Battle for the net- fight for net neutrality


Recommended Posts

IMHO... Anything the government gets involved in gets screwed up. Why does Verizon, Comcast, TW advertise on TV? Because there is some sort of competition. When there is competition, the products or services get better for consumers. This is done without the government meddling into things.

 

Lets keep this conversation civilized, we can differ in opinions and still :x each other. My wife and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I can't fault her for being a stupid ignorant b***c (totally just kidding!!! She rocks and I am super lucky.

 

 

Edited by hernandito
Link to comment

The reason I don't like this is although I don't live in the USA and therefore don't know all the political arguments involved.

What I do know is here in the UK we normally follow suit of what happens in the US.

 

I just can't see how it would benefit me if Internet Service Providers here did the same as proposed, to be able to control to certain websites speed. Prioritising traffic to some and limiting others etc.  Charging websites and apps extra fees to reach an audience. I don't want to find I goto a website for my ISP to tell me I need to upgrade my package to have access to that. There seem to be many companies against this such as Github, Amazon, Kickstarter, Reddit etc. The internet has always worked fine as a neutral place so why does it need to change.

@unevent Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand the whole situation with whats happening. But (and don't mean this sarcastically at all) if I have it wrong explain to me rather than just say educate yourself. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gridrunner said:

The reason I don't like this is although I don't live in the USA and therefore don't know all the political arguments involved.

What I do know is here in the UK we normally follow suit of what happens in the US.

 

I just can't see how it would benefit me if Internet Service Providers here did the same as proposed, to be able to control to certain websites speed. Prioritising traffic to some and limiting others etc.  Charging websites and apps extra fees to reach an audience. I don't want to find I goto a website for my ISP to tell me I need to upgrade my package to have access to that. There seem to be many companies against this such as Github, Amazon, Kickstarter, Reddit etc. The internet has always worked fine as a neutral place so why does it need to change.

@unevent Maybe I am wrong and I don't understand the whole situation with whats happening. But (and don't mean this sarcastically at all) if I have it wrong explain to me rather than just say educate yourself. 

 

 

Look at the bigger picture of net neutrality - all the aspects of it and especially why the Democrats would want it so bad.  Different people see government control of their lives in different ways.  Some like it, some are used to it/accept it, some hate it, some don't ever want it.  It is highly political and tends to get nasty when people start throwing their 'personal' views around that typically are based on limited facts fed to them by media headlines that are for the most part sensationalism.

 

Educate yourself by looking at it from both sides.  Search why democrats want net neutrality and how/why it was pushed in last US administration and why republicans do not want it and why.  In your search go to places that may make some uncomfortable and perhaps have been made to believe you should not like Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, or even C-Span to watch things live without the media spin.  Learn both sides and find what resonates with you, but at least go with a better understanding than just media sensationalism.

Link to comment

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/throttling-of-websites-and-online-services-might-help-customers-fcc-says/

 

Quote

While previous FCC leaders decided that home Internet providers and mobile carriers shouldn't be allowed to throttle websites and online services, Pai's proposal suggests that the current ban on throttling hurts customers.

 

The existing no-throttling rule "bans the impairment or degradation of lawful Internet traffic or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management practices," the NPRM says. "We seek comment on whether this rule is still necessary, particularly for smaller providers. How does the rule benefit consumers, and what are its costs? When is 'throttling' harmful to consumers? Does the no-throttling rule prevent providers from offering broadband Internet access service with differentiated prioritization that benefits consumers? Does the no-throttling rule harm latency-sensitive applications and content?"

I guess that not being a US citizen, I feel that its fairly obvious that ISP throttling does hurt the consumer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Squid said:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/throttling-of-websites-and-online-services-might-help-customers-fcc-says/

 

I guess that not being a US citizen, I feel that its fairly obvious that ISP throttling does hurt the consumer.

