MSM No Longer Useful So...

[What a Tuel]

 

They were not bought out 2 times. Jerry Kent kept on adding cable assets through leveraged buyouts. They eventually sold out because they knew they didn't have the capital to compete with the big boys, so may as well take the easy money from the French and have them take the beating.

 

But go ahead and tell me how you understand the industry by reading a pro-net neutrality blog.

 

2012

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-19/suddenlink-agrees-to-buyout-led-by-management-bc-cpp

 

“Suddenlink is one of the most attractive cable companies in the U.S. today, with a world-class infrastructure,” Raymond Svider, BC Partners co-chairman and managing partner, said in the statement. Svider also is chairman of Luxembourg-based Intelsat SA.

 

Of course it was also PR speak because of the buy out.

 

2015

 

http://www.bcpartners.com/news/2015/21-12-15?sc_lang=en

Edited September 28, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

Um, what is an expert opinion or member of the industry worth when he wasn't even aware that time warner cable does not do data caps. So his "expert" opinion about time warner presently doing data caps to lighten their load on their networks was what? A guess? Expert opinion?

 

 

Time Warner absolutely did have to limit data, at least they did in central Texas until they could increase their multiplexing capabilities. You can make fun of my credentials if it helps you feel better. This all started over your insistence that Net Neutrality was needed, yet not a regulatory takeover. Instead of just calling you an idiot, I made my best effort to correct a misconception on your part. Since then, it's become obvious that you a) are arguing from a strictly political point of view, b) have absolutely no freakin' clue what you're talking about, and c) you have no desire whatsoever to learn a damned thing.

 

That, sir, is your problem.

how's that a favor? I don't follow?

 

 

Here. A few more characters. I'll use more data

 

Perhaps I was misinformed, but I thought you raised cattle.

[GG]

 

2012

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-19/suddenlink-agrees-to-buyout-led-by-management-bc-cpp

 

 

Of course it was also PR speak because of the buy out.

 

2015

 

http://www.bcpartners.com/news/2015/21-12-15?sc_lang=en

 

Which part of a MANAGEMENT BUYOUT is confusing?

 

The company wasn't sold in a real sense. Its privately owned stock traded hands between different buyout shops, and all of them kept Jerry Kent and the rest of management in place. This is a very common occurrence, and it doesn't meet the definition of a true sale because nothing changed but the private equity owners at the top.

[boyst]

 

Time Warner absolutely did have to limit data, at least they did in central Texas until they could increase their multiplexing capabilities. You can make fun of my credentials if it helps you feel better. This all started over your insistence that Net Neutrality was needed, yet not a regulatory takeover. Instead of just calling you an idiot, I made my best effort to correct a misconception on your part. Since then, it's become obvious that you a) are arguing from a strictly political point of view, b) have absolutely no freakin' clue what you're talking about, and c) you have no desire whatsoever to learn a damned thing.

 

That, sir, is your problem.

 

 

Perhaps I was misinformed, but I thought you raised cattle.

ohh. Yeah. I do that.

 

Now I get it

 

If anyone cares I have a Facebook for it just never post ****. Bn acres

[What a Tuel]

 

Which part of a MANAGEMENT BUYOUT is confusing?

 

The company wasn't sold in a real sense. Its privately owned stock traded hands between different buyout shops, and all of them kept Jerry Kent and the rest of management in place. This is a very common occurrence, and it doesn't meet the definition of a true sale because nothing changed but the private equity owners at the top.

 

I simply said they were bought out twice.

 

You said no.

 

I clarified the buyouts I was referring to.

 

You said "idiot, those are just a specific kind of buyout, no big deal duh"

 

You guys are an awfully sensitive bunch.

 

 

Time Warner absolutely did have to limit data, at least they did in central Texas until they could increase their multiplexing capabilities. You can make fun of my credentials if it helps you feel better. This all started over your insistence that Net Neutrality was needed, yet not a regulatory takeover. Instead of just calling you an idiot, I made my best effort to correct a misconception on your part. Since then, it's become obvious that you a) are arguing from a strictly political point of view, b) have absolutely no freakin' clue what you're talking about, and c) you have no desire whatsoever to learn a damned thing.

 

That, sir, is your problem.

 

Perhaps I was misinformed, but I thought you raised cattle.

 

This is a farcry from " Time Warner started putting data caps on their customers years ago - not in an effort to "monetize data", but instead to manage the ever increasing load on the network."

 

But to each their own. No need to get all "you are the worst person ever" on me. It's just a conversation. I know a guy that works for one of the ISP's that gets the same way. It's a sensitive topic because the companies are so hated publicly, I know, but don't take it out on me.

Edited September 28, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

 

I know a guy that works for one of the ISP's that gets the same way. It's a sensitive topic because the companies are so hated publicly, I know, but don't take it out on me.

 

We're not hated publicly at all. I don't know where you get that. My industry is just a business like any other - we provide a service and people either subscribe to us, or they subscribe to someone else. Sometimes customers are unhappy, and when that happens, it's our business to fix their problem. My company needs to provide better service at an affordable price to stay in business. it's not any more complicated than that. One of the things you fail to see is that the Net Neutrality regulations are not only pushing smaller ISPs out of service by making the demands on their networks impossible for them to meet, it's also preventing start ups from getting into the business, since the only way they have to provide last-mile delivery is through existing networks owned by bigger companies - in other words, no new infrastructure from the local central office to the field.

 

The reason that other guy you know reacts the way he does is quite likely because you are choosing to believe information from blogs and sources outside the industry that have a political bent, rather than a technical one, while ignoring his experience, expertise, and insight. That is your prerogative, but if you choose to believe that crap, then be prepared to be ridiculed for it.

 

The way you address the issue sounds an awful lot like you think that you're entitled to smokin' fast internet with limitless streaming. Well, you may as well feel that you deserve a smokin' fast car, with clear highways for blasting your entitled ass from place to place as you please. It's the same damned thing. Open your eyes and get over yourself. Life's too short to spend it with your head planted firmly between your butt cheeks.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Azalin

[B-Man]

State AGs sue to stop Obama’s internet transition.

 

 

The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.”

“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement.

 

 

[Dante]

 

State AGs sue to stop Obama’s internet transition.

 

 

 

 

The lawsuit — filed Wednesday in a Texas federal court — threatens to throw up a new roadblock to one of the White House’s top tech priorities, just days before the scheduled Oct. 1 transfer of the internet’s address system is set to take place.

In their lawsuit, the attorneys general for Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas contend that the transition, lacking congressional approval, amounts to an illegal giveaway of U.S. government property. They also express fear that the proposed new steward of the system, a nonprofit known as ICANN, would be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The four states further contend that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. And the four attorneys general argue that ICANN’s “current practices often foster a lack of transparency that, in turn, allows illegal activity to occur.”

“Trusting authoritarian regimes to ensure the continued freedom of the internet is lunacy,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement.

 

As the idiots argue over the latest Trump sound bite like "Stop and Frisk" this is the real shite going down. We have a treasonous globalist agent heading up the gradual surrender of US sovereignty piece by piece. Incremental so the masses don't notice.

[B-Man]

As the idiots argue over the latest Trump sound bite like "Stop and Frisk" this is the real shite going down.

 

 

I wish that they were arguing about "stop and frisk" at least that is important,

 

most of the "media" is still obsessing over what The Donald said about Miss Universe 2 decades ago

 

20 Mins on ‘Miss Piggy’ Remark, Silence on Cheryl Mills Immunity.

 

: Mickey Kaus: “Hillary’s great coup in the debate was avoiding a focus on issues. What does that tell you?”

 

 

 

I applaud these AG's for at least trying something.

[Dante]

 

 

I wish that they were arguing about "stop and frisk" at least that is important,

 

most of the "media" is still obsessing over what The Donald said about Miss Universe 2 decades ago

 

20 Mins on ‘Miss Piggy’ Remark, Silence on Cheryl Mills Immunity.

 

: Mickey Kaus: “Hillary’s great coup in the debate was avoiding a focus on issues. What does that tell you?”

 

 

 

I applaud these AG's for at least trying something.

Not that "Stop and Frisk" wouldn't be important to me if it were a real thing. Right now it's just a politician considering it. I'm sure there would be a lot of court battles to get that through. I don't agree with it btw I think it presumes guilt. Get a probable cause or a warrant. The point is we have a real radical doing real bad things to the country right now. It's not just rhetoric.

[What a Tuel]

As the idiots argue over the latest Trump sound bite like "Stop and Frisk" this is the real shite going down. We have a treasonous globalist agent heading up the gradual surrender of US sovereignty piece by piece. Incremental so the masses don't notice.

 

I thought government oversight or regulation of the internet was bad?

[Dante]

 

I thought government oversight or regulation of the internet was bad?

It is. It's not the US governments place to hand control over to a foreign entity. We paid for it. We developed it. What possible motivation would their be to surrender it? Only a treasonous !@#$ would even consider doing it.

[Azalin]

It is. It's not the US governments place to hand control over to a foreign entity. We paid for it. We developed it. What possible motivation would their be to surrender it? Only a treasonous !@#$ would even consider doing it.

 

The issue with ICANN is being very heavily politicized right now. As I understand it, it hands over control of IP address allocation to individual countries, taking it away from government control and giving it to a non-governmental international agency. In other words, be skeptical of our politicians objecting to this, because as I understand the issue (and I'm still digging), it's not about them keeping the internet free at all.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Azalin

[Azalin]

Here is a very good article explaining the shift to ICANN, the reasons for and against it, and what role it actually plays in terms of internet freedom. To those who fear other countries may attempt to regulate or censor content, I would point out that North Korea already has complete control of the web within their borders, and many other nations have been censoring content to their citizens for years.

