at the end of the day, it's all about dollars and cents. freedom of speech doesn't mean anything. and thats what this is. the war against freedom of speech
When did regulation, you know the government refereeing actions between the consumer and business, become a bad word? Since when does the 'thief' know better than the 'parent'.
Corporation meme: "If stealing was legal, we would do it".
Brian Roberts I work for you as Customer service rep . All i have to say is that YOU, YOUR FATHER, AND STEVE BURKE are idiots. They should call you larry, moe, and curly.
I just wish Mr. Roberts would watch Undercover Boss with Larry from waste management. being an employee on the front line (com tech 4) this episode hit home. Its all about productivity and numbers, but hay at least we dont have to piss in a used can we found, comcast gives us disposable bags! hey Mr
Roberts talk to us in the front line, Portage,IN for instance and find how we feel. Hey Mr Roberts watch this episode, it runs parallel with whats going on with are company.
I dont get it why are we talking about putting in regulations for things that are market driven, if ISP do things that piss people off them people will stop using them. The existing rules govening companies conspiring to do the same thing should ensure not all ISP do these things.
His answer to this question is so vauge that is smells of rotten fish. Why does an organisation want new laws, normally to make money, add to that the CEO cant give a straight answer.
That's not true. Most regulations were supported by some big corporations, mainly for the reason that said corporation will have the regulation in their back-pocked and can easily abuse it. Which just makes the situation even worse.
Because they want to be the ones who control who enters the marketplace. That's not a free market ANYTHING. There cannot be a free market as long as there's no rules to make sure one or three companies cannot control the access to limited resources, controlling their own competition.
rules already exist to prevent monopolisation, so why do we need to add more regulations.
More regulations always amount to the same thing creating expensive obstacles for small companies to come in and do anything because they have to fork out money to pass through bureacracy.
The doublespeak and disinformation here is OUTSTANDING! Great job, guys. You'll collapse our economy even more soon. How about you quit sucking corporate teet for a moment and think about your country for once, and it's future. Net Neutrality MUST happen because it's threatened. Net Neutrality is not about throttling your connection or deciding what you can and cannot see. Don't buy the BS. It's about making sure ISPs cannot decide what you can and cannot see. Period.
Why cant they decide. If an ISP which supports everything cost 50 dollars a month. Why can't i launch an ISP which only supports normal web browser traffic, and not FTP, P2P for 10 dollars a month.
The free market can sort this out better then what is normaly expensive and completely useless government intervention.
All the government needs to do is ensure people can opt out of their contracts if the ISP changes its guideline to differ from what was agreed to upon signing said contact.
Because the companies that are AGAINST net neutrality OWN the pipes/central offices you'd be using. Without regulation, they can and WILL decide when and where "competition" arises. And they could set the price of access for you as a small business owner high enough so that you cannot compete.
But at the end there, you're suggesting allowing people to opt OUT of legally binding contracts is NOT intervention? All I ask is that you genuinely look into NN., because it isn't what you think it is.
If the rules simply say "you cannot do this bad thing.. and this bad thing..." and the people to whom the rule will apply to are against it and say "trust us" or "this will never happen"....
Guess what, kiddos? They will do EXACTLY those things. Why else would they be against it?
well the thing is in capitalism we happen to believe that if businesses can't get wealth and power from doing terrible things to people the society will never progress.
That was an incredibly dodgy answer - I'm not even quite sure what he was saying. But, I think a general rule of thumb in the America of today is that anybody who advocates "asking the right questions" without even trying to say what those right questions are, let alone attempt to answer them, is throwing up a smoke screen.
While I greatly support net neutrality, don't the phone lines belong to the phone companies? So shouldn't they technically be able to control what goes through them and how? Then you could choose to subscribe to a company that is neutral if you want.
I don't agree with this, but it sounds like a sound argument.
The problem here is websites are privately owned, and cherry-picking bandwidth allocations serves the same practical function as closing them down, since no one's gonna visit a site that takes five minutes to load. They're functionally overstepping their bounds as "content providers" into the role of "content arbiters".
If the CEO of Comcast finds this in any way confusing or ambiguous, he's free to call me and pretend to furrow his brow all he wants because this is not hard.
m0nkeybl1tz: the phone lines were placed by phone companies with subsidy from various government bodies, on land provided for that purpose at no cost. Besides that, claiming ownership rights doesn't entitle them to act as they please, just as restaurants still must adhere to requirements set by the FDA and power plants by the EPA.
