• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
GET A **F R E E** OBAMA BUMPER STICKER!

Now that Barack Obama is the official Democratic nominee, it's time for a huge outpouring of progressive support that everyone can see.
So today we're launching a massive nationwide visibility campaign. Together, we're hoping to give out half a million (!) bumper stickers so voters in every town will know how excited people are about Barack Obama.

Can you help out by ordering a FREE bumper sticker and placing it somewhere visible? (You can also forward this email to your friends if you think they'd be interested.) Just click below:

https://pol.moveon.org/obamastickers/?id=12807-7647835-z9f_e4&t=4
 
NewLib said:
You honestly think people are going to be like, "Well I hate Black People, but Obama's VP is a white women so everything is okay now." They still wont vote for Obama.

Picking Condi Rice for VP would be the worst decision McCain could make because he will make 1) Zero inroads on the AA vote, because many see her as a race traitor and 2) He will cause many of his racist supporters to stay home.

Democrats should pray he takes Condi Rice, because then the entire South comes into play.

Not to mention she'd be a remnant of a very unpopular administration. I think both republicans and democrats want to see all key members of the current administration to exit out of the White House.
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
GET A **F R E E** OBAMA BUMPER STICKER!

Now that Barack Obama is the official Democratic nominee, it's time for a huge outpouring of progressive support that everyone can see.
So today we're launching a massive nationwide visibility campaign. Together, we're hoping to give out half a million (!) bumper stickers so voters in every town will know how excited people are about Barack Obama.

Can you help out by ordering a FREE bumper sticker and placing it somewhere visible? (You can also forward this email to your friends if you think they'd be interested.) Just click below:

https://pol.moveon.org/obamastickers/?id=12807-7647835-z9f_e4&t=4

Done!

(I wish it didn't have that "MoveOn" logo though. I don't really like nem guys.)
 
BenjaminBirdie said:
Done!

(I wish it didn't have that "MoveOn" logo though. I don't really like nem guys.)

Looks like it doesn't share any horizontal line with Obama, so you could cut the bottom off.
 
belvedere said:
Almost as lame as my HS's senior prank.

The student council's "prank" was to write our Principals name with cups in the fence running along one side of our school's parking lot.

We didn't think that sufficed so we drug a bunch of Johnny on The Spots out in the middle of the road in front of our school instead.

We originally had a plan to put a strap-on on a goat and let it loose in the school but our options in finding a goat and a strap-on were limited.

Got ya.
 
The Lamonster said:
So what time is Clinton's speech tomorrow? I need to see this.
I'm hearing the talks last night wasn't all that progressive..

Watching DiFi on MSNBC, A few minutes ago, she basically said it was good for the two to get together and "just be human beings." Harmless enough, but she then added that it was a "good first step" as part of a process that is going to take some time, and she hopes there can be more meetings like it.

Its looks like she'll be dragging this process out longer. I'm sure she will still endorse Obama tomorrow but the pundits headlines will still read "what does she want" drowning out Obama message for the next month or more..
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Stumpokapow said:
Some of those questions are very very very unique to America. It's interesting, because my country is pretty politically diverse, but I'd say that pretty much everyone in the country would end up answering pretty much the same thing to all of those questions.

I'm pretty much a dead centrist where I am; I vote for the centrist party, and I'm probably a little to the right of most supports of that particular party. In this quiz, I'm socially and economically far left of Obama. If fact, if I uncheck gun control, which I am nominally "conservative" on, I'm as far up and left as you can possibly get.

The following issues aren't even up for debate where I live: creationism, gay marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, Iraq, UHC, death penalty, stem cell research, UN contributions/multilateralism, and progressive taxation. There's near unanimous consensus on those issues politically.

Hell, even on the environment; the debate here is between carbon taxes and cap-and-trade schemes, not being action or inaction.

Our prime minister right now is literally the most conservative one we've had in the modern era of the country, and he'd be somewhere just to the right of Hillary in terms of practice (he's just the prime minister) and probably a little further right and down if he had presidential-like control.

