micromanaging the internet

[koshergrl]

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

Just because you say you aren't left doesn't mean you aren't.

I see morons like you all the time. Internet trolls who pretend to be neutral themselves. They are without exception either anarchists or progressive douchebags. I.e., leftists. Pretending to be something other than what they are, so they can pull the country ever further to the left.

Care does the same shit. Pretends to be a *moderate*. Pretends to be a Catholic who believes in abortion....You idiots always pull the "Who me? You can't pin me down to any ideology" garbage and can't believe that people don't believe you.

Psst...we've seen it before. Many, many, many times. You aren't that clever, you aren't that original, and you certainly aren't fooling anybody.

 

[sakinago]

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.

So...you’re defending a bill, that was created by google for google (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon), that petitioned government to not let ISPs have control of their broadband pathways they spent billions investing in..,and you’re claiming the alternative to that bill(this bill has only been around 2 years), which is rolling back two years ago, and government staying out of the way of multi billion dollar corporations fueds...a feud that actually made Netflix (who was using a full THIRD OF ALL BANDWITH) streaming service better. Somehow that (having government come in to help out soon to be trillion dollar Corp google) is not micromanaging to you...but getting government out of the way when it comes to ISPs having control of the ISP billion dollar infastrure they built is....just because people were crying about a problem THAT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (since it would be a terrible business model to choke off sites), so FTC says we won’t let Verizon/Comcast/etc. choke out Fox News/ CNN/Porn hub/ etc. Again there’s 80,000 pages of regulation...and this is what you’re complaining about?

Believe me, I have no love for ISPs. The reason our internet sucks but is still super expensive compared to the rest of the world, is that they went to government, to get regulation passed in their favor, to get rid of competition....just like google with net neutrality. And instead of addressing that issue, getting government to stop choking out competition in ISPs, your answer is more government involvement, not even addressing the original problems in the first place.

There was nothing neutral about net neutrality. The internet is probably the least regulated industry in existence, and is a shining example of what the free market system is capable of...when you leave it alone. So instead of having billion dollar corps, tattling on each other, and having government fight their battles for them...we should be telling government, get the F out of the way, the leaders at these corps are smarter than 90% of you law makers and officials anyway, let them figure it out, and let the people vote on with their dollars on what they like better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Just because you say you aren't left doesn't mean you aren't.

I see morons like you all the time. Internet trolls who pretend to be neutral themselves. They are without exception either anarchists or progressive douchebags. I.e., leftists. Pretending to be something other than what they are, so they can pull the country ever further to the left.

Care does the same shit. Pretends to be a *moderate*. Pretends to be a Catholic who believes in abortion....You idiots always pull the "Who me? You can't pin me down to any ideology" garbage and can't believe that people don't believe you.

Psst...we've seen it before. Many, many, many times. You aren't that clever, you aren't that original, and you certainly aren't fooling anybody.

I love it when a person confirms just how blinded by their partisanship they really are. I do not really care if you call me "left" because I understand in your fucked up world view there is only right and left, there is nothing else. And since I am not licknig the ass of Trump daily like you do on this board, I have to be left in your world.

Who gives a shit what you think of them?

 

[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.

So...you’re defending a bill, that was created by google for google (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon), that petitioned government to not let ISPs have control of their broadband pathways they spent billions investing in..,and you’re claiming the alternative to that bill(this bill has only been around 2 years), which is rolling back two years ago, and government staying out of the way of multi billion dollar corporations fueds...a feud that actually made Netflix (who was using a full THIRD OF ALL BANDWITH) streaming service better. Somehow that (having government come in to help out soon to be trillion dollar Corp google) is not micromanaging to you...but getting government out of the way when it comes to ISPs having control of the ISP billion dollar infastrure they built is....just because people were crying about a problem THAT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (since it would be a terrible business model to choke off sites), so FTC says we won’t let Verizon/Comcast/etc. choke out Fox News/ CNN/Porn hub/ etc. Again there’s 80,000 pages of regulation...and this is what you’re complaining about?

Believe me, I have no love for ISPs. The reason our internet sucks but is still super expensive compared to the rest of the world, is that they went to government, to get regulation passed in their favor, to get rid of competition....just like google with net neutrality. And instead of addressing that issue, getting government to stop choking out competition in ISPs, your answer is more government involvement, not even addressing the original problems in the first place.

