GOP are not about "freedom": Move to Kill Net Neutrality Legislation

[bendog]

So we are against freedom because we oppose the government regulating the internet?

Some people are so mixed up.

Liberals are indoctrinated to believe government is the answer to everything, when the facts tell a completely different story about government involvement.

But liberals aren't interested in facts. They're brains have been conditioned to only listen to other liberals and the liberal media. Whether what they hear is true or not, or factual or not, is completely irrelevant. If obama told these people that drinking piss was good for them, you'd see a good quarter of the nation drinking piss, and even though it made them sick, they'd go right back and do it again because obama told them to do it. It MUST be the truth. It MUST be. They've been conditioned to believe EVERYTHING, without question.

Government has no place in preventing Comcast from making Netflix more expensive for me.

 

[PredFan]

Keep the government away from the Internet.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Lrftists tried to counter Conservative Talk Radio with their own Liberal Radio Talk shows and enough people didn't tune in to support the Stations.

I say the people made a good choice.

The Left can't compete in a free market so they want to force their ideology on Conservative radio.

The public has already spoken and they don't want it!!

That's not the whole story. After lib talk radio failed and when Air America crashed and burned, the libbies went running to mommy and daddy Washington and demanded they look into a reawakening of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Contradicting yourself is a *****, isn't it? And it's too late to edit your fumbled post. Sorry.

I didn't contradict myself.

I am for net-neutrality.

I also would rather have the Congress pass it as a law instead of the FCC decreeing it as I don't believe that unelected B-Rats should have the power to enact anything that the affect or effect of a law.

Two rather simple statements that even you should understand.

WTF do you think the FCC is for?

Since you are another numbnuts 2nd Amendment guy, here's the deal: The FCC has enough laws on the books already to enforce net neutrality. We don't need any more laws.

There. Now do you get it???

No, they don't. Not unless Obama cuts them loose as he did with the EPA. Hence the reason this Net Neutrality issue is going through Congress.

 

[g5000]

I love it when I can see the little hairs on rednecks stand up and bristle.

The airwaves are free and belong to all the people, not just large corporations. The FCC needs to step up and keep it free and competitive. They are not doing so.

I'm sure you have no problem with the federal government keeping the ground under your feet free. You should want the air above your head to be, too.

Damn straight. HBO and Showtime should be free. Like the roads.

you really don't understand the core concept, do you?

I understand it perfectly, as demonstrated in my post.

 

[g5000]

So we are against freedom because we oppose the government regulating the internet?

Some people are so mixed up.

Liberals are indoctrinated to believe government is the answer to everything, when the facts tell a completely different story about government involvement.

But liberals aren't interested in facts. They're brains have been conditioned to only listen to other liberals and the liberal media. Whether what they hear is true or not, or factual or not, is completely irrelevant. If obama told these people that drinking piss was good for them, you'd see a good quarter of the nation drinking piss, and even though it made them sick, they'd go right back and do it again because obama told them to do it. It MUST be the truth. It MUST be. They've been conditioned to believe EVERYTHING, without question.

Government has no place in preventing Comcast from making Netflix more expensive for me.

Do you think HBO should be free?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Well, yes. But if the goal is free and transparent markets, what prevents Verizon, or ATT, or whomever, from charging more?..."

Frankly, I'm in favor of forcing the continuation of the Flat Fee approach to Internet service and in sitting on their chests and regulating them much more closely for a while.

I'm all for free and transparent markets in many areas of endeavor, but I don't hesitate to advocate for the Feds to play the 500-pound gorilla and sit on the chest of pseudo-monopoly A or B for a few years or a decade or two when their product becomes (a) ubiquitous, (2) important to the day-to-day affairs of the general public, (3) of great economic and strategic importance, and (4) a monopoly or autocracy is looming on the horizon which needs suppressing before it gets out of hand, for the public good.

"...I mean some people STILL don't have broadband. You can buy a cheap mobile phone service..."

