micromanaging the internet

[Dragonlady]

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

So the response is take the rest from working people and hand everything to the people who then put MORE money in savings?

That isn't very smart

No one is arguing for that response. Where did you get that?

No one is saying that the working people should be taxed to give fuck all to the rich. If you were competent in statistics you would know that the case is exactly opposite by a huge margin. The rich pay vast amount of taxes and in fact get harmful effects for it by funding groups that want to destroy them.

And I might make a small addition, some very very hard leftists care also about destroying those who have more than they have, even if there is no benefit, in order to aid their reproductive chances. This is called politics of envy.

Really? That's silly. It's exactly what this new tax "plan" does.

Completely wrong. The plan cuts taxes for almost everyone. The rich will still pay the overwhelming amount of taxes, and the poor get the overwhelming benefits.

Anyway, I have no problem with increasing taxes on the bottom 50% who pay nothing. How is it that they get to make decisions for other people and vote benefits for themselves while having no skin of their own in the game? Full benefits with no responsibility works nowhere.

This is the bullshit post of the year. These people are working for slaves wages that keeps them beholding to government and makes them jump through a lot of pointlessly shaming behaviours like drug testing to get it.

Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money spent with a net savings to the taxpayers, after paying for the testing is approximately MINUS $900,000

Google every state this is tried in and it’s a money loser for the taxpayer. You know who it wins money for? Some drug testing facility with money in the pockets of your local Republican Senator who voted for it.

Every wave of Airport Security you know go through that makes going to the airport an even larger living hell, which it already was before 9/11 is now part of Homeland Security and the selling of scanning and screening equipment which is donating money to the Republican Party.

“Security” systems and weaponizing police forces are the new wave in government spending as fewer wars are being fought abroad.

 

[koshergrl]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Micromanagement goes on with net neutrality.

Naturally the disingenuous, lying left pretends exactly the opposite.

"in seeking to regulate the internet, these proposals "will jeopardize it -- and stifle further investments by ISPs -- with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace."


"As we have noted previously, “network neutrality” would provide the federal government extensive power to mandate how businesses can provide Internet service to their consumers. Innovation and investment in the Internet has occurred due to an absence of government regulation and interference. Allowing the government to step in to impose mandates on network management would represent a dangerous precedent in terms of Internet regulation and a clear infringement of private property rights by government. "

"Make no mistake: this will result in private industry ceasing to build infrastructure - next step, government steps in to solve the problem it just created with public spending and the necessary control of networks: "Now all your bandwidth are belong to Genachowski"."

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

 

[koshergrl]

"If government regulation of the internet is imposed, it will mean the death of flexibility and innovation, will lead to slower services, and worse performance for everyone. "

Washington Post On Net Neutrality: Unnecessary, Stifling, Micromanagement

 

[g5000]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Dumbest post this week. Congratulations.

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Dumbest post this week. Congratulations.

You mean the gal on the picture.

Yes she isn't very smart. But you aren't either so perhaps you shouldn't make such statements.

 

[g5000]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

When ComCast, owner of MSNBC, decides to block the Fox News web site, all the pseudocon tards will suddenly grasp just what big idiots they are.

 

[g5000]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Dumbest post this week. Congratulations.

You mean the gal on the picture.

Yes she isn't very smart. But you aren't either so perhaps you shouldn't make such statements.

"Duhhhhh, I don't like her looks, so she must be wrong."

It just doesn't get more retarded than that, kids.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

When ComCast, owner of MSNBC, decides to block the Fox News web site, all the pseudocon tards will suddenly grasp just what big idiots they are.

They will not block it, they will just make it part of a very expensive package as they know the FoxNews junkies will pay to keep it

 

[g5000]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

When ComCast, owner of MSNBC, decides to block the Fox News web site, all the pseudocon tards will suddenly grasp just what big idiots they are.

They will not block it, they will just make it part of a very expensive package as they know the FoxNews junkies will pay to keep it

I've been saying for years that the pseudocons deserve to be lied to by their propagandists.

