micromanaging the internet

[jillian]

There is nothing wrong in what I said. But thanks for the randian nonsense.

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.

.

 

[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".

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.

You are a liar, if you maintain net neutrality is ANYTHING but government micromanagement...and the removal of it equates "micromanagement" of the internet.

I'm sure you're a liar about a lot of other things too, but that's just the one I'm focusing on right now.

It's a lie. Net neutrality was government micromanagement of the internet. The removal of it will free up the internet. Now I understand that to you *free* means zero pesos out of the pockets of the retards you want to indoctrinate. But to me and the rest of us who chafe under government micromanagement, *free* means accessible by anybody, provided they can afford it.

Those of us who actually believe in freedom of speech and limited government don't think it's a good idea to let the feds *manage* our communications. And we don't think it's the job of the government to *give* free stuff to people who vote democrat just to get free stuff.

The net was better before obama fucked it up. And it is already better today now that we've repealed that bullshit legislation.

 

[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?

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?

You realize that your comment is a flame with no content, right?

Intelligent people speak to the points. You don't do that. You lie, and then you flame. It's against the rules, I don't know why you're still posting.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are a liar, if you maintain net neutrality is ANYTHING but government micromanagement...and the removal of it equates "micromanagement" of the internet.

I'm sure you're a liar about a lot of other things too, but that's just the one I'm focusing on right now.

It's a lie. Net neutrality was government micromanagement of the internet. .

What your little partisan mind cannot grasp is that it is possible ot replace one micromanagement with another type of micromanagement.

But hey, I do not blame you. Trump said it so in your mind it is TRUTH as Trump = TRUTH in the minds of this lemmings.

So, hey you carry on and have a great weekend

 

[ErikViking]

A question totally apart from left or right ideologies. Still unable, most people, to even see beyond who-said-what.

Net neutrality:
Government ensure ISP’s staying neutral to content.

Pros: No one will have control your utilization of the internet. Developers of services (some need to look beyond streaming media) are encouraged and will increase the capability (depth) of the internet.

Cons: ISP are less motivated to invest in infrastructure, business interests of ISP are hampered. This will counterfeit development.

Somewhat similar topics: highways, cable networks, railways and telegraphlines.

There it is. If the internet is mainly a form of entertainment to an individual I suspect net neutrality is bad. If you see internet as infrastructure it’s most likely good.

I don’t see anything here calling for the usual left/right bashing.

 

[bendog]

A question totally apart from left or right ideologies. Still unable, most people, to even see beyond who-said-what.

Net neutrality:
Government ensure ISP’s staying neutral to content.

Pros: No one will have control your utilization of the internet. Developers of services (some need to look beyond streaming media) are encouraged and will increase the capability (depth) of the internet.

Cons: ISP are less motivated to invest in infrastructure, business interests of ISP are hampered. This will counterfeit development.

Somewhat similar topics: highways, cable networks, railways and telegraphlines.

There it is. If the internet is mainly a form of entertainment to an individual I suspect net neutrality is bad. If you see internet as infrastructure it’s most likely good.

I don’t see anything here calling for the usual left/right bashing.

The libertarian change from net neutrality (and it is libertarian) will be successful if we have more forms of internet streaming like Netflix at lower cost.

 

[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

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

It wasn't a dodge it was a fact.

The net was functioning fine before. Good riddance to the law.

 

[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?

It wasn't a dodge it was a fact.

The net was functioning fine before. Good riddance to the law.

So, you do not care about what replaced it?

You do not care that the result of it being gone is now a new MOU between the FCC and the FTC giving the FTC the power of control over individual business decision?

And that folks is why we get the shit in DC that we get.

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

There wasn’t a problem because you always had “net neutrality”, but technology had advanced to the point where signal could be accelerated. That was the basis of a huge stock market scam which made billions. Some brokers were speeding up their signals so that they learned of stocks rising and falling early enough that they could buy/sell milliseconds before anyone else.

The net neutrality laws meant they could no longer do that.

 

[koshergrl]

You are a liar, if you maintain net neutrality is ANYTHING but government micromanagement...and the removal of it equates "micromanagement" of the internet.

I'm sure you're a liar about a lot of other things too, but that's just the one I'm focusing on right now.

It's a lie. Net neutrality was government micromanagement of the internet. .

What your little partisan mind cannot grasp is that it is possible ot replace one micromanagement with another type of micromanagement.

But hey, I do not blame you. Trump said it so in your mind it is TRUTH as Trump = TRUTH in the minds of this lemmings.

So, hey you carry on and have a great weekend

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'll be happy when the internet goes away and never comes back.

 

[bendog]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

it seems to me there are only two ways to go: 1) allow intenet providers like ATT to charge more to some data than to others, or 2) not allow it.

Those posting in opposition to net neutrality are dishonest in saying it's not regulation to end net neutrality. The providers who operate by government charter are simply now the regulators of content. Previously, the regulator was at a higher level, the FCC, which regulated the providers to not regulate content unless the regulations came from the FCC.