 

Media Sensationalism.  Suggest reading the actual NPRM of which Ars Technica quotes out of context.  Should also at least be familiar with the regulations that existed before the 2015 Title II reclassification of broadband like back when broadband was under the jurisdiction of the FTC and was still classified as a Title I information service, and still should be, which is what this is all about for the most part.  Perhaps another point of view without all the link-to-self self-justification that Ars likes to do in what is seemingly intended to convince the uninformed what they are reading is actually valid/real/in-context.  If you are expecting me to convince on what to believe or not believe I am afraid I am not qualified for that and there are companies and organizations that make m/billions doing just that and cater to those that are not informed nor take the time to educate themselves.  Not being sarcastic nor picking on you or anyone specifically, rather making a point this is what they do (Drive-By media in general) and is why so many people can be so horribly confused and misinformed about politics.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, unevent said:

 

Different people see government control of their lives in different ways.  Some like it, some are used to it/accept it, some hate it, some don't ever want it. sensationalism.

 

 

@unevent Thanks for your reply. I agree with the fact that government shouldn't control all aspects of our lives but also I don't want corporations having more power and controlling my life either. For example, we have a public healthcare system in the UK. For that I am grateful that I never have to pay for an operation, I can see a doctor whenever I like for free and when I am prescribed medication I don't have to pay more than $10 for my prescription. I know if it was private/corporate controlled it would be very different and it would not benefit me in any way to have that. So i believe some government control can be a good thing. free market isnt always the best.

3 hours ago, unevent said:

Educate yourself by looking at it from both sides.  Search why democrats want net neutrality and how/why it was pushed in last US administration and why republicans do not want it and why.  In your search go to places that may make some uncomfortable and perhaps have been made to believe you should not like Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, or even C-Span to watch things live without the media spin.  Learn both sides and find what resonates with you, but at least go with a better understanding than just media sensationalism.

2

 

To me this situation makes me feel no political loyalty. Like I said I don't know anything about American politics. I don't trust any politicians in my country. They are all the same and which ever party has power here, nothing fundamental ever changes. The people you mention, I have no idea who they are. My girlfriend is from New York and has lived in the UK for the last 15 years. I asked her who these people were and unfortunately, she couldn't tell me having been away from the USA so long. The point I am trying to make is that these people are not well known outside of the USA so I will certainly look up who these people are.  I totally agree that media always are very biased and have their own agenda and will spin things how they want.

But one question I would like to ask you all politics aside. How do you feel scrapping net neutrality will benefit you personally. I just can't see myself that it would be good for me.

 

Anyway one thing we can probably agree on would be we love unRAID and should really talk about that as it is a safer subject :)

Edited by gridrunner
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, CHBMB said:

@unevent Care for a TL:DR?  O.o

 

 

That PDF is quite long, and not being American I'm not really familiar with a lot of the stuff written.....

 

Only a mere 58 pages?  B|  To fully grasp it should be read (at least to ~page 30) .  Read page 1, introduction (I) page 3, and the background (II) which goes to paragraph 22 on page 8.  By then you can decide how much more to read, but suggest up to 51 on page 19.  In the 50's and forward it goes into why the desire to go back to previous Title I classification as information service.  In the 60's it goes into effects of the Title II classification.  70's discusses eliminating essentially duplicate or more strict rules imposed by the Title II reclassification, 80's goes into the no-throttling rule which mirrors the earlier no-blocking rule that was discussed in earlier paragraphs ;-)  After the 90's only the die-hards will want to read.

Link to comment

Just read paragraph 81, they want to remove the no-blocking rule by moving themselves back out of common carrier.

 

Basically they got caught blocking, lied to congress, sued that was wrong to say blocking was not allowed, and so got put under heavy regulation where no-blocking rule is allowed.

 

If they are allowed to return to old status, they will return to old ways. The only way to enforce was to change classification and they are whining about it.

 

It is cat+mouse, keystone cops, everyone knows who the bad guy is, but he keeps slipping the cuffs and running.

 

[and ditto for throttling, a lame way to say "we're not blocking" (just slowing to unusable)]

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, gridrunner said:

 

@unevent Thanks for your reply. I agree with the fact that government shouldn't control all aspects of our lives but also I don't want corporations having more power and controlling my life either. For example, we have a public healthcare system in the UK. For that I am grateful that I never have to pay for an operation, I can see a doctor whenever I like for free and when I am prescribed medication I don't have to pay more than $10 for my prescription. I know if it was private/corporate controlled it would be very different and it would not benefit me in any way to have that. So i believe some government control can be a good thing. free market isnt always the best.

