What Obama's FCC is about to do to the Internet is similar to what Clinton did to broadcasting in 96

[Armstead]

Trash it.

That's what the Clinton administration and his Centrist Corporate allies in Congress did to broadcasting with the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act. They told us it would be a glorious reform that would address modern realities and technological advantages and allow the electronic broadcast media to flourish.

Instead it opened the floodgates to the destruction of broadcasting as a public service and completed the Corporate Takeover of the Airwaves by gutting the ability to control who owns radio and TV stations and what they did with them.

As a result, we have seen corporations like Clear Channel buy up almost every damn radio and TV station in the country and fill it full of total crap -- with NO obligation to serve the public interest.

That is what the Obama Corporate FCC in cahoots with the Corporate Court System and the Corporate Congress are about to do to the Internet. Trash It.

And, just as Clinton and the Centrist Democrats used their silver tongues to tell us how wonderful the Telecommunications Deform Act would be -- and how they would make sure that Big Media would play nice -- the Corporate Centrists are now telling us how they will protect Net Neutrality, and make sure those Wonderful Corporate ISPs will behave well and make sure that no one is shut out of access to the Internet.

And we're going to fall for the same damn shell game.

[Mnemosyne]

1. Telecommunications Reform Act signed on February 8, 1996. Faux News begins October 7, 1996. Hmm..nt

[Enthusiast]

5. It's no coincidence.

[Mnemosyne]

8. The first 'episode' I watched chilled me to the bone and have rarely watched it since 1996.

It got scarier as some friends and family were drawn to it and consequently became almost obsessed by it. My sister and her husband have actually hated me since I refused to agree that 'Shamity and Colmes' were just great.

I said they were smoke and mirrors, along with being propagandists. I used to think my sister was somewhat smart...

[onenote]

21. Can you explain on how the 1996 Act had anything to do with Fox News?

I wouldn't watch Fox News if you paid me. But I also don't know of anything in the 1996 Act that can be tied to Fox News' existence.

[Enthusiast]

45. It didn't specifically.

It only serves as a signpost to remind us when the massive propaganda effort began.

[Armstead]

51. Not their existance, but the extent to which the owner has expanded his power

You're correct. Fox News could have existed with or without those "reforms." And, frankly it should be allowed to exist in the name of diversity.

But Mega Corporate Barons like Rupert M would not have been allowed to gain such a total monopoly over the airwaves and ownership of cross-spectrum media properties -- and thus wield such outsized political and economic power -- if Clinton and the Democrats (most of them) hadn't handed them the keys to the store.

[Ex Lurker]

2. This is going to be much worse nt

[scarletwoman]

3. Our owners hate us for our freedom.

[Octafish]

52. ...and ability to reason.

Very dangerous to the Plutonomy.

[rhett o rick]

74. They want our wealth. It's not personal, it's just business.

[Enthusiast]

4. We cannot allow this.

[JDPriestly]

6. The end result is that speech is silenced not directly by the government (too obvious a violation

of the Constitution) but indirectly by simply allowing the market to pick total winners. And what do we end up with? Totally or pretty close to totally controlled news and an uniformed, ignorant electorate. Just what folks like the Koch Brothers and the rest of the 1% want.

The Telecommunications Reform Act signed by BILL CLINTON in 1996 put us on the path to nearly total information control by the 1%. Ending net neutrality will cross over into nearly total information control by the 1% on the last means of free public communication that we have.

The end of net neutrality is yet another giant step toward a totalitarian state.

We cannot accept this.

Obama double-crossed us when he appointed an industry insider to head the FCC. Shame on him. He owes us an apology for breaking his campaign promise to continue net neutrality.

[cascadiance]

61. It's interesting that John McCain joined Russ Feingold in voting against this crappy bill

Back in the days of a bit more sanity on his part.

Patrick Leahy in those days really campaigned against this because it also included the Communications Decency Act, another big threat to internet privacy in those days, where Clinton in effect relied on the court system in those days to strike down that part of the bill instead of not signing it to begin with because it contained that crap (as well as the other corporatist crap in it that we have to live with today). And today's courts probably can't be counted on to overturn crap like the Communications Decency Act with the likes of John Roberts leading them now.

More reasons why we simply CAN NOT elect another Turd Way / DLC candidate in 2016! We simply MUST reject these enablers of what will eventually become fascism.

[truedelphi]

104. Right now, there is only one way to enable ourselves at the expense of

Our "Beloved Party."

Community Rights organizing.

This is a movement we can join to take back our rights as individuals, and our rights as community participants.

We certainly cannot hold our breath and hope that Hillary Clinton will step aside, announcing how sad she is that she has been bought and paid for, and then saying she will encourage Liz Warren.

It also is extremely difficult to change the Democratic Party from within. Way back in 2012, when I let it slip that I wouldn't support Hillary for Prez in 2016, I was forced out of local Democratic shindigs, even things I previously had done with recommendations (phone banking for John Garamendi, for instance.) Why couldn't Cindy Sheehan run as a Democrat? Why was Steve Westley, who had the backing of the people of California, forced to let Phil Angelides serve as gubanatorial candidate instead, thus losing another four years to Ahnold?

Changing the party from within is almost impossible.

But here is what is working:

There are over 150 communities in the USA who have banded together to take on Corporate Personhood.

