SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ajit Pai promised faster broadband expansion:
2019 was the second straight year that Comcast lowered its overall cable capital expenditures (though Comcast's spending on line extensions and scalable infrastructure rose in 2018).
This wasn't supposed to happen, according to claims that ISPs and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai made in order to push through the repeal of net neutrality rules and other deregulatory measures. Pai, who just today released an 11-page list of his accomplishments as FCC chair, repeatedly argued that net neutrality rules caused broadband providers to reduce capital expenditures. After his net neutrality repeal took effect in June 2018, he claimed that the repeal and other FCC deregulation caused investment to rise.
But Comcast isn't the only major ISP cutting investment, as AT&T projects that it will reduce capital spending from $23 billion in 2019 to $20 billion in 2020. Charter Communications said in October that its capital expenditures excluding mobile services would total $7 billion in 2019, down from $8.9 billion in 2018. Verizon reported a small increase in capital expenditures in the first nine months of 2019.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 03 2020, @04:07PM (16 children)
Just imagine how much they would have reduced spending if they didn't get net neutrality repealed!!! /s
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday February 03 2020, @04:15PM (3 children)
I have a new prediction.
The first corporate use of non-neutral net won't be some squeeze by ISPs of netflix or youtube. That's too easy to backfire.
It'll be unilateral blocking of sites that displace the ISP's owners. Pirate bay, sci hub, anything vaguely and non-specifically illegal that hurts profits.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @05:29PM (2 children)
Besides morally good but illegal services, maybe more importantly the real victim will be upstarts.
Google Search, GMail, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Netflix are so big that if Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, or Cox tries to charge them extra for bandwidth they can refuse and when customers lose service they'll scream at the ISP more than they'll scream at the service provider. But if you're a new web service trying to compete with the big players, you're small enough that the ISP can charge you extra for bandwidth and bleed you dry, and because you're small you won't have enough loyal customers raising hell with ISP support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:59PM (1 child)
New web services? A few regulations will prevent that problem from ever occurring. Just make sure anyone who runs a website with user-driven content is responsible for monitoring and moderating that content. Then we won't have any pesky new web services and can focus on further entrenching existing monoliths like Facebook and Google into our government.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 03 2020, @09:07PM
A modicum of annual fees [vimeo.com] and no ad monetization work wonders for creating the feeling of responsibility into posters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday February 03 2020, @04:16PM (11 children)
Ah! The Kansas argument! If only they had cut taxes even more, then the power of unregulated capitalism would have been unleashed!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @04:21PM (8 children)
Just think what would happen with zero taxes.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @04:24PM (6 children)
You're not thinking big picture enough.
Imagine negative taxes for corporations!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Monday February 03 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)
You mean like this? [fanbyte.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM (3 children)
I'm thinking something at least that bad.
It's always a wonderful thing when giant corporations get money from the government for not doing what that money was for.
That's why SLS will never get off the ground. It's just too profitable to keep having delays and more cost plus. But I digress.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 03 2020, @06:50PM
Hey, I've lived in Clear Lake (Houston) - there's lots of good people there, people who need money for their wives and kids, and boats in the Kemah/Seabrook/Clear Lake marinas (It has the greatest concentration of boats of any region in Texas and claims the third largest fleet of recreational boats in all of the United States). It's not their fault that management keeps changing their mind like a Forever 21 addict changes their wardrobe...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:44PM
The government would have just spent in on classified crap like bioweapons but lied and said they used it to save children or something. So if the taxes are to go somewhere it is probably better to activision. Ideally they would not be collected from the people at all though.
https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:17AM
Sounds like Telstra. The Australian government, having seen the potential of the "DSL" invention paid Telstra a handsome amount of cash to build infrastructure to replace dialup. Telstra put the cash in their back pocket claiming that ISDN will do. They made a killing while the internet was new sucking high fees for MB of data where the lines should have been carrying GB.
Eventually it became too much to cover up. The government insisted that Telstra build DSL capable networks. By then the money was gone. We built a network, Telstra cried, pointing at their huge banks of modems and tonnes of copper.
It was too late.
