US Politics--playing chicken with a government shutdown... Again.

[Swordfish]

The GOP is just such an easy target, Ramsay.

But these boards have had some great debates over the past couple years, especially about the govt's war on terror, police use of force, to name a couple.

I suppose it isn't as much fun for some conservatives here, but that's kinda your own fault. When you bring weak sauce to a party, you have to expect to be called out for it.

Ha. The problem with this logic is that a lot of peoples definition of 'weak sauce' is the same as their definition of 'something I disagree with'.

[Jon Sprunk]

Sword, I don't know if that's true enough to be valid. Some conservs (I'm thinking FLoW and Scot, off the top of my head) have certainly made arguments that received respect, begrudged as it may have been.

But far too often, we see posts from others on the rightwing side of the spectrum just vomit up half-baked statements they cannot defend. If the response looks like a circle jerk, then so be it. A public forum is a wonderful place to pound out ignorance.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The GOP is just such an easy target, Ramsay.

But these boards have had some great debates over the past couple years, especially about the govt's war on terror, police use of force, to name a couple.

I suppose it isn't as much fun for some conservatives here, but that's kinda your own fault. When you bring weak sauce to a party, you have to expect to be called out for it.

But when someone posts a thoughtful response--whether conserve or lib--it is generally respected here. Even when the board mainly disagrees, you only get the dog-pile when you post a lame talking point that's probably been refuted a hundred times already.

Oh I know, I've taken part in a lot of those debates. And I like the posters in this thread( for the most part). But sometimes you guys go pretty far up your own asses.

Recently, it seems like these threads have just been endless 2016 horse-race chatter or - like Swordfish said -circlejerks about the evil/stupid GOP. Last week more people wanted to discuss the ramifications of Bill Clinton's Oval Office blowjob than the ramifications of Hillarys hawkishness in Libya

[Swordfish]

Sword, I don't know if that's true enough to be valid. Some conservs (I'm thinking FLoW and Scot, off the top of my head) have certainly made arguments that received respect, begrudged as it may have been.

But far too often, we see posts from others on the rightwing side of the spectrum just vomit up half-baked statements they cannot defend. If the response looks like a circle jerk, then so be it. A public forum is a wonderful place to pound out ignorance.

Yes. And we certainly never see that from our left wing counterparts, right? Heh....

I don't really care, to be clear. People are gonna post what they want to post. But the competition to see who can use the most inflammatory, hyperbolic language to describe ones disgust(via generalization) for conservatives that a lot of posters display tends to detract from the overall quality of the discussion. It's the primary reason i rarely post here anymore, and I know its a big part of the reason FLOW doesn't as well.

It's just not worth wading through all the 'OMG republicans H8 puppies and WIMMINZ' to get to the stuff with substance.

Just my .02.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

What really improves the thread is filling it with as much complaining as possible.

[Swordfish]

What really improves the thread is filling it with as much complaining as possible.

You clearly prefer snark, then? Even when it's complainnig about someone complaining cloaked in snark?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

You clearly prefer snark, then? Even when it's complainnig about someone complaining cloaked in snark?

Vastly.

[Swordfish]

Vastly.

Noted.

[Altherion]

The FCC has reclassified broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. They won't use the resulting powers to do anything meaningful about the near-monopoly most broadband providers have, but at least they will enforce net neutrality. That is, the ISPs won't be able to collect money from both you (for internet service) and from Netflix (for delivering you videos at anything above a glacial pace) or otherwise prioritize their own content and the content of people who have paid them over that of everyone else. Amusingly enough, even though the ISPs are pretty obviously common carriers, the FCC resisted classifying them as such for years... until Verizon decided to sue them for trying to enforce net neutrality and won, but with the court suggesting that the outcome would be different if they were reclassified as common carriers. This was not exactly the outcome Verizon was aiming for.

Of course, the telecoms will sue and the Republicans want to change the law altogether so this is by no means over, but it's nice to have somebody swat the telecoms for a change.

[Swordfish]

The FCC has reclassified broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. They won't use the resulting powers to do anything meaningful about the near-monopoly most broadband providers have, but at least they will enforce net neutrality. That is, the ISPs won't be able to collect money from both you (for internet service) and from Netflix (for delivering you videos at anything above a glacial pace) or otherwise prioritize their own content and the content of people who have paid them over that of everyone else. Amusingly enough, even though the ISPs are pretty obviously common carriers, the FCC resisted classifying them as such for years... until Verizon decided to sue them for trying to enforce net neutrality and won, but with the court suggesting that the outcome would be different if they were reclassified as common carriers. This was not exactly the outcome Verizon was aiming for.

Of course, the telecoms will sue and the Republicans want to change the law altogether so this is by no means over, but it's nice to have somebody swat the telecoms for a change.

Yep. A good first step. But I'm not sure anyone has the will to take on BIG INTERNET over this one.

Still.. It's an interesting battle to watch.

[zelticgar]

Yep. A good first step. But I'm not sure anyone has the will to take on BIG INTERNET over this one.

