fed ass), her saying black youth needed to be "brought to heel" (yeah that's gonna go over well in 2016) or the huge checks she cashed from the private prison industry AND the Waltons of Walmart infamy, two groups not exactly loved by the average voter.

I'm sorry but its only her own arrogance and belief the presidency is "owed" to her that is keeping her afloat now, she has waaaay too much baggage, too many skeletons, too many shady deals, hell as another pointed out the DOJ probably has enough on her to get an indictment if they want to. its ironic as hell but she is truly the only one with enough nasty backroom deals to make Donald Fricking Trump come out looking as the more honest and trustworthy candidate! Mark my words whichhillary will be her Willie Horton with Trump absolutely burying her in the polls by simply running ads showing her flip flops and the black vote? Seeing her saying they needed to be "brought to heel" will kill any chance a single one will vote for her.

Lets face it she is fucked and I have zero doubt she will end up with a worse loss than Dukakis, its gonna be a slaughter.

Re:The only hope

[dywolf]

a ~9% tax increase in trade for not spending ~15-20% of your income on insurance premiums.
I fail to see how that isn't a worthy trade.

Re:The only hope

[Script Cat]

Exactly, the Republicans fielded a pack of retards this year and put Trump into the mix to make them look normal. The Democrats have Hillary with all her political baggage and allowed Sanders to play to make her look like a centrist. I don't agree with socialism but, we allowed capitalism to end when we stopped trust busting. A market without real competition can not be called capitalism. The only people competing now are employees for jobs and we can't sell off out manufacturing capabilities fast enough. Sanders at least wants what's best for the country but will not have free reign to implement all his socialist ideas. It would be interesting to see the Trump vs Sanders election. I sure hope there is an independent running this year.
No, I am not an unemployed millennial with a degree in art history.

Re:The only hope

[Rockoon]

We're always going to get higher taxes and more government spending.

As long as defeatist twats think that this is true, sure.

Re:The only hope

[jimbolauski]

Liberty ,noun
The authority given to the government to confiscate private property if the owner is deemed to have too much private property.

Re:The only hope

[dave420]

Can you quantify that amount, or is it just "PROFOUND"? If you can't quantify it, you can't use it in the argument. You're going to have to create some other scary sound-bite to use...

Re:The only hope

[dave420]

As long as that process still costs thousands upon thousands per application (regardless of whether it is successful or not) illegal immigration will continue.

Re:The only hope

[sacrilicious]

Who are you rooting for then? Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?

Easy: Bernie. Next question.

Re:The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

It depends. Right now, as private purchasers of health insurance and prescription drugs, we spend more money per capita than any nation with socialized health care. That tells me that the rest of the world may have stumbled onto something that works better than what we're doing - the aggregate negotiating power of an entire nation is going to be far better than each individual insurance pool, being either a single company, or a pool of small companies.

So perhaps adopting a single-payer system would, in fact, be far more efficient on a cost perspective, allowing for "cutting waste" and "cutting fraud" to deliver savings. Yes, taxes would go up - but if the tax hike is equal or less than my monthly insurance premium that is deducted from my paycheck anyway... in the end do I care?

Re:The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

I don't spend anywhere close to 15-20% of my income on insurance premiums. Even if you add in my pre-tax contribution to my HSA and my employer-paid health benefits, I'm just over 5% of the gross pay on the same payslip. Granted, I don't have dependents, so I'm only covering myself.

Where in the hell did you come up with that number, though? It seems like either you made it up, or you have some combination of low pay and high premiums.

Re: The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

If you're voting twice on Tuesday, then it sounds like Ted "Voter Violation" Cruz might be the candidate for you! /rimshot

Re:The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

Education is one of those problems that simply throwing money at it, doesn't fix it. The US spends more per student than practically any European nation, and we have less to show for it. Source: http://www.oecd.org/education/... (page 206 for a nice chart). Are you really saying that the 40% more we spend than Germany is working, when I'm pretty sure just about everyone would argue that German primary education is superior?

Re:The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

People keep saying that experience will beat Trump, yet he's running a mile ahead of two members of the United States Senate, a sitting Governor who was elected to Congress 9 times, and several other Governors and Senators that have already fallen by the wayside.

Why do you think that Hillary's experience will all of a sudden matter, where none of these other career politicians' experience did? I'm absolutely not a Trump supporter - I'd really like to see him crash and burn *right now* in order to salvage one of the other candidates and have a real election this fall, but the argument just doesn't hold water.

Re: The only hope

[Nethemas the Great]

But Trump says he's not even a natural born 'mericon.

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

She has NO chance in hell. Just go to Twitter and look up the "#whichhillary" tag and see for yourself,

Ok just stop. Twitter has never been useful for anything ever, so don't even go there. Even assuming there was some hate campaign, do you seriously think more people hate her than hated GWB in 2004? Haters don't decide elections, voters do, and Hillary will have more of them on the day.

you can be DAMNED sure Trump's PR team is busy writing down every single one of those flip flops she pulled and WILL use them in the general election.

Doesn't matter. He has the loose cannon vibe, which works well against other crazies in the Republican noms, but it won't work against old mom apple pie and ice cream.

This isn't even bringing up...

As I said none of this matters in elections. The big race is all about presenting a facade of security and reliability. Sure Hillary bight be neither, but that's her gimmick. And the reason it's her gimmick is that she and her team knows it will work.

