Net Neutraility and You

[2dimes]

I hope you guys can make the Internet cheap and good but in case you can't beat the billionaires...

I can go catch fish and cook it over a fire when the Internet gets too slow and expensive.

A beer pulled out of the lake seems the right temperature on a hot day. Then again I can switch to dark beers or whiskey if I need to. Sorry lager drinkers.

[karel]

That's an outright lie. Providers have in the past slowed and throttled their customers or competition. Verizon vs Netflix. Comcast vs Pretty much everyone. You need only look.

I hate arguing over useless bullshit, like religion, politics, gun control, corporate power....blah blah blah. Sustaining a 30 year marriage and raising well rounded children is what fucking motivates me (I know that pisses someone here right the f*ck off....Bernie?? Cant recall...anyway....) one more post.

You opponents and "corporation haters" ( ) are spewing this fucking idiocy of throttling and censorship. None of that shit you reference, for instance, can be proven Punk-Boy. Conspiracy theory at best. I need only look? WTF, over? Out the window?

The only thing you may notice, and again, I don't know how it can be proven, is youtube may stream better cause they pay for it.

Say I buy a Kia.....well the corporations are throttling my fucking access to a good car, cause I want a fucking Benz (but I wanna pay Kia money). You ALWYAS get what you pay for. Capitalism. I pay $35 a month to the fuckers at Centurylink (who I HATE with a passion for fucking me for almost 30 years) but, aside from comcast, who are bigger thieves (way before any neutrality bullshit), they are the only game in town. And my internet sucks. Help! I'm throttled!!! Waaaaa. It's reality.

Thats what friends and beer and family and work and truck projects and new guns are for dammit. Fucking argiung bullshit......have fun guys....gonna take my crappy internet and make some coffee (not tea, dammit!)

nice post,so true man im with ya

[tzor]

It's not something I'm willing to trust the free market for. Before too long there will only be a handful of ISPs left, and they will probably all collude together to keep internet expensive.

Before Net Neutrality, before the Internet, there was Compuserve.

By your logic, the internet as we know it could not exist because the dial in service providers would have prevented it from happening.

But they didn't.

As a result you don't pay a huge amount for connection time to a computer network.

I used to pay $4 per hour to access the internet.

Yes, I trust the free market because monopolies are slow and inefficient and actually require massive government assistance to keep from collapsing. I remember in Key West when a cable company started squeezing its fist and suddenly a microwave company set up shop and everyone replaced their cable with a microwave antenna.

[waauw]

Yes, I trust the free market because monopolies are slow and inefficient and actually require massive government assistance to keep from collapsing.

What a load of bullshit is this. Monopoly markets can be extremely hard for newcomers to penetrate when the market has already reached its maturity stage. Entrance barriers are simply too large in some markets that they can be sustained with ease.

Imagine trying to supplant Microsoft's monopoly on home computer graphical operating systems. Not only does it require strong high-tech capabilities, but imagine the size of the marketing budget necessary. The reason companies like Apple and others have failed is because Microsoft Windows is simply too widespread. Everybody is too used to it. Almost all businesses use Windows because the work force knows how to use it, almost all individuals use it because almost all programs are adapted to it.

[2dimes]

I agree with you but, sometimes you have to question the consumers, waauw.

Linux is literally free in many cases yet like you say, most people are continuing to use Windows by Micro Soft just because they buy a computer and Windows is installed. I know it's kind of scary to switch, some program is not going to work right but still seems odd. Some do switch to Apple, which seems worse to me, even more expensive and you have no choice of hardware, many people willingly upgrade more often.. I'm still caught in the web so to speak. I have just recently been trying to figure out Linux.

WalMart baffles me more. Occasionally the e-mail goes around about the stats on how they employ more people than the US military. They crush small businesses far and wide. A lot of the products there are of such low quality, my buddy has complained things sometimes don't even make it home before breaking. People of Walmart has become an insult. I have very rarely even entered one my self. Yet I had some people tell me once, "You will have to shop there once you have children. You won't be able to afford not to." Our oldest is 14 and we have not started yet. Walmart is a bad word at our house.

