clearly you do not even understand what he actually said. You are knee-jerking to the fact that you sense he does not share your viewpoint. "listen to him?" what did he instruct you to do? What about his post wasn't spot-on?
All of his posts have been completely asinine.
Net neutrality through common carrier rules is a massive victory for the American people.
If Hitler had promoted his new Jewish Community Centers, and offered free train rides for the whole family, he would have been about as intellectually and verbally honest as the filthy communist pigs who coined the term "Net Neutrality".
Hey guys I think we won the argument. Isn't there some internet rule about whichever side brings up Hitler first loses?
If anything it gives everyone context for echosonic's posts.
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
Maybe if you actually elucidate your opinion in detail other than saying what most people have already said (its a bad idea, I don't like it, blah blah blah) then people can get a better understanding of you perspective.
Who pays for the cables, equipment, and manpower to install and maintain them necessary to carry that 50GB? Do they simply appear out of thin air? Do you think you paid the entire cost for that with your monthly bill? Do you suppose the cost to carry 50 petabytes is linear?
Do you think video data should be transmitted at exactly the same speed as file downloads when both are running simultaneously? (Look up QoS—quality of service—in networking.) Do you contend there is never a legitimate reason for ISPs to throttle or manage data being transmitted? Can you define what those reasons are in legal detail? Can a company best meet customers' needs under changing conditions if they have to first run through the legal maze before they can adjust their data management practices?
Yes I believe it is wrong for the ISPs to sell me bandwidth and then turn around and charge me again via the backdoor. Your argument that consumers paying for their bandwidth is not sufficient for the ISPs to make a profit and invest in the future does not hold water by simply looking at the company valuations for ISPs and how ISPs fight tooth and nail to ensure there is no or little competition. Why is it that ISPs do not approach the finance issue honestly and raise consumers fees and charge big data providers more for their connection to the internet. Charging more for the last mile is dishonest and reduces the competitive nature of the market. It is legalized monopoly.
What legal maze: They can charge what they wish and consumers will decide to pay or not but they cannot double charge and they will have to work to be more efficient or another service provider will grab their lunch.
Pot calling the kettle black? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I mean, you've got to be particularly hard-headed for me to block you. I don't even have Benjamin Frost blocked!
How is it "pot calling the kettle black"? I don't have anyone blocked and don't think we live in a dictatorship. I just want to have an honest discussion where people provide evidence of their opinions.
Yes I believe it is wrong for the ISPs to sell me bandwidth and then turn around and charge me again via the backdoor. Your argument that consumers paying for their bandwidth is not sufficient for the ISPs to make a profit and invest in the future does not hold water by simply looking at the company valuations for ISPs and how ISPs fight tooth and nail to ensure there is no or little competition. Why is it that ISPs do not approach the finance issue honestly and raise consumers fees and charge big data providers more for their connection to the internet. Charging more for the last mile is dishonest and reduces the competitive nature of the market. It is legalized monopoly.
What legal maze: They can charge what they wish and consumers will decide to pay or not but they cannot double charge and they will have to work to be more efficient or another service provider will grab their lunch.
Yeah, I take it you've never owned a business, or been involved with one.
Pro tip: when the people who are legally required to work for you refuse to show you the contents of the laws by which you’ll be forced to abide, they are not working for you.
Pro tip 2: If you read anything about procedures the FCC follows you could have avoided this post by realizing they are submitting to the same standard of secrecy until the vote happens.
So, again, you have no reply whatsoever to what I have presented already.
Good to know. Now why should anyone listen to you?
This ruling is the opposite of a little government.
So you are of the belief that the FCC does not:
1. fine radio broadcast of cursing
2. censor television broadcasts
3. has never violated the First Amendment
4. is allowing the public to see this law before it is passed
5. is not staffed by Comcast, et. al. executives.
Fine. Prove it.
I've posted this several times already.
Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.
As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
I am an attorney who practices admin law as well, and I disagree.
If Hitler had promoted his new Jewish Community Centers, and offered free train rides for the whole family, he would have been about as intellectually and verbally honest as the filthy communist pigs who coined the term "Net Neutrality".
If ever there was a partisan, lying, propagandic, sycophantic post, this is it.
Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.
As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.
Your proof is to post a government talking point...are you Tom Wheeler?
Sure, after all, why would anyone in their right mind want to hear a legal opinion from someone who is actually trained in the law. I'm guessing you don't believe in vaccinations, either, since the only people who are proponents of them are those annoying doctors. Keep drinking the Kool Aide.
To be fair, you didn't really give any substance to your opinion. As such, it's just a appeal to authority...and that's it.
Comments
clearly you do not even understand what he actually said. You are knee-jerking to the fact that you sense he does not share your viewpoint. "listen to him?" what did he instruct you to do? What about his post wasn't spot-on?
All of his posts have been completely asinine.
Net neutrality through common carrier rules is a massive victory for the American people.
If Hitler had promoted his new Jewish Community Centers, and offered free train rides for the whole family, he would have been about as intellectually and verbally honest as the filthy communist pigs who coined the term "Net Neutrality".
Hey guys I think we won the argument. Isn't there some internet rule about whichever side brings up Hitler first loses?
If anything it gives everyone context for echosonic's posts.
But demonizing democracy and our way of government is?
News Flash: We don't live in a democracy.
It used to be a republic, but I think a dictatorship is more apt now.
Hey guys I think we won the argument. Isn't there some internet rule about whichever side brings up Hitler first loses?
If anything it gives everyone context for echosonic's posts.
I'm glad I get to add you to my blocked list.
I'm glad I get to add you to my blocked list.
