Net Neutrality regulations are not new? Reclassifying ISPs as utilities is not new? Sorry, but that is new.
The Internet is working just fine as it is and requires no further government regulations to screw it up. Often, such as in this case, more government regulation isn't the best and only answer.
But you see. I'm less than convinced that this is rally the case, and am willing to see what develops in this space over the next period of time.
You said it was about monopolies. It isn't?
I didn't say that at all, please stop lying. I acknowledged monopolies exist, and giving them the power to do away with net neutrality is not a positive for innovation. That doesn't make net neutrality about monopolies. Net neutrality is about access to content.
Seriously, how do you know that?
Then why don't you share with us why internet service providers not only sued the FCC to end net neutrality but also paid congressmen $762,000 in lobbying efforts against net neutrality? And why don't you share with us why, if the internet "isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed," (your words, do you recall them?) you're now arguing for the internet to be fixed? And why don't you share with us how the end of net neutrality is good for you?
Eohrnberger, yesterday you had this to say, when you didn't know that net neutrality had existed all this time due to FCC regulations:
So what I would like to know is, how did you get from "the internet is working just fine as it is" to
Why did you feel the internet was fine as it is one moment, and then be happy to see what would happen if it changed the next? What happened between yesterday and today?
I was asking a ****ing question. Do you know what a, "?", is?
I'd rather my taxes go to a national system of free internet service than government funded condom drives. However, we're a nation that doesn't really understand why freedom to access to content at the speed you paid for is more important than getting laid. So I doubt that would ever happen. One can dream though!
I suppose you might say that my position is evolving based on the new information that I've gotten from the forums, and researched on my own in the between time.
If monopolies exist, there are laws to take care of that, like I said.
Yes, I did post that. At that time, it was based on what I knew at the time.
Chatting in these forums, I've come to learn more about it, and I've come your way a bit, as you can see; (dare I say that you [and others] are having an effect on me?) :mrgreen:
I suppose you might say that my position is evolving based on the new information that I've gotten from the forums, and researched on my own in the between time.
Fact is Franken is too far left for me and Cruz too far right. I stand by my original post.
Right. The internet was just fine with net neutrality, so let's keep it the way it was.
I didn't answer them because they're not relevant to your question about why opposition to net neutrality is wrong. I explained to you what net neutrality was and laid out the arguments for why it should be maintained. You trying to steer the conversation to be about something other than that doesn't change the fact that opposition to net neutrality is wrong on various counts. The first of which would be restrictions on a consumer's right to access information.
I'm just disappointed you're not standing for something on this and other issues--you used to at Politico.
I don't mind your anti-both parties meme.
Just take a stand on the very important issues of the day.
Isn't that what you've been asking the Congress and Senate to do--work together ?
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.same here. we have some of the ****tiest broadband in the first world because of the cable monopolies. and we pay more for it, too.
BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?
The thing is and I stated it in my original post is that I know nothing about the act or the proposed law. I would be either taking Cruz's or Franken's word on it. That I am not willing to do. So until I find out more about it or do some research I won't come down on either side. But in the generic sense of a position, I am in favor of which ever side keeps the internet as is. If the law changes it, then I will be against it. If the law codifies the internet and ensures it stays the same, than I will be for that. Notice the phrase I will be.
No, you've definitely moved further from me. Yesterday you believed net neutrality was a brand new government regulation and immediately opposed it (without understanding what it was, of course) and claimed to want to keep the internet as it is. Once you learned it was old, however, you now can't wait to end it. You're not arguing about net neutrality, you're just letting your beliefs on government involvement override all the facts of this discussion, to the extent that you're willing to argue against your own interests.
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.
And what will that cost? And why should a provider be forced to treat your data preferentially when you wont pay for it?because we can't afford to have our data treated preferentially.
Are you one of those people who think that taxpayer funded services aren't free for some people?Oh, you're another one of those people who thinks that taxpayer-funded services are "free." :roll:
Here's the truth. I don't understand the issue. I've read about it and it's so convoluted it's difficult to grasp what will change if it's implemented. Net neutrality has a nice ring to it but frankly I don't trust the government to do anything other take something we get for free and turn it into a revenue generator. If someone who actually has a thorough understanding of this issue, jump up.
Are you one of those people who think that taxpayer funded services aren't free for some people?
By using the word "Obamacare" Cruz manipulated you flawlessly. The result is you're arguing against your own interests and you refuse to learn what the topic is about.
So like everything else, this boils down to money. Liberals don't want to pay when they can get the state to get it for them for free. What else is new. So it is like Obamacare after all. Thanks for clearing this up.
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?