 

https://www.cnet.com/news/why-is-us-giving-up-control-of-the-internet-dns-icann-domain-ted-cruz-faq/

[What a Tuel]

 

The issue with ICANN is being very heavily politicized right now. As I understand it, it hands over control of IP address allocation to individual countries, taking it away from government control and giving it to a non-governmental international agency. In other words, be skeptical of our politicians objecting to this, because as I understand the issue (and I'm still digging), it's not about them keeping the internet free at all.

 

It certainly is. And Ted Cruz's unfounded, and baseless reaction to this for some type of political points against Obama or something makes me question everything else he is "for". He plays far more political games than average politicians including extrapolating unfounded points about NASA funding that I posted earlier.

 

I know this will be unpopular, and I am no democrat, but Ted Cruz is a less obvious version of Trump, in that they have no substance behind them. The statements and issues that they bring to the table are simply there to trigger people into voting for them. They are not based in facts or even reality, a good portion of the time.

Edited October 3, 2016 by What a Tuel

[Azalin]

 

It certainly is. And Ted Cruz's unfounded, and baseless reaction to this for some type of political points against Obama or something makes me question everything else he is "for". He plays far more political games than average politicians including extrapolating unfounded points about NASA funding that I posted earlier.

 

I know this will be unpopular, and I am no democrat, but Ted Cruz is a less obvious version of Trump, in that they have no substance behind them. The statements and issues that they bring to the table are simply there to trigger people into voting for them. They are not based in facts or even reality, a good portion of the time.

 

The politicians that are for the switch to ICANN are being just as disingenuous as Cruz is. It's performance art. We're all better off doing our own research and avoiding taking sides in their political posturing.

[OCinBuffalo]

Net Neutrality is bought and paid for by software company masters via the left coast politicians who serve them. That is all there is. There is no more. Anything else is utter BS.

 

The REAL IT reason for all of this: big software companies don't want to test their code properly, because that takes too long, and thus Fs up their marketing people's over-promising. So, they don't test code for basic functionality (does anyone actually think all those Microsoft updates are making things better? No, they fix bad.). Worse, they don't test for optimization(ahem, MS Vista, anyone? How about Android's first version? How about Apple's new OS? Yeah...don't worry, it'll get better...it's just "indexing" )

 

So, when this schit code hits the net, it chugs bandwidth, and these companies get their bank accounts raped. Net Neutrality says: "It's OK if your 15 million instances of a schitty architecture is chugging all the bandwidth in the country, you don't have to pay for that." Meanwhile, our code is fully optimized, but, if Amazon/Netflix/Google's crap code is eating all the bandwidth, we slow down through no fault of our own.

 

That is literally what Google et al is after. They want to write schitty code with slave laborers, who by definition don't give a F, and not have to face the consequences of that, or of 0 optimization testing.

 

Now enough of this schit. I am tired of the clowns here treating this political hack issue like its some sort of civil rights imperative.

 

RE ICANN:

 

ICANN needs to be left the F alone, and no government should be involved in it on any level. ICANN is already perfectly incapable of doing much more than it does today. ICANN is not an "international agency". It is a non-profit incorporated in California made up of all sorts of hardware companies, associations. It's also made up of college professor hangers-on who keep showing up to the meetings, and other very boring people. Their main focus has always been struggling with hardware compatibility, and trying to get their new thinger's approach to "blah blahing" to be approved by the rest of them. The last thing they care about is whose web page says what.

 

Thus, the only problem is accountability, right?

 

Anyone who knows the material on this should be satisfied with the options available to us if ICANN ever does anything stupid. Besides, internal checks and balances, ICANN isn't a holistic entity. They are loosely organized, and almost everybody has their own agenda. But, the one agenda item they all have in common is: building trust and value into the internet. They aren't going to hurt their own businesses by pulling a Lois Lerner.

 

We do not want any government being able to tax domain names, IP addresses, email, regulate content, or anything else. Moving control to ICANN means we take away ALL government, including the UN, capability to do that.(The UN is currently trying to create its own organization. F that.) Fnally, ICANN has no vehicle by which it can regulate content/block IPs/domains. Therefore, the "free speech" argument is irrelevant.

 

...unless at some future point ICANN develops such a thing(which we will know about because no secret like that can be kept by so many disparate people), implements it(same), and behaves badly with it(same). That would bring all the software guys, good and bad, down on these hardware dweebs like a 100 million hammers. It would be over very quickly, and so would the careers of those involved. I'd be writing the thread here RE what we did to crush them 2 months before the lawyers/politicians were able to comprehend it.

 

Next question.