Shortly after this, Netflix loses most of its movies available for stream, Netflix raises their prices because the internet providers hiked up their prices. And we blame Netflix for why this happened.
Our government wants Net Neutrality so that they can "NEUTRALIZE" the net.
Our government is against the ability of people to freely exchange ideas and thoughts anonymously, especially about our laws. It threatens their job security! They want to regulate the Internet!
Wake up, folks. Is the "Patriot" Act really patriotic? LOL!
Yes...we need more companies that run just like the DMV and the govt court houses, where we have no other choice but wait and wait and then wait some more. And the best part is that if we dont go to any govt run facility when we are told to we then have the pleasure of going to jail. Lets not forget how the govt is there to help us but can only run there facilities Mon-Fri while companies are open 24/7. Yes more govt regulations. How about removing the FCC and alow anyone to start a new station?
Corporations should never be able to control information outlets . Unfortunately companies without any morals like Fox and Time Warner want to control every single thing we have access to .
We should stop wasting resources by blowing down buildings that otherwise could be turned into housing projects for the homeless. We have wasted so much resources that now less fortunate countries need.
TV/Cable is dying. I turned off cable a year ago and I don't miss it at all. Go outside, find a hobby, do something else and screw the stupid TV stations and cable! They have too many people addicted to their crappy service and what I loosely call "entertainment". Yuk.
Franken and I are most likely political polar opposites on big government social issues but he is SPOT ON here. I also like his free market ideals. Excellent speech.
The answer is more market freedom. I wouldn't be shocked if their was miles and miles and miles of red tape someone had to get through to start a new broadcasting company.
Oh freaking well! It's business. They must be doing something right. If you don't like it, start your own freaking company and learn how to compete. Stop whining and start trying harder.
a lot of you morons in the comments section don't understand what net neutrality is. IT IS A GOOD thing unless you either work for or are a shareholder of an internet company.
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock.
tomorrow the deal will be done......This is the beginning of the end.....Get ready America. Marxism is coming to a country near you! I'm so fucking Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any More!
We need 2nd amendment for internet. People in America need to start defending internet the way they are defending guns. We need new amendment to tell congress, liberals, FCC and other Net Neutrality enthusiasts to stop fucking with the internet.
THIS is only part of the PLAN for the NEW WORLD ORDER. In the New World Order you won't have a choice for t.v. programing, only to take the MARK of the BEAST or be Beheaded. Get Saved today - Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -Escape this coming World Order---Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things....
SO this is where I would say we differ. "When a company grows to be a system", define your premise there. I feel like your buying into this "too big to fail" or maybe monopoly concept. I can't See how in LF market any company could grow so large that consumers would be dependent on them and have no other choice but to do business involuntarily. Again, I find this even less likely with so much interconnectivity and global economic avenues that would be available in the modern world.
@kellerj0 Well, peer to peer protocols such as BitTorrent will always be able to circumvent the official channels, but that is because they are mostly underground movements, largely ignoring existing copyright laws. A legitimately operating venture like NetFlix, on the other hand, which needs contracts with the original providers in order to deliver content, would be entirely at the mercy of a monopolistic behemoth such as Comcast/NBC/Universal...
@willdrake1 i guess so.. just got sick of talking to you. I found your arguments lacking, and your rebuttles illogical, inarticulate, and in-succinct, and entrenched in semantic battles so I stopped caring. but that's just me, i'm probably not smart enough to see the big picture. you can have the win. I'd like to hear some recommended solutions from your end. let me know when you find a political or economic system which you advocate so I can tear it to bits. jk. ;p happy new year.
Two major reasons the Black Plague didn't end the world.
1) Couldn't travel fast/far enough
2) Didn't have a long enough life cycle.
Internet+Global Commerce+Systems long integrated into societies with the various powers able to buyout any upstarts/mad consumers+the mostly uneducated masses (+no rules under L.F.FM) = ...
If you think people/businesses are mostly good, this could be good.
Can you trade with no one? Not, can you NOT trade, but can you trade with no one?
The answer? No, you HAVE to trade with someone.
And if you HAVE to trade, at some time, with someone, somewhere, you MUST/NEED to trade.
The price/return/exchange is = to the level of the need. So, though there is the illusion of Voluntarism, its really just an illusion...like many things when reduced to the black/white of the issue or problem.
@willdrake1 hmmm good point. I understand but you can trade what you like, with who you like, how you likes. So it IS, for the most part, voluntary. Even though you "have" to trade, which as we discussed isn't entirely true but it makes life easier, with the massive population we have today competetition if left unregulated would be absolutely massive, you would get what you like, how your like, at the price you like so easily.
I don’t agree, because all of that depends a variety of things, most importantly :
1) Who has the upper hand in the trade?
Example: I sell A, now, there are Five guys in town who will trade with me, but remember, they control the market (as is the case now with almost everything), so I can only get B+ or B- for my goods...depending upon how generous these Five are. And what if they're dicks?
Also, just because I can only trade with them...doesn't mean they can ONLY trade with me?
Also, I think you're mixing up the level of trades...as if they’re both equal.
I'm not saying, you couldn't barging with Suzie down the street who is also trying to sell her shoes in Japan?
What I'm saying is, when a thing (company of w/e) becomes a system, its large enough, that its now another beam holding up the framework; I don't want to say its untouchable---but those who "could" touch it (for good or bad) don't and for the same reason...likely, yep, their "self interest"
I mean, why would you, sell something a dollar cheaper if everyone else, who is selling the same thing, is doing so for the same price? People got to buy it right? Why should you make less? And its not like they got anywhere else to go…
@willdrake1 In a FM consumers not sellers control the market, if you don't like the way these people do business find someone else. If there is consumer dissatisfaction there is opportunity for competition.
Really? I love it, you have such a mind geared to this fantasy: that the world is Mayberry or something.
Ok, you tell me then why 99% of "small" pizza places go out of business?
1) Is it cause we don't like the pizza?
2) Is it cause Pizza Hut and Dominos are "really" better?
3) Is it cause the chains (12 nearby) are cheaper, the S.P.P too $ because that's what they have to charge inorder to survive...so it isn't really a competition at all; more like a waiting game?
@willdrake1 you would only sell things a dollar cheaper if you could afford to, that is to say if your profit margin was above zero, you wouldn't be losing money by doing this because you would gain more customers, resulting in a greater net profit. This is 101 stuff.
1) Almost everything you buy today could be substantially lowered in price (we have the tec) and the vender would still make nearly the same amount of money; the reason that doesn't happen though (least not enough for it to matter) is because of greed:
As I said, why would they lower the price, if everyone else is keeping the prices the same, and its a product people have to buy no matter what. Why should they make any less? Its not like people have anywhere else to go?
The same point can be made as to why things don't advance...
1) They don't have to. Why fix what isn't broke.
2) Those who would advance something, are boxed out by the larger system which don't yet want to change.
3) The people are sold that advancements aren't really possible yet...the greatest weapon of all.
4) The people are convinced that to get the Corps to Advance, is evil or w/e and they should beable to stagnate cause they know best what they can or can't do
@willdrake1 Small business can't compete with the big boys because the large corporations exploit globalism to low production costs and they rely on government intervention to prevent fair competition.
Won't such holes, in away, always exist---infact get worse without even the few rules we have now?
