Page 1 2
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Freshman |
|
||
|
All-American |
You lie! Without net neutrality, the internet will be just like cable, and we all know that cable is easily the most cost and customer friendly entity in existence. For example, when I ordered cable for my house, I really wanted the Jazz Channel. You can't imagine how delighted I was to find that the only way to get that particular channel was to order the "Super Sports" package, which, in turn, could only be purchased with the "Max Channel" package. That's right, in addition to watching my jazz concerts, I also get to watch various European league soccer games and 10,000 knockoffs of the X-games. I couldn't be more thrilled.... --------------*********------------- "I had never been hit that hard before, and I hope to never be hit that hard again." Steve Beuerlein- Reflecting on "The Sack" in 2007 Link |
|||
|
Senior |
Your mistake is in thinking the internet has an unlimited bandwidth. It doesn't. That's why you have higher download speeds than upload speeds for the most part. That's why I have to pay extra for the higher bandwidth that allows me to upload large amounts of information in the business I run. Want to know why CompuServe, Prodigy and AOL no longer exist? It's because a free market found a better solution. Why is it with you liberals, government intervention is best? All you have to do is look around at the wireless carriers to see how government intrusion works. More regulations almost always results in costing the consumer more money. The answer is less regulations to allow more competition. That's why you no longer get to hear..."You've Got Mail". |
|||
|
|
Senior |
The government could tell you that smoking your own shat would make you smarter and you'd fall for it. |
|||
|
|
Freshman |
Actually, it's because those "free market" solutions weren't needed anymore. The people finally got direct access to the internet, and they no longer needed commercial "gatekeepers."
The only "government intervention" I want is to bar corporate dominance. What is with you "conservatives" (and I use that term loosely, since you are not conservative at all) that want the corporate monoliths to control every aspect of our lives? I simply want the government to bar corporate domination of a government-created utility. The federal government did create the internet, after all. And the federal government means "we the people," not the corporations. At least it used to.
You must not have noticed the financial meltdown. The unrestrained "free market" is a recipe for disaster. The graphic in my OP is a literal prediction of what will happen if Net Neutrality is defeated. It is not a joke. A lot of you right-wing extremists say you are for competition. But in reality, for whatever perverted reason, you are really in favor of turning this country over to the most monopolistic, dastardly cut-throats this world has ever known. I don't claim to understand it, but I'm witnessing it. I'm for the people. And if the Internet falls to corporate control, we're probably done for, as anything resembling a democratic republic. So continue spouting your Randian platitudes, until the day that the federal government announces its mergers with XYZ Corp, and annexes us as their slaves. |
|||
|
|
Senior |
Now you're catching on.
So you'd rather have the government involved so we can have things like we have in the wireless industry where certain carriers are tied to certain phones. Nothing like the government "free market" is there.
The government created the code behind the internet but it didn't own the infrastructure it rode on. That's where your ignorance shows.
Showing more of your ignorance. Why don't you actually do some economic research before you shoot yer trap off. The reason for the economic collapse was because of government regulation. The Federal Reserve can't be audited. Therefore it can freely choose to lend money to whomever it chooses. Government required banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford mortgages. Those mortgages were underwritten by quasi government mortgage corporations namely fannie mae and freddie mac of which still nothing has been done except to allow them to get bigger. Where did all this money come from? Loose inflational federal reserve policy for 2 decades. Get educated before you start parroting the liberal status quo.
You're the joke. Somebody owns the infrastructure the internet rides on. Bandwidth is not unlimited unlike you liberals seem to think. I know these things because I have to deal with them on a daily basis. I have to work with a T1 line that is paid for because there is no free lunch. Bandwidth has to be paid for and controlled. For some reason you liberals think the World Wide Web just floats around out there in cyberspace for anybody to grab just because you pay $34.95 a month for ADSL or cable access. There is a lot more to the internet than your personal account. You have no clue how to manage a network or the datacenters attached to it.
If you don't like it then go lay your own fiber optic cable and start your own ISP.
You're a liberal and you're for anything free or at least anything you think should be free. And if it's not free then you go get some damn liberal judge to make that decision for the rest of America.
