Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
What if, theoretically possible, maybe, could, might, possibility. Blathering nonsense. Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.
The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
AT&T blocked FaceTime, then they blocked Skype -- because they wanted users to rely on calls and then not-free texts. The FCC admits in the proposal today that Comcast blocked streaming video providers, and it was because they didn't want the competition for their cable bundles. Comcast later throttled Netflix traffic that it could identify. Verizon blocked contactless payments because they were working on their own.
And, those are just the big ones. Saying that ISPs never blocked anything before they were being watched by the Obama administration is a ridiculously false statement, and also ignores the market factors surrounding the internet's growth and usage in everyday life.
Exactly! Verizon also throttled Netflix until they paid them more, leading to the subscription price increase.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
There's no "right" to electricity either. Would you rather that had no consumer protections?
Net neutrality is an Obama era invention. How did we ever get along all these years without it? Before net neutrality was AI ever blocked by some Windows person at a carrier? It didn’t happen before the government’s power grab and it won’t happen after either even though it is ‘theoretically’ possible. Labeling Internet service as a utility no different than natural gas or electricity so the government could control it was a mistake and I’m happy it’s going away.
The only restrictions I remember from the days before net neutrality was that websites told me to go away because I was a Mac user and wasn’t running IE as by browser. The government didn’t fix that, competition and innovation did.
Why don’t you look at this from the perspective of internet capabilities? The internet continues to get faster and more capable and there are increasing opportunities in internet monetisation. The internet has stayed neutral despite commercial interest. There is no reason at all to think the internet will continue to remain neutral. As the capabilities increase the business opportunities increase, and even well-meaning entrepreneurs will seek out opportunities unaware of the effect of their actions. And, of course, there are plenty of people who will happily screw their customers and ruin anything if they can get away with it. As much as I did not like Obama policies in general the idea of net neutrality is vital in keeping the internet the way it is—it might be the one thing Obama’s administration did that I liked!
The internet is bigger than a commercial venture. While much of it is entertainment, that’s not its philosophy and shouldn’t be. It’s the easy and free distribution of information and communication. It’s more like utility services than it is like a television network.
That’s simply a utopian view of how things really work. The Internet is only as valuable as its connections and those connections are many millions of servers, databases and other kinds of inputs which must all be paid for somehow. This “free Internet” meme has always been utter nonsense.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
People make a choice to live in less population dense areas. Making such a choice results in less access to services which can be provided more practically and at a lower cost in the higher density cities. That’s how it should be. Economics in action. Greater demand drives competition to supply the demand. Less demand in the boonies means higher cost.
No, it’s not how it should be. If you don’t care about the entire country, then I suppose it makes sense to you. But this is a place where everyone should have quality accesss to services, whether you like it or not. Going back a hundred years, AT&T was required to service rural areas. Mostly, they did it by either buying rural providers, or entering into deals with them. But it was done. We paid a tiny amount on our bills to pay for that rural access. It it benefited everyone in the country for everyone to have equal quality, and even just access to telephone use. It was harder with Tv, because of the difficulty of getting service out, but eventually, it was done.
now, decent broadband is necessary, though I suppose you don’t believe that, because you have it.
I really don't get anyone's argument that this will make ISP's more competitive or lead to more options. This is a control and money grab, plain and simple, IMHO
I really don't get the belief that lack of Net Neutrality will materially change combined costs, offerings, or service availability.
At most it will slice up the same sized pie amongst different providers, cause exabytes of discussions and dronings on, and end up exactly where we started, except under NN there is yet another book of rules that control our lives.
Infrastructure is one thing that demands significant government regulation. It’s the only way to ensure an even playing field, which is literally the lifeblood of market competition. If Comcast or Verizon or AT&T can choke off all streaming video that they don’t own, and each one has a monopoly in many areas, there is no competition. Lifting requirements of net neutrality will literally destroy competition. When unequal access to pipes, roads, wires, waterways or airwaves is granted, those with the most money are given the power to take more money from everyone else, while giving back less in return. Unregulated monopoly power is never a good thing.