Now if you have ever been involved in local politics, you find out rather quickly that local citizens must usually "kow to" to the elected supervisors, or city council people, or even to local employees, such as city or county engineers and planners etc.

And then there are other disconnects. Your elected Board of Supervisors will never ever sit down with the US Federal Senators from your state, and rarely do city council folks or Board of Supervisors even meet with state legislators.

This furthers the huge disconnect. There are so many separate layers of government. It certainly doesn't seem like there is any way to have a Grand Over View. Nor does there seem like there is much of a way to have any re-arrangement of components that might result if the various layers of government communicated with each other.

For instance, my small, Northern Calif. community recently received "free of charge" a piece of modern military over design, this $ 360,000 MRAP vehicle which was designed to take on the IED's of Iraq warfare. This is all part of the militarization of the local police force. Meanwhile our schools have little monies, the local swimming pool may not be opened as it needs $ 40,000 worth of repairs, etc. To add insult to the injury, the state of Calif. just "awarded" my community twenty two millions of dollars to remodel and re-furbish one hundred local prison cells. Where did this amount of money come from? In part, through the state legislature and the governor knocking one billion dollars out of the state budget for health care-related matters over the next ten years. (At the very time that community clinics will need more money as they are going to be swamped by people who now have health insurance through "CoveredCalifornia.org )

People are connecting the dots, but then, what can they do? When confronted by activists wanting solutions, our elected community leaders say that all the problems are divided up in various departments of various layers of government and that you can't, for instance, transfer the MRAP vehicle's worth over to the schools. But over time, the community rights' movement could end up doing a re-arrangement of the layers so that common sense solutions could occur.

I really truly think that the community based rights movement is being designed to handle all these problems and more, including the complete dismemberment of the Corporate Beast. ((Er, Corporate Personhood.)

Through community activism, connected with real political know how, a small farming community in Pennsylvania tackled the problem of keeping out a 14,000 pig, Corporate Pig Farm. The community succeeded despite the fact that elected officials said, "An American owned business, regardless of what it does, always has the right to come into a community." In other words, if you little farmers do not like the destruction of water and soil, and the ability to breath air that doesn't reek of pig shit, move somewhere else!

Their efforts succeeded. They created a community based, County based piece of legislation that kept the Corporate Pig Farm out.

A small community in New Hampshire, and despite opposition from state and federal elected officials and agencies, took on a huge Quebec -based utility and put sustainable energy in its place.

So what are the particulars of how we go about doing this? There are many splendid vids on Youtube about how this is happening.

Here is the first video I would recommend, with an interview by Paul Cienfuegos. I love the quote from the woman writer he cites, Jane Anne Morris, to the effect that environmental regulatory agencies exist to regulate environmentalists!

Intro to Community rights movement - Interview with Paul Cinenfuegos

[2banon]

110. ^^^This! 1000+!^^^

[2banon]

111. The "Primary Purpose of Environmental Regulations is the Regulating Environmentalist"

Wow! what a meaningful, revelatory quote! It's like... uh yeah... that explains everything!

Great interview, so inspiring and informative. I've never heard the reference to the "The Regulatory Box" before now. it explains why it seems impossible to be heard on matters that we care about, and be able to actually effect change, besides signing petition and making phones ad nauseum. Love the discussion centering on what we can do, and especially what has already been done. just love it.

I will be requesting "Gaveling down the Rabble" by Jane Anne Morris from my local Library.. haven't heard about it before this truly inspiring interview video truedelphi.. thanks so much posting


"Regulatory law structure (created in the 1880's) was to create the small box for "we the people" to stand in."

Three cheers for Community rights movement!

[truedelphi]

113. The main (and major) item we all are working on is

establishing local ordinances so that within each county the local governance and the newly created ordinances prevail.

My county is undertaking the writing of a local ordinance so that the Right To Grow is firmly established, and that way, should the Federal government send in its agents to force some small organic farmers to plow under the field ("Why, you have to, as that rabbit that just ran across your field could be carrying anthrax&quot that local farmer would have the right as a citizen to sue the Federal agent.

Why this is important is because with the ordinance, the farmer is the plaintiff. That means he or she and their attorney decide which witnesses the defendant can bring in, what the evidence will be, etc. Without the ordinance, the farmer has little right to sue, and could be named as a defendant, which gives no ability to say who his or her witnesses are, or what evidence will be heard, etc.

It also means the Housing Associations cannot tell people that veggie gardens belong only in the back yard etc.

[2banon]

115. that's great, which county are you living/working on?

I live in the city of Alameda.. just moved here recently from up north. from the community gardens in and around various zoning districts, I think either theres a very progressive set of ordinances in place, or that there is little concern regarding community gardens, in fact seems to be encouraged. They're raising chickens in my My daughter's home backyard in Oakland.. and neighbors are raising them too.. There's an activist farmer in the district sort of well known who teaches how to raise/butcher your own livestock.. pretty radical considering it's an urban environment.

I think these are the sorts of ideas to create an entirely new paradigm shift in renewing/recreating community sustainability and empowerment by reclaiming our democratic process and governance. I applaud you on the work you're doing and thanks so much for posting this. I think it needs it's own thread by the wa..

[truedelphi]

118. A big hello to you too.

I really have been jones-ing for the Bay area lately.

Precisely on account of the activism you are talking about.

BTW, since you asked, I will post the URL of the OP I did on subject of Community Rights some two weeks or so ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024812680

I plan a second OP later this week, as things are heating up hot and heavy.