They also deserve to PAY to be lied to.

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Dumbest post this week. Congratulations.

You mean the gal on the picture.

Yes she isn't very smart. But you aren't either so perhaps you shouldn't make such statements.

"Duhhhhh, I don't like her looks, so she must be wrong."

It just doesn't get more retarded than that, kids.

You have trouble reading what I said. In all cases where a person looking like that has protested, she has turned out to be obscenely wrong. That doesn't mean I am certain that she is wrong, but given her looks it just makes it very likely.

Get to know basic statistics and how heuristics work. I can't help you if you are uneducated as fuck.

 

[bendog]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Hey listen up bud. This is called DEREGULATION where the internet providers can control what you or me see. It's about CAPITALISM. fREEDOM. !

Hail Trump. LOL

 

[koshergrl]

Net neutrality IS government micromanagement.
When the lying commie propagandist OP says things like "we must have net neutrality to prevent micromanagement!" what he means is "net neutrality is micromanagement by the feds".

He keeps repeating the lie because net neutrality is government micromanagement of the internet. Think China and N. Korea. So in keeping with commie strategies, he just takes the truth and pretends it's those who want free speech and a free internet who are the *micromanagers*.

Sadly, the stupid people who haven't got the sense to actually look at these issues believe whatever drops into their ears. Commies know that. That's why their strategy of *lie, lie, and lie some more* works with the state-dependent masses.

".....a more hands-off regulatory approach will fuel investment from internet service providers."

“You need to have light touch, market-based regulation, not micromanagement from Washington, D.C."

FCC chief: Critics of net neutrality rollback overstate fears

 

[koshergrl]

Why is the sky continually falling with you people? Something from your childhood?

Gads I wish it would just squish them so we could enjoy life again.

 

[koshergrl]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

When ComCast, owner of MSNBC, decides to block the Fox News web site, all the pseudocon tards will suddenly grasp just what big idiots they are.

They will not block it, they will just make it part of a very expensive package as they know the FoxNews junkies will pay to keep it

I've been saying for years that the pseudocons deserve to be lied to by their propagandists.

They also deserve to PAY to be lied to.

Irony. Well, it's ironic to me.
I know that you expect people to believe you, so it isn't truly ironic for you..it's just dishonesty on your end.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Net neutrality IS government micromanagement.
When the lying commie propagandist OP says things like "we must have net neutrality to prevent micromanagement!" what he means is "net neutrality is micromanagement by the feds".

Interesting that you call me a liar and then lie about me and the OP of this thread. Why do you do that? Do you assume it is ok for you to lie since you are doing it for a "good cause"? Do you think that you are above the rules you seem to think others should follow.

In the very first thread on this topic I stated I supported the removal the NN rules. The point of this thread was not to support NN but to point out the lie that it is somehow less micromanaging.

I am not shocked at all that someone who needs to lie as often as you do would totally miss that point.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

Why can nobody answer a simple question?

It is almost as if people are afraid of the answer as it would burst their little partisan bubbles.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

Why can nobody answer a simple question?

It is almost as if people are afraid of the answer as it would burst their little partisan bubbles.

I gave you the only answer needed. If you don't like it too bad

 

[Pete7469]

Everything done by that meat puppet faggot was a deliberate act of malice.

I've been convinced of that for years now. If anything the democrook party did improved the life of anyone who isn't a billionaire democrook donor please point them out to me. As more and more of the meat puppet's policies are wiped out, the more prosperous the country appears to be.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

The internet was going to HIGHER SPEEDS, UNLIMITED DATA AND NO THROTTLING before the law was even passed.
In my area alone you could get speeds up to 1000 with no caps or throttling for 90 bucks. BEFORE this law. I opted for 300 for just under 60.

Competition between providers advances customer satisfaction & choices not government intervention.

Why can nobody answer a simple question?

It is almost as if people are afraid of the answer as it would burst their little partisan bubbles.

I gave you the only answer needed. If you don't like it too bad

The answer you gave had nothing to do with the question I asked. It was a dodge, I wonder why that is?