So the government put their foot down. A "test centre" for "broadband" to build "what America has" in Australia would be built. DSL would be made available to the public. No! Telstra cried, clutching at their fat profit margin, you can't do this to us! We are besties! How could you? The public don't need broadband! Email is tiny! Who would pay so much just for internet? It won't be profitable.
The centre was built in Launceston Tasmania in the late 1990s. When the call went out for volunteers to use broadband instead of dialup the centre was swamped.
Telstra was given the contract to run the "test phase" for introducing broadband to the region.
On the bright side, since Telstra didn't move fast enough, several ISPs got off the ground in the meantime. Iinet. TPG. Ozemail. Now Australia has hundreds (?) Of ISPs.
......
Let's build a fibre network to be the future of internet in Australt, the government said, to bring Australia into the 21st century. We will call it the NBN.
#%#%2%##%36$&CARRIER DROPPED
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 03 2020, @06:44PM
I don't have to imagine, I've lived it!
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @09:11AM
Kansas tried this. Cut all taxes, which means not funding roads. Roads deteriorate. Businesses quit using roads. Businesses quit, due to lack of business. This is why now, you cannot drive across Kansas, you have to go through Nebraska. There are no gas stations in Kansas. No 7-11s. There are a few cows left, but if you help yourself to them, that is rustling, and they hang you. Wonderful State, Kansas! Nothing there, anymore, except the wind sweeping down the plain, and Oklahoma has most of that.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:56AM (1 child)
Hey! Show some respect! Kansas won the Super Bowl!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @08:46AM
Americans are, um, Geographically challenged. Most could not, unless they are NPR reporters, identify Ukraine on a map, that is, a map with no labels, which some people happen to keep in their Evil Secretary of State Lairs. But the fact that Americans cannot identify Manhattan, which clearly is just downstream of Three Forks, in Montana, or Honolulu, which is in South Carolina, or even Athens in Georgia or Miami in Ohio, or Buffalo Wings which are not at all Buffalo meat parts. So, point being, Trump is really not any more stupid than his supporters, it is just that he is as stupid as his supporters, and he thinks that Button and Nipple are countries, like Africa. And Missouri City is obviously the capital of Missouri, just like Jersey City is the capital of Jersey, and New York is the capital of New York, and Nevada City is the capital of Nevada, despite being in California. What a fucking moron the President of the Fucked United States is. I would imagine Senators would be embarrassed enough to vote to remove his ass, and fine intellect with vast ignorance, from office.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @04:23PM (18 children)
Repealing Net Neutrality was a signal to ISPs that they now had a free for all. They could do anything they want without consequences.
Reasonable and responsible levels of regulation are completely unreasonable and irresponsible.
Net Neutrality seemed to work for a long time. ISPs simply routed packets. Managed their networks. Then they got the idea that they could extort "netflix" (and others) to have a decent connection to the last mile connecting consumers. Not all packets are equal when "netflix" is one endpoint of the connection.
If AT&T thinks Netflix is using too much bandwidth, then AT&T should charge AT&T's customers! eg, if AT&T thinks I'm using too much bandwidth on Netflix, then AT&T should charge me for that! As should all ISPs. After all the ISP needs to be able to build, maintain and operate their network. It's not Netflix that is using too much capacity, it is ME, if indeed AT&T's capacity is insufficient for this new 21st century household use of the network.
Netflix may pay AT&T for a better connection to AT&T customers, but Netflix will end up having to raise their prices to do this. So I'm paying for it, but it looks like Netflix is the bad guy raising prices instead of AT&T raising prices. But wait . . . now non-AT&T customers are also subsidizing AT&T to build out their network! Netflix users who are on Verizon are now paying AT&T (indirection through Netflix).
So now Verizon gets the idea, that they should strike a similar smoke filled backroom dasterdly deal with, say, HBO. So now HBO raises prices, and HBO customers are are subsidizing Verizon. And that includes non-Verizon users of HBO who are subsidizing Verizon.
Eventually everything gets paid for. Networks are built to have enough capacity. But why not just keep the costs where they belong. Netflix didn't just suddenly start sending me lots of packets. I was the one who initiated the activity on Netflix that resulted in a lot of network use. It is ME, ME ME who is responsible for using the network traffic, NOT Netflix.
