So the Tea Party is Helping Get rid of Net Neutrality...

[RDD_1210]

Nice talking point, because the people on MSNBC told you so!

I saw your board name "IndependntLogic" and thought, hmmm... I'm an independent too, and I read another one of your posts and thought, hmmm... sounds like a reasonable person. Now here you are posting liberal/progressive crap and bashing Fox News. Yeah, you're independent alright. And MSNBC is conservative.

You blew your cover there skippy. You sound just like another liberal/progressive moron now.

You're independent?? LOL. That's f*cking classic.

That's right, shit for brains. I became a registered independent after the last Presidential election.

Yes Virginia, there really are conservative independents.

I don't care what you're registered as. You're as much an independent as I am a right winger. You're a disgrace to anyone who is a true independent.

 

[ogibillm]

You're out of your fucking mind.

Consolidate regulatory power and those who seek to buy off the regulators know exactly where to go.

Talk about someone who couldn't understand a inceptor the concept any less.

What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.

Right....Massive central regulation will work this time, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.

I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.

massive central regualtion...

1 rule. 1 rule that requires no beaurocracy to enforce, no testing or anything - just consumver complaints and someone to investigate.

again, what problem do you believe would arise due to net neutrality?

 

[Oddball]

What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.

Right....Massive central regulation will work this time, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.

I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.

That's where your blind hatred of anything government is failing you. There is no MASSIVE regulation. It's actually quite simple in what it sets out to do. You're a tired old, past-his-prime geezer who obviously doesn't understand technology. Much like your ideas, you're outdated and are obviously having trouble keeping up with the times. It's quite evident through your desires to live in a world that resembles the 18th century. Once the backwards thinking of your generation dies off maybe our country can actually solve some of its problems (ok, that part may always be a pipe dream).

This is where your naïvete is failing you.

It always starts out with with the do-gooder saying "well, we just want to regulate this little thing over here...we're just looking out for the little guy."

Next thing you know, y'all are whining and crying about "corporate capture" of the regulators by monied corporate interests, who can afford to pay politicians to write the regulations....Yet, somehow or another, you're such rubes to believe that just one more agency or regulation is going to be the magic bullet that solves all the woes you brought upon yourself....Talk about backward thinkers.

 

[Oddball]

What do you do for a living? Does it have ANYTHING to do with the web, internet or technology? Because maybe that's the problem. Maybe you just don't understand the basics and we need to start from scratch with you.

Right....Massive central regulation will work this time, for no better reason than because it's involved with information technology.

I don't know how much more naïve anyone could get.

massive central regualtion...

1 rule. 1 rule that requires no beaurocracy to enforce, no testing or anything - just consumver complaints and someone to investigate.

again, what problem do you believe would arise due to net neutrality?

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

 

[ogibillm]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

 

[Oddball]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.

 

[Oddball]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.

 

[ogibillm]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.

this wouldn't launch any agency.

 

[ogibillm]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.

litigation - how would someone sue?

 

[RDD_1210]

Suuuuure....It always starts out that way.

Just want to make sure that the evil weed doesn't fall into the hands of school children....

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.

Name one Federal Agency that is being launched to enforce Net Neutrality. Just one.

Your fear of anything government is crippling. Do you wear a tin foil hat all day or just while you sleep?

 

[Oddball]

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

BTW...I've stated repeatedly that this issue is better attended to by litigation rather than legislation, so your "anti-gubmint views" straw dog don't hunt.

litigation - how would someone sue?

I see you missed the "throttling" suit brought against Comcast....Which they lost.

Comcast P2P throttling suit settled

So much for that stale argument.

 

[Oddball]

so again, no substantive argument against net neutrality - this is just another avenue to vent anti-government views.

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.

this wouldn't launch any agency.

Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.

The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.

 

[RDD_1210]

The substantive argument is that the results of the do-gooder always seem to veer far afield of their reputed intents.

Name one federal agency that was launched to ostensibly enforce "one little rule" that hasn't bloated over time....Just one.

this wouldn't launch any agency.

Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.

The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.

I get it, you're just a government doomsdayer. Why do you even live in a society that has a government? If EVERYTHING that the government does will automatically turn out bad, why even live in this country?

 

[Oddball]

this wouldn't launch any agency.

Fine...Name a regulation that didn't get expanded upon, to the point it didn't need an army of regulators to try and enforce it.

The TSA started with "just one regulation" requiring airports to screen passengers.

I get it, you're just a government doomsdayer. Why do you even live in a society that has a government?

