Private Property and the Net

[PoliticalChic]

The attempted blindness of you two pathetic peripatetics.

Which one of you monkeys is 'see no evil'?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That is not a point on the topic

 

[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.

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

Hmm..."facts." That's an interesting word for it...

 

[Mr. President]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have. this also means that eventually we will have a right wing internet, a left wing internet and an underfunded and suppressed balances internet whose speeds would make us desire the days of dial up. Not only that but now my access to information is being limited by corporations for the furtherance of their goals. imagine a world where whichever party pays the most will have the only advertisements on the internet.....

 

[kaz]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have.

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out. The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal. Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

 

[Mr. President]

No it won't benefit everyone. it will benefit the corporations who can afford it. yes I have faster internet and better networks but at the cost of limiting the information I can access. I've spent 8 years as a systems analyst.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have.

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out. The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal. Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

You're such an expert that you fail to point out the flaw in everyones argument. Then you tell that guy to ask a question as if you have an answer

 

[Kosh]

That is not a point on the topic

Want to find out the point of the topic do not pay our property taxes on your private property and see what happens..

The results and meanings are right up the far left's ally..

 

[kaz]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have.

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out. The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal. Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

You're such an expert that you fail to point out the flaw in everyones argument. Then you tell that guy to ask a question as if you have an answer

I actually answered the question, Homey. Two paragraphs was too long for you? You do vote for the sound bite party.

I do like the choice. I can not disagree with liberals because I don't want to appear to think I know everything or I speak up for what I know and appear to think I know everything. STFU is your request of anyone who dissents.

Anyway, my choice is better than yours where I constantly provide you with information while I know everything, you say you know everything yet provide no content.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have.

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out. The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal. Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

You're such an expert that you fail to point out the flaw in everyones argument. Then you tell that guy to ask a question as if you have an answer

I actually answered the question, Homey. Two paragraphs was too long for you? You do vote for the sound bite party.

I do like the choice. I can not disagree with liberals because I don't want to appear to think I know everything or I speak up for what I know and appear to think I know everything. STFU is your request of anyone who dissents.

Anyway, my choice is better than yours where I constantly provide you with information while I know everything, you say you know everything yet provide no content.

You answered the question?

Lets see here

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

You talked about yourself being awesome then asked questions which is actually the polar opposite of answering

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out.

No one asked you about money for networks

The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal.

No one asked you about cost vs benefits

Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

This is fabrication. It WOULD be a good thing IF they invested in it. It would also be a good thing if it rained money. This is a hypothetical.

Yeah I guess 2 paragraphs is too much for me

 

[ClosedCaption]

In 2 more pages Kaz will try out his lie again and say he answered my questions. Stick to the script Kaz

 

[kaz]

Don't be so simple. in order to give companies faster speeds they have to deprive companies of the speeds they currently have.

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out. The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal. Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

You're such an expert that you fail to point out the flaw in everyones argument. Then you tell that guy to ask a question as if you have an answer

I actually answered the question, Homey. Two paragraphs was too long for you? You do vote for the sound bite party.

I do like the choice. I can not disagree with liberals because I don't want to appear to think I know everything or I speak up for what I know and appear to think I know everything. STFU is your request of anyone who dissents.

Anyway, my choice is better than yours where I constantly provide you with information while I know everything, you say you know everything yet provide no content.

You answered the question?

Lets see here

I'm curious. I do this for a living, so I know what I'm talking about and you don't. I don't expect everyone to work in business/finance and IT/networking like I do, the world is a diverse place and that makes it great. What I don't understand is why when you know nothing about this, you would just flat out make up such a ridiculous statement as if you do? Why don't you ask it as a question or something rather than making a baseless claim when you have no idea what you are talking about?

You talked about yourself being awesome then asked questions which is actually the polar opposite of answering

Just so you know, companies are actually spending boku bucks building their networks out.

No one asked you about money for networks

The cost of networks versus the benefits of increased speed are nothing, it's a great deal.

No one asked you about cost vs benefits

Opening them up to allow them to invest in better speed on the internet will actually benefit everyone as more and more and more equipment is added.

This is fabrication. It WOULD be a good thing IF they invested in it. It would also be a good thing if it rained money. This is a hypothetical.

Yeah I guess 2 paragraphs is too much for me

You're just being a dick

 

[kaz]

In 2 more pages Kaz will try out his lie again and say he answered my questions. Stick to the script Kaz

you're still just being a dick. it's all you've got since you have no content.

 

[ClosedCaption]

See? Look at all those answers from the Tech Guru...in fact...look at his profile on Net Neutrality and prepare to be in awe of his hand wringing and side stepping prowess

 

[kaz]

See? Look at all those answers from the Tech Guru...in fact...look at his profile on Net Neutrality and prepare to be in awe of his hand wringing and side stepping prowess

As a liberal it's clear why you fight allowing content into discussions. Information is not a friend of the left. Normally you just don't provide any. At times like this, you actively fight it.

The question to Mr. President was serious though. Why would he just flat out make up a statement and present it as fact like he did? It's a good question.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

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.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

 

[Ame®icano]

ACA has nothing to do with Net Neutrality

True.

Now look at this angle. If SoetoroCare is built on deception and lies in order to be sold to people, what makes you think that the same thing wont happen with net neutrality.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

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?

 

[ClosedCaption]

ACA has nothing to do with Net Neutrality

True.

Now look at this angle. If SoetoroCare is built on deception and lies in order to be sold to people, what makes you think that the same thing wont happen with net neutrality.

To be skeptical is fine. I'm not even against that. What I'm saying is that the Cable companies SUED to DISCRIMATE. SUED to be able to SLOW DOWN competing sites and SPEED UP THEIR sites.

You can remain skeptical, no problem. That skeptism will get us what we need by being able to have a voice on it in the govt. You know when you will not have a voice on anything? When the cable companies are ALLOWED BY LAW to DISCRIMINATE.

I know it like asking if you want a bear trap on your right or left hand. Neither are really "good" but on the right hand your buddy will help get it off, on the left hand you can beg the local curmudgeon for help...but he never helps anyone