Lets face it she is fucked and I have zero doubt she will end up with a worse loss than Dukakis, its gonna be a slaughter.

Care to place a friendly wager?

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

Education is one of those problems that simply throwing money at it, doesn't fix it.

Of course not. Throwing money into a fire won't put it out either, but there are solutions that exist that require money to implement.

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

Why do you think that Hillary's experience will all of a sudden matter, where none of these other career politicians' experience did?

Because in the eyes of Joe Average, she has not only been a Senator, but Sec of State, and First Lady. Sure that might not mean anything to you or me, but when compared a hothead from Queens, it's almost like royalty.
I know this doesn't matter when any scrutiny is applied, but that's the thing about elections, perception is reality.

Re:The only hope

[silentcoder]

Neither of those things have anything to do with liberty whatsoever. But republicans love to tell you they do, so you're busy looking at that while they strip all your ACTUAL liberties away. Censoring the media to appease their social conservative base, making abortions de facto impossible to get with onerous regulations (where was that anti-regulation stance from Cruz when his state passed a series of regulations that left the largest state with only two providers for this service ?), starting unwinnable wars to give money to their defense-contractor-cronies.

Some of the most free countries in the world also have some of the highest taxes - it's simply not important. What *does* matter is:
1) Are you getting value for your money - is your taxes well-spent, on high quality government services that are as good as the market would have provided without the onerous need to pay for somebody else's profits ? That's a win everytime you can get it, and exactly why universal healthcare is actually cheaper for society (much) than so-called free market healthcare. People say Bernie's plan would cost too much, but utterly ignore 50% of the balance sheet, it's always cost less to do this right - and there's no evidence it wouldn't this time.
2) What quality of life can you get with the money you keep ? If you had half as much cash as you do now, but had a nicer house, a nicer car, shorter hours away from your family, could afford a decent vacation once a year - would you care ? Would you SERIOUSLY call that a bad deal ?

I would rather defend freedoms that matter, like freedom of thought and freedom of speech and privacy, than worry about something as utterly insignificant to the world as the tax rate.

Re:The only hope

[silentcoder]

I did the math for my own country recently. To give everybody who got at least a 50% average in highschool free university (including a living stipend and with about a 30% budget boost to hire additional lecturers, build infrastructure for the increased student numbers etc. etc) would work out to about half a million rand per candidate.
Then I worked out what happens if we DON'T do that. Without a tertiary education in this country - you will never earn more than minimum wage levels, it's virtually impossible - maybe one in ten-thousand manage it, so you can't bet on those odds. Instead - you're talking poverty, which means that person uses more healthcare, and has to use the public healthcare facilities that taxpayers fund, that person spends a lot more time unemployed (because low-skill jobs tend not to have job security) so we're spending a lot more money on social safety nets to keep her from starving than we otherwise would - she is never earning enough to pay income tax, but she still uses services like roads and sewage which she isn't helping to pay upkeep on. She spends almost her entire income just on surviving - that is, on essential goods, so she isn't paying sales tax either. Over her lifetime her entire tax bill is maybe 3000-rand (inflation adjusted over 50 years from high-school graduation) - but she's cost the treasury at least 5-million. That's ten times what it would have cost to send her to university. Even though if we do this many would drop-out and not complete, a lot would finish - and they earn middle-class incomes. They pay income tax. They buy houses and cars and pay taxes on those. They have job security so they rarely if ever use the social safety net. They can afford private medical care so they are reducing the burden on the public clinics.

Even if only 10% of them actually graduated, society would turn a massive profit on the deal, the tax-income from all these educated people exceeds the cost of educating them many times over. That's money I save.

Re:The only hope

[silentcoder]

>Proposing $19 trillion in new give-aways that only those who don't pay income taxes could love, and which the other half of the country (which DOES pay income taxes) won't support, is sane?

You can always tell an idiot by his inability to recognize the difference between an investment and an expense. They usually use phrases like "no such thing as a free lunch" because they are incapable of figuring out that if you spend money on the right things you MAKE more money than you spent. The weird thing is, when their wealthy corporation-buddies do that, they praise it, and those guys do it all the time - but when somebody suggests government does it, then they call him crazy...

Republicans have been telling us for years that "government should be run more like a business" - well THIS is how you run government more like a business: by buying assets that will make you more money than it will cost. Assets like lots and lots of college graduates who don't have debt and earn taxable incomes. Assets like public healthcare which costs less than any other way of doing it, provides higher quality and - because people are sick less - makes a profit because everybody can be more productive.
Healthcare can NEVER be done for a profit, it's literally impossible. If the "healthcare industry" has made a profit, everybody else suffered a loss 5 times or more that. Take whatever the healthcare industry adds to your GDP away, and your GDP goes up by more than 5 times that amount.

Re:The only hope

[MachineShedFred]

My point is that the money is there already, it's just not being used very wisely. I've got no problems with funding education - education is the silver bullet that makes a whole lot of problems go away - but I do have a problem throwing good money after bad. And without major reform to education that isn't partisan hackery or terrible legislation that causes schools to teach test memorization rather than teach fundamental knowledge and critical thinking skills (No Child Left Behind), I don't think increasing funding will have the effects we're both looking for.

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

My point is that the money is there already, it's just not being used very wisely.