[2banon]

121. Thanks, I'll have a looksie..

It's a hive of activism here which is great for local issues, but actually I've always been impressed with communities like Arcata. It if weren't for my grandkids (who are close by in Oakland) i'd be headed north bound.. Arcata, Portland, Seattle..the Cascades or the Okanagans' maybe.. but for now my granddaughters keep me close by.. so not thinking about leaving yet..

I think activism is more complicated in urban regions like Oakland believe it or not. There are several competing factions who are more about playing identity politics rather than leaving that stuff at the door steps and focus on the concerns at hand. I have no patience for it anymore- if I ever did (lol).

[defacto7]

7. Just one more notch on the gun

of the oligarchy cowboys. Yeee hahh.

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!!

[quinnox]

10. And who would have imagined a Democratic president would go along with this. And Obama

spoke about keeping net neutrality as a candidate, I read it here on DU. How ironic. I guess it was just a campaign thing, and he didn't really mean it.

[pscot]

16. Who would have imagined?

Pretty much anyone who's been paying attention for the last 20 years.

[villager]

27. +1

n/t

[840high]

33. +2

[Skittles]

43. THANK YOU

not all of us have our heads in the sand

[bvar22]

78. Here.

+1


---bvar22
cursed with a good memory

[Armstead]

25. He talks a great game...but he sure doesn't walk his talk when it comes to taming Corporate America

[cui bono]

29. It's only because he can't find his "comfortable pair of shoes"

and he doesn't want to get blisters.

[snot]

42. But but but

wait 'til his second term!

Oh, um, right.

[bvar22]

11. That is the problem with the Republicans disguised as "Democrats".

BTW, The Koch Brothers helped get Bill elected.

"Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council"

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

If you LIKE what has happened to America's Middle/Working Class under Bill Clinton and Obama.
the be sure to support HILLARY for 2016!

[silvershadow]

18. Yep. Clinton did some real boneheaded things, of which this (the communications act) was one.

And, I agree with your assessment. We might have been much better off with a Democrat. My vote is going to Warren or whomever steps into the real void in Presidential politics. No more Clintons for me.

[snot]

41. +1!

[Divernan]

48. Electing Hillary would effectively give the Clintons a THIRD presidential term.

and would constitute an end run around the 22nd amendment. The Clintons said it in Bill's campaign - you get two for the price of one, i.e, Hillary was the co-president. And in fact, she was heavily involved in all policy matters and decisions.

Hillary's reign would definitely be Bill Clinton redux, only nastier, given her thirst for revenge and her enemies' list, as documented in the recently released "Hillary Papers" - records kept by her close friend and confidant, Diane Blair. The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

Blair also noted a 1994 conversation in which the first lady asked her for advice on "how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular." When asked why she wanted to keep the documents, Clinton replied, "Revenge."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/

Yet more records are still being held back, according to Politico: "The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office. What is Hillary hiding? I doubt decisions on redecorating the Oval Office or selecting menus for state dinners would trigger a claim of executive privilege.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/clinton-white-house-library-records-103959.html#ixzz3056cfEVP


Twenty-second Amendment, amendment (1951) to the Constitution of the United States effectively limiting to two the number of terms a president of the United States may serve. It was one of 273 recommendations to the U.S. Congress by the Hoover Commission, created by Pres. Harry S. Truman, to reorganize and reform the federal government. It was formally proposed by the U.S. Congress on March 24, 1947, and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951.

22nd Amendment
Amendment XXII
Section 1.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

[99Forever]

81. ^^This^^

Succinct, yet filled with the undeniable truth.

[ballyhoo]

12. When the Net is taken over, what are a few of the first

things we'll notice? Will DU finally be ended?

[Armstead]

17. No. It will just slooooooooowwwwwwwww down

To the point of becoming unusable, like everything else that isn't owned by Murdoch/Comcast/Disney.

[ballyhoo]

34. Okay. Thanks.

[cui bono]

90. Well, a lot of DU is pretty "slow" already.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yup

But short term I doubt they will listen.

These companies need broken up...

[Armstead]

19. These companies shouldn't have been allowed to get so big in the first place

That is one of the Biggest Crimes the Centrist Democrat Oligarchy has committed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. One qualifier, oligarchy

Not party dependent

I he to see them broken up before I die.

[Armstead]

22. One Oligarchy -- Two Divisions (Brands) of It

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I hope to some day see it greatly diminished

[Armstead]

24. Me too -- I wish this damn country would recognize the common sense rule that...

..it's not a good thing to turn over all of your money and give all the power to few people.

Seems kinda simple, but we're too thick as a nation to see the forest for the trees.

But I remain hopeful that some day common sense will prevail.

[snot]

40. Seconding that.

[obxhead]

14. We're not

However the group that thinks whatever stance Obama takes is correct (regardless of whether it flips 180 degrees in just a few weeks) will follow along and cheer for it along the way.

Some will remain in he reality based community and see this change for what it is..... Government sponsored corporate profiteering, built on the backs of the poverty (and just beyond) masses.

[leftstreet]

15. DURec

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I'm waiting for the Pros with their Blueline Special posts to come

& tell us what to think about all this. I'm really, really sure that either Our Noble Leader is gonna protect us from all this, or it's just no big deal. And of course it hasn't happened yet, so we all got our undies in a bundle over nothing. Besides, we've been assured that the belief that Net Neutrality is over is Flat-Out Wrong!!!1!

