'net' neutrality

[wildcat junkie]

Buddy, you quoted me in the middle of an edit ... Sorry about that

And I did the same.

 

After I saw your edited post & realized your intent, I edited my post. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[Trial153]

this is soooo scary and just about everywhere you look online it is being reported as the greatest thing ever. it protects the internet yet does the total opposite. I found one article from a leftist who acknowledges how bad this really is.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

Yes Forbes, no corporate ties there...

[Mr VJP]

Yes Forbes, no corporate ties there...

 

Like I said, a government campaign to destroy capitalism.  Who has more expertise on the issue than Forbes.  Maybe you should read it and debate the facts rather than dismiss it outright because the government tells you they're the bad guys.

[Trial153]

Like I said, a government campaign to destroy capitalism. Who has more expertise on the issue than Forbes. Maybe you should read it and debate the facts rather than dismiss it outright because the government tells you they're the bad guys.

you're delusional. The same entity you said you're referring to as capitalistic is what's controlling government right now. Their money via lobbying is the driving force in our political system.

[wildcat junkie]

this is soooo scary and just about everywhere you look online it is being reported as the greatest thing ever. it protects the internet yet does the total opposite. I found one article from a leftist who acknowledges how bad this really is.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

 

 

When the hell are people on both side of the fence in this country going to wake up and realize that the Government corporate complex is screwing you over continually?

It's so beyond conservative or liberal politics at this point.

America needs to wake the hell up.

 

 

Yes Forbes, no corporate ties there...

 

 

[Mr VJP]

"Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative."

 

[brownclown]

Yes Forbes, no corporate ties there...

 

thats why i posted this  link. its written by an appreahent leftist but points out the obvious flaws over governement control of the internet.

[Mr VJP]

you're delusional. The same entity you said you're referring to as capitalistic is what's controlling government right now. Their money via lobbying is the driving force in our political system.

 

Controlling government wouldn't be possible if the government wasn't willing to take money to be controlled, now would it?

Men will always offer bribes for influence, but the person who accepts the bribe is the one who is the problem.

[Trial153]

Controlling government wouldn't be possible if the government wasn't willing to take money to be controlled, now would it?

Men will always offer bribes for influence, but the person who accepts the bribe is the one who is the problem.

And you think either side has Monopoly on that?

Republican and Democrat they're both feeding from the same trawl.

[Mr VJP]

I never said that.  It's a collectivist government bent on it's own self preservation IMO.  But the side that is agreeing with net neutrality happens to be mostly Democrat.

 

[wildcat junkie]

And you think either side has Monopoly on that?

Republican and Democrat they're both feeding from the same trawl.

True, but the Republicans have no shame. The corporate campaign contributions aren't even close to being evenly split.

 

The REICH accuses the Dems of taking $$ from unions, but that is putting more $$$ into the working man's pockets & that $$  is spent in the local economy. That creates jobs. The UAW took 2 hours pay a month for dues. $60 a month is what I paid for a job that paid about $70K a year for a 40 hour work week W/good benefits. Pretty good ROE if you ask me.

 

The people that the Repugs want to funnel tax cuts to, take that $$$ to HBSC to hide it, along with most of profits they make..What they don't hide, they use for stock buy back schemes that don't put anyone to work other than a small handful of hedge fund managers..

 

Henry Ford was a job creator, Henry paid 2X the usual wage at the time because he realized that it would expand his market.  

 

The Mitt Romneys  & their ilk destroyed good paying jobs & replaced them W/a smaller number of low paying jobs.

Edited February 27, 2015 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

Junkie, the government fixed that by making everyone else pay a lot more for those that have no insurance and no desire to stay healthy or get a job.  It's just collectivist thinking that goes a long way to destroying capitalism, free enterprise, liberty and freedom of choice.  It is the main goal of Progressives.  Everything this administration and Progressives do has that goal in mind.

 

"Net Neutrality" is double speak, just as "Affordable" Care Act is.  In reality it will allow the government to control free speech and hamper speech is does not approve of, especially speech that is critical of the government.

 

If you thought what the IRS was being allowed to do under Lois Lerner was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Funny, my rates haven't changed a bit. Can you cite anyone that had adequate health insurance W/O lifetime coverage limits that had their rates go up in NY state.

 

Not talking about "junk" policies here. I'm talking about policies that where equal to the mandated minimums of the ACA. You know, policies that covered Doctor visits W/affordable co-pays, no yearly or lifetime coverage limits that kick you to the curb when you get cancer, etc. Coverage like I already had before the ACA. (modeled BTW after "Romneycare" in Massachusetts when he was Governor)

[Mr VJP]

True, but the Republicans have no shame. The corporate campaign contributions aren't even close to being evenly split.