I was surprised at the lack of questions on, for example, privatization of government servies like prisons, rehabilitative justice, government provision of daycare, government provision of dental health and insurance, telecommunications regulation and ownership issues, public broadcasting and funding, decriminalization and legalization of drugs, youth justice issues, multiculturalism issues, the role of police in parole boards and judicial nomination boards, and federal-local jurisdictional issues--the issues that actually define the political spectrum in my country.
1z2fv5s.gif
 
Ordered a bumper stick, gonna cut the bottom off. I doubt I'll use it though, it's very generic looking (no Obama O Logo) and I really don't want something on my car that will be there after he wins...
 

Zeed

Banned
CowboyAstronaut said:
Giuliani is such a fool. Had he not run such an idiotic race, he would definitely be the Republican party's nominee and New York, of all places, I suspect would potentially be in play for Republicans this November.
:lol No, no, a thousand times no. Rudy expended his NY political capital a long time ago.
 

avatar299

Banned
Azih said:
Bull, *Consumers* always pay for the development of the hardware behind the internet.
I didn't say they didn't. Consumers weren't taxed to do this, though. The hardware that powers the internet belongs to telephone companies. They have every right to charge for increased use. in fact they have done it for years and no one has ever complained

Azih said:
Right now this is done through telco fees that provide the ability to send and receive information through the internet. That's it. This means an extremely low barrier of entry for new service and content providers.
An extremely low bar now because the price of new technology always goes down.

Azih said:
Telcos now want to be able to discriminate between service and content providers and give preferred quality of service to those who pay them.
Preferred quality of service. That is wrong now?

So you are saying a company that pays for Fios will receive better service than a broadband user, who receives better service than dial-up?

Azih said:
This will raise the barrier of entry and make it harder for a new Google to get startup financing as the cost of doing business would now include fees to pay off the telco companies to give them the equivalent quality of access that the incumbent heavyweight search engines can pay for.
1) A start-up company should pay for the quality they want, and a lot of start-up companies do fine even ignoring some users. Hulu is almost impossible to run on dial-up but is Hulu dying?
2) Companies should pay the cost of running on these networks. in fact they already do. Including the star-ups. People have always paid for websites

Azih said:
It would hamper the ability of a new Facebook to emerge as a Rupert Murdoch backed Myspace would be paying for a smoother and better experience that a less well funded startup cannot compete with based purely on financing not quality of concept or technology.
How would a new facebook be hampered? If this website is becoming hugely popular, than people will go to it and ISPs will support it because they want more users. Better serrvice doesn't mean better outcome. Youtube has shit quality, and it has destroyed everything. Facebook is a slicker, more efficient site than myspace. If the market demands that the facebook design is what they want, than they wil go there despite the quality.

And trying to assume we can dictate what the market wants is stupid. Does Twitter need the same resources myspace does?

It's a huge conflict of interest in any case as telcos are moving into the realm of service and content provision especially in the case of services like VOIP.
And this is bad, how? Teleco's should be outlawed from becoming content providers? if Verizon knocks skype that is bad, but if Google does it, it's completely okay?

Azih said:
You seem to be repeating the arguments of ridiculous websites like 'hands off the internet' which go on and on about the evils of Google and Yahoo and Microsoft but conveniently enough don't even mention AT&T etc.
I've read the Net Neutrality bill. Hell i used to support it, but it is nothing more than big companies(Yes like Google, but more likely companies like Disney) that don't want to pay the teleco's for the new infrastructure that will support the upcoming tidal wave of VoIP, streaming HD content, etc etc. Instead they want to regulate the internet.

But what most people don't know is that federal regulation lowers entry into the market. Right now the "last mile" of the interent going into your home can be controlled by local governments which is good. Federal regulation will control all the pipes, stiffling innovation, screwing start-up companies like Vonage, and will change how teleco's treat the internet. Why invest in new technology and put it to immediate work when you can just buy it, sit on it, and continue to spread the outdated technology to many places in America. Never mind that without NN, the internet has only spread, the prices have only dropped, and content providers have only grown. People will be paying taxes to open new departments to do jack shit.

History has only shown that regulation hurts industry like these. What's the best example of federal regulation? The monopolies in radio or television?
 
Zeed said:
:lol No, no, a thousand times no. Rudy expended his NY political capital a long time ago.