[villager]

28. Why do you love Putin!?

You, you... unicorn-wrangler, you!

[cui bono]

30. Well nothing has happened yet so how can you be against it?

[Jake Stern]

31. "Bu..bu..but he had no choice!"

Jeez he appointed the FCC head what more do you want?

[Jackpine Radical]

32. It's just an N-dimensional chess move,

far too complicated for the likes of us to understand.

[Armstead]

35. ssshhhhhhh.....This is all the Republicans fault

[Enthusiast]

46. It's all Republican obstructionism.

It causes problems, you know. Can't get anything done except for stuff we don't want.

[Armstead]

50. That's half the problem -- the other half is us, by not standing firm

The GOP only gets away with it because there is no longer an effective party that opposes them.

[Enthusiast]

53. I was only kidding but you have a great answer nonetheless.

Good job!

[Armstead]

54. I've been holding on to that one for while

[CrispyQ]

63. "Can't get anything done except for stuff we don't want."

Back in 2010, John Kerry said this in regards to climate change:


“We believe we have compromised significantly, and we’re prepared to compromise further,” Kerry said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39165.html

It has become the battle cry for the Democratic Party.

[Enthusiast]

66. Yes, it feels so wonderfully satisfying.

[Armstead]

117. To paraphrase Bill Clinton...

...who said while running for president "I'll fight for you until the last dog dies."

That should probably have been more accurate to say "I'll compromise for you until the last dog dis -- so long as it doesn't t affect the Big Corporations and the Wealthy"

[Armstead]

36. Same old shit they pulled when Clinton fucked us over

The adults know best.

[ProSense]

56. "The adults know best. "

Apparently, "the adults" are opportunist.

[Armstead]

57. The "adults' are the people in power (or their apologists) who keep screwing us over but who....

either never admit they screwed the pooch -- or are happy screwing us over because it is lining their pockets.

And then they keep offering us the same old shit over and over again. With the same old results.

This time they're allowing the Internet to be snatched from the public domain.

And shame on us for buying their stinking Corporate turds.

[ProSense]

65. Do you

The "adults' are the people in power (or their apologists) who keep screwing us over but who....

either never admit they screwed the pooch -- or are happy screwing us over because it is lining their pockets.

And then they keep offering us the same old shit over and over again. With the same old results.

This time they're allowing the Internet to be snatched from the public domain.

And shame on us for buying their stinking Corporate turds.

...even know what you're talking about?

[Armstead]

69. I know exactly what I'm talking about

You are welcome, as always, to disagree.

But if you compare the record of what has been done with either the active complicity or cowardly lack of fight by the "centrist" Democrats and the results over the last 20 years, it is hard to make any claims that they have stood up against the GOP and the Corporate Oligarchy's push to turn back the New Deal, Great Society and the basic tenants of economic democracy. Too often they have actively support it.

I've been paying attention since the 70's. I know what I'm talking about. Again, I don't care of you (or anyone) disagrees, but don't claim that everyone who is critical of the Centrist Corporate wing of the Democratic Party -- of which President Obama is a member in good standing -- is ignorant.

[ProSense]

70. Frankly,

I know exactly what I'm talking about

You are welcome, as always, to disagree.

But if you compare the record of what has been done with either the active complicity or cowardly lack of fight by the "centrist" Democrats and the results over the last 20 years, it is hard to make any claims that they have stood up against the GOP and the Corporate Oligarchy's push to turn back the New Deal, Great Society and the basic tenants of economic democracy. Too often they have actively support it.

I've been paying attention since the 70's. I know what I'm talking about. Again, I don't care of you (or anyone) disagrees, but don't claim that everyone who is critical of the Centrist Corporate wing of the Democratic Party -- of which President Obama is a member in good standing -- is ignorant.

...that theory is complete nonsense. It's simply taking a talking point and trying to use it in a broadbrush way that completely ignores reality. That's a lame tactic. It's no different from yelling "corporatist," "neo-liberal" or "Third Way."

The reality of everything from health care reform to Wall Street reform says otherwise.

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024815727

Change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024781130

[Armstead]

71. Your faith in them is touching

They are painting the exterior of the house, while letting the foundation continue to rot.

[ProSense]

72. Your inability to refute the point is telling. n/t

[Armstead]

73. What, they pass a law, it allows banks to continue to stay too big and get bigger....

and allows all sorts of other bad behavior to go unchallenged?

Your blind faith in the assurances of the powerful despite the reality in the real world is telling.

[ProSense]

75. More

"What, they pass a law, it allows banks to continue to stay too big and get bigger....and allows all sorts of other bad behavior to go unchallenged?

Your blind faith in the assurances of the powerful despite the reality in the real world is telling. "

...nonsense, and another attempt to deny reality. Your cliches amount to saything anything and have nothing to do with "the reality in the real world."

The Volcker Rule is a "reality in the real world."

Brown, Warren Urge Fed To Address Risks Associated With Bank Ownership Of Physical Commodities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024831309

Banks Ordered to Add Capital to Limit Risks

By PETER EAVIS

Updated, 9:08 p.m. | Federal regulators on Tuesday approved a simple rule that could do more to rein in Wall Street than most other parts of a sweeping overhaul that has descended on the biggest banks since the financial crisis.

