ISP Disclosures About Data Caps and Fees Eliminated By Net Neutrality Repeal (arstechnica.com) 281
In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission forced ISPs to be more transparent with customers about hidden fees and the consequences of exceeding data caps. Since the requirements were part of the net neutrality rules, they will be eliminated when the FCC votes to repeal the rules next week. Ars Technica reports: While FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to keep some of the commission's existing disclosure rules and to impose some new disclosure requirements, ISPs won't have to tell consumers exactly what everything will cost when they sign up for service. There have been two major versions of the FCC's transparency requirements: one created in 2010 with the first net neutrality rules, and an expanded version created in 2015. Both sets of transparency rules survived court challenges from the broadband industry. The 2010 requirement had ISPs disclose pricing, including "monthly prices, usage-based fees, and fees for early termination or additional network services." That somewhat vague requirement will survive Pai's net neutrality repeal. But Pai is proposing to eliminate the enhanced disclosure requirements that have been in place since 2015. Here are the disclosures that ISPs currently have to make -- but won't have to after the repeal:
-Price: the full monthly service charge. Any promotional rates should be clearly noted as such, specify the duration of the promotional period and the full monthly service charge the consumer will incur after the expiration of the promotional period.
-Other Fees: all additional one time and/or recurring fees and/or surcharges the consumer may incur either to initiate, maintain, or discontinue service, including the name, definition, and cost of each additional fee. These may include modem rental fees, installation fees, service charges, and early termination fees, among others.
-Data Caps and Allowances: any data caps or allowances that are a part of the plan the consumer is purchasing, as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap or allowance (e.g., additional charges, loss of service for the remainder of the billing cycle).
Pai's proposed net neutrality repeal says those requirements and others adopted in 2015 are too onerous for ISPs.
-Price: the full monthly service charge. Any promotional rates should be clearly noted as such, specify the duration of the promotional period and the full monthly service charge the consumer will incur after the expiration of the promotional period.
-Other Fees: all additional one time and/or recurring fees and/or surcharges the consumer may incur either to initiate, maintain, or discontinue service, including the name, definition, and cost of each additional fee. These may include modem rental fees, installation fees, service charges, and early termination fees, among others.
-Data Caps and Allowances: any data caps or allowances that are a part of the plan the consumer is purchasing, as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap or allowance (e.g., additional charges, loss of service for the remainder of the billing cycle).
Pai's proposed net neutrality repeal says those requirements and others adopted in 2015 are too onerous for ISPs.
Here it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)
$0.99 / month internet!
(gets bill)
$0.99 Monthly Internet
$9.99 Facebook access fee
$9.99 Google access fee
$19.99 Slashdot access fee
$29.99 Porn access fee
$45.00 $1.00 per gigabyte fee. 45gb used
$9.99 Convenience fee
$5.00 Bill print fee
$5.00 Electronic payment fee
--------
135.94 due now or we cut you off.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget, ICMP traffic and incoming connections to port 25, as well as all encryption and swarmstreaming traffic is blocked because only pirates use that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why various VPNs will work well. Get a pipe to the EU, where data neutrality is (today) somewhat assured. Rinse, repeat.
Re: Here it comes... (Score:2)
While numerous forms of encryption are utilized on the net, when I see the term used in a manner such as the parent, I assume VPN. Encryption is a big part of how a VPN operates, as well as why it is used.
Re: (Score:3)
This is going to shock you. The Internet is transmitted 100% in ASCII, at least the data payload is. Tell me, are they going to watch every stream, every UDP and TCP relationship, and check to see if it looks like it might be encrypted? Chop up a Netflix movie using a packet cap. Chop up a VPN data stream, same method. Tell me you can tell or characterize the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Two-word answer (was Re: Here it comes...) (Score:4, Insightful)
Admit seemingly innocuous protocol-- billed at the lowest rate-- to an IP that is happy to re-assemble it all back into something useful if taxed by the ISP or its minions.
