FCC Hopes Its Phony Dedication To Rural Broadband Will Make You Forget It Killed Net Neutrality
from the misdirection dept
The FCC and its large ISP allies are trying to change the subject in the wake of their hugely unpopular attack on net neutrality. With net neutrality having such broad, bipartisan support, the FCC is trying to shift the conversation away from net neutrality (which remember, is just a symptom of a lack of broadband competition), toward a largely-hollow focus on expanding broadband to rural areas. The apparent goal: to convince partisans that net neutrality is only a concern among out of touch Hollywood elites, and the FCC is hard at work on the real problem: deploying broadband to forgotten America.
This attempted pivot was exemplified in a statement last week by FCC boss Ajit Pai, when he tried to argue his attack on net neutrality was already magically paying dividends for broadband expansion:
"The draft report indicates that the pace of both fixed and mobile broadband deployment declined dramatically in the two years following the prior Commission’s Title II Order. However, the draft report also discussed how, over the course of the past year, the current Commission has taken steps to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the broadband marketplace. Taken together, these policies indicate that the current FCC is now meeting its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable and timely basis."
As we've noted repeatedly, the idea that net neutrality stifled sector investment is a lie, and the claim that axing popular consumer protections somehow "encouraged competition" is laughable.
Pai has long paid entirely-empty lip service to the task of "closing the digital divide," despite the fact that most of his policies have made this particular problem notably worse. From propping up business broadband and prison phone monopolies to killing attempts to bring competition to the cable box, Pai has made it clear his top priority is the protection of incumbent ISP revenues from anything even vaguely resembling disruption. While he's busy prattling on about his dedication to the digital divide, he's busy dismantling broadband programs for the poor and killing policies like net neutrality, driving up costs for everyone in the internet ecosystem just to please a handful of extremely unpopular telecom giants.
Of course you're not supposed to notice this chasm between rhetoric and reality when Pai pops up on Twitter to pat himself and his recently-formed "Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee" for their unparalleled contributions to closing the digital divide:
Closing the #digitaldivide is the @FCC's top priority. Grateful to members of Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee for their hard work in coming up with recommendations for ways to promote digital opportunity! My remarks this morning: https://t.co/skp3ssTkEG #BDAC pic.twitter.com/bHNZwqTNCP
— Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) January 23, 2018
In his speech before the FCC's shiny new broadband advisory panel (which has been widely criticized as being a who's who of telecom industry lobbyists, executives, and other policy cronies), Pai again doubles down on his supposed dedication to closing the digital divide:
"First, the BDAC’s work is critical to my top policy priority as FCC Chairman—closing the digital divide. I’ve long said that every American who wants to participate in the digital economy should be able to do so. And the plain reality is that if you live in rural America, you are much less likely to have highspeed Internet access than if you live in a city. If you live in a low-income neighborhood, you are less likely to have high-speed Internet access than if you live in a wealthier area."
Yes, what better way to fix the broadband market then by letting uncompetitive duopolies like Comcast effectively dictate both federal and state telecom policy from stem to stern? It's worth noting that the ambiguous quest to "close the digital divide" has always received endless lip service from politicians and regulators from both parties, many of whom are comically incapable of admitting that a lack of competition is what's actually driving this problem. Limited competition also drives privacy and net neutrality violations, but fixing the core problem would require standing up to deep-pocketed telecom campaign contributors.
One creative way to finally drive more accountability and competition (especially in low ROI rural markets) is community broadband or public/private partnerships. But as we've long noted, Pai has consistently supported letting ISPs like AT&T and Comcast literally write state laws banning your town or city from even considering the option, even in instances where private ISPs won't deploy service. It's ironic then, when one of Pai's fellow FCC Commissioners points out that the broadband advisory panel's "findings" covertly malign such community-run alternatives:
.@FCC’s #Broadband Advisory Cmte (#BDAC) just released their model code for states. What’s buried on pg 50? Language discouraging #munibroadband. So much for this agency’s claims of promoting competitive options. Not putting communities or #ConsumersFirst. https://t.co/4TPRR8lq0S
— Mignon Clyburn (@MClyburnFCC) January 23, 2018
The section in question (pdf) argues that community broadband is nice and all, but it should never exist without what's effectively the express permission of private ISPs:
"If, and only if, the Rural municipality receives no reasonable and credible proposal from a private Communications Provider to build a Broadband network and otherwise determines that none of the first three options in Article 12(b) are viable and if, and only if, the Rural municipality makes a positive determination of costs, feasibility, sustainability, and that the action is in the interest of the general public may the Rural municipality invest in a Fully Public Funded and Operated Network and/or engage in Public-Led Contracting.
