|
EwokEntourage posted:Also bitch all you want. Internet/telco should be a regulated public utility, but it isn't. Laws aren't invalid because they interfere if your full communism now fantasies Not to stir this pot, but is there actually a path forward for regulating Internet as a utility? I always see this mentioned but there's never actually any context around it. I'd love to see Comcast crushed into a million pieces because their model is based purely on stifling innovation and classifying Internet as a utility is a clear step towards achieving this goal, but I can't even fathom how that type of action even takes place, especially with a Republican House.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:
Now do it Corinthian style. Then we'd have rich, Corinthian, Leatherface.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it. MSM: "lalalalalalalal i can't hear you lalalalalalala"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Cthulhumatic posted:Not to stir this pot, but is there actually a path forward for regulating Internet as a utility? There is at the state level. For some strange reason people never try that. Like yeah you're not going to get Alabama to pass laws allowing it but maybe try in Oregon? In Massachusetts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:They don't have to find a clear statement for what it does or doesn't allow or require. They just have to see if there is a clear statement for what the fcc wants to do. If you say 2+2=6, I don't have to tell you what it really equals to say you are wrong. To preempt a traditional state right, such as home rule, it must be a clear intention of congress to do so. The 1996 act doesn't have this clear statement. Sorry. To the first point: my problem is that, as I recall that paragraph being written, the same reasoning could be used to strike down an FCC attempt to promote private investment. (I know that wasn't the question before the court, but surely the court ought to consider future consequences of their rulings?) Have a meeting to run to, so can't check whether I am remembering correctly right now. To the second point: I don't remember seeing that sentence in the document. It does address most of my concerns, although it doesn't completely satisfy me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it. Ahahaha that's beautiful. Feeds him an out, he refuses Maybe if it was Manafort screaming in his ear
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:They don't have to find a clear statement for what it does or doesn't allow or require. They just have to see if there is a clear statement for what the fcc wants to do. If you say 2+2=6, I don't have to tell you what it really equals to say you are wrong. To preempt a traditional state right, such as home rule, it must be a clear intention of congress to do so. The 1996 act doesn't have this clear statement. Sorry. What is your actual stance? You're pulling this WELL RULES ARE RULES, AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE dance, while mentioning that poo poo sucks and Internet communism isn't in the cards. You're extremely keen on ignoring the part that the laws passed preventing municipalities from rolling their own fiber was straight up written by the telcos. You've ignored that part every single time in order to focus about how in 1996 Congress didn't explicitly tell the FCC that they can bring down the hammer. I'm seriously drawing a blank on how you're arriving at "well the law is the law!" when the crux of the issue is "hey, telcos are writing laws to curb public competition, what the gently caress?" Yeah, hats off to the telcos, they somehow can afford a bunch of lawyers to perpetually keep this in the courts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Ahahaha that's beautiful. Feeds him an out, he refuses Manafort prolly crumpled int he corner of the green room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Phone posted:You're extremely keen on ignoring the part that the laws passed preventing municipalities from rolling their own fiber was straight up written by the telcos. You've ignored that part every single time in order to focus about how in 1996 Congress didn't explicitly tell the FCC that they can bring down the hammer. It is actually not illegal for an organization to suggest or even straight up write a law, so long as it passes the usual legal channels (legislature, executive, etc).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is actually not illegal for an organization to suggest or even straight up write a law, so long as it passes the usual legal channels (legislature, executive, etc). It's not illegal, but it's gross.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It is actually not illegal for an organization to suggest or even straight up write a law, so long as it passes the usual legal channels (legislature, executive, etc). Oh yeah, I know that it isn't illegal and that it happens all of the time. It still doesn't mean that it isn't a bad law the same way that organizations try to police morality through regressive things like NC's own HB2. Like TWC should at least have a veneer of not being 100% invested and involved when writing the NC law specifically singling out Internet infrastructure; however, plausible deniability isn't exactly popular these days. Phone fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Phone posted:Oh yeah, I know that it isn't illegal and that it happens all of the time. It still doesn't mean that it isn't a bad law the same way that organizations try to police morality through regressive things like NC's own HB2. Telecom laws are a little less, uh, terrible than legalized discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Phone posted:Oh yeah, I know that it isn't illegal and that it happens all of the time. It still doesn't mean that it isn't a bad law the same way that organizations try to police morality through regressive things like NC's own HB2. You're basically asking the courts to police laws with morality though. Like exactly what precedent is being set? Too much association with corporations nullifies a law? Is it groups in general? Does a law proposed by a veterans group that aids veterans get similarly struck down?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Trump is really bad at politics y'all. He only won the GOP nomination because 45% of the 15% of eligible voters who participated in the GOP primary process were looking for maximum race hate, and Trump was using a bullhorn when everyone else was using dog whistles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
