hold on... are they agreeing with McCain or are they disagreeing with him? they mention that big government is trying to regulate the internet, which would obviously be what net neutrality is fighting against, but McCain makes it sound evil? i'm confused.........
The net seems to be doing fine as is without the government sticking their mitts into it. Like everything else, they dress it up with pretty words so the most gullible will fall for it... 'Net Neutrality'.... Maybe its a good idea, maybe it's not. But while we have people in control who think Hugo Chavez is a good role model of government leadership, I will never be comfortable letting them have ANY say in ANY form of media.
@Metool2 You know it would be good if you actually looked up the definition of net nutrality before deciding who the bad guys are on this issue.
Hint - Net neutrality is the polar opposite to what's described in the fox report. It is designed to keep the net operating as it currently does by making it illegal for ISP's to extract payments from (say) youtube by throttling traffic based on content. Basically it's an anti-extortion law.. - And yes I am a computer scientist.
@Tapecutter59 yes, because we all know how much trouble we're having with businesses doing that right now that we need a law passed to stop it! Face it, there is no problem, there likely won't be a problem... and if there is? Then maybe we can address it. However in this case its passing more laws, with stricter control (while hiding behind pretty words like 'neutrality' and 'protection from big businesses') that will only hinder development.. and yes, I too am an IT professional.
@Metool2 You said yourself "maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not", my objection is not about judging the idea on it's merits (or lack of), my objection is about the deliberate lies that are in the Fox report, it is by definition propoganda. Also if you believe in judging an idea on it's merits then the belief that regulation is inherently a "bad thing" is just pure nonesense, for example who in their right mind would want to deregulate murder or rape?.
@Tapecutter59 Assuming noone ever committed murder or rape in the first place, why would there be a need to create laws determining the maximum/minimum amount of people in any given area to deter/prevent it? The true liars are those who paint it as anything other than a mindless unnecessary control grab by the government. They are creating a problem that doesn't exist, and offering up a 'solution' that's not needed, that just so happens to give them more regulatory powers
@Metool2 Assuming noone ever committed murder or rape in the first place, why would there be a need to create laws ---So a good idea would be to wait for someone to rape or murder someone before deciding we'd like a rule against it? That makes no sense. It's perfectly reasonable for us as a society to anticipate what would be a problem and try prevent it. In the case of Net Neutrality we don't want a handful of corporations drowning out the voices of individuals. So it's a good idea.
@Metool2 "Face it, there is no problem, there likely won't be a problem." What on Earth are you basing that on? If Comcast has a chance to stop any net traffic that might make comcast or any of it's advertisers look bad or not agree with the political agenda of comcast, you think they won't do it? You trust corporations that much? And don't think the "free market" will take care of that there aren't a whole lot of choices for the average consumer.
@sinistar99 Yet they haven't. They haven't stopped net traffic to anyone. I don't know of any cases that has. Like I said, they're just creating a false problem so they can give you a solution they wanted to implement anyway. 'Net Neutrality' wouldn't protect you from anything, because there is nothing to be protected from, if Comcast could stop net traffic you think they wouldn't have done it by now? Aren't corporations untrustworthy? Compared to the government which is flawless?
@sinistar99 It also ignores that the restrictions and regulations forced upon internet companies would only harm the providers, forcing them to give up bandwidth to 'intellectual liberationists' sharing illegal movie torrents through p2p networks while crowding out other customers who would use it in tele conferencing or the like. These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it.
@Metool2 "These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it." OMG that is ridiculous.
That's like saying the First Amendment (A Government regulation) de-inscentives innovators from figuring out new ways to ban free speech. And how the hell do you know they havne't "stopped net traffic to anyone?" How could you possibley know that? They're not going to report it on Fox when they do.
@Metool2 The net seems to be doing fine as is without the government sticking their mitts into it. UM the net was originally a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM so not really. Also if they do just fine then what's wrong with having a rule about it? If no one committed murder would it be so bad to have a law on the books against murder? And why would anyone be against that law unless they intended to break it?
@Metool2 "I will never be comfortable letting them have ANY say in ANY form of media."