A lot of people hate him here in NY, but I do think NY would've been a possibility were he the Republican candidate.
 
avatar299 said:
History has only shown that regulation hurts industry like these. What's the best example of federal regulation? The monopolies in radio or television?
It was the lifting of regulations that has allowed Clear Channel and RadioOne to own essentially all radio stations in North America.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
CowboyAstronaut said:
A lot of people hate him here in NY, but I do think NY would've been a possibility were he the Republican candidate.

New York hates him thus they will vote for him? That is logical....

Either way, Giuliani never really stood a chance in the primaries. A socially liberal, financially conservative Republican get nominated? Ahahahahaha
 
avatar299 said:
1) A start-up company should pay for the quality they want, and a lot of start-up companies do fine even ignoring some users. Hulu is almost impossible to run on dial-up but is Hulu dying?

Hulu's a start-up but they have huge coffers. They're owned by NBC/Universal et. al. They can afford to limit users, and their target market obviously doesn't include dial-up users.

A tiered system will only make the start-up costs of a company even greater, which will make it harder to get venture capital, an in turn stifle innovation. All the most innovative web companies out there are tiny ones or started as tiny ones without the huge corporate backing of something like Hulu. Facebook and Digg come to mind as great examples of companies that started from nothing and are massive now, as opposed to Hulu which was a corporate initiative from the get-go. Hulu isn't innovative. They're super late to the party. They just have a ton of backing and provide a service that is leagues ahead of their competition (clean site, great video quality, wide selection).

polyh3dron said:
It was the lifting of regulations that has allowed Clear Channel and RadioOne to own essentially all radio stations in North America.

This. Living in a Clear Channel city sucks. The content is awful and since they are the only music promoter in town they can in turn jack up prices to concerts that come to town.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
avatar299 said:
I've read the Net Neutrality bill. Hell i used to support it, but it is nothing more than big companies(Yes like Google, but more likely companies like Disney) that don't want to pay the teleco's for the new infrastructure that will support the upcoming tidal wave of VoIP, streaming HD content, etc etc. Instead they want to regulate the internet.

But what most people don't know is that federal regulation lowers entry into the market. Right now the "last mile" of the interent going into your home can be controlled by local governments which is good. Federal regulation will control all the pipes, stiffling innovation, screwing start-up companies like Vonage, and will change how teleco's treat the internet. Why invest in new technology and put it to immediate work when you can just buy it, sit on it, and continue to spread the outdated technology to many places in America. Never mind that without NN, the internet has only spread, the prices have only dropped, and content providers have only grown. People will be paying taxes to open new departments to do jack shit.
Dogma doesn't make for strong arguments, especially when it's the telcos themselves who want to kill VoIP with the sole exception of their own exclusive service.

Anyway, Quality of Service in the context of Net Neutrality is about charging again what people already paid for the first time when they signed up for a designated amount of bandwidth. People already pay to serve, people already pay to access, but getting a third revenue stream open would be even better!
 

Gaborn

Member
I think that the smart thing for Obama to do with his VP is someone southern and "experienced" in politics, a John Warner type (only not QUITE that old), he's essentially an urban liberal and historically VPs are meant to appeal and appease constituencies that aren't necessarily drawn to the candidate, to me that screams southerner or westerner, and Obama's not going to do as well as McCain in the west VP or not. My guess is he'll ask Jim Webb to be his VP.

For McCain I think he needs a southern hardline conservative if he wants to reassure his party's base and pander to them a bit. My guess is Mark Sanford would be his first choice.
 

tanod

when is my burrito
polyh3dron said:
It was the lifting of regulations that has allowed Clear Channel and RadioOne to own essentially all radio stations in North America.

Also: the airline industry. Since the airlines have been deregulated, costs have skyrocketed and competition has actually decreased as airlines have gone under or consolidated.
 

sangreal

Member
Sometimes, this rumor of this alleged tape of Michelle Obama denouncing “whitey” sounds like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel.

Actually, it sounds exactly like something out of a clichéd political thriller novel. Specifically, Stephen Frey’s The Power Broker, published in 2006 by Ballantine Books.