This kind of language, which gives the incumbent ISP the right of first refusal to offer or upgrade service in spotty coverage areas, is commonly used in ISP-written state protectionist laws. The problem is that these promises to build are routinely never followed up on, letting ISPs first deny the right of a community run ISP (or public/private partnership) to even exist, then avoid anything even resembling accountability as it turns a blind eye to its deployment promises. This is a major reason why we've shelled out countless billions to private ISPs like Verizon for fiber networks that are never fully built.
Private ISPs not only want the right of first refusal, but they often enjoy putting all manner of funding and referendum requirements on the ability to build community broadband networks, knowing full well that ISP lawyers and lobbyists can often derail these projects in the cradle -- whether with lawsuits or disinformation. Again, the goal is to ban your town and city from being able to explore creative alternatives to the status quo, without making it look like that's what they're doing.
Pai's focus on the digital divide is a choreographed effort by the industry to distract the public from the fact they're being sold down river exclusively to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon's benefit. You'll note this breathless new adoration for rural broadband runs hand in hand with not-coincidentally-timed op/eds popping up everywhere by ISP lobbying groups like US Telecom, who are thrilled by the reduction in real oversight but the expansion of taxpayer subsidies:
"This isn’t the first time that a White House has declared the deployment of rural broadband a national priority. What is yet to be determined is the concrete action — via congressional legislation, an improved regulatory environment and federal funding to critical programs — they will follow through on to ensure that every American has access to broadband, no matter where they live."
Of course this "concrete action" involves not only removing all meaningful FCC consumer protections (you're welcome, heartland America) but gutting both state and federal oversight of some of the least-liked, least-competitive companies in America. But the real goal has nothing to do with rural America, which the lion's share of these folks couldn't care less about. The real goal is to distract you from the government's recent handouts to the telecom sector's largest and most powerful players, and to dress up mindless deregulation and cronyism as an unwavering dedication to America's heartland.
Oh, and just as more and more criticism is being raised about this committee, it appears that the few non-telco industry reps who were on the committee as fig leafs are realizing they made a huge mistake. San Jose's mayor Sam Liccardo has just resigned from the panel and not pulled any punches in his explanation for why.
"It has become abundantly clear that despite the good intentions of several participants, the industry-heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public. The apparent goal is to create a set of rules that will provide industry with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband to underserved residents."
So, while Pai pats himself on the back for "closing the digital divide," actual people dealing with the digital divide are quitting his little consortium and pointing out that his dedication to actually fixing this problem is decidedly hollow. Whatever it takes to help the public forget he sold them out on net neutrality just to make AT&T, Verizon and Comcast happy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, crony capitalism, digital divide, fcc, municipal broadband, net neutrality, rural broadband
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Trouble caring
If the folks screaming about Net Neutrality and how awful it is would also complain about the silencing of any non far left voice on youtube, twitter, Facebook, maybe then I'd care. But if this is about all voices being heard on the internet, then the behavior of near monopolies in the user space should also be part of the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trouble caring
OH, at long last a definition! -- That I definitely don't care about, like the first AC. WHAT is so bad about that?
The first and 3rd ACs also have FAR more important point which you try to reverse, which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech. Yet Techdirt's position is that we must worry more about a future of local ISPs providing faster channels to content delivery corps willing to pay more, INSTEAD OF the often-asserted "platforms have a First Amendment Right" to control the speech of "natural" persons by restricting or removing access. -- Just account being cut off Twitter is already a big deal. If corporations are let run wild, they'll shunt all dissent into irrelevant small platforms.
But "SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL". There are NO rival alternatives to the current major platforms.
And all it takes to make fair is remove the ridiculous assertion masnicks make that corporations have "First Amendment Right".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
It's been very well defined for a very long time. Glad you could catch up!
"which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
Which is utterly irrelevant to the conversation, and also less important than you having access to those "gatekeepers" in the first place.
"Yet Techdirt's position is that we must worry more about a future of local ISPs providing faster channels to content delivery corps willing to pay more"
Oh, I see, you're lying again. Doesn't it get boring, having to misrepresent everybody else all the time, rather than just dealing with reality?
