5 ms·

Disappointed that the telecom media conglomerates aren't getting more scrutiny.

studentrob 7y ago
Agreed. Net neutrality needs to be an election issue in 2020. Red/blue agree. The most upvoted comment ever removed from t_d was about NN [1] [2]. [1] https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&limit=1&sort=top&show=t1_d5tn1eg https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&lim... [2] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald https://revddit.com/r/the_donald
- root_axis 7y ago
  Huh? red & blue definitely don't agree on NN. I know some might point to poll numbers that suggest a majority of republicans support NN, but its important to remember that republicans are ideologically opposed to politicians that support NN. This is similar to how a majority of republicans support universal background checks for firearms but nobody suggests that "red/blue agree" on this issue because, despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    What is your evidence? I cited mine above. People who understand NN support it because it only enables entrenched interests to get more subscription fees from customers. The strong arm is regional ISP broadband monopolies. Through them, a slew of services can be forced to pass costs on to consumers. And, by the way, this map [1] is about to feature one fewer "competitor", [1] https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-Internet-Service-Provider-State-by-State-1024x731-1.png https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-In...
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > What is your evidence? I cited mine above. My evidence is the congressional record which indicates republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose NN and democratic politicians overwhelmingly support it. I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence; it is at best an anecdote, and one of dubious credibility IMO.
      - studentrob 7y ago
        > congressional record Politicians do what their constituents want now? That's new. > I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence Visit [1]. See the spike in the graph? That is the link I posted above. It is not anecdotal. As I said, this is the most upvoted comment ever removed from that sub. [1] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald https://revddit.com/r/the_donald
        bduerst 7y ago
        An overly-censored troll subreddit [1] is far from being evidence of anything, much less voting stances for bipartisan politics in legislature. In fact, any subreddit for that matter is not a good indicator. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-rabid-online-following/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...
        studentrob 7y ago
        The popularity of the topic and its censorship is evidence that the powers-that-be will put down NN wherever they have a chance. What would you use as proxy? r/conservative? They support NN too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_neutrality_and_conservatism_what_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_ne...
        root_axis 7y ago
        https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrality&restrict_sr=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali... So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks. You don’t sound like you know much on this topic. When the poll question is asked as: “Do you support background checks when purchasing a firearm to keep criminals from getting guns” the answer is high. When the question is more appropriately asked as: “Do you support the government requiring permission via an unrelated third party who has no obligation to comply before you are allowed exercise your civil rights?” A lot less support when the real question is asked. I don’t think that examples helps your argument in this case.
    - taurath 7y ago
      You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect. I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.
        taurath 7y ago
        You're the one who seems emotional. Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.
pixelbath 7y ago
I'm more disappointed that "regulating telecom" apparently means Net Neutrality these days. In the United States, the telecom industry engages in quite a bit of anticompetitive practices, specifically MSOs (multiple system operators) like Comcast and Spectrum. They frequently have agreements to be the only registered cable operator for a given geographic region. They frequently become the only provider for a given apartment complex or multi-tenant location. We're not allowed a la carte programming due to bundles of channels these companies have a large stake in because of distribution rights. Rates have been outpacing cost-of-living and previous profit margins year-over-year since the 90s. Consumer broadband internet is still slower than most other developed nations, and we pay more for it at all pricing tiers. The only time I remember seeing speeds increase while rates dropped were when Google started building out fiber, and that only happened in a couple microcosms. I think there's a serious need for trustbusting, but the tech industry at large doesn't seem to be a good target yet.

Agreed. Net neutrality needs to be an election issue in 2020. Red/blue agree. The most upvoted comment ever removed from t_d was about NN [1] [2]. [1] https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&limit=1&sort=top&show=t1_d5tn1eg https://revddit.com/user/yiannopoulos_m?after=t1_dirwgoo&lim... [2] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald https://revddit.com/r/the_donald

root_axis 7y ago
Huh? red & blue definitely don't agree on NN. I know some might point to poll numbers that suggest a majority of republicans support NN, but its important to remember that republicans are ideologically opposed to politicians that support NN. This is similar to how a majority of republicans support universal background checks for firearms but nobody suggests that "red/blue agree" on this issue because, despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks.
- studentrob 7y ago
  What is your evidence? I cited mine above. People who understand NN support it because it only enables entrenched interests to get more subscription fees from customers. The strong arm is regional ISP broadband monopolies. Through them, a slew of services can be forced to pass costs on to consumers. And, by the way, this map [1] is about to feature one fewer "competitor", [1] https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-Internet-Service-Provider-State-by-State-1024x731-1.png https://www.webfx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-In...
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > What is your evidence? I cited mine above. My evidence is the congressional record which indicates republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose NN and democratic politicians overwhelmingly support it. I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence; it is at best an anecdote, and one of dubious credibility IMO.
    - studentrob 7y ago
      > congressional record Politicians do what their constituents want now? That's new. > I wouldn't regard a single post on a subreddit as evidence Visit [1]. See the spike in the graph? That is the link I posted above. It is not anecdotal. As I said, this is the most upvoted comment ever removed from that sub. [1] https://revddit.com/r/the_donald https://revddit.com/r/the_donald
      - bduerst 7y ago
        An overly-censored troll subreddit [1] is far from being evidence of anything, much less voting stances for bipartisan politics in legislature. In fact, any subreddit for that matter is not a good indicator. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-rabid-online-following/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...
        studentrob 7y ago
        The popularity of the topic and its censorship is evidence that the powers-that-be will put down NN wherever they have a chance. What would you use as proxy? r/conservative? They support NN too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_neutrality_and_conservatism_what_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/6mtvln/net_ne...
        root_axis 7y ago
        https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrality&restrict_sr=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali... So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks. You don’t sound like you know much on this topic. When the poll question is asked as: “Do you support background checks when purchasing a firearm to keep criminals from getting guns” the answer is high. When the question is more appropriately asked as: “Do you support the government requiring permission via an unrelated third party who has no obligation to comply before you are allowed exercise your civil rights?” A lot less support when the real question is asked. I don’t think that examples helps your argument in this case.
  - taurath 7y ago
    You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect. I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.
      - taurath 7y ago
        You're the one who seems emotional. Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.

pixelbath 7y ago

I'm more disappointed that "regulating telecom" apparently means Net Neutrality these days. In the United States, the telecom industry engages in quite a bit of anticompetitive practices, specifically MSOs (multiple system operators) like Comcast and Spectrum. They frequently have agreements to be the only registered cable operator for a given geographic region. They frequently become the only provider for a given apartment complex or multi-tenant location. We're not allowed a la carte programming due to bundles of channels these companies have a large stake in because of distribution rights. Rates have been outpacing cost-of-living and previous profit margins year-over-year since the 90s. Consumer broadband internet is still slower than most other developed nations, and we pay more for it at all pricing tiers. The only time I remember seeing speeds increase while rates dropped were when Google started building out fiber, and that only happened in a couple microcosms. I think there's a serious need for trustbusting, but the tech industry at large doesn't seem to be a good target yet.