I'll simplify it for you:
- Net neutrality regards how you access content.
- Support of net neutrality basically boils down to wanting to keep usage of the internet as it has been for the better part of the last 25 years. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
- Opposition to net neutrality allows for the internet to be politicized by companies and local governments, it means arbitrary restrictions on how you access that content, it means giving additional power to existing regional monopolies.
You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable. It ensures innovation and is an established check on monopolies.
LOL Its your horse**** argument. Its not my fault you think so little of your own positions. Maybe you ought to think them through a little better in the future.i don't waste time on horse**** strawman arguments.
I'll simplify it for you:
- Net neutrality regards how you access content.
- Support of net neutrality basically boils down to wanting to keep usage of the internet as it has been for the better part of the last 25 years. It's not broken, no need to fix it.
- Opposition to net neutrality allows for the internet to be politicized by companies and local governments, it means arbitrary restrictions on how you access that content, it means giving additional power to existing regional monopolies.
You don't have to agree on the best way to ensure net neutrality, however, the need for it is unquestionable. It ensures innovation and is an established check on monopolies.
And what will that cost? And why should a provider be forced to treat your data preferentially when you wont pay for it?
Great! You are in favor of net neutrality then.
(assuming "as is," you mean the way the internet has always worked, rather than what it has very recently changed to)
In the article that the op linked to, Franken was quoted saying the following:
“This is about reclassifying something so it stays the same. This would keep things exactly the same that they've been.”
Is it just me, or did that sound like Franken just said that "The internet ain't broke, but the government needs to fix it anyway in order to transform the unbroken internet into the same unbroken internet it's always been."
LMAO
this will be the last horse**** argument of yours that i address.
DP's data should be treated neutrally, like everyone else's. casting us into the slow lane will **** up the site, and even worse, it will prevent the next netflix, facebook, or twitter, as a startup generally can't afford to bribe a cable monopoly for preferential treatment. net neutrality is absolutely vital to maintaining a competitive and innovative internet marketplace.
When it comes to cable / Internet / VOIP service, I guess I must be lucky. Really lucky.
I have WideOpenWest, and for the around $100 / Mo. that I spend, I get the digital HD channel package that I like, with 2 dual channel cable cards in the 2 TiVo's that I've purchased separately, as well as 16Mb/sec down 1 Mb/sec up Internet AND VOIP phone service with voice mail (with CC to email) from them. This is down $60 / mo when we had the house phone line with AT&T.
The Internet service is fast, and above all reliable. It's never down, the last time was like 2 years ago for a mere 30 minutes or something. I have my static IP address for hosting my personal domain, and they've never complained about my Linux firewall / mail / web server which connects the home network and the Internet.
I know that one reason that the service is so reliable is that I saw the brand new cable plant that Americast in the neighborhood. WOW bought that cable plant from AmeriCast when it couldn't compete in the cable TV business Americast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So I know that I have a very solid and clean cable plant on which my connection relies on. The installations were very well done. Little things like a small section of PVC pipe through which the coax was pulled, partially above ground, and partially below ground so that the weed whip wouldn't degrade the cable's insulation and fully shielded and fully grounded cable so there's less signal leakage and degradation.
On the rare occasions that I do need to call WOW support, the phone is answered quickly, by a human, that speaks American (yeah, OK English), who knows what's going on and what to do to get me back on line, or what the status and when I can expect to have service restored. Really wonderful people to work with, and before each time I hang up, I make sure to tell them that they should tell their boss that I liked speaking to an American. Guess what? The TiVo guys are the same way, BTW. Also why I've been with them for some 10 years or more.
All in all, I'd consider it a pretty decent package and a pretty decent experience. I'm not inclined to switch.
If I weren't so pleased with WOW, I'd have a choice of Comcast or AT&T U-Verse, but since WOW is so good, and at the price I'm willing to pay, I've not bothered to switch, as I don't believe that I could get a static IP from either AT&T or ComCast, and I know that Comcast's service isn't nearly up to the same standards, probably because they have the oldest cable plant around.
Now we have some friends that are on the opposite end of Detroit who also had WOW, but their experience isn't as good as mine. So how the municipality deals with the cable provider does in fact make a difference.
LOL Its your horse**** argument. Its not my fault you think so little of your own positions. Maybe you ought to think them through a little better in the future.