What Garbage! The entire idea her is for this to happen. We’ve seen baby steps with AT&T giving special privileges to subscribers if they also subscribe to Direct TV (or whatever it’s called). That automatically makes every other service more expensive.
You realize that happens just as much under Net Neutrality, right?
When an ISP can't single out Netflix for taking 50% of its bandwidth to serve 5% of the ISP's users it has no choice but to raise rates for all customers to cover the increased costs. Non-Netflix users are subsidizing the Netflix users.
The only difference between the two cases is that under "Netflix Neutrality" the consumer has no choice in what services to support.
No, it doesn’t. In fact the Verizon thing with Netflix was being investigated. With this administration stating that they were going to kill neutrality, companies began to get bolder in defying it. So it’s been a year with them knowing that there would be no enforcement.
there’s not only been no evidence that Verizon didn’t have the bandwidth, the the evidence was that they did. It didn’t cost anyone else anything, and it wouldn’t have. Besides, the big companies are going to have to increase bandwidth no matter what, so that they don’t have it is a crap argument. Internet use continues to increase at a rapid rate. Any argument that a company doesn’t have enough bandwidth is fake. If they refuse to invest in their networks, then they will lose business, and they know that. This is just another “land grab” by them.
its hard to understand how easy it is for them to fool some people.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
It’s the reality, which has been shown in surveys done every year by various organizations, including the US government. And in many major metropolitan areas just one ISP, or at the most two, are operating.
Subsidizing people who live in less accessible areas of the country is just plain bad policymaking. Subsidizing anything results very quickly in favoritism and corruption.
Just the opposite. Subsidizing for equal access it the perfect way to equalize areas of the country. When you don’t do that you get exactly what you describe.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.
Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something. It's a geographic unit, not a population unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people. I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number. And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.
Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something. It's a geographic unit, not a population unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people. I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number. And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
"Census block with insignificant populations were excluded"
Do what you can, with the data that you have. 78% of the "significant" census blocks either don't have 25/3 internet or only have one choice where to get it from. And, the remaining 22% don't have 100% coverage. The carriers got to report a census block as covered if they had one whole house in the block serviced.
How's this for an idea - elect people in Congress who will pass a net-neutrality law. Or don't, depending on your viewpoint.
Every fiber of my being is revolted by Donald Trump, but a close second was the Obama administration's default position of using agencies under the Executive branch's control to circumvent the legislative branch of our government. Congress makes the laws, and federal agencies implement the laws - at least that's the theory.
"Net-neutrality" is just another euphemism for "Socialist policy." The Internet is a pipe for data, pure and simple, and like all pipes, there is a wide range of installation and maintenance costs. If somebody ends up making a windfall, the profit scent will carry on the economic winds, and the competitive wolves will track it down.
What other "x-neutrality" should government get involved with? We just returned from an RV trip where we spent a few nights in Ely, NV. A t-shirt in the RV park read: "Ely, NV - only 398 miles round trip to Wal-Mart." As you might guess, groceries in their one-and-only "supermarket" were priced through the roof compared with that far-off Walmart (in Winnemucca, NV, where we also stayed and shopped). Winnemucca also has an interstate freeway going right through town, where Ely only has a two-lane road.
I don't trust businesses to always do right by their customers - the thing is, I trust government even less with their policies and regulations.
Excuse me, but that’s exactly what Trump is doing. And guess what, since he can’t get anything passed by his own party, he’s using executive orders far more than any other president. But, you either haven’t paid enough attention to know that, or you don’t care, because you like what he’s doing.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
Agreed. It allows FOX to pay more for bandwidth forcing other less well funded "liberal" voices out of the marketplace. It also allows special interests to invest in news outlets thus giving them the capital to compete on the same level as big media, while effectively silencing poorly funded voices which represent those least able to represent themselves.
Yeah, right. Fox is a very rich company. They are also owned by a man who is almost a fringe rightest. His company is one of the biggest media companies in the world. He also supports smaller outlets of the same political bent.
Replace Fox with CNN and you will get the same correct statement. What was your point?
