9 ms·

Great so we can let ISPs off the hook for all the money we've already given them for faster service they haven't provided. This is how our government works folk

• sxates 9y ago
  It's mostly how our Republican governments work.
  • ganoushoreilly 9y ago
    Both sides are guilty of this, anyone who believe one party is less in it for fame, power, and money, than the other is just as naive as those that voted in our current president.
    • leereeves 9y ago
      > just as naive as those that voted in our current president. So you feel both sides are guilty, but not Hillary?
    • jetpks 9y ago
      > Both sides are guilty of this, This republican excuse for poor government is so tired. Further, from the third paragraph in the article: > But during the Obama administration, the FCC determined repeatedly that broadband isn't reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas. So no, it's not really both sides here. There is very clearly one side doing a shit job.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • pilsetnieks 9y ago
      It's a false equivalency. One party's appointee fought for net neutrality and tried to regulated the ISPs as a utility; the other's is now actively dismantling everything his predecessor had accomplished, not even trying to pretend it's not in the ISPs' interests.
      • ganoushoreilly 9y ago
        I'm speaking in a broader sense. Both parties have agendas, many of which behind closed doors equate to self improvement and consolidation of power. They just wrap the turd up in a red or blue bow.
        • blhablhablha 9y ago
          This is doubling down on the false equivalence. The phrase "broader sense" is a weak counter to the accurately identified flaw in your approach.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • enraged_camel 9y ago
      This whole "both parties are equally bad" meme needs to die, as it is categorically false.
    • tormeh 9y ago
      >Both sides are guilty of this, anyone who believe one party is less in it for fame, power, and money, than the other is just as naive as those that voted in our current president. This idea is not only false but also poisonous to democracy. If it becomes dominant then the US will be vulnerable to revolution. While I think an overhaul of the constitution is about time, a revolution is usually highly unpleasant. If all democratic choices are equally bad, then you have two choices left: Resignation or revolution. This is kind of what Trump is about, I think: A lot of angry people wanted to see if they could vote for something else than the traditional two ideologies that they regarded as equally bad.
      • ganoushoreilly 9y ago
        Have you worked for the government, have you been behind closed doors with representatives of both parties? I have and you're foolish if you don't think they have similar agendas with fringe conflicts.
        • tormeh 9y ago
          Obviously they do. Power corrupts and we all know this. The question is whether they are equally bad.
    • s73ver 9y ago
      No. This both-sidesism is laughably wrong. There are extremely clear distinctions between the two parties. Anyone claiming they are the same is either intellectually lazy or corrupt.
      • charlieflowers 9y ago
        Well, ok, fair point. You're forcing me to better articulate myself (I'm not the GP, but still...). It's not that they're "the same," but they've come to reach a homeostasis that protects each side while not truly fixing hard problems. They may not have sought that out intentionally, but now that they're in it, they're intentionally, happily, staying in it. The end result is, we're watching a play, where each side has some powerful dramatic lines full of tense conflict, but it's all fake and they're really cooperating to keep everything pretty much the same.
        • muninn_ 9y ago
          Idk why you're being downvoted. Even if the parties have a disagreement it is usually just superficial. Both are still in favor of things like bombing, for example, both wanted TPP (and Trump killed it, funny enough) and a myriad of other things. They aren't exactly the same, but they are on a lot of matters.
          • s73ver 9y ago
            They're being downvoted because their point, and yours, is absolutely bunk. You pick one or two token things on which they agree, and ignore an entire host of issues on which they have significant differences.
            • muninn_ 9y ago
              You missed what I wrote. Of course they disagree on things, but those things are largely superficial. They don't disagree, for example, on foreign policy. They don't disagree on the NSA collecting bulk data, they don't disagree on promoting corporate welfare. They disagree on some important things too, like environmental policy, but that's just a matter of who is paying who. Calling this "absolute bunk" just demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about.