Atleast now there are some guidelines; and you've admitted that the Small can't fight the Large---which goes for people too. And if all that's true, isn't my point thus made: There is no such thing as the F.M. It doesn't and can't exist. The game is Rigged and everyone who doesn't already have power, to some degree, is getting boned.
@willdrake1 Exactly right!but the greed is allowed to exist because of stifled competition via legal regulation. Pharmaceuticals are a great example. Making some cancer medicines cost as much to make as aspirin. but because there are so many rules tailored to specific companies making them the only ones who can legally produce the stuff they can charge whatever they want. while aspirin is still super cheap because it is unregulated, allowing more competition into the market.
Trade, for the most part, isn't voluntary? What?? Honestly I want to understand what your saying, maybe I'm too myopic. please break it down for me? Why is trade not voluntary?
I suspect the net neutrality supporters don't fully understand how the Internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It can survive a nuclear attack, so no, Comcast can not get monopoly control and shut out Netflix or whatever crazy theory is being offered up here. This is a solution looking for a problem. The Internet is working great, no one is complaining about anything and the hardware continues to evolve incredibly. WHY MESS WITH THAT?
these jerks are just looking to get more money..since the internet isnt taxed right now, they dont have any business in the interness business it doesnt belong to anyone now they want to act like they own it so they can protect everyone..THIS COUNTRY NEEDS LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL, GIVE THE POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE I DONT NEED ANYONE TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED
When are they voting on this merger or have they already voted on it? I'm sure those crooks in Washington will pass it. What ever happened to Antitrust laws? It's slowly becoming the Gilded Age all over again. Soon there will be a handful of companies that own everything and run the world. Sound like a conspiracy? Were headed in that direction.
Al Franken wants people who use 3 Gb of bandwidth for a Netflix streaming movie to pay the same for the service as people who just check their emails.
Where's this all leading to? It's not really Net Neutrality, but Comcast going under, then Obama will say they are to big to fail. Use Federal money to bail them out. Then the largest part of out internet and media will be totally controlled by the government.
If you dinks can't see this coming, you are blind as hell.
There is evil in all small companies, just imagine how evil large companies and megaliths are. We have way too many large companies and megaliths, it's time to bring the evil down to a more manageable level. We need to get back to many smaller companies so that they can compete the hell out of each other, the way they used to be.
The way you are talking it seems that you are lawyer. Please either go into the second less Satanic profession, marketing, or take a skilled trade......like welding.
@WEREFEAT i use the word fascism too because its modern day corporatism. its the government sticking there hands where it doesnt belong in the private sector. which breaches the surface tension of the water, allowing lobbyist and all the little gremlins to find and use the loopholes to spend money to make money to get bigger. (dominoes lobby to license and regulate high standards for a small corner store pizza shop. so they can never grow past X size, meanwhile dominoes is becoming triple X.)
3 guys that you never heard of or never voted for are putting rules on the internet, where no rules ever existed. This is step one in a direction that Americans do not want to go into. The internet is one of the only things that IS working and now we are going to allow the FCC to screw it up??? Further insanity and a power grab!!!! Let me tell you that I can guarantee that Hackers are not going to allow a take over! You think China has trouble??? Just wait!!! Federally regulated apps.lol
Can someone please tell me what this is? Are they going to make people pay more for their internet if they use youtube more than the others? Please explain what is going on, and what the outcome is?
@Iaintnosynystergates They might throttle the bandwidth of YouTube or NetFlix if they consider them competitors, meaning it would take you an hour to load a ten minute video or 24h to load a 2h movie, for instance. It would be up to them whether you could get faster access for a higher price or no faster access at all, no matter how much you'd be willing to pay...
@Iaintnosynystergates Net neutrality seems to be protected for the wired internet for now. But they allowed companies to be non-neutral on wireless devices. That's the part where Al Franken commented that some companies might not allow, say, a Google Maps app on your mobile phone because it's a competitor's product...
state lines: thats to prevent tax shelters, and allow states to actually regulate the insurance companies that operate inside their state. It empowers states and local gov. There are been lots of abuses in regards to this and little sates could do until now. Yes this is "bigger gov" but people need to be protected from corporations.
Yes I would have to say overall the HC reform has turned into a quagmire. I have hopes that it will get better. and if it is broken, to fix it.
@treez78 Actually, I have plenty to say, but your comprehension level doesn't appear to allow complete absorption, so it's not worth my time....especially within the bounds of only 500 characters.
Gotta love Al Franken! What a fantastic speech (though I wish the FCC wasn't contemplating such idiotic moves in the first place, so that he didn't have to give it). It's refreshing to have Senators who actually stand up for worthy causes. I'm passing this video along to friends.
@HulksHeroes But the Internet is one of the only things working well these days! The government has f***ed up everything else: education, the monetary system, public debt, wars, housing market, etc... Why are they even contemplating "fixing" something that isn't even broken? Everyone loves the Internet, it's evolving at an amazing pace, and now people like you with no understanding of the bigger picture think this is just grand to allow politicians to curtain innovation. IDIOT!
@OutlawTomFantastic so you think it's a good idea to allow Comcast and NBC merge? While they squeeze out Netflix? Honestly? How can you possibly think that it's a good idea to allow a merger like this.. ? Give those 2 companies this kind of power over what we watch? And our Internet access? The Internet is great, but it sure as hell won't be great when one company is controlling everything...
@Asylamer If Comcast and NBC both voluntarily agree to merge, you, I, your uncle Bill and the government should have nothing at all to say about it. As owners of that property, it is their decision and only their decision. As for Netflix, I don't think you understand how the internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It's obvious that this hypothetical scenario does not mean the Internet is broke, and it doesn't need a government "fix".
@OutlawTomFantastic You think making sure Comcast can't block you from getting NetFlix movies is curtailing innovation? I guess you would have loved the company stores in The Grapes of Wrath and the famous Sixteen Tons song and considered them great innovations...
@OolTube02 Listen, if Comcast blocks your access to Netflix, STOP USING COMCAST! Phone them and tell them you are canceling your account because of this. As for their routers, the Internet is immune to nuclear strike. You think Comcast's hardware has the ability to shut down Netflix? Sorry but the reasoning here seems very shallow, with limited understanding of free market competition and what made the Internet great in the first place.
@OutlawTomFantastic The problem is, if Comcast owned NBC/Universal they would use ownership of that content as leverage for forcing people to sign Comcast contracts rather than with other cable providers. To achieve this they'd deny third party providers like NetFlix access to their material, or grant it only very expensively. That could ultimately force the latter out of the market and you'd wind up getting a monopoly with a crappy product, like the early Microsoft Windows line...
@OolTube02 "The problem is, if Comcast owned NBC/Universal they would use ownership of that content as leverage for forcing people to sign Comcast contracts rather than with other cable providers." What?! How does a free market company *force* customers to do anything? They can't--they have no power. The best they can do is make a compelling product at a low enough price and hope like hell someone wants to buy it. At least, that's how free markets remain so long as government stays out.
@OutlawTomFantastic Oh, yes, I forget, in the wonderful utopia of libertarian thinking market forces aren't really force. Only threats of violence are. Given a choice between accepting a usurious offer or being deprived of something you can always choose deprivation, after all.
But philosophically you could spin that even further and claim that even a violent threat isn't really force. After all, you still have a choice between giving in and bodily harm. That's still a form of freedom...
