Private Property and the Net

[PoliticalChic]

I found this post this morning in regard to what Republicans should do:
"Solidify net neutrality by law, protect it under first amendment."



This is where the 'rubber meets the road.'


It is surprising to me that so many who support personal responsibility, decry government entitlements as hand-outs, and joined me in despising the 'you didn't build that' socialism, are happy to endorse the 'Net Neutrality' agenda.


Are these folks selling out their principles in the hope of keeping their cable TV bills a tad lower????




1. The issue is this: there are a handful of servers that basically control the Internet providers like Verizon and Comcast
They've set up a dual-highway system: a super express highway for the largest, wealthiest users, Amazon, Netflix, etc....who can pay more for the service

2. And a local-less accessible highway for the smaller companies.

3. The Net Neutrality law would say that all comers get access to the super highway.....Internet providers have to treat all traffic sources equally. Net neutrality would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the government.

a. Let's take one example.... Comcast, which would probably like to promote NBC's content over ABC's to its Internet subscribers. That's because Comcast and NBC are affiliated.
But net neutrality prevents Comcast from being able to discriminate, and it must display both NBC's and ABC's content evenly as a result. That means no slower load time for ABC, and definitely no blocking of ABC altogether.
EXPLAINED: 'Net Neutrality' For Dummies, How It Affects You, And Why It Might Cost You More - SFGate




4. The providers say "we took the risk and used beau-coup bucks to build this infrastructure...and now you want to come in and tell us how to use it???"

Getting rid of net neutrality means Verizon or Comcast could similarly choose which content to promote based on their own self-interests.


I love this: it is politics at it's most basic!


5. It comes down to an issue of private property....and just as the eco-fascists have used government regulations to de facto deprive private land owners the use of their property, once again the collectivist big government folks are out to co-opt what they have no right to.




7.If you like the concept of Net Neutrality, think about it like this:
if a consumer is looking to but a refrigerator, how about a regulation that all appliance stores have to have the same price for refrigerators? Even better...the same as the lowest price any are charging.

That sound like freedom to you?

You are by far the most uninformed person on USMB.

Even you must know you're lying.

 

[Ame®icano]

Even it's been explained to you what monopoly is (I think PC gave you definition), you're still trying to make it means what you think it should be.

Lets say they have agreement not to compete against each other in those areas. Is that illegal? Nope. Is that monopoly? It could be if they are only cable provider in that area. But they're not. There are 31 cable company registered in the New York, including Comcast. Whaaaat?

I didnt say cable companies couldnt be registered. I said available. First you said they are competing I proved that wrong, now you are moving to how many registered companies there are and dropping the competition angle.

Whats your next angle when you lose this one? Just scream "its good because they told me so!"

So you're saying that only cable company operating in New York is Time Warner. No competition, period.

Try again.

Thats not a rebuttal

You claim there is no cable competition in New York and asking me what's my angle on that.
My angle is that your statement is false.

Except thats not my statement thats the statement from the CEO of Time Warner.

You believe that he also, doesnt know what he's talking about either?

What he said is

“You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”

You completely misunderstood what he was referring to and took his words out of contest (typical, eh?). If you watched the interview his comment was about the merger. Comcast and TWC are NOT competitors in between themselves because they're covering different areas. However, there are plenty of other companies that compete with both Comcast and TWC in their covering areas.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I didnt say cable companies couldnt be registered. I said available. First you said they are competing I proved that wrong, now you are moving to how many registered companies there are and dropping the competition angle.

Whats your next angle when you lose this one? Just scream "its good because they told me so!"

So you're saying that only cable company operating in New York is Time Warner. No competition, period.

Try again.

Thats not a rebuttal

You claim there is no cable competition in New York and asking me what's my angle on that.
My angle is that your statement is false.

Except thats not my statement thats the statement from the CEO of Time Warner.

You believe that he also, doesnt know what he's talking about either?

What he said is

“You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”

You completely misunderstood what he was referring to and took his words out of contest (typical, eh?). If you watched the interview his comment was about the merger. Comcast and TWC are NOT competitors in between themselves because they're covering different areas. However, there are plenty of other companies that compete with both Comcast and TWC in their covering areas.

The bolded is exactly what I said and you called me a liar for the CEO's statement. Now its not a lie? When did that change?


