End of Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Making Chimichangas
- Start date
methodical
New member
Corporations entire reason for existence is to create wealth for their shareholders without them being liable for the actions. They have no conscience, they are not benevolent. They are pure self serving greed in a legal entity. There's nothing wrong with that, that's what they were designed to be, but that's why they need rules and regulations to set limits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
I'd hang tough & do what you're doing. It sounds like you're maximizing the bang for your buck. I'm doing something very similar, paying only for internet & PS Vue while using an antenna for local channels. Overall, it's still somewhat spendy (Vue is slowly raising prices, unfortunately) but it's still loads cheaper than the only cable option we'd have here or satellite (if we could get it).
Here is an interesting story I saw on Reddit tonight. Apparently, against telecom wishes, Fort Collins, CO is moving ahead with plans for the city to build their own broadband network, meaning universal broadband with gigabit (very good) speeds & their own net neutrality rules. This is exactly what more areas (particularly rural ones that lack competition & face a de facto monopoly by one provider) SHOULD be doing & is a sterling example of how a government can do GOOD for people. It was a part of the Democratic platform this year to push for universal broadband for everyone (hypothesizing GOOD internet is in essence a necessity for life & work now), but, unfortunately... Buttery Males.
I'm not sure it would be legal for Charter to twist arms that way to entice cable subscribers, but they can & most likely will throttle speeds. I think it more likely they just push to try to make bundling as necessary as possible. Rest assured, these telecoms will pull out every single break to increase profits off people's backs. Here's another (disturbing) Reddit anecdote about AT&T applying "customer loyalty speed upgrades" without permission while calling a short-term promotional rate (for higher speeds) "free" (it wasn't).
Essentially they upgraded this guy's internet to a speedier package without telling him & hoped he didn't notice. Lots of others had similar experiences with AT&T.
Danny Bateman
Donor
I think zoogs raised a great point about messaging.
Conservatives & Libertarians have perfected a simple, graspable, emotionally-charged, repeatable mantra about the evils of big government. It really took off recently with the Tea Party, but support existed long before then, dating back to the advent of movement conservatism roughly circa Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid. They've had a long time to tweak & refine their message & you can tell it is effective based on the pervasiveness of reflexive anti-government views of a good chunk of the American population.
Those of us who don't buy their shtick need to find a way to craft an equally effective or superior message in favor of government improving people's lives.
The last person to do so effectively to a wide enough audience to be relevant was Obama in 2008. I'd argue Bernie came close in 2016 but wasn't as good at pure messaging. Think about it: Hope & change - simple, graspable, emotion-evoking, repeatable. He began to deliver on that promise with the ACA early on in his presidency, showing how a government can improve lives, but again, they found themselves swamped in anti-government talking points & the rest is history.
Messaging is incredibly important for building popular support for an idea. Anti-government messaging has a long, entrenched history here with various corporate, wealthy interests both bankrolling & thus benefitting from it. The GOP merely acts as an intermediary to deliver the message. Those who believe in the government's power to improve lives need to fight fire with fire: develop a better message for your vision & then execute it so people believe you.
Someday I'll look back & laugh at the irony of a bunch of Tea Party patriots losing their damn minds about government bailouts & debt but happily cheering a deficit-exploding tax cut package nearly a decade later. Today is not that day.
Conservatives & Libertarians have perfected a simple, graspable, emotionally-charged, repeatable mantra about the evils of big government. It really took off recently with the Tea Party, but support existed long before then, dating back to the advent of movement conservatism roughly circa Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid. They've had a long time to tweak & refine their message & you can tell it is effective based on the pervasiveness of reflexive anti-government views of a good chunk of the American population.
Those of us who don't buy their shtick need to find a way to craft an equally effective or superior message in favor of government improving people's lives.
The last person to do so effectively to a wide enough audience to be relevant was Obama in 2008. I'd argue Bernie came close in 2016 but wasn't as good at pure messaging. Think about it: Hope & change - simple, graspable, emotion-evoking, repeatable. He began to deliver on that promise with the ACA early on in his presidency, showing how a government can improve lives, but again, they found themselves swamped in anti-government talking points & the rest is history.