There's no deregulation at issue. The head of the FCC would prefer to end the FCC, so while he may be a libertarian whacko, he's at least consistent. LOL

And a blind duck should see where this is going. ATT bought directv. Comcast/xfinity

 

[koshergrl]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

You never made a point.
In fact, this is the closest you've come in any of our exchanges to actually supporting your idiocy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

it seems to me there are only two ways to go: 1) allow intenet providers like ATT to charge more to some data than to others, or 2) not allow it.

Those posting in opposition to net neutrality are dishonest in saying it's not regulation to end net neutrality. The providers who operate by government charter are simply now the regulators of content. Previously, the regulator was at a higher level, the FCC, which regulated the providers to not regulate content unless the regulations came from the FCC.

There's no deregulation at issue. The head of the FCC would prefer to end the FCC, so while he may be a libertarian whacko, he's at least consistent. LOL

And a blind duck should see where this is going. ATT bought directv. Comcast/xfinity

But now the FTC can say if they are being fair or not. And the FTC is headed by a political appointee. One has to wonder if this will come down to which of the telecoms gives the most in campaign donations.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

You never made a point.
In fact, this is the closest you've come in any of our exchanges to actually supporting your idiocy.

I have stated my point repeatedly, you are just too partisan to see it. Partisan hacks are not known for their intelligence or open mindedness.

 

[koshergrl]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

it seems to me there are only two ways to go: 1) allow intenet providers like ATT to charge more to some data than to others, or 2) not allow it.

Those posting in opposition to net neutrality are dishonest in saying it's not regulation to end net neutrality. The providers who operate by government charter are simply now the regulators of content. Previously, the regulator was at a higher level, the FCC, which regulated the providers to not regulate content unless the regulations came from the FCC.

There's no deregulation at issue. The head of the FCC would prefer to end the FCC, so while he may be a libertarian whacko, he's at least consistent. LOL

And a blind duck should see where this is going. ATT bought directv. Comcast/xfinity

But now the FTC can say if they are being fair or not. And the FTC is headed by a political appointee. One has to wonder if this will come down to which of the telecoms gives the most in campaign donations.

That's what we had under net neutrality.

 

[koshergrl]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

You never made a point.
In fact, this is the closest you've come in any of our exchanges to actually supporting your idiocy.

I have stated my point repeatedly, you are just too partisan to see it. Partisan hacks are not known for their intelligence or open mindedness.

No, you didn't state that point. You just kept parroting the idiocy that the elimination of government micromanagement would result in micromanagement...without justifying or explaining it.

And you still haven't justified it. Your argument just seems to be "everything is micromanagement".

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

it seems to me there are only two ways to go: 1) allow intenet providers like ATT to charge more to some data than to others, or 2) not allow it.

Those posting in opposition to net neutrality are dishonest in saying it's not regulation to end net neutrality. The providers who operate by government charter are simply now the regulators of content. Previously, the regulator was at a higher level, the FCC, which regulated the providers to not regulate content unless the regulations came from the FCC.

There's no deregulation at issue. The head of the FCC would prefer to end the FCC, so while he may be a libertarian whacko, he's at least consistent. LOL

And a blind duck should see where this is going. ATT bought directv. Comcast/xfinity

But now the FTC can say if they are being fair or not. And the FTC is headed by a political appointee. One has to wonder if this will come down to which of the telecoms gives the most in campaign donations.

That's what we had under net neutrality.

No, really it was not. Under NN everything had to be the same speed, period. A company could not choose to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have no idea what Trump said lol. I think you pay more attention to him than I do.

My point is net neutrality is the DEFINITION of *micromanagement*. If you don't like micromanagement, then you can't like net neutrality.

Which is a perfect picture of your dishonesty and propaganda generation...you pretend that you find *micromanagement* offensive..yet you maintain net neutrality is the way to go.

You parrot his words every day, but I am sure it is just coincidence.

Plus you lie like he does, so you and him have much in common.

I have never, not once, not ever, said that NN is the way to go. That is just a bull shit lie you keep telling so you can get your righteous indignation high on for the day. You are an incredibly dishonest person.

My point is that replacing one form of micromanagement with another form of micromanagement is not an improvement. But that point is way beyond your ability to comprehend as it did not come to you in the GOP talking points email.

it seems to me there are only two ways to go: 1) allow intenet providers like ATT to charge more to some data than to others, or 2) not allow it.

Those posting in opposition to net neutrality are dishonest in saying it's not regulation to end net neutrality. The providers who operate by government charter are simply now the regulators of content. Previously, the regulator was at a higher level, the FCC, which regulated the providers to not regulate content unless the regulations came from the FCC.

There's no deregulation at issue. The head of the FCC would prefer to end the FCC, so while he may be a libertarian whacko, he's at least consistent. LOL

And a blind duck should see where this is going. ATT bought directv. Comcast/xfinity

But now the FTC can say if they are being fair or not. And the FTC is headed by a political appointee. One has to wonder if this will come down to which of the telecoms gives the most in campaign donations.

What does the FTC have to do with net neutrality?