Private Property and the Net

[ClosedCaption]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

Ok so if you dont believe a fucking map. Here is the CEO of Comcast who, I think, knows a thing or two about competing with another company.

“They’re in New York. We’re in Philadelphia. They’re in LA. We’re in San Francisco,” said Roberts, from the Re/code Code conference in Rancho Palo Verdes, California. “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.”
Read more at Brian Roberts Defends Time Warner Merger News Philadelphia Magazine

What do you call companies that agree not to compete with each other? Is it a Monopoly? Is the lack of competition really competition?

So maybe the CEO of Comcast doesnt know what he's talking about...or maybe its you.

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

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

Obamacare is government controlling the medical industry. Net Neutrality is government controlling the internet. So when Cruz calls it internet obamacare, you don't get it? Seriously?

Except Net Neutrality isnt that...but as long as thats your foudation of understanding you will get the wrong result

 

[kaz]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

Obamacare is government controlling the medical industry. Net Neutrality is government controlling the internet. So when Cruz calls it internet obamacare, you don't get it? Seriously?

Except Net Neutrality isnt that...but as long as thats your foudation of understanding you will get the wrong result

When government dictates the service that ISPs must provide to their customers, that isn't government controlling the internet. Got it. Where's a pencil? I need to write this down...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

Obamacare is government controlling the medical industry. Net Neutrality is government controlling the internet. So when Cruz calls it internet obamacare, you don't get it? Seriously?

Except Net Neutrality isnt that...but as long as thats your foudation of understanding you will get the wrong result

When government dictates the service that ISPs must provide to their customers, that isn't government controlling the internet. Got it. Where's a pencil? I need to write this down...

No its govt telling Telecoms not to discriminate or create levels of service. Not controlling anything

 

[kaz]

No its govt telling Telecoms not to discriminate or create levels of service. Not controlling anything

LOL, only to a Marxist. Companies are "discriminating" when they allow people to pay more and get more.

Waiter, where is my steak? Why did you give me Macaroni and Cheese? I'm sorry sir, the government does not allow us to provide you with better food just because you pay more, ComradeCaption has accurately pointed out that would be discrimination. You get what everyone else does.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If conservatives are so keen to charge internet users by how much they use it,

why did they throw a fit over Oregon's idea of taxing motorists per mile, i.e., based on how much they use the roads?

 

[Londoner]

The OP runs the risk of advocating for a world where democracy's most vital organ - the dissemination of information to voters - falls into the hands of a few large corporations, each with strong political agendas.

Talk about concentrated power.

[god help us]

 

[ClosedCaption]

No its govt telling Telecoms not to discriminate or create levels of service. Not controlling anything

LOL, only to a Marxist. Companies are "discriminating" when they allow people to pay more and get more..

And those same companies can not allow people to get more even if they pay more. Is that discrimination?

Dont answer, you dont have any answer to why this benefits anyone except the telecoms. And thats telling when you advocate for something and dont care about what the effects will be.

Now go on and start a thread on the corporate media so I can have a hearty laugh. Heres some thread titles you can work with.

"Network TV is ran by liberals, lets give them a crack at the internet"

"Quality information cant be found on your local news. They are more concerned with ratings. Lets make the internet the same way"

Heres a question:

ARE WE HAPPY WITH THE STATE OF AMERICA’S INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS?

Comcast was voted the WORST COMPANY in America. Comcast earned Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” title twice, first in2010 and again this year, 2014. It ranks at the very bottom of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, underperforming even the rest of the cable industry, where “high prices, poor reliability, and declining customer service” are endemic.

In Short GM can kill you in a terrible accident. BUT COMCAST!!!

Give it to Comcast....Being voted the WORST is an indication they will do whatever they need to to make the consumers happy...like they arent right now

 

[ClosedCaption]

This whole debate has basically turned into Republicans being anti anyone says and pretending to see things that arent there.

I say Comcast has a monopoly they say nu uhhh

I show them they have a monopoly they say nu uhhh

You ask why is it good they say "because stupid.'

Comcast and Time Warner doesnt compete with each other and republicans say "So?!!?"

I say there isnt competition and they reverse and say "yes it is"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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?

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

Didn't you comprehend what Gruber admitted????

And the lying community organizer was in on the scam from the get-go.

Doesn't that mean anything to you????

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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?

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

Didn't you comprehend what Gruber admitted????

And the lying community organizer was in on the scam from the get-go.

Doesn't that mean anything to you????

It's irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the ACA is a net positive or a net negative for the American people.

Opponents of the ACA don't care about Gruber. They were opponents long before anyone knew this Gruber guy existed.