Netflix, HBO, etc already pay quite handsomely for their end of the connection already. They are paying their fair share. I should also pay my fair share at my end of the connection.
Network neutrality always was how the network operated until recent times. Everyone paid for their own network connection and use. It worked so well that the internet exploded into what it now is in the 21st century.
Regulations are needed because corporations are unable to police, regulate or control their own behavior. There is no bottom. No low that is too low. When corporations complain about regulation, they have only themselves to blame for that regulation. The term Network Neutrality never would have been coined had this bad behavior not started.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @05:34PM (1 child)
As I wrote elsewhere, if Comcast cuts Netflix connection speed there will be millions of customers who complain to Netflix. If Netflix posts an FAQ that boils down to, "It's Comcast's fault", the customers will start blasting Comcast. Comcast will buckle.
But if you launch a video service, somecoolvideos.com and start accumulating a customer base, Comcast can charge you extra for bandwidth and charge your users extra for bandwidth, and you and your customers will be too small to fight back. You'll scream at a few dozen poor hapless Comcast support employees, but nothing will change. So the Net Neutrality repeal profits the ISPs, strengthens the entrenchment of the existing major internet companies - Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc... - and hurts innovators.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @05:47PM
It was at least a few years ago, but I remember seeing the Netflix app on my RoKu complain very pointedly that there were network problems with my local ISP preventing this program from streaming at high quality.
I suppose Netflix would have automated tests which proved where the problem lies before pointing the finger at your local internet service provider.
Those kinds of interruptions didn't last very long. Network performance suddenly got better strangely.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @05:53PM (14 children)
Sending such signals seems to be a habit with the Rs.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @06:32PM (13 children)
Yes, because not one D takes campaign funds from any internet service provider, mobile or otherwise.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:57PM (12 children)
Yes they sure do! But last I counted the liberal politicians were some of the few standing up for our rights. Republicans have become a ghoulish entity that lies to your faces and doesn't even do a good job of it these days.
Stop being so partisan and focus on the issues. You're being manipulated by the WORST group of corrupt assholes around. Support AOC, support Sanders, support Warren. They all truly want to help improve the government, but you remain distracted by the bullshit Fox feeds you.
You think AOC is the devil incarnate, that Sanders is a kooky old man with crazy ideas. Any other 1st world nation, except Australia probably, they would be considered quite average. Only you batshit insane rightwing nutters believe the truly stupendous narrative lied to you by some rich assholes playing you for fools.
You are a sucker Runaway, and you do a great job of alienating those who would otherwise help you. Even your gun obsession would be protected, but you've gone so overboard with your paranoia that there is no discussing these things with you so I just point out the obvious for the 100th time and move on.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:02PM
Self-awareness clearly is not your strongest suit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @07:20PM (8 children)
AOC is not only ignorant and stupid, but she is batfuck crazy.
Sanders, I might have been able to support, but the Dems cut him off at the knees once, and they're working on cutting him off at the abdomen this time.
Pocahontas? Despite the fact that she has built a career based on lies about her heritage, I might be able to support her.
Problem with all of them is, the DNC is going to throw their support to either Biden, or to Bloomingidiot.
Maybe if all of you Dems had supported Tulsi more, we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. She is the most "qualified" of all the potential D's to fill the office of president.
But, the real problem with all of the DNC's chatter this time around, is Trump will be reelected. All of the noise from the left will be null and void when he is sworn in for his second term.
You guys ought to be considering the next election right now. Keep Tulsi Gabbard around. That woman can take you places that you can't even dream about today.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:40PM
Just imagine the mental implosion of the various arms of the establishment if you supported Sanders and got some good grassroots support from your community as well!
Republicans for Sanders 2020! You heard it from Runaway first! If he is fucked over by the DNC again he'll probably run independent so you'd better vote for him if he does :D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:49PM (3 children)
Trump will not be reelected one his crimes are made public. He had his son get a job paying $80k per month for a corrupt company in Ukraine, then threatened to withhold $1 billion aid if they did not fire a prosecutor who was looking into the company.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @09:48PM (2 children)
This is so wrong.
This is Trump we're talking about.
Once his crimes are made public, they will be canonized as a template of expected presidential behavior.