Or it's both. The current funding could be applied better, but once that is sorted, more of it will help.

Re:The only hope

[hairyfeet]

WTF are you smoking? Would you care to explain how she is gonna "present a facade of security and reliability" when they can literally make an hour long infomercial of her arguing for AND against every single issue that you can possibly name? Who the fuck is gonna listen to her when Trump can just whip out a 30 second soundbite of Hillary refuting HERSELF, he doesn't even have to open his mouth, just sit there with a tablet and push the button like a fricking soundboard!

Re:The only hope

[Jack Griffin]

WTF are you smoking? Would you care to explain how she is gonna "present a facade of security and reliability" when they can literally make an hour long infomercial of her

As I said already, elections are won by people with the most votes, not the most hates. You can hate on GWB, or Obama, or Hillary all you like, but these people win because they have the most support.

The wager is still open. I don't think Hillary will when because she's the best candidate, she'll win because she has all the elements needed to win an election.

Re:The only hope

[mgcarley]

If you earn less than $250,000 a year, you probably don't have to worry about higher taxes.

And even if you do earn that or more, the amount by which your taxes will go up will be offset by no longer having to pay some other expenses you'd otherwise incur.

Where I come from, hardly anyone has private health insurance, and even those who do would never pay $1000+ a month for it. Growing up, a doctors visit was subsidized such that the out of pocket cost was $10-15 (I'm guessing the equivalent of a co-pay - still is about this cost as of the last time I went back to visit).

Whereas in the US I see co-pays of $60-100 easy... and considering the minimum wage here, that just seems burdensome, which results in a lot of sick people not being able to get well - they can't afford to take time off work but also can't afford the doctor, and so they stay sick. It makes no sense to me.

And remember, even the highest proposed rate is still going to be WAY less than it was during the US boom-era, where lots of people seems to be doing perfectly bloody well for themselves. So quit your bitching.

Re:The only hope

[mgcarley]

Profound is relative... Do you earn over $250k a year? No? Then no significant increases for you... but you will see benefits.

Besides which, I'm not from the US but my company and I both pay some taxes in the US. I resent my tax dollars funding a war I have zero involvement in, in countries I've visited which seemed to be alright at the time.

On the other hand, if subsidized education helps me find more/better talent in the US, and subsidized healthcare makes it easier even for my employees (despite the fact that even our lowest ranking employees get well over minimum wage) then that's awesome for me as an employer (FWIW my US company is staffed 100% by Americans, my Indian company are staffed 100% by Indians; and while they share a name, they are entirely separate and only related in that they have me as a common director -- but I'm not from either country).

All things considered, even with the proposed increases you (we) still have pretty low tax-rates in the US... which is probably why so many states/towns are in debt and can't maintain or fund anything. And expecting a refund at the end of the year is practically unheard of anywhere else - which probably exacerbates the situation.

I personally feel a 10% tax increase is worthwhile if it "releases" me from having to pay for certain things through private insurance, and given the difference in how much will be left in my bank account at the end of the year (negligible at most), at least a public system benefits everybody, no matter which end of the salary scale they're on.

What does bother me about US taxes, though... is the complexity. If I only had to fill out a single page tax form like I do in most other countries, I'd be a happy camper.

Re:The only hope

[mgcarley]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's 15-20% for a family, but even then, you're paying 5% for one thing... and you probably still have to pay a fee and/or deductable to actually go to the doctor/hospital.

But the 9% increase also takes care of spending in other areas (like education and infrastructure)... part of which may not apply to you right now (but could one day).

End of the day? 9% is a bargain.

Re:The only hope

[mgcarley]

Even if "no plan" means copying from Scandinavia (which broadly speaking seems to be his gist), I can go for that.

Sure, those countries have their own problems (I lived in one of them for 3 years), but, they're nowhere near what the US is facing (where I am now).

Re: The only hope

[mgcarley]

I have a feeling you're mistaking socialism for something else.

Remember: Socialist Something of Whatever is to Socialism as Democratic Republic of Blah is to Democracy... and Peoples Whatever of Somewhere is definitely *not* for the people ;)

Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

Trump is likely the GOP nominee #RIP_PartyOfLincoln
Hillary is almost certainly the Dem nominee after SC, hopefully someone will douse her with a bucket of water. #WhatAWorld

Does anyone think Net Neutrality is going to survive past November no matter what ?

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[BasilBrush]

Yes.

"Hillary Backs Strongest Net Neutrality Rules"
http://time.com/3721452/hillar...

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

And You believe her ?

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[mjpollard]

More than I believe any Republican, any time, anywhere. But please, feel free to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell if it makes you feel better.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

https://www.google.com/search?...

13,900,000 results (0.44 seconds)

Say what you want about the GOP they are at least willing to give the middle finger to their leadership.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[sumdumass]

You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself. Or that anything she does for others is ancillary to getting hers in the process.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[avatar avatar]

You don't run for president if you aren't self centered and you don't stay in national politics for long if you aren't willing to lie/change positions/etc. That said, it sounds like you don't like the fact that she's a viable candidate for POTUS.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Megol]

I don't know why you included change positions? It is anybody that isn't willing to change positions if given new/better data one should avoid!