"Just account being cut off Twitter is already a big deal"
Then abide by their T&Cs.
"But "SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL". There are NO rival alternatives to the current major platforms"
You misspelled "ISPs", but you're going to bat for their monopolies anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
YOU ARE THE LIAR, YOU NASTLY LITTLE KID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Hey Mr. SovCit: When you travel, do you drive without a license?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Hey, Mr SERF: Do you abide by EVERY bit of statute, without ever arguing common law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Here in reality, I tend to follow the laws that are on the books. It helps me to avoid trouble with the cops. (Do SovCits have a funny name for cops?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Imagine a world where you have to pay additional fees to access various websites that are not “ISP approved”. You may also have to pay more fees to access those sites at the same speeds with which you can access them today. Designated-as-disapproved sites would include sites that do not or could not pay for “fast lane” deals with ISPs.
Imagine a world where you have to pay far more than you already do right now to access the Internet in the exact same way as you do right now. And imagine how there would be nothing you could do about it, seeing as how it would be perfectly legal under the law.
If Network Neutrality is done away with for good, you will not need to imagine it; the major American ISPs will make that world a reality. How ready are you to pay an extra $20 per month just to access Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Everyday reality is that Techdirt asserts that giant corporate "platforms" can exercise total and arbitrary control over the speech of "natural" persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
They can exercise that control on those platforms, yes. They cannot stop you from setting up your own website on your own personally-owned server, sending letters to newspaper editors, or posting about how to travel without a driver’s license on SovCit forums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
If you don't mind being shunted into irrelevancy by forces beyond your personal control, with not help from the larger civil society, then why are you here complaining about "net neutrality"? Corporations and gov't have DECIDED. JUST SHUT UP AND GO TO YOUR CORNER, kid. (To be clear as you need, I'm re-phrasing your notion that people don't need access to major sites.)
Hey, if you want to be controlled at every second, immigrate to England, where you can bow down to your superiors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
I mind. I just recognize that I have no legal right to force Google, Twitter, etc. into hosting my speech. If they booted me from their platforms, that would suck, but it would not be the end of my ability to speak freely or find other platforms to use.
And I am talking about Network Neutrality because I do not like the idea of my ISP being able to legally nickel-and-dime me into having the same level of Internet access that I have now. Paying extra fees on top of my current ISP fees just for the right to access Techdirt is not something I want to happen.
Yeah, except I never said that, so I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth that did not first come from it.
I bow to only one man, sir, and he is The King of Kings.
I am, of course, referring to WWE personality Triple H.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
I'm amenable to the idea that DNS registrars should be required to accept all customers, given that they're a crucial part of Internet infrastructure. As for hosting and access to social networks, nah.
I think I would support a requirement that ISPs allow home customers to operate servers, so long as people operating high-traffic sites are willing to pay extra for the bandwidth. If GoDaddy and Dreamhost and all the other hosting providers don't want your site, you should be able to set it up on your own hardware. If you don't know how to operate a server, well, guess you'd better learn, or hire somebody to help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
You pay for your connection, and that gives you a certain amount of bandwidth.
If the demands of the site you're running over that connection rise to the point where that bandwidth is not enough and the visitors experience site-responsiveness problems, that just means you need to trade up to the next tier of bandwidth. (Which, yes, will probably cost more - but it would cost more whether you were running a site over it or not.)
If the demands of the site you're running never rise to the point where the connection is saturated at peak, then clearly your current connection's bandwidth is enough, and why should you have to pay extra for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
...right. I somehow missed parsing the significance of "high-traffic" in your comment. Sorry for the misdirected argumentation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Over here the ISPs are neutral, and the nanny state porn filter is optional. Also, the last time I met a duke, he was fixing a blocked sink for the occupant on one of the houses he rented. In my experience it is the Donald Trumps of the world that expect people to bow down to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Like the one poster above said. All the net neutrality damage is hypothetical, will the big internet companies make your packets that cross the net “freely” (with net neutrality) disappear from their sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Let's break down at least some of what your saying.
First you bring up a point that you claim is being 'reversed'.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
This is a problem, but not part of the topic the article is focused on anyway.
There is an often used argument to counter the 'ISP is the same as a platform like (insert social media outlet/google here)' idea.
