I still think BDS means Bush Derangement Syndrome, it is similar to ODS and TDS.
Modern usage.... Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (I had to look it up)
Learn something new about moonbats every day, eh zooer?
Yes I do, today I learned that people that like Christmas trees with all white lights are racists.
Scott Adams predicted that the liberal criticism of President Trump (peace be upon him) would generally come in four phases:
Phase 1: "Trump is Hitler!"
Phase 2, after he doesn't do any Hitler-like things: "Ok, he's not Hitler, but he's incompetent!"
Phase 3: "Perhaps he's not incompetent after all, but he will be ineffective!"
Phase 4: "All right, he's not ineffective, but I don't like it."
We officially entered Phase 4 today. HuffPo published an article today lamenting that "One Year In, Trump Is Winning"
[ https://tinyurl.com/yapqbqw5 ]
"All I do is win... win... win."
...and Piers Morgan agrees, even though he's on the side of America/Trump and not the enemedia, but he's pointing it out too:
President Trump (peace be upon him) is keeping promises, and the liberal media hates him for it.
Geez ... it seems *everyone* gets "net neutrality" wrong. Particularly agitating is the fact that Obama got it wrong, Trump got it wrong, and everyone's just making up their own idea of what it means. They need to put me in charge of the FCC.
We *do* need net neutrality, but only in specific places (which is why "let the government control the Internet" is too heavy-handed). Was "Title II" too much? Perhaps, but it might have also been the closest available framework.
Sadly, we got *close* with DSL. Telcos were required to offer "unbundled elements" to other carriers. This, quite simply, is the simplest way to circumvent the last-mile monopolies or duopolies that are present in most markets. Unfortunately, cable and FTTH providers are not bound by this obligation.
Requiring last-mile providers to offer unbundled elements would solve the "net neutrality" debacle, permanently, and in the perfect way. This is why neither side will get it right, especially now that it's come into view of people who blather about politics (Cher? seriously?).
The left is smart. Net Neutrality isn't. Affordable Care isn't. But just the name implies somthing it's not, and low information voters get up in arms over nothing.
The last mile is literally the only thing that matters. Everything else is network operators having private negotiations with each other.
If, for example, IGcom Internet wants to bandwidth-choke NetFux unless they pay for peering, that's a private issue and the government has no damn business getting involved.
However, if IGcom Internet has a last-mile monopoly or is part of a last-mile duopoly ... now consumers in his service area don't have a choice. This is where telecom regulation is useful.
Again, though, everyone is getting it wrong. Conservatives are calling the Obama-era Net Neutrality "a government takeover of the Internet" and liberals are calling its repeal "favors to big Internet companies" without understanding what is actually going on. So now nothing will ever get done because it's just a shouting fest. At this point it's just "four legs good, two legs bad" partisan mentality.
The FCC has one legitimate job: keeping order to scarce resources such as last-mile plants and frequency spectrum. Anything they do other than that is overreach.
And that's exactly why both sides are full of shit.