The rule increases to 5 percent, from roughly 3 percent, a threshold called the leverage ratio, which measures the amount of capital that a bank holds against its assets. The requirement — more stringent than that for Wall Street’s rivals in Europe and Asia — could force the eight biggest banks in the United States to find as much as an additional $68 billion to put their operations on firmer financial footing, according to regulators’ estimates.

Faced with that potentially onerous bill, Wall Street titans are expected to pare back some of their riskiest activities, including trading in credit-default swaps, the financial instruments that destabilized the system during the financial crisis...some regulators and advocates for tougher financial regulation said, the new rule is a more straightforward tool that will be harder to evade and easier to enforce than many of the new regulations covering the sprawling, complex businesses of banking. Capital is important to banks because it acts as a buffer for potential losses that might otherwise sink an institution.

<...>

Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who has introduced a bill with Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, that envisions higher leverage ratios than those approved on Tuesday, said, “Today’s rule is a major step forward, but we can and must do more.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/regulators-set-to-approve-new-capital-rule

Again:

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024815727

[Armstead]

76. We'll see in five or ten years

Believe it or not Prosense, I actually had high hopes for a while when President Clinton was first elected, and then when President Obama was elected with a Democratize majority in Congress. I made the mistake of believing their words.

But both of them quickly showed who their real loyalties are to. Hence my cynicism. And it's not because they were helpless to those mean old republicans. They did not have the will to fight relentlessly to break the corporate stranglehold. Instead they helped to embed it even further.

In five or ten yars, if a handful of Huge Bank Robbers still have our economy in a chokehold, and they still continue to exercise bad behavior and the current gaps in income inequality are continuing to grow, I'll be proven right.

I'd rather be proven wrong, but I doubt it. especially if President Hillary Clinton gets in there, and Congress continues to be dominated by Centrist Corporate Democrats.

[bvar22]

82. We don't need to wait 5 years.

Dodd/Frank has turned out to be more than a little disappointing.
It is Regulation In Name Only,
and has proved to be easily circumvented or ignored.
Even Barney Frank admitted:
*It does nothing to limit the growth of "Too Big to Fails"
*It will NOT prevent another crash
*It does NOT re-establish any FireWall between Commercial Banks and Investmant Banks
*Does NOT regulate the High Risk Financial Inventions that caused the last MeltDown

The results is written broad across America's Working Class.
The trend of destruction that began under Reagan, accelerated under Clinton & Bush,
is STILL accelerating under Centrist President Obama:

Billionaire wealth doubles [font size=3]since financial crisis[/font]
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719

CHARTS: The Amazing Wealth Surge For The Top 0.1 Percent
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-amazing-wealth-surge-for-the-top-0-1-percent

The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Korean Free Trade Deal devastating for US Workers

What happened to the 70,000 jobs that the Korea Free Trade deal was supposed to create? They never materialized. Instead, U.S. workers lost 40,000 jobs in the first year of the agreement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html

Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/18/retirement-confidence-survey-savings/6432241/

65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

"Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/

95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Obama Appoints Bain Capital Consultant Jeff Ziets to Top Post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662209

Obama appoints industry insider to head the FCC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140

Obama selects former Monsanto lobbyist to be his TPP chief agriculture negotiator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662210

Larry Summers Gets 'Full-Throated Defense' From Obama In Capitol Hill Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014553343#post1

THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
It is the result of carefully planned and implemented Economic Policy.
It requires careful preparation, marketing, buying the right politicians, message control, courts packed with Conservative Corporate Rights Judges, and the marginalization and suppression of any opposition.

[Armstead]

84. O,o,o...you just don'tknowwhatyou'retalkingabout, huff puff

(Insert meaningless and oblique put-down here.)

[bvar22]

86. Yes. I know.

The goal is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange.

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

[ProSense]

89. You're

"We don't need to wait 5 years.

...right, "we don't." It's telling that to support attacks on Dodd-Frank you offer links complaining about appointments and the effects of decades of bad policies.

Now, the effects of the current Wall Street reform:

New York Financial Regulator Uses Dodd-Frank to Sue Auto Lender
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877095

Why isn't there more focus on shareholders' say on executive pay?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877216

CFPB, hard at work
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877283

[bvar22]

93. Oh... so they caught some small fry?

Will you address ANY of the following specific criticisms of Dodd/Frank?
I fully realize this is highly uncharacteristic for you,
but please give it a try,
and limit your response to these 4 fundamental issues.

The much ballyhooed Dodd Frank Bill:

1) did nothing to impose any limits on the growth the "Too Big to Fails"

2) did nothing to Re-establish a FireWall between Investment & Commercial Banks

3) will NOT prevent another Melt Down & Taxpayer Bail Out

4) does NOT regulate the High Risk Financial Inventions that caused the last MeltDown

Go ahead Pro.
Take your best shot,
and please try to address these specific issues that WERE the cause of the last Meltdown & Bailout.

[font size=4] Paulson with Co-Conspirators

Now THIS is Bi-Partisanship!
Better get used to it!
Hahahahahahahahaha[/font]


OR
you could just post your usual rofl smilie when confronted with specific issues.
Please Proceed, Pro.

[ProSense]

94. First

"Oh... so they caught some small fry?"

...what does that have to do with what I posted?