There seems to be no way to compete with those two examples. I guess Walmart is cheap, but as KoolBak wrote, "You get what you pay for." there mostly.

[riskllama]

I agree with you but, sometimes you have to question the consumers, waauw.

Linux is literally free in many cases yet like you say, most people are continuing to use Windows by Micro Soft just because they buy a computer and Windows is installed. I know it's kind of scary to switch, some program is not going to work right but still seems odd. Some do switch to Apple, which seems worse to me, even more expensive and you have no choice of hardware, many people willingly upgrade more often.. I'm still caught in the web so to speak. I have just recently been trying to figure out Linux.

WalMart baffles me more. Occasionally the e-mail goes around about the stats on how they employ more people than the US military. They crush small businesses far and wide. A lot of the products there are of such low quality, my buddy has complained things sometimes don't even make it home before breaking. People of Walmart has become an insult. I have very rarely even entered one my self. Yet I had some people tell me once, "You will have to shop there once you have children. You won't be able to afford not to." Our oldest is 14 and we have not started yet. Walmart is a bad word at our house.

There seems to be no way to compete with those two examples. I guess Walmart is cheap, but as KoolBak wrote, "You get what you pay for." there mostly.

i can proudly count on one hand the number of times i've shopped @ WalMart. f*ck that place.

[2dimes]

I couldn't agree with you more on that.

[tzor]

What a load of bullshit is this. Monopoly markets can be extremely hard for newcomers to penetrate when the market has already reached its maturity stage. Entrance barriers are simply too large in some markets that they can be sustained with ease.

Breaking monopolies is actually very easy; you break the technology paradigm. Ma Bell, for example, had a monopoly on wired long distance service. Then came the idea of using satellite long distance. Monopoly broken.

TV used to be broadcast on limited bands; then came cable; then came dish. Each new technology broke the monopoly on the old one.

[tzor]

Imagine trying to supplant Microsoft's monopoly on home computer graphical operating systems.

I've take it you never heard of Apple?

Besides who uses home computers these days ... everyone is using Android phones these days.
That's what they tell us all the time.

[waauw]

Imagine trying to supplant Microsoft's monopoly on home computer graphical operating systems.

I've take it you never heard of Apple?

Besides who uses home computers these days ... everyone is using Android phones these days.
That's what they tell us all the time.

Monopolies don't require a perfect 100% market share, so it doesn't matter that Apple has an Operating system as well. Windows dominates the market.

Natural monopoly

A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Other examples of monopolies

• Microsoft has been the defendant in multiple anti-trust suits on strategy embrace, extend and extinguish. They settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001. In 2004 Microsoft was fined 493 million euros by the European Commission[94] which was upheld for the most part by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was US$1.35 billion in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.[95][96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Market_structures

[mrswdk]

Breaking monopolies is actually very easy

lol

you break the technology paradigm

Replacing one technology with a new one is not the breaking of a monopoly.

[mookiemcgee]

Anyone arguing that ending net neutrality is good thing is effectively arguing that comcast isn't profitable enough and they need a giant handout paid for by everyone that uses the internet in the USA.

Also, It's basically impossible in the USA for new companies to enter into the ISP marketplace since the cable is already laid and owned by comcast or whatever smaller company that hasn't been bought by comcast (yet). A new company that wanted to enter the market would have to rip up concrete and lay new cable to every house they want to service. What we've had for the last decade is an oligopoly among ISP's, and they have finally found a president with no integretiy or feeling of duty towards his citizenry. they finally have a president who was for sale to the highest bidder, and now we all will pay our hard earned $$$'s for it. So yeah, that $40/paycheck tax break the average american will get, it's just going to go to higher internet costs.

[tzor]

Anyone arguing that ending net neutrality is good thing is effectively arguing that comcast isn't profitable enough and they need a giant handout paid for by everyone that uses the internet in the USA.