Messaging is incredibly important for building popular support for an idea. Anti-government messaging has a long, entrenched history here with various corporate, wealthy interests both bankrolling & thus benefitting from it. The GOP merely acts as an intermediary to deliver the message. Those who believe in the government's power to improve lives need to fight fire with fire: develop a better message for your vision & then execute it so people believe you.
Someday I'll look back & laugh at the irony of a bunch of Tea Party patriots losing their damn minds about government bailouts & debt but happily cheering a deficit-exploding tax cut package nearly a decade later. Today is not that day.
Big Red 40
New member
Big Red 40
New member
Yep, as easy as it was to brand Hillary a liar. crooked, Benghazi, emails etc . I think the GOP would have an easy time branding Bernie as on old, Socialist, loon who would take your money, and bankrupt the country, giving "free stuff" to everyone It doesn't have to be true either, just repeated enough to be believable. Most people wont look past the smoke screen, and see that they both actually had some good ideas to help people, and make things better.
Last edited by a moderator:
Danny Bateman
Donor
@Big Red 40 I agree on broadband. It's one of the numerous reasons I may be packing up and heading west for CO in a few years.
@Moiraine and BR40... All of the above kind of comes back to the messaging. The GOP attack machine is frighteningly effective, particularly in election years. Remember John Kerry and swiftboating? Hell, Mueller commanded a platoon in Nam & they're pulling the same crap on him out of sheer political expediency. It's funny how they're all rah-rah for vets... until they're not.
I do wish Bernie would have more effectively reached out to African Americans. That's why he didn't win the nomination. But BR40 is right in that he too would've been fed through the same slander machine and come out a loony old tax-raising socialist, borderline pinko and possible atheist. Most of it is misleading at best, but by God they'd be sure you knew the economy would collapse under President Bernie and he was too weak to command the military.
This kind of stuff wouldn't stop after the election, either.
@Moiraine and BR40... All of the above kind of comes back to the messaging. The GOP attack machine is frighteningly effective, particularly in election years. Remember John Kerry and swiftboating? Hell, Mueller commanded a platoon in Nam & they're pulling the same crap on him out of sheer political expediency. It's funny how they're all rah-rah for vets... until they're not.
I do wish Bernie would have more effectively reached out to African Americans. That's why he didn't win the nomination. But BR40 is right in that he too would've been fed through the same slander machine and come out a loony old tax-raising socialist, borderline pinko and possible atheist. Most of it is misleading at best, but by God they'd be sure you knew the economy would collapse under President Bernie and he was too weak to command the military.
This kind of stuff wouldn't stop after the election, either.
Danny Bateman
Donor
FCC planning vote next month to lower definition of broadband from 25/4 Mbps down/up to 10/1 Mbps. This would effectively allow them to cheapen the meaning of broadband and claim more Americans have access to broadband by allowing a worse product to meet their standard for "good enough."
Damn shame. I wish more people had stood up and shouted that deregulation wasn't the key to a better internet.
Damn shame. I wish more people had stood up and shouted that deregulation wasn't the key to a better internet.
ZRod
Well-known member
Because I believe an ISP shouldn't have the right to stiffle information and opportunity for the average citizen. They aren't stepping in. They are enforcing the status quo. Please educate yourself in this thread.
mrandyk
New member
Educate? Republicans hate education. They all left this part of the board in the face of facts. There's also that strange correlation between higher level of educations and not being a Republican.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Not dead yet.....from a red state even.
RedDenver
Active member
Problem is states can't override the FCC rules, same as when states attempt to override interstate commerce rules. If Congress doesn't restore Net Neutrality and these state laws get struck down, then we're going to see a lot more municipal broadband. And that's going to be fun to watch the ISP's cry about losing business to government/community-provide internet.
EDIT: I missed the part where these are state contracts not challenges to the FCC ruling, but my larger point stands.
Last edited by a moderator:
VectorVictor
Donor
Burger King made a great video about Net Neutrality by equating it to speed and availability of fast food service:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16927890/burger-king-net-neutrality-ad
The analogy isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. And it still explains why Net Neutrality is not only necessary, but what can/will happen eventually if it's not reinstated.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16927890/burger-king-net-neutrality-ad
The analogy isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. And it still explains why Net Neutrality is not only necessary, but what can/will happen eventually if it's not reinstated.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Well, what needs to happen is that more states jump on board. It can be forced through from the bottom up sort of like how pot legislation is happening.