Waaaa
yep. i'm done wasting my time debating this topic with you.
I did. You just don't understand your own argument. It comes down to cost. You don't like it because you will have to pay more for what you currently are getting. Rather than open your wallet, you turn to the state to force someone else to provide you with something at a price you want to pay. Just like everything else with liberals, it boils down to money.maybe you ought to learn to debate honestly rather than pretending that your opponent argued something that is easier to mount a hyperpartisan attack against.
This is great, but it has little to do with net neutrality. Quality of service isn't what's in question. The content you are able to access with that service is what is being debated. You live in Detroit right? I hear that's a Democratic stronghold. How would you like paying an additional 5$-10$ to access news sites with a right wing slant? Say you moved to an area where Comcast had a monopoly (thanks to local government), would you be alright with paying additional fees to play games, access netflix etc?
Except it isn't. Pointing out that wealth obsessed liberals are wealth obsessed liberals isn't hackery, its honesty. But then again, as Mr. Gruber so aptly demonstrated, honesty isn't a virtue amongst the left.It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring water sources aren't polluted carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.
It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring clean water is available to all, carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.
You know, I can agree with that.
Because I use this site means I should support government force to keep it operating at the current cost structure forever. Right. The opposition is based upon principles of liberty and limited government, not that liberals understand that sort of thing...go team, and all. i don't see why anyone would support ruining the internet by adding slow lanes. it would stifle innovation. and to make this argument on a site that would be second or third tier under such a system? it's un****ingbelievable.
Except it isn't. Pointing out that wealth obsessed liberals are wealth obsessed liberals isn't hackery, its honesty. But then again, as Mr. Gruber so aptly demonstrated, honesty isn't a virtue amongst the left.
Aside from a general objection to government involvement in this sort of thing, the bolded was second on the list. Treating the internet like a utility might very well bring about changes you will live to regret that you have not even considered. There seems to be a rush to accept any change regardless of whether or not it is the right change. Much like Obamacare. Look how that has turned out.To be honest, I don't want to convince people to agree with me when it comes to net neutrality regulations. Hell, I've already stated I'm not sure what the best way to ensure it is. However, if the system can stay the way it has for 25 years, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, we know that's not what is happening. Thanks to the efforts of companies like Comcast, some people are going to see their bills jump, access to certain sites slowed down and websites like DP may even have to pay ransoms for access to them. That's not the kind of internet I want.
Oh please, Democrats get manipulated, not intelligent folk.
How's that "you can keep your pla-
Im not going anywhere. It is you who have not addressed specific questions I had about this issue, but are willing to accept whatever solution the great Obama and his leftist elites have in store for you. Try questioning authority once in a while. Wasn't that what liberalism was based upon at one point? Liberalism has gone from questioning authority to worshiping it. Pretty sad.You're getting desperate. Not only did you not know what net neutrality was or is, you absolutely have no clue what the implications of not having it are. The fact that you argued that you'd be okay with letting the free market "handle it", when no such thing currently exists in telecommunications means you've lost all credibility on this issue. Furthermore, that you continue arguing that liberals want to regulate a concept by maintaining the same guidelines is just further evidence of your general ignorance. Now poof, vamoose, you've got no real argument when you degenerate into a rant about evil libruls.
To be honest, I don't want to convince people to agree with me when it comes to net neutrality regulations. Hell, I've already stated I'm not sure what the best way to ensure it is. However, if the system can stay the way it has for 25 years, I'm perfectly fine with that. However, we know that's not what is happening. Thanks to the efforts of companies like Comcast, some people are going to see their bills jump, access to certain sites slowed down and websites like DP may even have to pay ransoms for access to them. That's not the kind of internet I want.
It's really sad that some people make this out to be an argument of right v. left. It'd be like saying that ensuring water sources aren't polluted carries a right/left slant. It's nonsensical, partisan hackery at its worst.
I agree. I'm not really thinking that either of those parties is going to really address the issue AND stop from turning it to their advantage and exploitation. Call it an equal lack of trust in either of them.
Aside from a general objection to government involvement in this sort of thing, the bolded was second on the list. Treating the internet like a utility might very well bring about changes you will live to regret that you have not even considered. There seems to be a rush to accept any change regardless of whether or not it is the right change. Much like Obamacare. Look how that has turned out.
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?