Republicans move to gut FCC and crush its net neutrality crusade with paralyzing budget rules A new budget proposal would effectively bar the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from enforcing its net neutrality provisions. Buried deep within the House Appropriations Committee budget proposal [PDF] is a set of new rules that limit the FCC's ability to use its funds for activities including the regulation of " …
> "...striking down an entire budget proposal would likely be more difficult than simply vetoing a single bill."
I don't see why. The Leftist press will just scream that the GOP is "shutting down the government" again, even tho it's Obama doing the vetoing. These days it's understood that anything Obama is "forced" to veto is deemed so outrageous that the 'shutdown' blame automatically reverts back onto the GOP. At least that's how it's been working so far...
Last I checked, this bill hasn't gone through the Senate yet. There's still a chance a Senate version won't include the provisions, allowing for a Conference Committee to strip them out of a final version. I suspect the GOP is trying to play chicken with President Obama, daring him to go "all or nothing" on the FCC's budget on an election year when the House is soon to focus on re-election campaigning.
It seems crazy to me that political appointees deemed it necessary to make it illegal to prioritize VoIP calls, Video Chatting, etc. just to give everyone who uses low bandwidth & time sensitive applications a poorer experience in rural & poorer areas. That is net neutrality.
The irony is Republicans are left protecting the poor while Liberals secure campaign donations by big businesses during the election cycle.
"make it illegal to prioritize VoIP calls, Video Chatting, etc."
Actually, they didn't do that, fortunately. There was concern that the initial naive NN rules might do that, but what they actually do is forbid discrimination by service provider A against traffic to/from provider B's services.
This is just US politics, nothing more, and as we have all learned over the last couple of months, US politics simply leads to craziness anyway.
If it expands the federal government and makes things worse than before, it's evil. Nice to see them remember that for once instead of being Democrats-lite. It's extremely rare when the government regulates something (anything!) and things don't end up far worse than they were before.
When the US government let telco to decide on their own what mobile standard adopt, each one choose a different incompatible one in the hope to get rid of competitors. That just meant the mobile sector in the US lagged behind Europe and other countries which adopted a common standard instead.
If the Internet wasn't born by a government project that set standards like TCP/IP, we would have seen competing companies each trying to enforce its incompatible protocols and standards - just like it happened with LANs.
"Overregulation" is always an issue - but lack of any regulation is always an issue too.
It's weird how (some) Americans can be conned so easily, just add some sort of crap about Jesus, or how awful abortions are or whatever is flavor of the month, and they'll ignore exactly this sort of corporate welfare.
I'm wondering if the Rise of Donald™ is what happens once people start to figure out the con.
I've tried and failed to understand why a huge number of people who would benefit from, and should logically support socialism, vote against their own interests for welfare for corporations / cut-throat capitalism for individuals. I have a few thought fragments though.
The American dream - Everyone will be rich. One day.
Economically working class, but culturally middle class. Pre-packaged narratives cause people to see themselves not as they really are.
Federalism - Has a lot of inherent downsides when it comes to organising a country, but because it's kind of a core value. Which leads to ...
Ship of Theseus - It's nearly impossible to rebuild core beliefs because you're currently standing one them.
> "I've tried and failed to understand why a huge number of people who would benefit from, and should logically support socialism..."
Try asking Venezuela's citizens how socialism is working out for them.
The ones not busy fighting for that last crust of bread, I mean.
I'm not defending Venezuela's government.
However, I wonder how they would fare had not the US not interfered in their affairs.
If they fail because their premise was wrong, that's one thing. If they are fail because of another government's interference, that's another.
Just my 2p.
RedNeck- I'm not defending Venezuela's government. However, I wonder how they would fare had not the US not interfered in their affairs.
President Obama left them alone for 7+ years, plundering the wealth of every citizen, international organization, and American citizen, until there was nothing left to plunder. Bernie's local town tried to provide the plunderers with hard-currency, by buying plundered product from the nation.
Perhaps they would have collapsed faster, had Bernie's town not purchased plundered product?
Not sure what else could have been done.
Probably because till now socialism made bigger damages then capitalism. Especially since any socialism attempt turns quickly into some form of socialist party capitalism.
Also, liberalism doesn't mean anarchism and absence of any rule. Laissez-faire is just another extreme position which turned out doesn't work so well, especially when the "human resource" involved are of bad quality, the same bad quality who usually become socialist parties leaders.
> Especially since any socialism attempt turns quickly into some form of socialist party capitalism.
Evidence needed. Pretty much the only place where this really happened is China. And even there it did not happen quickly.
After 40 years of socialism in my country, there were lots of notable miserable things, but socialist party capitalism was not one of them.
It happened in Russia. It happened in Romania. It happened in Poland. It happened in Hungary... and so on. How many more evidences do you need? Or did you forget the last seventy years and more of history in East Europe? The ruling party takes control of all the resources and the party members and their families live like capitalists while the population gets the crumbs.