The teachings of ways to get around the Great Firewall of China have taught people many meaningful dodges. It's a game of Whack-a-Mole at best, where the amount of rules changes becomes so administratively expensive-- even with software defined routing-- that it's not worth their while to do so.
If the ISPs were interested in conserving their traffic, they'd have null-routed all of the botnets of their customers long ago. This isn't about altruism. This is about shareholder profits, and once those profits decline because of overly-complex servicing algorithms, they'll throw them out. Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious, is the salient aphorism.
Re:Here it comes... (Score:4, Interesting)
I highly doubt that ISP's that are going to go along with this are going to care that it breaks the internet for almost everybody that doesn't just use whatever the most popular internet flavors happen to be be.
Re: (Score:2)
'No Server' was a common condition on early broadband connections.
It's only recently that home file servers have become popular, and things like Twitch streaming and peer-to-peer gaming have made defining a server complex.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, internet being what it is, this will open all kinds of new business ventures that circumvent these extra fee's.
It's yet another stupid thing that will fall flat on it's face eventually.
Re:Here it comes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Centurylink did something similar to this to me when I was on their gigabit fiber service:
Advertised price is $79.99
Modem rental fee $15 (there is no modem, just an ethernet drop into my apartment)
Internet Cost Recovery Fee $15 (uhhh....?)
Taxes and government fees $20 (Complete bullshit because the government legally cannot charge any taxes here; the other ISP, Cox, doesn't charge you any taxes unless you get cable TV, this is literally just a number they pulled out of their ass.)
Whats worse is if I didn't complain to the FCC at the time, it would have been much higher because for my apartment, they were charging $50 higher than the advertised price. Anyways, after I got my first bill I just canceled it and went back to the base 40/10 package, which was free with my rent. I complained about how they didn't even provide gig service for the first half of the month either (it took them a while to adjust it) and they just ended up not charging anything.
I think that fat fuck Ajit Pai just misses the good ol' telecom monopoly days. Fuck him.
double edge sword (Score:2)
If they do publish fees or caps then in principle the FTC can hold them to it. Thus all a competitor needs to do is to say that Comcast's average fee is over $100 a month. They can let that be the regining belief or they can publish their own rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Every states has a deceptive practices laws, hidden fees and data caps fall under deceptive practices. ISPs won't be hitting you with data overages fees that aren't known or other hidden fees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
135.94 due now or we cut you off.
That's when I disconnect the modem, drive to Comcast's office, plop it down on the counter, tell them I'm cancelling service IMMEDIATELY, and demand a receipt showing I returned their equipment (and therefore have ZERO access to their 'service' anymore). I stand there and repeat "I AM CANCELLING MY SERVICE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY" until they STFU and process the cancellation, and give me my receipt for their modem. They can call the cops if they want and have me arrested, IDGAF, my one phone call will be to a
Re:Here it comes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here it comes... (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of high-quality porn are you watching in 30 minutes?
This is Slashdot. Obviously it's Japanese tentacle porn.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of high-quality porn are you watching in 30 minutes?
Scooby Doo parody porn is the only porn you need.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know why he kept watching after blowing his load, the other 29 minutes and 55 seconds were just wasting money.
Ajit Pai... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
is really a blow-up doll for ISPs.
That would imply they're blowing him when it's more apparent that he's blowing them, but I get your intent. Perhaps the Real Doll [realdoll.com] company can make a sex doll that looks like Ajit Pai?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need both... The doll for the TC comps and the bag for the techies.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do we stand it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great, feels good.
But maybe 4 years later, maybe a decade... maybe more, the tables will again turn. Vengeance will swing the other way again.
How about a real law instead? Like, the way it's supposed to be done. The reason we are in this mess in the first place is because the net neutrality rules had been put in place the wrong way. Screwing around with punishments and/or creating more "regulations" leads to the same place.
Needs to be real law, worded strongly, enforceable, and done right. Not another stack of papers at the whim of whatever agency takes the torch.