A major plot line of the novel is the presidential campaign of Democrat Jesse Wood, aiming to be the country’s first African American president — “Wood was handsome, smart, charismatic, and being mentioned increasingly often in the press as someone who could unite a twenty-first century America growing more, not less, racially and economically divided.” (p.35)

He’s a U.S. Senator from New York and former senior partner at a prestigious law firm. His backers include “some of the old Black Panthers.” He wants to make Puerto Rico a state, and a recurring figure in his campaign is a controversial minister from Philadelphia called “Jefferson Roundtree.”

And by page 130, his opponents find a videotape that could ruin his candidacy…
The camera focused on Wood, who was standing with Clarence Osgood, Stephanie Childress, and another man.

“Who is that guy?” Johnson asked, taking a sip of soda. He’d known Osgood and Stephanie for a while so they were familiar to him right away. “He looks so damn fa-“ Johnson banged the sofa. “Now I remember. That’s Jefferson Roundtree, that activist minister from Philly.”

“Nut job from Philly is more like it,” Forte said. “We don’t want Jesse anywhere near him now, don’t want Jesse seen with him at all because he scares the crap out of whites. But he served his purpose here,” Forte added quietly.

“Boy, it’s a nice clear shot of Jesse-”

“Shh! Here it is, here it is.” Forte picked up the remote and turned up the volume.

The camera panned in on Wood’s handsome face as he turned to Roundtree. “Yeah, that Jew from CNN was such a pr***,” Wood said, smirking, “asking me about my voting record on civil rights.”

“You got it, brother,” Roundtree agreed heartily. “Like any cracker should have the nerve to ask you about that.”

Osgood and Stephanie nodded.

Then there were a few muffled words, but nothing audible…

[skipping over a few paragraphs of the bad guys discussing where to send the tape]

“It won’t be necessary believe me,” Forte interrupted again, pointing at the screen. “Keep watching.”

There was more muffled chatter, then Wood held his hands up.

He said, “You know, I had to put up with so much crap from Whitey when I was playing tennis back in the day, it was ridiculous. Real b****** stuff, too. Tennis racquets busted while I was in the shower, no towels, the worst locker, called n***** all the time, even by the help.” He looked over at Osgood. “I’m telling you, Clarence, if I get elected president, I’m gonna act the way I’m supposed to act in front of the camera. Smile and dance like a good black man, do what I’m expected to do like a good boy. But behind the scenes, I’ll f*** Whitey, and I’ll f*** him good, I really will.”
Later the tape is used for blackmail by an ally, and then the real badguy — a Texan who owns a giant oil company named Hewitt (sorry, Hugh) — gets his hands on the tape. The description of the appropriate timing of the release of the videotape on p. 237 will sound familiar to those tracking the rumors of the alleged Michelle Obama tape.
Hewitt thought for a second. “I’m going to let Jesse win the nomination and let the public get used to him as the Democratic candidate. Give the country some time to get to know Jesse Wood, to start to like him. And they will because he’s a very likeable guy. Then I’m going to drop the bomb, after everyone’s started to like him. That way the clip will have maximum effect and people will be as angry as they can be. Whites and blacks. Whites for the obvious reason, blacks because they’ll feel like he let ‘em down.”

Now. Either author Stephen Frey is clairvoyant, writing this book in 2006. Or this is one of the all time amazing coincidences. Or whoever started this rumor got the idea from a novel.

(The tape is kept secret by getting even more incriminating videotape of the badguys and creating a mutually-assured destruction pact. In a subsequent novel, we learn Wood won the election.)

This unimaginable coincidence, coupled with Larry Johnson's unnecessarily profane and unresponsive answer to David Weigel when he asked about contradictions in the description of what's on the tape, ought to drive a stake into the heart of this rumor.

Why is a conservative blogger putting this much effort into dispelling a rumor that, on paper at least, would hurt Obama? Because those who prefer a president besides Obama should not go through the summer and fall convinced that a magic-bullet devastating tape is going to appear as an October surprise to save the day.

