First, there were the claims which were substantiated by a link to the 'theconservativetreehouse' and it is disregarded. Then it is substantiated with other outlets (blogspot, washingtonpost, etc) verifying the message is true even if you don't like the messenger and your response is: "your using MSM to prove MSM reporting sucks". Okay... Are the claims false?
Your original post about the FBI "daring" to investigate Trump is rather absurd when you consider the facts relevant to why the FBI has damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality to the investigation with regards to Trump as demonstrated and substantiated. It may not be enough to fire Mueller but it is enough to raise serious questions about the impartiality of Mueller's team and the FBI who have been investigating Trump because of the dossier including conflicts of interests the members of the FBI may have in important investigations like what happened with Ohr. How many other conflicts of interest are there in the FBI that are like Ohrs if it was overlooked in a special investigation?
Put the shoe on the other foot and tell me that the FBI has not damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality. Daring... The FBI and DoJ fucked up. That isn't clearing Trumps name of fault but there is a lot of egg on a lot of peoples faces.
Fact: The republicans funded it first, thus making it non partisan, or maybe bipartisan
The GOP, after the primaries, stopped using Fusion GPS. The Democrats took it up with hiring Steele who worked with Russians to get the dossier that seems to be used as justification for investigating Trump by the Obama admin. Let's also not forget Bruce Ohr that was in the Mueller investigation wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.
We do have evidence, through this affair, that the Democrats commissioned foreign agents to work with Russian officials with intent to influence the election.
Fact: The FBI is not tainted.
There are some problems with the FBI and the many conflicts of interests that are coming out. Mueller did the right thing by demoting them and removing them from investigations but that does taint their image and reputation and more importantly their perceived impartiality.
Fact: There is no evidence that the dossier is the only evidence going after the Trump campaign. The four indictments would say otherwise.
The problem is that many of the crimes for those indictments came years before the election or after the election during the transition. The investigation has gone beyond the original scope "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". I'll wait for the closure of the investigation but as it stands now I am not impressed with the indictments nor criminal charges Mueller has.
In short Obama warned and Trump demonstrated why the warning was necessary.
The problem is that Obama and his administration were so heavily biased that his warning would have been disregarded.
But if the law that the FCC uses to execute those regulations is flawed then it will always be a fight never settled. I think that is part of the problem. Congress doesn't have to spell out net neutrality as it needs to ensure that the distinctions made in the law cannot be argued by the courts, lawyers, or government in an inclusive way when the law makes an exclusive distinction. That is, if Title 2 is the answer. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that a problem EVERYONE agrees with is competition. We should start with what we all agree with, fix that, and then move onto to more technical solutions in either the regulations or the law. Net Neutrality isn't necessary if you have proper competition.
It may not be 'on a whim' and is clear defined procedure but certainly more whimsical than changing a law.
I could think that you're honest but have been misled,
Well, that's a lot better than being called a shill, that I work for telecom, a Russian, or all of the mentioned.
. It doesn't always repeat, but it often rhymes, eh?
Agreed. One rhythm is the linguistic dance of the courts, the lawyers, and the government arguing how an old law will apply to modern ISPs. There is enough wiggle room in the language that both sides can be right and wrong. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that the current law needs clarity to avoid this from being an issue every 4-8 years.
Yes, it sucks but that is a whole hell of a better than an unelected commission in a federal bureaucracy deciding on a whim how something as pivotal as the internet be regulated.
I hope you understand why I would rather Congress do this than the FCC, warts and all.
How am I making the problem worse by asking how Title 2 will fix the problem that everyone agrees with? If a proposed solution doesn't fix the problem we all agree with what is the point in enacting that solution?
I am convinced you work for a telecom.
Then you are an idiot suffering from mass hysteria over the FUD that has been pushed about this topic. As demonstrated by your acknowledgement that your solution won't fix the problem we both agree is a problem.
How am I a shill and who am I shilling for? I am just asking why the default should be unlimited. Could you kindly clear up the shill position so I know not to ruffle your jimmies.
Because it doesn't cost them any extra to move bits thru a pipe im already paying for
Can the pipes support unlimited usage and throughput?
. Why should I have to pay extra for essentially doing what I'm already paying for
Why should I have to pay extra for something I don't use?
Would appointing any other Republican have changed the outcome in any way?
Probably not as you say Pai is being personally blamed for too much. If the Republican view is such that Title 2 is not the answer then it is a matter of time before it becomes a party line vote in the commission to revoke those rules just as they were implemented along party lines.