For any of you who don't know, Hewitt is probably one of the friendliest interviewers he could have, aside from maybe Hannity who might literally fellate him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:For any of you who don't know, Hewitt is probably one of the friendliest interviewers he could have, aside from maybe Hannity who might literally fellate him. I'd watch that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're basically asking the courts to police laws with morality though. How many times did Ma Bell go to court until it was broken up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Phone posted:How many times did Ma Bell go to court until it was broken up? Did breaking up Ma Bell actually change anything? Remember, all it did was turn a national monopoly into a few regional monopolies. Unless you were physically moving hundreds of miles, you wouldn't notice a difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:For any of you who don't know, Hewitt is probably one of the friendliest interviewers he could have, aside from maybe Hannity who might literally fellate him. https://mobile.twitter.com/CandaceSmith_/status/763740070318866432
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Phone posted:What is your actual stance? Let me help you out, this is the part that the courts are supposed to address: Phone posted:WELL RULES ARE RULES. And this is the part that is completely loving irrelevant and should be ignored: Phone posted:poo poo sucks and Internet communism isn't in the cards. Sorry you can't sidestep the rule of law and get communism implemented by fiat from a dictatorial judiciary but I kind of like living in a (nominally) free society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
As much as I hate the 6th circuit ruling I can't disagree with it. (I want credit for this next time you say I'm being difficult law wonks). The fact of the matter is that cities exist as functional extensions of states in this country and while it seems like (and I agree with) they should have more autonomy from higher branches of government, they don't. Cities exist purely at the pleasure and convenience of state governments. We are as a society reaching a point of technological sophistication that local governments properly staffed could do much more direct and democratic management of local resources, infrastructure development and management but the law is still 18th century in where their power to do so derives from. I bring this up because it's a deeply important topic to me that we fix the telecom infrastructure issue and it's useless to take up the tact of "mean old state governments" because that is literally where power does lie in respective to cities, I think as a future consideration we should change that but that's not the world we live in today. If you believe that it should be a utility, or there should be a public internet option or this is a human rights issue then it must be fought at a state level as the law currently stands, just like gay marriage was. When the tide becomes obvious for the economic benefits, the law will flip quickly but first we must change the 20 states, many of which include the most connected populations according to the census data, from having the Comcast et all protectionist laws.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thebillywest/status/763507071689949184 https://twitter.com/thebillywest/status/763531951827357696 https://twitter.com/thebillywest/status/763491037218078720
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Did breaking up Ma Bell actually change anything? I would say not particularly outside of providing a case where the DOJ can, and will, break a monopoly if they become too much like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Now regional monopolies are using the legal and court systems to stifle competition. These companies were asked to please put new copper in the ground and they said "No." They created this "problem" because it's going to affect this quarter's margins and that is Not Acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:As much as I hate the 6th circuit ruling I can't disagree with it. (I want credit for this next time you say I'm being difficult law wonks). Or congress, the ruling really comes down to "The FCC can't get between the states and their cities without an explicit mandate from congress and the telecommunications act did not provide an explicit mandate"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
I love it. He's handed a layup - a perfect chance to add some context to repulsive remarks and maybe make it seem like he's not a complete loving turd. Instead of taking that layup, he decides to take the ball back to half court, poo poo greasy diarrhea all over the floor and then act like it was a slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:I would say not particularly outside of providing a case where the DOJ can, and will, break a monopoly if they become too much like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. What it's shown is that they'll break a monopoly into several monopolies, without changing the existing relationship. So maybe you'll get a Health Insurance situation where you have "Verizon of Texas" and "Verizon of North Carolina", but they'll still gently caress you over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:How do you as a politician respond to Trump's "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS, repeat x3" in any way besides "these are the ramblings of a crazy person and we hope Donald gets professional help soon"? I know there isn't anyone on the R side with principles, so how are they trying to spin it instead? Forget about who was president from 01 to 09.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Phone posted:What is your actual stance? Because it doesn't matter to the ruling? The ruling concerns federal preemption by the fcc. Who wrote the law doesn't matter. All you've done is bitch about telco companies as if that matters to the decision. Grundulum posted:To the first point: my problem is that, as I recall that paragraph being written, the same reasoning could be used to strike down an FCC attempt to promote private investment. (I know that wasn't the question before the court, but surely the court ought to consider future consequences of their rulings?) Have a meeting to run to, so can't check whether I am remembering correctly right now. The court states it's a limited holding and lists four questions it doesn't even consider. And courts should not decide matters not before them or write broad or expansive opinions. If it came before the court to decide whether it applied to public or private, the court would have to look into it more in depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