Also, there are a lot of good reasons to vote against Barack Obama; but what people claim Michelle Obama says on a tape that no one can produce and no one has seen isn't one of them.
:lol I guess Larry Johnson doesn't even have much of an imagination
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Also, reason.com does a good job of tearing apart his lies: http://reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
 

Zeed

Banned
sangreal said:
:lol I guess Larry Johnson doesn't even have much of an imagination
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Also, reason.com does a good job of tearing apart his lies: http://reason.com/blog/show/126883.html
Funny how the novel had the candidate himself in the tape, while IRL they made it his wife instead. I suppose that was the only way to have it gain any traction at all - it's really just utterly impossible to picture Obama acting as described.
 
tanod said:
Also: the airline industry. Since the airlines have been deregulated, costs have skyrocketed and competition has actually decreased as airlines have gone under or consolidated.
Gotta love that free market working itself out huh.
 

avatar299

Banned
polyh3dron said:
It was the lifting of regulations that has allowed Clear Channel and RadioOne to own essentially all radio stations in North America.
It was the regulation that kept people from entering the market. When the regulation fell 1996, you were left with 2 dominant forces than no one could compete with. The fall of the regulation was corporate welfare that we wouldn't need if the market has been allowed to evolve naturally. Clear Channel has done so well because the regulations of the FCC always allowed them to grow. When the regulation fell, you had a monster propped up by the FCC against everyone else. Radio has always been yanked around like this

In fact the navy tried to merge radio into the military during WW1. It was government pressure in 1919 that caused American Marconi to sell assets to GE, creating the early Radio corporation of America, leading to the small monopolized field we have today, purely because Americans couldn't stand the idea of such a powerful industry not being solely American.

Let's not forget the small laws, made in good faith to balance new technology that hurt the end consumers. The Dill radio Bill did not pass, and radio stations were forced to pay record companies fees every time they played a song. Now we have radio where stations are forced to repeat the same thing over and over just to not upset record companies.
 
Rev Wright and Rev Pfleger helping Obama get 40% of Evangelical vote???????

Its on HUffington Post


Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet's

How is John McCain doing among evangelicals, a crucial Republican constituency?


The evangelical world or the conservative religious world is not his natural habitat, so he doesn't strike me as being all that comfortable with it. I think that's evidenced by the strong comments made in 2000 about Falwell and Robertson. ...

You represent some of the nation's most powerful evangelicals. What do those leaders say about McCain?

This is one guy's perspective, but I am surprised by how little I've seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don't think I've gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you'd get several things a day from conservatives saying, "The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so--or don't' go with this guy." It's just very quiet. It could meant there's a real sense of apathy or it could mean they're' waiting for the general election to begin. But it's a surprise, given the way email networks work now.

Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?

If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess--that's a statistic I didn't believe at first but I double and triple checked it--I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You're seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term [evangelical] has become more pejorative. There's a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There's some concern that maybe Republicans haven't done that well. And there's this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40-percent.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
avatar299 said:
It was the regulation that kept people from entering the market. When the regulation fell 1996, you were left with 2 dominant forces than no one could compete with. The fall of the regulation was corporate welfare that we wouldn't need if the market has been allowed to evolve naturally. Clear Channel has done so well because the regulations of the FCC always allowed them to grow. When the regulation fell, you had a monster propped up by the FCC against everyone else. Radio has always been yanked around like this.
Falsehoods don't make for strong arguments either.
wikipedia said:
Clear Channel Communications purchased its first FM station in San Antonio in 1972. The company purchased the second "clear channel" AM station WOAI in 1975. In 1976, the company purchased its first stations outside of San Antonio. KXXO AM and KMOD FM in Tulsa were acquired under the name "San Antonio Broadcasting" (same as KEEZ). Stations were also added in Port Arthur, TX (KPAC-AM-FM from Port Arthur College) and El Paso, TX (KELP AM (now KQBU AM) from John Walton, Jr.). In 1992, the U.S. Congress relaxed radio ownership rules slightly, allowing the company to acquire more than 2 stations per market. By 1995, Clear Channel owned 43 radio stations and 16 television stations. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law. This act deregulated media ownership, allowing a company to own more stations than previously. Clear Channel went on a buying spree, purchasing more than 70 other media companies, plus individual stations.
Of course, such consolidation in the market started earlier with Reagan.
 

avatar299

Banned
tanod said:
Also: the airline industry. Since the airlines have been deregulated, costs have skyrocketed and competition has actually decreased as airlines have gone under or consolidated.
The airline industry was deregulated 30 years ago. The present energy crisis of today is the problem, not lack of regulation. re-regulation would bump up airline prices, which will only hurt the airlines more becuase people don't want to fucking fly today.