There is a good reason to force both parties to be in the commission and if there is too much back and forth then it is up to Congress to fix it through law.
You said name "broadband" options not 25+mbps options. You are shifting the goal post. There is a technical legal definition of "broadband". Even then I am not lying about cable and DSL offering 40mbps in my area (small-medium city) (I haven't looked into dish because I won't use it and your link doesn't include).
I am not lying about my choices. Your link even agrees with me; "The competitive landscape for wireline broadband services typically consists of the telco, a cable company, and in rare instances a cable overbuilder."
I am of the typical competitive landscape according to your link for having a cable and DSL option.
We need to change who's running the country _before_ passing any laws.
The point in passing a law is that it is hard and done in the open. It doesn't matter who does it right so long as it is done. Everyone will be able to see what the proposed law would do.
To get the law passed you have to establish common ground. Work from that common ground to meet the goals. Voting along party lines will not do that because both parties are for and against it for different reasons.
Everyone agrees monopolies are bad. Everyone agrees that more competition is needed. From there I think it should be pretty easy to identify what law everyone can agree on even if it isn't "Net Neutrality". That is an easier argument than NN through Title 2.
McConnell recommended. Obama appointed. The Senate approved. Trump promoted.
Obama did choose Pai to serve on the FCC at the recommendation from McConnell that Obama could have ignored. Obama had all the discretion in the world to pick any other Republican but he chose Pai.
Yes, it is a partisan issue and that is why to properly solve it Congress has to act or else the rules will change with every new FCC chair with a different team color. I am not certain that Title 2 is the proper regulatory framework for ISPs. TBH, I don't think NN is as important as creating competition. You don't need NN if you have proper competition in the market. How do we create competition is the problem not how do get NN out of Title 2.
There is a nice layer of atmosphere that has a comfortable temperature on... err above Venus. Why have cities when you can have floating cloud cities?:)
Then lower federal spending. Blue tends to be in the cities which tend to have big capital players like Silicone Valley, Hollywood, or Wallstreet which will help the state average for federal taxation. I have seen the idea about only giving federal benefits in proportion to their federal taxation but that undermines the whole point of a federal republic.
Puerto Rico gives exactly 0 in federal taxes. Should we not send federal aid to them when a hurricane hits? Or what about Louisiana or Alabama? Ok, not during disasters.
Do you think down-stream states (like California) do not benefit from the Bureau of Reclamation helping to manage water in upstream states? Do you think states that have big agriculture, like California, benefit from science to study the effect of wild fires and local pollinators done by the USGS ( I wonder how the science done in Idaho during their annual fire season will help California during this one)? How many federal initiatives are you willing to restrict in various states because some states do not have Silicone Valley to pick up the tab? Do you really think the urban centers do not benefit from from that disproportionate ratio? Those are just two that I know of personally.
Are you going to limit the federal unemployment of someone that has paid taxes their whole working life because they live in a red state?
Personally, I find it to the credit of the Founding Fathers that they were able to predict the largest division the nation would face and were able to create a federal republic to service that division. The urban and rural divide should not be widened because you think you do not benefit from federal spending in other parts of the country. If you don't like the spending of the federal government then you should be arguing to lower that spending not be vindictive to the individual based on where they live.
Right... The ones screaming that the internet is going to end. The end is nigh. Misrepresenting open comments of the FCC. Misunderstanding the law. Screeching every slur they can think of is. Yet, the one quoting jurisprudence and law is the one peddling FUD.
Oh no! A I can't break the group think and mass hysteria that people have worked themselves into. What fear have I presented? What Uncertainty? What doubt? All I have done is try to understand the situation through jurisprudence and law without throwing out petty insults that are so common that you initiated. You are a hypocritical piece of shit. Fuck off to your bandwagon where you can feel smug circle jerking the others that think exactly like you.
Slashdot Mirror
First, there were the claims which were substantiated by a link to the 'theconservativetreehouse' and it is disregarded. Then it is substantiated with other outlets (blogspot, washingtonpost, etc) verifying the message is true even if you don't like the messenger and your response is: "your using MSM to prove MSM reporting sucks". Okay... Are the claims false?
