Live feed to the FCC vote on Net Neutrality.

Cardinal · Feb 27, 2015

Henrin said:
I have no interest in some oil rig in the middle of effing no where. Why would I want to live on an oil rig anyway? I just know how liberals behave and how little they really care about anyone but themselves.

Do you know how many people work their asses off to get away from the city so they can be in the middle of nowhere? And dude, ocean front scenery every day. In California you have to be a freaking trillionaire to have that sort of property.

Ockham · Feb 27, 2015

Mithros said:
It's easy to be "VERY" correct when you're the only one you'll listen to.

It's easy to VERY correct when I already know the answer. Duh.

Henrin · Feb 27, 2015

Cardinal said:
Do you know how many people work their asses off to get away from the city so they can be in the middle of nowhere? And dude, ocean front scenery every day. In California you have to be a freaking trillionaire to have that sort of property.

I have a house in the middle of no where now with only an 81 year old woman in walking distance from me. The reason I'm in the country is because I hate people and like to be alone. I can't be alone like I want on some oil rig out in the ocean with a bunch of other people.

Slartibartfast · Feb 27, 2015

Henrin said:
So what, I'm supposed to get rich and then just give you my company so I can live on some oil rig somewhere? **** that.

You are no under obligation to do that, but objectively starting a company that ends of so large it becomes part of the infrastructure of modern life is far more rewarding monetarily than a small business beneath that radar.

More !money = more choices in life = more freedom

Henrin · Feb 27, 2015

tacomancer said:
You are no under obligation to do that, but objectively starting a company that ends of so large it becomes part of the infrastructure of modern life is far more rewarding monetarily than a small business beneath that radar.

More !money = more choices in life = more freedom

No, you just don't get it. If my business because large enough for liberals to nationalize or make into a utility it means that my life work was stolen from me. I don't like regulations because they screw with my plans and make me do things I have no interest in doing. It is my property and my life work they are ****ing with and I don't happen to care for their actions. This is something liberals just don't care to hear because to them I'm a mere cog in the machine and I just have to do as I'm told. I don't just get over things and specially don't get over them when they cost me money, time and labor to deal with.

Cardinal · Feb 27, 2015

Henrin said:
I have a house in the middle of no where now with only an 81 year old woman in walking distance from me. The reason I'm in the country is because I hate people and like to be alone. I can't be alone like I want on some oil rig out in the ocean with a bunch of other people.

I'm actually kind of jealous of you. If I could get out of the city and live in the middle of nowhere, and all I'd have to do is tolerate net neutrality, I'd trade places with you in a heartbeat.

Fenton · Feb 27, 2015

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Don't stop by just pointing a finger at Clinton. Please tell the whole story.

Oh you're right. I left some people out.

Lets see, there was Janet Reno, who aggressively targeted Banks for supposed " discriminatory lending practices " thereby forcing all lenders to lower their decades old lending standards or face a DOJ lawsuite.

Fun Fact, Eric Holder worked for Janet Reno back when the Federal government was essentially shaking down banks.

There was Jim Johnson, ( Democrat ) who in 1993 committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime loan purchases.

There was Andrew Cuomo, who committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases and changed their internal rules that allowed them to hide Trillions of dollars in Subprime debt.

He was elected Governor for his corruption.

There was Jamie Gorelick, ( Clinton Vice Chair appointee at Fannie Mae ) who openly and publicly lobbied banks to sell their Subprime loans to Fannie Mae so they " could turn them into Securities

Then there were people like Barrak Obama, who prior to being a State Senator shook down lending institutions for " didiscrimination " as a Plaintiffs lawyer. He shook down Citi Bank in Chicago.

There was Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO and Clinton appointee who falsely reported BILLIONS in profits and was responsible for Fannie Mae reciveing the largest SEC fine in History. ( 400 Million dollars )

Then there was the Democrats, who did everything in their power to block any reform that would have uncovered the MASSIVE and UNPRECEDENTED corruption that was happening at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac including using their " Rule 22 " veto to threaten the GOP into not bringing sb190 to the Senate floor in 2005.

It was REAL GSE legislation that would have appointed a 3rd party to oversee the GSEs 3 years before the Financial crisis.

There was Barney Frank, who openly fougt off GOP attempts to force the GSEs to submit to full disclosure and there's Chris Dodd, who recieved " VIP " loans from Country Wide who was one of the largest originators of Subprime loans.