pacerhimself posted:I love it. He's handed a layup - a perfect chance to add some context to repulsive remarks and maybe make it seem like he's not a complete loving turd. Instead of taking that layup, he decides to take the ball back to half court, poo poo greasy diarrhea all over the floor and then act like it was a slam dunk. Well, yeah. Adding context would require him to admit fault and that Obama/Hillary aren't actually demons in human skin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What it's shown is that they'll break a monopoly into several monopolies, without changing the existing relationship. Businesses should be forced to negotiate trade deals with each individual person, and they should have to renegotiate these deals every 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Trump's latest bedshitting just underscores the point that a few posters were making yesterday: Trump isn't some calculating political genius navigating the id of the GOP, he's just an insane narcissist with a powerful microphone. He's a lovely, lovely politician and I think his numbers are going to continue to decline a bit until they hit a low floor, though he'll probably recover before the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Or congress, the ruling really comes down to "The FCC can't get between the states and their cities without an explicit mandate from congress and the telecommunications act did not provide an explicit mandate" Also true and worth stating. In Washington over here we're looking into how to build our own fiber infrastructure but even if we built it out with enough bandwidth to serve thr general populace we couldn't because of the current law basically making it overly burdensome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
I think my favourite part of this isn't even highlighted. It's right in the middle where he insists that everyone loves what he said, and using the exact same format a little kid would use, asks if the interviewer heard the best part, which he did, but Trump repeats it anyway, because he is a moron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Trump is a candidate that is informed entirely through right wing email forwards. This blasted him through the primaries since a big chunk of those voters are also informed entirely through right wing email forwards combined with the absolute cowardice and ineptitude of the rest of those guys. However now it's becoming obvious he didn't succeed before through anything other than luck and white angry people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There is at the state level. For some strange reason people never try that. Yeah but I'm in Ohio... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Trump's latest bedshitting just underscores the point that a few posters were making yesterday: Trump isn't some calculating political genius navigating the id of the GOP, he's just an insane narcissist with a powerful microphone. He's a lovely, lovely politician and I think his numbers are going to continue to decline a bit until they hit a low floor, though he'll probably recover before the election. I'm curious to see what the floor is for Trump. At this point, though, what within the realm of possibility could he possibly say that would turn off any of his remaining supporters? He could probably promise to immediately nuke Iran and use the n-word in the same sentence and his 35-40% of the vote would remain intact.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I'm curious to see what the floor is for Trump. At this point, though, what within the realm of possibility could he possibly say that would turn off any of his remaining supporters? He could probably promise to immediately nuke Iran and use the n-word in the same sentence and his 35-40% of the vote would remain intact. Yeah, and this weird resilience in his support is evidenced by him immediately beginning to recover in polls when he strings together a couple days of not making GBS threads himself and smearing it all over the camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I'm curious to see what the floor is for Trump. At this point, though, what within the realm of possibility could he possibly say that would turn off any of his remaining supporters? He could probably promise to immediately nuke Iran and use the n-word in the same sentence and his 35-40% of the vote would remain intact. A large amount of Trump supporters can't be turned off since they don't listen to what he says. Trump is just something they can pin all their hopes and dreams on and whatever he says is being interpreted in their minds as whatever topic in important to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Trump is a candidate that is informed entirely through right wing email forwards. This blasted him through the primaries since a big chunk of those voters are also informed entirely through right wing email forwards combined with the absolute cowardice and ineptitude of the rest of those guys. However now it's becoming obvious he didn't succeed before through anything other than luck and white angry people. Some of us have been saying all along that Trump would be hopeless in a general election because winning the craziest of the crazies in the Republican primary isn't a recipe for winning the general. He's proven that he can't do anything other than win the craziest of the crazies, because he is a manifestation of their pure unbridled rage at the changing country and the onward march of progress and you can't harness that into a general election pivot. Seriously, did anyone actually think that the way Trump won the primary would translate well into a general? He couldn't even get a majority of the vote in the primaries because he is a narcissistic lunatic, and winning a plurality of the people who bother to turn up in Republican primary elections is not a sign that you're a master of 4D political chess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Radish posted:Trump is a candidate that is informed entirely through right wing email forwards. This blasted him through the primaries since a big chunk of those voters are also informed entirely through right wing email forwards combined with the absolute cowardice and ineptitude of the rest of those guys. However now it's becoming obvious he didn't succeed before through anything other than luck and white angry people. Trump was also helped incredibly that the GOP primaries were overstuffed with candidates and none of them wanted to jeopardize their own chances by attacking Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:55
|
|