@OolTube02 You're nuts. In free markets, all a company can do is offer a product/service and hope like hell people want to buy it. They can't force anything on anyone unless it is voluntary. The only way you can make your ridiculous claim stick is to start redefining words a la George Orwell's 1984. You want to talk about coercion? Look at socialists and watch your freedom float away.
@OutlawTomFantastic The secret to looking at socialists without watching your freedom float away is to look at their reflection through the polished inside of your shield, I'm told.
But seriously, what specific socialists am I supposed to look at? What socialists are there left in 2010? Just give me specifics about what country's form of totalitarianism you think you're approaching by telling your online delivery companies that they mustn't pick and choose whose packets they drop or deliver?
@OolTube02 "But seriously, what specific socialists am I supposed to look at?" Coercive central control is at the core of socialism. The government trying to centrally control the Internet is a very socialist move. Look at Obama and his entire administration. He'll come and go, but the biggest socialist influence is the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a form of centralized control over the economy that socialists love. No accident it was formed around the time of socialism's big surge.
It's always been government laws that ensured the local phone switch provider couldn't pick and choose whose calls they would connect and whose they wouldn't. It was government that regulated that mail carriers would have to deliver all mail, independent of the sender.
As for the internet, it was the government that originally devised the sucker for the military and universities, and they decided to allow no censorship on it.
@OolTube02 Excuse me a moment. Bwahaha-lol! You really think UPS "picks and chooses" whether they will deliver your package? You think AT&T picks and chooses whose phone call they will connect? They want to make money from anyone and everyone. Period. Your mixed-up crackers notion that somehow government regulations "made dem der evil companies spect the customer" is nothing but pure foolishness. Free markets make the business respect the customer. Nothing else is needed.
@OutlawTomFantastic Companies wish to maximize their profit. If that involves delivering to everyone then they will. If it involves leaving unprofitably sparsely populated areas out of their distribution network they will. If it involves competitive wars cutting local distributors out of their network and it is permissible they will.
Plutocracy doesn't always lead to rational, non-discriminatory business policy decisions, as racial discrimination in the South has shown. Your model is flawed.
@OolTube02 You said they pick and chose whose call to connect. What you are talking about now is whether they service a particular region, such as the ass-end of Alaska with one igloo. Totally different issue. This is totally up to a company. If they don't, someone else will. In a small town of 30 or whatever, you know your services aren't as good as in the big city. That's why it's cheap to live there--it's a known trade-off when you decide to live there. Some people like being off the grid.
@OutlawTomFantastic No, I said they do not pick and choose whose calls to connect because there are laws against that. You can disagree, claiming their profiteering motive would be enough not to make them discriminate and laws are unnecessary, but please don't put words in my mouth that were never uttered.
As for living off the grid, it sounds great in theory until you wish to mail pipe bombs to universities and airlines from your Montana shack. Then you'll be glad there's a postal service...
@OolTube02 Well, here's what you said exactly: "It's always been government laws that ensured the local phone switch provider couldn't pick and choose whose calls they would connect and whose they wouldn't." That's BS I "put words into your mouth." I found it laughable you think they would pick and choose. It shows a basic ignorance of the mechanisms of free market competition. I assume you acknowledge that an igloo in Alaska probably doesn't need nor deserve postal service by divine right.
@OutlawTomFantastic Companies pick and choose all the time. If there is a policy that ensures they can drive a competitor off the market then they would be fools not to apply it. And if a television content provider suddenly has the power of the cable into your home as leverage they would be doing their own profit margin a disservice not to wield that influence. The only way to prevent this is to a) make very clear laws that a company is not allowed to and/or b) anti-trust merger prevention.
@OolTube02 Content can be brought into the home through cable lines, telephone lines, and other media such as fiber optic or whatever. Content can also be delivered wirelessly through satellite or local towers, such as mobile phone towers. It would be impossible for any one of these to have a monopoly. It's up to the free market to exploit whatever means they want and then its up to the consumer to choose the one that suits him best in terms of features and price. No new laws needed.
@OutlawTomFantastic But the number of communication wires is limited and it's up to the community to allow someone to lay lines under a public road to your home. The same goes for the bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum -- someone allocates it and someone has already declared dibs on it. So you have government interference and a natural monopoly by the companies owning existing lines, whether you want it or not. The only question is, in whose favor do you want regulations? Yours or theirs?
@biantai888 Wires across backyards, from home to home, eh?
That still leaves the number of possible connections geographically limited, though. I guess you could use directional wireless from block to block.
And the drawback I see is that if you get in a row with your neighbor about returning the lawn mower then they have it in their power to cut off your internet.
Do you honestly think this anarchic distribution will give you reliable broadband? Or were you being facetious...?
@OolTube02 My point was that the wires are cheap and the only reason we have slow Internet in America is because a few people make more money as a result.
Wired communication is not like radio where the spectrum is shared by all. Capacity is not limited because the number of parallel connections is unlimited. YouTube can have millions of videos running all at once.
The false scarcity of net capacity.lets companies charge a lot of money for something that costs them very little.
I work in Hollywood creating files from films to play over the internet. I am opposed to service providers and entertainment conglomerates standing in the way of companies like NetFlix. I am in favor of FCC regulation, and so are my colleagues.
just like dont ask dont tell-- the dream act-- and this nonesense- none of this creates jobs, do you think that is not intentional-- this marxist in the white house could care less about american jobs or the american people- he will be happy to go around the world bowing and scraping before the scum of the earth
comrade obama does not like being called on the carpet for being a marxist pig- how long before they try the fairness doctrine- the petulant child obama sucks-- how does this create jobs? it does not , why because the left is happy with creating a permanent welfare society so they can keep power by handing out the goodies- just like the generations of people on the dole in england
He doesn't care about the consumer.He cares only about corporations and their profits.Hey Al,why don't you go back to telling bad jokes because you suck as a Senator.Go fuck yourself!!
@istraight1 Some replies are not worth answering.Yours is one of them.This is about CONTROL and profits.If you can't see that,I feel sorry for you but I won't waste my time on breaking it down for you.Time is very short for our freedom and I don't have that much to waste on explanations to something that is glaringly obvious!!
@oldskoolbrawler your just waste of thime why go celebrate the big companies buy of the congress. i agree you dont need explanations to something that is glaringly obvious!!. big companies buying the government
@100crawma just another fascist like yourself will lve this because this right wing or big companies in bed with government. besides conservatives love monolpies
today we lost a bit more of our freedom to the marxist filth in washington-- we can only hope this and obama care can be repealed-- whats next the fairness doctrine
And you wonder why our politicians feel they need to make decisions for us. I read some of these comments and it seems most of you people are simply plain ignorant. The FCC deciding Net Neutrality is about government censorship. Censoring what 'they' feel is appropriate (i.e. what they want you to have access to). This is called Freedom of Speech people....one HUGE step to control and communism. Wake up people this is NOT about your cable bill. I swear I should have taken the 'blue' pill.
Even conservative economists, like Milton Friedman, know that there is a role for government intervention in the economy in 2 places:
1) To prevent anti-competitive behavior by firms. That means preventing monopolies from charging much more than the free market would.
2) To make private economic growth easier. By providing free and open communications, companies have lower costs and can make higher profits and jobs.
Franken's argument is not socialist, it is in line with conservative economics.
@aechristensen2011 1) There are plenty of internet providers to choose from 2) government does not contribute to free and open communications, does not lower costs and does not increase profits for the private sector. You have listened to your marxist teachers for too long.
