So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[Quantum Windbag]

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.

Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.

How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.

Gee, I have no idea.

There is no way that the government would do anything like letting large corporations help write the rules that govern net neutrality.

As Expected, FCC Approving Net Neutrality Rules That AT&T Wants | Techdirt

Nor would any government ever write a bunch of regulations and then simply sit by not enforcing them.

Canada's Failure To Actually Enforce Its Net Neutrality Rules Shows Why Focusing On Regulation Is Missing The Point | Techdirt

Maybe, just maybe, if you actually educated yourself on the issue and everything that surrounds it instead of simply focusing on the fact that you think it is a good idea you might actually understand why people actually oppose the idea. Not that I expect you to do anything like actually read the links I post. This is the second time I posted the on about AT&T in this thread yet you still insist that this is about letting the little guy have access.

You should try climbing out of the box you put yourself in and look at the real world.

 

[RDD_1210]

Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.

I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.

Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?

I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.

Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.

What do I not understand?

Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.

 

[midcan5]

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

The argument that the market will provide is a total joke, I think the cost of gold for my sweetie is too high? Anyone know a market where I can get it cheap? After all gold serves no real value other than fluff and is plentiful. Markets quickly form into oligarchies, often there is no choice as investment is expensive. How many communications companies are there? Few and they will control the price, not any magical imaginary market. Look at the price of oil as another example. The irony is government works both for good and bad.

"Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class." Thomas Frank The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Oddball]

Are you this big a crashing goddamn bore in real life, s0n?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ironic that Midcan would use an Adam Smith, the father of and chief advocate for a free market system, quote as a basis for his/her refutation of a free market system. Not so ironic but more typical to use a quote from Thomas Frank, pro big government, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, big time socialist leftist, as an illustration for criticism of conservatism.

And meanwhile the Tea Party, composed of a broad and diverse segment of American society, continues with the one point all its advocates agree on: the federal government is too big, too intrusive, too over reaching, too expensive, too inefficient and all that combined continues to chip away at our liberties and unalienable rights.

Everybody who values mom, apple pie, freedom, and the American way should join with them to insist that the federal government protect our rights, enforce antitrust laws, and otherwise keep its cotton picking paws away from any regulation of the internet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.

Yeah, because nothing leads to innovation like government regulation!

The FCC determining content is the one sure way to keep the internet evolving! Nipple slips and opposition politics have no place on the internet - "net neutrality" will get rid of those once and for all, placing a nice FCC watch guard over the comings and goings.

Freedom through obedience! Government control of the internet and the content on it is a winning future!

Let me look at this on my LTE tablet - OH WAIT, LTE is faster than GSM, damn, better shut it down so the "rich people" on Verizon don't get more than their fair share.

You know, you leftists are really some stupid fuckers - seriously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So freedom of information is not important to you?

Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?

I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.

Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.

What do I not understand?

Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.

Really?

As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.

That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.

By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions count more than actual results?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

The argument that the market will provide is a total joke, I think the cost of gold for my sweetie is too high? Anyone know a market where I can get it cheap? After all gold serves no real value other than fluff and is plentiful. Markets quickly form into oligarchies, often there is no choice as investment is expensive. How many communications companies are there? Few and they will control the price, not any magical imaginary market. Look at the price of oil as another example. The irony is government works both for good and bad.

"Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class." Thomas Frank The Conservative Nanny State

Your post, as usual, has nothing to do with the discussion, and indicates a remarkable lack of understanding of the real world.

 

[RDD_1210]

The Tea Party claims to want more freedom, freedom from government, but all they are doing is trading freedom from government in exchange for being ruled by private industry. Getting rid of net neutrality is one of THE biggest freedom losses possible and these idiots are on-board.

Yeah, because nothing leads to innovation like government regulation!

The FCC determining content is the one sure way to keep the internet evolving! Nipple slips and opposition politics have no place on the internet - "net neutrality" will get rid of those once and for all, placing a nice FCC watch guard over the comings and goings.

Freedom through obedience! Government control of the internet and the content on it is a winning future!

Let me look at this on my LTE tablet - OH WAIT, LTE is faster than GSM, damn, better shut it down so the "rich people" on Verizon don't get more than their fair share.

You know, you leftists are really some stupid fuckers - seriously.

You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.

You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!

 

[RDD_1210]

So freedom of information is not important to you?

Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..

So private companies can move in and determine who sees what. I got it. You're a corporate stooge. You'd vote for AT&T, Philip Morris or DOW Chemical to run the country in the next election if you could.

 

[RDD_1210]

Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.

What do I not understand?

Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.

Really?

As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.

That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.

By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions count more than actual results?