Yep. Some people still don't have broadband of one flavor or another. But every year more and more folks DO have it, until, by now, it's as commonplace as sliced bread.

"...What gives Verizon a right to make it more expensive for ME to contract with Netflix?..."

Because you (and I) are making Verizon huff-and-puff and have a heart attack, to keep up with something that they used to be able to provide-for much easier, because there was so much less of it, earlier?

"...And, I assume you label yourself a conservative, yet you are supporting less transparent markets. How can that be?"

I'm confused how Increased Scrutiny Through Regulation equates to Opaque Markets, but, I'll have to live with such confusion, I guess.

Meanwhile, I'm exactly what I say in my tagline; a Cafeteria Centrist.

Some of my own positions are a Left-leaning (like mine, here)...

Some of my own positions are Right-leaning...

Some of my own positions are straight-down-the-middle... the Center...

One of the nice things about being a Centrist.. and a 'Cafeteria' one at that who picks and choses what he wants on an issue-by-issue basis... is that you're rarely slammed for being a Party Man or One Trick Pony...

Conservative on some things, Liberal on others...

You caught me taking-up a stereotypically Liberal (more government regulation) position on this particular issue...

 

[Avatar4321]

Because regulation and price fixing always makes things better...

 

[g5000]

Why is no one Cable Neutral and yet some are Net Neutral?

People are okay with a cable product like HBO costing more to access and yet they piss their panties at the idea of an online product costing more to access.

Hmmm...

Oh, and look how well government regulation of cable turned out. The establishment of monopolistic fiefdoms. Well done!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Liberals are indoctrinated to believe government is the answer to everything, when the facts tell a completely different story about government involvement.

But liberals aren't interested in facts. They're brains have been conditioned to only listen to other liberals and the liberal media. Whether what they hear is true or not, or factual or not, is completely irrelevant. If obama told these people that drinking piss was good for them, you'd see a good quarter of the nation drinking piss, and even though it made them sick, they'd go right back and do it again because obama told them to do it. It MUST be the truth. It MUST be. They've been conditioned to believe EVERYTHING, without question.

Government has no place in preventing Comcast from making Netflix more expensive for me.

Do you think HBO should be free?

Why do you think HBO is comparable? If I want HBO I pay for it. If I want Netflix I pay for it. HBO and Netflix is not free

 

[g5000]

Government has no place in preventing Comcast from making Netflix more expensive for me.

Do you think HBO should be free?

Why do you think HBO is comparable? If I want HBO I pay for it. If I want Netflix I pay for it. HBO and Netflix is not free

Content providers fight over channel numbers. Cable TV providers affect the outcome of their profits by what channel they assign to them. Cable access gets shit channel numbers while ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS get the best channel numbers. If a cable TV provider gets pissed off at a content provider, they stop carrying them. You get cut off from that content provider.

Your cable tv provider decides what content providers you get in the basic package. If the cable provider decides BBC TV traffic is not high enough, they will exclude it from the basic package. You have to pay more to get access to low traffic content providers.

So...yeah. No difference.

At all.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ha! Another mushroom growing in the dark. I bet you'll be the first one to ***** when your 45% higher, new, revised and downgraded internet/cable bill arrives.

Government has NO BUSINESS in this. So stifle your piehole asswipe.

I love it when I can see the little hairs on rednecks stand up and bristle.

The airwaves are free and belong to all the people, not just large corporations. The FCC needs to step up and keep it free and competitive. They are not doing so.

I'm sure you have no problem with the federal government keeping the ground under your feet free. You should want the air above your head to be, too.

There is no open competition in the wire line communications business.
For example, here we have three choices for internet. Two of them suck. Dial up. The local telco which is the former Alltel, a company with ZERO interest in Fiber optic lines or high speed internet and Time Warner Cable.
Now, other companies have tried to enter this market. One was a company called Carolina Broadband. The brought in everything they needed to start building their system. Hired over 500 people to do the work. Well, guess what?. Suddenly there were delays with permitting.
The city governments all wanted to charge a higher franchise fee than Time Warner was paying. The power company wanted a higher pole rental rate than Time Warner was paying. The conspiracy theory was that TWC was leaning the power company and the various governments to keep the competition out. It worked. Carolina Broadband laid off those workers and took off down the road.
Time Warner had it's monopoly back.....That is until AT&T came in with their U Verse service. But that serves only a small portion of the market. So they are no real threat to Time Warner.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Do you think HBO should be free?

