Wow, just wow. Nine pages of mind blowing dissembling with lashings of obfuscation. Brought to you from the little 'ole UK where I pay around $7 per month for an unlimited 30Mbps/12Mbps upload connection operating under pretty much the same net neutrality rules that the flatheads here are condemning. And I have companies fighting to give me a better offer.
Wow, just wow.
Nine pages of mind blowing dissembling with lashings of obfuscation.
Brought to you from the little 'ole UK where I pay around $7 per month for an unlimited 30Mbps/12Mbps upload connection operating under pretty much the same net neutrality rules that the flatheads here are condemning.
And I have companies fighting to give me a better offer.
Yes, the good ole UK...where you have to pay a license to watch television. ????
If the FCC had ruled in favor of the cable companies, we would soon see a walled Internet, in which only the wealthy need apply. It would have created a AOL (pre-web)style of Internet.
The only freedom lost is for cable companies that wanted to restrict access.
What are the top worst concerns that could result from net neutrality? They've said no to taxing the internet. Censoring illegal websites and hate speech is already possible and enforced. Here's a guy who has a problem with it:
His argument is that they'd eventually equalize television broadcast with internet data and with everything sharing equal priority, television quality of service would drop and so normal TV would buffer like Netflix. He likes the idea of big companies being able to pay for faster lanes to deliver a better experience:
"If T-Mobile came to me and asked me if I wanted to subsidize their consumers getting [Dallas] Mavs (which he owns) games streamed live over their phones or to mobile home routers, without impacting their data caps, I would love it, if the price was right, and would do it in a heartbeat."
"Mark: let’s just say six megabits per HD channel times however many channels. That’s a lot of bandwidth allocated to television versus just 10, 25, 50, 100, even a gigabit for Internet. It’s not inconceivable, and I would tell you that someone will sue and it will become likely that they will say you have to combine all that bandwidth together. So, if you’re getting 100 to make it easy six megabit channels of HD, that’s six gigabytes. That’s six gigabytes if you say you know what, you can’t just deliver all that for television, we want to open that up to the Internet so all the Glenn Becks and Blazes can deliver their over-the-top video in an equal manner, now all of a sudden you have 6.1 gigabits available in this example."
100x 6Mbit/s = 600Mbit/s but they aren't sending all the channels out all the time, they only send 1 channel when you request it so it's 6Mbit/s for an HD feed.
"Mark: Now all of a sudden your traditional television, so if I’m getting Blaze on my big bad cable provider, it might start buffering, and I probably need new equipment in my home that maybe the government is going to force you to buy, but it gets worse, right? So, now if all video delivered could be perceived as television, right, because it’s all in the same pipe…bits are bits. No matter what anybody says in government, no matter what any technologically savvy person says, bits are bits."
There's the old 'don't listen to the smart people who know what they're talking about' line. Why would the government force you to upgrade your internet?
"Mark: So, if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television watching the evening news, it’s over, right? Either (a) you’re going to have to get new equipment in order to make it all be part of one pipe.
Glenn: I’m actually for this in concept. I hate the way it’s being done, but it would force you actually, wouldn’t it force the cable companies to allow me to do everything à la carte? There’s no reason I have 500 channels. I don’t want to pay for 500 channels.
Mark: Yes, you do. You may not want 500, but you want it in bundles. Otherwise—
Glenn: The money. Mark: Yeah, it gets very expensive, and look at the music industry, right? So, when everything is à la carte, the expense doesn’t come in creating the content, right?"
You'd still be able to buy channel bundles, that's just content licensing. TV doesn't go over HTTP protocol anyway so it's not part of the internet. He owns a TV network so he should know it doesn't go over the internet:
"Glenn: I’ve been concerned that once you open the door, I mean, I was under the Telecommunications Act of 1933 when I first got into radio. I got into radio when I was 13 years old, and I had to take a test to be able to be on the air. I mean, it was nuts. We already have people in Congress, we have people in the administration questioning who’s a journalist, who’s not a journalist. Once you open this door, isn’t it possible and probable over time that they decide who gets to open up what websites, who gets to call themselves journalists?
