micromanaging the internet

[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.

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

 

[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.

What does the FTC have to do with net neutrality?

With the removal of NN came the MOU between the FCC and the FTC giving the FTC the power to look at each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, in short all that has happened is that the agency that is micromanaging the net changed

 

[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

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?

With the removal of NN came the MOU between the FCC and the FTC giving the FTC the power to look at each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, in short all that has happened is that the agency that is micromanaging the net changed

Thanks. Still it seems to me that the logical result is the creators of data and the internet providers will become more closely related until they are one in the same. The more difficult it becomes to create a movie or television show or public education video, the worse off we are ... imo.

The founders believed one "man" with a printing press had power.

 

[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.

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

What the hell does the FTC have to do with the internet?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

What the hell does the FTC have to do with the internet?

How many times do I need to post the same thing?

With the removal of NN came the MOU between the FCC and the FTC giving the FTC the power to look at each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, in short all that has happened is that the agency that is micromanaging the net changed

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

With the removal of NN came the MOU between the FCC and the FTC giving the FTC the power to look at each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, in short all that has happened is that the agency that is micromanaging the net changed

Thanks. Still it seems to me that the logical result is the creators of data and the internet providers will become more closely related until they are one in the same. The more difficult it becomes to create a movie or television show or public education video, the worse off we are ... imo.

The founders believed one "man" with a printing press had power.

Which is why those in power are so eager to silence that "one man" any way they can.

 

[Defiant1]

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 FTC, or any department of government, should not be involved with the internet.

 

[sakinago]

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 net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

 

[sakinago]

Since when is the left concerned about micromanaging????? This is a laughable thread....A couple hundred larger issues of actual detrimental micro managing from government...and this is what they find?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ErikViking]

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 FTC, or any department of government, should not be involved with the internet.

I can see those fighter jets and satellites dropping out of the sky...

 

[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 net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

“Micro management” wasn’t necessary when technology couldn’t send or receive signals at differing speeds.

If you want things to remain as they were, you want net neutrality.

 

[Defiant1]

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 net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

Next thing you know the govt. will tell bakers what they can and can't put on a wedding cake.....

oh, wait....


I wish I tell my tv provider that I don't want CNN and MSNBC.

 

[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 net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

Next thing you know the govt. will tell bakers what they can and can't put on a wedding cake.....

oh, wait....


I wish I tell my tv provider that I don't want CNN and MSNBC.

I do not know about your provider, but I have this cool little system that lets me block any channel I do not wish to see.

 

[Defiant1]

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 net neutrality. The companies who have installed, maintained, serviced, and upgraded broadband lines probably should have a say in how they use it...the internet has been the freest market ever in creation. It was just fine before net neutrality. The problem isn’t that the companies have control of their own lines, the problem was that they got government to make sure they were the only ones to lay the lines, eliminating any competition. Now we got the worst broadband in the developed world, and it’s never been because of lack of net neutrality, or that government hasn’t done enough, it’s because government got involved, and they think they can convince us they can solve the very same problems they’ve created, by adding new ones.

The deal is that that Govt is still involved. The FTC can tell any ISP that they are being unfair and make them change. As of today if ATT decided they want to block FoxNews or ABC the FTC could tell them "no you can't do that".

How is the Govt not involved?

Next thing you know the govt. will tell bakers what they can and can't put on a wedding cake.....

oh, wait....


I wish I tell my tv provider that I don't want CNN and MSNBC.

I do not know about your provider, but I have this cool little system that lets me block any channel I do not wish to see.

I can block too, but I'm still technically a subscriber.

 

[sakinago]

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

Since when does the left care about micromanaging? Our federal register page is over 80,000 pages long...and your problem with getting rid of net neutrality (government inserting themselves where they don’t belong, trying to “fix” a problem they created...by not actually fixing it) is that it seems like it’s micromanaging....Dipshit if Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra because their traffic is what accounts for most of their broadband...they should be able to do so. Where were all these problems of so and so wanting to shut out Fox News/CNN/whatever before net neutrality????? They didn’t exist! Net neutrality is a position taken by streaming services, BC they didn’t want to pay more for the traffic their users cause, and they could blame the constant buffering on internet providers. Getting rid of net neutrality actually helps Netflix get the required amount of broadband to deal with their traffic since these companies will obviously allocate the Necessary resources to make sure the streaming happens smoothly (if they want to keep their customers). I don’t think FTC needs to give a thumbs up or down on stuff (really this was just to shut up the people crying about net neutrality who don’t know what they’re talking about), but I certainly prefer that over net neutrality.

Again 80,000 pages of regulation, you need a license for almost everything, and then have to fill out 12 forms before you can wipe your own ass, while you plug in your government approved LED lightbulb...and this is what you care about???