There was nothing neutral about net neutrality. The internet is probably the least regulated industry in existence, and is a shining example of what the free market system is capable of...when you leave it alone. So instead of having billion dollar corps, tattling on each other, and having government fight their battles for them...we should be telling government, get the F out of the way, the leaders at these corps are smarter than 90% of you law makers and officials anyway, let them figure it out, and let the people vote on with their dollars on what they like better.

One more time, typed really slow so maybe you will understand...

I DID NOT DEFEND SHIT. I have stated at least 10 times on this forum that I support the removal of NN. I am not sure how in your world that equates to defending.

Also, I have said multiple times on this thread alone that NN was micromanaging. I never said it was not. why do you keep fucking lieing about this shit?

What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that the removal of NN does not mean the Govt is getting out of the way. That was just a diversion so people like you would cheer in the streets while all that happened was that the micromanaging was shifted from the FCC to the FTC and it is even more "micro" now than it was before.

Is that clear enough or do I need to get some crayons and draw you a picture?

 

[sakinago]

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.

So...you’re defending a bill, that was created by google for google (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon), that petitioned government to not let ISPs have control of their broadband pathways they spent billions investing in..,and you’re claiming the alternative to that bill(this bill has only been around 2 years), which is rolling back two years ago, and government staying out of the way of multi billion dollar corporations fueds...a feud that actually made Netflix (who was using a full THIRD OF ALL BANDWITH) streaming service better. Somehow that (having government come in to help out soon to be trillion dollar Corp google) is not micromanaging to you...but getting government out of the way when it comes to ISPs having control of the ISP billion dollar infastrure they built is....just because people were crying about a problem THAT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE (since it would be a terrible business model to choke off sites), so FTC says we won’t let Verizon/Comcast/etc. choke out Fox News/ CNN/Porn hub/ etc. Again there’s 80,000 pages of regulation...and this is what you’re complaining about?

Believe me, I have no love for ISPs. The reason our internet sucks but is still super expensive compared to the rest of the world, is that they went to government, to get regulation passed in their favor, to get rid of competition....just like google with net neutrality. And instead of addressing that issue, getting government to stop choking out competition in ISPs, your answer is more government involvement, not even addressing the original problems in the first place.

There was nothing neutral about net neutrality. The internet is probably the least regulated industry in existence, and is a shining example of what the free market system is capable of...when you leave it alone. So instead of having billion dollar corps, tattling on each other, and having government fight their battles for them...we should be telling government, get the F out of the way, the leaders at these corps are smarter than 90% of you law makers and officials anyway, let them figure it out, and let the people vote on with their dollars on what they like better.

One more time, typed really slow so maybe you will understand...

I DID NOT DEFEND SHIT. I have stated at least 10 times on this forum that I support the removal of NN. I am not sure how in your world that equates to defending.

Also, I have said multiple times on this thread alone that NN was micromanaging. I never said it was not. why do you keep fucking lieing about this shit?

What you seem to be incapable of understanding is that the removal of NN does not mean the Govt is getting out of the way. That was just a diversion so people like you would cheer in the streets while all that happened was that the micromanaging was shifted from the FCC to the FTC and it is even more "micro" now than it was before.

Is that clear enough or do I need to get some crayons and draw you a picture?

I never saw in your reply’s that you weren’t defending...but this is way better than NN, and the “micromanaging” as you call it is just there to shut people up about having Verizon choke out Fox News or whatever.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I never saw in your reply’s that you weren’t defending...but this is way better than NN, and the “micromanaging” as you call it is just there to shut people up about having Verizon choke out Fox News or whatever.

I tend to belive that if you give the government the power to do something, eventually they will. So right now it may not be an issue, but that could change drastically when someone different is sitting in the White House.

 

[Kondor3]

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?...

Under Net-Neutrality rules, you just couldn't do those things. Simple. No additional fuss required.

Under Drumpf-Kiss-Corporate-Ass Rules, you have to run it past a Big Bureaucracy. Complicated. Unnecessary additional moving parts. Window dressing.

...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 Drumpf Rules sound more like micromanaging.

Not to mention that these koksukkers in Congress just bent the American Consumer (of Internet services) over a barrel in preparation for a gangbang by Big Telecom.