The much ballyhooed Dodd Frank Bill:

1) did nothing to impose any limits on the growth the "Too Big to Fails"

2) did nothing to Re-establish a FireWall between Investment & Commercial Banks

3) will NOT prevent another Melt Down & Taxpayer Bail Out

4) does NOT regulate the High Risk Financial Inventions that caused the last MeltDown

More say-anything nonsense.

Banks Ordered to Add Capital to Limit Risks

By PETER EAVIS

Updated, 9:08 p.m. | Federal regulators on Tuesday approved a simple rule that could do more to rein in Wall Street than most other parts of a sweeping overhaul that has descended on the biggest banks since the financial crisis.

The rule increases to 5 percent, from roughly 3 percent, a threshold called the leverage ratio, which measures the amount of capital that a bank holds against its assets. The requirement — more stringent than that for Wall Street’s rivals in Europe and Asia — could force the eight biggest banks in the United States to find as much as an additional $68 billion to put their operations on firmer financial footing, according to regulators’ estimates.

Faced with that potentially onerous bill, Wall Street titans are expected to pare back some of their riskiest activities, including trading in credit-default swaps, the financial instruments that destabilized the system during the financial crisis...some regulators and advocates for tougher financial regulation said, the new rule is a more straightforward tool that will be harder to evade and easier to enforce than many of the new regulations covering the sprawling, complex businesses of banking. Capital is important to banks because it acts as a buffer for potential losses that might otherwise sink an institution.

<...>

Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who has introduced a bill with Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, that envisions higher leverage ratios than those approved on Tuesday, said, “Today’s rule is a major step forward, but we can and must do more.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/regulators-set-to-approve-new-capital-rule

Brown, Warren Urge Fed To Address Risks Associated With Bank Ownership Of Physical Commodities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024831309

Again:

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024815727

Why Elizabeth Warren Left The GOP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877747

[bvar22]

96. I KNEW you couldn't do it, Pro.

You FAILED to address ANY of the specific issues I cited.
You get another ZERO.


You will know them by their WORKS.

[ProSense]

97. Translation: I'm just going to ignore what you posted, Pro.

LOL!

[ProSense]

98. If you're interested

in acknowledging instead of denying the facts, here:

Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (“Bank of America” or “the bank”) poses a “grave threat” to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or the “Act”). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.

Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, “shall” mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institution’s mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.

- more -

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf

Orderly Liquidation Fund

To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]

Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" – which is defined as "[…] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]

To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority

Occupy the SEC Submits Letters to FDIC Regarding its Proposed Implementation of Too Big to Fail Regulations Under Title II of the Dodd Frank Act

New York, NY – March 26, 2014

Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”) has submitted a letter to the FDIC regarding that agency’s proposed regulations implementing Title II of the Dodd Frank Act (“DFA”). Title II of the DFA contains vital provisions that, if properly implemented, would help address the troublesome risks presented by “Too Big to Fail” (“TBTF”) financial institutions.

- more-

http://www.occupythesec.org/files/SIFI_Press_Release.pdf

Occupy the SEC Submits Comment Letter to Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Risky & Anticompetitive Physical Commodities Transactions

New York, NY - March 29, 2014

Occupy the SEC (“OSEC”) has submitted a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“Board”) in response to that agency’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) regarding the range of activities that banks are permitted to engage in in the commodities arena. The ANPR is extremely timely because of recent abuses by banks in the commodities markets, especially because such abuses have been both egregious and unpunished.

The Board now has the opportunity to reinstate the historical separation in American law between financial and commercial activities, which previously kept banks from becoming Too Big to Fail and overwhelming the economy. The Board can pass regulations that prohibit institutions receiving federal depository insurance and implicit federal guarantees from acting in ways that threaten environmental pollution and risk systematic financial contagion. The agency has the power to limit or mitigate the speculation in physical commodities and derivatives markets that has created artificial scarcity in products such as wheat and oil on which billions of people—and governments—are reliant.

- more -

http://www.occupythesec.org/files/OSEC_Commodities_Press_Release.pdf

[cui bono]

88. You have yet to make any point regarding the topic of this OP.

Hm... could it be... deflection???

[HooptieWagon]

83. Why would Centrist Dems bite the Corporate Hand that feeds them?

Enabling corporations to fuck us over is the reason they sought office.

[MisterP]

38. "the opposition party tears into their opponent: everything he does is thus marvelous

see how their 'horror stories' are horrors FOR THEM!!!!!11"

[ProSense]

55. How insulting

"I'm waiting for the Pros with their Blueline Special posts to come"

..and embarrassing, especially since this comment is in support of an OP that is complete bunk. The Telecomm act was passed in Congress. This rule, however it plays out isn't remotely the same thing.

"I'm really, really sure that either Our Noble Leader is gonna protect us from all this, or it's just no big deal."

"Our Noble Leader"? The Messiah?

I love how people jump on every opportunity to declare the next issue the worst thing since the last worst thing. This is a false equivalency and isn't even remotely close.

Opportunism, it's the same thing that happen with health care. When it was going throug the pains of implementation, attack it and pretend that the insurance companies and some others have a valid point, even to the point of claiming it should be repealed.

Now, that it has worked out beyond even its supporters expectations, we get this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024868074

Yeah, welcome to reality.

[Armstead]

58. Don't Mischararacterie my post

I specifically spread the blame among the WH, Congress and the Courts.

I know I included your precious Obama in there, but I did not single him out. This will be a systemic betrayal, and the Democrats will once again be active participants, along with the GOP, of selling us out yet again.

