If the government takes over the internet and when internet service worsens, who will you blame?
See? I can play that game, too.
And you can't bear the thought of daddy not holding your hand through life I guess.
You think we would be better off with a one party system?
Seriously apdst? Would you not prefer that every democrat, liberal, anyone from center/left/ to middle left/to far left be kicked to the curb?
If not, it certainly is not the image you have crafted for yourself here at DP.
Myself, I would prefer to have a minimum of 3 parties with pretty much equal power. That way, they would be FORCED to negotiate and compromise and work together to get anything done. But that's living in a dream world. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.
So you didn't like the internet as it was for the last 25 years?
No, I would not. In a one party system, there's no way to prosecute corruption. While I trust the Republicans more than the Democrats, I only trust a little more than the Democrats. Politicians are like children: they'll always push the envelope, to see what they can get away with.
Now, I agree with that 100%. Except, I distrust both parties about the same, myself. In fact, the ONLY reason I MIGHT have any favor for the democrat side is their positioning on social issues and needless war. But, outside that, I absolutely abhor them. I am waiting here on the sidelines for the GOP to get it's house in order and cull out the wingnuts that have cost us so dearly, so I can have my party back.
But, all that being said, I may just remain an independent regardless. It takes a bit longer to fill out the ballot at the ballot box, but it makes it easier to sleep at night.
Seriously, last election, my wife was standing by the exit door looking at me impatiently, as I voted for each office individually, instead of voting straight ticket, like, "Well, are you coming or not?" It took me several minutes to make my selections.
I have wifi. Must not be all that difficult.
Where is the lie? You and I have been discussing Obama policies for the last 23 pages and have not been discussing what Cruz said.
So you didn't like the internet as it was for the last 25 years?
Obama.Okay, so if this is the end of net neutrality and people's internet use worsens as a result, who will be to blame?
It depends on how you mean it.According to this article, the net neutrality legislation will stifle the profit making ability of the ISP's.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/ro...threatened_by_government_regulation/page/full
Are they wrong about that?
You should be asking what my post had to do with the context it was in regarding whether or not net neutrality was an Obama scheme.I'm not sure what the relationship is between that and the concept of net neutrality. What, exactly, is your point in relation to net neutrality, whether we should have it, or its alleged similarities with Obamacare?
(chuckle)
You realize of course that it takes an ISP being installed into your home in order to get wifi - right? Or do you live at a coffee shop and suck wifi of of other people? At work perhaps?
According to this article, the net neutrality legislation will stifle the profit making ability of the ISP's.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/ro...threatened_by_government_regulation/page/full
Are they wrong about that?
Anyone can increase profits by charging more for lower quality service. Which is exactly what the net neutrality legislation is supposed to prevent.
And that's also why quite a few hardcore conservative Republicans support net neutrality: they care much more about their own finances (and rightly so) than those of their local ISP monopoly.
That's because keeping the internet 'as it has been for 25 years' DOES mean more regulation. It isn't possible that you don't understand this, so you are just being dishonest. What a surprise. Obama is asking the FCC to regulate internet providers under title II of the Telecommunications law. Do you think that means DE-regulation? Of course not. So I don't care how many idiots have been 'pounding' me for the last ten pages, they are all wrong and are either too stupid to understand that or to dishonest to admit it.
I haven't mentioned it because the thread went off in a different direction and you and I have been discussing other aspects of the proposed 'solution' and not Cruz's remarks. Again, you know this, but misrepresent it anyway. You do this because you haven't got an argument against what I am actually saying so you pretend I am saying something I am not. Try being honest.
The dishonest one here is you. The thread is about Cruz, but you and I have been discussing the Obama proposal and not what Cruz said. That is a fact. I am not all that concerned with what Cruz said nor its accuracy. My interest and our discussion is about what Obama wants to do and how it will effect the internet. Again, you know this to be true, yet you are dishonest about it. Why is that?
Obama.
duh
It depends on how you mean it.
ISPs will make a great deal mor money if they can charge your small business for accessing the internet, for providing the internet access to your small business's content, AND then charge your business again for providing the internet access to your small business's content.
So in that sense, yes they are right. If ISPs can double charge businesses, the ISP will make more money.
But if you mean that Time Warner and Cox are not going to be able to turn a profit, then "No, the article is deliriously wrong."
We've had "neutrality" since the beginning of the internet.
How're TW and Cox faring so far?
Now, I agree with that 100%. Except, I distrust both parties about the same, myself. In fact, the ONLY reason I MIGHT have any favor for the democrat side is their positioning on social issues and needless war. But, outside that, I absolutely abhor them. I am waiting here on the sidelines for the GOP to get it's house in order and cull out the wingnuts that have cost us so dearly, so I can have my party back.
But, all that being said, I may just remain an independent regardless. It takes a bit longer to fill out the ballot at the ballot box, but it makes it easier to sleep at night.
Seriously, last election, my wife was standing by the exit door looking at me impatiently, as I voted for each office individually, instead of voting straight ticket, like, "Well, are you coming or not?" It took me several minutes to make my selections.
“I hate Republicans. I hate Republicans,” Fayard said, drawing some nods and voices of approval from the crowd. “They are cruel and destructive. They eat their young."
"I hate Republicans. They eat their young" - David Catanese - POLITICO.com
Encoding net neutrality means that BJ and his team will have the same shot tomorrow that they have today.It might not inhibit Cox, or Time Warner, or Suddenlink, but what about Bobby Joe and his tech buddies that secure financing to start their own ISP, to compete with those large companies? Will the lowered profit margine--possibly lowered--prohibit them from making the profit needed for their startup company to survive?
I think you might agree that this could possibly do more to prohibit new providers from entering the market; the legislation could thereby produce the opposite effect.
Well, considering what Time Warner charges for broadband, kinda, and if they get their way, they'll be ****ing me more.
Get wifi.
It makes one question the wisdom of responding to the author of such a comment.... This made me chuckle a lot. On par with root beer makes you impaired.
Not my wifi. I don't know what bass-ackwards part of the world you live in. My internet is through my cell phone provider and it goes everywhere with me.
Encoding net neutrality means that BJ and his team will have the same shot tomorrow that they have today.
Do you imagine that the current ISPs are fighting net neutrality because net neutrality reduces competition in the ISP marketplace?
Or would you imagine that the current ISPs are trying to promote ideas that will enhance their profits by further securing their near monopoly of the market place?
What about all of the start up companies who will not be able to get their ideas to market because of the lowered profit margins caused by the big ISPs double charging them if NN is not allowed to continue?
There are many, many, many more start-ups which are not ISPs than there are start-up ISPs.
There are more non-ISP start-ups than ISP start-ups by an order of magnitude or so.
That's not wifi. That's your 3g, 4g or lte (all basic variations of the same thing). Your carrier in this case would be your isp, and therefore no more bound to the principles of net neutrality as comcast or time warner.
So, you agree that there are more than a couple of other options in any given community?
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?