Trump will not only be elected in 2020, he will also get another term in 2024 with any need of elections. He's hinted about this numerous times. Sending up "half joking" test balloons to test the waters for toxicity.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @10:24PM
Bot, troll, shill, who can say?
Oddly it is a more accurate depiction since Biden can't be RE-elected. Very strange.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @12:50AM
Trump infected china with tradewar. I am american and know china is more wisdom than 1000 year old fish, they will trick with a small beneath control situations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:45AM (1 child)
I don't think you actually understand what batfuck crazy is.
Here is a hint https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/04/shoot-socialists-rodney-garcia-montana/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 05 2020, @01:07AM
He and O'Crazio went to batfuck finishing school together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:17PM
Trump may well be elected again. And again, it won't be because a majority of the voters voted for him.
That said, no, you don't have a voice in who the D's might considered as you've already revealed where your blinders are and it is not with them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Monday February 03 2020, @11:42PM (1 child)
Australia has gun control, universal healthcare, and a legal minimum wage of $19.49 /hour.* AOC and Sanders are right of center here.
*the minimum wage is A$19.49 (~$13.50 USD) per hour set federally by the Fair Work Commission. Employers also pay a minimum of another 9.5% of the wage into superannuation (similar to a 401K). Non-permanent positions are paid minimum 15% more. Note this is a minimum. As a real-life example supermarket checkout chicks are paid about $26/hour. (~US$17.50). At that pay level income tax is under 10% and there are no other deductions.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @11:52PM
Australia also has immigration policies that would have AOC's base rioting in the street if they were implemented here, but don't let that get in the way of your argument.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday February 03 2020, @06:52PM
Competition and cheap bandwidth make exploiting a lack of net neutrality difficult.
There are plenty of under-served places in the U.S. and Pai has not helped much on that front. Starlink could help by providing a vastly superior option for rural users. 5G could provide competition [businessinsider.com] in denser areas.
Bandwidth continues to get cheaper, and the amount of bandwidth needed to stream video (per user) drops with each new codec that gets adopted, although it can creep back up if users switch to 4K/8K, 60-120 Hz, HDR, etc.
It's all about video because throttling shouldn't make a big difference for audio, images, and web pages, and there is a conflict of interest with certain ISPs offering their own video streaming platforms in a crowded market ripe for culling.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday February 03 2020, @04:30PM (17 children)
Imagine an ISP advertisement. Pricing tiers.
Tier 1 -- $59.99 / month
This gets you internet access, and includes access to Yahoo, AOL, FoxNews and MSNBC.
Tier 2 -- $79.99 / month
This gets you internet access, and adds access to Google, Gmail, YouTube, Hulu, CNN and Facebook.
Tier 3 -- $129.99 / month
This gets you internet access including Netflix, HBO, Starz and Twitter.
Tier 4 -- $159.99 / month
This gets you unlimited* internet access.
*terms, conditions and limitations may apply. After all, it costs us money to allow you connections to more and more internet destinations.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @04:57PM (15 children)
I've been hearing about this scenario being right around the corner for over a decade now.
Isn't a locked down internet what you people want anyway? To prevent "fake news" from influencing people into hating establishment Democrats?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @05:37PM (2 children)
You're saying that the Net Neutrality repeal done under a Republican president by a Republican chair of the FCC is enacting a Democrat policy? Really?
I hate the Democrats, by the way. But your logic there... that's a little wacky. Let me guess, you're anti-vaccine and a flat earther?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:43PM (1 child)
No, that's not what I said at all. But don't let reading comprehension get in the way of simplifying the debate to one you're comfortable engaging in.
What I said was this bullshit hasn't happened, isn't going to happen, and if anything would feed into the exact sort of patronizing, censorial world-view of the people opposing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @10:19PM
Facebook has certainly tried to present it in other parts of the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:08PM (5 children)
Your idiocy aside, as pointed out by the other AC, they use the boiling frog method to keep the herds passive. They creep up the costs and fractured service plans nice and slow, otherwise people might flock to their competitor.
