Red Mosquito

Alex wrote:team biff

shut up

malice wrote:

Alex wrote:team biff

shut up

it's about time somebody gave chud the "rephrase exactly what someone else said" treatment. i just figured chud, as the master of the style, would have handled being on the receiving end of it with a little more grace.

Alex wrote:

malice wrote:

Alex wrote:team biff

shut up

it's about time somebody gave chud the "rephrase exactly what someone else said" treatment. i just figured chud, as the master of the style, would have handled being on the receiving end of it with a little more grace.

ok, but it was fun telling you to shut up anyway

i realize this is from buzz feed but whatever:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/pre ... ble-stocks

The biggest cable companies in the country did not have a good day Monday, as investors sent their shares plunging on news of President Obama’s plan to give more oversight to regulatory agencies to enforce a “free and open internet.”
Shares of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications, and Cablevision, which together rank as four of the top five largest cable providers in the country, all fell Monday. These companies also double as the nation’s largest providers of broadband access, of course, and President Obama’s proposal to reclassify the internet as a utility has huge ramifications for their businesses.
Comcast shares fell $2.20, or 4%, to $52.95. Shares of Time Warner Cable, which is seeking regulatory approval to merge with Comcast in a $45.2 billion deal, declined $7.10, or 4.9%, to $136.50.
Charter Communications was hit even harder, with its shares falling $9.75, or 6.2%, to $146.62. The stock of New York-centric operator Cablevision declined 32 cents, or 1.7%, to $18.60.
Shares of Verizon and AT&T, the other two big broadband providers, held up a bit better than their cable rivals. Verizon shares dropped only 14 cents, or 0.3%, to $50.72, while AT&T shares actually gained 21 cents, or 0.6%, to close trading at $35.12.
The declines came on a day when the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, Dow Jones Industrial Average, and S&P 500 all posted gains.
President Obama’s proposal calls for allowing the Federal Communications Commission more authority to enforce regulations to keep the internet free and open, known in industry parlance as “net neutrality.” It calls for preventing broadband providers like Comcast from charging websites a premium to deliver content faster or slowing down delivery — known as throttling — to squash demand.
“I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe,” President Obama said in his proposal.
President Obama’s proposal is just that, however, and ultimately the FCC, an independent agency, will vote on whether to adopt his measures or not.
Still, the issue is exceedingly important for cable companies since most of their growth resides in broadband adoption. Last year, for the first time ever, broadband subscribers outnumbered video subscribers at cable companies — Comcast recently disclosed that it will soon have more broadband subscribers than video subscribers, for instance.

Alex wrote:team biff

I'm not too versed on the whole net neutrality issue. Will it affect Jorge's excursions into the dark net or not?

Welp

What a relief.

Good lord, reading through the comments about this under Republican politicians' Facebook posts is truly frightening. Those people have no fucking idea what Net Neutrality means, yet have no problem condemning it as liberal-Obama-communist-government-taking-away-liberties. The level of brainwashing...I just...my brain...it hurts...

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Good lord, reading through the comments about this under Republican politicians' Facebook posts is truly frightening. Those people have no fucking idea what Net Neutrality means, yet have no problem condemning it as liberal-Obama-communist-government-taking-away-liberties. The level of brainwashing...I just...my brain...it hurts...

It's absurd. They should be looking this as protecting a free and open market.

I think this is the right call really.

The net really does operate like a utility in the same sense that a common carrier pipeline does.

People can't just go out and start an ISP see Google and they have tons of cash. Cable companies being pissed off is evidence of something being done right.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Good lord, reading through the comments about this under Republican politicians' Facebook posts is truly frightening. Those people have no fucking idea what Net Neutrality means, yet have no problem condemning it as liberal-Obama-communist-government-taking-away-liberties. The level of brainwashing...I just...my brain...it hurts...

It's absurd. They should be looking this as protecting a free and open market.

A thought for each of these comments:
--LV: Politicians do this all the time. If there's an issue they don't like they'll try to brand it as being part of an opposition that generates a visceral hatred for their target constituents.
--chud: I don't know if their position is that illogical. Allowing ISPs to channel their traffic as they see fit without government interference could very well be seen as "protecting a free and open market". The argument would go that if you don't like a certain ISP's policy, you can look for a competitor that sells a neutral approach. Of course, it's nowhere as simple as that, but so goes it for a simple concept. Also, I think it gets more logical if you infer that the GOP isn't so much pro-market as it is pro-business--the businesses in particular being ISPs on this issue.

Electromatic wrote:I think this is the right call really.

The net really does operate like a utility in the same sense that a common carrier pipeline does.

People can't just go out and start an ISP see Google and they have tons of cash. Cable companies being pissed off is evidence of something being done right.

It does seem clearer in that direction when you imagine all of the public spaces (roads, power lines) that these lines tend to run through.

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Good lord, reading through the comments about this under Republican politicians' Facebook posts is truly frightening. Those people have no fucking idea what Net Neutrality means, yet have no problem condemning it as liberal-Obama-communist-government-taking-away-liberties. The level of brainwashing...I just...my brain...it hurts...

It's absurd. They should be looking this as protecting a free and open market.

A thought for each of these comments:
--LV: Politicians do this all the time. If there's an issue they don't like they'll try to brand it as being part of an opposition that generates a visceral hatred for their target constituents.

Oh, I know. What surprises me is that so many people are buying it. Like, one quick Google search will show that what they're saying is bullshit.

Green Habit wrote: The argument would go that if you don't like a certain ISP's policy, you can look for a competitor that sells a neutral approach.

I know you said it's not as simple as that, but it is for me. I have one viable option for internet access.

Wasn't there a proposal from congressional republicans basically putting this issue under congressional oversight? There are downsides to that, but I don't have much confidence in the FCC either.

not encouraging

Imagine this and the tax bill ?! Oh, the tyranny, the horror! We will all fall into the sea!