No, you don’t. Fox isn’t news. And while I know people who don’t like CNN because if it isn’t right wing, it’s left wing, because they don’t understand that there is a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in. If you want to usu CNBC as an example of a lefter position, go ahead.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
It’s the reality, which has been shown in surveys done every year by various organizations, including the US government. And in many major metropolitan areas just one ISP, or at the most two, are operating.
Subsidizing people who live in less accessible areas of the country is just plain bad policymaking. Subsidizing anything results very quickly in favoritism and corruption.
My total tax bill for subsidizing the less accessible areas of the US on both my wireless bill and my FiOS bill combined was $7 whole dollars. It was $6.10 before the net neutrality rules were enacted, on about $40 more a month between the two.
I trust the ISPs to be neutral and apolitical more than I trust Google, Facebook, and Twitter.
All those companies have gone pro-censorship. Coming from a country without freedom of speech, that's frightening.
I don’t trust any of them. That what regulations are for. It’s too bad, but companies do what they do to push their own interest forward. If that happens to coincide with ours, that’s great, but when it doesn’t, then without a regulatory agency to keep them in line, we get predatory monopolies.
No, we don’t. We get predatory monopolies when competition is suppressed or excluded via legislation and regulations. Every single monopoly in US history came about thanks to political connections, not because the “free market” failed.
That’s not true either. All the early monopolies began because of a person who started a company with a new technological idea, for example AT&T, or a new idea in business, such as the trusts that Rockefeller came up with to start Standard Oil. Both of these companies, as well as others, started right before the time when these large monopolies were seen to be uncompetitive, and the antitrust laws began to come into place. Please don’t get history backwards.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.
Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something. It's a geographic unit, not a population unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people. I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number. And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
"Census block with insignificant populations were excluded"
Do what you can, with the data that you have. 78% of the "significant" census blocks either don't have 25/3 internet or only have one choice where to get it from. And, the remaining 22% don't have 100% coverage. The carriers got to report a census block as covered if they had one whole house in the block serviced.
This is completely meaningless. I expect that if you called the presidential election based on majorities per census block, Trump had 70%+ of the vote, if not much higher. One simply can't extrapolate from census blocks to people.
Well, here we go, just another move by the Trump administration to take more rights away from us. Now, removing these rules, which were hard fought for, will allow ISPs to decide which sites they will carry. One day, if someone at Comcast, Spectrum, AT&T, Verizon and others is a Windows person, we may not be able to get AppleInsider from them. Isn’t that just great?
How are “rights” being taken away? There’s no right to Internet access or computers, as far as I know. These are products and services.
By your idea, we don’t have rights to anything then. As societies become more advanced, and enlightened, more things are decided to be rights. Equal accesss to information is a basic right in a democracy so people who wish to avail themselves of that information can make informed decisions on many hints, such as voting. When that access is denied, because a company decides to not give a services because it st them more to do so, then those people are being denied that equal access. Whether you like Tim or not, that’s a right.
I know you want to go back to the 19th century in these things, as do some others here, it in three years, they loser will be out of office, and things will go back to normal. Heh, the way things are going, he may be gone before that.
Good. Let competition for customers determine what is acceptable, instead of biased or self-interested rules pushed by Washington.
FTA: "Pai's order relies on consumers being able to shift providers should they find conduct, promises made or broken, or pricing by the ISP intolerable. The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service."
15 miles to the south of this chair, there is one broadband choice. And, if you live more than 5 miles from 95 in that same area, you have one wireless choice.
Also, I'm a little unclear on "let all the data through, regardless of who it's from" is bias or self-interest from Washington.
I'm glad you focused on this part. I was going to ask specifically about the sentence you quoted: "The vast majority of the U.S., especially those outside of major metropolitan areas, have one broadband provider -- or have to rely on one wireless carrier for service." Is this from the proposal or, I expect, from AI? I believe is inaccurate or grossly misleading. Does "the vast majority" refer to individuals (as "those" would suggest) or raw geographic square miles? Given that a substantial portion of the population live in urban and suburban areas, I doubt a "vast majority" of Americans have no options,
I'm glad you asked! The data comes from the FCC itself. Given the FCC's definition of broadband as 25/3 (three!) until it ultimately gets downgraded, the vast majority of Americans by "census blocks" have no choices. Census block with insignificant populations were excluded, so by area, the number could be loads worse. Also, not every "census block" has every house covered with the speeds mentioned.
Study was published in 2016. There is no new study, but I'm expecting one next year at some point.
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, census blocks as a measure are completely worthless in describing how many people are impacted by something. It's a geographic unit, not a population unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_block There are around 11 million census blocks and half of them have zero people. I can't find a simple figure that shows what percentages of the population is covered by the most densely populated 5% of census blocks, but it's a big number. And those are exactly the areas with the best broadband coverage.
"Census block with insignificant populations were excluded"
Do what you can, with the data that you have. 78% of the "significant" census blocks either don't have 25/3 internet or only have one choice where to get it from. And, the remaining 22% don't have 100% coverage. The carriers got to report a census block as covered if they had one whole house in the block serviced.
This is completely meaningless. I expect that if you called the presidential election based on majorities per census block, Trump had 70%+ of the vote, if not much higher. One simply can't extrapolate from census blocks to people.
If you say so. I think you're just being willfully obtuse about it, though, for a reason I can't fathom. And, I'm certain that if you used "insignificant" census blocks to call the election, your conclusion is exactly what would happen. But, for this calculation, they didn't factor them at all.
Sure, it's a generalization, but the percentages aren't even close. It's not 51% have none or one - it's 78% have one or none, plus the remaining 22% at not 100% coverage.
The FCC itself today used this data, saying that a majority of the US doesn't meet existing broadband standards and is expecting this revision of the rules to somehow make that better.
Comments
No, it’s not how it should be. If you don’t care about the entire country, then I suppose it makes sense to you. But this is a place where everyone should have quality accesss to services, whether you like it or not. Going back a hundred years, AT&T was required to service rural areas. Mostly, they did it by either buying rural providers, or entering into deals with them. But it was done. We paid a tiny amount on our bills to pay for that rural access. It it benefited everyone in the country for everyone to have equal quality, and even just access to telephone use. It was harder with Tv, because of the difficulty of getting service out, but eventually, it was done.
now, decent broadband is necessary, though I suppose you don’t believe that, because you have it.
No, it doesn’t. In fact the Verizon thing with Netflix was being investigated. With this administration stating that they were going to kill neutrality, companies began to get bolder in defying it. So it’s been a year with them knowing that there would be no enforcement.
there’s not only been no evidence that Verizon didn’t have the bandwidth, the the evidence was that they did. It didn’t cost anyone else anything, and it wouldn’t have. Besides, the big companies are going to have to increase bandwidth no matter what, so that they don’t have it is a crap argument. Internet use continues to increase at a rapid rate. Any argument that a company doesn’t have enough bandwidth is fake. If they refuse to invest in their networks, then they will lose business, and they know that. This is just another “land grab” by them.
its hard to understand how easy it is for them to fool some people.
Just the opposite. Subsidizing for equal access it the perfect way to equalize areas of the country. When you don’t do that you get exactly what you describe.
Excuse me, but that’s exactly what Trump is doing. And guess what, since he can’t get anything passed by his own party, he’s using executive orders far more than any other president. But, you either haven’t paid enough attention to know that, or you don’t care, because you like what he’s doing.
Proposal to Restore Internet Freedom
Yeah, right.No, you don’t. Fox isn’t news. And while I know people who don’t like CNN because if it isn’t right wing, it’s left wing, because they don’t understand that there is a basic center position that CNN mostly resides in. If you want to usu CNBC as an example of a lefter position, go ahead.
That’s not true either. All the early monopolies began because of a person who started a company with a new technological idea, for example AT&T, or a new idea in business, such as the trusts that Rockefeller came up with to start Standard Oil. Both of these companies, as well as others, started right before the time when these large monopolies were seen to be uncompetitive, and the antitrust laws began to come into place. Please don’t get history backwards.
I know you want to go back to the 19th century in these things, as do some others here, it in three years, they loser will be out of office, and things will go back to normal. Heh, the way things are going, he may be gone before that.