OR WORSE! They might push the politicians to actually re-regulate!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:46PM (4 children)
So why didn't they just boil this frog sometime between the mid 1990s and 2015, when net neutrality didn't exist? Why didn't the internet turn into a bastion of freedom from 2015 until now? And why is it that we've spent years entertaining the idea of the internet turning into the television industry when the exact opposite is actually taking place?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:47PM (2 children)
Because the internet wasn't that big of a deal back then, and yes they have been boiling the frog the whole time! Telecom prices and service have always been pretty shit in the US, and they stole billions in government funding that did not go into the infrastructure.
If you don't notice the compartmentalization of the internet the last few years then you're blind as fuck. They already started with their different promo campaigns / tiered services, but go ahead and keep boiling, you're probably warm and comfy right about now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @11:25PM (1 child)
Tiered services? Bro, the internet has had tiered service levels since before Trump's fourth bankruptcy, long before he was president. Do you mind pointing out which part of "net neutrality" was supposed to put a stop to that, and why it never happened in the years that it was a law?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:59PM
You are right, I was referencing the further split like allowing full bandwidth for their partner services like HBO, Netflix, whatever.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:54AM
https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history [freepress.net]
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Monday February 03 2020, @06:16PM (4 children)
They need to be entrenched securely before they start fucking you because you'll rise up and make popular things like net neutrality into LAW. It undermines their enemies if they don't jump instantly into raping their customers.
You already must have data caps with fines for going over? I didn't get those until Trump took over; now I have to pay if I go over my cap-- naturally they don't present it as a fine... but that is that it is; they also don't advertise unlimited anymore. The other company they now somewhat have to compete with is the phone company here which is actually worse to deal with and has gotten in trouble for "accidentally" billing people... just not as much as comcast who did the same thing. I've gotten money back twice now after they both screwed me over. I'm just going with the lesser of the two.
Make sure you call their tech support lines for at least 20 minutes two times per year during work hours (so you get Americans) because that eats up their whole profit from you for the year (that is old info but an employee told me that years ago.) Yes, if we all did, it would raise prices... but that won't happen so you can rob them of their profit on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:55PM (3 children)
Trump didn't invent data caps and neither did the repeal of net neutrality. Charter started imposing data caps in 2010, and lifted them in 2016, which is basically the opposite of the relationship you're trying to illustrate.
Orange man bad, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @10:29PM (2 children)
Orange man installed corrupt Pai, telecoms then realized they were safe from reprisal and started doing the nasty with their spreadsheets. We already have plans that include #OUR_SPECIAL_SERVICE_NO_DATA_LIMIT#
I doubt Trump could coherently speak on the topic without a prepared speech so I don't blame him for personally doing these things, but he is the one who controls who is appointed where and I recall him saying something about draining the swamp? Instead he is filling it with piranhas, alligators, and I hear his good friend Escobar donated a hippo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @11:21PM (1 child)
Again, telecoms were being nasty before, after and during "net neutrality". OP specifically said:
A quick Google search will tell you, yes, data caps existed before Trump took over. I'm not going to argue Trump has done anything good for things, but you're a blind fool if you think this starts and ends with him, or that "net neutrality" ever had the teeth to reel in this sort of misbehavior to begin with.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:08AM
I do not, but he certainly made things worse installing that turd Pai, along with tearing down the last shred of pretense behind corruption. The upside is this has let citizens see the total corruption, but the downside is it ramped up the corruption 10x.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:22AM
Comcast has already throttled bittorrent in the past. They and others have also done other, similar things which would violate net neutrality. This isn't even theoretical.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday February 03 2020, @06:54PM
Tier 4 puts your name in an FBI newsletter.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:05PM (1 child)
You conservatives keep crying about bad government regulation, but every time we get some corrupt asshole deregulating important shit there are crickets. Crying about Democrats but turning a blind eye to the naked corruption of the GOP? Hmmmm
Here is a friendly reminder about how the "unfettered capitalism" could actually work:
For true capitalism to work; everyone needs to start out equal.
That means wealth taxes to prevent dynasties.
That means enough state funded education that someone can support themselves.
That means adequate health treatment.
And a shit ton of other things that are called socialist.
What we have now is not capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @10:55PM
It is modern feudalism. We had regulations and tax rates, but those were clawed back by selfish people with too much power using lame jedi mind tricks like "taxes and government BAD."