(My usual disclaimer that not all Democrats are to blame. Just the Corporate weasels.)

.

[ProSense]

59. "I included your precious Obama in there"

There is nothing to "mischararacterie" (sic) given the silliness of that statement.

[Efilroft Sul]

60. Bill Clinton proudly signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Here's his opening statement on signing it into law:

"Today, I have signed into law S.652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This landmark legislation fulfills my administration's promise to reform our telecommunications laws..."

Sure, Congress passed it. But Clinton eagerly claimed ownership of it right from the get-go.

Presidency.ucsb.edu

[ProSense]

62. Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and "proudly" signed DADT and DOMA into law. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

77. Instead of simply attacking everyone who comes here to express displeasure over

the prospect of tiered internet service, why not make your points indicating why you support the end of Net Neutrality, and why you believe it is the correct course for America. If it's actually great, it should be easy for you to tell these disgruntled folks why they are misguided.

[ProSense]

80. Hilarious

"Instead of simply attacking everyone who comes here to express displeasure over the prospect of tiered internet service, why not make your points indicating why you support the end of Net Neutrality, and why you believe it is the correct course for America. If it's actually great, it should be easy for you to tell these disgruntled folks why they are misguided. "

Given the post I responded to, you have the audacity to talk claim that my response is "attacking everyone," and then go on to make a bogus assertion that I "support the end of Net Neutrality."

Here's a suggestion: Instead of making bogus claims, why don't you take your own advice and focus on the issue?

Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876742

[Armstead]

92. Not Hilarious

That's what many believe should happen. Will it happen? I doubt it.

I'd love to be wrong, but history doesn't auger well on the willingness of the WH and Congress and the FCC's current lobbyist in residence (chairman) to stick to their guns on these things, unless they are corporate-supplied guns.

[Marr]

119. Funny thing is, they're putting themselves out of work. /nt

[gmoles]

37. FCC Supports: Separate but Neutral n/t

[snot]

39. K&R'd!

[pnwmom]

44. What alternative realistic response did he have to the Federal Court decision

that struck down the open internet?

How could he justify changing the classification of the internet after 30 years?

If he appealed, that wouldn't stop the Court ruling from taking effect in the meantime, and there's no guarantee of how the Supreme Court will rule in the end.

Why are you blaming Obama for a ruling by a Federal Court?

[Armstead]

49. Because the WH and Congress could reclassify and/or find ways to regulate it in the public interest

Why?

Because this has been the pattern for about 30 years. The Democratic Party has totally given up on the spirit, values and guts -- and HONESTY -- that brought us things like the minimum wage, equal rights, SS, Meicare, consumer protection laws, etc.

EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF PROGRESS we have made was opposed and called unconstitutional, etc. by the reactionaries and Corporate opponents. Every one if them was called impossible, "we can't do that,etc."

But they got it done.

NO LONGER. Clinton sold the airwaves to the highest bidder. Now, Obama appoints an industry insider to head the FCC. OF Course that industry insider is going to find a "solution" that turns the Internet over to big corporations.

There are so many reasons to be angry that the administration has not been leading charge in anything but empty words to protect the Internet with regulation to assure that it remains an open system.

[pnwmom]

99. CONGRESS. That is the answer. Congress needs to pass legislation,

and so we first have to deluge the FCC with our informed comments -- which will make them pay attention. The we urge our Congress people to make this a major issue in their upcoming campaigns. Once people understand what internet neutrality means -- and that the alternative is both radical and non-populist -- then people who use the internet, on both sides of the spectrum, will support it.

The Republicans want to charge you more for the Internet -- the Democrats oppose this. This is how we should frame it.

[Enthusiast]

47. How badly would we expect this to depress the midterm turnout?

I'm losing more enthusiasm by the minute.

[ProSense]

64. Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word

Reclassification Is Not a Dirty Word
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876742

[LanternWaste]

120. Neither is "Absurd Rationalization"

Neither is "Absurd Rationalization"

[n2doc]

67. They learned from 2008

Back Then, remember, it was this new outreach/grassroots efforts on the internet that gave the 'outsider' Obama the advantage over the 'insider' Clinton, and then over old fogey McCain. This must not be allowed to go uncontrolled, lest some real outsider catch fire next time.

All threats to the system are being controlled and turned to the system's advantage.

Note that Clinton did this after his second election, he had nothing to lose at all. Obama put in place his FCC chair in 2013. Nothing to lose at all.

[CrispyQ]

68. "Nothing to lose at all."

Excellent observations, n2.

[Efilroft Sul]

79. Actually, Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on February 8, 1996.

That was nine months before he was re-elected. Considering the Republicans weren't going to field a candidate to threaten his second term, I'd agree with you that Clinton had nothing to lose. But for Obama in his second term to appoint Tom Wheeler — a former cable and telecom lobbyist — as an FCC commissioner, wow. Nothing for Obama to lose, and perhaps everything to gain once he becomes a private citizen again.

[Armstead]

85. Yes I forsee a lucrative career as a corporate "advisor" and speaker ahead for President Obama

[Blanks]

87. OK, so the ownership of the airwaves are in too few hands...

Clearly the impact that the network news and radio stations have on people has been diminished in the last couple of decades.

The medium is dying off and there's no reason to limit ownership and regulate it in the same manner as it was regulated when it was the only game in town. We have the Internet now and television and radio can't compete. So I don't think a HUGE amount of damage was done when Clinton signed it.