Anything less is just another stupid band-aid waiting for the next telecom lawyer.
Re:Why do we stand it (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of Pai's reasoning seems to be "the market will take care of it", but the problem is that there is no real market pressure on ISPs. Most people have one, maybe two high speed, wired ISPs in their area. (A lot of people don't have any, but that's a slightly different problem.) Where I live, I have Charter. Verizon never expanded FIOS to my house so that's not an option and no other high speed, wired options exist. So if Charter decided to cap me at 5GB (a plan pre-merger Time Warner Cable floated not that many years ago), I wouldn't be able to do anything but continue to pay them or go without Internet. (The latter isn't really an option for a web developer.)
Maybe if everyone had 10 different, competing ISPs to choose from, I could see removing many of the government regulations and ideally that's what I'd like to move towards. Until we get there, though, there's no reason why ISPs should be allowed to hide how much we'll really pay or when we'll be charged extra because we hit some invisible cap that they don't disclose.
Re: (Score:3)
While that's one issue, the bigger one is that one of the requirements for a market to function well is free flowing price information. Without that, how do actors make rational decisions? Even if we had 12 ISPs in every market, this is exactly the kind of step that makes it almost impossible for a customer to make a good choice.
Re:Why do we stand it (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand. "Free market" means free for the businesses to do what they want. Any business to business disputes will be handled via the courts, and any business to consumer disputes will be handled with the phrase "screw you, peasant".
It's naive to think that the free market evangelists actually believe in a real free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most ardent free-market supporter should agree that Pai's idea is bogus. Without accurate information, there can be no free market. If you can't price compare, there is no free market.
That's ignoring the fact that for most people, there is a choice between two or less providers, which is obviously not enough for a free market.
No, "the market" isn't Pai's reasoning. "the market" is merely cover for yet more crony-capitalism. I don
Re:Why do we stand it (Score:5, Interesting)
In Stockholm, Sweden, most apartments have somewhere 10-20 ISPs to choose from, with several different fiber nets available or within reach. Companies are not allowed to lock out the competition.
The standard price for an up/down line of 100Mbit/100Mbit is (with VAT) around $18 per month ($15 without VAT) , no installation fee. That's with no caps or overages.
While I don't know if the Swedish market can be directly translated into the American market, it does seem that opening up and lowering the barriers to entry would help with prices. That means regulating the crap out of the big corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much of Pai's reasoning seems to be "the market will take care of it", but the problem is that there is no real market pressure on ISPs.
The market hasn't taken care of this in any industry or any country in the world. About the only places where consumers aren't hit by hidden costs are places where the law makes it illegal to do so.
It is made worse in the USA by this absurd notion of not actually knowing what the general costs are in the first place. I mean I was completely blown away the first time I visited and I was fully prepared for the strange culture of tipping a certain percentage. But that I couldn't even buy a Marsbar for the adve
Re: (Score:2)
General sales tax is a known quantity to the locals it's very publicized each time it changes or could possibly change but it can be a surprise for someone visiting from outside the state or country. Some places don't have a sales tax on certain items so even traveling from state to state. If you are planing on making a large purchase (like purchasing a car from across state lines) you might want to look up the taxes first.
Every state has a deceptive trade practices law some are different and though they ma
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to be stuck with this because businesses are going to want everything changing every time there's a change of government. It's not just net neutrality but health insurance (I can't say health care because all it did was make you buy insurance) and taxes (which also included a lot of other bad stuff such as drilling in ANWR, making getting your PhD a lot less easy). Then there's the stuff that Trump himself is doing with immigration, how he handles foreign crisis (including those of his making),
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that they don't charge people up front. It doesn't do much against folk who actually pay attention and do research, but there's a lot of people out there who will go for the lowest advertised price and by the time they realize they were swindled, they've already signed the contract (and often been using the service for a month because they don't discover this until their first bill rolls in at 3x or more what they expected.)