@BlueSkies360 Your area may be different than mine, but my guess is that there is only 1 broadband provider in your area. There are many firms, but there usually is only one that serves a particular area - whether it's Charter or Comcast. It's a natural monopoly and they'll charge super high prices. Restrained regulations will ensure fair prices for the struggling consumer and fair profits for the company.
Personal attacks aside, my teachers were Reagan's economic advisors, not Marxists.
@BlueSkies360 I'm assuming that you're kidding, but just in case you're not... Monopolies do the opposite. For example, in countries (like Japan) that have well defined (i.e. highly regulated) broadband rules with more players (i.e. competition), the public gets roughly 10x greater download speed than the US and 50x greater upload speed for the same price as in the US. Unregulated monopolies allow a single player to manipulate the market in ways that historically do not benefit consumers.
@762lenn stop being nieve. He stated his reasons when he said programmers told him what was happening but couldnt act out against comcast. Another words they are probably doing some codes right now but cant talk out or they will be fired. Stop letting your freedoms get taken away. and start asking the right questions. The unresposible socialist attitude is getting us no way. democracy was gone on 9/11 sir
@graphxking The government did a fine job when it came to HC and insurance companies didn't it??? Not allowing sales of insurance across state lines??? Interfering in pricing of medical service pricing. The government is more of a hindrance than anything else. They should stick to what they do best, keeping the roads paved.
It seems to me to be reasonable to keep all of the data traffic throughout the internet equal, no? Would this not ensure a level playing field an foster competition between products? I kinda thought that this is exactly what capitalism is...everyone has product on the free market and consumers decide who wins based off which product they are more willing to pay for. To me keeping the internet neutral for all is best way to ensure a free and open marketplace.
@salarus "It seems to me to be reasonable to keep all of the data traffic throughout the internet equal, no?" No. You stop innovation if you put restrictions on what Internet providers can do. There might be legitimate cases for high priority bandwidth, and cases for low priority bandwidth. But this is all irrelevant because people are allowed to do whatever they want with their property. Is Comcast's hardware your property? No. Is it our uncle's? No. Is it the governments? No. It's Comcast's.
Shortly after this, Netflix loses most of its movies available for stream, Netflix raises their prices because the internet providers hiked up their prices. And we blame Netflix for why this happened.
jbisasky 1 month ago
Our government wants Net Neutrality so that they can "NEUTRALIZE" the net.
Our government is against the ability of people to freely exchange ideas and thoughts anonymously, especially about our laws. It threatens their job security! They want to regulate the Internet!
Wake up, folks. Is the "Patriot" Act really patriotic? LOL!
LameBrainMcCain 2 months ago
Net Neutrality is bullshit, free markets man, government is for liberal idiots that need to be told when to take a shower.
TheDukeljk 2 months ago
end the FCC!!!
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
stop the "CLOUD"!!
bart666a 4 months ago
freaking FCC
billyjackphillips132 6 months ago
Probably the first/last time Fruity Pebbles mentioned in the US Senate.
UnclePutin 8 months ago
Yes...we need more companies that run just like the DMV and the govt court houses, where we have no other choice but wait and wait and then wait some more. And the best part is that if we dont go to any govt run facility when we are told to we then have the pleasure of going to jail. Lets not forget how the govt is there to help us but can only run there facilities Mon-Fri while companies are open 24/7. Yes more govt regulations. How about removing the FCC and alow anyone to start a new station?
studentofmises 9 months ago
@studentofmises I'm not that into pokemon
SmelDiferenToMidget 8 months ago
Corporations should never be able to control information outlets . Unfortunately companies without any morals like Fox and Time Warner want to control every single thing we have access to .
MindofaJedi 10 months ago
he has alot of good points ye, but i doubt he wrote any of that
serge2cool 11 months ago
We should stop wasting resources by blowing down buildings that otherwise could be turned into housing projects for the homeless. We have wasted so much resources that now less fortunate countries need.
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
TV/Cable is dying. I turned off cable a year ago and I don't miss it at all. Go outside, find a hobby, do something else and screw the stupid TV stations and cable! They have too many people addicted to their crappy service and what I loosely call "entertainment". Yuk.
evi3lynni3 11 months ago
remember the good old days of 14.4k Modems? i do!
BigDirtyBasterd 11 months ago
Franken, aka vote swiper, sux!
TheSkeetergirl 1 year ago
Franken and I are most likely political polar opposites on big government social issues but he is SPOT ON here. I also like his free market ideals. Excellent speech.
Bravo!
ConservativeLogic 1 year ago
@TheBlood2pay
The answer is more market freedom. I wouldn't be shocked if their was miles and miles and miles of red tape someone had to get through to start a new broadcasting company.
girzwald3 1 year ago
Oh freaking well! It's business. They must be doing something right. If you don't like it, start your own freaking company and learn how to compete. Stop whining and start trying harder.
Jidster01 1 year ago
I don't like Al Franken.
However, he is correct here. The Comcast-NBC Universal merger was a BAD idea. Too bad the FCC was too short sighted to see this.
Net Neutrality is still being worked on, but the bill as it was, is untenable, and a violation of First Amendment protections.
bayushizero 1 year ago 2
is this man really a congressman! ? OMG, help me...blahhhh
IslamistTube 1 year ago
@IslamistTube he is a senator not a congressman. go figure it all smells the same in the end.
bigjohn98665 11 months ago
Seig Heil SS Commander Al Franken, we must control vhatt the sheep view and hear !
IslamistTube 1 year ago
Franken is a tyrant.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 year ago
PLEASE HELP CANADA
fusedblue 1 year ago
@fusedblue Why? No one lives there anyway. :-p
psx2514 1 year ago
@psx2514 BECUZ IT WILL SPREAD TO USA
fusedblue 1 year ago
a lot of you morons in the comments section don't understand what net neutrality is. IT IS A GOOD thing unless you either work for or are a shareholder of an internet company.
Franken rocks!
kirbyman1kanden7pf 1 year ago
@kirbyman1kanden7pf i hope a bus runs you over tommorrow
TradeMarkMercenarys 1 year ago
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock.
ThunderheadNebula 1 year ago
tomorrow the deal will be done......This is the beginning of the end.....Get ready America. Marxism is coming to a country near you! I'm so fucking Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any More!
lonewolffullmoon 1 year ago
We need 2nd amendment for internet. People in America need to start defending internet the way they are defending guns. We need new amendment to tell congress, liberals, FCC and other Net Neutrality enthusiasts to stop fucking with the internet.
saper321 1 year ago
@saper321 Yeah, it'll be great when those dumb libs can just get blocked.
biantai888 1 year ago
@biantai888
Libs need be educated that what they are supporting will kill the internet.
saper321 1 year ago
@saper321 your comprehension abilities have failed you in respect to this bill and this video.
danielvittet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danielvittet
Sigh. Here we go again.
saper321 1 year ago
freakin FCC
AfroNinjaSpy 1 year ago
@TheRamenAvenger It'll be nothing but reruns of Highway to Heaven in the afterlife after the NBC/Universal/Comcast/God merger. On every channel...