Mark: Yeah, to a super extreme, yes, that’s always possible, right? I think at some point then, the people’s will will come in, and democracy takes over and capitalism takes over, and we go from maybe an open Internet to a closed Internet where people have access to something that’s not considered Internet.
Glenn: What does that mean?
Mark: Meaning that if I wanted to use wireless and create my own network, right, my own private network by dropping nodes all around Dallas, Texas and then connecting that to a whole ’nother network and then connecting that to another network and not connected to the Internet at all, I could, right? It’s expensive, but that cost will continue to drop."
He's been quoting his Ayn Rand on twitter. This must be what he meant where he'd try to create a private internet. How cool would it be if those types just went off the main internet altogether and into their own.
The concerns of pricing and running out of bandwidth are up to the cable networks. They could of course hike prices and drop bandwidth and claim it was all net neutrality's fault but this legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is already.
We already have net neutrality! That's the whole point. The cable companies were in talks to allow paid prioritization, which is anti-competitive. The big players would be able to offer better service because they were big companies. Say Netflix paid for quality of service and the cable companies didn't deliver the bandwidth elsewhere then Netflix looks like a better service than a startup. This legislation prevents them engaging in anti-competitive behaviour before they do it.
Given that we have it already, people say 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. In other words wait until companies do something anti-competitive and then sort it out. It's hard to do that because it's hard to prove. Nobody can monitor what they're doing. Nobody can prove ISPs are throttling because a slowdown can be due to your own wifi connection, high contention rates or the particular source.
If they aren't going to be breaking net neutrality rules then they will do no harm. The internet will continue to remain exactly as it is now. But an added bonus is the government can now expand their own broadband infrastructure. They can install high-speed cabling and let multiple companies compete for service over it.
The legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is now, not to change it.
So, given that everything is intended not to change, what are the top specific unintended consequences that people think will happen?
Brought to you from the little 'ole UK where I pay around $7 per month for an unlimited 30Mbps/12Mbps upload connection operating under pretty much the same net neutrality rules that the flatheads here are condemning.
You also don’t have freedom of speech and live under a police state, so I think I’ll keep fighting for an increase to the intelligence of the citizens of this country so that our rights can be protected. A monarchy. In twenty fifteen! HA!
What are the top worst concerns that could result from net neutrality? They've said no to taxing the internet. Censoring illegal websites and hate speech is already possible and enforced. Here's a guy who has a problem with it:
His argument is that they'd eventually equalize television broadcast with internet data and with everything sharing equal priority, television quality of service would drop and so normal TV would buffer like Netflix. He likes the idea of big companies being able to pay for faster lanes to deliver a better experience:
"If T-Mobile came to me and asked me if I wanted to subsidize their consumers getting [Dallas] Mavs (which he owns) games streamed live over their phones or to mobile home routers, without impacting their data caps, I would love it, if the price was right, and would do it in a heartbeat."
"Mark: let’s just say six megabits per HD channel times however many channels. That’s a lot of bandwidth allocated to television versus just 10, 25, 50, 100, even a gigabit for Internet. It’s not inconceivable, and I would tell you that someone will sue and it will become likely that they will say you have to combine all that bandwidth together. So, if you’re getting 100 to make it easy six megabit channels of HD, that’s six gigabytes. That’s six gigabytes if you say you know what, you can’t just deliver all that for television, we want to open that up to the Internet so all the Glenn Becks and Blazes can deliver their over-the-top video in an equal manner, now all of a sudden you have 6.1 gigabits available in this example."
100x 6Mbit/s = 600Mbit/s but they aren't sending all the channels out all the time, they only send 1 channel when you request it so it's 6Mbit/s for an HD feed.
"Mark: Now all of a sudden your traditional television, so if I’m getting Blaze on my big bad cable provider, it might start buffering, and I probably need new equipment in my home that maybe the government is going to force you to buy, but it gets worse, right? So, now if all video delivered could be perceived as television, right, because it’s all in the same pipe…bits are bits. No matter what anybody says in government, no matter what any technologically savvy person says, bits are bits."
There's the old 'don't listen to the smart people who know what they're talking about' line. Why would the government force you to upgrade your internet?