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[sumdumass]

Nah.. I don't like the fact that she is seen by some as flawless when she clearly is not. It's like people are brainwashed or deliberately obtuse on the subject but willing to spout such strong sentiments they know nothing about.

If we seriously have idiots like those deciding the future of our country, we have lost all hope of having a future. The same can be said about Trump supporters. Maybe it is a sign of the times and I'm old enough to just tell everyone to get off my damn lawn.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[KiloByte]

You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself.

Actually, both are true. She's both pure evil of worst kind, and a lying bitch. If the primaries go as they're likely to go, you Americans won't be able to choose between lesser of two evils -- but only between two equally bad mindboggling evils.

On par with our current government in Poland.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Kjella]

Consider that there is also a content/service industry lobby of Netflix, YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, Steam, Skype etc. that don't want ISPs to get creative. I doubt it's enough of a voter issue to matter, so her position probably means she's received campaign contributions from the "right" lobbying group. Which means she might actually remember after the election too, unlike much the other fluff they say to get elected. While I think there's a few cases where there's actual ideology involved like Ted Cruz and religion, for the most part just follow the money...

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[hairyfeet]

No I think she is a rich spoiled elitist whose body language just screams "get these people away from me!" whose gonna be crucified if she gets the nomination by her own words from the past 30+ years. Want examples here you go. Notice how they can whip up in like 20 second a pic like this one which she gave DETAILED explanations on why she was FOR this or that, then turned right around when the wind started blowing the other way and then came out with the same amount of detail on why she is against it?

Hillary comes off as trustworthy as a used car salesman trying to sell an 85 Mustang and she has flip flopped so damned many times in her life they can make vid after vid after vid of Hillary going against herself. She does not have a prayer and you can thank her endless greed and ambition for why we will have President Donald.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[KGIII]

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

Could be. If you are an incumbent though being able to buy your spot could look mighty nice.

If you're Google, no new search engine competition, nothing to compete with youtube.

Twitter ? People don't want to use your service anymore, so what nothing can arise to replace you.

I am sure you see the picture.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[ScentCone]

Not sure where this comes from. All evidence from people who have worked with her points to her being an incredibly caring and selfless person.

Yes, for her family and inner circle - she "selflessly" lets them in on the Clinton machine's heaps of money, power, and access (as long as they stay loyal, or don't have a fling with her husband, in which case they are publicly ruined or end up killing themselves or going to jail).

She has a long list of accomplishments that meaningfully have helped people.

Yes, she has a long list of events at which she used her position of power as Secretary of State in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her family business from foreign governments that are notoriously abusive when it comes to "the people."

Seriously, on the level of politicians, who almost universally have suspect motivations, she's got to be one of the better ones.

No, not really. She's a corrupt serial liar, a poll-driven drive-by policy position holder with completely contradictory underlying philosophical premises, and would appear to be incredibly negligent if not outright criminally abusive in her handling of more-than-top-secret information while working her personal money making operation at the State Department. She looks you in the eye at public events, picks a phony accent out of her hat depending on what color your skin is, and then lies to you completely obvious ways that don't even pass the smell test. And that's who you are defending.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[ClickOnThis]

Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.

Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.

Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:

http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican party has zero to do with Lincoln. What made you a Republican in 1864 is basically what makes you a Democrat today.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Falconhell]

Funny how angry old white men in America are saying the same shit that angry old men in Sustralia said when we had our first female PM.
As an outside observer, I've seen the none stop hate campaign from the US right Slashot posters against Mrs Clinton right from the moment it became possible she would be a contender, from you same bunch of outdated delusional bigots. I can't wait to see your reaction when she is elected.
Priceless.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[BasilBrush]

When the Republican's are all either promising to do the opposite, or are a fascist buffoon, then a promise is the clear winner.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

I obviously disagree. . If you have forgotten the "Co-Presidency" of Bill and Hillary brought us the DMCA. So given the history, I find it prudent to remove this issue as a consideration when voting.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[dywolf]

not much, but more than I believe the GOP who blatantly advertised their NN killing bill as a NN protecting one.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[dywolf]

Amen.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[dywolf]

Bingo.

Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Crashmarik]

Shrug, The only real solution will be competition at the local loop.

Even with the net neutrality regulations we have, Comcast is pulling an end run around them by imposing data caps.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[myowntrueself]

You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself. Or that anything she does for others is ancillary to getting hers in the process.

wow, so she's TOTALLY different from any other politician????

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[ScentCone]

Funny how angry old white men in America...

In her primary loss a couple of weeks ago, Clinton saw over 80% of young white women vote against her. Polling says it's because they consider her to be a liar. Picking from a list of words to describe her, that is the one most often chosen by women.

The "hate campaign" against her is just push-back against her entire career of corrupt manipulation and leveraging of political power to personally enrich her family. Was Australia's first female PM also a lying, corrupt person? That's the difference.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[MachineShedFred]

Misrepresenting people's stances doesn't do anyone any service. Yes, there are some conservative talk radio honks that love to bloviate about Hillary and whatever, but nobody with a working brain actually believes that shit.

What I do believe though, is that Hillary will change her policies and beliefs to match the highest bidder, which is usually behavior reserved for the Republicans that Hillary supporters despise for "being in the pockets of the corporate oligarchy" blah blah blah.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because it's absolutely impossible for us to not like her as a candidate based on her past behavior and current positions on issues. It's absolutely because she's a woman, because absolutely no woman could ever be a successful head of state. Except for all the ones that have.

