|
Kalman posted:It's in a section called increased transparency. Pretty sure they're talking about disclosing the scope/terms of those deals, which has been an ongoing conversation in net neutrality, not about applying net neutrality regulations. The point is that it's not reasonable discrimination - they aren't asking for Netflix to pay for a direction connection, they are effectively forcing them to, by not upgrading their peering links to Tier 1 networks and ensuring that Netflix cannot give a good service to Comcast customers without paying Comcast whatever Comcast is asking. Comcast even said no to the Netflix caching servers, which also would have relieved any congestion and probably for vastly cheaper, which typically is something that any ISP would be happy and willing to do. Netflix being treated from any other CDN service is not reasonable. That is now how the Internet in the US has actually worked up until the last year or two. Comcast's own testimony revealed that their upstream connection costs have dropped 99% in 10 years, so it's not about the cost of Netflix, it's exactly about extracting money from a competing service by leveraging Comcast's utily/monopoly position. Edit: It's also why ISP's stock took a huge hit - removing that leverage means that their potential for growth in to other markets by leveraging their ISP market is much lower. That's why it's a big deal, and why they are freaking out. ILEC's are generally massively incompetent and have very poor success at internet services, since they are mostly used to getting customers who have no other choice. Pervis fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 12, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You're wrong, this is exactly what Comcast is being paid for. Comcast is being paid for the caching servers, or for the direct connection? Typically the CDN company will pay a minimal rack space (w/ power & cooling) cost and provide the equipment and manage it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They've achieved most of their legislative success by buying seats in state legislatures or lower-level Congressional races. It's been a bottom up thing, which does not bode well for the future. They seem to be successfully ruining states (hello WI, KS), which has the added bonus of having younger and more liberal people move out, as they tend to be the ones hardest hit. It's incredibly frustrating because regardless of the actual outcome it's effectively a success for them; long-term conservative control over states, and a business environment that is highly friendly to the type of Gilded Age businesses those two and their friends run. I keep expecting other business interests to band together to try to get control of the Republican party back, but best I can tell that type of stuff would mostly be a state-by-state thing, while these guys can work across the entire country. It doesn't help that we have some odd cultural focus on the Federal level, meanwhile State level politics is where a whole lot of change (and innovation) happens. The amount of people outside Wisconsin or Kansas that actually know what's going on there is minimal. Although there's always time to bitch about California for whatever reason, which to me is becoming like Reagan's mythical welfare queen.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:California keeps getting trotted out as an example of a failed liberal state with businesses and people choked under regulations and taxes. Much like the mythical welfare queen pointing out that CA's economy is absolutely on fire right now or that most of their former fiscal problems can be traced to GOP intransigence and Prop 13 gets you nowhere because Toyota is relocating to Texas (because Texas bribed the poo poo out of them to do so and they lost 70-80% of their workforce as they were unwilling to leave awful horrible no-good CA). Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. Holding CA up as some sort of failed state since the Republicans lost control has been a long-term thing - the blackouts Enron caused were blamed on us not building enough power plants initially, and some people still think that's what caused it, even though it was a massive fraud and energy deregulation was the last thing Republicans in the state before they impaled themselves on prop 187. The best part is CA sends way more money to the federal government than it receives, which is then used to prop up states with lower taxes and shittier governments. Overall CA is roughly average or better than average in most areas, and has been even during the bad times. Red states may be able to attract some established businesses, but without the skilled workforces moving they aren't going to be created new ones and new industries. And they are very hostile to the skilled workforce (especially the non-White Christian parts), hence the workers from Toyota not moving. I just hope Walker (and whichever other lovely swing state Governors run) gets raked over the coals for his states performance compared to the rest of the country. Christie's too much of an rear end in a top hat to win, Jeb will forever be haunted by his brother's shadow, Perry.. just can't, and Cruz I don't think could win a general. I could easily see someone trying to pull an Ernst and largely stay unknown and not really stand for much of anything, with any record, and just have a shitload of money running against the democrats. As long as Hillary doesn't gently caress up and Bill and Obama can work on driving turnout, the Presidential election looks OK. I just don't see Hillary herself driving youth turnout like Obama did, although maybe young women would come out for her.