Or as an alternative, maybe don't shove through legislation that's so wildly unpopular with the american citizens that the entire internet comes crashing down on you in protest. Just a thought.
Maybe putting some restrictions on the king is just rolling back the implicit restrictions and regulations he exercises over the public inherent in his position that he gained through graft.
(king/comcast/att/etc.)
Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
Now, socialists claim that since the government is not profit driven, it would keep the prices low. On the other hand, capitalists say that even if the supplier seeks profit, there would be competition which would lead to innovation, better service, and lower prices. Of course, pretty much none of our systems are fully on one side or the other which complicates things. For example, telcos did not build the entire internet infrastructure out of their pocket, they received significant amount of government funding.
I keep hearing this constantly. They received significant amount of government funding, yes, but how much of their (current) success and assets due to government funding? How much of it is really due to the continued regulation of radio waves and the land where cables are dug?
I would expect HN overall to agree with the FCC that the rules that govern the internet need to be as flat and global as possible.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2018...
Neither party appears to be turning down money from the opponents of net neutrality. It feels more like everybody takes the money and the rest is just politics and propaganda.
But you create a false equivalence based on media corp donations, instead of examining the actual behavior and recent history of the parties.
To Godwin this: "Well, the fascists and racists are supporting both Hitler's party and his competition, so, really they're all the same!"
You might want to sophisticate your political examination process.
I fall along the neoliberal lines, more of the liberal engineers as opposed to the liberal dreamers. Dem socs, again, love the enthusiasm, but there's little more to it than that.
The "main party" is the one who has tirelessly fought for and achieved Net Neutrality. Hate us boring "main party" types all you want, but don't disparage our recent history: We main party Democrats are the only force in America who fought for and achieved Net Neutrality. We did that. GOP destroyed it, sure, but it was us main party dems which made it a party plank, which pushed it to Obama and his FCC, and made it reality. And it'll be us who do it again, too.
One, regardless of the money, Democrats clearly support net neutrality and Republicans clearly oppose net neutrality by wide margins. The votes are nowhere close to balanced.
Two, be careful with looking at the totals on OpenSecrets. Look at the PAC money specifically. OpenSecrets tallies up every donation by employees working in an industry and calls it an industry donation. Which means that my $20 donation to a Democratic Rep is considered the same as Comcast literally giving $20 to a PAC which then donates to a Republican.
Ironically, the democrats (or at least the current people in power and the media) tend to be against any requirement of strong ID when it comes to interacting with the government...
Instead, they concocted an obviously false and politically motivated story about being "hacked".
Citation?
https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effecti...
Key quotes:
> The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters
> The comment process is not a vote. The government is attempting to formulate the best policy, so when crafting a comment it is important that you adequately explain the reasoning behind your position.
> Form Letters: Organizations often encourage their members to submit form letters designed to address issues common to their membership. Organizations including industry associations, labor unions, and conservation groups sometimes use form letters to voice their opposition or support of a proposed rulemaking. Many in the public mistakenly believe that their submitted form letter constitutes a “vote” regarding the issues concerning them. Although public support or opposition may help guide important public policies, agencies make determinations for a proposed action based on sound reasoning and scientific evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single, well-supported comment may carry more weight than a thousand form letters.
In a democratic system, the public saying "we don't want it" is a valid reason for the gov't institutions to stop a project, no matter if they didn't get a new perspective and still think that the reasons are good.