Your original post about the FBI "daring" to investigate Trump is rather absurd when you consider the facts relevant to why the FBI has damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality to the investigation with regards to Trump as demonstrated and substantiated. It may not be enough to fire Mueller but it is enough to raise serious questions about the impartiality of Mueller's team and the FBI who have been investigating Trump because of the dossier including conflicts of interests the members of the FBI may have in important investigations like what happened with Ohr. How many other conflicts of interest are there in the FBI that are like Ohrs if it was overlooked in a special investigation?
Put the shoe on the other foot and tell me that the FBI has not damaged their reputation and perceived impartiality. Daring... The FBI and DoJ fucked up. That isn't clearing Trumps name of fault but there is a lot of egg on a lot of peoples faces.
Bruce Ohr that was in the Mueller investigation wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.
To clarify: Nellie worked for Fusion. Bruce is part of FBI formally part of the Mueller investigation.
Pass it to the left!
You need to get your facts straight.
Fact: The republicans funded it first, thus making it non partisan, or maybe bipartisan
The GOP, after the primaries, stopped using Fusion GPS. The Democrats took it up with hiring Steele who worked with Russians to get the dossier that seems to be used as justification for investigating Trump by the Obama admin. Let's also not forget Bruce Ohr that was in the Mueller investigation wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS.
We do have evidence, through this affair, that the Democrats commissioned foreign agents to work with Russian officials with intent to influence the election.
Fact: The FBI is not tainted.
There are some problems with the FBI and the many conflicts of interests that are coming out. Mueller did the right thing by demoting them and removing them from investigations but that does taint their image and reputation and more importantly their perceived impartiality.
Fact: There is no evidence that the dossier is the only evidence going after the Trump campaign. The four indictments would say otherwise.
The problem is that many of the crimes for those indictments came years before the election or after the election during the transition. The investigation has gone beyond the original scope "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". I'll wait for the closure of the investigation but as it stands now I am not impressed with the indictments nor criminal charges Mueller has.
In short Obama warned and Trump demonstrated why the warning was necessary.
The problem is that Obama and his administration were so heavily biased that his warning would have been disregarded.
But if the law that the FCC uses to execute those regulations is flawed then it will always be a fight never settled. I think that is part of the problem. Congress doesn't have to spell out net neutrality as it needs to ensure that the distinctions made in the law cannot be argued by the courts, lawyers, or government in an inclusive way when the law makes an exclusive distinction. That is, if Title 2 is the answer. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that a problem EVERYONE agrees with is competition. We should start with what we all agree with, fix that, and then move onto to more technical solutions in either the regulations or the law. Net Neutrality isn't necessary if you have proper competition.
It may not be 'on a whim' and is clear defined procedure but certainly more whimsical than changing a law.
I could think that you're honest but have been misled,
Well, that's a lot better than being called a shill, that I work for telecom, a Russian, or all of the mentioned.
. It doesn't always repeat, but it often rhymes, eh?
Agreed. One rhythm is the linguistic dance of the courts, the lawyers, and the government arguing how an old law will apply to modern ISPs. There is enough wiggle room in the language that both sides can be right and wrong. I don't know if Title 2 is the answer but I do know that the current law needs clarity to avoid this from being an issue every 4-8 years.
errr.. sorry "anything prior is worse".
I don't like the phrasing of "moving backwards" because it implies that anything prior is better.
But to your point, fair enough.
Yes, it sucks but that is a whole hell of a better than an unelected commission in a federal bureaucracy deciding on a whim how something as pivotal as the internet be regulated.
I hope you understand why I would rather Congress do this than the FCC, warts and all.
How am I making the problem worse by asking how Title 2 will fix the problem that everyone agrees with? If a proposed solution doesn't fix the problem we all agree with what is the point in enacting that solution?
I am convinced you work for a telecom.
Then you are an idiot suffering from mass hysteria over the FUD that has been pushed about this topic. As demonstrated by your acknowledgement that your solution won't fix the problem we both agree is a problem.
How am I a shill and who am I shilling for? I am just asking why the default should be unlimited. Could you kindly clear up the shill position so I know not to ruffle your jimmies.
Because it doesn't cost them any extra to move bits thru a pipe im already paying for
Can the pipes support unlimited usage and throughput?
. Why should I have to pay extra for essentially doing what I'm already paying for
Why should I have to pay extra for something I don't use?
Unlimited, uncapped, unfiltered data should be the default.
Why?
Would appointing any other Republican have changed the outcome in any way?
Probably not as you say Pai is being personally blamed for too much. If the Republican view is such that Title 2 is not the answer then it is a matter of time before it becomes a party line vote in the commission to revoke those rules just as they were implemented along party lines.