Fannie Mae was Country Wides primary consumer going all the way back to 1999.

So there you go. I expanded on my previous post and you learned something new !

JasperL · Feb 27, 2015

Fenton said:
Oh you're right. I left some people out.

Hilarious - not one of those people was a GOPer. :roll:

Otherwise, a very even handed analysis of the factors that led to the financial crisis. :shock:

SenorXm/Sirius · Feb 27, 2015

Fenton said:
Oh you're right. I left some people out.

Lets see, there was Janet Reno, who aggressively targeted Banks for supposed " discriminatory lending practices " thereby forcing all lenders to lower their decades old lending standards or face a DOJ lawsuite.

Fun Fact, Eric Holder worked for Janet Reno back when the Federal government was essentially shaking down banks.

There was Jim Johnson, ( Democrat ) who in 1993 committed the GSEs to 1 Trillion dollars in Subprime loan purchases.

There was Andrew Cuomo, who committed the GSEs to 2.4 Trillion dollars in Subprime purchases and changed their internal rules that allowed them to hide Trillions of dollars in Subprime debt.

He was elected Governor for his corruption.

There was Jamie Gorelick, ( Clinton Vice Chair appointee at Fannie Mae ) who openly and publicly lobbied banks to sell their Subprime loans to Fannie Mae so they " could turn them into Securities

Then there were people like Barrak Obama, who prior to being a State Senator shook down lending institutions for " didiscrimination " as a Plaintiffs lawyer. He shook down Citi Bank in Chicago.

There was Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae CEO and Clinton appointee who falsely reported BILLIONS in profits and was responsible for Fannie Mae reciveing the largest SEC fine in History. ( 400 Million dollars )

Then there was the Democrats, who did everything in their power to block any reform that would have uncovered the MASSIVE and UNPRECEDENTED corruption that was happening at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac including using their " Rule 22 " veto to threaten the GOP into not bringing sb190 to the Senate floor in 2005.

It was REAL GSE legislation that would have appointed a 3rd party to oversee the GSEs 3 years before the Financial crisis.

There was Barney Frank, who openly fougt off GOP attempts to force the GSEs to submit to full disclosure and there's Chris Dodd, who recieved " VIP " loans from Country Wide who was one of the largest originators of Subprime loans.

Fannie Mae was Country Wides primary consumer going all the way back to 1999.

So there you go. I expanded on my previous post and you learned something new !

Yeah, you are a typical for a partisan rabid Limbaugh suxing conservative.. Just tell half the story.

The Republicans had just as much to do with the crash, maybe even more to do with the crash as the Dems. The difference is most Libs will admit the Dems also had something to do with the crash, but you kool-aide drinking lemming conservatives refuse to admit that Gramm and the rest of the GOP also had a hand in the crash.

Drink away.

PoS · Feb 27, 2015

Travis007 said:
Liberals can not be trusted with our freedoms...

Obama is a disaster

You have a point there, this net neutrality bill was a law created to address a problem that doesnt exist. It just adds another layer to the country's over bloated bureaucracy.

Fenton · Feb 27, 2015

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yeah, you are a typical for a partisan rabid Limbaugh suxing conservative.. Just tell half the story.

The Republicans had just as much to do with the crash, maybe even more to do with the crash as the Dems. The difference is most Libs will admit the Dems also had something to do with the crash, but you kool-aide drinking lemming conservatives refuse to admit that Gramm and the rest of the GOP also had a hand in the crash.

Drink away.

Hey, there's nothing stopping you from adding your two cents and implicating all these supposed " GOPers ". Its a debate forum and posting something of substance, instead of the empty rhetoric you just posted is encouraged.

But if you post something false or inaccurate Im going to correct it.

Fenton · Feb 27, 2015

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Yeah, you are a typical for a partisan rabid Limbaugh suxing conservative.. Just tell half the story.

The Republicans had just as much to do with the crash, maybe even more to do with the crash as the Dems. The difference is most Libs will admit the Dems also had something to do with the crash, but you kool-aide drinking lemming conservatives refuse to admit that Gramm and the rest of the GOP also had a hand in the crash.

Drink away.

Again, instead of posting nonsensical platitudes and talking points I encourage you to post something substantial. If the GOP truly did do MORE to create the Sub-Prime bubble ( they didn't, the Democrats are neck deep in the Sub-prime mortgage crisis and I can prove it ) then post something informative.