Why do you think HBO is comparable? If I want HBO I pay for it. If I want Netflix I pay for it. HBO and Netflix is not free

Content providers fight over channel numbers. Cable TV providers affect the outcome of their profits by what channel they assign to them. Cable access gets shit channel numbers while ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS get the best channel numbers. If a cable TV provider gets pissed off at a content provider, they stop carrying them. You get cut off from that content provider.

Your cable tv provider decides what content providers you get in the basic package. If the cable provider decides BBC TV traffic is not high enough, they will exclude it from the basic package. You have to pay more to get access to low traffic content providers.

So...yeah. No difference.

At all.

So HBO and Netflix are the same because....channel numbers or basic packages? Wait no, this is a riddle of sorts, right?

 

[g5000]

Why do you think HBO is comparable? If I want HBO I pay for it. If I want Netflix I pay for it. HBO and Netflix is not free

Content providers fight over channel numbers. Cable TV providers affect the outcome of their profits by what channel they assign to them. Cable access gets shit channel numbers while ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS get the best channel numbers. If a cable TV provider gets pissed off at a content provider, they stop carrying them. You get cut off from that content provider.

Your cable tv provider decides what content providers you get in the basic package. If the cable provider decides BBC TV traffic is not high enough, they will exclude it from the basic package. You have to pay more to get access to low traffic content providers.

So...yeah. No difference.

At all.

So HBO and Netflix are the same because....channel numbers or basic packages? Wait no, this is a riddle of sorts, right?

"Net neutrality" is a deceptive name so that it sounds so nice that you would have to be an asshole for being against it. But it is something which would prevent ISPs from being able to decide which internet content to give a higher priority in their business model to maximize their resource management.

A cable provider is able to decide which content to give a higher priority in their business model, but you would deny an ISP the same ability. It is like forcing construction companies to build four lane highways to every business (whether it is Disneyland or your Aunt Mable's home jewelry making business) so they would all be "infrastructure neutral".


That's bogus.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm still waiting for someone to speak up and say that they were unhappy with the way they have been able to access the internet up until now. Anyone?

I do...I object to having just two choices of HSI.
I think all companies should be able to market to all customers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Content providers fight over channel numbers. Cable TV providers affect the outcome of their profits by what channel they assign to them. Cable access gets shit channel numbers while ABC, FOX, NBC, and CBS get the best channel numbers. If a cable TV provider gets pissed off at a content provider, they stop carrying them. You get cut off from that content provider.

Your cable tv provider decides what content providers you get in the basic package. If the cable provider decides BBC TV traffic is not high enough, they will exclude it from the basic package. You have to pay more to get access to low traffic content providers.

So...yeah. No difference.

At all.

So HBO and Netflix are the same because....channel numbers or basic packages? Wait no, this is a riddle of sorts, right?

"Net neutrality" is a deceptive name so that it sounds so nice that you would have to be an asshole for being against it. But it is something which would prevent ISPs from being able to decide which internet content to give a higher priority in their business model to maximize their resource management.

A cable provider is able to decide which content to give a higher priority in their business model, but you would deny an ISP the same ability.

That's bogus.

I agree its a catchy name.

Just because cable ***** us we should be ok with an additional penis is your logic here?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Network Neutrality Fact Sheet - Common Cause

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider. For example, if you are shopping for a new appliance online you should be able to shop on any and all websites, not just the ones with whom your provider has a preferred business relationship. Or if you want to use your high-speed Internet connection to make phone calls, your provider should not be able to impede your ability to do so.