First of all Comcast doesn't own the universe or even all of the United States. Long Island is covered by Optimum, formerly of Cablevision currently owned by Altice. A significant portion of the island is also covered by Verison FiOS (not my area, unfortunately).

Let's face it, not all internet packets are created equal. That real time connection between that doctor and that surgical unit in the hospital? It's several orders of magnitude more important than you latest Facebook posting which can wait a few seconds without any problems whatsoever. Hell, we don't even have highways like that anymore ... ever heard of an HOV lane? Meet the criteria and you get a faster lane through the system. They just put up special pay rates based on traffic demands HOV roads around Washington DC. FAQ: What you need to know about the new I-66 tolls "Drivers without another person in the car must pay a toll during the expanded rush-hour periods; that toll rises and falls based on the amount of traffic in the lanes. In the first days since the new tolls were rolled out, rates ranged from lows of about $5 to a high of $40 during the morning commutes."

Net neutrality ... Road neutrality ... what's the difference?

[notyou2]

This whole thing is so that Trump and his billionaire playmates get a better return on their shares, it's that simple.

Same as the new tax laws.

If you believe anything elseYOU"RE FUCKING STUPID!!!!

[patches70]

I'm fine with getting better returns on my sweat, labors and time. I suppose you don't like getting better returns on your own assets, notyou2?

Why is that?

Personally, anyone who doesn't want to get better returns on their own assets is fucking stupid.

[mookiemcgee]

I'm fine with getting better returns on my sweat, labors and time. I suppose you don't like getting better returns on your own assets, notyou2?

Why is that?

Personally, anyone who doesn't want to get better returns on their own assets is fucking stupid.

Only, your not getting better returns on your sweat labor and time... Billionaires are. Are you are putting any potential future generations of Americans in an even bigger hole of dept, in spite of the party claiming to be the one of true fiscal conservancy holding the POTUS and both houses.

[patches70]

Only, your not getting better returns on your sweat labor and time... Billionaires are.

So? What do I care? What business is it of mine, or yours?

Let's say, mookie, just for the sake of argument, that you are a billionaire (I know, it's a stretch, but just try). Am I entitled to any of your assets? Do I have a right to demand from you to write me a check, or better yet, give me cash just because you are a millionaire?

Of course not! I'm not entitled to anything of yours, I have no right. You can take 100 people, put them in a room and not a single one of them has that right either.

In fact, if you take 100 people, none of which has a claim on your property, doesn't suddenly give those 100 people the right to suddenly vote to all of a sudden have that right. If no individual has that right then no group of individuals, no matter how big or how loud they yell, has that right.

Are you are putting any potential future generations of Americans in an even bigger hole of dept, in spite of the party claiming to be the one of true fiscal conservancy holding the POTUS and both houses.

The US government has taken in record amounts of tax revenue unheard of in previous years and we still go into further debt. All you have is nebulous warnings that our "future is imperiled" because the biggest, richest gang in the world is all of a sudden gonna get a little bit less money (supposedly) than before. The government has been spending more than it takes in for DECADES, but now all of a sudden it's an urgent crisis? Har! Tell me another one! I can always use a good laugh.

And are you all of a sudden arguing for fiscal conservatism? How about arguing for cutting government spending? I bet even you would be willing to argue for the US to stop starting wars against people and nations who are of no threat, did not threaten or attacked the US.

Where were you condemning Obama when we bombed Libya?
Where were you condemning Obama when he facilitated the civil war in Syria which has claimed a quarter million lives and flooded Europe with refugees to the degree that Europe's resources and ability to cope will be overwhelmed?

Where were you condemning Hillary Clinton when she disgustingly and sociopathically boasted about the capture and murder of Gaddaffi giddy as a mad hatter while Libya burned and was being overrun with Jihadists?
Where were you when Obama ordered the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone strike without any due process at all?
That one is especially troubling, that a sitting president could even fathom the legality of killing an American citizen without a public trial and think it's constitutional. It isn't. You can't just label and American citizen as a terrorist, convicted by a secret court and then executed while telling the public that the evidence against the accused is "national security" and thus not subject to review.