At this point it's as damaging as big regulations on railroads - they're still around, but they can't compete with over the road transportation.

As far as net neutrality - it sounds like a bad thing, and I signed the White House petition opposing - what I am told is the president's position, but we have to stay cognizant of what the ACTUAL trends are and Obama won the 2012 election despite the huge sums of money running against him and the networks being controlled by the MIC.

I think its a tempest in a teapot. Just another manufactured uproar to get people upset at the President and the Clinton's.

[Armstead]

91. I profoundly but respectfully beg to differ

If you are being sincere, I beg to differ so strongly with your interpretation that I can not even respond.

[Blanks]

100. Do you disagree with...

My assertion that radio and television had much less impact (in 1996 when Clinton signed the law) than they did when the regulations were first created for the industry?

[Armstead]

101. Pretty much everything you said and the way you cast it.

Broadcasting was already far too concentrated and a few huge monopolies controlled far too much. But with the 96 Tecomm "Reform," that became much, much worse, to the point where radio and TV are totally controlled these days by a tiny handful of mega monopolies.

The same corporations are also dominant on the Internet. Despite the Internet. They just re-use the same crap between broadcast cable and and online outlets. And in the case of Comcast and Time Warner, they own content AND the wires.

That will only get worse if the Corporate ISPs are allowed to set the terms of who can get reasonable delivery on the Internet based on who has the bucks and influence. They can slow down the non-corporate sites to a crawl and give the establish media monopolists unlimited access to the fast lanes.

On a broader level, regulation is absolutely necessary in every sphere to balance and contain the excess and abuses of "free market" capitalism.

[blkmusclmachine]

95. Thanks, Obama.

[benld74]

102. 100% agree

Something else we can tell our grandkids in the future.
When I was your age, WE had download speeds of ### and only had to pay $$ for it!

Oh cmon granddad stop with the stories,,,,

[jwirr]

103. I read this and never understand what the personal implications will be. Someone pretend you are

75 years old and tell us what it will be like using my computer if and when this all happens. I think if you do that there will be supporters coming out of the walls.

[Armstead]

109. You want to visit a website oprated by a Big Media oulet....

No problemo. Everything zips right up instantly because they have made a "deal" with your ISP for premium carriage..

But you go to an independent website operated by someone without Bgi Bucks to pay for premium access? Fergit it. Pages take forever to load, videos stop and start and freeze up, and it is ultimately not worth the bother.

And if you run a business, you'll get two choices. Premium expensive service, where customers can access and use your site easily. Or less expensive service, where your customers will become so frustrated at the slowness they won't bother.

Same thing if you are a volunteer with a church or organization, or just have a personal blog. No bucks, no visitors.

And, eventually, it becomes like cable TV. You want a package of websites that work well, you pay more. Can't afford it? Tough shit, they'll choke off speed so it's unusable.

It opens the door to all kinds of mischief and abuse.

[jwirr]

116. Thank you. That makes it a personal issue. I think my congress reps are against this: Franken, Amy K

so I guess I just have to remind Obama that he was against this when he ran.

I do see why the big guys want this. Besides money it involves political power. They want to stop us on the internet from influencing elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. knr

[tecelote]

106. The death of the Liberal Media.

Gobbled up by the big business interests.

[JDPriestly]

107. And don't forget: In the first place, the airwaves on which the radio and TV stations

(with the exception of cable) function belong to the American people, not to the corporations that use them. Same for the internet. The internet was created originally -- the research, the basic work, by the government with the people's money. The broadband providers are Johnny-Come-Latelys profiting from government investment.

In 1973, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds. The objective was to develop communication protocols which would allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks. This was called the Internetting project and the system of networks which emerged from the research was known as the "Internet." The system of protocols which was developed over the course of this research effort became known as the TCP/IP Protocol Suite, after the two initial protocols developed: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP).

In 1986, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated the development of the NSFNET which, today, provides a major backbone communication service for the Internet. With its 45 megabit per second facilities, the NSFNET carries on the order of 12 billion packets per month between the networks it links. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy contributed additional backbone facilities in the form of the NSINET and ESNET respectively. In Europe, major international backbones such as NORDUNET and others provide connectivity to over one hundred thousand computers on a large number of networks. Commercial network providers in the U.S. and Europe are beginning to offer Internet backbone and access support on a competitive basis to any interested parties.

"Regional" support for the Internet is provided by various consortium networks and "local" support is provided through each of the research and educational institutions. Within the United States, much of this support has come from the federal and state governments, but a considerable contribution has been made by industry. In Europe and elsewhere, support arises from cooperative international efforts and through national research organizations. During the course of its evolution, particularly after 1989, the Internet system began to integrate support for other protocol suites into its basic networking fabric. The present emphasis in the system is on multiprotocol interworking, and in particular, with the integration of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) protocols into the architecture.

Both public domain and commercial implementations of the roughly 100 protocols of TCP/IP protocol suite became available in the 1980's. During the early 1990's, OSI protocol implementations also became available and, by the end of 1991, the Internet has grown to include some 5,000 networks in over three dozen countries, serving over 700,000 host computers used by over 4,000,000 people.

http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet-related-networks

[Katashi_itto]

108. All for the privilege of voting for Hillary.

Cause she the "only" choice we have...

[pscot]

112. K&R

[Octafish]

114. Command, Control, Consolidate...

Why?