Don't call me a bigot when you don't know a fucking thing about me, because it makes you an idiot.

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[KGIII]

Mostly true is not true. It is either true or not. Yes, yes I do think politicians should be held to a reasonable standard. My statement is correct. She's telling the truth less than 25% of the time.

Come to think of it... Wait, what? You're willing to accept "mostly true" and not be unhappy about that?

It's okay - my favorite candidate lies more often than she does - I'd already checked that. I just like his lies better. (Sanders.)

Seriously, it's reasonable to conclude that if Hillery is speaking, she's not telling the truth. With a politician, truth is a very binary thing. Unfortunately, we've been accepting lies for so long that we're now able to accept "mostly true" as the truth. That's horrible! (And I'm just as guilty.)

Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds

[Falconhell]

Lol, the haters dont like being calked out do they?
Its going to be so much fun when she gets elected.
Its nice to see Sanders as a canidate, the first i can remember who actually is centrist not hard right or facist nutjob.

Something to believe

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell a politician is lying because their lips are moving.

Their job isn't to do the right thing, or anything at all.
It's just to get elected.
Then start sucking cash out of our wallets.

That's it.
Take a trip to DC and you'll see for yourself.

Re:Rubio and Cruz

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry - soon Trump will send them home.

Consumers should be driving the market

[fustakrakich]

They are. And it's reflected in the corrupt politicians they vote for and reelect.

Re:Consumers should be driving the market

[fustakrakich]

But not impossible.. And you can shape your districts with a referendum on the ballot. It all depends on how much you want it.

More doublespeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's restore internet freedom by preventing government regulatory authorities from guaranteeing it. Perfect doublespeak.

please americans

[Anonymous Coward]

don't elect trump president. If you do, you're not welcome anymore in europe.

Re:please americans

[jedidiah]

Nah... not Northern Islamistan.

Northern Burkastan.

Been to Paris lately?

It Follows

[PopeRatzo]

Of course Ted Cruz is trying to kill the net neutrality rules. He's the fucking Zodiac Killer.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20...

Comma comma comma comma comma chameleon

[wonkey_monkey]

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary

Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).

Re:Comma comma comma comma comma chameleon

[BarbaraHudson]

Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary

Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).

It's called "headline punctuation". Not only does is save 3 letters, but it makes the headline harder to parse, so you have to read it a second time or click it to see what it really means.

Re:Comma comma comma comma comma chameleon

[Megol]

I don't see why that would be harder to read, it isn't for me. But then I find: int xyl(int x, int y) { .. easier to read than: int xyl(int x and int y) { ...

Drinking Water

[Etherwalk]

"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

Examples plz

They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

Re:Drinking Water

[Etherwalk]

"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."

Examples plz

They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.

So this was rated troll (perhaps because it seemed to demonize the party whose members are suggesting this), but actually points out the fundamental problem with deregulation--information pipes *are* common carriers and should have obligations to serve the public without discriminating on the basis of who wants to use them, just like bus companies have to treat passengers similarly.

I believe her WAY more than I believe you.

[Brannon]

nt

Re:I believe her WAY more than I believe you.

[Crashmarik]

https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:I believe her WAY more than I believe you.

[dave420]

Seeing as you still don't know the difference between ice on land and on the sea, I take everything you write with a grain of salt. You posting these trite Google links isn't exactly giving you the air of someone who is in control of their argument...

Re:I believe her WAY more than I believe you.

[Crashmarik]

Most people like to refer to their victories. Why do you keep bringing up your loses ?

Do you think that you can magically change the past ?

So these guys are experts on Inet innvoation

[future assassin]

can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.

Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?

Re:So these guys are experts on Inet innvoation

[BarbaraHudson]

can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.

Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?

Their argument is simple - "It has the word 'Freedom' in it - you aren't against freedom, are you, citizen?"

does not work

[matushorvath]

"consumers should be driving the market"

In a country where a limited number of internet providers have a virtual monopoly? How well did it work when it was tried with the phone companies in last century? I'm all for free market, when it works, but in this case it clearly does not. Just look at the prices and compare them with any country with a real internet provider competition if you don't believe.

Yeah, right

[Rujiel]

Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.

Re:Yeah, right

[fustakrakich]

The voters make the choices in the primaries and can petition for candidates to be put on the ballot. They should try working the system before complaining about it. On most ballots there are more than two choices. Don't blame the system if nobody exercises them.

Re:Yeah, right

[zephvark]

The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered. I understand that is not what your high school civics class taught you. Of course, the government probably funded that school.

Re:Yeah, right

[fustakrakich]

The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered.

Exactly! That's the problem. They wait for the first clown with the flashy suit to be shot out of the cannon. It's the result of strategically voting for the 'lesser evil' side of a monolith. The voters choose the most charming psychopath. The selection is larger than it appears on mass media.

Re:Yeah, right

[danbert8]

The voters make the choices in the primaries*

* well the voters in Iowa, NH, and SC anyway. How many candidates have already dropped out and over 90% of the country hasn't voted yet...

Re:Yeah, right

[fustakrakich]

Few of the people I want are running. Am I supposed to blame the system for that? We can still write them in.