Look, you don't like Trump, and that's fine. But don't let your hatred turn you into a hypocrite. That is all I'm seeing is hypocrisy.

I don't know who's future you're worried about, my future looks a little bit better if I keep a bit more of my paycheck. I promise I'll spend most of those savings, for the economy. And if you think your are arguing for the benefit of my future, thank you very much but I'd rather you not because you ain't got a clue as to what I need or require to secure my own future. Just as I have no idea what is important to you for securing your future.

The difference between you and I is that I'd never presume to tell you what is good for you like you seem to like to do with everyone else. How is it you know so well what I need or anyone else for that matter?
It's a wonderful trick, but I think you are just making shit up based upon your own experience and trying to apply it to other people. That's not very wise. IMO.

[waauw]

In fact, if you take 100 people, none of which has a claim on your property, doesn't suddenly give those 100 people the right to suddenly vote to all of a sudden have that right. If no individual has that right then no group of individuals, no matter how big or how loud they yell, has that right.

And that attitude is exactly why wealth disparity in the US is worse than in any other developed country. In other countries it's seen as the civil duty of the wealthy to help the poor.

Click image to enlarge.

[saxitoxin]

In fact, if you take 100 people, none of which has a claim on your property, doesn't suddenly give those 100 people the right to suddenly vote to all of a sudden have that right. If no individual has that right then no group of individuals, no matter how big or how loud they yell, has that right.

And that attitude is exactly why wealth disparity in the US is worse than in any other developed country.

Margaret Thatcher debunked this sophistry years ago.



Americans have the third highest per capita income of any nation with a population more than 5 million. Americans own 18% of all household appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators) despite having only 4% of the world's population. Americans own more automobiles per capita than any other major nation in the world. Americans enjoy the cheapest electricity rates and the lowest per calorie food cost in the OECD.

Waauw think it's better to be a poor person in Laos (low income disparity) than a poor person in the U.S. (high income disparity).

Waauw would be happy earning $10 per year provided the richest person in Belgium were only earning $11 per year. He would be mad if he were earning $1 million / year if the richest person in Belgium were earning $1 billion / year.

[mookiemcgee]

Only, your not getting better returns on your sweat labor and time... Billionaires are.

So? What do I care? What business is it of mine, or yours?

Let's say, mookie, just for the sake of argument, that you are a billionaire (I know, it's a stretch, but just try). Am I entitled to any of your assets? Do I have a right to demand from you to write me a check, or better yet, give me cash just because you are a millionaire?

Of course not! I'm not entitled to anything of yours, I have no right. You can take 100 people, put them in a room and not a single one of them has that right either.

In fact, if you take 100 people, none of which has a claim on your property, doesn't suddenly give those 100 people the right to suddenly vote to all of a sudden have that right. If no individual has that right then no group of individuals, no matter how big or how loud they yell, has that right.

Are you are putting any potential future generations of Americans in an even bigger hole of dept, in spite of the party claiming to be the one of true fiscal conservancy holding the POTUS and both houses.

The US government has taken in record amounts of tax revenue unheard of in previous years and we still go into further debt. All you have is nebulous warnings that our "future is imperiled" because the biggest, richest gang in the world is all of a sudden gonna get a little bit less money (supposedly) than before. The government has been spending more than it takes in for DECADES, but now all of a sudden it's an urgent crisis? Har! Tell me another one! I can always use a good laugh.

And are you all of a sudden arguing for fiscal conservatism? How about arguing for cutting government spending? I bet even you would be willing to argue for the US to stop starting wars against people and nations who are of no threat, did not threaten or attacked the US.

Where were you condemning Obama when we bombed Libya?
Where were you condemning Obama when he facilitated the civil war in Syria which has claimed a quarter million lives and flooded Europe with refugees to the degree that Europe's resources and ability to cope will be overwhelmed?

