- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Thanks for proving my point. He claims we are discussing Cruz and you claim we are discussing net neutrality. Why don't you two hook up on IM and get your stories straight. In the mean time, please point to the post of his that explains net neutrality. That should be easy even for you since you claim he has been doing it for page after page. Or, you could just butt out and go find another thread to post your hit and run one liners.
No Kobe, you are not. Nor have you.We are discussing Cruz's idiotic comments on net neutrality.
No Kobe, you are not. Nor have you.
I seriously doubt you even know what he said in context.
It appears as though hardly anybody read what he actually said and are just following lockstep like a good little liberal lemming with the idiocy that Franken spewed.
So why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.
Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post
We are discussing Cruz's idiotic comments on net neutrality. Please do TRY to keep up.
Net Neutrality has been explained to you multiple times in this thread. Go find it your goddamn self.
Lol. No one is discussing Cruzs comments in this thread. And why should I search the thread for comments I know don't exist. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up or shut the hell up.
I think it's good thing for my isp to not treat different sites differently.
I know I wouldn't pay for internet service if it did that.
We don't need governmental interference, just market forces.
"Market forces" are what's making legislated net neutrality essential in the first place, because "market forces," in the form of ISP monopolies, are champing at the bit to treat different sites differently.
The entire point of the thread, at least at first, was Cruz's comments.
I'm not the one who explained net neutrality to you. Hatuey did, during the process of him utterly destroying you in this thread. Do your own homework.
PROTIP: If you're going to argue a topic before jumping the rails and making it yet another hackish rant against "leftists," I would advise you to have one iota of an idea of what the hell you're talking about, because on this subject, you look utterly clueless, and I'm pretty sure I know the reason why.
No. The consumer provides that market force. They do so by conveying to current provider that their continued service provision is dependent upon their stance on this issue.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, individual ISPs generally have monopolies on their respective markets. I live in a metro area of close to a million, and I have TWO choices for broadband internet.
Now, in your market-driven fantasy land, some scrappy young entrepreneur would start in his garage his own ISP that treats all internet traffic equally and eventually dominate the competition. I'm sure Time Warner would take that lying down.
Yes,AT FIRST, this thread was about Cruz. The discussion between hatuey and I was never about Cruz or his comments. Since you don't know but simply pretend to know, WHAT net neutrality is isn't the issue. What Obama plans to do about it is. As usual you have interjected yourself into a conversation you don't understand and added exactly zero to the debate. Bravo
Currently.
Take it lying down? No, I imagine they would have to change their policies if they were losing that much business.
Well, in case you haven't noticed, individual ISPs generally have monopolies on their respective markets. I live in a metro area of close to a million, and I have TWO choices for broadband internet. And both are lobbying HARD against net neutrality. Now, in your market-driven fantasy land, some scrappy young entrepreneur would start in his garage his own ISP that treats all internet traffic equally and eventually dominate the competition. I'm sure Time Warner would take that lying down.
If you have two choices, that isn't a monopoly, but I bet you have more than two choices.
Getting ****ed in the ass or ****ed in the mouth are two choices, but it's a monopoly on my available holes.
Been that way for well over a decade.
Yes, those bootstrappy young entrepreneurs will put a dent in TW's business.
Fine, oppose NN. I hope you enjoy DP loading a minute a refresh
:dohIt most certainly is idiotic. You don't understand what net neutrality is, and neither does Ted Cruz.
Plus, what he tweeted was "NN is Obamacare for the internet," which is BREATHTAKINGLY stupid.
Your two ISP choices are ****ing you?
Making it about you? Lol. You are irrelevant to this discussion. You add exactly zeroActually, Hatuey was the one directly addressing Cruz's comments the entire time. YOU turned it into some freakshow rant against Obama. Hatuey EXPLICITLY TOLD YOU that Obama's "plans" (as nefarious as they surely are, in your fever dreams) weren't what he was advocating, just NN as a concept, and you still kicked and screamed against it because of your irrational fear of getting liberal AIDS because you might somehow agree with what one of those accursed "leftists" is advocating.
You can backtrack now and try to make it about me, but this thread is here and your breathtakingly stupid comments are preserved for posterity.
:doh
:lamo
You are again showing that you do not know what you are talking about.
Since your ignorance is painfully obvious, why don't you at least keep up by reading what he actually said, because it was not idiotic.
Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom - The Washington Post
Making it about you? Lol. You are irrelevant to this discussion. You add exactly zero
Never before has it been so easy to turn an idea into a business. With a simple Internet connection, some ingenuity and a lot of hard work, anyone today can create a new service or app or start selling products nationwide.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running.
First, we must abandon the idea of further taxing Internet access and sales. At this very moment, online retailers face an enormous threat because Washington may pass a massive, new Internet sales tax during the next two months, in the lame-duck session of Congress. As the hashtag puts it, #NoNetTax.
Second, we should dismiss all plans to give nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy.
Third, we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.
And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is “net neutrality.”
In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.
President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?
If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.
Fourth, we must recognize that our constitutional rights are digital rights, too. In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.
:doh
Did I say "no regulation"?
Or perhaps did I say making it a utility is what is not needed?
Would you like me to tell you?
And again.i'd like you to answer my question. what is your preferred method of ensuring net neutrality?
Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?