Not advertising prices also lets these companies do even more unscrupu
2018 isn't a done deal (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an idea: when the Democrats inevitably win
If. A very big if. Roy Moore is a really big deal. If republicans can stomach a pedophile in their midst, they've obviously tossed the moral compass out the window. This could be a problem. It shows how desperate republicans and their supporters are. Dunno if you watch the news, but actual voters are saying to news folks, they literally would rather have Roy Moore despite his shortcomings over -any- democrat. This casting aside of morals is pretty alarming, and they're taking very effective tactics from Trump's campaign: Wage war against the media. Make it "US vs. THEM!" It's extremely unhealthy for our republic. And unfortunately, it's plucking just the right strings for the right. They could very well use these plays effectively in 2018 to crush the democrats again. We'll see, but after 2016, nothing is inevitable anymore. Nothing is for sure, not even outrage of this level.
Roy Moore is a very important character to watch. If he picks up the seat in Alabama, we're in for a bumpy 2018. And nothing will be for sure until the fat lady sings at the end of the elections in Nov 2018. If Roy loses to Doug, it's a good sign that the left is organized and getting out the vote. They'll need to keep that organization and zest alive for a whole year. Meanwhile, Trump is making all of us very very tired.
Re: (Score:2)
If republicans can stomach a pedophile in their midst
Oh? Who's that?
they literally would rather have Roy Moore despite his shortcomings over -any- democrat
It's possible to acknowledge this without resorting to assuming guilt based on accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also defamation. Prove it or shut the fuck up.
Too many men getting their lives ruined by lying cunts making shit up and/or a lack of due process. Including elected politicians killing themselves because of how they've been treated.
If he broke the law then he should be prosecuted and we can examine the evidence properly and impartially. Until then quit throwing accusations around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he's still a skeevy ne'er do well
No objections to that one :)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart people (aka not democRATS) can tell the difference between guilt and hail mary tactic to try anything get someone to accuse you of something bad for political gain.
And people still insist that perception isn't the only thing. How else do you explain the fact that while you posted this, large majorities of Republicans think Obama was a Kenyan-born secret Muslim and a Socialist? That fact and your post cannot both be true. I mean, the President is on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women, and you can still believe what you do. It's quite astounding, actually. But it shouldn't be, because subjectivity is all we have.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Required to do free peering.
With anyone? No conditions? The devil is in the details. I need some justification. Do my customers want to get to your content above a level where it makes sense for me to peer with you? Do you run a decent network that isn't oversubscribed? Lets say $content provider traffic over your network is crap, lots of jitter, loss, whatever. I can also get $content providers traffic from someone else. If my customers use a lot of $content providers service, then I'm not peeri
God forbid (Score:5, Insightful)
That ISPs should have to meet the onerous requirement of stating price up front, just like every country store, gas station, and kid's lemonade stand has managed since forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Kid's lemonade store is about the only case in the USA where when you actually go to pay you will part with exactly as much money as was listed on advertisement.
Gas station? Like the one where I bought a Marsbar for $1.20 and then was asked for $1.35 at the checkout?
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai needs to get bone cancer or pancreatic cancer and die, soon. I'm surprised someone hasn't taken a shot at him already. He's literally going to ruin the Internet, do the exact opposite of what he claims to be doing. ISPs need to be regulated the same way that any other utility is regul
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory YouTube video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
too onerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pai's proposed net neutrality repeal says those requirements and others adopted in 2015 are too onerous for ISPs.
Too onerous to tell people exactly what they're paying for? If the ISPs can charge you for it, they can list it on the bill. Perhaps consumers should consider it "too onerous" to pay for things that aren't listed.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that most ISPs are monopolies or, at best, duopolies. If your ISP is the only one in town and they're finding it "too onerous" to be transparent about how much you'll pay or what your cap is, then you can't vote with your wallet and go elsewhere. Ideally, I'd like to see more competition in the ISP arena, but I'm not holding my breath on that happening anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
And what good is that going to do for us? Phone companies have been posting this crap all the time and no one even knows what the hell it means anymore. They'll just do the same thing.