The statement after that was not in that interview so I dont know where you got that

 

[Ame®icano]

So you're saying that only cable company operating in New York is Time Warner. No competition, period.

Try again.

Thats not a rebuttal

You claim there is no cable competition in New York and asking me what's my angle on that.
My angle is that your statement is false.

Except thats not my statement thats the statement from the CEO of Time Warner.

You believe that he also, doesnt know what he's talking about either?

What he said is

“You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”

You completely misunderstood what he was referring to and took his words out of contest (typical, eh?). If you watched the interview his comment was about the merger. Comcast and TWC are NOT competitors in between themselves because they're covering different areas. However, there are plenty of other companies that compete with both Comcast and TWC in their covering areas.

The bolded is exactly what I said and you called me a liar for the CEO's statement. Now its not a lie? When did that change?


The statement after that was not in that interview so I dont know where you got that

What you said is taken out of context.

How about you watch the video with complete interview and see where I got it from.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats not a rebuttal

You claim there is no cable competition in New York and asking me what's my angle on that.
My angle is that your statement is false.

Except thats not my statement thats the statement from the CEO of Time Warner.

You believe that he also, doesnt know what he's talking about either?

What he said is

“You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”

You completely misunderstood what he was referring to and took his words out of contest (typical, eh?). If you watched the interview his comment was about the merger. Comcast and TWC are NOT competitors in between themselves because they're covering different areas. However, there are plenty of other companies that compete with both Comcast and TWC in their covering areas.

The bolded is exactly what I said and you called me a liar for the CEO's statement. Now its not a lie? When did that change?


The statement after that was not in that interview so I dont know where you got that

What you said is taken out of context.

How about you watch the video with complete interview and see where I got it from.

Heres the problem. You said I was a liar for posting what the CEO said then changed that to I quoted it out of context once you realized I didnt say it.

I'll say it again. The statement about plenty of competition was pulled from your ass and NOT from the interview. Your only defense is to say "watch the entire video" which is not the same as saying "Yes CC it WAS in the interview"

Because in the recesses of your mind you know it wasnt in that interview at all just like I said

 

[Ame®icano]

You claim there is no cable competition in New York and asking me what's my angle on that.
My angle is that your statement is false.

Except thats not my statement thats the statement from the CEO of Time Warner.

You believe that he also, doesnt know what he's talking about either?

What he said is

“You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”

You completely misunderstood what he was referring to and took his words out of contest (typical, eh?). If you watched the interview his comment was about the merger. Comcast and TWC are NOT competitors in between themselves because they're covering different areas. However, there are plenty of other companies that compete with both Comcast and TWC in their covering areas.

The bolded is exactly what I said and you called me a liar for the CEO's statement. Now its not a lie? When did that change?


The statement after that was not in that interview so I dont know where you got that

What you said is taken out of context.

How about you watch the video with complete interview and see where I got it from.

Heres the problem. You said I was a liar for posting what the CEO said then changed that to I quoted it out of context once you realized I didnt say it.

I'll say it again. The statement about plenty of competition was pulled from your ass and NOT from the interview. Your only defense is to say "watch the entire video" which is not the same as saying "Yes CC it WAS in the interview"

Because in the recesses of your mind you know it wasnt in that interview at all just like I said

So you still didn't watch the video. Just 20 seconds in the video, Roberts is saying this:

Its truly inadequate notion to say there is no competition in video. We lost video customers, unfortunately, for 26 straight quarters, until 2 quarters ago, from satellite, TBS, DirectTV, DishNetwork, Verizon, AT&T, FiOs and U-Verse.

Yes CC, he mentioned competition in the interview.

 

[Ame®icano]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

that's about the dumbest comparison i've ever heard.
if i'm a consumer, i can decide (providing there are multiple broadband providers in my area - so in actuality i can't decide) which tier of service i want. i can decide which speed i want to pay for, just as i can choose to eat at mcdonald's or a steak house.

but if i choose to eat at a steakhouse, mcdonald's doesn't get to charge me money for going there. they can't send me a bill for driving past their store and dismissing their option, or make me sit at a certain table at the steakhouse that has a wait of 4 hours compared to the immediate seating available to others.

why do you think your isp should be able to do that?

Can you really be this stupid?

I mean, really.

Some babies were dropped on their heads. Some were clearly thrown at the wall.

 

[Politico]

The big companies get to use the bigger highway? I don't think Walmart got the memo