OolTube02 1 year ago
THIS is only part of the PLAN for the NEW WORLD ORDER. In the New World Order you won't have a choice for t.v. programing, only to take the MARK of the BEAST or be Beheaded. Get Saved today - Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. -Escape this coming World Order---Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things....
dunhova 1 year ago
@dunhova
Shut up paint-eater.
willdrake1 1 year ago
SO this is where I would say we differ. "When a company grows to be a system", define your premise there. I feel like your buying into this "too big to fail" or maybe monopoly concept. I can't See how in LF market any company could grow so large that consumers would be dependent on them and have no other choice but to do business involuntarily. Again, I find this even less likely with so much interconnectivity and global economic avenues that would be available in the modern world.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0 Well, peer to peer protocols such as BitTorrent will always be able to circumvent the official channels, but that is because they are mostly underground movements, largely ignoring existing copyright laws. A legitimately operating venture like NetFlix, on the other hand, which needs contracts with the original providers in order to deliver content, would be entirely at the mercy of a monopolistic behemoth such as Comcast/NBC/Universal...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@kellerj0
No, I'm not for "too big to fail"
But the growth of a company
1)spreading, becoming many (even if under different names, but all the same)
2)into a national Corp (two or more groups who already finished stage one, now joined)
3)into a national only Monopoly
4)finally becoming a multinational monopoly or world wide trust
Is the natural outcome of Capitalism. How fast you can stem this need to grow/gain mutual power and wealth, only exists through some kinda rules.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 i guess so.. just got sick of talking to you. I found your arguments lacking, and your rebuttles illogical, inarticulate, and in-succinct, and entrenched in semantic battles so I stopped caring. but that's just me, i'm probably not smart enough to see the big picture. you can have the win. I'd like to hear some recommended solutions from your end. let me know when you find a political or economic system which you advocate so I can tear it to bits. jk. ;p happy new year.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
The need to grow and join together for greater financial benefit, is the backbone of Capitalism.
Ex: Why do you think Car Companies are so interconnected with parts and oil Companies.
About you not seeing how people could be so dependent that they have no choice...
Look at the major things you buy, backtrack who makes them and where they come from.
If you do this correctly, you will see that there are only a handful of systems behind these various goods/services.
They won.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Here's another way to think about it.
Two major reasons the Black Plague didn't end the world.
1) Couldn't travel fast/far enough
2) Didn't have a long enough life cycle.
Internet+Global Commerce+Systems long integrated into societies with the various powers able to buyout any upstarts/mad consumers+the mostly uneducated masses (+no rules under L.F.FM) = ...
If you think people/businesses are mostly good, this could be good.
IF like me, and see us as Animals, well?
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
So, its been a few days....given up?
willdrake1 1 year ago
"Trade, for the most part, isn't voluntary" What?? Why would too people exchange something if they didn't want to?
Honestly I want to understand what your saying, maybe I'm too myopic. please break it down for me? Why is trade not voluntary?
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Ok, think of it this way:
Can you trade with no one? Not, can you NOT trade, but can you trade with no one?
The answer? No, you HAVE to trade with someone.
And if you HAVE to trade, at some time, with someone, somewhere, you MUST/NEED to trade.
The price/return/exchange is = to the level of the need. So, though there is the illusion of Voluntarism, its really just an illusion...like many things when reduced to the black/white of the issue or problem.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 hmmm good point. I understand but you can trade what you like, with who you like, how you likes. So it IS, for the most part, voluntary. Even though you "have" to trade, which as we discussed isn't entirely true but it makes life easier, with the massive population we have today competetition if left unregulated would be absolutely massive, you would get what you like, how your like, at the price you like so easily.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
I don’t agree, because all of that depends a variety of things, most importantly :
1) Who has the upper hand in the trade?
Example: I sell A, now, there are Five guys in town who will trade with me, but remember, they control the market (as is the case now with almost everything), so I can only get B+ or B- for my goods...depending upon how generous these Five are. And what if they're dicks?
Also, just because I can only trade with them...doesn't mean they can ONLY trade with me?
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
The bottom line, is, you think you or enough of you, have the power to shape the market.
Now, that was true to some degree way-back-when, but now...not even close.
Everything depends on business doing right, which, well, is laughable.
A question:
DO you think you could shutdown Wal-Mart?
Really?
DO you think you could even affect how they price things?
Do you know how they price their products?
Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with you.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Also, I think you're mixing up the level of trades...as if they’re both equal.
I'm not saying, you couldn't barging with Suzie down the street who is also trying to sell her shoes in Japan?
What I'm saying is, when a thing (company of w/e) becomes a system, its large enough, that its now another beam holding up the framework; I don't want to say its untouchable---but those who "could" touch it (for good or bad) don't and for the same reason...likely, yep, their "self interest"
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
continued:
I mean, why would you, sell something a dollar cheaper if everyone else, who is selling the same thing, is doing so for the same price? People got to buy it right? Why should you make less? And its not like they got anywhere else to go…
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 In a FM consumers not sellers control the market, if you don't like the way these people do business find someone else. If there is consumer dissatisfaction there is opportunity for competition.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Really? I love it, you have such a mind geared to this fantasy: that the world is Mayberry or something.
Ok, you tell me then why 99% of "small" pizza places go out of business?
1) Is it cause we don't like the pizza?
2) Is it cause Pizza Hut and Dominos are "really" better?
3) Is it cause the chains (12 nearby) are cheaper, the S.P.P too $ because that's what they have to charge inorder to survive...so it isn't really a competition at all; more like a waiting game?
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 you would only sell things a dollar cheaper if you could afford to, that is to say if your profit margin was above zero, you wouldn't be losing money by doing this because you would gain more customers, resulting in a greater net profit. This is 101 stuff.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
1) Almost everything you buy today could be substantially lowered in price (we have the tec) and the vender would still make nearly the same amount of money; the reason that doesn't happen though (least not enough for it to matter) is because of greed:
As I said, why would they lower the price, if everyone else is keeping the prices the same, and its a product people have to buy no matter what. Why should they make any less? Its not like people have anywhere else to go?
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
The same point can be made as to why things don't advance...
1) They don't have to. Why fix what isn't broke.
2) Those who would advance something, are boxed out by the larger system which don't yet want to change.
3) The people are sold that advancements aren't really possible yet...the greatest weapon of all.
4) The people are convinced that to get the Corps to Advance, is evil or w/e and they should beable to stagnate cause they know best what they can or can't do
Bad Game.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 Small business can't compete with the big boys because the large corporations exploit globalism to low production costs and they rely on government intervention to prevent fair competition.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
And your sold that this can be changed?
Won't such holes, in away, always exist---infact get worse without even the few rules we have now?
Atleast now there are some guidelines; and you've admitted that the Small can't fight the Large---which goes for people too. And if all that's true, isn't my point thus made: There is no such thing as the F.M. It doesn't and can't exist. The game is Rigged and everyone who doesn't already have power, to some degree, is getting boned.
willdrake1 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Another thing quick.
The world, known or not, is nothing but Big Boys now...so, how do you square fixing that?
willdrake1 1 year ago
@willdrake1 Exactly right!but the greed is allowed to exist because of stifled competition via legal regulation. Pharmaceuticals are a great example. Making some cancer medicines cost as much to make as aspirin. but because there are so many rules tailored to specific companies making them the only ones who can legally produce the stuff they can charge whatever they want. while aspirin is still super cheap because it is unregulated, allowing more competition into the market.
kellerj0 1 year ago
@kellerj0
Another great illusion is Choice.
willdrake1 1 year ago
Trade, for the most part, isn't voluntary? What?? Honestly I want to understand what your saying, maybe I'm too myopic. please break it down for me? Why is trade not voluntary?
kellerj0 1 year ago
I suspect the net neutrality supporters don't fully understand how the Internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It can survive a nuclear attack, so no, Comcast can not get monopoly control and shut out Netflix or whatever crazy theory is being offered up here. This is a solution looking for a problem. The Internet is working great, no one is complaining about anything and the hardware continues to evolve incredibly. WHY MESS WITH THAT?