The market does need to take care of this problem, but the cities, states and the Feds need to stop protecting these ISP's and stop giving them exclusive rights to X area then, so real actual competition can happen. We wouldn't need net neutrality if these ISP's didn't have exclusive rights, allowing legal monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they cancel your service and pass your account to a collection agency and your credit gets destroyed.
They win, they don't need your money, just your anecdote to others who will invariably obey rather than fact the consequences.
I was reading a 1982 Nat Geo yesterday and there was a full page ad from Bell Company talking about why not to break up the monopoly.
It was enlightening and very relevant to current times.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps consumers should consider it "too onerous" to pay for things that aren't listed.
I'm already set for that, regardless of any 'consequences': https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
I remember life before the Internet, and I got along just fine without it. It's been beneficial but I know better than to think it's a requirement for life to continue. I recommend everyone else be prepared to cancel their service if ISPs get too big for their pants, that's the best way to hurt them: hit them right in the revenues.
GOP appears to claim that (Score:2)
...increasing a company's ability to manipulate and screw customers increases jobs, choice, and GDP.
Anyone want to defend or deny this view of theirs? Go!...
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice we have caps to go with our breeches now.
Re:GOP appears to claim that (Score:4, Interesting)
It goes along nicely with their claim that cutting taxed on rich people and big corporations will result in more income and jobs for middle-class/poor even though many CEOs have come out and said they won't be using the tax cuts to open new jobs. The GOP has taken a flying leap away from reality.
(This isn't to say that the Democrats are perfect. Right now, they are the saner party - which isn't saying much. I'd love for the GOP to be a good alternative to the Democrats, but they seem determined to take the party into more pro-big-business and anti-science areas.)
Re: (Score:2)
Once the NN regulations are removed and competition has again entered the ISP market consumers will be able read all about their new ISP plans.
On their ISP site. A link from their ISP to the Commission.
Full publicly available disclosures about new plans on easily accessible websites.
In the past ISP got forced to comply with new federal NN regulations covering other fees, data caps and allowances.
Thats billable lawyer hours that an ISP has to pass on to
The burden of honesty, is dismissed. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Pai's proposed net neutrality repeal says those requirements and others adopted in 2015 are too onerous for ISPs."
Disclosing the full monthly price is too much of a burden?
Explaining the penalty for exceeding data limits is bothersome?
Fuck you Pai. You're nothing but a corporate shill whore. We should be dismissing you instead of you dismissing common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you Pai. You're nothing but a corporate shill whore. We should be dismissing you instead of you dismissing common sense.
Dismissing Ajit Pai? And here I was thinking we should throw him into an active volcano. ;)
meter compliance laws are needed like gas pumps (Score:2)
meter compliance laws are needed like gas pumps or do you want to live in GOP land where they don't have a fair meter and can say you pumped 20 GAL in to a car that can only hold about 12-14 GAL so pay up now.
Check out pages 81-85. JUST what I asked for. (Score:2, Interesting)
Check out pages 81-85.
I've been advocated, for years, that the NN issue be pulled from the FCC and dropped in the lap of FTC and DOJ. (I even got a copy of my several-years-old paper on the subject into the hands of an FTC functionary, just after the election last year.)
But I was under the impression that the FTC needed a new congressional authorization to exercise such power.
According to THIS:
- The reason they're currently blocked is that the FCC classed the Internet as a common carrier - and THIS
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.
that people presume to be surprised when abusive and monopolistic behavior occurs when you grant companies monopolies is baffling.
You do not have the right to such ignorance. Grant right of way access to poles and conduits for third party last mile ISPs and all this NN stuff becomes irrelevant.
Google is having a hard time running cable. That is how bad and how corrupt these franchise agreements are right now. And if google with all its resources is having a hard time then what chance does anyone else stand?