 

[sakinago]

I never saw in your reply’s that you weren’t defending...but this is way better than NN, and the “micromanaging” as you call it is just there to shut people up about having Verizon choke out Fox News or whatever.

I tend to belive that if you give the government the power to do something, eventually they will. So right now it may not be an issue, but that could change drastically when someone different is sitting in the White House.

I’d agree with you, but what’s stopping the next person from just reinstating NN? I don’t want to call this a necessary evil, but it does kind of render NN moot, without too much government involvement. This is just to say, “you want NN BC you’re worried about so and so shutting so and and so down? Well we’ll keep an eye on it and make sure there’s nothing agregious is going on...therefore we don’t need NN.”

 

[TNHarley]

Gosh guys. Thanks for reminding me how shitty the internet was a couple years ago

 

[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?...

Under Net-Neutrality rules, you just couldn't do those things. Simple. No additional fuss required.

Under Drumpf-Kiss-Corporate-Ass Rules, you have to run it past a Big Bureaucracy. Complicated. Unnecessary additional moving parts. Window dressing.

...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 Drumpf Rules sound more like micromanaging.

Not to mention that these koksukkers in Congress just bent the American Consumer (of Internet services) over a barrel in preparation for a gangbang by Big Telecom.

NN was made by google, for google (as well as Netflix, Hulu, and any other company using up ungodly amounts of bandwidth, Netflix made up a 3rd of all bandwidth by themselves). NN WAS KISSING CORPORATE ASS, and it was having government come in and say to ISPs (who spent billions of dollars investing in their broadband lines) “you have to accommodate Netflix, Google, etc, and treat them just like little boy peep.com site over here...and not like the giant bandwith gobblers they are.” We’re talking about government lending a helping hand to soon to be trillion dollar corps, over billion dollar corps. This did nothing to help the averages joes like you and me. What it did was drive our internet prices up, as well as slowing down our speeds, since ISPs don’t just magically gain more bandwidth, they have to allocate vast resources to cover our outrageous streaming demands...guess where that costs falls...in your internet bill...while Netflix and googles are doing the mambo.

NN did not address any real issues with our internet...issues that directly stem from government regulation helping ISPs choke out competition. I have no love for ISPs, but the answer to the problem created by government regulation in favor of the big boys, WAS NOT MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION IN FAVOR OF THE BIG BOYS.

You people act like the internet was some apocalyptic wasteland before NN...sheesh

 

[Dragonlady]

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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

 

[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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

They’ve always had that power, and there’s only been a single case of them using it...with Netflix, who uses up a third of ALL broadband...out of all the bandwidth in the internet, it’s attributed to one site. To compensate for that site, it costs ISPs millions...and after they told Netflix to buck up some money to compensate for the outrageous amount of bandwidth (using their own special “lanes”), Netflix got faster. What a concept.

This has nothing to do with ISPs pounding internet companies into submission...it’s internet companies shifting fiscal responsibility to ISPs, even though the ISPs are the ones paying to keep the bandwidth at a useable level. Which costs A LOT of money. Google wrote this bill, and it wasn’t out of the kindness of their heart. There was nothing neutral about NN.

This is like a company building a canal, and having problems with HUGE barges taking up all of the room in the canal, and creating all sorts of wakes for all the little fishing vessels out there, and slowing up traffic in the canal for everyone else.Then the company says to the huge barges, yo we have to build you a separate canal, because this isn’t working, but we ain’t doing it for free. And then the big barges go to the government and say, stop them, we want to be treated just like little fishing boats. And government says ok, hey canal company, don’t make them pay, you guys have to pay to widen the entire canal (which is an even bigger more expensive project than a seperate canal), and now we’re stuck with big barges creating wakes and taking up space and slowing traffic for everyone else...and the canal company shifts the cost by taxing the consumers extra...because surprise, it’s still a business. A struggling one at that (at least with cable dying off, and especially compared to the “big barges shipping companies”)

 

[koshergrl]

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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

They’ve always had that power, and there’s only been a single case of them using it...with Netflix, who uses up a third of ALL broadband...out of all the bandwidth in the internet, it’s attributed to one site. To compensate for that site, it costs ISPs millions...and after they told Netflix to buck up some money to compensate for the outrageous amount of bandwidth (using their own special “lanes”), Netflix got faster. What a concept.