"People can choose not to use google or social media. The same is not usually true of an ISP."
Let's really think about that. Say google or facebook started slowing redirection or hiding links to other social media sites (or other sites for that matter) because they didn't choose to pay them or were competing with them.
Would that make you, as a person using the site, happy? Not likely. Well you could start using something other that google or facebook.
Now let's try that same scenario with an ISP. Would you be happy? Again, not likely. Could you try another ISP? For many areas, no. If there even is another company in your area, chances are it is for Dial-up type service. Dial-up is known for both being slow and having a lot of causes for interference.
Now let's get back to your unrelated, but important, point.
"...Which is that Facebook / Google / Amazon / Twitter are now main gatekeepers which control the MAJOR OUTLETS for speech."
One of the best thoughts is the idea that 'Bad speech should be countered with more speech'. It's a great idea, but it has a small problem.
The problem lies in the people that ignore all speech when it doesn't fit their own message.
How do you counter that? Well, if that person is pissing off many people, then there is a certain webcomic to explain why they are being kicked.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Now for your last sentence.
"And all it takes to make fair is remove the ridiculous assertion masnicks make that corporations have 'First Amendment Right'."
According to dictionary.com, this is the definition for assertion.
"A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason."
The problem with this is that to some degree, corporations do have 'First Amendment Rights'. It comes in the form of a concept called corporate personhood. This is part of the reason why lobbying is considered legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Not to support the position you're arguing against here, but... not necessarily.
If the reason you're using, e.g., Facebook is to connect with specific people (e.g., your grandmother), and if those people do not and - in practical terms - cannot be persuaded to use any other service (e.g., because she barely understands computers well enough to use Facebook and certainly doesn't understand them well enough to change her habits and learn to use something else, especially when her Facebook friends won't be there), then using some other service will not accomplish what you're trying to do.
Network effects produce lock-in, even among the technically, socially, and market-savvy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
But You don't have to stay there all the time. You could still use that facebook on the side, or even use one of those services that integrate all social media in one place.
Apologies, my initial post wasn't factoring in the idea, but was more for getting the idea across on the surface level.
Ironically, I don't really use common social media facebook/twitter/instagram/snapchat.
Yet your idea is also a problem in video game communities. I see it come into play a lot there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trouble caring
Judging from the rest of your comment, it's because you don't understand what it is.
"If the folks screaming about Net Neutrality and how awful it is"
Erm, NN is the thing intelligent people are trying to keep active. Nobody thinks NN is awful, except maybe those who have been fooled into thinking it has something to do with editorial control of websites. Those who understand it would very much like to protect it, since it's behind most of the innovation and freedom online since the internet was invented.
"would also complain about the silencing of any non far left voice"
When that actually starts happening, I'm sure intelligent people will complain about it. I'll bet you don't even know what "far left" means in a standard political setting.
"But if this is about all voices being heard on the internet, then the behavior of near monopolies in the user space should also be part of the discussion"
Indeed, but shouldn't the ability to access those voices be the first thing you need to care about? There's no point whining about what YouTube's doing if Comcast are stopping you from being able to use it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trouble caring
"Butbutbut Google and Facebook and Twitter!" is such a fucking transparent piece of Whataboutism.
I would like to see some tighter regulations on websites, particularly in terms of how they're allowed to track users who haven't explicitly opted in and aren't even browsing their sites. But what the fuck does that have to do with net neutrality?
The two things are not mutually exclusive. You can absolutely keep regulations of ISPs in place while simultaneously discussing regulations for websites. In fact, it would be a lot easier to focus on discussing regulations for websites if we didn't have to spend so much energy talking about why we need net neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
Exactly. You can be critical of the way platforms run themselves, while also demanding that net neutrality is vital. Ignorance is abound, non ore so than in the minds of those who don't think you can address public infrastructure and private platforms at the same time.
As ever, I'm glad I live outside the US, where this whole thing is just a ridiculous sideshow of ignorance rather than something I'll be directly affected by. There's other issues, but I don't have to worry about whether my access to view this circus will be impeded by my country's well-regulated, highly competitive and well invested infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
>>> "I would like to see some tighter regulations on websites," -- You will NOT see that from Techdirt, but I'd like to see you argue for it here.