 

The REICH accuses the Dems of taking $$ from unions, but that is putting more $$$ into the working man's pockets & that $$  is spent in the local economy. That creates jobs. The UAW took 2 hours pay a month for dues. $60 a month is what I paid for a job that paid about $70K a year for a 40 hour work week W/good benefits. Pretty good ROE if you ask me.

 

The people that the Repugs want to funnel tax cuts to, take that $$$ to HBSC to hide it, along with most of profits they make..What they don't hide, they use for stock buy back schemes that don't put anyone to work other than a small handful of hedge fund managers..

 

Henry Ford was a job creator, Henry paid 2X the usual wage at the time because he realized that it would expand his market.  

 

The Mitt Romneys  & their ilk destroyed good paying jobs & replaced them W/a smaller number of low paying jobs.

 

"While the Democrats tried to paint the right as a being the rich man’s party and the Koch’s for trying to “buy America,” the truth is America’s wealthiest districts elect Democrats, and more billionaires contributed the Democratic party than the GOP last election cycle."

 

Democrat policies tend to hamper the economy buying votes from constituencies.  GOP policies are intended to bolster the overall economy.

 

Loretta Lynch, up for US Attorney General, a Democrat,  refused to prosecute anyone involved with the HSBC scandal because many of them are Democrats.

 

What H. Ford did in the early 20th Century would not work in the early 21st Century.  Besides government agencies like EPA, OSHA, NLRB and Commerce Dept would have put him out of business withing a year.

 

I don't believe many think Romney would not have been better for America at this point.

[Mr VJP]

Funny, my rates haven't changed a bit. Can you cite anyone that had adequate health insurance W/O lifetime coverage limits that had their rates go up in NY state.

 

 

Yeah, ME!  Rates up 25%.  Deductibles up 100%  And less coverage for things I use while giving me coverage for things I don't.  I'll decide what is "adequate" coverage for me thank you.  The government thinks I may need a mammography and pap smears soon.

[jrm]

Going back to snail mail

 

Already controlled, actually owned, by the Federal Government.

 

 

Government owned/operated. Carrier pigeons maybe? I have drums. And firewood for for smoke signals too.

 

Carrier Pigeons: FAA jurisdiction

Firewood: EPA jurisdiction

 

You can't win. They control it all.

 

Yeah! Let's give control of the internet to the corporations! They've never screwed us, EVER, what could happen?

Funny, although you said control of the internet which kind of implies running it, the ruling only brings the internet companies under the umbrella of the FCC's rules. Flatly stating that interenet companies must treat all cusomers alike and cannot create fast lanes for those who pay.

 

 

And that's the thing which puts me on the fence for this issue.

 

On the surface, this is a good thing. There is no "free market" currently for internet connectivity. It is essentially the same monopoly the phone company had back in the day. Similar to electric or natural gas. With a few exceptions, a single company owns a market.

 

Cablevision, TWC, Comcast... whomever. They have a government contract to be the exclusive cable provider in a defined area. Some entrepreneur cannot come along and build a competing network. Yes, Verizon had "FIOS" in limited areas, but the truth is that it isn't truly competition.

 

As is the problem with monopolies, they can price gouge and take advantage of the customer. Sure you can cancel their service, but online access has pretty much become a necessity and not a luxury. 

 

Cable companies have pushed the envelope too far, which is why people are pushing the government to step in. They are afraid of losing revenue... they used to have a monopoly by selling you "HBO" along with your internet package. Now, you don't need HBO because you can get movies from Netflix. Your savings is their loss in revenue. They want to make that up by charging Netflix. Since they are the only way for Netflix to get into your home, they get to decide how much to charge and how to structure it. Everything is designed for them to maintain their monopoly.

 

Let's not even get into the political money and influence they have which helps maintain the current laws which grant them that monopoly. In effect, the government already "controls" the internet, acting as pawns for the big cable and telecom companies.

 

 

Then there is the other side.

 

There are advantages to consumers by classifying internet companies under the new FCC rules. On the surface, there are good things. The problem is that government never leaves things alone. It always gets twisted and bigger and more intrusive. 

 

Once the government gives itself the right to tell people what they can't do with an internet connection, they also give themselves the right to tell people what they can do with it. And with the control is certain to come with more taxes and fees. 

 

 

 

 

"They've never screwed us, EVER, what could happen?" unfortunatlely applies equally to government and monopolistic corporations. It is a no-win situation.

