How do you have free markets when the only players in the market can be a handful of conglomerations? Without a level field of regulation where municipalities and private entities can compete for my money will I ever maximize my bargaining at the table.
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
Where is there any evidence of "that's the way things are going"? Any?
Otherwise your sentence might as well read,
So will we need to dye our hair blue and hop on one foot in front of the FCC to create a new website.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
Try reading, just a little bit, before you post for once.
This was only a couple of posts up from your paranoid drivel,
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The most exciting part of today's ruling is that municipalities can offer broadband if they wish to, without these price-gouging monopolists dragging them endlessly through the courts. Towns that afford it should issue bonds to finance the laying of fiber optic cables on major streets (like they do with streetlights) and allow in anyone who wants to access those last-mile pipes for a fee (like they do utilities).
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
(Bonus points to people who know who this ^^^ is)
Yes because that lack of regulation really did wonders for the financial sector.
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
Do you believe everything Sean Hannity says? Larger players typically have an advantage to begin with, but Net Neutrality won't allow them to make special deals to squelch smaller players.
Try reading, just a little bit, before you post for once.
This was only a couple of posts up from your paranoid drivel,
This means more competition.
Complete nonsense. The extra costs will be passed onto taxpayers no matter how you look at it. This is just one more feather in the cap of an utterly screwed up corporatist government. You lack an understanding of the real-world implications of "free stuff" from your government. Hint: THERE IS NO FREE STUFF.
Do you believe everything Sean Hannity says? Larger players typically have an advantage to begin with, but Net Neutrality won't allow them to make special deals to squelch smaller players.
I don't listen to Sean Hannity. Don't watch him either. I consider him unworthy of attention.
Here come the anti-free market big government apologists.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the situation, all you know is what you heard on Limbaugh and Fox News.
Net neutrality is a critical component of free speech in the XXIst century and prevents ISPs from double-dipping and holding some companies' traffic hostage. Do you have any idea why Comcast wants to merge with Time Warner? Do you even have the slightest clue what a de facto monopoly is? Do you understand that we pay four times what most people pay in other countries for better service, mostly because of a complete lack of competition?
If you were for a free, healthy, competitive market, you would support Net Neutrality. But you're not. You don't even know what you support. You just repeat what you hear on wingnut radio. It's just sad to see people with so little grasp on reality being allowed to vote.
YEAH, BECAUSE THE FCC SURE FORCES PEOPLE TO DO THIS FOR THE OTHER THINGS IT REGULATES.
Oh, wait, no, they demand licenses for those. Gee, where have you seen that word before?
This isn't evidence that they have any plans to require licenses from website publishers. Do you have any evidence of any FCC commissioner or employee even talking about requiring these licenses?
It's just sad to see people with so little grasp on reality being allowed to vote.
Now if we actually were allowed to vote, then that would be huge. As it is, five appointed committee members decided. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased about the outcome but it could be overturned in the court. If everyone in the US was allowed to vote on it, it would not even go to the courts. It would simply be decided much like city, county or state bills are decided.
What? I was wondering who could possibly be dumb enough to be against Net Neutrality, I guess I have my answer.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the situation, all you know is what you heard on Limbaugh and Fox News. I'd say use your brain, but it's highly unlikely you'd know how.
Net neutrality is a critical component of free speech in the XXIst century and prevents ISPs from double-dipping and holding some companies' traffic hostage. Do you have any idea why Comcast wants to merge with Time Warner? Do you even have the slightest clue what a de facto monopoly is? Do you understand that we pay four times what most people pay in other countries for better service, mostly because of a complete lack of competition?
If you were for a free, healthy, competitive market, you would support Net Neutrality. But you're not. You don't even know what you support. You just repeat what you hear on wingnut radio. It's just sad to see people with so little grasp on reality being allowed to vote.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
Comments
How do you have free markets when the only players in the market can be a handful of conglomerations? Without a level field of regulation where municipalities and private entities can compete for my money will I ever maximize my bargaining at the table.
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
How many people previously turned away from using AT&T broadband because they block port 25*?
Well, no more.
*Port 25 for support of personally/privately operated e-mail servers.
So will we need to obtain a license from the FCC to create a new website? Seems that’s the way things are going.
Where is there any evidence of "that's the way things are going"? Any?
Otherwise your sentence might as well read,
So will we need to dye our hair blue and hop on one foot in front of the FCC to create a new website.
How many people previously turned away from using AT&T broadband because they block port 25*?
Well, no more.
*Port 25 for support of personally/privately operated e-mail servers.
There are good reasons for limiting personal email servers. Ever hear of a botnet?
Where is there any evidence of "that's the way things are going"? Any?
Otherwise your sentence might as well read,
So will we need to dye our hair blue and hop on one foot in front of the FCC to create a new website.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
(Bonus points to people who know who this ^^^ is)
How many people previously turned away from using AT&T broadband because they block port 25*?