Funny how the guy who thinks we live in a dictatorship doesn't want to hear dissenting opinions.
Funny how the guy who thinks we live in a dictatorship doesn't want to hear dissenting opinions.
Pot calling the kettle black?
I mean, you've got to be particularly hard-headed for me to block you. I don't even have Benjamin Frost blocked!
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
Maybe if you actually elucidate your opinion in detail other than saying what most people have already said (its a bad idea, I don't like it, blah blah blah) then people can get a better understanding of you perspective.
Who pays for the cables, equipment, and manpower to install and maintain them necessary to carry that 50GB? Do they simply appear out of thin air? Do you think you paid the entire cost for that with your monthly bill? Do you suppose the cost to carry 50 petabytes is linear?
Do you think video data should be transmitted at exactly the same speed as file downloads when both are running simultaneously? (Look up QoS—quality of service—in networking.) Do you contend there is never a legitimate reason for ISPs to throttle or manage data being transmitted? Can you define what those reasons are in legal detail? Can a company best meet customers' needs under changing conditions if they have to first run through the legal maze before they can adjust their data management practices?
Yes I believe it is wrong for the ISPs to sell me bandwidth and then turn around and charge me again via the backdoor. Your argument that consumers paying for their bandwidth is not sufficient for the ISPs to make a profit and invest in the future does not hold water by simply looking at the company valuations for ISPs and how ISPs fight tooth and nail to ensure there is no or little competition. Why is it that ISPs do not approach the finance issue honestly and raise consumers fees and charge big data providers more for their connection to the internet. Charging more for the last mile is dishonest and reduces the competitive nature of the market. It is legalized monopoly.
What legal maze: They can charge what they wish and consumers will decide to pay or not but they cannot double charge and they will have to work to be more efficient or another service provider will grab their lunch.
Pot calling the kettle black?
I mean, you've got to be particularly hard-headed for me to block you. I don't even have Benjamin Frost blocked!
How is it "pot calling the kettle black"? I don't have anyone blocked and don't think we live in a dictatorship. I just want to have an honest discussion where people provide evidence of their opinions.
Yes I believe it is wrong for the ISPs to sell me bandwidth and then turn around and charge me again via the backdoor. Your argument that consumers paying for their bandwidth is not sufficient for the ISPs to make a profit and invest in the future does not hold water by simply looking at the company valuations for ISPs and how ISPs fight tooth and nail to ensure there is no or little competition. Why is it that ISPs do not approach the finance issue honestly and raise consumers fees and charge big data providers more for their connection to the internet. Charging more for the last mile is dishonest and reduces the competitive nature of the market. It is legalized monopoly.
What legal maze: They can charge what they wish and consumers will decide to pay or not but they cannot double charge and they will have to work to be more efficient or another service provider will grab their lunch.
Yeah, I take it you've never owned a business, or been involved with one.
Pro tip: when the people who are legally required to work for you refuse to show you the contents of the laws by which you’ll be forced to abide, they are not working for you.
Pro tip 2: If you read anything about procedures the FCC follows you could have avoided this post by realizing they are submitting to the same standard of secrecy until the vote happens.
Wooooooooooot!!
So, again, you have no reply whatsoever to what I have presented already.
Good to know. Now why should anyone listen to you?
This ruling is the opposite of a little government.
So you are of the belief that the FCC does not:
1. fine radio broadcast of cursing
2. censor television broadcasts
3. has never violated the First Amendment
4. is allowing the public to see this law before it is passed
5. is not staffed by Comcast, et. al. executives.
Fine. Prove it.
Yeah, I take it you've never owned a business, or been involved with one.
How is this an argument to anything he said? Thanks for proving my point.
So, again, you have no reply whatsoever to what I have presented already.
Good to know. Now why should anyone listen to you?
This ruling is the opposite of a little government.
So you are of the belief that the FCC does not:
1. fine radio broadcast of cursing
2. censor television broadcasts
3. has never violated the First Amendment
4. is allowing the public to see this law before it is passed
5. is not staffed by Comcast, et. al. executives.
Fine. Prove it.
Pfft. Just flippant responses. I say this because I don't possess critical thinking skills and don't want to actually research my position.
So, again, you have no reply whatsoever to what I have presented already.
Good to know. Now why should anyone listen to you?
This ruling is the opposite of a little government.
So you are of the belief that the FCC does not:
1. fine radio broadcast of cursing
2. censor television broadcasts
3. has never violated the First Amendment
4. is allowing the public to see this law before it is passed
5. is not staffed by Comcast, et. al. executives.
Fine. Prove it.
I've posted this several times already.
Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.
As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.
Tragic. I am an attorney who practices administrative law for a living. Anyone who thinks this will not be a tragic cacophony of unexpected consequences is, quite frankly, not even qualified to weigh in on the issue.
I am an attorney who practices admin law as well, and I disagree.
If ever there was a partisan, lying, propagandic, sycophantic post, this is it.
I've posted this several times already.
Title II is all about common carrier status. Cable television, broadcast radio, and broadcast television are not common carriers, and Title II does not give the FCC either the requirement or permission to fine or censor obscene content. Neither does it give ISPs the requirement or permission to censor obscene content.
As Title II has been interpreted by courts, you are actually _more_ protected from internet censorship if they are considered Title II common carriers.
Your proof is to post a government talking point...are you Tom Wheeler?
Sure, after all, why would anyone in their right mind want to hear a legal opinion from someone who is actually trained in the law. I'm guessing you don't believe in vaccinations, either, since the only people who are proponents of them are those annoying doctors. Keep drinking the Kool Aide.
To be fair, you didn't really give any substance to your opinion. As such, it's just a appeal to authority...and that's it.