    • croon 9y ago
      I could copy, paste and format, but I'll just link this comment instead, because it's pretty thorough in showing how wrong that idea is: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6s1mge/10_members_of_congress_rake_fcc_over_the_coals_in/dl9mphu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6s1mge/10_membe...
  • yellowapple 9y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't aware Nancy Pelosi is a Republican.
  • malchow 9y ago
    Or thank Democrats for advancing pork-laden public-private partnership regional cable monopolies that gave rise to the copper behemoths of today. Don't try to make this partisan.
• danjoc 9y ago
  [citation needed]
  • chank 9y ago
    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335080A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335080A1.p... https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0827/DOC-335071A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0827/DOC-335082A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
    • rayiner 9y ago
      That money comes almost entirely from a special tax on those same companies. It's like adding a 10% sales tax to each iPhone or Pixel and then giving the money back to Apple and Google to subsidize phones for people in need. It'd be weird to call that "money we've ... given them." To the contrary, usually when we impose special excise taxes like that we do so to discourage what we perceive as undesirable industries (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, sugary drinks). It's the height of political innumeracy to expect a different result with internet service just because our intentions for imposing the excise tax are different.
      • speedz 9y ago
        > That money comes almost entirely from a special tax on those same companies. It's like adding a 10% sales tax to each iPhone or Pixel and then giving the money back to Apple and Google to subsidize phones for people in need. It'd be weird to call that "money we've ... given them." It is quite literally "money we've ... given them." You are wrong in that the subsidies are not a tax on the companies. The subsidies are a fee collected from the subscribers by the companies on behalf of the government. Those subsidies are then distributed to different incumbents, based on applications. This distribution is not based on which companies collected and how much. The collection and distribution are disconnected. So to summarize, it is indeed "our money", since it's being collected from us and if it wasn't we'd get to keep the money hand have cheaper service. It is also "given" away as a subsidy to incumbents. In other words, "money we've ... given them." What's wierd is not that we give them our money. What's wierd is that this is not a regular tax, but a fee tagged on to telecom services. But hey, it's far easier to tax by proxy, call it a fee and somebody else do the dirty work. At least rhen you don't need to call it a tax.
• smsm42 9y ago
  Wait, how do you give ISPs money for service faster than their current offerings? Do you mean they are subsidized by the government, but after receiving subsidies to expand bandwidth they do not? Any source to that?
  • speedz 9y ago
    ISPs have for decades been subsidized and not delivered. http://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm http://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm
    • smsm42 9y ago
      Is there any information that doesn't require me to buy a book? Not that I'm opposed to that in principle, but I'd prefer an open source.
      • kristopolous 9y ago
        sure ... I wrote an article mentioning it https://medium.com/@kristopolous/public-private-partnerships-and-the-shafting-of-america-5cdee04aa336 https://medium.com/@kristopolous/public-private-partnerships... "...ISPs don’t actually build what they get the money for. One used hundreds of millions for trips, expensive food and wine, and luxurious parties while not actually delivering anything. The $200 billion handout in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 was supposed to fund fiber to the home. Instead: > other countries made sure the money went into ground wiring and other upgrades. The U.S. lacked the regulatory will...and thus, the phone companies were able to simply spend less and not be held accountable." And here's a newish example. This is the consequences of fundamentalist orthodoxy and foundational mythology: "EPB wanted to build out its gigabit fiber network to many of these same communities using money it has on hand or private loans at no cost to taxpayers. It would then charge individual residents for internet service. Instead, Tennessee taxpayers will give $45 million in tax breaks and grants to giant companies just to get basic infrastructure built. They will then get the opportunity to pay these companies more money for worse internet than they would have gotten under EPB's proposal." https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170412/06311737132/tennessee-gives-att-comcast-millions-new-taxpayer-subsidies-yet-banned-city-owned-isp-expanding-broadband-without-taxpayer-aid.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170412/06311737132/tenne...