Skip to main content

View Diary: It is time to embrace criticisms of the Democratic Party to ensure it lives up to its tenets (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The loss of net neutrality (8+ / 0-)

    will not kill our 225 year old democracy. Not even close.  And your previous diary on this subject was ridiculously divorced from reality.  Plutocracy's homing in on the Internet?  Exactly what part of the average American's Internet experience isn't brought to them by the plutocracy?  Forget the piefights between billion dollar companies over peering and last mile.  Unless you happen to own your own iron and closets and the bandwidth in and out, you're going to be dancing to someone's tune--Google, Vimeo, Facebook, AWS, you're friendly neighborhood data center, whatever.  The vast majority of users around the world suck on the tit of Big Service; they always have.

    •  have fun with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noodles, cybrestrike

      your connection that won't get you dKos at any speed faster than dead slow.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:16:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, because those nefarious plutocrats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, duhban

        are really hard up about all that text clogging up the tubes.

        •  Obama promised to defend net neutrality (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike, PhilJD, Caittus

          ... and he also promised not to name lobbyists to senior positions in his administration.  He has abandoned both promises.  He named a cable/wireless lobbyist to head the FCC, and that former lobbyist has now delivered for his friends.  Go ahead, try to defend this betrayal.  Yes, DailyKos will still be able to operate, as long as they don't decide to produce video content.  Text will still work.  No matter that we were promised one thing and got another.  The Republicans are much worse.  Keep telling yourself that.

          •  First world problems (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, doroma

            You've got to be pretty high on the hog to feel betrayed over the President not diving head first into a fight between billion dollar media companies and billion dollar line layers.  And things must be pretty good if you're worrying about how DK's affected by corporations at the peering and transit level rather than...I don't know...the corporations that own and manage the iron and services DK consumes.

          •  I don't think you quite understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rduran

            both what the FCC is supposedly going to propose and what net neutrality is. I suggest you read up on the nets and dial back the outrage a bit.

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Sun May 04, 2014 at 09:57:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The outrage is overdone, but on the other hand (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              the idea that fairness will be enforced under a standard of what's "commercially reasonable" is also nuts. What the hell is "commercially reasonable"? Such a standard has never existed,  and I can't imagine what it might mean other than "anything for a buck."

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:48:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  do you really think that those major ISPs (0+ / 0-)

          won't slow down DKos to say, 1 byte per second if they could get away with it?  After all, are you really going to quit your job and move somewhere else over it?  Or go back to dialup assuming that would even work for you?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:29:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They already *can* get away with it (0+ / 0-)

            So no.

          •  I'm curious (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rduran

            do you think the ISPs have that fine control over your connection speed?

            Der Weg ist das Ziel

            by duhban on Mon May 05, 2014 at 07:31:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They do (0+ / 0-)

              Just as you can throttle traffic within your own home network, ISPs can do the same with traffic running across their gateways.  

              As a matter of practice, they don't. That's not to say they haven't; expand your search wide enough and you'll find some ISPs--both public and private--that have blocked traffic to and from certain destinations.  Can also happen by accident.  Most frequently (and this is still very rare) it is an incidental consequence to a settlement fight between peers (akin to the Time Warner-CBS dispute).  "Net neutrality" is supposed to make the theoretical possibility of any of this ever happening zilch, but quite frankly all this faux populist ranting over what is largely a dispute between members of the privileged class is way the hell out of proportion.  And "net neutrality" doesn't even begin to get us where we need to be, which are dominant peers and ISPs  owned by the public for the public.

    •  It'll hobble the hell out of it though. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      Perhaps even handcuff it somewhat. When people cut back on Internet usage it won't be a problem. Let me know when that happens.

      Having the Internet is having the most potentially powerful communications and organizing tool in the history of humankind at our disposal. That is nothing to say "meh" about.

      And if you want better push the govt. to install a public fiber optic superhighway as other nations have done. Then we'll not be dependent on corporations. It's a real option that we need to start insisting on just like our roads, schools, water, police and other governmental responsibilities.

      •  Not even close (0+ / 0-)

        Unless we're defining "hobbling the hell out of it" down to returning to the state of affairs we had in the 1990s.

        If you want a better network, then pursue the matter honestly.  Stop pretending that this "net neutrality" is anything more than a trendy pseudo-cause papering over a fight between corporate lobbyists.

        •  The internet helped bring about revolutions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cybrestrike

          In places where they were unexpected. In countries where one didn't have as much freedom with it as we have.

          And honestly, I want public access fiber optic internet across America. I don't want to rely on simply regulating corporations to have it.

          How do you propose pursuing the matter honestly?

          •  You mean like the French Revolution? (0+ / 0-)

            Or the Russian?  Or more the collapse of the Berlin Wall?  The breakaway of the Baltic states, the Velvet Revolution or the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union?

            If you want better lines than the market is willing to provide, nationalize the lines.

            •  Specifically the Arab spring. (0+ / 0-)

              In several nations over the course of a couple years these revolutions were technologially organized and driven. Iif the Internet such as Twitter and cell phone technology were taken out of the picture I don't think that collection of civilian coups would have all occurred.

              And what is your objection to demanding the US install a publicly available and far more efficient fiber optic network which connects to every home (or at least town) in America? Or the equivalent in satallite broadband which might be available in a decade or two as a backup or substitute for rural areas? Which would be one heck of a long term job creator by the way.

              The Internet is not required for change but can bring it much faster. Or more importantly to be used as a shield against widespread misinformation which is the real danger. Otherwise we face a potential Fox network built into every device connected to the network.

              •  One (0+ / 0-)

                I think you probably overestimate the telecommunications component of the Arab Spring--in fact, I doubt you could quantify its impact in any meaningful way. Two, I've just listed a bunch of revolutions that predate the Internet as we know it.

                I never objected to public line laying, and I'm not sure why you think I did.

                The Internet is not required for change but can bring it much faster.
                This is flowery sentiment.  What sort of "change?" Faster compared to what?  
                Otherwise we face a potential Fox network built into every device connected to the network.
                And this basically makes no sense.
            •  The big problem with nationalizing the Internet is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rduran

              The majority in congress sells out to the highest bidder. I think we might need overlapping neighborhood control of wifi. We will all want what is best for ourselves.

              •  "Nationalize" was probably too strong a word (0+ / 0-)

                I think we have largely the same vision in mind--municipal network development.  A public option to compete at the last mile.  By acting locally, we sideline Congress in pursuit of an increased public sector role in telecom.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site