- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 17,927
- Reaction score
- 10,823
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Except the internet providers aren't monopolizing bandwidth. If you have a lack of providers in your area, look to your local governmental regulations because that's probably the source of your problem.No, by monopolizing bandwidth, which is the same reason Ma Bell was broken up in the 80's.
By the way, that breakup was the single best thing that's ever happened to the US economy in my lifetime.
Except the internet providers aren't monopolizing bandwidth. If you have a lack of providers in your area, look to your local governmental regulations because that's probably the source of your problem.
The corporations are also under regulations that prevent them from monopolizing and price fixing. That bothers you? That is when capitalism fails, when Govt. allows monopolies to form and turns its back on price fixing.
Don't be ridiculous.
The government doesn't "want it back", any more than they wanted Ma Bell's land lines in the 80's.
No, the government is trying to keep the playing field level, so a company like Verizon doesn't end up "owning the internet".
The internet is unquestionably a public communications facility, and not only that, one that plays a key role in national security.
The internet should not be unregulated. The government needs to ensure access, and it needs to ensure equal access, so you and I don't get kicked off the net whenever Verizon wants some advertising revenue.
What's funny is the people who think we have an open free market with the internet NOW, and because of that they believe these Corps. are looking out for their best interests. I live in an area that has 100,000's of people, but I only have TWO choices for an ISP.. TWO! The corps have conventionally carved up the neighborhoods and now almost a monopoly.
It can be explained when last year Comcast said they should be allowed to merge with TW because Comcast and TW don't compete with each other now. LOL. How the hell can the #1 and #2 biggest cable providers NOT compete with each other? There's only 1 way, collusion and carving up the areas and neighborhoods so they don't step on each other toes. And these are the type of Corps. and the people running these Corps who some here want to handle and run the internet without government regulation?
It is interesting that you direct your distain at the cable companies instead of the real culprit, the local Government. A cable company cannot run cable without a certificate of public good. The certificate is needed because the companies are using public right of ways, and in exchange for that access, they must provide PEG (Public, Educational, & Government Access Television) channels. It is the local jurisdiction that got together and voted on only allowing the two providers you have. They don't want ten companies running ten cables down every street. Therefore, the number of cable providers is determined by your city or county councils, not the private sector.
As for your second point, it is important to note that cable companies and Internet are not one in the same. The cable company may or may not act as an ISP, but that in no way restricts you to only using them. Apples and oranges...
Ha ha - do you have any idea how this actually works?
Laying wire and fiber infrastructure in neighborhoods is expensive. No company is going to do that unless they get guarantees from the government, that other people aren't going to be able to render their investment(s) useless.
Yep, I've heard that argument before. But let's not be naive about this, remember the cable companies are lobbying all levels of government to get the OK for this collusion. I do blame the government, but it starts with the cable companies lobbying and throwing millions of dollars around. I hope you don't believe the cable companies aren't involved in this.
I happen to have very deep knowledge of how this actually works, and Moon is correct. Look to your local Government to figure out why there are only two providers as they make the rules.
Yes, laying cable is expensive, but many jurisdiction demand competing providers for the citizens. That is why many jurisdictions require cable sharing. That means, for example, if Comcast actually ran the cable, they still have to allow other companies to use the same cable after paying an access fee. The company paying the access fee still has to comply with PEG, and get issued a certificate of public use.
There are no guarantees. The Government cannot force people to pay for cable, at least not for now. Mayhap it will go the way of medical insurance, and people will be forced to buy it or pay a fine in their taxes. For now, that is just a leftist pipe dream.
Yes, at our latest leftist meeting, we all discussed how we can force people to pay for cable.
I know that targeting programs that are objectively helpful to them is just a Conservative thing to do, but this Net Neutrality hard-on they have is super bizarre to me.
You're right -that is silly. :lol: like liberals would ever want to force someone to purchase a private product.
:shrug: Should republicans be able to steer, shape, or otherwise control the media content that people get?
Of course they are involved. Any company wants to be the one that actually runs the media, and then gets to charge all the other companies the access fee. That is just good business. Nothing wrong with that.
I know that targeting programs that are objectively helpful to them is just a Conservative thing to do, but this Net Neutrality hard-on they have is super bizarre to me.
Yes, at our latest leftist meeting, we all discussed how we can force people to pay for cable.
Do you actually type out this drivel, or is it a cut-and-paste job?
That's not what net neutrality is. That's the OPPOSITE of what net neutrality is.
Obama likes it. It is, ergo, fascism by default.
The only conclusion I can draw is that American conservatives hate Obama more than they like good things.
I would love to attend one of those meetings. Is there a secret handshake to get in? Just out of curiosity, who is forced to pay for the free Internet access for inner cities?
Yes, I actually type it out. If I cut and paste, I would have a lot less spelling and grammar errors.
My apologies. I an new here and I assumed a political discussion group would attract people with enough communication skills to determine when something was said tongue in cheek. From now on I will use [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] markers to keep the sensitive from feeling like victims of micro-aggression.
edit: Oops! I forgot to use the markers on that last sentence. My apologies.
No - conservatives distrust government, and in particular they distrust government when government is given the ability to control how and what information we get.
If liberals are upset that conservatives are wary of giving democrats the ability to shape or steer media content because "gosh, it's ridiculous to suppose that we would ever abuse that power".... well, maybe they shouldn't have pushed for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
If someone doesn't have cable and needs to watch TV or else they'll die, the taxpayer and/or insurance policy holder isn't on the hook to pay for that person's emergency television transfusion. #analogyfail
I would love to attend one of those meetings. Is there a secret handshake to get in? Just out of curiosity, who is forced to pay for the free Internet access for inner cities?
Yes, I actually type it out. If I cut and paste, I would have a lot less spelling and grammar errors.
My apologies. I an new here and I assumed a political discussion group would attract people with enough communication skills to determine when something was said tongue in cheek. From now on I will use [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] markers to keep the sensitive from feeling like victims of micro-aggression.
edit: Oops! I forgot to use the markers on that last sentence. My apologies.
Do us a favor. Look up the term "Digital Rights" and then get back to us. This Administration stands with the UN's determination that the Internet is a right and has so far spent $400 million in the effort to force us to provide Internet services. cpwill's analogy stands unblemished.
Your second paragraph belies your first.
It's not government you distrust, it's Democrats.
I would like to think you'd learn what net neutrality actually is before publicly showing all of us that you haven't the slightest clue what it entails (nor, apparently, the curiosity to rectify that), but I learned a long time ago that expectations are foolish when dealing with the modern American conservative.
The Fairness Doctrine has been deader than disco for nearly 40 years. Has it ever made it out of committee since then? Still clinging onto that bogeyman?
That's not what net neutrality is. That's the OPPOSITE of what net neutrality is.
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?