net neutrality

Holy sh*t it’s Chuckabooboo! What up brah!?

 

And who else, then, other than CONGRESS will make the new "set of rules"? A commission (appointed by government)?? We know where that will go. NO!!....NO!!.....NO!!....bye bye innovation.....

 

In many markets customers have a choice of 1 or 2 ISP's, so there's your free market. If the market supported many players and choice was abundant, then I would agree with you.

The internet, like our country, will remain free, but only because we take steps to keep it so.

btw, we're all morons, accept this fact and move on.

 

You have been listening to Mohandas Barry.
You can leave the temple now, Grasshoppa!!

 

I am 1/32 Abenaki, I have high cheek bones. On applications I check the box for "mixed up race"

you shall pardon me for anything I say or think because I am a victim.

 

o barry

you need to go watch some more alex jones

 

The answer is that "neutrality" is NOT neutral--it is a euphemism for government control. Obama the Traitor wants to hand control of it over to foreign powers. He hates all corporations so he has zero interest in commercial viability.
It is NOT NEUTRAL at all. It is about government control, seizing more taxes form everybody to put his crappy people in power.
Period.

 

Long and short of it is your a moron if you think the repeal of net neutrality is a good idea. The only ones who want it repealed are Comcast and Verizon. And people who can't think for themselves. Treating the internet like a utility was a forward-thinking move, given how easy it would be for our internet overlords to abuse their power.

I think Barry agrees but assumes we're all morons who won't be able to see through his sarcasm.

 

First-you are right-you are a moron.
Second- treating anything like a utility is a bad socialist/commie idea.
Third--you are from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts--Massholia. Ergo, it surprised me not that you want to kill innovation, ya commie pinko--you stink!! bwahahahahaha!!

 

that's exactly the problem - it's not a free market for most of us. it's a duopoly, at best, and a monopoly for many. there's nowhere else to go for most consumers. when you consider that internet service has become as essential to modern life as electricity and water, there's no reason to treat broadband as anything other than a utility. in spite Barry's babbling and flapping, it's really not a partisan issue.

 

Barry, how will net neutrality hand control of our internet over to foreign powers? This hasn't been explained yet.

This may be a case of Rose Colored Glasses. I'm old enough to remember the antitrust suit against Bell / AT&T and the subsequent outcome. Bell / AT&T was a monopoly, yet provided excellent service at reasonable rates. For whatever reason, the U.S. Gubmint had a hard-on about the whole monopoly gig, even though Bell had been a monopoly for decades since its inception. Anyways, once Bell was broken up, it's subsidiaries and other newcomers consolidated eventually into our current phone providers, ALL of whom give us really crappy "plans" at exorbitant rates in comparison to what was provided by Bell The Monopoly.

Predicting the outcomes of such cases as net neutrality can prove to be foolish.

 

I remember those days too but not that fondly...I remember you had to rent your phone from the phone company - there was no other choice and long distance rates were much higher (remember waiting for nights and weekends to make long distance calls?)...but I agree, it also got pretty messy afterward while the market sorted itself out, which it eventually did.

I also agree with your last statement about predicting the outcomes, but consider this analogy: up until 1968, you were not allowed to use/install any device on the phone lines without the express consent of Ma Bell (that's why we had to rent phones from Ma Bell)...it took a Supreme Court decision to declare the phone lines open to anyone and any device, which in turn gave us a flood of new products, services, brand new industries and markets like modems, fax machines, answering machines, video conferencing etc etc. it's not a perfect analogy, but if ISP's are permitted to determine who gets to use the pipes at what price, as Ma Bell did for so many years, they will certainly stifle innovation and competition.

 

Good point, for sure. Solid argument. Thanks Bill.

 

You are also confusing change in laws with changes in technology. every item you say Ma Bell did NOT let us do was because back then, the technology was NOT available to do it.
Technology changed, improved our lies--laws have worsened your life. More laws=more restrictions. Period.


Piedra--the Net Neutrality arguments included handing over equal access to all our enemies. Since then, the Russians and China have had a field day with hacking. You can thank Obama the Traitor. Incidentally and marginally related, he also gave $900 million to the Islamic Mosque near Ground Zero in NYC for them to buy, build their mosque right in front of the World Towers site. He did so on the QT, using YOUR tax dollars. Obama is a traitor. If he does things like that, you know his intent was to give internet secrets to foreign powers in order to weaken the USA in order to "transform" the USA into a lesser nation than others. He has fooled a lot of people, as did Hitler.
Commercial equal access, I have no problem with, IN THE USA.
Overseas? F*** them.

 

o barry

i'm glad you took my advise to watch more alex jones. it seemed to help your perspective.

 

What makes your statement ironic, is that you know who this Alex is, and I have zero idea who he is.
So who is the moron now?? You.

 

This might be the most unbelievable thing ever said on SI....

 

And that makes you a bird of the feather...hahahahaha....moron