Do the research and then come back and post something that's worth reading.

I've been doing research on the Sub-prime bubble for a few years now and I can post a detailed account that goes all the way back to 1992 so fair warning. If you DO post somthing that's lazy, or just wrong I'll correct it.

SenorXm/Sirius · Feb 28, 2015

Fenton said:
I've been doing research on the Sub-prime bubble for a few years now and I can post a detailed account that goes all the way back to 1992 so fair warning. If you DO post somthing that's lazy, or just wrong I'll correct it.

Funny thing is, so have I. I've discussed it to death. I read about it for years. It came up in this thread because you pointed at Clinton because he signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, implying that him and him alone caused the crash. If you are such an expert then you know that was a Republican bill. So if you going to be fair don't just point at Clinton. You want me to post something substantial but all you did was post a 1/2 truth about the CFM Act? Look in the mirror.

That was my point, that's all. I think we dragged this thread far enough off-topic.

JasperL · Feb 28, 2015

Fenton said:
Hey, there's nothing stopping you from adding your two cents and implicating all these supposed " GOPers ". Its a debate forum and posting something of substance, instead of the empty rhetoric you just posted is encouraged.

But if you post something false or inaccurate Im going to correct it.

There isn't any point debating with an ideologue who proposes a timeline of a crisis that entirely omits one of the major parties involved.

Mithros · Feb 28, 2015

PoS said:
You have a point there, this net neutrality bill was a law created to address a problem that doesnt exist. It just adds another layer to the country's over bloated bureaucracy.

How can you say that it doesn't exist? There have been numerous rulings by the FCC barring non-competitive practices under net neutrality rules the court recently invalidated. In 2007 Comcast was found guilty of throttling P2P users, recently they were found to have deliberatly throttled netflix traffic to aid in negotiations.

Declaring broadband to be title II does not add any additional regulation. After all, the internet used to be regulated as title II. This isn't a government take over of anything. There were regulations in place, Comcast fought them on the grounds that they weren't legal under title I status. The courts agreed and said that you need to define the internet as title II in order to implement the existing regulations, and now that's exactly what happened.

jonny5 · Feb 28, 2015

akrunner88 said:
For me the fact that access to the Internet is throttled, prohibits growth of emerging tech, but also costs us a lot of money. The United States doesn't even rank in the top 20 in Internet speed. The real question is why does the idea of regulated Internet spook people off? When the current providers already provide ****ty service at a premium price.

To be fair, those countries that are in the top 20 are all small and new to the internet. Look at the historical compared to the US. Ours is a steady climb. Everyone above us has very recent gains, and some are headed down. Singapore, Hong Kong, Monaco are city states. As with everything else, the US has the largest variety of options, the best of everything and the worst of everything. Thats what freedom is.

Download Speed by Country | Net Index from Ookla

Cardinal · Feb 28, 2015

radcen said:
You will disagree, because as you alluded to previously, that's just what we do here at DP, but... by not directly answering the question regarding why it cannot be open and above board, and especially asking what might be wrong as if you think someone kept in the dark would even be able to answer that, you are actually arguing in favor of my point that it should be open and above board. There's no legitimate reason for it not to be, and blindly trusting the government to do right isn't a good counterargument. In fact, it comes off as either naive, or being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative.

It is "open and aboveboard." It's a title ii utility. We have those, we know what they mean, it's a non-issue. No offense, but I suspect that the libertarian/conservative hysteria may be infectious, and it's probably gotten to you a little. Oh, not full blown wackadoodle like you're seeing from others in this thread, to be sure, but they've made you more concerned than is factually warranted. As Mithros just observed above, the FCC regulated the internet as a title ii utility for four years and everything was fine (well, "fine" with regards to the concerns posited about regulating the internet. Other things not related to the regulation certainly weren't fine at all, but that's a separate discussion).

Sadly, the misinformation won't stop here. Remember how the very instant the PPACA passed every lemonade stand that closed was put down to Obamacare? You'll be seeing the same thing here for a while: every business that closes, every failed website that goes down, every hicup in internet service...anything at all...will be explained by the re-enactment of this regulation.

Cardinal · Feb 28, 2015

By the way, did anyone else think it was a coincidence that Time Warner went down across most of the country on the same exact day the FCC declared the internet a utility?