Open up right of way or shut up. Nothing is going to liberate consumers and users and citizens and people from the oppression of monopolistic forces unless you break the monopolies at their heart. And that heart is the exclusive franchise agreements.
Here some fool will say that such agreements are illegal. De Jura they are... De facto they're the law of the land. Try to run cable and see what I mean. You can't. Only former Bell Companies and TV Cable companies are running last mile cable. This isn't because other people don't want to run cable or can't afford to run cable or because there isn't a market. It is because if you try... you are denied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too onerous? (Score:3)
It's too onerous to explain the fees, but not too onerous to charge them? How ridiculous is that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work here. Coup de Grace is all that we have left.
Promoting a Coup d'état is an act of sedition and *technically* is a hanging/firing squad offence in federal law.
With our current oligarchy any attempt of Coup d'état is as likely as not to get you black bagged.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually they EXPECTED corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, ideally, we'd expect Congress to do their job and remove them. Or the President to ask them to resign. But our Founding Fathers expected elected officials to act in good faith, not be corrupt, and yet here we are.
Actually, our Founding Fathers expected the central power to tend to attract the corrupt and corrupt any who arrived not yet corrupt.
That's why they split the government into three parts (with any two in combination able to override the third), complicated the procedures, and put lots of roadblocks in the way of doing things: So it would take a bunch of corrupt officials to get away with anything (and others would have some chance of stopping them).
Jefferson thought we'd have to mash a (violent) revolutionary reset button every couple decades, anyhow. But they wrought better than they knew, and their tell-me-three-times redundant system has tended to self correct. It still had a lot of problems, and hurt a lot of people. But (except for the Civil War) it didn't start seriously and persistently going off the rails until about WW I - 14 decades rather than two.
Want to know why we got tTrump? Because a lot of people got sick of the "deep-state" "two-headed singl- party" "swamp" and he was the biggest monkey wrench they could grab to throw into the machine.
Didn't work the way they, or you, wanted it to? So what else is new? Unintended consequences are the nature of government power.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I though the biggest wrench a US citizen could throw was electing third party. If enough people did it, that is.
I keep hearing that a third party candidate doesn't have a chance... so that would be where I'd start changing stuff.
Of course, we're talking US society here, where black and white is the norm. It's the norm in mainstream media (still don't get how Star Wars is so popular) and even in political rhetoric. And it isn't even new. It goes at least as far back as the world wars.
You're either f
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it is next to impossible for a 3rd party candidate to be elected anymore. Both political parties have lobbied very hard in some states to make it difficult for 3rd party candidates to even get on the ballot. Many require you to submit signed petitions with thousands of signatures by certain deadlines to even be considered.
But there are third party candidates on almost every state's presidential ballots.
There are much strong factors at work that prevent the rise of the first party. The first is economic -- campaigns are very expensive, labor-intensive things, and the media focuses on parties rather than candidates, so whomever is the top dog of the Democratic and Republican parties in the area get exposure. No one else.
The second is social pressure. More than any other time in my life, I see the American public as being compl
Re: (Score:2)
Want to know why we got tTrump? Because a lot of people got sick of the "deep-state" "two-headed singl- party" "swamp" and he was the biggest monkey wrench they could grab to throw into the machine.
That's giving way, WAY too much credit to the average voter. While I'm sure some people exist who voted in this manner, I suspect the vast majority voted for Trump because they liked his populist campaign platform.
They were a lot less concerned with corruption (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to take thism moment to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say you're right. That doesn't change that on this issue at least a democratic wave would be a win for society. Now you can argue that this is only because dems are corrupted out to corporations whose interests in this regard happen to allign with our own - you may even be right, but you're STILL wrong to claim changing the majority party can't fix this issue completely.