No, I'm a realist who can point to track records....Unfortunately, the track record of the politicians and bureaucrats for whom you're pimping sucks on toast.

If EVERYTHING that the government does will automatically turn out bad, why even live in this country?

Strawman and gross distortion, which can't distract from the overwhelming evidence that political/bureaucratic "solutions" to mundane problems, almost always end up creating bigger ills than those they were reputedly set forth to cure.

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.

 

[RDD_1210]

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.

Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.

How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This post shows you don't understand the topic. You contradicted yourself as that Google link you posted supports Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is keeping things the way they are now. Not the other way around.

Exactly.

Keep things the way they are no, with no government regualtion.

Thanks for agreeing with everyone here who opposes letting the government regulate the internet, even if you thought you were disagreeing

Right, and without legislation things could change drastically very soon if the major ISPs get what they want. The legislation simply says, no one, not business, not government can restrict access to any site.

You're acting as if ANY legislation posed by government is automatically going to be bad. This legislation does EXACTLY what you and I both want. The only way you can oppose that is if you don't understand the issue or oppose government existing all-together.

I am basing my opinion on the fact that all regulations the government comes up with eventually grows to the point where the cure is worse than the disease. You, on the other hand, want me to believe that somehow the government will get this one right, and I will like it.

Which position makes more sense given the fact that my position is based on history and experience, and yours is based on hope and a belief that good intentions will lead to good results?

By the way, I already proved that everyone, including you, is actually wrong about what the government is already doing. I think that proves that I understand the issue, since you think the government should keep doing something it is not doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So let's say that down the road, ISPs start funneling users and restricting content, would you be in favor of legislation at that point which stops them from doing that? Is it just that you insist on all laws being reactionary in nature and not proactive?

Off the top of my head, they already do that, and I see no need for legislation now. Do you honestly think all that crapware on now cellphones is there to help people? The smart users delete it, others expect mommy to help.

I do not need my mother to help me anymore, if you do I suggest you move back in with her, don't expect me to support you.

Why do I even bother trying to rationalize with irrational people who use the same tired old cliches?

I have to remind myself that you're the same person who doesn't understand basic internet terminology such as "phishing" yet you pretend like you do. If you can't grasp a concept as easy as that, I really shouldn't expect you to wrap your head around Net Neutrality. Maybe my mommy can explain it to you.

Net neutrality is the utopian dream that no one has to pay for content or access.

What do I not understand?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

try again. that analogy doesn't get close to working.

if a service provider is not allowed to throttle speeds how does that pick a winner or loser?

That analogy is how virtually all regulatory agencies basically work like huge protection rackets...Cant afford to buy off the regulators, then the likelihood of you even getting in the game are next to nonexistent....That favors the big players; them eeeeevil big corporations that liberoidals are always mewling about.


The throttling issue is a dead letter, with tiered pricing structures....You really need to come up with a better strawman.

so a rule that says you can't vary bandwith based on requested services translates into a beaurocracy based on pay-offs?

that about right to you?
this is a clear rule. either providers are chainging speeds, or they aren't. everyone follows the same rules.

your delusions of bribes and favoritism are just that.

The "clear rule" was written by AT&T lobbyists.

 

[Foxfyre]

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.

Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.

How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.

Almost all big mega corporations favor mandated healthcare, even that as outrageous as Obamacare. Why? Because they already are on the hook for basic medical, major medical, disability, and a zillion other perks their unions demand or that they have to provide to attract top notch corporate executives.

So, since more government interference won't hurt them and might even help them, they are most eager for it to be imposed on their smaller competitors who don't provide such cadillac benefit packages for their employees and therefore can be very competitive in bidding. Force the little guys to do what the big boys do and they won't have the ability to underbid the big boys and without the manpower and scope of the big boys, they get shut out completely. No more competition for the big boys.

That is not a pie in the sky metaphor. That is a fact.

So consider why the big boys might be in favor of more government control over the internet while those of much lesser assets view that with a great deal of skepticism.

 

[Oddball]

In this instance, "net neutrality" regs will tend to strengthen the hands of large telecom corporations, rather than attenuate them...The numerous examples from the past speak for themselves.

Hands-down, utterly false. You're digging your ditch of ignorance deeper.

How will Net Neutrality strengthen large telecom corps? Specifically. Without using government doomsday scenarios.

I already gave specifics...The AT&T monopoly brought about by, at least partially, the call for "equal access" to land line phone service a few decades ago....The gargantuan pharmaceutical protection racket enforced by the FDA.

You don't think that crony capitalism just springs up out of the clear blue sky, do you?

And you have the nerve to talk about ignorance?