Edited February 27, 2015 by jrm

[adkbuck]

Last night I had the good fortune to find a video that a kindly soul put up on you tube that showed how to completely tear down and reassemble the exact model of semi-auto shotgun that I use for trap and skeet.  It was a godsend. and a time saver.   I had put about 500 or 600 rounds through the gun and it was way over due for thorough and complete cleaning.    But I wonder if these types of free videos will be available in the future?  Especially if a governmental regime is in power that doesn't want guns in the hands of its citizenry.   

 

 Obama and his dictatorship has won another rather round by cheating as usual, circumventing the constitutional process, and by not allowing an open debate on a plan that was not even revealed until it was passed. How can anyone who hunts and claims to be a free independent person not be angry?   The damage is done and it will be difficult to undo. The courts are full of judges appointed by Obama and his ilk.   It will take a miracle to walk this thing back through the courts.

 

The lemmings and the "half-vast" army of big government lovers seem to be rejoicing. Oh, how I wish I could join those happy but ignorant souls!   They seem to think big corporations (who have to be at least somewhat accountable or efficient or they would not make a profit) are the problem!   

 

They don't understand that when the worlds biggest,  most inefficient, and most unaccountable monopoly (one that requires 2 billion dollars to create a stupid simple healthcare website) takes over the internet...... we are all screwed!   By the way the $2,000,000,000.00 taxpayer funded government health site still doesn't work right and the government just sent out over 800,000 botched up Obamacare tax forms, another mistake that will be paid for by all of us.

 

 

 

[steve863]

 The government thinks I may need a mammography and pap smears soon.

 

They probably recommended it to some of you guys because of all the bitching you do here on the internet.  LOL

[wildcat junkie]

They probably recommended it to some of you guys because of all the bitching you do here on the internet.  LOL

Yes, true, but it appears to be "male menopause" so the "gynecological" coverage is moot isn't it?

[Mr VJP]

Either way, they have no problem making you guys pay for it.

 

"The jury is still out on whether the FCC's ruling will do more good than harm, but that's mostly because it doesn't go to the crux of the problem, which is lack of competition. The FCC's action won't create more of it. Indeed, it's not at all clear it will usher in a neutral net. What is clear, however, is that the greatest invention since Gutenberg's printing press will now be regulated by a bureaucracy that still struggles to build a functioning website."

Edited February 27, 2015 by Mr VJP

[wildcat junkie]

Either way, they have no problem making you guys pay for it.

 

 

Since my wife is the primary policy beneficiary it's not "me" paying for it.  She has a family history of breast cancer, I appreciate your hard earned dollars paying for my freeloading wife's health care. 

[Mr VJP]

JRM said:  "Cablevision, TWC, Comcast... whomever. They have a government contract to be the exclusive cable provider in a defined area. Some entrepreneur cannot come along and build a competing network. Yes, Verizon had "FIOS" in limited areas, but the truth is that it isn't truly competition."

 

This isn't true.  There is no "exclusivity".  Any cable company can get a franchise agreement from any municipality to put their cable in a town that already has a cable provider.  It's called an over build.

 

It's not often done by competitors because they do not know what percentage of subscribers they will get when finished so the cost of the project vs the return on investment is an unknown.  It does exist in many areas though, so competition is allowed.

 

There is also the satellite dish alternative that keeps cable companies on their toes as well.

 

[growalot]

 

 The government thinks I may need a mammography and pap smears soon.

Ok so you could handle the mammography....but run please run  before they catch you to attempt the latter...

[Mr VJP]

I appreciate your hard earned dollars paying for my freeloading wife's health care. 

 

No you don't.

 

But you do appreciate the government's heavy hand forcing other people to do it.

[philoshop]

I wonder how long we'll have to wait before we can actually read what's in those 317 pages of regulation. Maybe they'll just keep it secret until they've fully identified all political dissenters for a mass roundup.

[Two Track]

Remember the "free" digital signal to replace the old analog signal.  Initial phase of it I could receive the broadcasts.  Then FCC decided that stations could use a lower minimum power output to broadcast a couple months later.  Now no free digital signal by me.

 

Town signed another exclusive 10 year contact with the cable company, blocking out Verizon FIOS again.  Nice job the government did for us.  Force to pay cable company to have TV and a stable internet connection.  DSL is unreliable in my area. 

 

Can't get basic package and just HBO added on, has to be a movie channel package that includes HBO.

cable has blocked recording anything in standard definition so can't have as many shows recorded.  Can't watch something on the DVR if cable connection is out.  If it is saved to my cable DVR box's hard drive, why does the cable connection need to be live?

 

We just get screwed by government and big companies.  One seems to always bribe to the other to get their way.  Guess people don't matter to either one.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Two Track