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
these jerks are just looking to get more money..since the internet isnt taxed right now, they dont have any business in the interness business it doesnt belong to anyone now they want to act like they own it so they can protect everyone..THIS COUNTRY NEEDS LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL, GIVE THE POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE I DONT NEED ANYONE TO TELL ME WHAT I NEED
fastgmc 1 year ago
When are they voting on this merger or have they already voted on it? I'm sure those crooks in Washington will pass it. What ever happened to Antitrust laws? It's slowly becoming the Gilded Age all over again. Soon there will be a handful of companies that own everything and run the world. Sound like a conspiracy? Were headed in that direction.
Jshect 1 year ago
Al Franken wants people who use 3 Gb of bandwidth for a Netflix streaming movie to pay the same for the service as people who just check their emails.
machaeroguy 1 year ago
Where's this all leading to? It's not really Net Neutrality, but Comcast going under, then Obama will say they are to big to fail. Use Federal money to bail them out. Then the largest part of out internet and media will be totally controlled by the government.
If you dinks can't see this coming, you are blind as hell.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 1 year ago
Need more people like Al Franken looking out for our interests.. this country would be in much better shape..
Asylamer 1 year ago
There is evil in all small companies, just imagine how evil large companies and megaliths are. We have way too many large companies and megaliths, it's time to bring the evil down to a more manageable level. We need to get back to many smaller companies so that they can compete the hell out of each other, the way they used to be.
chrisjames1962 1 year ago
@ayokay123
The way you are talking it seems that you are lawyer. Please either go into the second less Satanic profession, marketing, or take a skilled trade......like welding.
shatanic11 1 year ago
Hmmmm.....I am hearing a General Mills and 3M bias......
shatanic11 1 year ago
He is NEVER going to get another gig on NBC.
vidguy67 1 year ago
@WEREFEAT i use the word fascism too because its modern day corporatism. its the government sticking there hands where it doesnt belong in the private sector. which breaches the surface tension of the water, allowing lobbyist and all the little gremlins to find and use the loopholes to spend money to make money to get bigger. (dominoes lobby to license and regulate high standards for a small corner store pizza shop. so they can never grow past X size, meanwhile dominoes is becoming triple X.)
scalp340 1 year ago
3 guys that you never heard of or never voted for are putting rules on the internet, where no rules ever existed. This is step one in a direction that Americans do not want to go into. The internet is one of the only things that IS working and now we are going to allow the FCC to screw it up??? Further insanity and a power grab!!!! Let me tell you that I can guarantee that Hackers are not going to allow a take over! You think China has trouble??? Just wait!!! Federally regulated apps.lol
ladylordess 1 year ago 5
Can someone please tell me what this is? Are they going to make people pay more for their internet if they use youtube more than the others? Please explain what is going on, and what the outcome is?
Iaintnosynystergates 1 year ago
@Iaintnosynystergates They might throttle the bandwidth of YouTube or NetFlix if they consider them competitors, meaning it would take you an hour to load a ten minute video or 24h to load a 2h movie, for instance. It would be up to them whether you could get faster access for a higher price or no faster access at all, no matter how much you'd be willing to pay...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 have they passed it?
Iaintnosynystergates 1 year ago
@Iaintnosynystergates Net neutrality seems to be protected for the wired internet for now. But they allowed companies to be non-neutral on wireless devices. That's the part where Al Franken commented that some companies might not allow, say, a Google Maps app on your mobile phone because it's a competitor's product...
OolTube02 1 year ago
The United States of America is a Great Country.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@ladylordess
state lines: thats to prevent tax shelters, and allow states to actually regulate the insurance companies that operate inside their state. It empowers states and local gov. There are been lots of abuses in regards to this and little sates could do until now. Yes this is "bigger gov" but people need to be protected from corporations.
Yes I would have to say overall the HC reform has turned into a quagmire. I have hopes that it will get better. and if it is broken, to fix it.
graphxking 1 year ago 2
@treez78 Actually, I have plenty to say, but your comprehension level doesn't appear to allow complete absorption, so it's not worth my time....especially within the bounds of only 500 characters.
ayokay123 1 year ago 3
have to agree with the person below me. absolutely fantastic speech. i can only hope they will heed his words...
marpoq 1 year ago 2
Gotta love Al Franken! What a fantastic speech (though I wish the FCC wasn't contemplating such idiotic moves in the first place, so that he didn't have to give it). It's refreshing to have Senators who actually stand up for worthy causes. I'm passing this video along to friends.
pmcrimson 1 year ago 5
@pmcrimson Wow, you actually liked hearing Al Franken longing for more government control of the Internet? You are clearly insane.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic So you actually want Comcast to have sole control over what content you are allowed to watch online? How is that sane?
OolTube02 1 year ago
what a dope..... um where we do not get good service is from your Senate and Congress!
jcrush13 1 year ago
It isn't broken....so leave it the hell alone!
The repukkkes only want the corporations to be able to make MORE money with the enterprise.
Wake up, you dumb ass teabaggers. This was a stop to your CORPORATE takeover of the internet. You are so f*cking stupid, I want to spit.
HulksHeroes 1 year ago 6
@HulksHeroes But the Internet is one of the only things working well these days! The government has f***ed up everything else: education, the monetary system, public debt, wars, housing market, etc... Why are they even contemplating "fixing" something that isn't even broken? Everyone loves the Internet, it's evolving at an amazing pace, and now people like you with no understanding of the bigger picture think this is just grand to allow politicians to curtain innovation. IDIOT!
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic so you think it's a good idea to allow Comcast and NBC merge? While they squeeze out Netflix? Honestly? How can you possibly think that it's a good idea to allow a merger like this.. ? Give those 2 companies this kind of power over what we watch? And our Internet access? The Internet is great, but it sure as hell won't be great when one company is controlling everything...
Asylamer 1 year ago
@Asylamer If Comcast and NBC both voluntarily agree to merge, you, I, your uncle Bill and the government should have nothing at all to say about it. As owners of that property, it is their decision and only their decision. As for Netflix, I don't think you understand how the internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It's obvious that this hypothetical scenario does not mean the Internet is broke, and it doesn't need a government "fix".
