What? Trump loves the media. He would die without them. Getting his name in the news proves he's alive.
Having one's name in the news proves one is alive? Pardon me whilst I check that obituary section againWhat? Trump loves the media. He would die without them. Getting his name in the news proves he's alive.
Once again you're confused. There's a difference between the word blame and the word explain. Smart people know the distinction and use it to their advantage to shape the future. Not everyone who voted for Trump supported Trump. Not everyone who voted for Clinton supported Clinton.No, I just find it ridiculous that the people who voted for Trump are trying to blame his victory on the people who didn't vote for him. Trump supporters need to own their votes.
Once again you're confused. There's a difference between the word blame and the word explain. Smart people know the distinction and use it to their advantage to shape the future. Not everyone who voted for Trump supported Trump. Not everyone who voted for Clinton supported Clinton.
Yes, yes it is. Trump voters are 100% responsible for Trump's victory.Once again you're confused. There's a difference between the word blame and the word explain. Smart people know the distinction and use it to their advantage to shape the future. Not everyone who voted for Trump supported Trump. Not everyone who voted for Clinton supported Clinton.
I would assume you voted for Hillary? You can't take credit for her victory, because she didn't win. But likewise, no single Trump voter caused his victory. A single vote is beyond insignificant. I'm sure most Trump voters own their vote, but that alone is not the reason for a Trump victory.
Collectively, yes. If any single Trump voter didn't vote for him he still would have won.Yes, yes it is. Trump voters are 100% responsible for Trump's victory.
There's a fair chance you are not a narcissist.Having one's name in the news proves one is alive? Pardon me whilst I check that obituary section again
Collectively and personally. Each person is responsible (ethically anyway) for the consequences of their vote.Collectively, yes. If any single Trump voter didn't vote for him he still would have won.
Well, when you make the election all about labeling others racists, misogynists, bigots, homophobes, & xenophobes, there's little room left over to actually dive into the other issues that are important to you.
My suggestion is next election cycle demand the Democrats run a campaign focused on issues.
Can you point me to a single thread this election season where you talked about policy?
Not necessarily Jhhnn, I voted for Clinton holding my nose. I went against my early gut feeling, and stayed loyal to Hillary. I now regret not supporting the Bernie contingent, but, as a longtime follower of political events, I did not think the country was ready for a Sanders economic plan and I still think he might not have won. This is a real mea culpa, and it's why as far as I'm concerned I lay this 100% on Clinton. I thought that she would either come completely clean on the email thing, or that she had some real evidence that it was all up and above board. I'm not going to argue with you on how powerful endless propaganda campaigns are when there are fanatical amounts of money to keep it going. If she had no real ammunition to fight what was to be confronting her, then the Democrat party should have made the realistic and strategic decision to move on to someone more exciting and new. Thank goodness we at least had 8 years of relief with Obama. Sadly, probably, a lot for not..That's ridiculous. Votes are support.
Set-top reform '95% dead' at FCC with Trump taking office, analyst says.
Postcards from the edge. It just keeps getting better and better.
From your link:
But even before the shocking election of a far-right presidential candidate, the regulation’s fate appeared uncertain.
In late September, Wheeler pulled a vote off the FCC Commission agenda for a revised version of his proposal, which focused on multiscreen apps created by pay-TV operators that would be accessible to third-party devices.
Controversial elements of that proposal — specifically, a clause that mandated that the FCC regulate the apps— resulted in Wheeler not having the Commission majority needed to move the proposal forward.
Could you use larger lettering? Still cannot clearly read what you posted....
Could you use larger lettering? Still cannot clearly read what you posted....
A highly foreboding piece of regulation for the pay-TV industry just a few months ago, the FCC’s attempt to reform the leased set-top box business appears defeated.
With Donald Trump’s administration taking over the White House in January, House Republicans have asked FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler not to move forward with any “complex and controversial items that the new Congress and Administration will have an interest in reviewing." Wheeler has been asked to keep his focus on completing the incentive auction.
"I would say it's 95 percent dead," said Matthew Schettenhelm, a government and litigation analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence in Washington, to the Philadelphia Inquirer. "It's a very long road to get this done.” And the analyst made these remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Communications Subcommittee made their request to Wheeler.
RELATED: NCTA to Wheeler: Lifting the sunshine prohibitions on set-top proposal not enough
Chris Lewis, vice president with the nonprofit group Public Knowledge, which has backed Wheeler’s plan to open the pay TV set-top business to third-party device makers, also told the paper that it’s too early to call the regulatory gambit finished.
"We don't know what Trump thinks about set-top boxes," Lewis said.
But even before the shocking election of a far-right presidential candidate, the regulation’s fate appeared uncertain.
In late September, Wheeler pulled a vote off the FCC Commission agenda for a revised version of his proposal, which focused on multiscreen apps created by pay-TV operators that would be accessible to third-party devices.
Controversial elements of that proposal — specifically, a clause that mandated that the FCC regulate the apps— resulted in Wheeler not having the Commission majority needed to move the proposal forward.
In the ensuing months, the pay-TV industry and various interest groups have lobbied Wheeler to release full details of his plan.
Introducing the plan in January, Wheeler billed it as a rare chance to break up a pay-TV monopoly that he said generates $20 billion out of consumer pockets annually for the pay-TV industry.
That window of opportunity, however, appears to have closed.
Size matters!I just wanted to match Perks Yuge Letters and all.... Get over it.
It has nothing to do with Trump and as stated in the article it was 95% dead before the request was made.
Competition from where? Who is going to start laying new cable everywhere? How will they get the permits to do so?
It's amazing how many people have access to the paltry bandwidth that we do in the U.S., but the free market would fall in line and favor monopolistic behavior for this "product" because of the level of investment required to get started now.
Add to that Trump potentially ending net neutrality and watch as this "product" becomes more expensive and less useful.
And likewise those that are eligible and able to vote but don't show up are responsible as well.Collectively and personally. Each person is responsible (ethically anyway) for the consequences of their vote.
Collectively, yes. If any single Trump voter didn't vote for him he still would have won.
Yes it was... because us city folk have multiple internet and cable providers. Only you deplorables in rural America are stuck with one provider.
Totally agreed.Competition always yields the best results for consumers. If for some reason there can't be competition (for example, you're not going to have another company building brand new power distribution grid infrastructure), then the infrastructure needs to be treated as a public utility and let the companies compete over the service providing. Just my 2 cents.
If you have competition, you don't really need net neutrality as customers can vote with their wallets.
Kind of. Competition is good, but people generally only vote for what's cheapest when given the option to vote with their wallets. Apple is one of the rare exceptions where people are willing to always pay more. Other than that, cheap wins. No-frills service wins.If you have competition, you don't really need net neutrality as customers can vote with their wallets. If you don't have competition, you need as many protections for the consumer as you can get.... but now we're going to have no competition and no protections. Kind of the worst of both worlds.