"Mark: So, if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television watching the evening news, it’s over, right? Either (a) you’re going to have to get new equipment in order to make it all be part of one pipe.
Glenn: I’m actually for this in concept. I hate the way it’s being done, but it would force you actually, wouldn’t it force the cable companies to allow me to do everything à la carte? There’s no reason I have 500 channels. I don’t want to pay for 500 channels.
Mark: Yes, you do. You may not want 500, but you want it in bundles. Otherwise—
Glenn: The money. Mark: Yeah, it gets very expensive, and look at the music industry, right? So, when everything is à la carte, the expense doesn’t come in creating the content, right?"
You'd still be able to buy channel bundles, that's just content licensing. TV doesn't go over HTTP protocol anyway so it's not part of the internet. He owns a TV network so he should know it doesn't go over the internet:
"Glenn: I’ve been concerned that once you open the door, I mean, I was under the Telecommunications Act of 1933 when I first got into radio. I got into radio when I was 13 years old, and I had to take a test to be able to be on the air. I mean, it was nuts. We already have people in Congress, we have people in the administration questioning who’s a journalist, who’s not a journalist. Once you open this door, isn’t it possible and probable over time that they decide who gets to open up what websites, who gets to call themselves journalists?
Mark: Yeah, to a super extreme, yes, that’s always possible, right? I think at some point then, the people’s will will come in, and democracy takes over and capitalism takes over, and we go from maybe an open Internet to a closed Internet where people have access to something that’s not considered Internet.
Glenn: What does that mean?
Mark: Meaning that if I wanted to use wireless and create my own network, right, my own private network by dropping nodes all around Dallas, Texas and then connecting that to a whole ’nother network and then connecting that to another network and not connected to the Internet at all, I could, right? It’s expensive, but that cost will continue to drop."
He's been quoting his Ayn Rand on twitter. This must be what he meant where he'd try to create a private internet. How cool would it be if those types just went off the main internet altogether and into their own.
The concerns of pricing and running out of bandwidth are up to the cable networks. They could of course hike prices and drop bandwidth and claim it was all net neutrality's fault but this legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is already.
We already have net neutrality! That's the whole point. The cable companies were in talks to allow paid prioritization, which is anti-competitive. The big players would be able to offer better service because they were big companies. Say Netflix paid for quality of service and the cable companies didn't deliver the bandwidth elsewhere then Netflix looks like a better service than a startup. This legislation prevents them engaging in anti-competitive behaviour before they do it.
Given that we have it already, people say 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. In other words wait until companies do something anti-competitive and then sort it out. It's hard to do that because it's hard to prove. Nobody can monitor what they're doing. Nobody can prove ISPs are throttling because a slowdown can be due to your own wifi connection, high contention rates or the particular source.
If they aren't going to be breaking net neutrality rules then they will do no harm. The internet will continue to remain exactly as it is now. But an added bonus is the government can now expand their own broadband infrastructure. They can install high-speed cabling and let multiple companies compete for service over it.
The legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is now, not to change it.
So, given that everything is intended not to change, what are the top specific unintended consequences that people think will happen?
He has a financially vested interest in the old system. This blows up his plans.
What?! Please provide some/any evidence to support this 'boot heal' nonsense.
Read your history books. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Do you honestly think the web would be where it is today had the FCC intervened (give or take) twenty years ago? (While I'll argue they are scourges on the Internet) do you think there would be a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. as we know it?
Two things will come of this, first, the Internet will become more expensive for everyone. Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan
Because unconstrained capitalism is just as bad as unconstrained Marxism, Socialism, Communism...
In true capitalism people have to have the power to choose where to spend their earned wealth. If there is a societal need a capitalist will have an opportunity to fill that void. Marxism, Socialism, Communism does not provide that opportunity.
What?! Please provide some/any evidence to support this 'boot heal' nonsense.
Read your history books. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Do you honestly think the web would be where it is today had the FCC intervened (give or take) twenty years ago? (While I'll argue they are scourges on the Internet) do you think there would be a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. as we know it?