If you voted for Oboingo you're already a slave. |
|||
|
|
All-SEC |
Wow! what a bitchslap! Lay the wood yeswecan! I always thought the knuckleball was the easiest pitch to catch. Wait'll it stops rolling, then go to the backstop and pick it up." ― broadcaster and former catcher Bob Uecker |
|||
|
Senior |
Well said... |
|||
|
|
Freshman |
I don't want the government "involved," except to enforce the essence of the internet. And that means that the internet should be content neutral. Plain and g-damn simple. Nobody, including the federal government, is forcing Comcast or Time-Warner, etc. to get into the ISP business. But if those companies decide, on their on volition to do so, that is okay. But that doesn't give them the right to hijack and change the very meaning of what the Internet is. The internet is about open standards, open protocols, and content-neutral standards. That is what the internet is, and that is what the internet should continue to be. And we should not allow that to be changed because a handful of cash-heavy multinationals want it be. Your example about the cell phones makes my case quite well.
I guess you missed my recent post where I praised Senator Shelby for his interest in auditing the Federal Reserve. Shelby is generally a horrible Senator, only interested in how legislation can benefit his personal business interests, But I gave him kudos for his Fed stance.
I'm not. You are. Nanny nanny boo boo.
Nobody is forcing Comcast to get into the Internet business. But if they want to, they should play by the rules.
I'm damn straight in favor in keeping this a free country, while you right wingers want to enslave everyone. Damn straight.
Oboingo. Pretty childish stuff. And I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Except maybe to make the president to seem like "the other." This message has been edited. Last edited by: Alabama Fan, |
|||
|
Red-shirt Freshman |
It really is a travasty that you have to pay for stuff you want. But have no fear, after Obama takes over healthcare, he'll take over broadcasting and will offer free cable to everyone. The only problem will be that you will only be able to watch never ending programing about our dear leader and his divine greatness. ************************** “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” — Thomas Jefferson |
|||
|
|
Freshman |
Would that not be the very definition of an ad hominem attack, totally lacking in fact? |
|||
|
|
Freshman |
You would think the right-wingers could figure out how to edit.
Reposting seventeen paragraphs, to reply to a sentence. Geez. |
|||
|
|
Senior |
My example of cell phone carriers has come about just because of government intervention so you don't have a case. You still haven't told us how you get around the problem of limited bandwidth.
Shelby is really a jackass who watered down the original S604 bill which was a mirror image bill of Ron Paul's HR1207. So in essence because of Shelby's lobbyist ties to Wall Street he decided to gut it.
Do they own the infrastructure? If they don't, do they lease it from someone who does? You still haven't addressed the problem of unlimited bandwidth wishes vs limited bandwidth problem.
You think if you pay $34.95 a month for internet access you should be able to get unlimited bandwidth. If that were the case I wouldn't have to pay $300 a month to get megabit upload speeds on a T1. You have to pay to play, that is unless you're a liberal and you can get a judge to decide other people should pay.
No need to concern yourself with it. |
|||
|
|
Red-shirt Freshman |
Any individual that is for "net neutrality" has bought into the misinformation of "fairness". The phone and cable companies have spent billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide higher bandwidth and should be able to control the amount of traffic that flows through their pipelines for the benefit of ALL customers. What those in favor of "net neutrality" don't realize is that they pay comcast, AT&T, etc for their service, not Google and YouTube. If/when "net neutrality" is passed and Google/YouTube are allowed to flood the pipeline unfettered, thus clogging said pipeline it will force the Comcasts/AT&Ts to sink more and more money into their infrastructure. What do you think will happen to help these companies pay for continually added costs?
That's right. You, Joe Customer, are going to see continually higher and higher internet bills. Google/YouTube etc, the reason for all this will not have to pay a dime extra. Good-bye $34.95 ADSL. Say hello to $99.95. |
|||
|
|
Red-shirt Freshman |
As far as the OP...think about it. Your little chart makes no sense because "net neutrality" is what will change the status quo. There is no "net neutrality" now and never has been. Do you see internet pricing like that now? No because the competition between Comcast and AT&T to provide higher bandwidth and more efficent bundle packages is keeping the price down. What WILL facilitate major changes in internet pricing will be "net neutrality".
|
|||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|