Deuce · Feb 28, 2015

PoS said:
You have a point there, this net neutrality bill was a law created to address a problem that doesnt exist. It just adds another layer to the country's over bloated bureaucracy.

We were already seeing paid prioritization pop up, almost immediately after that became legal last year. You can't claim the problem doesn't exist.

Mithros · Feb 28, 2015

Cardinal said:
By the way, did anyone else think it was a coincidence that Time Warner went down across most of the country on the same exact day the FCC declared the internet a utility?

I wouldn't put it past them. What else would you expect from companies that thrive on treating new customers well and gouging existing customers?

Remember the VoIP debacle. Comcast et al fought like hell to have its VoIP service treated as a Title I, instead of a Title II like every other phone service. Then they went out and filed suit to gain the access charges and mandatory interconnection guarenteed by Title II status. They didn't want to have to negotiate interconnections with other phone companies, they wanted the government to step in and force ATT etc to treat Comcast like just another phone company. The only innovation these companies provide is legal wrangling.

https://www.publicknowledge.org/new...-deserve-an-access-charge-bail-out-as-part-of

Cardinal · Feb 28, 2015

radcen said:
Why does it need to be portrayed as the extreme of a concentration camp?

I'd be willing to bet that in your life you have also found some government doings to be not quite what you expected or wanted, so I'm failing to understand your defending of the secrecy. If it's so benign, why not just put the specifics out there... and maybe have some public debate prior to the vote?

Because you asked:

There’s already a conspiracy theory brewing over net neutrality - The Washington Post

Why won't they release the rules?!?!

It's been less than 24 hours since the Federal Communications Commission voted to approve strict new regulations on Internet providers, but that's the leading question coming from its critics.

Conservatives are demanding that the FCC release a full copy of the regulations that it's planning to impose on companies such as Comcast and Verizon — and taking the agency's silence as evidence of a cover-up.

Let's stop this nonsense right here. It's a stretch to think the FCC is withholding anything. While it was certainly within FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's power to release his draft proposal before it came to a vote, the regulations now must go through a formal process before they become official. And say what you will about bureaucratic inefficiency, but that's the chief reason the FCC won't be releasing the rules for some time.

When that's done — probably after a few weeks — the FCC will post the rules on the agency's Web site. At that point the public will be able to see the specific language. It'll be another few weeks before the document will be published in the Federal Register, the collection of all the rules and notices adopted by the government.

For the most part, the rules won't take effect for another 60 days after that. Certain parts of the regulation will take even longer.

"Until then, a lot of nothing's going to happen," said a telecom industry official, who asked not to be named to discuss internal deliberations more freely.

There's no more secrecy now than there was when the FCC was regulating the internet as a title ii utility from 2010-2015.

Fenton · Feb 28, 2015

JasperL said:
There isn't any point debating with an ideologue who proposes a timeline of a crisis that entirely omits one of the major parties involved.

How about YOU provide that timeline ?

If you want me to then I should really start a new thread since the Sub-prime collapse isnt really relevant to the op.

Fenton · Feb 28, 2015

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Funny thing is, so have I. I've discussed it to death. I read about it for years. It came up in this thread because you pointed at Clinton because he signed the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, implying that him and him alone caused the crash. If you are such an expert then you know that was a Republican bill. So if you going to be fair don't just point at Clinton. You want me to post something substantial but all you did was post a 1/2 truth about the CFM Act? Look in the mirror.

That was my point, that's all. I think we dragged this thread far enough off-topic.

But there's so much more to the Sub-Prime bubble than the CFM Act. There's the 1994 Riegle Neal Act .

" The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 removed many of the restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These restrictions were largely the result of the McFadden Act in 1927 and other laws that attempted to address long-standing concerns about the concentration of financial activity and worries that large banking organizations operating in multiple states could not be adequately supervised. In addition, the act allowed banking organizations to acquire banks in any other state under a uniform, nationwide standard. "

It also tied a Banks CRA scores to their ability to get Federal approval to expand across State lines.

There's Clintons 1995 “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”, act ( a long list of executive orders ) which gave the GSEs a " affordable lending quota of 42 % and allowed the Fannie and Freddie to count Sub-prime Loans toward their HUD affordable lending quotas.

But this thread isn't about the Sub-prime Mortgage crisis, but it IS about Government regulations enacted under false pretenses and that's absolutely relevant to Clinton's Fair lending initiative and the Regulations that followed it.