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic You think making sure Comcast can't block you from getting NetFlix movies is curtailing innovation? I guess you would have loved the company stores in The Grapes of Wrath and the famous Sixteen Tons song and considered them great innovations...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 Listen, if Comcast blocks your access to Netflix, STOP USING COMCAST! Phone them and tell them you are canceling your account because of this. As for their routers, the Internet is immune to nuclear strike. You think Comcast's hardware has the ability to shut down Netflix? Sorry but the reasoning here seems very shallow, with limited understanding of free market competition and what made the Internet great in the first place.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic The problem is, if Comcast owned NBC/Universal they would use ownership of that content as leverage for forcing people to sign Comcast contracts rather than with other cable providers. To achieve this they'd deny third party providers like NetFlix access to their material, or grant it only very expensively. That could ultimately force the latter out of the market and you'd wind up getting a monopoly with a crappy product, like the early Microsoft Windows line...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 "The problem is, if Comcast owned NBC/Universal they would use ownership of that content as leverage for forcing people to sign Comcast contracts rather than with other cable providers." What?! How does a free market company *force* customers to do anything? They can't--they have no power. The best they can do is make a compelling product at a low enough price and hope like hell someone wants to buy it. At least, that's how free markets remain so long as government stays out.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Oh, yes, I forget, in the wonderful utopia of libertarian thinking market forces aren't really force. Only threats of violence are. Given a choice between accepting a usurious offer or being deprived of something you can always choose deprivation, after all.
But philosophically you could spin that even further and claim that even a violent threat isn't really force. After all, you still have a choice between giving in and bodily harm. That's still a form of freedom...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 You're nuts. In free markets, all a company can do is offer a product/service and hope like hell people want to buy it. They can't force anything on anyone unless it is voluntary. The only way you can make your ridiculous claim stick is to start redefining words a la George Orwell's 1984. You want to talk about coercion? Look at socialists and watch your freedom float away.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic The secret to looking at socialists without watching your freedom float away is to look at their reflection through the polished inside of your shield, I'm told.
But seriously, what specific socialists am I supposed to look at? What socialists are there left in 2010? Just give me specifics about what country's form of totalitarianism you think you're approaching by telling your online delivery companies that they mustn't pick and choose whose packets they drop or deliver?
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 "But seriously, what specific socialists am I supposed to look at?" Coercive central control is at the core of socialism. The government trying to centrally control the Internet is a very socialist move. Look at Obama and his entire administration. He'll come and go, but the biggest socialist influence is the Federal Reserve. The Fed is a form of centralized control over the economy that socialists love. No accident it was formed around the time of socialism's big surge.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Not going to chase after the Fed herring...
It's always been government laws that ensured the local phone switch provider couldn't pick and choose whose calls they would connect and whose they wouldn't. It was government that regulated that mail carriers would have to deliver all mail, independent of the sender.
As for the internet, it was the government that originally devised the sucker for the military and universities, and they decided to allow no censorship on it.
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 Excuse me a moment. Bwahaha-lol! You really think UPS "picks and chooses" whether they will deliver your package? You think AT&T picks and chooses whose phone call they will connect? They want to make money from anyone and everyone. Period. Your mixed-up crackers notion that somehow government regulations "made dem der evil companies spect the customer" is nothing but pure foolishness. Free markets make the business respect the customer. Nothing else is needed.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Companies wish to maximize their profit. If that involves delivering to everyone then they will. If it involves leaving unprofitably sparsely populated areas out of their distribution network they will. If it involves competitive wars cutting local distributors out of their network and it is permissible they will.
Plutocracy doesn't always lead to rational, non-discriminatory business policy decisions, as racial discrimination in the South has shown. Your model is flawed.
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 You said they pick and chose whose call to connect. What you are talking about now is whether they service a particular region, such as the ass-end of Alaska with one igloo. Totally different issue. This is totally up to a company. If they don't, someone else will. In a small town of 30 or whatever, you know your services aren't as good as in the big city. That's why it's cheap to live there--it's a known trade-off when you decide to live there. Some people like being off the grid.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic No, I said they do not pick and choose whose calls to connect because there are laws against that. You can disagree, claiming their profiteering motive would be enough not to make them discriminate and laws are unnecessary, but please don't put words in my mouth that were never uttered.
As for living off the grid, it sounds great in theory until you wish to mail pipe bombs to universities and airlines from your Montana shack. Then you'll be glad there's a postal service...
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 Well, here's what you said exactly: "It's always been government laws that ensured the local phone switch provider couldn't pick and choose whose calls they would connect and whose they wouldn't." That's BS I "put words into your mouth." I found it laughable you think they would pick and choose. It shows a basic ignorance of the mechanisms of free market competition. I assume you acknowledge that an igloo in Alaska probably doesn't need nor deserve postal service by divine right.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Companies pick and choose all the time. If there is a policy that ensures they can drive a competitor off the market then they would be fools not to apply it. And if a television content provider suddenly has the power of the cable into your home as leverage they would be doing their own profit margin a disservice not to wield that influence. The only way to prevent this is to a) make very clear laws that a company is not allowed to and/or b) anti-trust merger prevention.
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 Content can be brought into the home through cable lines, telephone lines, and other media such as fiber optic or whatever. Content can also be delivered wirelessly through satellite or local towers, such as mobile phone towers. It would be impossible for any one of these to have a monopoly. It's up to the free market to exploit whatever means they want and then its up to the consumer to choose the one that suits him best in terms of features and price. No new laws needed.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic But the number of communication wires is limited and it's up to the community to allow someone to lay lines under a public road to your home. The same goes for the bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum -- someone allocates it and someone has already declared dibs on it. So you have government interference and a natural monopoly by the companies owning existing lines, whether you want it or not. The only question is, in whose favor do you want regulations? Yours or theirs?
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 There is no limit to the number of wires. It's only a natural monopoly if we don't let people wire to each other.
biantai888 1 year ago
@biantai888 Wires across backyards, from home to home, eh?
That still leaves the number of possible connections geographically limited, though. I guess you could use directional wireless from block to block.
And the drawback I see is that if you get in a row with your neighbor about returning the lawn mower then they have it in their power to cut off your internet.
Do you honestly think this anarchic distribution will give you reliable broadband? Or were you being facetious...?
OolTube02 1 year ago
@OolTube02 My point was that the wires are cheap and the only reason we have slow Internet in America is because a few people make more money as a result.
Wired communication is not like radio where the spectrum is shared by all. Capacity is not limited because the number of parallel connections is unlimited. YouTube can have millions of videos running all at once.
The false scarcity of net capacity.lets companies charge a lot of money for something that costs them very little.
biantai888 1 year ago
There is nothing special about "broadband." It's cheap.
biantai888 1 year ago
I wish we had more senators like Franken - maybe congress would not be so screwed up if we did. Thanks, Al! Keep fighting!
oneibus 1 year ago 12
I work in Hollywood creating files from films to play over the internet. I am opposed to service providers and entertainment conglomerates standing in the way of companies like NetFlix. I am in favor of FCC regulation, and so are my colleagues.
joebartone 1 year ago
@joebartone And your example of IPs "standing in the way" of Netflix is....?
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic It's at 11:50 in the video. Have you even been listening to the speech?
OolTube02 1 year ago
Reagan corporatism (big business regulates government) sold as conservatism
1980 - present
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 1 year ago 43
comcast has the worst service.
