So, I guess we'll just put you down in the "let everyone fight over the spectrum by turning up their broadcast signal power until it drowns everything else out" column.

 

Crony capitalism is the problem introduced by republican governance, the solution isn't less governance, because you'll never get rid of central control. The best you'd get is even bigger even more predatory corporate power if you got rid of government regulation.

 

If crony capitalism is a republican problem explain the affordable care act, that's the largest piece of crony capitalistic legislation passed in decades.

---

If crony capitalism is a republican problem explain the affordable care act, that's the largest piece of crony capitalistic legislation passed in decades.

 

BECAUSE IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN.

 

And for the record I agree with you. It's garbage and part of the reason Dems continue to flail in spite of how horrific the republicans are.

 

I think this comic sums it up well:

---

I love the modern world. Guy is on point.

---

BECAUSE IT IS THE REPUBLICAN PLAN.

 

And for the record I agree with you. It's garbage and part of the reason Dems continue to flail in spite of how horrific the republicans are.

 

I think this comic sums it up well:

 

you crack me up, not a single republican voted for it but it's a republican plan because it sucks and everyone knows it.

 

silly cartoons don't change reality.

---

you crack me up, not a single republican voted for it but it's a republican plan because it sucks and everyone knows it.

 

silly cartoons don't change reality.

 

They didn't vote for it because of political gamesmanship, doesn't change that it was a plan created by Republican think-tanks and previously implemented by republican state government.

---

The more I'm reading up on this the more it makes sense to qualify it as a utility. I haven't seen a good reason not to, other then like you said Obama said to do it so the natural reaction is to oppose it from Republicans.

 

Like I was saying my only concern was if putting the internet under the FCC would put content under the FCC control but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

It seems to me from reading this thread that the threat of regulation is coming from Comcast.  Comcast and the other 3 or 4 internet providers want the freedom to regulate the internet themselves.    "Net neutrality" actually means DE-REGULATION of the internet.  At least, that is the effect of it.   It prevents the 4 or 5 private companies, which are monopolies, from regulating the internet. 

 

Personally, I don't want someone at Comcast deciding what I can or cannot see on the internet. 

 

I'll start with this: as it's purported to mean and as most people interpret it, I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want anyone, let alone Comcast, telling me what I can look at online. If I could get comparable internet service at a comparable price, I would leave Comcast in a heartbeat.

 

But to clear up some confusion, the hesitation against net neutrality (apart from the "more government regulation" claim) is because the proposed plan hands control over to the FCC.

 

Net neutrality keeps being compared to electric and water companies and classifying it as utility. The FCC doesn't oversee my electric or water company. The FCC oversees the radio and cable, neither of which are currently classified as utilities. Turn on ABC and see if the FCC lets them drop the F-bomb at 8am on Saturday morning cartoons. How about a graphic sex scene or full frontal nudity at 8pm? That's what the FCC controls.

 

And no, net neutrality and giving the FCC control won't automatically make the internet companies more competitive and make entry for start-ups easier. Have we gotten any awesome new start-up cable companies, cable channels, or radio stations that compete against the rest that wholly new competitors from the top down? Not at all, and not unless they use a different medium. If they followed the UK model, it sounds like it would work to that end, but I know almost nothing about how the internet is treated outside of the US.

 

You want to treat the internet like a true utility company (i.e., water, gas, and electricity), that's alright by me. No one can tell me how to use water or electricity in my home. But to act like there aren't any legitimate concerns over giving control to the FCC (who can tell me what I can watch and listen to and when - thru my tv and radio, but not my internet, currently) is completely myopic.

 

Here's a look at both sides: http://www.masurlaw.com/3819/fcc-net-neutrality/

---

“It just shows what kind of team we are. We’re a tough team. We like contact. We’re very physical. We want the issue to be brought to us so we can show people we can stand up to it and overcome it. Seeing that’s just a symbol of our team and who we are.” - Jaguars DT Malik Jackson

I'll start with this: as it's purported to mean and as most people interpret it, I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want anyone, let alone Comcast, telling me what I can look at online. If I could get comparable internet service at a comparable price, I would leave Comcast in a heartbeat.

 

But to clear up some confusion, the hesitation against net neutrality (apart from the "more government regulation" claim) is because the proposed plan hands control over to the FCC.

 

Net neutrality keeps being compared to electric and water companies and classifying it as utility. The FCC doesn't oversee my electric or water company. The FCC oversees the radio and cable, neither of which are currently classified as utilities. Turn on ABC and see if the FCC lets them drop the F-bomb at 8am on Saturday morning cartoons. How about a graphic sex scene or full frontal nudity at 8pm? That's what the FCC controls.

 

And no, net neutrality and giving the FCC control won't automatically make the internet companies more competitive and make entry for start-ups easier. Have we gotten any awesome new start-up cable companies, cable channels, or radio stations that compete against the rest that wholly new competitors from the top down? Not at all, and not unless they use a different medium. If they followed the UK model, it sounds like it would work to that end, but I know almost nothing about how the internet is treated outside of the US.

 

You want to treat the internet like a true utility company (i.e., water, gas, and electricity), that's alright by me. No one can tell me how to use water or electricity in my home. But to act like there aren't any legitimate concerns over giving control to the FCC (who can tell me what I can watch and listen to and when - thru my tv and radio, but not my internet, currently) is completely myopic.

 

Here's a look at both sides: http://www.masurlaw.com/3819/fcc-net-neutrality/

 

Thank you, you've summed it up better then I could. I'm with you 100% on this topic.

---

you crack me up, not a single republican voted for it but it's a republican plan because it sucks and everyone knows it.

 

silly cartoons don't change reality.

 

No, but before it became Obamacare, it was Romneycare. Which is what made it hard for Romney in the last election cycle.


Republicans voted against it, because they knew they could, and they knew it'd be a popular move with their voting base, because a lot of people are against Rombamcare.  It allows businesses to cut worker hours to avoid paying their health insurance, and forcing those with hours cut to pay fines for not having insurance.  Some of the politicians were against it.  While others were only against it for political reasons, or because they didn't come up with it first.

 

And of course they didn't produce their own plan, because they know repealing Obamacare will be more popular than any plan they can actually come up with.


Most of us would be better off without the ACA in the first place, but the Republicans are better off because of it.  And that's why they didn't submit their own plan to counter Obamacare, and prevent it from ever existing in the first place.  They knew that it'd be good for them.  And they knew submitting their own plan would be bad.  Because it has more potential to upset people, than repealing a law like Obamacare.  In fact just look at the ACA to see how much damage it's done to the Democratic party.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.