So the american people don't want to pay expensive plane tickets becuase of the bad ecomnomy, and to fix this problem you are going to regulate the industry, by either forcing a cap or increasing prices? Why the hell would americans want to fly at higher prices.

Want to help the airlines, increase the 30% barrier that foreign investors face when investing into our airlines. Cross-border mergers mean more financial backing, meaning more money for new, less fuel wasting plans, and higher pay for employees.
 
NewLib said:
I wouldnt trust any polling right now. Poll has McCain up in Michigan.


A Republican isnt winning Michigan.

Agreed. McCain may have a shot at Ohio but MI and PA will go Obama. In the end though, as Obama campaigns more and gets introduced to those in Ohio in many of the rural areas, he will be a stronger competitor in OH.
 

Cuu

Member
Some of my coworkers just said that Obama was in our building just now. Pretty cool.

Makes sense though as I believe some City of Chicago offices are here. He was also at the Daley Center, possibly speaking. There were tons of fliers and a banner for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. Might have been there to support it.
 
Cuu said:
Some of my coworkers just said that Obama was in our building just now. Pretty cool.

Makes sense though as I believe some City of Chicago offices are here. He was also at the Daley Center, possibly speaking. There were tons of fliers and a banner for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. Might have been there to support it.
man I would be immediately running down the stairs in search of the Bamer.
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Cuu said:
Some of my coworkers just said that Obama was in our building just now. Pretty cool.

Makes sense though as I believe some City of Chicago offices are here. He was also at the Daley Center, possibly speaking. There were tons of fliers and a banner for Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid. Might have been there to support it.

Yep: http://thepage.time.com/

“In 2016 I’ll be wrapping up my second term as president, so I can’t think of a better way then to be marching into Washington Park…as President of the United States and announcing to the world, ‘let the games begin.’”
 

ZeoVGM

Banned
Bumper sticker ordered.

Wish it had a better logo on it though.

And I wish the moveon.org logo was replaced with "his font got serifs goddam"
 

Azih

Member
avatar299 said:
I didn't say they didn't. Consumers weren't taxed to do this, though.
And net neutrality doesn't do anything to change the fact that the consumer will pay for any upgrades made to internet backend hardware. So your point about net neutrality being about who pays for network upgrades is a complete red herring and totally moot, costs always go to the consumer.

The hardware that powers the internet belongs to telephone companies. They have every right to charge for increased use. in fact they have done it for years and no one has ever complained
And nobody has complained about increased charges. What is at issue is the *nature* of the charges that telcos haven't charged historically and want to charge now.

So you are saying a company that pays for Fios will receive better service than a broadband user, who receives better service than dial-up?
*NO* This is end users paying for data to be transferred back and forth from the Internet from their computers, that's fine and well and good.

That's *completely* different from content and service providers paying to get their data onto the Internet just as they do today and *then* having telcos put their data on a lower priority queue while other people's data goes flying through. THAT is what hasn't happened before and THAT is where the problem is. Your analogy to dial-up is completely inaccurate.

Companies should pay the cost of running on these networks. in fact they already do. Including the star-ups. People have always paid for websites
Yes and that comes back again to the point that nobody at all is complaining about companies paying for the bandwidth and servers required to access the internet. But to then allow telcos to throttle the data that these companies are sending out through the bandwidth and the servers that they have paid for because they aren't paying telcos an EXTRA FEE is unconscionable. It's a completely different and new kind of charge that is completely and totally unlike the present charges that you are bringing up. They are not the same thing at all.

How would a new facebook be hampered?
To provide a new internet service a new facebook needs to pay for

1) bandwidth
2) quality servers/admins/good network code

All well and good. If a new website thinks it's going to have a thousand simulatenous users, fine, they can make sure their servers and web code is good enough to handle that load. Everything is working fine in this model. Telcos are making good money and new websites and services are being created and competing against each other for users (search engines, emails, IM, social networking, file sharing, MMOs et cetera). The problem comes from the telcos trying to introduce

3) Fee to keep data from being discriminated against when going through pipe to users.