 

[kaz]

No its govt telling Telecoms not to discriminate or create levels of service. Not controlling anything

LOL, only to a Marxist. Companies are "discriminating" when they allow people to pay more and get more..

And those same companies can not allow people to get more even if they pay more. Is that discrimination?

Dont answer, you dont have any answer to why this benefits anyone except the telecoms. And thats telling when you advocate for something and dont care about what the effects will be.

Now go on and start a thread on the corporate media so I can have a hearty laugh. Heres some thread titles you can work with.

"Network TV is ran by liberals, lets give them a crack at the internet"

"Quality information cant be found on your local news. They are more concerned with ratings. Lets make the internet the same way"

Heres a question:

ARE WE HAPPY WITH THE STATE OF AMERICA’S INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS?

Comcast was voted the WORST COMPANY in America. Comcast earned Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” title twice, first in2010 and again this year, 2014. It ranks at the very bottom of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, underperforming even the rest of the cable industry, where “high prices, poor reliability, and declining customer service” are endemic.

In Short GM can kill you in a terrible accident. BUT COMCAST!!!

Give it to Comcast....Being voted the WORST is an indication they will do whatever they need to to make the consumers happy...like they arent right now

Sorry man, I tried to pull an actual point from your Marxist rhetoric and couldn't get there.

 

[ogibillm]

"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.

are you under the impression that you made a point? so far all you've done is demonstrate that you fundamentally don't understand net neutrality.

 

[ogibillm]

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

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?

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

Didn't you comprehend what Gruber admitted????

And the lying community organizer was in on the scam from the get-go.

Doesn't that mean anything to you????

yes. he admitted that marketing is important. seems rather obvious.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The worst company in America The Verge

Comcast earned Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” title twice, first in2010 and again this year, 2014. It ranks at the very bottom of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, underperforming even the rest of the cable industry, where “high prices, poor reliability, and declining customer service” are endemic.

*snip*

Others worry that an all-powerful Comcast will speed up or slow down services like Netflix in order to prioritize its own content and maximize profits.

(Remember kiddos, they've already done this in the past)

But Cons will tell you to just get another provider right? Because competition is good, right?
​

Comcast and Time Warner claim a merger won’t create a monopoly because they don’t currently compete anyway. In fact, no one in the cable industry competes — which is why most people only have one choice for cable.

The only answer Cons have is anecdotal. "I have choices derp" but they cannot and have not told you why any of this is good for any user. Dont you want to know what the upside is? Why has no con been able to say? Answer: Because there is no fucking upside​

 

[ClosedCaption]

No its govt telling Telecoms not to discriminate or create levels of service. Not controlling anything

LOL, only to a Marxist. Companies are "discriminating" when they allow people to pay more and get more..

And those same companies can not allow people to get more even if they pay more. Is that discrimination?

Dont answer, you dont have any answer to why this benefits anyone except the telecoms. And thats telling when you advocate for something and dont care about what the effects will be.

Now go on and start a thread on the corporate media so I can have a hearty laugh. Heres some thread titles you can work with.

"Network TV is ran by liberals, lets give them a crack at the internet"

"Quality information cant be found on your local news. They are more concerned with ratings. Lets make the internet the same way"

Heres a question:

ARE WE HAPPY WITH THE STATE OF AMERICA’S INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THE WAY THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS?

Comcast was voted the WORST COMPANY in America. Comcast earned Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” title twice, first in2010 and again this year, 2014. It ranks at the very bottom of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index, underperforming even the rest of the cable industry, where “high prices, poor reliability, and declining customer service” are endemic.

In Short GM can kill you in a terrible accident. BUT COMCAST!!!

Give it to Comcast....Being voted the WORST is an indication they will do whatever they need to to make the consumers happy...like they arent right now

Sorry man, I tried to pull an actual point from your Marxist rhetoric and couldn't get there.

I know bro...facts are hard man. Go play Pokemon

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

Didn't you comprehend what Gruber admitted????

And the lying community organizer was in on the scam from the get-go.

Doesn't that mean anything to you????

It's irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the ACA is a net positive or a net negative for the American people.

Opponents of the ACA don't care about Gruber. They were opponents long before anyone knew this Gruber guy existed.

"Irrelevant?"

Lies to, and efforts based on the view that Americans are stupid.....?

Nothing could more clearly document the fact that you remain an immoral low-life.

I have no doubt that those who know you personally have exactly the same opinion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

ACA has nothing to do with Net Neutrality

 

[ogibillm]

ACA has nothing to do with Net Neutrality

so sad that has to be said.