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:Perry can't because there's a significant chance he's in jail in 2016. How likely is that? Would he actually go to jail while his appeals are ongoing, or is there some way around that? I assume he'd drop out if it became likely that he'd be convicted, but maybe he's crazy enough that the conviction would happen before he does so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Pegged Lamb posted:Do these places have distinct political tendencies on one side? Apparently this is a thing in Oregon too. Overall, no. Basically the bad vaccination areas in CA are spread across the political spectrum, although the poorer San Joaquin valley counties (which have a high amount of migrant farm workers) actually look pretty good. This came up in the political maps thread, because there's a map of CA by school district and the results don't fit any obvious political bent. In some other thread the rates of vaccination for some charter schools were posted, and they were sub-50%, which does fit the type of people I've run in to who don't vaccinate. They care about their kids, and are sorta-educated, but are in to alternative ways of doing things.. and the vaccination stuff fits right in somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Any chance of Hillary backing a carbon tax? Larry Summers, who is one of the most bracingly rightwing Democratic figures I can think of, had an op-ed in the Washington Post suggesting capitalizing on the current low oil prices to swiftly enact a tax. I also recall The Economist starkly preferring a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system a few years ago, and I have difficulty imagining that they've changed course on that front (although I haven't subscribed or read it regularly for about three years now). They could (and should) increase the gas tax to some reasonable level and index it to inflation, with some sort of string that the money goes to infrastructure improvements and maintenance. The gas tax hasn't moved since the early 90's so it's nowhere near enough, although the current Republican congress would be more likely to privatize large (important, bottleneck) chunks of the highway system than properly fund it, but since it's a regressive tax maybe it could actually pass in some fashion after '16. I'm not sure how an "increase the gas tax to fund highway infrastructure" policy would actually poll in a general election, but I'd like to think that maintaining the public highway infrastructure would actually be a good idea. At some point infrastructure will become a bigger election issue, and unless trends change I really wouldn't put it past Republican candidates to start talking about the "free market" as a solution, even though that's pretty far right even with today's overton window. It is pretty sad to think that in today's world there's zero chance a national highway system would actually get built by the feds like in the 50's.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:But that's not to say she has a lock and there's a very big question mark around whether she can turn out the vote as Obama did. Do you expect Obama to be out campaigning or at least rallying the troops? I assume that if the economy is holding together and we don't invade (or re-invade) some country, he would be. When was the last time we actually had the sitting president campaigning for their parties candidate? Clinton didn't really (which was a mistake), Reagan couldn't, Carter was a 1-termer as was Ford, Nixon got tossed, LBJ wasn't well liked, JFK died, so we have to go back pretty far I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Well when Chaney did it, it was a minor kerfuffle that didn't go anywhere because he started claiming the VP was neither part of the executive nor part of the legislative branch. Yeah, and it wasn't just that. The Bush administration spent 6 years running email through GOP-run email servers and those emails were just plain gone, not archived, nothing. Between that and Jeb running his governor email through a private server the double standard is absolutely stark here. I think the Bush 43 stuff came up as a result of the US Attorneys firing scandal investigation. Oddly enough, Chris Christie was appointed as a federal attorney by Bush in 12/01, which might be the timeframe in which the firings happened (so they could hire people like him).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Except that an after-the-fact recount was done under various hypothetical Gore-wins-the-case scenarios, and Bush still won. Did that count provisional ballots too? I assume there was a reason Bush sued to stop a recount, and it wasn't just because they wanted to save time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Because it's the Clintons. Something about them sets the press and the right wing on fire unlike anyone else. Even Obama doesn't get the level of scrutiny the Clintons do - even in their current throes of insanity we still haven't had two weeks of hearings on who Michelle sent a Christmas card to, or reenactments of Michelle killing a man. We haven't had questions about Barack doing an irregular lace up of his shoes, Three Rivers Press hasn't been smacked with inquiries about who signed off on running it. The Clintons are responsible for throwing Bush the elder out of office, which is a hard pill to swallow after 12 years of Reagan (PBUH) and Bush leading the country and taking down communism and whatever. They'll be bitter about that until the end of time. They have to play up everything as a scandal (just like Obama) in order to keep their base as pissed off as ever and to frame the narrative for whatever comes next. Just like Obama. With the Clintons it's personal, especially since Hillary is still involved in politics. I don't see Michelle going in to politics after Obama leaves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:28
|
|