Ask your political leaders if they're getting paid off to prevent that competition.
Better yet, ask yourself if net neutrality can help put an end to the sweetheart deals that the ISPs have been setting up with the content providers, driving up costs and reducing free choice for consumers like you and me.
Better yet, ask yourself if net neutrality can help put an end to the sweetheart deals that the ISPs have been setting up with the content providers, driving up costs and reducing free choice for consumers like you and me.
The ultimate freedom of choice is choosing no service at all. Net neutrality would permanently bake in the massive cost of providing services to everyone with increased taxation. It's not worth the loss of choice, the loss of freedom and the increase in government control.
One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems. "War on women." Minimum wage hikes. Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason. Free "ObamaPhones." And now "broadband is a public utility."
The ultimate freedom of choice is choosing no service at all. Net neutrality would permanently bake in the massive cost of providing services to everyone with increased taxation. It's not worth the loss of choice, the loss of freedom and the increase in government control.
The ultimate freedom of choice is choosing no service at all. Net neutrality would permanently bake in the massive cost of providing services to everyone with increased taxation. It's not worth the loss of choice, the loss of freedom and the increase in government control.
Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?
An obvious slip on my part. Do you care to respond to the discussion?
Look - your arguments persist in defiance of logic and the facts, which is simply Orwellian. Why don't you give it a rest until you really take the time to understand net neutrality? It long predates Obama's involvement, and, I suspect, that if his name were not injected in connection to it, you would be supporting the concept. Yet it is your all-consuming distaste for the man that seems to color your reasoning. That's a shame, because in so many of your other posts you have made a lot of sense and made real contributions to the discussion threads. Shall we try to make a fresh start at this without all the political conspiracy theories?
And please don't - at this point - start to accuse me of being an Obama lackey. Among presidencies, his is ending up ineffectively unless there is some miraculous turnaround in the next two years. Let's just try to focus on net neutrality and what it means for consumers like you and me.
An obvious slip on my part. Do you care to respond to the discussion?
Look - your arguments persist in defiance of logic and the facts, which is simply Orwellian. Why don't you give it a rest until you really take the time to understand net neutrality? It long predates Obama's involvement, and, I suspect, that if his name were not injected in connection to it, you would be supporting the concept. Yet it is your all-consuming distaste for the man that seems to color your reasoning. That's a shame, because in so many of your other posts you have made a lot of sense and made real contributions to the discussion threads. Shall we try to make a fresh start at this without all the political conspiracy theories?
And please don't - at this point - start to accuse me of being an Obama lackey. Among presidencies, his is ending up ineffectively unless there is some miraculous turnaround in the next two years. Let's just try to focus on net neutrality and what it means for consumers like you and me.
Your previous comment was this: "Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?"
How should one respond to insults? Even your most recent response is thoroughly lacking in content. Precisely what is it you're saying you believe deserves a response?
If you care to present something substantive, I'll provide a response. For starters, how about culling from your EFF link and formulate your own opinion.
Your previous comment was this: "Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?"
How should one respond to insults? Even your most recent response is thoroughly lacking in content. Precisely what is it you're saying you believe deserves a response?
If you care to present something substantive, I'll provide a response. For starters, how about culling from your EFF link and formulate your own opinion.
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I see.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
Comcast actually paid Verizon To stop expanding. Yay
If there's proof of collusion or other anti-competitive actions, tell it to a judge. One of the few real powers of the Federal government is to protect people from fraud and the aforementioned.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
Fundamentally, you are mixing up equal treatment of access to content ON the Internet with the concept of equal access TO the Internet, content notwithstanding. There is no mandate within net neutrality that any entity - private or governmental - must provide any free or rate prescribed ability for an individual to make that first step in connecting to the Internet. There is a cost to building an infrastructure that delivers Internet data capability, and consumers pay for it now with their subscriptions to cable or satellite ISPs. (Unless, of course, an Internet user camps out at wireless hotspots in places like McDonald's or the local library.)
Another way of putting it is that "net neutrality" treats all traffic on the Internet equally.
But if you're talking taxation, you're thinking about the costs involved in building an infrastructure that allows free and open access to the Internet by anyone, anytime, anywhere. That's something quite different from net neutrality, and there have been proposals involving governments such as municipalities building open networks, so that their entire communities become free hotspots. Well, that's something for communities and their people to decide, and how they want to pay for it. But as to folks living up in Conchas Dam, New Mexico, for example, they're probably going to be paying a satellite ISP for their Internet access at home. It won't be free.
One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems. "War on women." Minimum wage hikes. Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason. Free "ObamaPhones." And now "broadband is a public utility."
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I see.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
Precisely.
Liberals just don't think things through. It’s in everyone's best interests that net neutrality never succeeds, otherwise we can look forward to no optimisation of service. That's what capitalism is for: to achieve excellence in the most efficient and fair way possible.
This is a prime example of needless government, and is a classic example of why the US is so steeped in debt. We're not much better here in the UK.
It’s in everyone's best interests that net neutrality never succeeds, otherwise we can look forward to no optimisation of service.
Yeah, because nobody would ever step in and compete with faster service and send everyone else scrambling.
Google Fiber is still months from providing service in Austin, yet Time Warner cable somehow found a way to bump me 10x to 225Mb/s at no additional charge. ATT is doing the same in Austin right now.
It's hard to imagine a case against net neutrality and the comments by President Obama are quite reasonable. Your statement regarding speeds and pricing is interesting. I find it hard to believe if you mean there are far better internet systems in place in countries of a comparable size. It's not quite fair, for example, to look at Sweden in comparison to the country when it comes to communications. Geography and the distribution of the population matter with respect to communications. It would be nice to have a specific comparable example that you had in mind. That being said, it does appear as though the communications' field is dominated by too few players, the video distribution system is broken and the whole local internet is at risk.
Well we seem to be in basic agreement.
Here is the information you asked for. I wouldn't try to compare by population or any other metric other than speed available. I simply meant to imply something has gone wrong when the USA isn't top of the league in any technology and I feel that free competition seems to have failed us on this one. My feeling is Comcast and Verizon et al need a poke in the eye.
Comments
Ask your political leaders if they're getting paid off to prevent that competition.
The ultimate freedom of choice is choosing no service at all. Net neutrality would permanently bake in the massive cost of providing services to everyone with increased taxation. It's not worth the loss of choice, the loss of freedom and the increase in government control.
One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems. "War on women." Minimum wage hikes. Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason. Free "ObamaPhones." And now "broadband is a public utility."
worst. President. EVER.
what absolute nonsense.
Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?
Once again, read https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/white-house-gets-it-net-neutrality-will-fcc-0
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”
? George Orwell, 1984
Liked my post so much you quoted it twice, eh?
We are worse off. Obama's policies are destroying the USA.
doom! doooom! DOOOOOM! we ALL DOOOMED!
thats what your post says.
Liked my post so much you quoted it twice, eh?
An obvious slip on my part. Do you care to respond to the discussion?
Look - your arguments persist in defiance of logic and the facts, which is simply Orwellian. Why don't you give it a rest until you really take the time to understand net neutrality? It long predates Obama's involvement, and, I suspect, that if his name were not injected in connection to it, you would be supporting the concept. Yet it is your all-consuming distaste for the man that seems to color your reasoning. That's a shame, because in so many of your other posts you have made a lot of sense and made real contributions to the discussion threads. Shall we try to make a fresh start at this without all the political conspiracy theories?
And please don't - at this point - start to accuse me of being an Obama lackey. Among presidencies, his is ending up ineffectively unless there is some miraculous turnaround in the next two years. Let's just try to focus on net neutrality and what it means for consumers like you and me.
An obvious slip on my part. Do you care to respond to the discussion?
Look - your arguments persist in defiance of logic and the facts, which is simply Orwellian. Why don't you give it a rest until you really take the time to understand net neutrality? It long predates Obama's involvement, and, I suspect, that if his name were not injected in connection to it, you would be supporting the concept. Yet it is your all-consuming distaste for the man that seems to color your reasoning. That's a shame, because in so many of your other posts you have made a lot of sense and made real contributions to the discussion threads. Shall we try to make a fresh start at this without all the political conspiracy theories?
And please don't - at this point - start to accuse me of being an Obama lackey. Among presidencies, his is ending up ineffectively unless there is some miraculous turnaround in the next two years. Let's just try to focus on net neutrality and what it means for consumers like you and me.
Your previous comment was this: "Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?"
How should one respond to insults? Even your most recent response is thoroughly lacking in content. Precisely what is it you're saying you believe deserves a response?
If you care to present something substantive, I'll provide a response. For starters, how about culling from your EFF link and formulate your own opinion.
Your previous comment was this: "Taxation? That's a new one. How do you dream up this stuff?"
How should one respond to insults? Even your most recent response is thoroughly lacking in content. Precisely what is it you're saying you believe deserves a response?
If you care to present something substantive, I'll provide a response. For starters, how about culling from your EFF link and formulate your own opinion.
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I see.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
I always assumed people voted for Romney because they're brain-damaged.
Maybe... I guess the corollary argument is anyone who refused to vote for either Romney or Obama would be a genius.
Comcast actually paid Verizon To stop expanding. Yay
Comcast actually paid Verizon To stop expanding. Yay
If there's proof of collusion or other anti-competitive actions, tell it to a judge. One of the few real powers of the Federal government is to protect people from fraud and the aforementioned.
I see.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
Fundamentally, you are mixing up equal treatment of access to content ON the Internet with the concept of equal access TO the Internet, content notwithstanding. There is no mandate within net neutrality that any entity - private or governmental - must provide any free or rate prescribed ability for an individual to make that first step in connecting to the Internet. There is a cost to building an infrastructure that delivers Internet data capability, and consumers pay for it now with their subscriptions to cable or satellite ISPs. (Unless, of course, an Internet user camps out at wireless hotspots in places like McDonald's or the local library.)
Another way of putting it is that "net neutrality" treats all traffic on the Internet equally.
But if you're talking taxation, you're thinking about the costs involved in building an infrastructure that allows free and open access to the Internet by anyone, anytime, anywhere. That's something quite different from net neutrality, and there have been proposals involving governments such as municipalities building open networks, so that their entire communities become free hotspots. Well, that's something for communities and their people to decide, and how they want to pay for it. But as to folks living up in Conchas Dam, New Mexico, for example, they're probably going to be paying a satellite ISP for their Internet access at home. It won't be free.
One marvels at how Obama and his fellow far-left lackeys prioritize the nation's pressing problems. "War on women." Minimum wage hikes. Abortion at any stage of birth, for any reason. Free "ObamaPhones." And now "broadband is a public utility."
worst. President. EVER.
what absolute nonsense.
You've got it in a nutshell.
Obama's policies are, indeed, nonsense.
I didn't intend to insult you, but it's apparent that you're hankering to fight anybody who questions your arguments.
Again. Where did you come up with the mention of taxation? Please provide any substantive information about a connection between net neutrality and taxation. Otherwise, it's reasonable to conclude that your "taxation" comment is a figment of your imagination.
As to the EFF link, that is my opinion. I agree with it totally.
I see.
First off, do you agree or disagree that for the entire country to have "equal access" to the Internet, it would cost a massive amount of money to build out the infrastructure?
Second, since some companies (such as Netflix) have a disproportional amount of web traffic, you evidently believe they should not have to pay for that heavy bandwidth usage. Am I right? Well, if THEY don't pay for it, who will?
And once the existing "penalties" for heavy use are removed, why wouldn't EVERY company and/or consumer use the maximum bandwidth available?
I see taxes, taxes everywhere connected to this big-government giveaway. Arguments to the contrary are sheer fantasy. The EFF position defends their point of view. They aren't concerned about real-world costs or the unintended side-effects of their position.
Precisely.
Liberals just don't think things through. It’s in everyone's best interests that net neutrality never succeeds, otherwise we can look forward to no optimisation of service. That's what capitalism is for: to achieve excellence in the most efficient and fair way possible.
This is a prime example of needless government, and is a classic example of why the US is so steeped in debt. We're not much better here in the UK.
The anticompetitive and discriminatory behavior of the ISPs in ways that screw over consumers like you and me IS the issue here.
And your evidence that this can be fixed by a government reclassification thereof is what, exactly?
It’s in everyone's best interests that net neutrality never succeeds, otherwise we can look forward to no optimisation of service.
Yeah, because nobody would ever step in and compete with faster service and send everyone else scrambling.
Google Fiber is still months from providing service in Austin, yet Time Warner cable somehow found a way to bump me 10x to 225Mb/s at no additional charge. ATT is doing the same in Austin right now.
Well we seem to be in basic agreement.
Here is the information you asked for. I wouldn't try to compare by population or any other metric other than speed available. I simply meant to imply something has gone wrong when the USA isn't top of the league in any technology and I feel that free competition seems to have failed us on this one. My feeling is Comcast and Verizon et al need a poke in the eye.
http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/