This has nothing to do with ISPs pounding internet companies into submission...it’s internet companies shifting fiscal responsibility to ISPs, even though the ISPs are the ones paying to keep the bandwidth at a useable level. Which costs A LOT of money. Google wrote this bill, and it wasn’t out of the kindness of their heart. There was nothing neutral about NN.

This is like a company building a canal, and having problems with HUGE barges taking up all of the room in the canal, and creating all sorts of wakes for all the little fishing vessels out there, and slowing up traffic in the canal for everyone else.Then the company says to the huge barges, yo we have to build you a separate canal, because this isn’t working, but we ain’t doing it for free. And then the big barges go to the government and say, stop them, we want to be treated just like little fishing boats. And government says ok, hey canal company, don’t make them pay, you guys have to pay to widen the entire canal (which is an even bigger more expensive project than a seperate canal), and now we’re stuck with big barges creating wakes and taking up space and slowing traffic for everyone else...and the canal company shifts the cost by taxing the consumers extra...because surprise, it’s still a business. A struggling one at that (at least with cable dying off, and especially compared to the “big barges shipping companies”)

Blah blah blah no fair. Blah blah blah poor people want the same shit rich ppl have.

 

[sakinago]

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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

They’ve always had that power, and there’s only been a single case of them using it...with Netflix, who uses up a third of ALL broadband...out of all the bandwidth in the internet, it’s attributed to one site. To compensate for that site, it costs ISPs millions...and after they told Netflix to buck up some money to compensate for the outrageous amount of bandwidth (using their own special “lanes”), Netflix got faster. What a concept.

This has nothing to do with ISPs pounding internet companies into submission...it’s internet companies shifting fiscal responsibility to ISPs, even though the ISPs are the ones paying to keep the bandwidth at a useable level. Which costs A LOT of money. Google wrote this bill, and it wasn’t out of the kindness of their heart. There was nothing neutral about NN.

This is like a company building a canal, and having problems with HUGE barges taking up all of the room in the canal, and creating all sorts of wakes for all the little fishing vessels out there, and slowing up traffic in the canal for everyone else.Then the company says to the huge barges, yo we have to build you a separate canal, because this isn’t working, but we ain’t doing it for free. And then the big barges go to the government and say, stop them, we want to be treated just like little fishing boats. And government says ok, hey canal company, don’t make them pay, you guys have to pay to widen the entire canal (which is an even bigger more expensive project than a seperate canal), and now we’re stuck with big barges creating wakes and taking up space and slowing traffic for everyone else...and the canal company shifts the cost by taxing the consumers extra...because surprise, it’s still a business. A struggling one at that (at least with cable dying off, and especially compared to the “big barges shipping companies”)

Blah blah blah no fair. Blah blah blah poor people want the same shit rich ppl have.

What are you talking about?

 

[Dragonlady]

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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

They’ve always had that power, and there’s only been a single case of them using it...with Netflix, who uses up a third of ALL broadband...out of all the bandwidth in the internet, it’s attributed to one site. To compensate for that site, it costs ISPs millions...and after they told Netflix to buck up some money to compensate for the outrageous amount of bandwidth (using their own special “lanes”), Netflix got faster. What a concept.

This has nothing to do with ISPs pounding internet companies into submission...it’s internet companies shifting fiscal responsibility to ISPs, even though the ISPs are the ones paying to keep the bandwidth at a useable level. Which costs A LOT of money. Google wrote this bill, and it wasn’t out of the kindness of their heart. There was nothing neutral about NN.

This is like a company building a canal, and having problems with HUGE barges taking up all of the room in the canal, and creating all sorts of wakes for all the little fishing vessels out there, and slowing up traffic in the canal for everyone else.Then the company says to the huge barges, yo we have to build you a separate canal, because this isn’t working, but we ain’t doing it for free. And then the big barges go to the government and say, stop them, we want to be treated just like little fishing boats. And government says ok, hey canal company, don’t make them pay, you guys have to pay to widen the entire canal (which is an even bigger more expensive project than a seperate canal), and now we’re stuck with big barges creating wakes and taking up space and slowing traffic for everyone else...and the canal company shifts the cost by taxing the consumers extra...because surprise, it’s still a business. A struggling one at that (at least with cable dying off, and especially compared to the “big barges shipping companies”)

Blah blah blah no fair. Blah blah blah poor people want the same shit rich ppl have.