This is *new*. And if say a MMO better than world of warcraft comes along but cannot pay for the same QoS that Viviendi can for World of Warcraft, then it doesn't matter how intelligently the new MMOs servers are setup and how much bandwidth and simultaneous connections they can handle and how great the game is (which is what they have to provide to compete in the current situation), the end users will have a crappier connection than they have to World of Warcraft because of telco discrimination. Charge #3 is BAAD and it *cannot* happen in a net neutral world.


If this website is becoming hugely popular,
To become popular the website has to provide a good service in the first place and if people's attempts to connect to the new upstart website are timing out while an incumbent website is swimming along because it has paid to have its bits getting preferred service then that is a BARRIER to entry that did not exist before and cannot exist in a net neutral world. If when Youtube started their videos buffered every 5 seconds for a long time Youtube wouldn't have gotten popular. In a non net neutral world Youtube would have been at the mercy of telcos allowing youtube bits through to users in a decent manner to make their service even useable. Since luckily they started up at a time when telcos didn't discriminate Youtube just had to make sure their servers and network code and technology were good enough, not about paying off telcos to not throttle their bits.

And this is bad, how? Teleco's should be outlawed from becoming content providers? if Verizon knocks skype that is bad, but if Google does it, it's completely okay?
There's no problem with Verizon knocking Skype out as long as they don't do it by charging Skype a huge fee to keep their VOIP bits from being throttled while Verizon's swim through for free. And that is what network neutrality guarantees. Verizon has to compete with Skype on an even ground, not on the uneven ground I described where Verizon gets to either squeeze Skype dry or cripple their service.

I've read the Net Neutrality bill. Hell i used to support it, but it is nothing more than big companies(Yes like Google, but more likely companies like Disney) that don't want to pay the teleco's for the new infrastructure that will support the upcoming tidal wave of VoIP, streaming HD content, etc etc.
Your point is false. As you've admitted already, telcos already charge those big companies for bandwidth. They're already paying. They're just not paying in a way that can be abused by discriminating between packets. Telcos are free to raise their bandwidth charges and/or to take out a loan to increase the quality of their network in order to attract more business.
 

Cuu

Member
The Lamonster said:
man I would be immediately running down the stairs in search of the Bamer.

Ha! I thought about it.

He was on his way out of the building when my coworker saw him, and when another came up, he said he just spoke at the Daley Center... so I missed him.
 

Pelydr

mediocrity at its best
Deus Ex Machina said:
GET A **F R E E** OBAMA BUMPER STICKER!

Now that Barack Obama is the official Democratic nominee, it's time for a huge outpouring of progressive support that everyone can see.
So today we're launching a massive nationwide visibility campaign. Together, we're hoping to give out half a million (!) bumper stickers so voters in every town will know how excited people are about Barack Obama.

Can you help out by ordering a FREE bumper sticker and placing it somewhere visible? (You can also forward this email to your friends if you think they'd be interested.) Just click below:

https://pol.moveon.org/obamastickers/?id=12807-7647835-z9f_e4&t=4

Thanks. I will probably put it in my office somewhere.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
grandjedi6 said:
Personally I think it is kinda crazy to want to spend less [on the military].

Military Kensyenism doesn't work!

Your country simply can't afford to continue to spend that much on a military... worldwide security has been to an extent, already regulated with the advent of nuclear weapons... and yet, America continues to spend as much as they did back in WW2. It's military imperialism... and quickly, it'll all come undone as the economy can no longer support such an overpriced army.

The opportunity cost for such an advanced army is massive... nearly a trillion dollars annually.

Enough Solar powerstations to replace the nation's powergrid is rated at about $500 billion dollars.

Imagine how much more employment, economic growth, and how much more advances you'd make into that sort of technology; you'd regain tech leadership, and make it a viable product around the rest of the world. The initial sunk costs could be recuperated by selling the technology elsewhere.

Of course a military is still necessary... but as a proportion of GDP, America's spending on the military is simply not viable for the continued success of the country.
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
<--- Blam

Updated for the general, baby!
 

RubxQub

φίλω ἐξεχέγλουτον καί ψευδολόγον οὖκ εἰπόν
Incognito said:
...who lives in Houston now, just texted me "Does Obama pledge to the flag?"

Oh lord.
How fucking random is that? :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom