Seriously, Mr. Obama needs to make a public announcement that he supports the act of breathing oxygen. One has to wonder how much condemnation he would get for that, as well as how many rabid and extreme Obama haters would promptly asphyxiate themselves.
I strongly disagree in this case. It's yet another area of governmental "mission creep" that, if implemented, would have disastrous long term effects. You must consider not just what the next administration is like, but the one after that, and the next one. What if one of them chooses to cut off your service because of political reasons? What if rates change to benefit certain politically connected providers? Well, gee, you won't have any alternatives because it'll all be administered by regulators. Regulators who are not responsive to market conditions.
Access to the internet is already anticompetitive in most areas, so being told that I can't stream Netflix because Netflix isn't paying the only ISP I can use in my area is anti-competitve.
You're' against net neutrality? You think allowing Charter to allow Hulu data through at streaming speeds but not Netflix is competitive? :???:
You have the ability to reject that service entirely or go with a competitor. As a utility, you'll be paying for your service AND everyone else's whether you like it or not.
Now Obama is the only president to ever play golf.
So GWB stopped playing golf. So what? He took a lot more vacation time, let 9/11 happen, OBL wasn't caught on his watch, and the economy went into the shitter because of his policies, after he destroyed with Clinton did. Now we have Obama fixing all that crap but now it's his fault it happened under GWB's command. Makes sense¡
Regardless of how you feel about him, his "race", policies, or anything else (as those are irrelevant here) only a fool would say we're worse off than when he took office, or that GWB left office better off than when he took office.
Let 9/11 happen? You can't be serious. The economy went into the shitter because of the democrats. Bush kept warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy. He actually warned congress, which was controlled by the Democrats in 2008, 17 times. All the reforms Republicans were trying to put in place were shut down by the Democrats. Did you forget the Community Reinvestment Act? Clinton made that even more worse. Simple fact is lenders weren't giving loans to unqualified people until the Democrats changed that by threatening to take them to court and fine them. Bottom line, it was policies by the Democrats that destroyed the economy. So many studies that have been coming out years later prove that. Here is one for example:
You have the ability to reject that service entirely or go with a competitor. As a utility, you'll be paying for your service AND everyone else's whether you like it or not.
Having to move several counties away to find a different ISP that supplies a wired connection to my house is not what I call an free market option.
Who knows? Maybe after his recent asskicking Obama will begin to deliver on the promise he has thus far failed to do. After all, what does he got left to lose, politically, just being another wishy washy politician? I have all but given up on the guy but he's still the not the devil some of you right wingers love to portray.
Powell and Rice are black. So was opposition against them during Bush's term racist? I suppose racism is a one way street.
There's a difference between a white man telling black people what to do, and a black man telling white people what to do.
There has been no time in modern history that one party has denied a president so much. And his policies are far from the liberal utopia that people make them out to be.
We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that.
Access to the internet is already anticompetitive in most areas, so being told that I can't stream Netflix because Netflix isn't paying the only ISP I can use in my area is anti-competitve.
I don't know enough of the particulars in the case of your service provider or your area. If there's only one service provider, is it because there isn't enough business to make it worth competing for other businesses, or are there regulatory hurdles or protections in place? There could be many reasons at work.
However, it may simply be a matter of there is no business case to be made at that location. There are huge costs to laying fiber, setting up relay towers, buying access, etc. if it's unprofitable, it won't happen.
Yeah right and the election wasn't a repudiation of BHO either. :rolleyes:
Only a simpleton describes the Presidents as BHO. Do you get a tingle holding your AR-15 while reminding yourself over and over that Hussein is his middle name, by birth?
Having to move several counties away to find a different ISP that supplies a wired connection to my house is not what I call an free market option.
Again, I don't know enough about the situation, but there could be many reasons why there is no good business case for a competitor to offer service in an area. I guarantee that densely populated areas see more competition that rural areas because there's less profit to be made. Forcing companies to provide unprofitable services is a non-starter.
Look, you've got to be a factual here. In what way are we 'worse off'? How is the USA being 'destroyed'?
I am not pro-Obama in the least: if anything, I think he has zero leadership skills. But leaving that aside, I am looking at the board macro-economic facts, and this is what I see:
* Inflation is low
* Interest rates are low
* Corporate profits are at an all-time high
* The stock market is at an all-time high * Silicon Valley is booming like in the mid-to-late 1990s * Manufacturing is coming back into the US * Energy production in the US is at all-time high
* Unemployment rate is down
* The budget deficit has declined dramatically
* Health care spending growth has slowed
* Government employment is lower now than when this Administration started
* Crime rates have declined
* Teenage pregnancies have declined * We haven't (yet) got into another war (although our involvement on the ISIS front is troubling)
?I could go on. How can all this be consistent with being 'worse off' or USA being 'destroyed'?
Zero leadership skills do not result in the list that is factually apparent. Just the opposite.
There's a difference between a white man telling black people what to do, and a black man telling white people what to do.
There has been no time in modern history that one party has denied a president so much. And his policies are far from the liberal utopia that people make them out to be.
We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that.
I think everyone is forgetting that cable companies already have a legal monopoly in most areas. The only way a competitor can enter a comcast or time warner area(which may be the same company soon) is if they lay down fiber, which is what google is doing. The problem with that is that cities have to be on board, and it requires a massive expenditure. So what is actually happening is that the existing monopolies are looking to abuse there status by charging both the receiver and the sender of said data.