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Interstate commerce has always been regulated. Not sure why you're suddenly up in arms. I suspect you just need a reason to bitch at those to your right.

Whatever, carry on

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

Since when does the left care about micromanaging? Our federal register page is over 80,000 pages long...and your problem with getting rid of net neutrality (government inserting themselves where they don’t belong, trying to “fix” a problem they created...by not actually fixing it) is that it seems like it’s micromanaging....Dipshit if Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra because their traffic is what accounts for most of their broadband...they should be able to do so. Where were all these problems of so and so wanting to shut out Fox News/CNN/whatever before net neutrality????? They didn’t exist! Net neutrality is a position taken by streaming services, BC they didn’t want to pay more for the traffic their users cause, and they could blame the constant buffering on internet providers. Getting rid of net neutrality actually helps Netflix get the required amount of broadband to deal with their traffic since these companies will obviously allocate the Necessary resources to make sure the streaming happens smoothly (if they want to keep their customers). I don’t think FTC needs to give a thumbs up or down on stuff (really this was just to shut up the people crying about net neutrality who don’t know what they’re talking about), but I certainly prefer that over net neutrality.

Again 80,000 pages of regulation, you need a license for almost everything, and then have to fill out 12 forms before you can wipe your own ass, while you plug in your government approved LED lightbulb...and this is what you care about???

The left does not care about micromanaging, but I do not know what that has to do with me or this thread.

 

[koshergrl]

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

Since when does the left care about micromanaging? Our federal register page is over 80,000 pages long...and your problem with getting rid of net neutrality (government inserting themselves where they don’t belong, trying to “fix” a problem they created...by not actually fixing it) is that it seems like it’s micromanaging....Dipshit if Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra because their traffic is what accounts for most of their broadband...they should be able to do so. Where were all these problems of so and so wanting to shut out Fox News/CNN/whatever before net neutrality????? They didn’t exist! Net neutrality is a position taken by streaming services, BC they didn’t want to pay more for the traffic their users cause, and they could blame the constant buffering on internet providers. Getting rid of net neutrality actually helps Netflix get the required amount of broadband to deal with their traffic since these companies will obviously allocate the Necessary resources to make sure the streaming happens smoothly (if they want to keep their customers). I don’t think FTC needs to give a thumbs up or down on stuff (really this was just to shut up the people crying about net neutrality who don’t know what they’re talking about), but I certainly prefer that over net neutrality.

Again 80,000 pages of regulation, you need a license for almost everything, and then have to fill out 12 forms before you can wipe your own ass, while you plug in your government approved LED lightbulb...and this is what you care about???

The left does not care about micromanaging, but I do not know what that has to do with me or this thread.

Er..you are the one who keeps carping about micromanaging of the internet now that net neutrality is busted.

That's what it has to do with both you and this thread, you fucking idiot. You are the OP of this thread, and the thread title is....

"MICROMANAGING THE INTERNET"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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".

Ok, back to the OP...

Does this sounds like micromanagement or not? A simple yes or no will do.

each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

Since when does the left care about micromanaging? Our federal register page is over 80,000 pages long...and your problem with getting rid of net neutrality (government inserting themselves where they don’t belong, trying to “fix” a problem they created...by not actually fixing it) is that it seems like it’s micromanaging....Dipshit if Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra because their traffic is what accounts for most of their broadband...they should be able to do so. Where were all these problems of so and so wanting to shut out Fox News/CNN/whatever before net neutrality????? They didn’t exist! Net neutrality is a position taken by streaming services, BC they didn’t want to pay more for the traffic their users cause, and they could blame the constant buffering on internet providers. Getting rid of net neutrality actually helps Netflix get the required amount of broadband to deal with their traffic since these companies will obviously allocate the Necessary resources to make sure the streaming happens smoothly (if they want to keep their customers). I don’t think FTC needs to give a thumbs up or down on stuff (really this was just to shut up the people crying about net neutrality who don’t know what they’re talking about), but I certainly prefer that over net neutrality.

Again 80,000 pages of regulation, you need a license for almost everything, and then have to fill out 12 forms before you can wipe your own ass, while you plug in your government approved LED lightbulb...and this is what you care about???

The left does not care about micromanaging, but I do not know what that has to do with me or this thread.

Er..you are the one who keeps carping about micromanaging of the internet now that net neutrality is busted.

That's what it has to do with both you and this thread, you fucking idiot. You are the OP of this thread, and the thread title is....

"MICROMANAGING THE INTERNET"

But I am not "the left" and this thread has nothing to do with the left or the right. But too many of you people are incapable of putting aside left and right for even 5 fucking seconds.

It is truly pathetic how boxed in so many people are, everything in their life is seen through the prism of "left vs right". There is no more doing the correct thing, now it has to be political first and foremost. What a shitty way to live, I feel sorry for you