 

Let's explore this a bit.  You state a fear of corporations having more power and controlling authority in/of your life.  If you have an open market where competition exists and is encouraged you have the choice to drop that company and go with another.  As an example, in the US there are numerous wireless carriers that are always completing with each other.  For instance, one carrier imposes hard data limits and another imposes data limits with fees if you have overage, while another may not have such restrictions, but perhaps will throttle after a certain point, but never limit.  In an open market you can simply drop the company that is doing you wrong and go to their competition.  Stay with them until a better deal comes along from another company competing for market share and so on.  With the proposed 'level playing field' you get what you are allowed to have.  There is no longer any competition and the government has a hand in this through regulation.  If a company can no longer compete for customers, everyone ends up paying the same or the same service with that potentially being whatever the government deems that to be.

 

You bring up the UK healthcare system.  What you have is not free.  Your income is taxed to support that.  You get basic day-to-day and preventive coverage while the government decides how far that coverage goes.  Unless you have private insurance for those situations where the government decides you do not quality you are screwed unless you have money or travel to another country where you can get the treatment you need.  An open and competitive market for insurance does have benefits.

 

 

54 minutes ago, gridrunner said:

But one question I would like to ask you all politics aside. How do you feel scrapping net neutrality will benefit you personally. I just can't see myself that it would be good for me.

 

Anyway one thing we can probably agree on would be we love unRAID and should really talk about that as it is a safer subject :)

 

Net Neutrality and the Title II reclassification are two separate things the media in general seems to combine.  The big fight right now is not necessarily about Neutrality, it is the Title II classification of broadband and the desire of current administration to revert regulations imposed by previous administration and previous head of the FCC.  The desire is to go back to Title I classification of broadband as an information service.  Net Neutrality can still exist even if reclassified as Title I, however, ideology of the previous administration had other ideas which was for more government control (enabling).  If the NPRM is intimidating, read the aei.org article I linked as another point of view.  It does a fair job explaining things.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, c3 said:

Just read paragraph 81, they want to remove the no-blocking rule by moving themselves back out of common carrier.

 

Basically they got caught blocking, lied to congress, sued that was wrong to say blocking was not allowed, and so got put under heavy regulation where no-blocking rule is allowed.

 

If they are allowed to return to old status, they will return to old ways. The only way to enforce was to change classification and they are whining about it.

 

It is cat+mouse, keystone cops, everyone knows who the bad guy is, but he keeps slipping the cuffs and running.

 

[and ditto for throttling, a lame way to say "we're not blocking" (just slowing to unusable)]

 

The no-blocking rule was in place before the 2015 Title II reclassification as common carrier.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

One simple fact is that... Cable TV companies usually provide internet service to homes. They ALSO provide cable TV, and Pay Per view. So when Netflix subscribers use the Cable/ISP internet to compete against itself, things get muddy.... So what happens? In MY view of things (Govt. cannot do anything right), if they meddle, it is because the lobbyist are influencing them. ALL politicians are scummy in one way or another.

 

OK so what happens in my ideal non-gov scenario. The cable company negotiates with Netflix, to provide their service, and Netflix compensates for the bandwidth usage. The consumers are un-aware of this back dealing, and life goes on without a hitch, and everyone wins. Cable companies invested billions creating the internet pipelines we use... it is their pipes and investment that are running things. Consumers would NEVER stand for their ISP throttling their beloved Netflix, and Netflix would stand to loose a lot if they did... so what is the answer? Let the market drive itself, to the benefit of all. Netflix kicks back to cable, cable company recoups part of their investment and consumer gets what they want. If the government gets involved, SOMEONE looses. I think its capitalism 101.

 

ISPs are not going to throttle anything (say Facebook, or Github, or AWS). Why? because if they do, their competitor will come out and say "They throttle your grandchildren's photos, we do not".