Re:Yeah, right

[MachineShedFred]

More like the donors make the choices - the reason candidates drop is because the funding dries up after the donor class sees which way the wind is blowing in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

It's very interesting that Bernie is continuing on, as he's not dependent on the donor class.

Re:Yeah, right

[fustakrakich]

It's very interesting that Bernie is continuing on, as he's not dependent on the donor class.

The party wants him to keep running. It keeps the focus from drifting to alternative candidates. He's a sheepdog, corralling a ton of 'lefty' money into the coffers that goes to Hillary when he does drop out, but he's in it until the convention as long as he can keep party cash registers full.

IPv6's P2P encryption

[JesseEnjaian]

The Internet needs P2P encryption at the link-layer. When more than the sender and receiver can read a message in a network it creates a financially exploitable imbalance of power in routing. Major routers can inspect content and shape traffic in IPv4. The fact that AT&T can look at what I look at on the Internet and prevent me from seeing things their CEOs disagree with is absolutely terrifying and a relic of IPv4. The Internet may very well need legal regulation in areas (e.g., FCC could enforce business licenses for Internet business), but it shouldn't be regulated at the transmission. Regulate where the content is stored, who sent it, those who access it, those who promulgate it, etc.

Re:Related Stories

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like your related stories section cut off the full titles of those articles. Here you go:

10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College...After Net Neutrality Implemented on Campus Network
Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour...Due to Rising Costs from New Net Neutrality Rules
Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired...For Demanding Net Neutral Comments Section
How To Execute People In the 21st Century...By Taking Away Their Bandwidth with Net Neutrality
Writer: "Why I Defaulted On My Student Loans"...Because Net Neutrality Stopped My Bank Payments

Wake me when 2016 is over

[93 Escort Wagon]

Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?

Re:Wake me when 2016 is over

[fnj]

Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest.

Without regard to that, this story was a political submission, so OF COURSE there is political discussion in the comments. Now, it is a truism that one man's discussion is another man's bash-fest.

More to the point, this is a year evenly divisible by 4. I would have thought you would grasp by now that reasoning runs way behind rage on years that are evenly divisible by 4.

The only hope

[Okian Warrior]

It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.

The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.

Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.

If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?

You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".

The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.

Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.

It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.

Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.

Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.

Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.

Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.

Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race".

Extreme rhetoric = clickbait

[Okian Warrior]

Trump is the worst possible president you could possibly imagine, [...]

It sounds like you are exaggerating. Was that your intent?

One thing many people have learned is that extreme rhetoric is baseless - it's clickbait to get people to read a particular news story.

While a newspaper can be excused for trying to attract readership, when "some random dude on the internet" does it it's 'kind of meaningless.

You know?

Instead, why don't you pick one of his positions and explain why it is a bad idea? Enforcing immigration law, or revamping the tax code for instance.

Re:Extreme rhetoric = clickbait

[ArylAkamov]

It's far easier to say he is racist for wanting to enforce current current immigration laws and take out of context quotes.

Re:Extreme rhetoric = clickbait

[Anonymous Coward]

There is so much wrong with Trump that it is usually just easier to call him an idiot. If people are going to take the time to list all his flaws every time, the world wouldn't do anything else.

I'll give you 2 low-hanging fruits:

(1) He's a liar. (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) You might say the other candidates also lie, but no one does it as effortlessly as Trump. Rubio, Cruz and Hillary, as insane as it might sound, are actually trustworthy when compared to this character. By the way, PolitiFact does fact checking and each rated statement has a long write-up accompanying it.

(2) Trump is running as a successful businessman, but he has bankrupt his own companies 4 times: (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250) and (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/). He's can't even successfully manage his own personal enterprises, where his money and reputation are both on the line. How do you suppose this will end for the rest of us?

Again, these are the 2 low-hanging fruits, and they are are, of course, examples of what is wrong with him. The problem with trying to attack his policies is that he doesn't have any. Everything he's said to-date is vague. He hasn't presented a cohesive plan. As a businessman, he should know in order to get a loan from investors you will need a good business plan. He do not present one, he just spouts off some incoherent sentences with keywords that rile people's emotions that particular week and everyone cheers.

Extreme rhetoric = clickbait

[Okian Warrior]

Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?

Extreme rhetoric is the new clickbait.

Restoring Internet Freedom Act

[Edis Krad]

Holy shit, that newspeak.

Trump business success is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to defend him (he's racist), but:

* He is not stupid. Its almost impossible to be stupid and a successful business owner the same time.

Trump not a successful businessman, but a successful promoter starting with inherited wealth; his companies have gone bankrupt four times. He has, of course, firewalled himself and his personal wealth from those bankruptcies. As a businessman, his record is piss poor: A recent issue of The Economist compared his NYC real estate record with the NYC average; he did much worse.

Consumers

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers should be driving the market

Little consumers like AT&T?

Re:Rubio and Cruz

[unixisc]

Why is a wall needed b/w FL and Cuba? Ain't the Florida Straits enough?

FCC is the wrong agency. Give it to the FTC.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The correct agency for handling Net Neutrality issues is not the FCC. FCC is welcome to set standards on technological issues. But it's subject to regulatory capture and neither empowered, nor competent to handle, issues related to monopolization, bundling, throttling, fast-lane-service, preferential treatment of partners' content, and on and on and on.

It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under antitrust, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and similar doctrines, that has the mandate, cluefullness, and track record to do this job.