So while the phone companies may legally own the lines, they don't really deserve a monopoly over the public's access to information.
what a idiot. this is going to kill the internet. these guys have helped make us one of the worst western countries in terms of fiber optic infrastructure and internet speed
Yeah, if you take a look at donations from these companies to the senators pushing net neutrality you will find something interesting. Time Warner has been giving loads of money to campaigns to enact what they claim is net neutrality. Time Warner has been trying to limit upload and downloads per month but can't because when they do people cancel their subscription. The will use the false net neutrality to put in into law that all companies have to follow this policy.
We couldn't have more internet freedom and neutrality as it exists. Companies over the course of history have tried to limit resources or services in order to increase demand and thus prices. They have tried to achieve this through cartels. The cartels have always fallen apart due to a member lowering his prices in relative to the cartel and increasing production. The only way a cartel survives is through government force of law. This is always bad for the consumer.
Comcast has already slowed internet connections for p2p users and they have not lost money. And companies do not lose money from forming cartels. To say they do is quite simply a lie.
Also your theory that companies are pushing for net neutrality for a reasons you are not making clear is obviously false in that they are furiously fighting against it. I don't even understand where you got that from. And I fact check you Time Warner claim and it is not true. They are 100% against net neutrality.
They are claiming to be against it but it you follow their money it speaks for its self. I never stated companies lose money when they enter a cartel. You misquoted me. You obviously didn't fact check me. Look into campaign contributions. The same senators sponsoring the bill for net neutrality are getting hundreds of thousands in donations.
That's just his 2010 campaign. Congressman Markey has tried to pass a net neutrality bill three times. Why would Time Warner be his top contributor? Why would the FCC protect p2p users?
I think the evidence I just put forward speaks for itself. This guy is helping the ISP's and communications corporations in creating a government enforced cartel. Which they will profit from handily. This will hurt the consumer.
Beware the net neutrality they talk about is not neutrality. Its a power grab by a few in the industry in order to force the cartel on others members and others in the same industry. The consumer will always lose in a system of government/corporation partnership such as this. It destroys competition and makes prices go up.
f you study economic history, you will find that many companies have tried this and in fact our Federal Reserve was created this way in order to institutionalize Fractional reserve banking in our banking industry. A large contributing factor in most recessions and depression since it was created. In fact fractional reserve banking has caused many panics throughout the 1800s. Its the cause of inflation the hidden tax.
and i dont care who you are or what you believe but we all agree, no one and nothing should control the internet.
we dont need anyone telling us what to look and where we cannot go. unless its proven dangerious to someone else. other then that. these corporations need to stay out
if net neutrality ends. that will be the start of the revolution. they must be insane if they think that they can control the internet.
doonymacc 8 months ago
"Fora.tv, the world is thinking." Pity they aren't thinking about throwing this douche off a cliff or something.
zyzxxinfinity 10 months ago
Comcast lies! You can't believe a word they say about anything. Sad but true.
wingedlaughter 11 months ago
We need net neutrality! Screw this guy, cuz he's trying to screw us!
cobrompton 11 months ago
at the end of the day, it's all about dollars and cents. freedom of speech doesn't mean anything. and thats what this is. the war against freedom of speech
blinkme478 1 year ago
100% Net Neutrality ALLLLL DAY ESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP THE INTERNET FREE DOT COM!
LAEXMTV 1 year ago
FUK THIS FOO! KEEP THE INTERNET FREE KILL ALL RICH PEOPLE FUK THESE SILVER SPOON IN DA ANUS FAGGETS KILL COMCAST!
LAEXMTV 1 year ago
Comment removed
LAEXMTV 1 year ago
When did regulation, you know the government refereeing actions between the consumer and business, become a bad word? Since when does the 'thief' know better than the 'parent'.
Corporation meme: "If stealing was legal, we would do it".
Suisseflight 1 year ago
fuck you
N64Guy 1 year ago
great interview - i really like it
tedboy1977 1 year ago
@PaulCynic You should try working for him
whatbigarmsuhav 1 year ago
Brian Roberts I work for you as Customer service rep . All i have to say is that YOU, YOUR FATHER, AND STEVE BURKE are idiots. They should call you larry, moe, and curly.
whatbigarmsuhav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
excellent work!
1888junkteam 1 year ago
Masters of talking but saying nothing. wow, I/ think he himself forgot what he was talking about and why. what a douche
Verbotten 2 years ago 3
I just wish Mr. Roberts would watch Undercover Boss with Larry from waste management. being an employee on the front line (com tech 4) this episode hit home. Its all about productivity and numbers, but hay at least we dont have to piss in a used can we found, comcast gives us disposable bags! hey Mr
Roberts talk to us in the front line, Portage,IN for instance and find how we feel. Hey Mr Roberts watch this episode, it runs parallel with whats going on with are company.
thexfiveunit 2 years ago
He acts as if he has no clue. When profits cloud the minds of businessmen, they will do anything to increase their productivity.
JRLLUnd 2 years ago
AT&T and Comcrap basically want to turn the Internet into cable TV.
Where you would pay extra just to visit a website just because it's not on the main list of websites that the ISP gets lots of money from.
smaller independent websites would have to pay extra to load as fast as ABC's website or CNN's website ect ect
(Like paying for commercials on TV)
Just like basic cable TV
Websites that are NOT on the list would cost extra just to visit.
Pv8man 2 years ago 3
LOL, this guy is such a joker.
He plays on the NON-tech savvy people, because they don't know any better.
Net Neutrality would protect consumers by PREVENTING ISP's like AT&T and Comcrap from blocking Peer to Peer software such as Limewire or Bit torrent.
It would also prevent them from prioritizing one websites traffic over another, it would make the ISP's treat all internet traffic as equal.
AT&T and Comcrap want to turn the internet into cable TV basically.
Pv8man 2 years ago 2
I dont get it why are we talking about putting in regulations for things that are market driven, if ISP do things that piss people off them people will stop using them. The existing rules govening companies conspiring to do the same thing should ensure not all ISP do these things.
His answer to this question is so vauge that is smells of rotten fish. Why does an organisation want new laws, normally to make money, add to that the CEO cant give a straight answer.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
That's not true. Most regulations were supported by some big corporations, mainly for the reason that said corporation will have the regulation in their back-pocked and can easily abuse it. Which just makes the situation even worse.
Mastikator 2 years ago
right so my point stands he probably thinks the regulations would be profitable.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
Yes. Profitable for him. And at a loss for his competitors and the consumers.
Mastikator 2 years ago
Because they want to be the ones who control who enters the marketplace. That's not a free market ANYTHING. There cannot be a free market as long as there's no rules to make sure one or three companies cannot control the access to limited resources, controlling their own competition.
gotilk 2 years ago
rules already exist to prevent monopolisation, so why do we need to add more regulations.
More regulations always amount to the same thing creating expensive obstacles for small companies to come in and do anything because they have to fork out money to pass through bureacracy.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
The doublespeak and disinformation here is OUTSTANDING! Great job, guys. You'll collapse our economy even more soon. How about you quit sucking corporate teet for a moment and think about your country for once, and it's future. Net Neutrality MUST happen because it's threatened. Net Neutrality is not about throttling your connection or deciding what you can and cannot see. Don't buy the BS. It's about making sure ISPs cannot decide what you can and cannot see. Period.
gotilk 2 years ago
Why cant they decide. If an ISP which supports everything cost 50 dollars a month. Why can't i launch an ISP which only supports normal web browser traffic, and not FTP, P2P for 10 dollars a month.
The free market can sort this out better then what is normaly expensive and completely useless government intervention.
All the government needs to do is ensure people can opt out of their contracts if the ISP changes its guideline to differ from what was agreed to upon signing said contact.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
Because the companies that are AGAINST net neutrality OWN the pipes/central offices you'd be using. Without regulation, they can and WILL decide when and where "competition" arises. And they could set the price of access for you as a small business owner high enough so that you cannot compete.
But at the end there, you're suggesting allowing people to opt OUT of legally binding contracts is NOT intervention? All I ask is that you genuinely look into NN., because it isn't what you think it is.
gotilk 2 years ago
If the rules simply say "you cannot do this bad thing.. and this bad thing..." and the people to whom the rule will apply to are against it and say "trust us" or "this will never happen"....
Guess what, kiddos? They will do EXACTLY those things. Why else would they be against it?
gotilk 2 years ago 2
well the thing is in capitalism we happen to believe that if businesses can't get wealth and power from doing terrible things to people the society will never progress.
merdufer 2 years ago 2
That was an incredibly dodgy answer - I'm not even quite sure what he was saying. But, I think a general rule of thumb in the America of today is that anybody who advocates "asking the right questions" without even trying to say what those right questions are, let alone attempt to answer them, is throwing up a smoke screen.
cokmobot 2 years ago 2
While I greatly support net neutrality, don't the phone lines belong to the phone companies? So shouldn't they technically be able to control what goes through them and how? Then you could choose to subscribe to a company that is neutral if you want.
I don't agree with this, but it sounds like a sound argument.
m0nkeybl1tz 2 years ago
Monkeyblitz:
The problem here is websites are privately owned, and cherry-picking bandwidth allocations serves the same practical function as closing them down, since no one's gonna visit a site that takes five minutes to load. They're functionally overstepping their bounds as "content providers" into the role of "content arbiters".