Where were you condemning Hillary Clinton when she disgustingly and sociopathically boasted about the capture and murder of Gaddaffi giddy as a mad hatter while Libya burned and was being overrun with Jihadists?
Where were you when Obama ordered the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone strike without any due process at all?
That one is especially troubling, that a sitting president could even fathom the legality of killing an American citizen without a public trial and think it's constitutional. It isn't. You can't just label and American citizen as a terrorist, convicted by a secret court and then executed while telling the public that the evidence against the accused is "national security" and thus not subject to review.

Look, you don't like Trump, and that's fine. But don't let your hatred turn you into a hypocrite. That is all I'm seeing is hypocrisy.

I don't know who's future you're worried about, my future looks a little bit better if I keep a bit more of my paycheck. I promise I'll spend most of those savings, for the economy. And if you think your are arguing for the benefit of my future, thank you very much but I'd rather you not because you ain't got a clue as to what I need or require to secure my own future. Just as I have no idea what is important to you for securing your future.

The difference between you and I is that I'd never presume to tell you what is good for you like you seem to like to do with everyone else. How is it you know so well what I need or anyone else for that matter?
It's a wonderful trick, but I think you are just making shit up based upon your own experience and trying to apply it to other people. That's not very wise. IMO.

You call me a hypocrite when all branches of the gov't are in republican control, yet the federal deficit increases on the back of a giant tax break for billionaires? I suppose that is my personal fault too right?

I've been arguing for years that America should stop fighting in wars all over the globe, trying to hold lands it has no right to. Does that stop it? Does that prevent both parties from increasing the military budget over and over? No. There is a space where one can be a fiscal conservative, and believe there is a place for taxes. I simply believe those tax $$$ should be spent to improve America, not Isreal, Africa, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else.

I was born in Canada, and while they see higher taxes than americans those taxes pay for thing where the gov't can actually have a positive effect in controlling costs (like healthcare). The result is yes you pay higher taxes, but you don't pay $500/month out of you paycheck for healthcare that is shitty and doesn't even cover 90% of your costs. Your such a ra-ra America is the greatest guy, but your own damn party is shitting the bed, and your president that can do no wrong is lying to you and doing the opposite of what he'd said he'd do and now you are angry and blaming me.

[saxitoxin]

but you don't pay $500/month out of you paycheck for healthcare that is shitty

You've very, very obviously never actually received healthcare outside the U.S. if you think American healthcare is "shitty."

I've been inside one of Britain's filthy, factory hospitals where you wait for a month just to get an appointment, people are lined-up on gurneys in the corridors shitting themselves, and the medical advise for anything is "wait a bit and see if it gets better."

Anytime I step inside one of the gleaming, modern, sterile and hygienic medical palaces of the United States - with the newest and best of everything, where cutting-edge drugs and unnecessary exploratory procedures are dispensed just to pass the time and where the political leaders of countries like Canada flee when they have anything more serious than a cold - I thank God I don't have to deal with the backwards, medical slums of Europe.

doesn't even cover 90% of your costs

My insurance covers 80% of the first $5,000 in medical costs per year and 100% thereafter.

The insurance policy you're describing isn't legal to market or sell inside the U.S. Where are you buying it from, a guy standing in a dark alley? I recommend you contact your local state insurance commissioner.

[notyou2]

Only, your not getting better returns on your sweat labor and time... Billionaires are.

So? What do I care? What business is it of mine, or yours?

Let's say, mookie, just for the sake of argument, that you are a billionaire (I know, it's a stretch, but just try). Am I entitled to any of your assets? Do I have a right to demand from you to write me a check, or better yet, give me cash just because you are a millionaire?

Of course not! I'm not entitled to anything of yours, I have no right. You can take 100 people, put them in a room and not a single one of them has that right either.

In fact, if you take 100 people, none of which has a claim on your property, doesn't suddenly give those 100 people the right to suddenly vote to all of a sudden have that right. If no individual has that right then no group of individuals, no matter how big or how loud they yell, has that right.