Still.. It's an interesting battle to watch.

Its kind of a pointless battle address a problem that does not exist. There has never been an example of traffic throttling by an ISP. The big bandwidth users pay for peering/interconnect access but not prioritization. The real issue of lack of consumer choice and broadband monopoly is not solved by any of these rulings.

[TerraPrime]

Its kind of a pointless battle address a problem that does not exist. There has never been an example of traffic throttling by an ISP. The big bandwidth users pay for peering/interconnect access but not prioritization. The real issue of lack of consumer choice and broadband monopoly is not solved by any of these rulings.

Eh?

Netflix was throttled during price negotiation. You know that, right?

[Suttree]

There has never been an example of traffic throttling by an ISP.

Wut? Leaving aside the changes proposed, TP's post and AT&T throttling FaceTime are just a couple of examples. Why on earth would you just toss something like that out?

[zelticgar]

My initial post related to line wire broadband service, not cell carriers. Regarding ATT and Netflix -

AT&T was throttling cellular customers with unlimited data plans and some services they felt were eating their network capacity. This is obviously not a good thing but the way the cellular market is set up should contain these issues because the customers have choice. AT&T customers can easily move to any number of 3 to 5 major carriers.

It is not clear that Netflix was throttled. They were in the process of moving to their own delivery model (versus using paid third parties providers). The choices they made on how they were routing transit connections were more likely causing slowdowns. A lot of this was validated later on when they put up messages blaming ISP for delivery issues. Messages which they quickly had to roll back because it was Netflix delivery methods that actually caused the issues. Basically Netflix was paying for these services from third party providers and when they decided they wanted to pull the business in house to cut out the third parties they did not want to pay. Its easy to say they were throttled but the reality is that is a more complex.

I am not against NN I just think it is a bit overblown and that the market (at least on how ISP's and content providers interact) has seemed to work okay on its own. I also don't like how the focus is on a supposed goal of a free and open internet but the solutions don't solve the primary issue - i only have a single option for broadband internet service in my home. As far as i understand it these new rules will continue the model of a single provider of broadband but with the assurance that now the government is watching over the cable companies that provide the service to make sure they don't abuse it. I would strongly prefer an approach which allows more competition for broadband services into the home.

[Commodore]

The FCC declaring for themselves the right to control the internet (which has existed for twenty years without such controls) is what should scare people.

Wait till they start requiring licenses to create/operate a website (and all the fees/fines/taxes associated with that).

Wait till they start imposing Orwellian "decency", "fairness", "equal time" standards on website content.

Instead of finding ways to break up ISP monopolies, they want to control the existing entrenched monopolies. A centralized, command and control mindset.

[MerenthaClone]

The FCC declaring for themselves the right to control the internet (which has existed for twenty years without such controls) is what should scare people.

Wait till they start requiring licenses to create/operate a website (and all the fees/fines/taxes associated with that).

Wait till they start imposing Orwellian "decency", "fairness", "equal time" standards on website content.

Instead of finding ways to break up ISP monopolies, they want to control the existing entrenched monopolies. A centralized, command and control mindset.

Okay. I'll wait.

[Inigima]

Zelt, you are 100% full of shit on this one. They've done it in the past and they've explicitly stated their desire to do it in the future.

[zelticgar]

Inigima,

You and my wife would get along famously. She thinks I'm full of shit as well. :drunk:

Can you be a little more specific about where I am full of shit?

[Inigima]

Zelt,

Here are some examples of network neutrality violations:

Deliberately breaking customers' connections for applications they don't like:

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/eff-study-reveals-evidence-of-comcasts-bittorrent-interference/

Exempting their own content from bandwidth limitations:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/net-neutrality-concerns-raised-about-comcasts-xbox-on-demand-service/

Paid prioritization:

http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/

And here's Verizon stating under path that they believe they should be allowed to block competitors' websites:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/26/comcast-we-will-sue-to-slow-the-web.html

Net neutrality is literally what everyone wants except for ISPs, because they want to gouge the shit out of you. The problem is that people like you either don't understand what it means or think they already have it.

As for more competition, I agree, it would be lovely. However, incumbent operators go to great lengths to ensure it won't happen. They buy up any potential competitors, they lobby to block municipal broadband, the whole nine yards. Comcast, Verizon, and their ilk are fucking Internet Satan. They are cartoon villains. They are self-interest defined.

[TrackerNeil]

I am not against NN I just think it is a bit overblown and that the market (at least on how ISP's and content providers interact) has seemed to work okay on its own. I also don't like how the focus is on a supposed goal of a free and open internet but the solutions don't solve the primary issue - i only have a single option for broadband internet service in my home. As far as i understand it these new rules will continue the model of a single provider of broadband but with the assurance that now the government is watching over the cable companies that provide the service to make sure they don't abuse it. I would strongly prefer an approach which allows more competition for broadband services into the home.

Great, and you are not alone. However, aren't you glad that at least one part of the problem is solved? Sometimes problems are solved in pieces, and I'm glad we took care of this piece the right way.