If the CEO of Comcast finds this in any way confusing or ambiguous, he's free to call me and pretend to furrow his brow all he wants because this is not hard.
LAVATORR 2 years ago 5
m0nkeybl1tz: the phone lines were placed by phone companies with subsidy from various government bodies, on land provided for that purpose at no cost. Besides that, claiming ownership rights doesn't entitle them to act as they please, just as restaurants still must adhere to requirements set by the FDA and power plants by the EPA.
So while the phone companies may legally own the lines, they don't really deserve a monopoly over the public's access to information.
Monchanger 2 years ago
You must NOT forget what land those lines are buried in. Hint: It isn't the phone companies' land.
"I own it so I decide" does not apply to infrastructure subsidized by taxpayers on public lands. It also should not apply to a limited spectrum.
gotilk 2 years ago
what a idiot. this is going to kill the internet. these guys have helped make us one of the worst western countries in terms of fiber optic infrastructure and internet speed
support open internet, support the public option.
thesparitan 2 years ago 4
Comcast, Verizon and the rest of the idiots trying to kill the internet can go jump off a cliff. Nobody messes with my internet.
Michigan1985 2 years ago 20
Yeah, the Internet Freedom Act means freedom for AOL etc to limit our freedom.
If these guys would have disclaimer-ed their political positions early in the game, they wouldn't have our money to lobby against us.
Fraud is the issue here... against their customers!
etzel33 2 years ago
in case no one knows, this guy is working to END net neutrality.
bigredjeff007420 2 years ago 25
Yeah, if you take a look at donations from these companies to the senators pushing net neutrality you will find something interesting. Time Warner has been giving loads of money to campaigns to enact what they claim is net neutrality. Time Warner has been trying to limit upload and downloads per month but can't because when they do people cancel their subscription. The will use the false net neutrality to put in into law that all companies have to follow this policy.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
We couldn't have more internet freedom and neutrality as it exists. Companies over the course of history have tried to limit resources or services in order to increase demand and thus prices. They have tried to achieve this through cartels. The cartels have always fallen apart due to a member lowering his prices in relative to the cartel and increasing production. The only way a cartel survives is through government force of law. This is always bad for the consumer.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
Comcast has already slowed internet connections for p2p users and they have not lost money. And companies do not lose money from forming cartels. To say they do is quite simply a lie.
Also your theory that companies are pushing for net neutrality for a reasons you are not making clear is obviously false in that they are furiously fighting against it. I don't even understand where you got that from. And I fact check you Time Warner claim and it is not true. They are 100% against net neutrality.
fathead8489 2 years ago 2
They are claiming to be against it but it you follow their money it speaks for its self. I never stated companies lose money when they enter a cartel. You misquoted me. You obviously didn't fact check me. Look into campaign contributions. The same senators sponsoring the bill for net neutrality are getting hundreds of thousands in donations.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
opensecretsDOTorg/races/contrib.php?cycle=2010&id=MA07
That's just his 2010 campaign. Congressman Markey has tried to pass a net neutrality bill three times. Why would Time Warner be his top contributor? Why would the FCC protect p2p users?
Daniel44125 2 years ago
opensecretsDOTorg/races/contrib.php?cycle=2008&id=MA07
Now here is a bunch of top contributors to congressman Markey for 2008. Can you count the cable/communications corporations?
Daniel44125 2 years ago
I think the evidence I just put forward speaks for itself. This guy is helping the ISP's and communications corporations in creating a government enforced cartel. Which they will profit from handily. This will hurt the consumer.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
tomshardwareDOTcom/news/internet-bandwidth-caps-time-warner,7696.html
Daniel44125 2 years ago
Beware the net neutrality they talk about is not neutrality. Its a power grab by a few in the industry in order to force the cartel on others members and others in the same industry. The consumer will always lose in a system of government/corporation partnership such as this. It destroys competition and makes prices go up.
Daniel44125 2 years ago 3
f you study economic history, you will find that many companies have tried this and in fact our Federal Reserve was created this way in order to institutionalize Fractional reserve banking in our banking industry. A large contributing factor in most recessions and depression since it was created. In fact fractional reserve banking has caused many panics throughout the 1800s. Its the cause of inflation the hidden tax.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
how evil o__o
CommS007 2 years ago
yep
and i dont care who you are or what you believe but we all agree, no one and nothing should control the internet.
we dont need anyone telling us what to look and where we cannot go. unless its proven dangerious to someone else. other then that. these corporations need to stay out
thesparitan 2 years ago