Even all that aside, if you believe that both parties are equally corrupt - you really, really WANT a system where the opposition party controls at least one house on the hill, the best way to stem corruption (especially in this hyperpartisan era) is to make it so it's absolutely impossible to pass any law without a significant number of opposition politicians actually agreeing with it.
That was how Washington used to work - in fact as recently as 2010 it's how things worked. Reagan passed his tax reform as a bipartisan effort that took two years of cross-party negotiation.
Obamacare took two years of negotiation with loads of input and ammendments, public hearings, things added and removed by republicans - and quite a few republican votes in the end.
Then came the "lets make him a one-term president by actively blocking ANYTHING he wants to do - even if it's something we wanted to do ourselves for years" thing (it had sort of begun with Obama's election but only really picked up steam after the republicans 2010 midterm gains allowed them actually behave that way).
Now I chose those two examples quite deliberately. They came from opposite sides of the spectrum, based on completely opposite ideas of how things should be done - but in both cases they were done slowly, deliberately, in a negotiation process that ultimately got most of the opposition on-board.
Thus far this year, both those topics have been up again. Healthcare and taxes. In both cases republicans have tried to fly-by-night the legislation, keep it secret until the last possible moment, done all in their power to avoid any public debate or any chance for even their OWN politicians to know what's in the law before the vote. This is what happens when a party has full control of the government and no longer gives a damn.
What's worse - their approach seems to be that they think they'll be forgiven any horrible thing they do, just so long as they "fuck the liberals". No need to govern the COUNTRY, no need to try and make decisions that benefit their districts, their voters or even their base - their base will be happy as long as they fuck those annoying liberals over.
Somehow, since 2010 - being willing to negotiate a decent compromise bill and acknowledge you're there to serve the ENTIRE country went from "how the good politicians do things" to "an act of treason we will not tolerate in a republican", somehow liberals, democrats, progressives and whatever else you want to lump in there on the left went from "fellow Americans I disagree with" to "an enemy that must be destroyed by any means necessary" , somehow they aren't "real Americans" anymore, and any negotiation with them, any attempt to consider their views is seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
That's a recipe for a government that is not only wholly disfunctional but utterly incapable and uninterested in ever doing anything for the people that elected them - as long as you promise to fuck the liberals over, your seat will be safe after all.
So yes, this is a terribly bad situation and one-of-a-kind one that America has never seen before. It is absolutely crucial for the survival of America that Washington be taught that this is not behavior the electorate will tolerate or reward, that democrats win by a fucking landslide in 2018 - to teach republicans that this approach to governance is bad for their own careers.
Yes, a major victory by the other side WILL fix the single biggest problem in American politics today - which has fuckall to do with corruption. Sure corruption is bad - but it's teenaged acne next to the cancer of "the opposition are the enemy" that republicans embrace today.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure corruption is bad - but it's teenaged acne next to the cancer of "the opposition are the enemy" that Democrats embrace today.
Fixed that for you.
Re: I'd like to take thism moment to ask... (Score:2)
Really. I remember the democrats having meetings with Trump repeatedly to achieve things in this year. As horrible as he is they were willing to negotiate and make compromises on things that could be compromised on to achieve something genuinely important to the people. Hurricane relief.
And even if you had been right it would just have been a response to what the Republicans began 6 years ago. Either way it can't be fixed until neither party controls the whole government alone.
Re: I'd like to take thism moment to ask... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your accusation actually makes no sense. How can you accuse the democrats of being unwilling to compromise and negotiate when the entire legislative approach of republicans have been to preclude the possibility? How do you negotiate on a bill when they won't let you read it? How do you offer ammendments or debate when the bills are secret until hours before the vote? Forget 2 years of negotiating major bills, Republicans refuse to offer 2 hours. Even most fellow Republicans don't get to know what they will be asked to vote on!
Re: (Score:2)
When someone is obviously using their power to the detriment of the people, how do we get them removed from their position of power?