Take it a step further. What if you want to watch ESPN online but Time Warner has their own version of ESPN they are promoting? They can slow down or block ESPN completely with a link that says
"Like ESPN? Well try this instead!"

But you dont like this Time Warner show...it sucks. What do you do? You cant do shit because you thought Net Neutrality had something to do with Obama Sucking and it didnt. Jokes on....Everyone

 

[g5000]

So HBO and Netflix are the same because....channel numbers or basic packages? Wait no, this is a riddle of sorts, right?

"Net neutrality" is a deceptive name so that it sounds so nice that you would have to be an asshole for being against it. But it is something which would prevent ISPs from being able to decide which internet content to give a higher priority in their business model to maximize their resource management.

A cable provider is able to decide which content to give a higher priority in their business model, but you would deny an ISP the same ability.

That's bogus.

I agree its a catchy name.

Just because cable ***** us we should be ok with an additional penis is your logic here?

I guess I was editing my post while you were responding to it.

I added that "net neutrality" would be like forcing construction companies to lay down a four lane highway to every business in the country, whether it was Disneyland or your Aunt Mabel's home jewelry making business out of a trailer park, in the name of "infrastructure neutrality". Running a four lane highway to Aunt Mabel's doublewide is simply inefficient and a revenue loser.

The auto traffic analogy is just as apt as the cable one. In the early days of automotive travel, we started with a handful of entrepreneurs who built roads for the few daring automotive afficianodos. But as cars became more popular, the roads become more congested, and priorities had to be set as to which roads would be given more traffic handling ability and which roads would be one lane blacktop or even dirt and gravel.

So it is with the internet. Traffic is high, bandwidth is limited. We have to allow the ISPs to determine the right sizes for the roads which carry the traffic. We can't give every content provider a four lane highway.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Free Market will work it out...as soon as we have viable alternatives.
No, most of us DON'T have viable alternatives.

There is no free market here. That's a Statist lie perpetuated to cover for their intervention failures. When the government meddling fails in markets they simply blame free markets and capitalism. That way while everyone is up in arms over something that doesn't exist, government can continue to **** shit up without resistance.

The Tri-State area has CableVision (TV sucks compared to FIOS), FIOS and TimeWarner.
We do NOT have all three in any one place.
CableVision habitually plays with their Internet speed and screws up billing on a monthly basis hoping no one will notice.
FIOS gets pretty expensive.
The non-Fiber cable services suck.

It is true that CableVision was given a clear field for 20 years so an infrastructure could take hold, but it wasn't exactly like any other company was trying to jump on the bandwagon for a very long time.

I am from the NY Metro area. Cablevision was the dominant company of the region.
They served, Northern NJ, Parts of Rockland, Orange and Westchester, Long Island and a few areas in Central NJ. Their customer service was horrible. The channel lineup was crap.
That was the late '80's. Now they have the iO system which I assume is their fiber optic pipeline.
Time Warner came in and gobbled up the cable co's in NYC and the rest of the NY Metro area not served by Cablevision.
There was ONE town in Bergen county that had dual plant. Park Ridge. There was Cablevision and UA Columbia Cable.
Now those small operators are gone. Save for the existence of FiOS, there is no real competition for internet service.
Look, the average monthly cost of 10 mbps download and 1mbps upload is about $55 per month. There is constant upward pressure on prices. It is my prediction that by the end of this decade we'll be seeing internet monthly bills up around $100.
And of course the whiners will scream about how it's unfair to low income and out of work people. so the government will invent subsidies and of course the paying users will see their bills go up even more.
THis is due to the lack of competition. And of course we now have Comcast trying to spend $42 billion to buy Time Warner.
Think your internet is expensive now? Just wait. If the feds let this one go through, internet may double in price.

 

[midcan5]

"If conservatism is the ideology of freedom, how come they're the ones who are always trying to take that freedom away from us, especially women and minorities? Why did they fight against the effort to end slavery, or to give women and minorities the vote, or to protect them from discrimination? Why are they still supporting efforts to disenfranchise minorities?"

The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England