Remember that it's FTC, not FCC, the broke up Bell (as it broke up Standard Oil) and forced "foreign attachments" onto IBM.

The FTC doesn't strike often. But when it does it has a DAMN big hammer.

A whole 6 of them

[Anonymous Coward]

All balls deep in the pocket, why neither of them are fit to run America.

any bill with Freedom in the name

[surd1618]

Watch out

Re: turn-about is fair play...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, dumbass: your definition of freedom is getting old. The freedom to work for less and less, to have declining personal wealth, to not have health care, to have corporations steal pensions, to live in a national security state and to have corporations have more rights than humans is the legacy of conservative economics which have failed every single time they've ever been tried in all of history. Right wing supply side economics have ruined every nation they've ever been imposed on. They have a zero percent success rate, so much so that the US has to impose them by force of arms overseas, to the ruination of every society so targeted. Now it's coming hike to roost here. It took longer because this is a rich nation, but it's happening right now and the likes of you need someone to blame for your utter failures.

The economic problems of the 70s were largely due to spending on the Vietnam War which was unaccompanied by requisite taxes to pay for it. The bills came due and voila, instant economic crisis. Same thing with W's off budget illegal wars as well, and similar timing too. He'd have done anything to have his wars except actually make people pay for them as we went because that might have started some unpopular questioning.

As to Reagan's 'growth', well I'd live pretty well if I went out and borrowed a ton of money too. Heck, Dick Cheney would later say 'deficits don't matter'. He should have added 'until a Democrat is in office and then we'll scream about it' because that's what the morally and intellectually bankrupt ideology and economics of modern conservatism require.

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality is like dictating that public roads is open to everyone.

Without net neutrality it's like having different speed limits and restrictions depending on which brand of car you use.

Re:Rubio and Cruz

[Z00L00K]

Cuba don't want them back now - it would completely destroy the thawing of the relations.

Killing net neutrality is anti-competitive

[ajyand]

Killing net neutrality will give well established businesses an edge over the new entrants thus leading to anti-competitive practices. An obnoxious form of monopoly is sure to follow the death of neutrality. Does it require a PhD to understand that?

Excuse me ?

[aepervius]

You are expecting a rich guy which profited from the system to turn coat ? What is this ? Fairyland ?

Re:Excuse me ?

[swb]

You are expecting a rich guy which profited from the system to turn coat ? What is this ? Fairyland ?

You could take a different perspective and assume that Trump is already rich, the kind of rich where you can have a 737 with your name painted on the side, so he's actually less corruptible by money. Most politicians aren't rich and are corruptible by political donations, speaking fees, donations to their personal foundations, low-interest loans, paid for junkets to far off places, etc. For them rich is aspirational and politics is the way to achieve that. Trump doesn't need your money and he might already have more than you do.

Further, you could argue that because Trump is already rich and his business involves the highly regulated world of real estate development, he's all too familiar with the ways that politicians and policies can be bought and paid for. He said as much in the first debate, and it would have been genius for him to pull cancelled checks out of his pocket during that debate and wave them in the air.

I guess I don't think of Trump as being swayed by making more money or using the office as a means of defending the moneyed classes.

Re:You keep using that word "fascist"...

[NotInHere]

Yes, marxism and facism, both words used in a historical context, have many things in common. They both favor a single party state that controls the people, and sees religion as a competition to their ideology. Yes the control includes the economy. After all, its a dictature. The system the chinese are running with having a liberal market connected to a dictature is new. And even there its contradictory, with the state influencing the economy heavily.

But, marxism and facism have some few notable differences:

* Facists didn't really like jews. for the nazis, marx was a jew (he wasn't, only son of a jew, but did they care?), and therefore all jews were socialists. So sanders (he is a jew) wouldn't really have hung out with nazis. At least not after the nazis had found out he was a jew.
* Facists killed socialists, and socialists killed facists. Yes, facists repressed almost every political movement that wasn't facist, but especially socialists.
* Facists adopted ideas of racism. Socialists did not.
* Marxism is only an economic model. Facism includes many more things.
* In many european states Facists were supported by the rich (and mostly noble) establishment. Socialists, well, they really didn't like anybody with money.

Trump wants a strong border. Facists want this too. Socialists don't care, want an open border in order to unite workers of the world.

Trump made very racist comments. Facists did too!

When I said "facist" above, I meant his racist statements. Arguing for a strong border alone doesnt make you a facist.

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[stealth_finger]

Net neutrality is like dictating that public roads is open to everyone.

Without net neutrality it's like having different speed limits and restrictions depending on which brand of car you use.

Also having to pay the owner of every road you go down. The quicker you want to go the more you gotta pay.

Re:Ah, the Left, always the home of racism

[Crowd Computing]

The Democrats owned all the black slaves, started the KKK, racially segregated the government [etc]

The first part of your rant might all be true. I'm too lazy to review my US history, so let's assume that it is. But you should be aware that the Democratic party of Lincoln's time is a different donkey from the Democratic party of today. Parties aren't static entities, especially those with a longer apparent history than the parties of Lenin and Mao. They're made of people, and their ideological orientation could flip-flop like the poles or a bisexual in search of love.

Re: Rubio and Cruz

[stealth_finger]

add more sharks, preferably with laser beams.