Exactly the purpose of the 2nd Amendment
Go ahead, start shooting at elected officials. See how that works out for you and your revolution. Better yet, ask David Koresh and Randy Weaver how it worked out for them.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM AJIT PAI? (Score:5, Informative)
This is what happens when you a shitty smelly indo-chimp in charge of the FCC. Eliminate H-1B visas and send Ajit Pai back to the (literal) shithole he came from.
No, this is what happens when you elect Republicans. And Pai was born in America, but I'm sure that's neither here nor there for you.
Re: Good. (Score:2)
Fortunately, I have a DSL account grandfathered in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First, as others have pointed out, 'actual competition' is rare for ISPs. You typically have at most, one phone company and one cable company owning the last mile. Everyone else who wants to run a decent speed / latency connection to your house will lease the last mile from one of these two. When that's 90% of the total price and is subject to so little competition (at most one other competitor), there isn't much the competing ISPs can do.
Second, this assumes no collusion. Most companies
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot mods are mouthbreathing morons. In markets where there is *actually competition*, companies will lower their rates to gain customers until they can no longer afford to lower their rates.
Does "competitive" really describe the ISP market? I'm not so sure. But even in more competitive markets, lowering prices is only one of a number of courses of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Base broadband speed will be measure in baud again.
Re: Good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Buying a service or good is a voluntary transaction unlike Obamacare.
Please shut up with the Libertarian bullshit. Having an Internet connection is a requirement in today's society. Go ahead and try to get a job without an email address. Let them know in the interview that you haven't seen their company website because you don't have Internet at home. See how that works for you and if you end up "volunteering" to join the modern world. And secondly, try going without health insurance, if you think Obamacare is so tyrannical.
Some transactions are voluntary, and some are
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these job killing regulations are unnecessary.
I don't usually cal people shills, I figure that most people are just gullible or something, but this is literally just a talking point. You (and I use the word "you" loosely here, since you're probably a bot) are taking what I hate about C-Span, and bringing it here to Slashdot. Thank you Shill-bot, we obviously weren't meeting our quota of political rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of these job killing regulations are unnecessary. Do they really think people will look at their bill, and the check they write each month, and not understand whether they're paying more than they need to or whether they may be able to get a better deal somewhere else? In reality, most people's bills will DECREASE because ISPs won't need to waste time a manpower collecting and sending this data.
LOL, right, because every time a company saves money, they pass that saving on to the customer! Just like tax cuts trickle down...
By the way, your first sentence gives you away. Calling them "job killing" immediately reveals your agenda and bias.
Re:Good. (Score:4)
So much for the "free market" which only works when you have informed consumers.
Also helps if you have an actual market instead of a single vendor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
America is becoming more and more owned by the corporations, but this isn't anything new started by Trump... It's been going on for a long time, and trump is just continuing the process, just like hillary would have done.
Re:Holy fuck ... (Score:5, Insightful)
She would be exactly the same thing plus TPP.
The last chance was on the primaries.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference would be that the Republican Congress would be fighting everything she did, ideally leading to compromise but in reality leading to deadlock.
For example, Congress would have tried to block the TPP instead of just putting all the shitty parts into NAFTA.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know who hired Ajit Pai to the FCC?
This is not left vs right, it's corrupt party that favor some companies and will help others for money vs corrupt party that favor other companies and will help others for money.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
What's with Americas current boner for Russians? Is it because Trumpski has a boner for them and it passes on, or is it more you think it's a magic word to make anything you don't like irrelevant?
Though I don't include Pope Ratzo in this, most Americans have only recently learned that there is a massive industry dedicated to influencing their opinions. Part of that industry belongs to Russian intelligence agencies. That's the part the American public has been told about. Somewhat ironically, they have been told that by other parts of the industry that belong to western media outlets and American intelligence agencies.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a free market you liberal, left wing commie FUCKS. If you don't like their charges, pick another provider. Jesus christ you people will say and do anything to attack and undermine the effort to make our country recover from liberal excess.
Got into the paint thinner again, didn't you?