Two things will come of this, first, the Internet will become more expensive for everyone. Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan
Because unconstrained capitalism is just as bad as unconstrained Marxism, Socialism, Communism...
In true capitalism people have to have the power to choose where to spend their earned wealth. If there is a societal need a capitalist will have an opportunity to fill that void. Marxism, Socialism, Communism does not provide that opportunity.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any way whatsoever.
And, just to be clear, do you happen to have a good description of the processes that prevent cartels and monopolies in unregulated "true capitalist economies" - because that is the underlying issue here.
the Internet will become more expensive for everyone.
How much more and why would prices be going up beyond inflation? The regulations are designed to keep the internet operating as it is currently operating and to prevent big companies paying their way to offer prioritized services vs startups.
Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.
Equal representation of what? This isn't about controlling servers and hosted content. Nobody forces equal representation of anything in magazines or television.
What are the top worst concerns that could result from net neutrality? They've said no to taxing the internet. Censoring illegal websites and hate speech is already possible and enforced. Here's a guy who has a problem with it:
Yeah, I love it when liars host shows with lying guests, then pitch softballs like that.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any way whatsoever.
And, just to be clear, do you happen to have a good description of the processes that prevent cartels and monopolies in unregulated "true capitalist economies" - because that is the underlying issue here.
Oh look another person too lazy to pick up a history book for one of the many examples so they make a bunch of straw arguments. Every revolution has been fought by people who could no longer stand their government looking out for "their" best interests. Always seems so sweet and innocent at the beginning, "Hi we're from the government and here to help you!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
How much more and why would prices be going up beyond inflation? The regulations are designed to keep the internet operating as it is currently operating and to prevent big companies paying their way to offer prioritized services vs startups.
Equal representation of what? This isn't about controlling servers and hosted content. Nobody forces equal representation of anything in magazines or television.
Guess you never heard of the fairness doctrine? The FCC is still kicking themselves for letting that one get away. I'm sure they won't let that happen again with the Internet...
Comments
Finally a chance to post this so that others can save it.
And… I’m not on my desktop. Sure would be nice if iCloud synced user accounts’ folder contents locally down to all machines that use that account…
Give me those couple o'llamas over Obama any day. They'd be more neutral, for sure.
What is your response to MrShow's falsified information now?
I am afraid I've pretty much lost it with your posts.
I have no clue what you're saying, or why. All I can say is that it seems some fundamental chord has been struck, and you do not like it.
I am moving on....
Finally a chance to post this so that others can save it.
And… I’m not on my desktop. Sure would be nice if iCloud synced user accounts’ folder contents locally down to all machines that use that account…
Your posts most certainly didn't help, TS. In fact, you gave the derailment a huge nudge.
We’ll see who’s laughing in a few months.
It’ll still be me, by the way. Or would be if I laughed anymore. You’re wrong, is the point.
Nine pages of mind blowing dissembling with lashings of obfuscation.
Brought to you from the little 'ole UK where I pay around $7 per month for an unlimited 30Mbps/12Mbps upload connection operating under pretty much the same net neutrality rules that the flatheads here are condemning.
And I have companies fighting to give me a better offer.
Yes, the good ole UK...where you have to pay a license to watch television. ????
Thank you John Oliver. As a believer in net neutrality but unable to express myself in a way that matters - you showed a better way to explain it.
The type that eat babies?
The only freedom lost is for cable companies that wanted to restrict access.
One win for the 99%.
What are the top worst concerns that could result from net neutrality? They've said no to taxing the internet. Censoring illegal websites and hate speech is already possible and enforced. Here's a guy who has a problem with it:
[VIDEO]
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/25/7280353/mark-cubans-net-neutrality-fast-lanes-hypocrite
His argument is that they'd eventually equalize television broadcast with internet data and with everything sharing equal priority, television quality of service would drop and so normal TV would buffer like Netflix. He likes the idea of big companies being able to pay for faster lanes to deliver a better experience:
"If T-Mobile came to me and asked me if I wanted to subsidize their consumers getting [Dallas] Mavs (which he owns) games streamed live over their phones or to mobile home routers, without impacting their data caps, I would love it, if the price was right, and would do it in a heartbeat."