I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?
^is joke da, please be not deportink me to Putin Putz Palace.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 03 2020, @06:17PM (12 children)
Ajit Pai has been owned by Comcast since before he became FCC chair. Comcast knew full well that he would let them do whatever they wanted, including cutting broadband expansion spending.
All the ISPs have been playing this game for a long time:
1. Get a bunch of government subsidies for expanding broadband coverage.
2. Don't spend most of it, just keep it to boost shareholder value.
3. Bribe congresscritters, presidents, state governments, and the FCC to look the other way.
And they'll continue to play that game so long as they have no meaningful competition or oversight.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:28PM (11 children)
Haven't you heard from the resident geniuses, government regulation bad! Less government GOOD! Taxes BADBADBAD!
The corruption may be pretty well bi-partisan, but the people who fight against such fascism are almost always liberals. Unless it is regulation about guns, then righty is all about freedom from oppression. Or Nazi speech, that is also another conservative hot topic that needs defending. Who cares about hippy protesters, throw the in the clink! Release the hounds! Arrest them for some lame charge and let them go within 24 hours!!
Hypocrisy, you conservatives REEEEEK of it. The libertarians are at least trying to break free of the mental shackles, but few of them make it very far before they just slap them back on and happily sit back at the feed trough.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @06:37PM (10 children)
If you took your (government funded) meds, you could probably participate in a conversation without frothing at the mouth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @06:59PM (9 children)
Ha! I wish I had government funded healthcare like you parasitic death cultists get.
Easy solution, support universal healthcare.
Or, harder solution, stop being a hypocritical douchelicker.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:04PM (8 children)
Didn't the Democrats already fix healthcare back when they controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House? What's the problem now?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Monday February 03 2020, @07:41PM (2 children)
The idiots voted for the terrible health care plan written by the Republicans.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 03 2020, @09:06PM (1 child)
And more recently, when the Republicans had control again, they very intentionally broke the plan the Democrats had voted in, so they could then go to the voters and complain about how much it sucked.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:11AM
A plan that's working like a charm. All those same people on the DNC/GOP tag team will reelected again. SNAFU!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:42PM (2 children)
a) they had such control for 4 months
b) again this isn't a partisan thing other than the GOP having lost all credibility
c) plenty of DNC assholes are still against UH
d) drop your bullshit and vote Sanders 2020 if you really want to help the US (you could be another russian troll doing the same thing as in 2016)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @11:15PM (1 child)
Your use of the "Russian troll" pejorative is ironic, since I've been assured by the sorts of people who are wont to use that phrase that Russia wants me to vote for Bernie.
It's kind of funny how the idea of Democracy for so many is the freedom to vote for the single candidate they support, or to be labeled a Russian troll. Maybe the trolls are the ones who convinced you that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:48AM
I'm a scientist, I got with the numbers. Statistically you are more likely to be a Russian troll, or a subsidiary. It also matches your posting history, guess now is as good a time as any to let everyone know that The Mighty Buzzard's password security is garbage! That IP hash sure is neat, sock puppets abound!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 04 2020, @03:22AM
You mean when they passed Romneycare (look it up, it was based on his running of Massachusetts healthcare when he was in charge there)?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday February 04 2020, @12:43PM
They made the mistake of reaching across the isle in compromise, assuming republicans had the capacity to negotiate in good faith.
That mistake will never happen again.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 03 2020, @11:18PM (2 children)
Now that Pai's play has caused exactly what conservatives said Net Neutrality would cause (and that it would be an unmitigated disaster, thanks Obama), let's hear the sophistry about how this is now a good thing.
I could use a good belly laugh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @11:46PM
Republicans predicted that under net neutrality Comcast would only spend 97% of what they spent on infrastructure upgrades the year previous? That seems conservative, even for a conservative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05 2020, @12:55AM
Conservatives, contrary to popular propaganda, take responsibility for nothing. Why do you think they're always blaming the government?
A few caught on to the game, that was the tea party movement, but they co-opted that real quick! Oddly it resulted in Trum, and now that I look back on it there really were no good conservative candidates. Even if they refuse to admit their mistake I hope they at least learned from it.