 

When have private services gotten worse? Now we have better phones, unlimited data, cord-cutting alternatives, salads at McDonalds, etc). Healthcare is the opposite, it keeps getting pricier and less services. Why.... don't get me started.... for one, there is NO competition across state lines, govt. has NOT put tort limits on malpractice awards. This drives physician's, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, midwives, etc insurance cost's through the roof. What if you let big national insurance companies negotiate w/ the pharma for drug costs, centralize their administrative stuff with a larger marketplace, make deals with doctors and hospitals on and on.... There are car and life insurance commercials on TV, why, competition, and competition leads to better results to the consumer. The consumer is king in US! Unlike our UK brethren who have a different type of monarchy (just kidding). My friend @gridrunner like his social healthcare. I know people have to wait months or years to see specialists for non-life threatening issues. In the US, I call the doctor, who accepts my insurance provider, and see what is available within a week or so. But that insurance is soooo expensive and getting worse.

 

Anyway my fellow Americans now know which side of the aisle I stand on... for some reason, the guys on the other side tend to go into political rages... Globally, just mention the word that rhymes with the body part that is left over after an amputation. Anyway I know that is a powder keg of a topic and I suggest we steer clear of it. Even my mom wants to dis-own me over that one.

 

 

Edited by hernandito
Link to comment

There's so many things wrong with what I see posted on this topic that I won't even start to comment on because frankly it's a waste of everyone's time and energy. There's no merit to participating in a discussion with the closed-minded. Nothing can be said to them that will make a difference because their view is set in stone. 

 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, unevent said:

 

 In an open market you can simply drop the company that is doing you wrong and go to their competition.  Stay with them until a better deal comes along from another company competing for market share and so on.  With the proposed 'level playing field' you get what you are allowed to have.  There is no longer any competition and the government has a hand in this through regulation.  If a company can no longer compete for customers, everyone ends up paying the same or the same service with that potentially being whatever the government deems that to be.

 

1

 

How many ISP providers are there in your area that you can choose from for your internet. I believe in the US plenty of localities have monopolies to certain ISPs, and that means competition is effectively nonexistent in those areas. So it is possible that these companies can then impose extra fees etc for various services. 

I think the internet should be a utility. The end user shouldn't have to pay more for what they use the service for. With water, you don't pay more if you use water to drink as opposed to shower with.

What I am opposed to having services deliberately blocked and throttled and having companies being able to charge more for what a service is used for.

You may think that ISPs trying to block and charge more for certain activities the internet is used for hasn't happened in the past. But it has.

For example

2005  ----     Madison river communications blocked VoIP services. Fcc had to put a stop to it 

2005  ----     Comcast blocked all p2p services without telling customers 

2007  ----     At&T blocked skype and other VoIP as they didn't like competition over their cell phone services   

2011  ----     MetroPCS tried to block all streaming services except youtube. 

2011  ----     At&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked access to tethering apps with googles help on Android marketplace. 

2011  ----     At&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked access to google wallet because it competed with their payment apps. 

2012  ----     Verizon demanded google block tethering apps because it let customers avoid their $20 tethering fee.
                     Despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do this as part of a winning bid on airwaves auction. They were fined 1.25 million over this. 

2012  ----     At&T tried to block face time unless customers paid more money. (2012).  

 

2013  ----     Verizon went on record saying the only thing stopping them favouring some content providers over others were the net neutrality rules in place.

                     So Ajit Pia head of FCC was a lawyer. Obviously, this post needs an understanding of the law. But when I found out he was a lawyer for Verizon

                     I questioned where his loyalties lie.

 

So @unevent  if Net Neutrality can still exist even if reclassified as Title I  (although i think internet access is a utility) and the type of things happing above cant happen and we will not see internet access sold in access packages like we do cable then thats fine. But I worry it will not be the case.Time will tell I guess.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, hernandito said:

OK so what happens in my ideal non-gov scenario. The cable company negotiates with Netflix, to provide their service, and Netflix compensates for the bandwidth usage. The consumers are un-aware of this back dealing, and life goes on without a hitch, and everyone wins.

Did you win?

How does BetterStreamingVideo.com, the next new innovation, get over the wall built by NetFlix and the cable company's back dealing? They created a barrier to entry. This is why you find that huge list of internet startups (and not so startup) opposite the ISPs.