The talk between him and Glenn Beck is funny:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/02/25/mark-cuban-lays-out-why-net-neutrality-is-so-terrible/
"Mark: let’s just say six megabits per HD channel times however many channels. That’s a lot of bandwidth allocated to television versus just 10, 25, 50, 100, even a gigabit for Internet. It’s not inconceivable, and I would tell you that someone will sue and it will become likely that they will say you have to combine all that bandwidth together. So, if you’re getting 100 to make it easy six megabit channels of HD, that’s six gigabytes. That’s six gigabytes if you say you know what, you can’t just deliver all that for television, we want to open that up to the Internet so all the Glenn Becks and Blazes can deliver their over-the-top video in an equal manner, now all of a sudden you have 6.1 gigabits available in this example."
100x 6Mbit/s = 600Mbit/s but they aren't sending all the channels out all the time, they only send 1 channel when you request it so it's 6Mbit/s for an HD feed.
"Mark: Now all of a sudden your traditional television, so if I’m getting Blaze on my big bad cable provider, it might start buffering, and I probably need new equipment in my home that maybe the government is going to force you to buy, but it gets worse, right? So, now if all video delivered could be perceived as television, right, because it’s all in the same pipe…bits are bits. No matter what anybody says in government, no matter what any technologically savvy person says, bits are bits."
There's the old 'don't listen to the smart people who know what they're talking about' line. Why would the government force you to upgrade your internet?
"Mark: So, if there’s no priority for television and it’s just part of the open Internet and delivery, your traditional television watching the evening news, it’s over, right? Either (a) you’re going to have to get new equipment in order to make it all be part of one pipe.
Glenn: I’m actually for this in concept. I hate the way it’s being done, but it would force you actually, wouldn’t it force the cable companies to allow me to do everything à la carte? There’s no reason I have 500 channels. I don’t want to pay for 500 channels.
Mark: Yes, you do. You may not want 500, but you want it in bundles. Otherwise—
Glenn: The money. Mark: Yeah, it gets very expensive, and look at the music industry, right? So, when everything is à la carte, the expense doesn’t come in creating the content, right?"
You'd still be able to buy channel bundles, that's just content licensing. TV doesn't go over HTTP protocol anyway so it's not part of the internet. He owns a TV network so he should know it doesn't go over the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AXS_TV
"Glenn: I’ve been concerned that once you open the door, I mean, I was under the Telecommunications Act of 1933 when I first got into radio. I got into radio when I was 13 years old, and I had to take a test to be able to be on the air. I mean, it was nuts. We already have people in Congress, we have people in the administration questioning who’s a journalist, who’s not a journalist. Once you open this door, isn’t it possible and probable over time that they decide who gets to open up what websites, who gets to call themselves journalists?
Mark: Yeah, to a super extreme, yes, that’s always possible, right? I think at some point then, the people’s will will come in, and democracy takes over and capitalism takes over, and we go from maybe an open Internet to a closed Internet where people have access to something that’s not considered Internet.
Glenn: What does that mean?
Mark: Meaning that if I wanted to use wireless and create my own network, right, my own private network by dropping nodes all around Dallas, Texas and then connecting that to a whole ’nother network and then connecting that to another network and not connected to the Internet at all, I could, right? It’s expensive, but that cost will continue to drop."
He's been quoting his Ayn Rand on twitter. This must be what he meant where he'd try to create a private internet. How cool would it be if those types just went off the main internet altogether and into their own.
The concerns of pricing and running out of bandwidth are up to the cable networks. They could of course hike prices and drop bandwidth and claim it was all net neutrality's fault but this legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is already.
We already have net neutrality! That's the whole point. The cable companies were in talks to allow paid prioritization, which is anti-competitive. The big players would be able to offer better service because they were big companies. Say Netflix paid for quality of service and the cable companies didn't deliver the bandwidth elsewhere then Netflix looks like a better service than a startup. This legislation prevents them engaging in anti-competitive behaviour before they do it.
Given that we have it already, people say 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. In other words wait until companies do something anti-competitive and then sort it out. It's hard to do that because it's hard to prove. Nobody can monitor what they're doing. Nobody can prove ISPs are throttling because a slowdown can be due to your own wifi connection, high contention rates or the particular source.