Just look at the cable companies response in the cities google has put down fiber. Massive speed increases and massive price decreases. These monoplies are already abusing their status, so I don't think classifying them as utilities can make it any worse. What really needs to happen is to make laying fiber pathways mandatory on all new road construction, as tearing up the roads is the most expensive part of putting in fiber. Then simplify the process at either the state or federal level for a new company to use said pathways. The cable companies already have no incentive to improve their networks, so a little regulation isn't going to change that.
I just re-read it and this in particular is ludicrous: "We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that."
I just re-read it and this in particular is ludicrous: "We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that."
Comments
They cannot be forced to provide you with their service. If those last 200 feet to your house costs $50,000 are YOU willing to pay for it? I doubt it!
You don't think that the extra cost from the ISPs to businesses will be passed on to the consumer?
One has to wonder how much condemnation he would get for that, as well as how many rabid and extreme Obama haters would promptly asphyxiate themselves.
Access to the internet is already anticompetitive in most areas, so being told that I can't stream Netflix because Netflix isn't paying the only ISP I can use in my area is anti-competitve.
You have the ability to reject that service entirely or go with a competitor. As a utility, you'll be paying for your service AND everyone else's whether you like it or not.
Yeah right and the election wasn't a repudiation of BHO either. :rolleyes:
Now Obama is the only president to ever play golf.
So GWB stopped playing golf. So what? He took a lot more vacation time, let 9/11 happen, OBL wasn't caught on his watch, and the economy went into the shitter because of his policies, after he destroyed with Clinton did. Now we have Obama fixing all that crap but now it's his fault it happened under GWB's command. Makes sense¡
Regardless of how you feel about him, his "race", policies, or anything else (as those are irrelevant here) only a fool would say we're worse off than when he took office, or that GWB left office better off than when he took office.
Let 9/11 happen? You can't be serious. The economy went into the shitter because of the democrats. Bush kept warning that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy. He actually warned congress, which was controlled by the Democrats in 2008, 17 times. All the reforms Republicans were trying to put in place were shut down by the Democrats. Did you forget the Community Reinvestment Act? Clinton made that even more worse. Simple fact is lenders weren't giving loans to unqualified people until the Democrats changed that by threatening to take them to court and fine them. Bottom line, it was policies by the Democrats that destroyed the economy. So many studies that have been coming out years later prove that. Here is one for example:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122012-637924-faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults.htm?p=full
How does your comment relate to my comment in response to the earlier post?
Having to move several counties away to find a different ISP that supplies a wired connection to my house is not what I call an free market option.
Who knows? Maybe after his recent asskicking Obama will begin to deliver on the promise he has thus far failed to do. After all, what does he got left to lose, politically, just being another wishy washy politician? I have all but given up on the guy but he's still the not the devil some of you right wingers love to portray.
Powell and Rice are black. So was opposition against them during Bush's term racist? I suppose racism is a one way street.
There's a difference between a white man telling black people what to do, and a black man telling white people what to do.
There has been no time in modern history that one party has denied a president so much. And his policies are far from the liberal utopia that people make them out to be.
We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that.
I don't know enough of the particulars in the case of your service provider or your area. If there's only one service provider, is it because there isn't enough business to make it worth competing for other businesses, or are there regulatory hurdles or protections in place? There could be many reasons at work.
However, it may simply be a matter of there is no business case to be made at that location. There are huge costs to laying fiber, setting up relay towers, buying access, etc. if it's unprofitable, it won't happen.
Only a simpleton describes the Presidents as BHO. Do you get a tingle holding your AR-15 while reminding yourself over and over that Hussein is his middle name, by birth?
Again, I don't know enough about the situation, but there could be many reasons why there is no good business case for a competitor to offer service in an area. I guarantee that densely populated areas see more competition that rural areas because there's less profit to be made. Forcing companies to provide unprofitable services is a non-starter.
Zero leadership skills do not result in the list that is factually apparent. Just the opposite.
Whaaaaat? I cannot believe you just wrote that.
Whaaaaat? I cannot believe you just wrote that.
Just went back and reread it. Sounds good!
I think everyone is forgetting that cable companies already have a legal monopoly in most areas. The only way a competitor can enter a comcast or time warner area(which may be the same company soon) is if they lay down fiber, which is what google is doing. The problem with that is that cities have to be on board, and it requires a massive expenditure. So what is actually happening is that the existing monopolies are looking to abuse there status by charging both the receiver and the sender of said data.
Just look at the cable companies response in the cities google has put down fiber. Massive speed increases and massive price decreases. These monoplies are already abusing their status, so I don't think classifying them as utilities can make it any worse. What really needs to happen is to make laying fiber pathways mandatory on all new road construction, as tearing up the roads is the most expensive part of putting in fiber. Then simplify the process at either the state or federal level for a new company to use said pathways. The cable companies already have no incentive to improve their networks, so a little regulation isn't going to change that.
I just re-read it and this in particular is ludicrous: "We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that."
I'm ashamed you wrote that now!
OMG a spin doctor has invaded AI- save your nonsense for Rachel Madcow's blog.
Facts are stubborn things.
If any of those facts I quoted are wrong, tell us. Otherwise, shut up.
I just re-read it and this in particular is ludicrous: "We will look back at Obama's Presidency in 40 years and be ashamed of how we let him be treated. I guarantee that."
I'm ashamed you wrote that now!
I'm sorry you feel that way.