There is a good reason to force both parties to be in the commission and if there is too much back and forth then it is up to Congress to fix it through law.
Does it piss you off that a Republican is required to appoint 2 Democrats? You do understand why that requirement is there, right?
The internet seems to be working fine. The fix is more competition. How will Title 2 fix that?
You said name "broadband" options not 25+mbps options. You are shifting the goal post. There is a technical legal definition of "broadband". Even then I am not lying about cable and DSL offering 40mbps in my area (small-medium city) (I haven't looked into dish because I won't use it and your link doesn't include).
I am not lying about my choices. Your link even agrees with me; "The competitive landscape for wireline broadband services typically consists of the telco, a cable company, and in rare instances a cable overbuilder."
I am of the typical competitive landscape according to your link for having a cable and DSL option.
We need to change who's running the country _before_ passing any laws.
The point in passing a law is that it is hard and done in the open. It doesn't matter who does it right so long as it is done. Everyone will be able to see what the proposed law would do.
To get the law passed you have to establish common ground. Work from that common ground to meet the goals. Voting along party lines will not do that because both parties are for and against it for different reasons.
Everyone agrees monopolies are bad. Everyone agrees that more competition is needed. From there I think it should be pretty easy to identify what law everyone can agree on even if it isn't "Net Neutrality". That is an easier argument than NN through Title 2.
McConnell recommended. Obama appointed. The Senate approved. Trump promoted.
Obama did choose Pai to serve on the FCC at the recommendation from McConnell that Obama could have ignored. Obama had all the discretion in the world to pick any other Republican but he chose Pai.
Cable, Dish, DSL.
Although, the latency for dish is a little high it is "broadband" by definition.
Yes, it is a partisan issue and that is why to properly solve it Congress has to act or else the rules will change with every new FCC chair with a different team color. I am not certain that Title 2 is the proper regulatory framework for ISPs. TBH, I don't think NN is as important as creating competition. You don't need NN if you have proper competition in the market. How do we create competition is the problem not how do get NN out of Title 2.
It's never too obscure for /.
But just in case it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There is a nice layer of atmosphere that has a comfortable temperature on... err above Venus. Why have cities when you can have floating cloud cities? :)
Then lower federal spending. Blue tends to be in the cities which tend to have big capital players like Silicone Valley, Hollywood, or Wallstreet which will help the state average for federal taxation. I have seen the idea about only giving federal benefits in proportion to their federal taxation but that undermines the whole point of a federal republic.
Puerto Rico gives exactly 0 in federal taxes. Should we not send federal aid to them when a hurricane hits? Or what about Louisiana or Alabama? Ok, not during disasters.
Do you think down-stream states (like California) do not benefit from the Bureau of Reclamation helping to manage water in upstream states? Do you think states that have big agriculture, like California, benefit from science to study the effect of wild fires and local pollinators done by the USGS ( I wonder how the science done in Idaho during their annual fire season will help California during this one)? How many federal initiatives are you willing to restrict in various states because some states do not have Silicone Valley to pick up the tab? Do you really think the urban centers do not benefit from from that disproportionate ratio? Those are just two that I know of personally.
Are you going to limit the federal unemployment of someone that has paid taxes their whole working life because they live in a red state?
Personally, I find it to the credit of the Founding Fathers that they were able to predict the largest division the nation would face and were able to create a federal republic to service that division. The urban and rural divide should not be widened because you think you do not benefit from federal spending in other parts of the country. If you don't like the spending of the federal government then you should be arguing to lower that spending not be vindictive to the individual based on where they live.
Why should we trust Netflix?
My preference is to see NN exist independent of Title II
This is how I would like it too.
They don't understand the technology.
I don't think so. They do get experts to help them build a case. It isn't done independent of expert advice.
Right... The ones screaming that the internet is going to end. The end is nigh. Misrepresenting open comments of the FCC. Misunderstanding the law. Screeching every slur they can think of is. Yet, the one quoting jurisprudence and law is the one peddling FUD.
Oh no! A I can't break the group think and mass hysteria that people have worked themselves into. What fear have I presented? What Uncertainty? What doubt? All I have done is try to understand the situation through jurisprudence and law without throwing out petty insults that are so common that you initiated. You are a hypocritical piece of shit. Fuck off to your bandwagon where you can feel smug circle jerking the others that think exactly like you.