I think you are hands down the worst person on this site when it comes to creating analogies.

You claim to want Net Neutrality but are ready to concede its possibility to private business and their desires. You're right you do live in the real world, one run by big business....and you're totally ok with it. Be proud. I'll continue to support Net Neutrality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gee, that's fun when you get to make up arguments that no one is making. Maybe it's because the real argument is something you can't win.

Really?

As an ideal, I support net neutrality completely. As a regulation, or a law, I oppose it. The reason I oppose it is I live in the real world, and I know nothing is free. Yet you, for some reason, want to force people who connect you to the internet not to limit the traffic that goes over the network they built, and own. That is the legal equivalent of forcing a person who went to the trouble of building a road on his own property to open that road to the public because it is shorter and faster than using the public roads, and not charge them for it, while he is still responsible for maintaining it.

That actually makes your argument exactly what I laid out, you are just incapable of examining the consequences of your position well enough to keep up with me. That is not my problem, even when I attempt to explain it to you.

By the way, do you plan to deal with the fact that AT&T is helping to write the regulations that you think will protect the little guy from AT&Y? Or do you insist on living in a world where good intentions count more than actual results?

I think you are hands down the worst person on this site when it comes to creating analogies.

You claim to want Net Neutrality but are ready to concede its possibility to private business and their desires. You're right you do live in the real world, one run by big business....and you're totally ok with it. Be proud. I'll continue to support Net Neutrality.

No, I said I support the concept of net neutrality. We already have that concept, and it works despite the fact that evil big businesses are in charge.

You, on the other hand, prefer to listen to idiots that write opeds like this.

Opinion: Subsidizing Netflix - San Jose Mercury News

Can you go through that opinion piece and point out all the facts they got wrong?

 

[Oddball]

So freedom of information is not important to you?

Placing the FCC over the internet ends freedom of information. Since freedom of information IS important, I want the government the fuck out of it..

So private companies can move in and determine who sees what. I got it. You're a corporate stooge. You'd vote for AT&T, Philip Morris or DOW Chemical to run the country in the next election if you could.

Look, up in the sky...

It's a bird...

It's a plane...

No, its....

 

[BoycottTheday]

This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,

do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?

If they did this website wouldnt bother being here.

My websites do as i please, if you dont like it dont tick on them.

How many of you trying to impose your will even own you own websites?

Lets see them, whats the odds they are clickNbuild and not worth the bother.

You liberals need to get a life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.

You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!

You're an idiot - I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443? It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)

You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,

do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?

If net neutrality were imposed, this website and all like it would be closed down. The free discussion of issues often includes racism, sexism and even opposition to abortion, the FCC would enforce political correctness rules and end free discussion forums like this.

 

[RDD_1210]

You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.

You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!

You're an idiot - I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443? It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)

You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.

Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.

 

[RDD_1210]

This website can ban or moderate in any way they want,

do you think the FCC has the authority to say any different?

If net neutrality were imposed, this website and all like it would be closed down. The free discussion of issues often includes racism, sexism and even opposition to abortion, the FCC would enforce political correctness rules and end free discussion forums like this.

And if Net Neutrality was imposed the Nazis would take over too. I heard that Net Neutrality would result in more women having abortions as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You did it! I don't know how, but you managed to do it.

You typed out that whole response and didn't manage to work in one single true statement. That's not easy to do. Bravo!

You're an idiot - I mean, you're a leftist, so that's a given. But putting the federal government in charge of the Internet won't make it so you don't have to pay your AOL bill each month. (You seem like the type to use AOL.) Say sparky, did you know your little HuffingGlue momma uses QOS filters on ports 25 and 443? It's true, Queen Ariana isn't neutral regarding traffic. No one is, that's why we use ROUTERS, dumbfuck, to prioritize traffic. You see, rebroadcasting an email packet has little impact on the final product. Rebroadcast on 1720 you blow everything to hell. (H.323 protocol)

You think teh interwebz is magic box that lets you jerk off to teh pron - but behind it all are switches and routers and fiber that have to be managed and even PAID for! Your monthly fees to "Shemales in Heat" doesn't actually pay for any of that. You don't think its FAIR that a business paying $10,000 a month for a DS3 should have VPN traffic prioritized at the switch level over the pron on the AOL feed your mom pays $19.95 a month for.

Two straight posts and you still haven't got a clue. Impressive. Hey, at least your consistent! You're right though, this is just about getting access to the internet for free! Solid analysis.

Is there a specific reason, other than your complete inability to deal with reality, why you have not addressed the fact that I actually posted a link that shows that AT&T wrote the net neutrality regulations the FCC is trying to impose?