You have just proven your own idiocy. We want the internet to function smoothly. It’s bad enough that paying sites pop up sooner and faster on google, now you’re going to let dollars and cents dictate which sites load faster.

Conservative and uninformed is no way to go through life.

 

[sakinago]

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".

What we have explained, more than once, is that “net neutrality” was lost when providers recently gained the ability to send some signals faster than others. Websites which pay extra load faster. Those that don’t pay extra can now be made to load slower.

Obama’a Net Neutrality regulations prevented ISP’s from selling this service to commercial sites requiring everything to load at equal speed. Now that NN is lost, you will see sites which don’t pay extra, slowing down. Those that pay more will speed up.

They’ve always had that power, and there’s only been a single case of them using it...with Netflix, who uses up a third of ALL broadband...out of all the bandwidth in the internet, it’s attributed to one site. To compensate for that site, it costs ISPs millions...and after they told Netflix to buck up some money to compensate for the outrageous amount of bandwidth (using their own special “lanes”), Netflix got faster. What a concept.

This has nothing to do with ISPs pounding internet companies into submission...it’s internet companies shifting fiscal responsibility to ISPs, even though the ISPs are the ones paying to keep the bandwidth at a useable level. Which costs A LOT of money. Google wrote this bill, and it wasn’t out of the kindness of their heart. There was nothing neutral about NN.

This is like a company building a canal, and having problems with HUGE barges taking up all of the room in the canal, and creating all sorts of wakes for all the little fishing vessels out there, and slowing up traffic in the canal for everyone else.Then the company says to the huge barges, yo we have to build you a separate canal, because this isn’t working, but we ain’t doing it for free. And then the big barges go to the government and say, stop them, we want to be treated just like little fishing boats. And government says ok, hey canal company, don’t make them pay, you guys have to pay to widen the entire canal (which is an even bigger more expensive project than a seperate canal), and now we’re stuck with big barges creating wakes and taking up space and slowing traffic for everyone else...and the canal company shifts the cost by taxing the consumers extra...because surprise, it’s still a business. A struggling one at that (at least with cable dying off, and especially compared to the “big barges shipping companies”)

Blah blah blah no fair. Blah blah blah poor people want the same shit rich ppl have.

You have just proven your own idiocy. We want the internet to function smoothly. It’s bad enough that pairing sites pop up sooner and faster on google, now you’re going to let dollars and cents dictate which sites load faster.

Conservative and uninformed is no way to go through life.

It was running smoothly...there was nothing not running smoothly. In fact the “fast lanes” created for Netflix made it run more smoothly. There was nothing neutral about net neutrality...this was made by big internet Corp for big internet Corp, so they don’t have to pay for the outrageous broadband they use up, they want to be treated like billyzanefanclub.com...even though they are using multiple thousands of percent higher bandwidth...

What happened to the left crying about big Corp and he rich paying their fair share????

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

When your favourite free sites start taking forever to load, if at all, and only the paid sites are quickly loaded, you’ll change your tune.

Almost 30 years of being on the net and I haven't seen anything like what you describe. As always the market will decide.

 

[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?

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.

When your favourite free sites start taking forever to load, if at all, and only the paid sites are quickly loaded, you’ll change your tune.

Almost 30 years of being on the net and I haven't seen anything like what you describe. As always the market will decide.

That’s because it’s not happening yet because of net neutrality. With NN gone, you will see it happening.

 

[busybee01]

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 better.

Is it the woman or black man that you do not like the looks of?

The white SJW gender warrior woman can't possibly mean any good to anyone. If this gal opposes the law, that's better indication than any that good things are being done. Spares me a lot of time on digging all the facts when such a simple test has never failed me.

The trouble is that those are the visible opponents. I bother to look at the issue and make up my mind. This is another nail in the coffin of Republicans. All Democrats have to do is talk about treating all data equally and that is the end of Republicans.

 

[busybee01]

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.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

Not when you have monopolies or oligopolies. In these instances government regulation is required to protect consumers since a competitive, free market does not exist.