Also it happend in most of Latin America, and Asia/Africa too. Socialist government take full control of a state resource and use them to enrich themselves and their croons - just like the right-wing capitalist ones. They can also jump easily side - remember, Mussolini was a socialist - he even became director of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper "Avanti!" - before creating fascism.
Do you know the arab Baath party is a socialist one? Yes, Syrian Assad and Iraq Hussein are (were) socialists...
China is just slightly less hypocrite, and understood it need to leave some bigger crumbs to some selected people to ensure the stability of the ruling party.
May I suggest to learn more about history, worldwide?
"How many more evidences do you need?"
Then explain Scandinavia. What about Germany which is semi-socialist but learning more that way than most? Japan has a strong socialist element, too, last I read, yet its primary issues are demographic (and similar to problems happening in parts of Europe, too), not just economic.
"Then explain Scandinavia."
http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunked/
Some reasonable points:
- Norway = Big Oil ... money flows from other nations, hard to be poor with 200BPD /person
- Happiness... higher rates of suicide than U.S.
- Poverty... generally poorer than most of the individual states in the Untied States
As far as Denmark, the free education is actually hurting them, and they are adjusting...
http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6
"I've tried and failed to understand why a huge number of people who would benefit from, and should logically support socialism, vote against their own interests for welfare for corporations / cut-throat capitalism for individuals. I have a few thought fragments though."
The old have another reason, too. Red Scare. Socialism and its distant cousin Communism have been pariahed because of the Cold War. The instant you mention one of those two words, they think, "THE ENEMY! DUCK AND COVER!"
Yep.. that's the way it works. And it's just not the GOP.. both sides play this. Lobbyists get listened to and obeyed far more than the voters. Although at election time, they all shovel the fertilizer until we're drowning in it.
Maybe Obama ought to veto it. Shut the government down.. save some money. The catch is, both parties will scream bloody murder at each other in the press like they're doing right now.
Is there a country without this BS? Without restrictions on what Internet sites can be visited, without nasty taxes, without stupidity and the power-mad running it? One with reasonable and intelligent lawmakers? I'm looking to move.
"Is there a country without this BS? Without restrictions on what Internet sites can be visited, without nasty taxes, without stupidity and the power-mad running it? One with reasonable and intelligent lawmakers? I'm looking to move."
You won't find it. What you're witnessing is the basic human condition at work. ANY form of government ultimately degenerates into some corrupt cesspit given enough time.
...why crap amendments that have nothing to do with a bill are allowed to be attached to said bill. No, I mean it - I am not an American so I don't understand why a bill is allowed to be "polluted" by amendments.
This means that a useful bill can be killed by attaching an absolute shit-house amendment or, vice versa, something which people know would not pass as a bill in its own right gets attached as an amendment to a bill which "cannot fail" (for one reason or another) and thus gets passed.
Which moron dreamt up that little scheme?
There are 435 Representatives in Washington, each representing a certain chunk of the country. Each one gets directly elected by those constituents, and it's an election year, meaning ALL of them need to stump for their votes. Meanwhile, each district has their varying concerns on which their elections will pivot, so these Representatives ask their more influential friends to help. The basic formula went, "I'll help you get this done if you vote for the greater bill that enables everything."
The House tried to establish rules limiting this practice since other voters noted it to be an element of corruption, but they found it to be a necessary evil. Those lesser representatives had no motivation to vote for controversial bills otherwise, putting important bills in jeopardy and lowering Congress's approval rating as a whole due to a climate of nothing happening because of the lack of corruption (of course, this never influences the local elections much--there it's always Somebody Else's Problem).
You see, that's the thing about governing by committee like this. Each member has its own motivations and rarely do they honestly come together when the motion to be passed is a "necessary evil" one (structurally necessary but very unpopular--tax reforms, for example). About the only time they come together is when some kind of crisis (like 9/11) hits. 200+ years of experience seems to indicate this is just basic human condition at work. It's not something that can be easily solved which is why corruption tends to show up in ANY form of human government imaginable.
"Why GOP needs to regulate access to it?"
Where do a lot of the GOP representatives come from? The Southeast, and that's Bible Belt territory. Many of their constituents are either truly God-Fearing or are influenced by a Church. They either honestly believe or are pressured to press the belief that nudity of any kind except when necessary for procreation is a cardinal sin, and that BOTH the act itself AND any act that enables the act (remember the thought in the '50s: "Don't even think about sex.") are equally damning.
--- The Southeast... procreation is a cardinal sin
Wrong political party. Democratic Party. Wrong Region. North East.
Margaret Sanger who went from New York to the South, petitioned the KKK Women's Auxiliary to secure funding for free abortions for only freed black slaves.
More blacks killed by Abortion in North East New York City than born alive today.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