You see, " discriminatory lending practices " was a manufactured narrative and Banks didn't really discriminate based on the color of peoples skin. They discriminated based on things like Credit Score, income and down payments amounts. Clinton ordered the Boston Fed in 1992 to publish a study that gave credibility to his false narrative of " discriminatory lending ".

The report was full of mistakes and used subjective criteria to come to the conclusion that lenders were discriminating based on skin color. On the back of that report he, via executive order created hundreds of new regulations to mandate " fairness and equity ".

Since Obama and people in his administration including Eric Holder and Valerie Jarret were neck deep in the Trillion dollar bank shakedown in the 90's, ANY new Regulations passed under the pretense of " fairness and equity " should be highly suspect.

SenorXm/Sirius · Feb 28, 2015

Fenton said:
But there's so much more to the Sub-Prime bubble than the CFM Act. There's the 1994 Riegle Neal Act .

" The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 removed many of the restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines. These restrictions were largely the result of the McFadden Act in 1927 and other laws that attempted to address long-standing concerns about the concentration of financial activity and worries that large banking organizations operating in multiple states could not be adequately supervised. In addition, the act allowed banking organizations to acquire banks in any other state under a uniform, nationwide standard. "

It also tied a Banks CRA scores to their ability to get Federal approval to expand across State lines.

There's Clintons 1995 “The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”, act ( a long list of executive orders ) which gave the GSEs a " affordable lending quota of 42 % and allowed the Fannie and Freddie to count Sub-prime Loans toward their HUD affordable lending quotas.

But this thread isn't about the Sub-prime Mortgage crisis, but it IS about Government regulations enacted under false pretenses and that's absolutely relevant to Clinton's Fair lending initiative and the Regulations that followed it.

You see, " discriminatory lending practices " was a manufactured narrative and Banks didn't really discriminate based on the color of peoples skin. They discriminated based on things like Credit Score, income and down payments amounts. Clinton ordered the Boston Fed in 1992 to publish a study that gave credibility to his false narrative of " discriminatory lending ".

The report was full of mistakes and used subjective criteria to come to the conclusion that lenders were discriminating based on skin color. On the back of that report he, via executive order created hundreds of new regulations to mandate " fairness and equity ".

Since Obama and people in his administration including Eric Holder and Valerie Jarret were neck deep in the Trillion dollar bank shakedown in the 90's, ANY new Regulations passed under the pretense of " fairness and equity " should be highly suspect.

I know there's much more. I only addresses the CFM act because that's what you pointed to, when you tried to put all the blame for the crash on Clinton.

There's also videos of Bush bragging about the surge of new home owners under his watch. And the CRA? The mortgage banks like Counrtywide who committed vast amounts of fraud, forgeries and rampant greed, had nothing to do with the CRA, also most of the subprime loans were made by firms that weren't subject to the CRA. And the rating agencies who happily stamped AAA on the garbage that the banks were giving them also had nothing to do with CRA. Without those AAA ratings the banks wouldn't have been able to get rid of that garbage.

There's plenty of blame to go around.

Just look at the differences between your posts on this subject, and mine. I have blamed everyone, because that's where the blame belongs, on everyone. While you only blame the Dems and Clinton. Over the years that's been conservatives MO on the crash. The refuse to blame the Republican politicians, even though the GOP deserves some of the blame. They refuse to blame the banks, and Wall Street, and rating agencies, even though their actions caused the crash. You don't want to discuss what really caused the crash, you just want to use it to further your 'all Dems are evil and stupid' agenda'.

I's not discussing this anymore, especially in this thread.

radcen · Feb 28, 2015

Cardinal said:
There's no more secrecy now than there was when the FCC was regulating the internet as a title ii utility from 2010-2015.

Thank you for posting that. Good info.

But, I never claimed there was more secrecy, and as I pointed out in a response to another poster, just because this has been accepted practice in the past does not make it any more kosher.

Note: My stance on this is for pretty anything government, barring legitimate national defense concerns, etc. NN does not qualify for that exemption.

Live feed to the FCC vote on Net Neutrality.

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Henrin

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.

Henrin

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Fenton

JasperL

SenorXm/Sirius

PoS

Minister of Love

Fenton

Fenton

SenorXm/Sirius

JasperL

Mithros

jonny5

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Mithros

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Fenton

Fenton

SenorXm/Sirius

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©