4 ms·
This is hilariously naive. You're essentially pointing fingers and laughing at people who you esteem to be less intelligent than yourself while making pretty ab
by pdeuchler 9y ago
This is hilariously naive. You're essentially pointing fingers and laughing at people who you esteem to be less intelligent than yourself while making pretty absurd statements that have little to no basis in actual fact
For instance the original, and probably fatal, blow to net neutrality was the 1996 Telecommunications act that was passed mainly to encourage "wire to wire competition", which has since become a total farce. In exchange for this absurd concept we not only gave the telecoms huge tax cuts (nominally so they could expand infrastructure) that they then directly plowed into dividends, share buybacks, and bonuses, we also allowed the sale of wireless spectrums (another public good). But most importantly we enshrined local monopolies into law. Almost every single fight we've had for net neutrality since then has stemmed from this legislation. Guess who signed it into law? Bill Clinton, a democrat. And while the Senate and House both had Republican majorities the bill was passed with largely bipartisan support (less than 20% of the Senate and less than 5% of the house voted against it) and heavy support from the Clinton administration.
But lets say you don't buy that, lets take a look at the current political climate. The largest recipients of telecom dollars in the Senate have been overwhelmingly Democrats (it's about 50/50 over the past 8 years in the House), the telecoms have extremely influential Democrats in their pocket like Nancy Pelosi (who laughably claimed that the ISPs would save us from the Republican bill to allow ISPs to sell your internet traffic history), and even ex-Obama administrators are largely applauding today's ruling. Don't for a second think you or anyone else is somehow above this just because you identify with a certain tribe.
Also it's pretty odd that you think name dropping engineering friends means you have an informed opinion on this extremely non-technical matter, as if an RF engineer would have an informed opinion on the intricacies of economic repercussions of spectrum auctions.
But you do have one very good point, elections have consequences. Vote out anyone who takes a dime from telecoms, ISPs, interconnect providers, or even tech companies. The issue here is not ideological, it is monetary. Corporate influence has completely taken over our political system and regardless of party we are helpless to stop it until we take a principled stand and refuse to vote for the representative who's trying to sell us to the highest bidder simply because they wear the same color shirt as the people we associate with.
- X86BSD 9y agoOne day the people may wake up to realize some things. Like voting R or D does not matter because they share the same di5k to eff you with. There is no difference between the two parties. None. The rhetoric is different but the actual voting records show they are the same animal. Beholden to the same military industrial complex/corporate masters. They may also realize that if voting actually changed anything it would be illegal. Neither of which I expect to see in my lifetime. I also have little faith in the intelligence or critical thinking of my fellow countrymen when they can’t seem to understand the above or do anything about it. Just not a lot of faith. Others will argue I’m wrong. As the red white and blue di5k keeps pounding them in the backside. As George Carlin noted when you are born in this world you are given a seat to the freak show, when you are born an American you are given a front row seat.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> There is no difference between the two parties. None. The rhetoric is different but the actual voting records show they are the same animal. Er, no, actual voting records of Congress and regulatory agencies like the FCC show a whole host of issues on which the parties are very different. Including, relevant to this discussion, the consistent absolute partisan split on net neutrality at the FCC.
- X86BSD 9y agoHow much of that do you believe is simply taking the other side by democracy’s because they hate republicans? Versus if the dems has the WH and both houses they would appoint another telecom shill and have done exactly the same thing? That’s the party that tried to bring us the Clipper chip my friend. Think about that.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> How much of that do you believe is simply taking the other side by democracy’s because they hate republicans? Approximately zero; the areas of partisan difference, and the details of disagreement in those areas, have drifted a bit over time, but were largely similar 25-30 years ago, when, despite campaigns being hard-fought, relations were much more collegial then today. It's not personal hatred driving the policy differences.