micromanaging the internet

[iceberg]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

 

[Pogo]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Soooooooooooooo .............. you're actually going to take a side based on...... the looks of two people you found on Googly Images. Just because you don't like blacks and you don't like girls.

Please do not reproduce. Thanks.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

 

[Norman]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Soooooooooooooo .............. you're actually going to take a side based on...... the looks of two people you found on Googly Images. Just because you don't like blacks and you don't like girls.

Please do not reproduce. Thanks.

I usually dig up facts, but given that just looking at the protesters has had a 100% track record it's just a lot quicker. Who knew the SJWs are actually useful for something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using heuristics that work almost always and save a lot of time. I hope you don't reproduce if you don't realize this.

 

[iceberg]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

Besides you asked which was more micromanaging.

Control or free enterprise.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

 

[HappyJoy]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I'll take option 1. I don't relish the idea that my ISP is deciding what sites I should or should not be visiting. Plus, without a level playing field entrepreneurs could have a difficult time competing against well established online sites who can afford to pay ISPs for extra bandwidth.

 

[Pogo]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Soooooooooooooo .............. you're actually going to take a side based on...... the looks of two people you found on Googly Images. Just because you don't like blacks and you don't like girls.

Please do not reproduce. Thanks.

I usually dig up facts, but given that just looking at the protesters has had a 100% track record it's just a lot quicker. Who knew the SJWs are actually useful for something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using heuristics that work almost always. I hope you don't reproduce if you don't realize this.

Logically there is everything wrong with it.

You literally just admitted that rather than find out what the actual issue is you're going to take a position based on a Googly Image you yourself just looked up.

There really aren't words sufficient to express the degree of fuckedupidity there.

And then you pat yourself on the back declaring 'it's always worked before'. How the **** would you know what 'worked' with that fucked-up of an approach?

Please tell the class you don't vote.

 

[iceberg]

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

 

[Indeependent]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fuckers want to control peoples lives..Sounds republican? Sure does.

 

[HappyJoy]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

Soooooooooooooo .............. you're actually going to take a side based on...... the looks of two people you found on Googly Images. Just because you don't like blacks and you don't like girls.

Please do not reproduce. Thanks.

I usually dig up facts, but given that just looking at the protesters has had a 100% track record it's just a lot quicker. Who knew the SJWs are actually useful for something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using heuristics that work almost always. I hope you don't reproduce if you don't realize this.

Logically there is everything wrong with it.

You literally just admitted that rather than find out what the actual issue is you're going to take a position based on a Googly Image you yourself just looked up.

There really aren't words sufficient to express the degree of fuckedupidity there.[/QUOTE]

You'd probably need to spell it out in pictures anyway.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.
Under the new rules

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here on your part: there are no new rules. It is either the net neutrality rules are in place, or they are not. Thus,

if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, the solution is to still regulate it, but by passing the buck to yet another impotent agency. So, irrelevant.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

Today's result. Next question.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

Today's result. Next question.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

that does not address my questions. And also two years ago we did not have the FTC with the power to approve or disapprove business decisions, but we do now.

So, again...

Which of the two sound more like micromanaging?

Which of the two sound like they will have more involvement by the government?

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

LOL. So you will not answer the question because you know that doing so will show your true colors. That is rich.

The point you are missing is that I did not support the NN rules and still do not, so I am not defending them.

But I am pointing out how naive people are that when Trump tells them that there are now less regulations he is actually lying and there are more.

I do not buy into the thought pattern of "well they didn't do it before, why will they now", that is sort of simple minded.

Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T did not spend over 500 million dollars trying to get rid of NN just for the fun of it. They have a reason for wanting it gone. If they do plan to do any blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization, then why spend the money to be able to?

 

[iceberg]

Telling businesses what they can and can't do sounds more micromanaging

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

LOL. So you will not answer the question because you know that doing so will show your true colors. That is rich.

The point you are missing is that I did not support the NN rules and still do not, so I am not defending them.

But I am pointing out how naive people are that when Trump tells them that there are now less regulations he is actually lying and there are more.

I do not buy into the thought pattern of "well they didn't do it before, why will they now", that is sort of simple minded.

Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T did not spend over 500 million dollars trying to get rid of NN just for the fun of it. They have a reason for wanting it gone. If they do plan to do any blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization, then why spend the money to be able to?

My true colors? Damn dude you are a drama queen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, then the FTC needing to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization to content is a good thing or a bad thing in your view?

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

LOL. So you will not answer the question because you know that doing so will show your true colors. That is rich.

The point you are missing is that I did not support the NN rules and still do not, so I am not defending them.

But I am pointing out how naive people are that when Trump tells them that there are now less regulations he is actually lying and there are more.

I do not buy into the thought pattern of "well they didn't do it before, why will they now", that is sort of simple minded.

Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T did not spend over 500 million dollars trying to get rid of NN just for the fun of it. They have a reason for wanting it gone. If they do plan to do any blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization, then why spend the money to be able to?

My true colors? Damn dude you are a drama queen.

and you are a very good dancer, dancing all around the question that you just cannot bring yourself to answer.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not worried about them doing something that to date they have never done.

I'm more mad the gov created the problem then passes regulations to fix it.

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

LOL. So you will not answer the question because you know that doing so will show your true colors. That is rich.

The point you are missing is that I did not support the NN rules and still do not, so I am not defending them.

But I am pointing out how naive people are that when Trump tells them that there are now less regulations he is actually lying and there are more.

I do not buy into the thought pattern of "well they didn't do it before, why will they now", that is sort of simple minded.

Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T did not spend over 500 million dollars trying to get rid of NN just for the fun of it. They have a reason for wanting it gone. If they do plan to do any blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization, then why spend the money to be able to?

My true colors? Damn dude you are a drama queen.

and you are a very good dancer, dancing all around the question that you just cannot bring yourself to answer.

Bye.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The FTC never had the power, or should we say the responsibility to do so before today. But now it is the job of the FTC to approve any business decision relating to blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization.

Does that sound like less government involvement or more?

Ithen they couldn't stop them if they did it. Correct?

Then why didn't they do it? What ACTUAL problem that WAS HAPPENING did this fix?

Your turn to answer questions. Play fair.

LOL. So you will not answer the question because you know that doing so will show your true colors. That is rich.

The point you are missing is that I did not support the NN rules and still do not, so I am not defending them.

But I am pointing out how naive people are that when Trump tells them that there are now less regulations he is actually lying and there are more.

I do not buy into the thought pattern of "well they didn't do it before, why will they now", that is sort of simple minded.

Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T did not spend over 500 million dollars trying to get rid of NN just for the fun of it. They have a reason for wanting it gone. If they do plan to do any blocking, throttling or giving paid prioritization, then why spend the money to be able to?

My true colors? Damn dude you are a drama queen.

and you are a very good dancer, dancing all around the question that you just cannot bring yourself to answer.

Bye.

After all that dancing, I am sure you need to get off your feet.

Have a great night.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

 

[Indeependent]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.