If they aren't going to be breaking net neutrality rules then they will do no harm. The internet will continue to remain exactly as it is now. But an added bonus is the government can now expand their own broadband infrastructure. They can install high-speed cabling and let multiple companies compete for service over it.
The legislation has been put in place to keep the internet as it is now, not to change it.
So, given that everything is intended not to change, what are the top specific unintended consequences that people think will happen?
You also don’t have freedom of speech and live under a police state, so I think I’ll keep fighting for an increase to the intelligence of the citizens of this country so that our rights can be protected. A monarchy. In twenty fifteen! HA!
He has a financially vested interest in the old system. This blows up his plans.
Perhaps the baby ate your dingo.
What?! Please provide some/any evidence to support this 'boot heal' nonsense.
Read your history books. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Do you honestly think the web would be where it is today had the FCC intervened (give or take) twenty years ago? (While I'll argue they are scourges on the Internet) do you think there would be a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. as we know it?
Two things will come of this, first, the Internet will become more expensive for everyone. Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.
Because unconstrained capitalism is just as bad as unconstrained Marxism, Socialism, Communism...
In true capitalism people have to have the power to choose where to spend their earned wealth. If there is a societal need a capitalist will have an opportunity to fill that void. Marxism, Socialism, Communism does not provide that opportunity.
What?! Please provide some/any evidence to support this 'boot heal' nonsense.
Read your history books. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Do you honestly think the web would be where it is today had the FCC intervened (give or take) twenty years ago? (While I'll argue they are scourges on the Internet) do you think there would be a Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, etc. as we know it?
Two things will come of this, first, the Internet will become more expensive for everyone. Second its only a matter of time before an administration (republican or democrat) starts pushing their idea of an "Internet equal representation policy" or whatever newspeak term they decide to give to it.
Because unconstrained capitalism is just as bad as unconstrained Marxism, Socialism, Communism...
In true capitalism people have to have the power to choose where to spend their earned wealth. If there is a societal need a capitalist will have an opportunity to fill that void. Marxism, Socialism, Communism does not provide that opportunity.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any way whatsoever.
And, just to be clear, do you happen to have a good description of the processes that prevent cartels and monopolies in unregulated "true capitalist economies" - because that is the underlying issue here.
How much more and why would prices be going up beyond inflation? The regulations are designed to keep the internet operating as it is currently operating and to prevent big companies paying their way to offer prioritized services vs startups.
Equal representation of what? This isn't about controlling servers and hosted content. Nobody forces equal representation of anything in magazines or television.
So where’s he wrong?
What are the top worst concerns that could result from net neutrality? They've said no to taxing the internet. Censoring illegal websites and hate speech is already possible and enforced. Here's a guy who has a problem with it:
Yeah, I love it when liars host shows with lying guests, then pitch softballs like that.
Oh look - another poster who tries to avoid making any actual arguments with the "not doing your homework" excuse, then makes random vague assertions about unknowable things that he thinks would have happened if something else had happened (that didn't because it wasn't needed back then), and then finishes with some classic unsupported slippery slope nonsense about higher costs and government intervention. Not even a token attempt to link proposed cause and effect in any way whatsoever.
And, just to be clear, do you happen to have a good description of the processes that prevent cartels and monopolies in unregulated "true capitalist economies" - because that is the underlying issue here.
Oh look another person too lazy to pick up a history book for one of the many examples so they make a bunch of straw arguments. Every revolution has been fought by people who could no longer stand their government looking out for "their" best interests. Always seems so sweet and innocent at the beginning, "Hi we're from the government and here to help you!"
Quote:
How much more and why would prices be going up beyond inflation? The regulations are designed to keep the internet operating as it is currently operating and to prevent big companies paying their way to offer prioritized services vs startups.
Equal representation of what? This isn't about controlling servers and hosted content. Nobody forces equal representation of anything in magazines or television.
Guess you never heard of the fairness doctrine? The FCC is still kicking themselves for letting that one get away. I'm sure they won't let that happen again with the Internet...