Are you are putting any potential future generations of Americans in an even bigger hole of dept, in spite of the party claiming to be the one of true fiscal conservancy holding the POTUS and both houses.

The US government has taken in record amounts of tax revenue unheard of in previous years and we still go into further debt. All you have is nebulous warnings that our "future is imperiled" because the biggest, richest gang in the world is all of a sudden gonna get a little bit less money (supposedly) than before. The government has been spending more than it takes in for DECADES, but now all of a sudden it's an urgent crisis? Har! Tell me another one! I can always use a good laugh.

And are you all of a sudden arguing for fiscal conservatism? How about arguing for cutting government spending? I bet even you would be willing to argue for the US to stop starting wars against people and nations who are of no threat, did not threaten or attacked the US.

Where were you condemning Obama when we bombed Libya?
Where were you condemning Obama when he facilitated the civil war in Syria which has claimed a quarter million lives and flooded Europe with refugees to the degree that Europe's resources and ability to cope will be overwhelmed?

Where were you condemning Hillary Clinton when she disgustingly and sociopathically boasted about the capture and murder of Gaddaffi giddy as a mad hatter while Libya burned and was being overrun with Jihadists?
Where were you when Obama ordered the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen via drone strike without any due process at all?
That one is especially troubling, that a sitting president could even fathom the legality of killing an American citizen without a public trial and think it's constitutional. It isn't. You can't just label and American citizen as a terrorist, convicted by a secret court and then executed while telling the public that the evidence against the accused is "national security" and thus not subject to review.

Look, you don't like Trump, and that's fine. But don't let your hatred turn you into a hypocrite. That is all I'm seeing is hypocrisy.

I don't know who's future you're worried about, my future looks a little bit better if I keep a bit more of my paycheck. I promise I'll spend most of those savings, for the economy. And if you think your are arguing for the benefit of my future, thank you very much but I'd rather you not because you ain't got a clue as to what I need or require to secure my own future. Just as I have no idea what is important to you for securing your future.

The difference between you and I is that I'd never presume to tell you what is good for you like you seem to like to do with everyone else. How is it you know so well what I need or anyone else for that matter?
It's a wonderful trick, but I think you are just making shit up based upon your own experience and trying to apply it to other people. That's not very wise. IMO.

By your own admittance, it's assholes like you that are the problem.

[notyou2]

OK, so we learn IRL that Saxi and Patches are espousing Trump's policies because they are in the 0.1%


Poor little rich kids. I expect Scatpotty is there too. I think Karel, Tzor and Chatstevens are watching too much Fox News and that's why they support Drumph.

[mookiemcgee]

but you don't pay $500/month out of you paycheck for healthcare that is shitty

You've very, very obviously never actually received healthcare outside the U.S. if you think American healthcare is "shitty."

I've been inside one of Britain's filthy, factory hospitals where you wait for a month just to get an appointment, people are lined-up on gurneys in the corridors shitting themselves, and the medical advise for anything is "wait a bit and see if it gets better."

Anytime I step inside one of the gleaming, modern, sterile and hygienic medical palaces of the United States - with the newest and best of everything, where cutting-edge drugs and unnecessary exploratory procedures are dispensed just to pass the time and where the political leaders of countries like Canada flee when they have anything more serious than a cold - I thank God I don't have to deal with the backwards, medical slums of Europe.

doesn't even cover 90% of your costs

My insurance covers 80% of the first $5,000 in medical costs per year and 100% thereafter.

The insurance policy you're describing isn't legal to market or sell inside the U.S. Where are you buying it from, a guy standing in a dark alley? I recommend you contact your local state insurance commissioner.

Wow, now I've got saxi defending Obamacare.... never thought I'd see the day.

[saxitoxin]

but you don't pay $500/month out of you paycheck for healthcare

Wow, now I've got mookie complaining about Obamacare ... never thought I'd see the day.