Fox News Forgets Net Neutrality in Story on Net Neutrality

[Oddball]

I attack nobody...I merely point out the obvious.

If you think that gubmint won't want something in return for their action here, you've ignored the recent ex post facto clawback of the compensation for people involved in the bailouts.

Arguing with your devoid-of-reason position on this topic is becoming quite dreary and boring.

 

[Modbert]

I attack nobody...I merely point out the obvious.

If you think that gubmint won't want something in return for their action here, you've ignored the recent ex post facto clawback of the compensation for people involved in the bailouts.

Arguing with your devoid-of-reason position on this topic is becoming quite dreary and boring.

So once again, you play in what ifs and no concrete arguments. If that's all you're going to do, then I think this issue is settled. You're not going to change your mind that Obama is a Tyrant and is going to try and take your internet away. However, I'm sure the next time a Democrat gets lots of contributions from a company on a subject (Obama and Goldman Sachs anyone?) you'll be right there saying that Obama is highly biased and just being paid off by these companies. Meanwhile, you see no problem with McCain taking all this money from the ISPs. Nor do you see a problem with Fox News not mentioning Net Neutrality in a story about Net Neutrality.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if MSNBC did the same with blasting Supply Side Economics by calling it a attack on the Middle Class and poor people.

 

[Oddball]

Projecting what I might say if someone else said something is irrelevant.

Just because I'm not taking your side doesn't mean that I'm on the side of Big ISP by default. Carrying on your argument as though I am is as pedantic as it gets.

Comcast has lost and is in the process of losing lawsuits that address the "throttling" boogerman the net neutrality bedwetters keep screeching about....Verdicts with which I agree.

The only one being truly neutral and rational here is yours truly.

 

[Modbert]

Projecting what I might say if someone else said something is irrelevant.

Just because I'm not taking your side doesn't mean that I'm on the side of Big ISP by default. Carrying on your argument as though I am is as pedantic as it gets.

Comcast has lost and is in the process of losing lawsuits that address the "throttling" boogerman the net neutrality bedwetters keep screeching about....Verdicts with which I agree.

The only one being truly neutral and rational here is yours truly.

As you projecting what Google or President Obama might do is irrelevant.

I have never cast you on the side of Big ISP. However, I do agree with the statement that if this were Obama taking money and MSNBC saying these things (this whole thread is about Fox if you recall) that you would be speaking out against it.

I'm glad we can agree that Comcast losing these lawsuits is a good thing. As for you being the only true neutral and rational one here is bullshit to the highest degree. That goes out the window the minute you say some of the things you did, including calling Obama a Tyrant. Hell, I disagree with the man more and more but he's not a Tyrant.

 

[Oddball]

I'm going on track records....As far from irrelevant as you can get.

And who said anything about Obama?...More likely those duties will be pawned off on some unaccountable lackey of any given administration.....Also a clear track record there.

This issue belongs in the courts, not the legislature.

 

[immto]

What is Net Neutrality? This is an explanation found on Googles Users Guide.

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."

I should also point out that Google is in support of Net Neutrality.

It sounds pretty good right, so why are so many people against it? Well I naturally get curious when I see and hear the presidential administration as well as communist thugs like Van Jones get behind something, so I did a little further research. Net Neutrality is not a new idea, it's been around for over a decade and in fact has been in practice throughout most of the Internet. The main reason it's supported so heavily is because the big technology firms do not want to see ISP's limit service in a tiered system which would allow them to control the flow of the Internet. This all sounds like a great idea, let's keep the Internet free and open, right?

Again, I still need to know why Van Jones is such a strong supporter of it. He's one of these take from the rich and the white and give it to the poor and the brown. He's supposed to be against Big Business but now all of sudden he's on the same side as Microsoft and Google. Your enemies do not become your allies over night, and if they do you need to find out why. Typically it's because they have something to gain, and if your once sworn enemy has something to gain on your side of an argument you need to re-evaluate that argument to make sure you have all the facts.

The truth is Obama and his people are not so concerned about keeping the Internet equal as there are about making it MORE EQUAL for some and LESS EQUAL for others. Do we really want the Government sticking their nose into this? They have already attacked Fox News, now they want to regulate the Internet, I'm sure Fox News Content will treated fairly, right?

There are many questions in regards to Net Neutrality that need a closer look and the folks in power right now, are not the folks I want looking at it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Immto, just because Google is foolishly agreeing with MS, doesn't mean they are friends.

They still hate each other, primarily thanks to MS trying to take over them by force ... also because MS has tried to force them to us MS software. But all in all, Google is foolish in this support of net neutrality, but to shed some light on why, they make money from ad space, so the more people who use their service, the more money they can make.

 

[immto]

Immto, just because Google is foolishly agreeing with MS, doesn't mean they are friends.

They still hate each other, primarily thanks to MS trying to take over them by force ... also because MS has tried to force them to us MS software. But all in all, Google is foolish in this support of net neutrality, but to shed some light on why, they make money from ad space, so the more people who use their service, the more money they can make.

So, if their in it to make more money, (And I have no problem with that) than that means they know it can work in their favor (I Have a huge problem with this), just Like Van Jones and Obama know that it can work in their favor as well (Again larger problem). That means anything but Net Neutrality.