 

So, you counter, just switch ISPs, great thought. Yeah, they thought you might want to switch if you learned about it. ISPs like Comcast work directly with local law makers to write laws excluding other ISPs from providing competitive alternative to you. Remember Google Fiber was coming to Nashville, Comcast steps in, writes an ordinance with work rules stalling the competition. Barrier to entry, again.

 

When forced to share they do as much damage as possible, tort action of Comcast against Telcom Cable.

 

You are paying $45(plus fees)/month to have 1TB (their number) delivered to your home as quickly as possible, without delay or blocking. You did not sign up for the "chosen few of the internet" package. So, they don't get to chosen which data is delayed or blocked. You ordered internet access, access to all of the internet.

 

Oh, this even works for free access, check out the mess Zuckerberg got into with free internet in India.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, gridrunner said:

What I am opposed to having services deliberately blocked and throttled and having companies being able to charge more for what a service is used for.

You may think that ISPs trying to block and charge more for certain activities the internet is used for hasn't happened in the past. But it has.

For example

2005  ----     Madison river communications blocked VoIP services. Fcc had to put a stop to it 

2005  ----     Comcast blocked all p2p services without telling customers 

2007  ----     At&T blocked skype and other VoIP as they didn't like competition over their cell phone services   

2011  ----     MetroPCS tried to block all streaming services except youtube. 

2011  ----     At&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked access to tethering apps with googles help on Android marketplace. 

2011  ----     At&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked access to google wallet because it competed with their payment apps. 

2012  ----     Verizon demanded google block tethering apps because it let customers avoid their $20 tethering fee.
                     Despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do this as part of a winning bid on airwaves auction. They were fined 1.25 million over this. 

2012  ----     At&T tried to block face time unless customers paid more money. (2012).  

 

2013  ----     Verizon went on record saying the only thing stopping them favouring some content providers over others were the net neutrality rules in place.

                     So Ajit Pia head of FCC was a lawyer. Obviously, this post needs an understanding of the law. But when I found out he was a lawyer for Verizon

                     I questioned where his loyalties lie.

 

How many in Canada or UK use a VPN to bypass regional Netflix restrictions?  How many use a VPN to bypass ISP restrictions?  How many VPN providers are there now compared to ten or even five years ago?  Where one company limits, another company sees opportunity.  Free, open, dynamic, competitive market with minimal government involvement beyond basic consumer protections.  When you buy service from an ISP you are doing so within their restrictions they outline in their terms of service(TOS).  FTC always _had_ jurisdiction over that, Title II reclassification takes that away and has a whole new set of regulations with open-ended option of more at any time in the future.  The fight is to put it back in jurisdiction of FTC.  If the ISP did something that was not in their TOS a consumer could file a complaint.  Comcast vs BitTorrent in 2008, Comcast was throttling p2p traffic.  One could look at it two ways - it was eating their bandwidth and bandwidth is expensive, more expensive in those days.  Other way of looking at it, which is also how it was covered by the FCC ruling, is Comcast felt it was competing with their own video service.  Their throttling of those services was not in the TOS and they were found out.  The existing laws worked as they should.  I didn't go find every item you listed, but I am confident they are similar stories.  They either did something that was not in their TOS or it was in their TOS and enough consumers complained and caused a change.  For the phone company examples of blocking certain services unless you upgraded your plan - in an open market you can change companies.  AT&T likes contracts and lure people in with brand new iPhone or whatever the hottest device is 'for free'.  Sign a two year contract and we give you $600 or whatever phone for free while charging you $60-80/month for service...and ohh, if you want to use this 'extra' service it is another $10/month.  It is up to the consumer to decide if that is a good deal or not.  If you do the math it usually is cheaper (especially these days) to buy the phone out-right and go to a carrier without a contract and without the restrictions.  You have those options in an open market.  Bottom line is the system that was in place worked.  It wasn't flawless, but the consumer had the power.  Taking power from the people/consumer and giving it to the government is really never a good idea.  History has many examples to learn from.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, unevent said:

 