Well, no more.
*Port 25 for support of personally/privately operated e-mail servers.
That is an interesting question. I think they might still be allowed to block it because of security issues.
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
Try reading, just a little bit, before you post for once.
This was only a couple of posts up from your paranoid drivel,
This means more competition.
The "neutral" rules you happen to like under a president you favor will now become the intrusive, freedom violating rules under a president you disfavor. This is why there should always be as little Federal regulation as possible.
(Bonus points to people who know who this ^^^ is)
Yes because that lack of regulation really did wonders for the financial sector.
So will we need to dye our hair blue and hop on one foot in front of the FCC to create a new website.
YEAH, BECAUSE THE FCC SURE FORCES PEOPLE TO DO THIS FOR THE OTHER THINGS IT REGULATES.
Oh, wait, no, they demand licenses for those. Gee, where have you seen that word before?
And so-called "Net neutrality" does nothing to increase competition. In fact, it certainly will end up favoring larger players and put the small providers out of business. This will reinforce and protect the big companies. Translation: Welcome back to bigger, harder to break up providers. The name "Net neutrality" is total Newspeak and supporters have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.
Do you believe everything Sean Hannity says? Larger players typically have an advantage to begin with, but Net Neutrality won't allow them to make special deals to squelch smaller players.
Try reading, just a little bit, before you post for once.
This was only a couple of posts up from your paranoid drivel,
This means more competition.
Complete nonsense. The extra costs will be passed onto taxpayers no matter how you look at it. This is just one more feather in the cap of an utterly screwed up corporatist government. You lack an understanding of the real-world implications of "free stuff" from your government. Hint: THERE IS NO FREE STUFF.
YEAH, BECAUSE THE FCC SURE FORCES PEOPLE TO DO THIS FOR THE OTHER THINGS IT REGULATES.
Oh, wait, no, they demand licenses for those. Gee, where have you seen that word before?
Do you not have any idea what Title II is about?
Do you believe everything Sean Hannity says? Larger players typically have an advantage to begin with, but Net Neutrality won't allow them to make special deals to squelch smaller players.
I don't listen to Sean Hannity. Don't watch him either. I consider him unworthy of attention.
Here come the anti-free market big government apologists.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the situation, all you know is what you heard on Limbaugh and Fox News.
Net neutrality is a critical component of free speech in the XXIst century and prevents ISPs from double-dipping and holding some companies' traffic hostage. Do you have any idea why Comcast wants to merge with Time Warner? Do you even have the slightest clue what a de facto monopoly is? Do you understand that we pay four times what most people pay in other countries for better service, mostly because of a complete lack of competition?
If you were for a free, healthy, competitive market, you would support Net Neutrality. But you're not. You don't even know what you support. You just repeat what you hear on wingnut radio. It's just sad to see people with so little grasp on reality being allowed to vote.
I don't listen to Sean Hannity. Don't watch him either. I consider him unworthy of attention.
Then please provide a coherent rationale for why Net Neutrality is meaningless or whatever it is you believe.
YEAH, BECAUSE THE FCC SURE FORCES PEOPLE TO DO THIS FOR THE OTHER THINGS IT REGULATES.
Oh, wait, no, they demand licenses for those. Gee, where have you seen that word before?
This isn't evidence that they have any plans to require licenses from website publishers. Do you have any evidence of any FCC commissioner or employee even talking about requiring these licenses?
Now if we actually were allowed to vote, then that would be huge. As it is, five appointed committee members decided. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased about the outcome but it could be overturned in the court. If everyone in the US was allowed to vote on it, it would not even go to the courts. It would simply be decided much like city, county or state bills are decided.
What? I was wondering who could possibly be dumb enough to be against Net Neutrality, I guess I have my answer.
You have absolutely zero grasp of the situation, all you know is what you heard on Limbaugh and Fox News. I'd say use your brain, but it's highly unlikely you'd know how.
Net neutrality is a critical component of free speech in the XXIst century and prevents ISPs from double-dipping and holding some companies' traffic hostage. Do you have any idea why Comcast wants to merge with Time Warner? Do you even have the slightest clue what a de facto monopoly is? Do you understand that we pay four times what most people pay in other countries for better service, mostly because of a complete lack of competition?
If you were for a free, healthy, competitive market, you would support Net Neutrality. But you're not. You don't even know what you support. You just repeat what you hear on wingnut radio. It's just sad to see people with so little grasp on reality being allowed to vote.
You are being extremely presumptive and offensive.
Hello to the Forum.
I've been a member since 2006, and I think this might be my first post.
I use to hangout on Macworld.
Anyway, this is also a test to see if I'm posting correctly.
Then please provide a coherent rationale for why Net Neutrality is meaningless or whatever it is you believe.
I don't need to restate it. This sums up my position: