President Obama pushes FCC to classify Internet as public utility, protect net neutrality

13468916

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 304
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I feel it''s close-minded ignorance in people like ??? that destroy every society that has ever existed.
    That would go along with policies, but you're right, if one is such an asshat to care more about the party label than what the party member is trying to accomplish that you'd cut off your nose to spite your face then they are far below the ignorance I imagined.

    koop wrote: »
    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 just hope you do not over estimate your fellow americans.
    But I do wonder why on this AI forum Obama meets so much undeserverd hatred?
  • Reply 102 of 304
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    This is gonna turn political FAST.

    I haven't read the comments yet.

    But *takes a deep breathe*

    I'm going in!!
  • Reply 103 of 304
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post



    You're' against net neutrality? You think allowing Charter to allow Hulu data through at streaming speeds but not Netflix is competitive? image




    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.

    If you didn't know that the largest providers of internet services are cable companies, and that they, in turn, are local monopolies, I am not sure in which country you live.

  • Reply 104 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Utility companies command monopolies.


     

    Which is why I hope at least that local municipalities will soon be able to provide internet access to all citizens as utilities do. Keeping the monopoly in publicly answerable hands is a good solution to aim for. Seattle owns its electric utility and is responsible for the mountain dams that provide the power. A few  misguided efforts to privatize never got very far, thank god. Seattle and Portland have both attempted to provide internet already but cable companies have strong-armed them, of course. 

  • Reply 105 of 304
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    koop wrote: »
    Just went back and reread it. Sounds good!

    And I agree with it. In fact, I'm ashamed of a number of my white brothers and sisters right now.. Boehner telling the President not to play with matches, what's his name shouting out "Liar!" In the middle of his first speech to Congress—these are things they will never do to a white president. I'd love to be wrong. Ok, I'm done with this now, unless jungmark gets back with an answer.
  • Reply 106 of 304
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    And he did that with Congress working against him at every step, regardless of the step he took.

    You can have different philosophies for how a nation should be run, but if you willfully put your party ahead of your country you are a traitor and, iMO, deserve to be hanged. Amazingly there are quotes from Republicans saying they will do the opposite of what Obama says. They are neither patriots nor public servants.

    And there are quotes from Dems doing the same thing in Bush's term. Politics as usual.
    solipsismy wrote: »
    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.

    So where has that happened? I'm curious.
    koop wrote: »
    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.

    Wow. Just wow.
  • Reply 107 of 304
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    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?

    Haven't you ever heard of JFK RFK, MLK or LBJ? Same thing. Are you calling those names only for simpletons too? I didn't name him that- his mama did.
  • Reply 108 of 304
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Facts are stubborn things.

    If any of those facts I quoted are wrong, tell us. Otherwise, shut up.

    Those "facts" be twisted sister.
  • Reply 109 of 304
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by koop View Post



    Just went back and reread it. Sounds good!

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post



    And I agree with it. In fact, I'm ashamed of a number of my white brothers and sisters right now.. Boehner telling the President not to play with matches, what's his name shouting out "Liar!" In the middle of his first speech to Congress—these are things they will never do to a white president. I'd love to be wrong. Ok, I'm done with this now, unless jungmark gets back with an answer.



    Ditto.

     

    Tomorrow, November 11, as it happens every year, is:

     

    Remembrance Day (also known as Poppy Day), a memorial day observed in Commonwealth of Nations member states since the end of the First World War to remember the members of their armed forces who have died in the line of duty.

     

    Much like, Veterans Day, an official United States holiday that honors people who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces, also known as veterans.

     

    In Canada, you will see a lot of folks wearing poppies tomorrow. In the U.S., a lot wearing or waving the Stars and Stripes. In either case, most of the wearers do so out of respect for their fellow country men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice; not because they were related to them, or even knew the falling personally.

     

    It is unfortunate, however, that such a high percentage (of Americans, in particular), would rather be showing their loyalties because they knew a veteran buried long before he or she they themselves will be; just because the MAN who stopped the carnage is not the same color as themselves.

  • Reply 110 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    Those "facts" be twisted sister.

    Ugh. What a foolish response.

     

    You should perhaps consider if you're starting to embarrass your fellow Right-wing fanatics....

  • Reply 111 of 304
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Ugh. What a foolish response.

    You should perhaps consider if you're starting to embarrass your fellow Right-wing fanatics....

    Spin doctor- I'm not taking my invaluable time to refute your nonsense that any of that is a result of BHO's proven ineffectiveness both in this country and the world. Stop embarrassing yourself.
  • Reply 112 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joshuarayer View Post

     



    I think you just outed yourself as a Tea Party conspiracy nut.




    Actually, looks like you're the nut to not realize how government's "good intentions" can and usually do go horribly wrong -- almost always by trying to restrain the free market as Obama is doing now. 

     

    Government started meddling with the housing market to promote home ownership as a means to social mobility and we got the housing bubble.

     

    Government started promoting free, easy student loans and we got run-away college costs and massive student debt that will be the next "crisis" after housing.

     

    Government thought that encouraging new energy technologies was a good idea and we got everything from the total waste of Cash for Clunkers all the way to the Solyndra debacle. 

     

    Government thought that limitless welfare would help the black community, and instead it succeeded in doing something that slavery and the Jim Crow south never could: nearly destroy the black family unit. 

     

    Like someone else said, our internet system is not broke, and it sure as hell does not need Big Government fixing, care of Mr. Obamacare himself. 

  • Reply 113 of 304
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    cali wrote: »
    This is gonna turn political FAST.

    I haven't read the comments yet.

    But *takes a deep breathe*

    I'm going in!!

    Too late :-)
    This train hit the bottom of the ravine on page 2.
  • Reply 114 of 304
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post





    Yeah right and the election wasn't a repudiation of BHO either. 

    Can you refute any of those claims or are you just doing your normal song & dance?

  • Reply 115 of 304
    splifsplif Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    How does your comment relate to my comment in response to the earlier post?

    I'm sorry I though on several of your posts you were talking about the cost of services rising.

  • Reply 116 of 304
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    Let's recap what you're supporting in your blind hatred of the current black guy in office administration:


    (snip)

     

    I'd advise against suggesting someone is a racist for disagreeing with this president. Could a person reasonably say that because someone voted for Bill Clinton they were a racist? It's a slippery slope argument with no end.

  • Reply 117 of 304
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    splif wrote: »
    Can you refute any of those claims or are you just doing your normal song & dance?

    Actually I'm doing cartwheels if you ALSO believe that list to be 100% accurate without skewed statistics and IS a direct result of BHO.
  • Reply 118 of 304
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    I'd advise against suggesting someone is a racist for disagreeing with this president.


     

    “I hate him because of his social policies.”

    “YOU’RE A SOCIALIST!”

     

    Wait... <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 119 of 304
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    I'd advise against suggesting someone is a racist for disagreeing with this president. Could a person reasonably say that because someone voted for Bill Clinton they were a racist? It's a slippery slope argument with no end.

    And one could also say he was elected for the exact opposite of MLK's dream- he was elected based upon the color of his skin and not the content of his character. Just sayin. Hope = Nope.
  • Reply 120 of 304
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     

    You're just completely wrong.  You are basically saying underregulated monopolies don't hurt consumers.  Then the 'evidence' you present on your rebuttal posts are walking-around anecdotal evidence that is statistically meaningless.  And even with your casual, impressionistic evidence you choose only the ones that bolster your position and conveniently suffer amnesia, deafness, and blindness when it comes to the horrible experience people have with Cable TV.  Stop pretending to be an expert in areas you have little knowledge of.


     

    Monopolies can only exist because of government regulations and/or protections. In a free and competitive market, monopolies cannot stand because they are continually facing competitors to flatten costs and offer consumers alternatives.

     

    Why was the AT&T of many years ago a monopoly? Because they were protected by law.

     

    "For much of its history, AT&T and its Bell System functioned as a legally sanctioned, regulated monopoly. The fundamental principle, formulated by AT&T president Theodore Vail in 1907, was that the telephone by the nature of its technology would operate most efficiently as a monopoly providing universal service. Vail wrote in that year's AT&T Annual Report that government regulation, "provided it is independent, intelligent, considerate, thorough and just," was an appropriate and acceptable substitute for the competitive marketplace."

     

    http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html

     

    That this fact is lost on so many people, is a testament to the power of US government propaganda that has been fed to people since birth. And contrary to AT&T's rosy view on the "good" of monopolies, they are not good. They are inherently corrupt. Competition is good.

Sign In or Register to comment.