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[MachineShedFred]

Strangely, that argument actually makes sense for roads, where it makes no sense for the Internet. It's been shown that usage fees are a far superior model for road maintenance, and it's also been shown that the higher the speed, the more damage done to the road.

Of course, back on topic - electrical signals, or pulses of light do virtually no damage to the equipment they are passing through, so that argument doesn't hold weight.

"Burdonsome regulation"?

[whitroth]

Absolutely - are you trying to interfere with every 'Net CEO's God (tm) given right to screw all the rest of us to the wall, and charge more than the market can bear?

All these complaints about regulation... first, why were they passed originally? Just *possibly* because the wealthy and companies were so busy screwing us that we, the people, decided to do something about it?

And how is that different than some mob boss, complaining, as he's arrested and led away, about government regulation interfering with an "honest" businessman?

                      mark "there are two kinds of Republicans and Libertarians: millionaires, and suckers"

Re:Wait, Cruz and Rubio are Senators?

[MachineShedFred]

Right? I'd be pissed if I lived in Florida or Texas. I don't get to run around interviewing for a new job on the clock with my current employer for months on end...

Re:You keep using that word "fascist"...

[NotInHere]

The FACT that Hitler's National Social German Workers Party was officially socialist, AND recognized world-over as fascist, and as racist, does not mean that racism is a characteristic of either fascism or socialism

The Nazi party was not socialist. They had common arguments, some of them even taken from socialists/marxists, but no way they were socialists. When they came to power, they still kept the capital in the hands of the rich, not making them state owned. Even the stuff they stole from the jews they killed mostly went to private hands (the flats that the jews owned were sold at a cheap price to families close to the regime, and the slave labor done in the concentration camps benefited privately owned companies). So the Nazis were very capitalist. Yes, they had many "social" programs, but they had no "socialist" ones.

And about the second part: Facist italy under mussolini, the regime that coined the term facism, was already racist. They thought the italian race was supreme and must colonize north africa. The only difference between racism by mussolini and by other facists was that the racism by other facists was biologically based, and the racism by mussolini was culturally based. Still, both had elements of each other, both were strongly convinced of their supremacy, and discriminated other races.

Demanding that we end ILLEGAL immigration is NOT "racist"

I never claimed that him saying that illegal immigration is illegal is something racist by itself. Yes, it will probably affect mostly people of a certain ethnic group, but demanding that the laws of a nation (which aren't discriminatory against people because of their race in any way) to be executed is nothing racist. Having and demanding a strong border is nothing racist.

But the reasons for why he is demanding such a strong border are very racist. Regarding the mexicans, he says stuff like "most of them are disgusting people" he clearly is racist by the definition. Yes, he mostly speaks about the crime, but the criminals are only few people. Most of the mexicans probably want to abide the law.
What would you say if somebody said "most americans are disgusting, they favor killing innocents with drones, and torture muslims in guantanamo"?

Just think what somebody mexican has to endure by "trump supporters". Regardless of whether they actually do disrespect the US laws or not they are under the suspicion of having it broken.

Its not just racist that trump demands to close the border for all people who have a certain religion only because there is a radical form of it threatening to do terror attacks on the united states. Its also very counter productive. You are victimizing them, and by that you generate more internal support inside the muslim community for the terrorists. Just look at what happens in israel: every time the rules for all muslims get more strict, more people join and support the hesbollah. And even more terror attacks on israelis are performed. This way the extremist sides of both parties of the conflict fuel each other, and they ensure their own survival. Similar effects can be observed with right wing parties and muslim terrorists in europe: the terrorists need the right wing extremists, and the right wings need the terrorists in order to exist.

Same goes for Trump, if there were no attacks/rapes by mexican illegal immigrants or muslim terrorists at civilians, he couldn't be outraged because of it. And if people like trump wouldn't demand and excercise muslim discrimination the support inside the muslim community for terrorist groups wouldn't be as large. Basically this argument was made by hillary clinton in the last debate, while i hugely dislike her, I fully agree with her about what she said here.

Australia and New Zealand have VERY strong border controls. Even Americans cannot get in there to stay without proving they are wealthy enough to never become dependent upon the local taxpayers. Ar

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[mgcarley]

I dunno, I-90 between Erie and Buffalo NY isn't so great...
And there are some toll-roads in KS (I can't remember the numbers, but going from KC to Wichita, for example) which aren't so hot either...
And that one between Chicago and Detroit (actually, I think that's just a different section of I-90)...
And some of the toll-roads in Italy are a bit bumpier than I'd like.

Meanwhile, many of the autobahns I've driven on (mostly in south Germany, between for example Heidelberg and Munich) are toll-free, partially speed-limit free and seem pretty well maintained, all things considered.

And this is just in the last few months.

But that could just be the Germans for you.

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[MachineShedFred]

Well, roads in Ohio are complete shit, including the toll section of I-90. I'm not saying that all toll roads are fantastic, because there's always the problem of terrible management.

I am, however, saying that the idea of usage fees paying for maintenance is just the most fair way to go - if you use more, you pay more. And I will say that the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as well as Florida's Turnpike are fantastic roads, with service stops completely furnished and maintained with usage fees.

Re:turn-about is fair play...

[mgcarley]

So, based on our combined experiences it might even be fair to say that quality is about the same (roughly, broadly speaking) whether public or private/toll.