>>> "if we didn't have to spend so much energy talking about why we need net neutrality." -- Well, for time being, there is NO "net neutrality"! You've lost that battle -- with obvious loss YET -- so just move on to what I, two other ACs, AND YOU believe is important TOO: regulating websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trouble caring
The "websites should be under NN rules too" farce has now been adopted by AT&T, which says everything necessary about its legitimacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trouble caring
Your packets should get routed the same regardless of where they are going to or coming from. (eg, no discrimination on whether I use Netflix or Hulu because one might have a "special deal" with my local ISP (which every other Netflix customer helps subsidize))
Also your packets should get routed the same regardless of the contents of your packets. The contents of your packets is none of your ISP's business. But encryption takes care of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the acrimony is real!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unlike most of the enemies you so proudly attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't see you as an enemy like you do me.
I just see you as a misguided idiot drinking cool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
You should put your major point in the subject line: it seems to annoy the fanboys, benny.
I note that Techdirt in last year has far more commenters with my views. It is doomed, then, because relied on controlling the message in a "walled garden". Without the automatic fawning belief in Masnick's Ivy League Pirate notions, it's mere ranting.
And evidence is that many prior fanboys have left for good, some combination of the incessant "liberal" assertions and total lack of results, that content industries are winning, and so on.
This piece is just ongoing FUD, without substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
If you can back this up with actual evidence, you should, unless you want to be considered as someone who talks out of his ass more than Ace Ventura.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
The number of Smart people, on Techdirt, who are "smart" like Me, is Growing! That means that we are Right! Because the more "epople" agree with "me", the more Right I am!
But that only works for "me". Don't bother Pointing "out" that there are actually More people who "disagree" with me, because That doesn't Matter, because all "those" people are Stupid sycophantic Leftists! Stupid! Not smart like "me".
Eery Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
Like I said earlier, you just bitch and whine when folks take a page out of your own play book.
I guess I should have said the "hypocrisy" and "acrimony" are real.
Look, just be happy that folks are starting to use your own tricks against you, it seem to work for you, I think you deserve to have it back!
You get what you give!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
It kinda feels like I'm reading a speech bubble from All Star Batman & Robin. It really doesn't go with your idea of being 'smart'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
FYI? That's "Chip"; he's an intentional parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
DUH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
It has been my experience around here that facts, history, and especially evidence are viewed through a certain lens. If someone fails to provide the evidence with the "correct spin" and/or "source" you disregard it.
In short, getting evidence is often a waste of effort because you have already made your decision and now you are just baiting folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "it sucks when these guys start to take notes from the democratic/leftist play book doesn't it?"
The point of providing evidence would be to prove that you can craft an argument worth an almighty goddamn instead of an argument that relies on people not seeing your bullshit for what it is. If you make a claim that you say is a fact, you need to prove that fact or your claim has no merit. I can claim that Donald Trump ate fetal tissue left over from the abortions he paid his wives and girlfriends to have; unless I have the proof to back my claim up, it is baseless and disgusting bullshit that no one should ever believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this getting beyong hilarious??
A gov agency, telling the Gov that Corps will be the best things for the Cities, states, and the Gov.
This agency is for REGULATION CONTROL and enforcement.
They may make suggestions..but NOT allot more.
The FCC is supposed to be monitoring WHAT those corps is doing, and Keeping them from becoming Monopolies..
When I moved tot he country, we had 1 Cable company, then they got bought by another company WHO installed Much of the Internet/cable system, then SOLD again..(all in 5 years)
Most of the Dialup services went away.. The Towns and cities had Full access, after ALLOT of line replacement..At this time, 10 years later, the OUTSIDE areas are getting Wireless setups..Smaller companies are setting up(2 so far) to cover all the outlaying areas.
I really find it interesting that it is taking THIS LONG to get the larger cities COVERED, VERY WELL..with systems worse then what I have..(100mb/5mb, almost never fails)
Trying to tell the states, what they CAN/CANT do...is stupid.
A CORP trying to tell the STATE, to do something is STUPID ALSO..as the STATE can install the systems themselves..AND make JOBS FOR THE STATE.
Iv said before, that the Fed has backed every advance in this country..the Corps never do things willingly..
They want to STAY and do things, 1 way..Improvements COST PROFITS.. Some one might have to loose a few wages..
For all that they SPEND trying to keep things AS THEY ARE..the only people impacted, ARE THE CUSTOMERS, because they get the INCREASE'S..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]