FCC looks to scrap net neutrality rules, report says

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 68
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    clemynx said:
    The US are really becoming a third world country legally-wise.
    Lack of regulations to protect the environment.
    Lack of regulations to protect consumers.

    It's a cesspool. Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them.

    Do you think it is the regulations that made US into a first world country? Lol
    Or that naiveté is charming.

    "Perfect ground for greedy multibillionaires and private companies. Everybody loses but them."
    You do know that those pay the majority of taxes, right? You do know that 50% of Americans do not pay ANY income tax at all.
    So, those 50% are supported by taxes paid by those greedy and evil multibillionaires companies, but you still have the audacity to type what you typed here?
    I guess, logic is a foreign concept to you. You are that proverbial moron from a russian saying, who is trying to cut a branch of a tree, while still sitting on that branch.
    What does the fact of who pays taxes matter to this debate or not? Companies are not always on the side of the normal guy, if they can make profits, they make profits. If this involves lobbying, it involves lobbying. 

    Plenty of corporations support net neutrality, the most innovative ones. The problem is the ones who are dependent on government - local or federal -  for licenses tend to have lobbyists more attuned to political manipulations, which is why the carriers won and Silicon Valley lost this debate. In short you are defending crony capitalism against real capitalism. 
    edited November 2017 gatorguy
  • Reply 62 of 68
    asdasd said:
    What does the fact of who pays taxes matter to this debate or not?
    The problem is that anyone is paying income tax at all. Until 1913, Americans kept all of their earnings. Despite this, we still had schools and colleges, roads, railroads, subways, and the US armed forces, who managed to win 8 wars. So why do “We The People” need to be extorted?
    Companies are not always on the side of the normal guy, if they can make profits, they make profits. If this involves lobbying, it involves lobbying.
    Why are you okay with lobbying when it was lobbying that caused the income tax in the first place? Among plenty of other things.
    In short you are defending crony capitalism against real capitalism. 
    You seriously think that SV doesn’t engage in political manipulation? Explain how horrible the Internet was before the current bill. I’m sure it was a nightmare, wasn’t it? All those sites being blocked randomly; you never knew what your ISP would hide or throttle or… oh, wait; none of that ever happened. Laws to solve problems that don’t exist aren’t laws. They’re tyranny.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 63 of 68
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,293member
    asdasd said:
    What does the fact of who pays taxes matter to this debate or not?
    The problem is that anyone is paying income tax at all. Until 1913, Americans kept all of their earnings. Despite this, we still had schools and colleges, roads, railroads, subways, and the US armed forces, who managed to win 8 wars. So why do “We The People” need to be extorted?
    Companies are not always on the side of the normal guy, if they can make profits, they make profits. If this involves lobbying, it involves lobbying.
    Why are you okay with lobbying when it was lobbying that caused the income tax in the first place? Among plenty of other things.
    In short you are defending crony capitalism against real capitalism. 
    You seriously think that SV doesn’t engage in political manipulation? Explain how horrible the Internet was before the current bill. I’m sure it was a nightmare, wasn’t it? All those sites being blocked randomly; you never knew what your ISP would hide or throttle or… oh, wait; none of that ever happened. Laws to solve problems that don’t exist aren’t laws. They’re tyranny.
    Discussion on income tax here seems unrelated to the discussion. As does the non-sequitor that I am ok with lobbying at all. I would define lots of it as a bribe. I feel if I answered either two points I might get involved in the kind of debate I dont think relevant. There is an outsider forum. 

    As for whether SV involves itself in political manipulation - to a much lesser extent than the carriers and ISPs do, which is why they lost this battle. And as for why they have few lobbiests it is because they are purer as capitalists - they dont need licenses to operate. 

    With regards sites to your last point,  there is evidence on this thread that comcast slowed down netflix. This law ( really a change of regulation) therefore does have a purpose. 
    edited November 2017 applepieguy
  • Reply 64 of 68
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,593member
    asdasd said:
    What does the fact of who pays taxes matter to this debate or not?
    The problem is that anyone is paying income tax at all. Until 1913, Americans kept all of their earnings. Despite this, we still had schools and colleges, roads, railroads, subways, and the US armed forces, who managed to win 8 wars. So why do “We The People” need to be extorted?

    TS, I am absolutely certain you know how the Civil War was funded....
    And "no income tax" does not mean there was no taxation of individuals post-Revolutionary war, again a fact I have zero doubt you knew. While I agree that there is far too much government involvement in what should be private affairs, rolling back the tax base to apply only to land-owners and business owners at this point would be both politically and practically impossible. Perhaps you can find a more realistic tax scenario, perhaps a VAT-type rather than overly burdening property owners as would be the case if we went back to taxation pre-income tax.

    Anyway I have zero interest in debating the merits of what's an impossible scenario to begin with, and what you're trying to introduce as a distraction to the thread topic: The relative merits of the current Net Neutrality Policy and whether it should be changed in accordance with Pai's plans. US income tax policy has zero bearing on it and has no place in this discussion IMHO. 
    edited November 2017 singularityapplepieguy
  • Reply 65 of 68
    gatorguy said:
    TS, I am absolutely certain you know how the Civil War was funded....
    For the North, an unconstitutional law. What’s your point? They had to hijack the constitution 60 years later to get an income tax in place.
    And "no income tax" does not mean there was no taxation of individuals post-Revolutionary war, again a fact I have zero doubt you knew.
    But not so little doubt that you felt the need to say it despite me already knowing it.  ;) Tariffs are how the US government was funded before the fucking Federal Reserve came into being, and tariffs will be how it is funded when the 16th amendment is repealed. Sales tax, too.
    ...rolling back the tax base to apply only to land-owners and business owners at this point would be both politically and practically impossible.
    I would only do that on the condition that they’re the only ones who get to vote. Again. Otherwise if you’re voting, you’d better be paying taxes.
    ...overly burdening property owners…
    Oh, no more property tax, either. I want that shit gone. You don’t own your own land.
    Anyway I have zero interest in debating the merits of what's an impossible scenario to begin with
    Of course it’s impossible; you think it is. You’ll never fix the tax code with that attitude.
    ...and what you're trying to introduce as a distraction to the thread topic
    Someone else mentioned taxation; I just opined.
    The relative merits of the current Net Neutrality Policy
    There aren’t any. The government does not bother to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet now, so what good is having a bill giving them more control over it? The bill didn’t stop monopolies or collusion or even force infrastructure construction. How about we fix the real problems?
  • Reply 66 of 68
    I really wish you all would stop calling the Fed "The Government".  They are not "The Government", they are the Fed.  The states have government as well.  Governments from the states down were what gave us schools and roads before the Federal Income Tax.  

  • Reply 67 of 68
    tadd said:
    I really wish you all would stop calling the Fed "The Government".  They are not "The Government", they are the Fed.  The states have government as well.  Governments from the states down were what gave us schools and roads before the Federal Income Tax.  

    The Fed = Federal Reserve

    The Feds = Federal government
    tallest skil
  • Reply 68 of 68
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,593member
    FCC Commissioner Clyburn has published a very detailed rebuttal of nearly every doom-and-gloom prediction put forth by Chairman Pai when he campaigned against the current rules in 2015. None of it came to pass so why should we believe his predictions now?

    http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1130/DOC-348016A1.pdf
Sign In or Register to comment.