FCC Giveaways

[mtangelsfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-ag-probing-‘massive-scheme’-to-influence-fcc-with-fake-net-neutrality-comments/ar-BBFutgl?li=BBnb7Kz

I believe these accusations could be true since I can't think of one single person who is in favor of what the FCC is proposing.

[Jason]

It kind of feels like we are screwed no matter what. The communications corps will find ways to suck more money from us or the government will regulate it in a way to f*** it up like they do with everything else. 

[nate]

23 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

It's ignorance, plain and simple.

Cons see internet regulation implemented during the Obama administration and red flags go up.

The problem is rooted in monopolies, the regulation wouldn't be necessary if competition actually existed. Our internet could be so much better it's not even funny if competition existed.

This is by far the dumbest argument on the matter I have ever seen.

You don't put Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC if you don't want to repeal net neutrality.  Trump and his team knew exactly what they were doing.

[tdawg87]

Btw this shit has been going on for a couple years now. They keep renaming it and trying to pass it through. Unfortunately this time we've got a republican majority.

[Jason]

30 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Btw this shit has been going on for a couple years now. They keep renaming it and trying to pass it through. Unfortunately this time we've got a republican majority.

I don't think this means anything. As we've seen, the Republicans in congress are not unified or on the same page. 

[tdawg87]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

I don't think this means anything. As we've seen, the Republicans in congress are not unified or on the same page. 

I've seen statistics posted recently that showed republicans voted almost unanimously against "net neutrality". 

I don't have any links so take that gigantic heap of sodium with your turkey. But I'm not a lib so I'm not trying to push an agenda. 

[red321]

3 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I've seen statistics posted recently that showed republicans voted almost unanimously against "net neutrality" whatever Obama was for

 

Fixed that for you...these were the same people pushing the idea Obama was going to get rid of all conservative media with strict enforcement of the fairness doctrine. 

[Lou]

4 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I've seen statistics posted recently that showed republicans voted almost unanimously against "net neutrality". 

I don't have any links so take that gigantic heap of sodium with your turkey. But I'm not a lib so I'm not trying to push an agenda. 

Voted? 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

I don't think this means anything. As we've seen, the Republicans in congress are not unified or on the same page. 

They don't have to be. Just the ones on the FCC.

I am not often on the same page as the ACLU, but I am on this.

[Lou]

When did those things occur? 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

The Pearl Jam censorship - 2007.

Verizon text blocking - 2007.

Telus censorship - 2005. Telus went a step farther and actually cut off the account of the union, even though the bill was current.

AT&T FaceTime limits - 2012.

[Lou]

10 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

The Pearl Jam censorship - 2007.

Verizon text blocking - 2007.

Telus censorship - 2005. Telus went a step farther and actually cut off the account of the union, even though the bill was current.

AT&T FaceTime limits - 2012.

2005  . . . 

Josh Paul . . . 

. . . . . . 

. . . . . . 

Thanks, jerk. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

This may not be too far from the truth. We may be facing "packaged" services, a lot like what the cable companies do for television.

[Blarg]

I'm sure they have been itching to moneytize email for a long time. Like phone service the packages will have usage tiers and you get whacked when you go over. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Their plan about stopping telemarketing and robotic calling isn't all benevolent, either. It contains a provision that would allow them to pass along the cost of such a service to all of us.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

26 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I'm sure they have been itching to moneytize email for a long time. Like phone service the packages will have usage tiers and you get whacked when you go over. 

That would have come in really handy when someone mail bombed me about six months ago, subscribing me to newsletters from literally dozens of foreign language sites.

[Blarg]

Adam is a dick.

[Tank]

11 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

That would have come in really handy when someone mail bombed me about six months ago, subscribing me to newsletters from literally dozens of foreign language sites.

Sorry, buddy. Just thought you'd like some reading material for those slow days at work.

[Blarg]

Tanks a bigger dick.

[Tank]

The last time we had a landline we decided to keep our number unlisted. They charged us $5 a month for what essentially amounted a mouse click.

[Make Angels Great Again]

On 11/23/2017 at 9:58 AM, nate said:

This is by far the dumbest argument on the matter I have ever seen.

You don't put Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC if you don't want to repeal net neutrality.  Trump and his team knew exactly what they were doing.

 

Sigh.

You're not understanding. They probably wanted to repeal net neutrality, sure. Trump probably has no idea what net neutrality actually means though, and the consequences of removing it.

The reason I say that is because it should be plain as day to anyone with a sense of logic that Trump repealing net neutrality can only hurt Trump.

[arch stanton]

Trump is about as bulletproof as can be. the only thing that could possibly hurt him is to close the corporate candy store that his administration has been since Jan 20

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Sigh.

You're not understanding. They probably wanted to repeal net neutrality, sure. Trump probably has no idea what net neutrality actually means though, and the consequences of removing it.

The reason I say that is because it should be plain as day to anyone with a sense of logic that Trump repealing net neutrality can only hurt Trump.

This is incredible.

Rather then saying “Hey, this is horrible policy and I’m disappointed” he’s conjured up a way to imagine the fucking orange dear leader just doesn’t know about it.  So really, it’s not Donald’s fault. 

[Kevin]

8 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Sigh.

You're not understanding. They probably wanted to repeal net neutrality, sure. Trump probably has no idea what net neutrality actually means though, and the consequences of removing it.

The reason I say that is because it should be plain as day to anyone with a sense of logic that Trump repealing net neutrality can only hurt Trump.

Well I feel better now. 

Bush didn't really understand the consequences of the Iraq war..so you know...

Obama didn't realize the consequences of implementing his health care act....so oops.

I don't expect a president to be perfect, that wouldn't be fair. However, I expect them to know about policies and appointments they are implementing and potential consequences, good or bad, before doing so. 

Having said that, I don't buy "he doesn't understand" line. He knows exactly what he's doing. 

So you're either trolling or Trump had a university he'd like you to attend. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

7 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

This is incredible.

Rather then saying “Hey, this is horrible policy and I’m disappointed” he’s conjured up a way to imagine the fucking orange dear leader just doesn’t know about it.  So really, it’s not Donald’s fault. 

 

It's horrible policy and i'm disappointed.