How many in Canada or UK use a VPN to bypass regional Netflix restrictions?  How many use a VPN to bypass ISP restrictions?  How many VPN providers are there now compared to ten or even five years ago?  Where one company limits, another company sees opportunity.  Free, open, dynamic, competitive market with minimal government involvement beyond basic consumer protections.  When you buy service from an ISP you are doing so within their restrictions they outline in their terms of service(TOS).  FTC always _had_ jurisdiction over that, Title II reclassification takes that away and has a whole new set of regulations with open-ended option of more at any time in the future.  The fight is to put it back in jurisdiction of FTC.  If the ISP did something that was not in their TOS a consumer could file a complaint.  Comcast vs BitTorrent in 2008, Comcast was throttling p2p traffic.  One could look at it two ways - it was eating their bandwidth and bandwidth is expensive, more expensive in those days.  Other way of looking at it, which is also how it was covered by the FCC ruling, is Comcast felt it was competing with their own video service.  Their throttling of those services was not in the TOS and they were found out.  The existing laws worked as they should.  I didn't go find every item you listed, but I am confident they are similar stories.  They either did something that was not in their TOS or it was in their TOS and enough consumers complained and caused a change.  For the phone company examples of blocking certain services unless you upgraded your plan - in an open market you can change companies.  AT&T likes contracts and lure people in with brand new iPhone or whatever the hottest device is 'for free'.  Sign a two year contract and we give you $600 or whatever phone for free while charging you $60-80/month for service...and ohh, if you want to use this 'extra' service it is another $10/month.  It is up to the consumer to decide if that is a good deal or not.  If you do the math it usually is cheaper (especially these days) to buy the phone out-right and go to a carrier without a contract and without the restrictions.  You have those options in an open market.  Bottom line is the system that was in place worked.  It wasn't flawless, but the consumer had the power.  Taking power from the people/consumer and giving it to the government is really never a good idea.  History has many examples to learn from.

7

 

I do understand your argument. But I still don't agree lol :) You are not a CEO for an ISP by chance, are you? ;)

 

VPNs are one thing that may well die as a result of putting all your trust in the ISPs to play fair. Just put the VPN services in the slow lane

because the ISPs don't want them there, and they will become unusable. This is the problem.

There are not hundreds of different ISPs to choose from if you don't like one. They are communication giants with monopolistic contracts in certain areas. It's not like buying shoes.

 

Having the regulations is a safety net. Hey, it's cool if it's not needed but there if it is.

I will lock my door when I leave my house to help prevent my possessions (especially my unRAID server lol)being stolen. I may not have anyone try and come into my house and steal my things but I won't leave it to chance.

Why have health and hygiene laws? Because companies will always want the least costs and max profit.  A restaurant, for example, may be able to make more money without that regulation. Without regulation, you could have free market decide. Only the best restaurants would survive yes?

So If you go to a restaurant and die of food poisoning, your family would have the choice not to go to that restaurant again and go to another.  It is up to them to decide. 

 

Neither of us will persuade the other to change their thinking. I see your thinking that hidden hand of the free market can decide things without regulation. But look at the financial industry. De-regulation of the financial system caused the crash of 2007/2008. Unfortunately, people aren't honest when there is no law or regulation.

I really do respect your opinion and what you have said. Maybe you are right and I am wrong. Maybe I am right and you are wrong. Maybe neither of us are right! Anyway, I wish you all the best. :)

 

 

 

 

Edited by gridrunner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion but I wanted to point out, deregulation was not the cause of the financial meltdown. What led to the financial meltdown was Fanny & Freddy Mac offering sub-prime mortgages to unqualified borrowers which was a Clinton era initiative to make housing more affordable. A good rule of thumb is if the government is involved, they are going to screw it up.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Perforator said:

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion but I wanted to point out, deregulation was not the cause of the financial meltdown. What led to the financial meltdown was Fanny & Freddy Mac offering sub-prime mortgages to unqualified borrowers which was a Clinton era initiative to make housing more affordable. A good rule of thumb is if the government is involved, they are going to screw it up.

 

 

Exactly!!! And the big banks got bailed out, while people lost everything. How can you trust a government run by untrusty politicians?Clinton and his supporters did it for votes, and for his big bank contributors. He is not getting paid half a million dollars for a speech because he has a message worth that. I mean I'm not an anarchist, and laws should be there to protect all. But to nationalize (as in making it a utility) something private companies invested in, is nothing short of a Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or his satanic offspring Maduro.

Edited by hernandito
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.