Bushiey 1 year ago 2
I HATE TALKING TO ROBOTS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE. end of rant.
ladicius 1 year ago
just like dont ask dont tell-- the dream act-- and this nonesense- none of this creates jobs, do you think that is not intentional-- this marxist in the white house could care less about american jobs or the american people- he will be happy to go around the world bowing and scraping before the scum of the earth
100crawma 1 year ago
comrade obama does not like being called on the carpet for being a marxist pig- how long before they try the fairness doctrine- the petulant child obama sucks-- how does this create jobs? it does not , why because the left is happy with creating a permanent welfare society so they can keep power by handing out the goodies- just like the generations of people on the dole in england
100crawma 1 year ago
you mean the right is happy permanent welfare society sending jobs to china and borrowing more for war.
the right winger are happy to day become there soon come soon as a corporate run government
istraight1 1 year ago 2
This Bill protects all Legal websites. Say bye to thepiratebay and to torrents. Say bye too P2P.
moneyngod 1 year ago
Here we go get ready to start paying .02 cents a MB for youtube, and .05c for porno, You will be watched and monitored.
moneyngod 1 year ago
WHEN YOU WRITE "NET NEUTRALITY" INTO GOOGLE NEWS THIS VIDEO CAME UP.....................ALL OF A SUDDEN IT DOES NOT ANYMORE ?????????
PLEASE UPRANK MY COMMENT
privee1 1 year ago
Who thinks that Net Neutrality is a government take over of the internet.
alienkid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alienkid this more like corporate monopolies taking over the government
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 you know you're pissing them off because they are marking you as spam.
alienkid 1 year ago
@alienkid anyone can mark peolpe as spam
istraight1 1 year ago
@alienkid this just big Corporations as usual buying the government (hopefully become the government) aka fascism
istraight1 1 year ago
He doesn't care about the consumer.He cares only about corporations and their profits.Hey Al,why don't you go back to telling bad jokes because you suck as a Senator.Go fuck yourself!!
oldskoolbrawler 1 year ago
@oldskoolbrawler how is al franken care about corporation, that republicans
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 Some replies are not worth answering.Yours is one of them.This is about CONTROL and profits.If you can't see that,I feel sorry for you but I won't waste my time on breaking it down for you.Time is very short for our freedom and I don't have that much to waste on explanations to something that is glaringly obvious!!
oldskoolbrawler 1 year ago
@oldskoolbrawler your just waste of thime why go celebrate the big companies buy of the congress. i agree you dont need explanations to something that is glaringly obvious!!. big companies buying the government
istraight1 1 year ago
@ThePoliticalMoose How about comcast throttling net connections? You're an idiot.
privatejoker1977 1 year ago
2012 OBAMA YOU GET YOUR PINK SLIP
100crawma 1 year ago
i might ass well say this today because i amy be blocked from saying it tommorow---OBAMA YOU FUCKING MARXIST PIG,YOU SUCK YOU CUNT---SUCK ON THAT
100crawma 1 year ago
@100crawma
how is obama a maxist. he a maxist as much your a fascist
istraight1 1 year ago
@100crawma You're a fucking moron.
privatejoker1977 1 year ago
yet another marxist abomination that we will have to work hard to repeal-- how does this create jobs again comrade obama
100crawma 1 year ago
@100crawma you mean fascist far right and leftwing will have to fight wight wing again
istraight1 1 year ago
@100crawma just another fascist like yourself will lve this because this right wing or big companies in bed with government. besides conservatives love monolpies
istraight1 1 year ago
this makes me sick - our forefathers are turning over in their graves-- god help us
100crawma 1 year ago
@100crawma people like al franken trying to fight right wing fascism
istraight1 1 year ago
@istraight1 fraken is a sad joke-a usefull idiot
100crawma 1 year ago
@100crawma at least al fraken is fighting this
istraight1 1 year ago
@100crawma at least al fraken is fighting this. he will defeat right wing corporations.
istraight1 1 year ago
today we lost a bit more of our freedom to the marxist filth in washington-- we can only hope this and obama care can be repealed-- whats next the fairness doctrine
100crawma 1 year ago
@100crawma this not maxist this far right fascism
istraight1 1 year ago
And you wonder why our politicians feel they need to make decisions for us. I read some of these comments and it seems most of you people are simply plain ignorant. The FCC deciding Net Neutrality is about government censorship. Censoring what 'they' feel is appropriate (i.e. what they want you to have access to). This is called Freedom of Speech people....one HUGE step to control and communism. Wake up people this is NOT about your cable bill. I swear I should have taken the 'blue' pill.
csisoundcheck 1 year ago 2
@csisoundcheck This is called Freedom of Speech people....one HUGE step to this fascism not communism which far right government
istraight1 1 year ago
Comment removed
istraight1 1 year ago
Even conservative economists, like Milton Friedman, know that there is a role for government intervention in the economy in 2 places:
1) To prevent anti-competitive behavior by firms. That means preventing monopolies from charging much more than the free market would.
2) To make private economic growth easier. By providing free and open communications, companies have lower costs and can make higher profits and jobs.
Franken's argument is not socialist, it is in line with conservative economics.
aechristensen2011 1 year ago
@aechristensen2011 1) There are plenty of internet providers to choose from 2) government does not contribute to free and open communications, does not lower costs and does not increase profits for the private sector. You have listened to your marxist teachers for too long.
BlueSkies360 1 year ago
@BlueSkies360 Your area may be different than mine, but my guess is that there is only 1 broadband provider in your area. There are many firms, but there usually is only one that serves a particular area - whether it's Charter or Comcast. It's a natural monopoly and they'll charge super high prices. Restrained regulations will ensure fair prices for the struggling consumer and fair profits for the company.
Personal attacks aside, my teachers were Reagan's economic advisors, not Marxists.
aechristensen2011 1 year ago
@aechristensen2011 I don't see how curbing their profits would incentivize the company to provide more and better products.
BlueSkies360 1 year ago
someone explain me whats bad about monopolies? Don't you like lower prices?
BlueSkies360 1 year ago
@BlueSkies360 I'm assuming that you're kidding, but just in case you're not... Monopolies do the opposite. For example, in countries (like Japan) that have well defined (i.e. highly regulated) broadband rules with more players (i.e. competition), the public gets roughly 10x greater download speed than the US and 50x greater upload speed for the same price as in the US. Unregulated monopolies allow a single player to manipulate the market in ways that historically do not benefit consumers.
olijak 1 year ago
@762lenn stop being nieve. He stated his reasons when he said programmers told him what was happening but couldnt act out against comcast. Another words they are probably doing some codes right now but cant talk out or they will be fired. Stop letting your freedoms get taken away. and start asking the right questions. The unresposible socialist attitude is getting us no way. democracy was gone on 9/11 sir
wakeupbefore2012 1 year ago
@ladylordess
the free market relies on competition. To PROTECT the free market you must support actual competition NOT monopolies.
graphxking 1 year ago
@graphxking The government did a fine job when it came to HC and insurance companies didn't it??? Not allowing sales of insurance across state lines??? Interfering in pricing of medical service pricing. The government is more of a hindrance than anything else. They should stick to what they do best, keeping the roads paved.
ladylordess 1 year ago
It seems to me to be reasonable to keep all of the data traffic throughout the internet equal, no? Would this not ensure a level playing field an foster competition between products? I kinda thought that this is exactly what capitalism is...everyone has product on the free market and consumers decide who wins based off which product they are more willing to pay for. To me keeping the internet neutral for all is best way to ensure a free and open marketplace.
salarus 1 year ago
@salarus "It seems to me to be reasonable to keep all of the data traffic throughout the internet equal, no?" No. You stop innovation if you put restrictions on what Internet providers can do. There might be legitimate cases for high priority bandwidth, and cases for low priority bandwidth. But this is all irrelevant because people are allowed to do whatever they want with their property. Is Comcast's hardware your property? No. Is it our uncle's? No. Is it the governments? No. It's Comcast's.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago