Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality

[Quantum Windbag]

As I said earlier, NO ONE can be in favor of removing Net Neutrality for any other reason than they feel that the major ISPs should be able to make as much money as possible, even at the expense at the higher costs for consumers and small business. It's a win ONLY for select big business, and no one else.

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

Bolded:

So what you're saying is that what everyone sees currently is not reality? The current internet is not real and therefore cannot be continued?

Which did you take? The red or blue pill

No, I am saying that you are wrong. Don't try to pretend that everyone thinks exactly the same way you do, that only works in fiction.

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is no monopoly.. and the government does not exist to give you a better net experience on privately owned networks and equipment

whats the benefit again?

You don't get government intervention into private business because you want some particular benefit from it.. sorry

The benefit.. private property rights.. something very important in a free society

So you dislike your current internet?

How does private property rights help the consumer in this regard?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

Bolded:

So what you're saying is that what everyone sees currently is not reality? The current internet is not real and therefore cannot be continued?

Which did you take? The red or blue pill

No, I am saying that you are wrong. Don't try to pretend that everyone thinks exactly the same way you do, that only works in fiction.

everyone has said they like the internet the way it currently is. Do you dislike the current setup?

Because Net Neutrality makes that possible. So dont tell me Net Neutrality cant happen. THATS WHAT WE HAVE NOW

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I said earlier, NO ONE can be in favor of removing Net Neutrality for any other reason than they feel that the major ISPs should be able to make as much money as possible, even at the expense at the higher costs for consumers and small business. It's a win ONLY for select big business, and no one else.

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bolded:

So what you're saying is that what everyone sees currently is not reality? The current internet is not real and therefore cannot be continued?

Which did you take? The red or blue pill

No, I am saying that you are wrong. Don't try to pretend that everyone thinks exactly the same way you do, that only works in fiction.

everyone has said they like the internet the way it currently is. Do you dislike the current setup?

Because Net Neutrality makes that possible. So dont tell me Net Neutrality cant happen. THATS WHAT WE HAVE NOW

I am not the one that is insisting the government needs to fix it, you are.

I never said net neutrality cannot happen, I said that, in the US, it does not exist. I actually provided you with a government regulated way to achieve your goals, and you insisted I don't know what I am talking about because you already have the answers.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

 

[Meister]

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

 

[Plasmaball]

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

1) any google search ( in so long as it loads fast enough) will show you that NN did or does exist.

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

note the title.

No matter what you think of network neutrality — for it, against it, it’s complicated, who cares — the fact that a federal court just struck down most of the FCC’s net neutrality rules is clearly cause for concern.

This is the first sentence in the piece. NN does exist, so until you understand this simple concept we cant go any further.

 

[Plasmaball]

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

well no, this isnt correct either, but typical you would be wrong as usual.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Not sure what all the arguments are here Because i didn't read all the thread but as far as i can tell FCC made a policy statement in 05 that covers this and keeps it simple.


. Moreover, to ensure that
broadband networks are widely de
ployed, open, affordable, and accessible to all consumers, the
Commission adopts the following principles:
•
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet
, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice.
•
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet
, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
•
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet,
consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that
do not harm the network.
13
•
To encourage broadband deployment and preserve
and promote the open and interconnected
nature of the public Internet
, consumers are entitled to comp
etition among network providers,
application and service provide
rs, and content providers

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/FCC-05-151A1.pdf

 

[Meister]

And he punts!

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

well no, this isnt correct either, but typical you would be wrong as usual.

We'll just have to see if for some strange reason our computers slow down, huh? You guys are a bunch of goofballs.
Nothing has changed from last week where my computer is just as fast as it was then and I'm pretty darn sure that it will be as fast if not faster in the future.

 

[RDD_1210]

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

LOL ok old man. You're clueless, but please continue to give your expert opinion.

 

[RDD_1210]

Actually, what he's stating went right over your head, IMO.

well no, this isnt correct either, but typical you would be wrong as usual.

We'll just have to see if for some strange reason our computers slow down, huh? You guys are a bunch of goofballs.
Nothing has changed from last week where my computer is just as fast as it was then and I'm pretty darn sure that it will be as fast if not faster in the future.

Is this serious???

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why the fuck do you keep talking like an idiot? Net neutrality, as you want it, does not exist in the United States, so it cannot be removed. The only possible way to change the situation is to add it, yet you keep blathering about not wanting to change the way things are.

Don't worry though, I don't understand the issues because, they are literally impossible to understand for anyone that is rational.

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

Net Neutrality does exist its responsible for the internet as you currently enjoy it.

Dude you are arguing about something you believe is NOT in place. IT IS. NET NEUTRALITY IS WHY THE INTERNET IS THE WAY IT IS NOW.

Thats why we are confused why you are against it. you're really not. You are for it but you (for some reason) believe that its not really there

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

Here is a hypothetical graph that could happen if Net Neutrality is taken away

 

[Spiderman]

Most of the tens of thousands of laws passed by the federal government can't be enforced.

 

[Clementine]

Good grief, it's amazing how some panic when government doesn't have control over something. What to do? Libs are in a panic. How horrible would it be if they couldn't copy and paste the daily talking points as quickly? I think we'll survive.

Ask yourself, "Can I trust my cable provider to be fair?" they were suing for the right to be as unfair as they want and to squeeze more money from us and by god you guys took their side over the American consumer, how screwed up is that?

I trust the private sector more than government. Question is, can we trust the bureaucrats, some who support things like the 'Fairness Doctrine' where they want to control info? Obama himself said there is too much information out there. He started AttackWatch so people could report thought crimes.

In the private sector, if you don't like the practices of a business, you go elsewhere or start your own business and make rules you think are fair. Competition means everyone can find something they like. You are not obligated to support any business. With government, it's their way or the highway and you have no choice.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good grief, it's amazing how some panic when government doesn't have control over something. What to do? Libs are in a panic. How horrible would it be if they couldn't copy and paste the daily talking points as quickly? I think we'll survive.

Ask yourself, "Can I trust my cable provider to be fair?" they were suing for the right to be as unfair as they want and to squeeze more money from us and by god you guys took their side over the American consumer, how screwed up is that?

I trust the private sector more than government. Question is, can we trust the bureaucrats, some who support things like the 'Fairness Doctrine' where they want to control info? Obama himself said there is too much information out there. He started AttackWatch so people could report thought crimes.

In the private sector, if you don't like the practices of a business, you go elsewhere or start your own business and make rules you think are fair. Competition means everyone can find something they like. You are not obligated to support any business. With government, it's their way or the highway and you have no choice.

Bolded: The govt doesnt want to control the info they are promoting NO CONTROL. Promoting equal treatment of all websites.

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

And he punts!

Wow.

Just, wow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

1) any google search ( in so long as it loads fast enough) will show you that NN did or does exist.

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet | Wired Opinion | Wired.com

The Feds Lost on Net Neutrality, But Won Control of the Internet

note the title.

No matter what you think of network neutrality — for it, against it, it’s complicated, who cares — the fact that a federal court just struck down most of the FCC’s net neutrality rules is clearly cause for concern.

This is the first sentence in the piece. NN does exist, so until you understand this simple concept we cant go any further.

Let me get this straight, that title, and the first sentence of the opinion piece, says that there is no net neutrality, and that the federal government regulates the internet, both of which are the points I have made, and that somehow proves me wrong.

It then goes on to argue that the FCC is going to ruin everything, and that we need less government on the internet, which, once again, is my position.

One of us is really confused, and it ain't the windbag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is literally no one more full of themselves and absolutely clueless at the same time on subject after subject than you are.

I'll ask two simple questions. You can answer whichever one, or both, that you want.

1) How will consumers benefit by removing Net Neutrality?

2) What did you not like about the way the net was structured and operated before last week from a consumer perspective?

Simple answers.

1. Net neutrality would have to exist before you can remove it. since it doesn't, asking me how it would help to remove it means that all I have to do is point at the very thing you are arguing not to change.
2. Nothing changed last week, or this week the exact same bad policy existed last week as exists now.

Net Neutrality does exist its responsible for the internet as you currently enjoy it.

Dude you are arguing about something you believe is NOT in place. IT IS. NET NEUTRALITY IS WHY THE INTERNET IS THE WAY IT IS NOW.

Thats why we are confused why you are against it. you're really not. You are for it but you (for some reason) believe that its not really there

Basically, the idea behind it is that big internet service providers, like Comcast, should have to treat all websites and all internet users equally, and should not be allowed to promote some forms of content over others.

For example, with net-neutrality rules in place, Comcast wouldn't be able to slow down your access or charge more for your access to ESPN.com, just because they wanted you to use a sports news website that they own and operate.

Let's Talk About a World Without Net Neutrality

Here is a hypothetical graph that could happen if Net Neutrality is taken away

Tell you what, why don't you go read the decision that you think is so bad and show me where it will cause the rresult that isn't going to happen. Just be sure to stop reading it before the court goes out of its way to give the FCC the power to do exactly what you claim the internet needs to prevent the thing you hate.

In other words, you are arguing against a decision that gives you exactly what you want, doesn't actually do what you are afraid of, and hasn't changed a fucking thing. But you still want me to be afraid because the internet, which is just as fucked up by the government now as it was last week, is going to explode because the government is not fucking it up.