So you're uncomfortable with the First Amendment? Maybe we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment too so the government "get's it's mits off our right to bear arms." lol!
@sinistar99 ... So you're saying getting rid of the right to free speech means getting rid of government control? Yeah, that abouts meshes with the rest of your arguements. "Well, clearly if we need more freedom we need to let the government control more things! We're only safe when politicians get to decide everything. They're more honest and trustworthy."
blogs already exist, LiberalViewer a;ready exists. so why do we need government regulation on the internet if its not broken? watch 'End Game" then research and make up your own mind. the 2 party system is a distraction to pit us against each other. There are many Americans with good intentions who love this country however we are working against each other for some reason ... (can you say divide and conquer)
Shit let's just say fuck technology ... And let's see how fucked up this world will get .... Now don't act surprised this is just more of the New World Order.... Ps... hackers will prevail ... And I will be behind them all the way .... Wiki leaks is just the be gaining to expose a lot of fuckery......
@LiamCareyBrown The net works fine just as it is... and Net Neutrality would keep it that way. Government control is We the People control. You're either gonna have Government control or Corporate control. Hint: One has a constitution and Bill of Rights and the other does not.
Net neutrality.. Give govt controll of net neutrality instead of letting the market protect it... Hmm? China's government controlls the internet there. I wonder why anti Chinese government websites get censored? I wonder why google is censored? Im sure it's for the protection of the people no doubt...
@panzerkilla actually i trust the government more on this issue, because it is their job to look out for the best interests of the american people, rather than large corporations who are solely motivated by profit. the fact that you even say "give government control of net neutrality" shows your ignorance on this issue, because net neutrality is the concept of the government not allowing companies to give priority to certain internet users. corporations could not "control net neutrality"
@panzerkilla The Market protect it? Hahahaha yeah the market really protects our rights doesn't it. Great example... Maybe we shouldn't have ANY laws why the market will protect us!
Gullible people will believe anything. The thing about net neutrality legislation, is that it protects even those idiots from being able to watch Fox News online. Without it, a so-called "liberal" ISP could decide to shut down access to FOX news. This is a perfect example of spin designed to take a civil liberties issue and suppress it by claiming it does the exact opposite of what the bill actually says. This is not news, it's a blatant LIE about net neutrality, and an attack on freedom.
Get over it! So Fox sees it from a right wing perspective..so the he'll what. All news outlets have their tone. MSNBC is obviously left and that's ok... CNN trends to the center.. So Fox has a conservative point of view. Get over it..
I find it ironic that someone with the channel name "LiberalViewer" has their panties all in a bunch about "unbiased" reporting...and a weak argument for bias at that.
A weak argument? Read up on network neutrality. They portrayed it as the exact opposite of what it is. NN does not regulate what you can or cannot view online. It makes it illegal for your ISP to dictate those things for you.
@mcoop221 No it isn't. net neutrality is about preventing comcast from controlling what you can view. It allows blogs (you know what everyone uses to complain about everything) to exist.
@vargulf19 blogs already exist, LiberalViewer a;ready exists. so why do we need government regulation on the internet if its not broken? watch 'End Game" then research and make up your own mind. the 2 party system is a distraction to pit us against each other. There are many Americans with good intentions who love this country however we are working against each other for some reason ... (can you say divide and conquer)
@yerk3 --True Capitalism will take care of it. We need to STOP being such a sissy prissy nanny state. STOP making so many laws and STOP allowing the govenmnet to trample on our rights! More government equals less freedom. Any idiot who can put two brain-cells together can figure that one out.
The only powerful one out there anymore IS the government!
@mcoop221 "True Capitalism" is a pipe dream. Unregulated markets lead to corruption. The "invisible hand of the market" is a myth, there is only greed.
@mcoop221 "Try it sometime?" We already have. It was called the 19th century. Small children were put to work in factories where they worked for a penny a day and were always in danger of falling into the gaping, open gear systems of one of the machines and having their arms ripped off by the gears. Meat packers fell off of slippery catwalks and into rendering vats full of boiling lard, where they were deep-fried alive.
@mcoop221 How did they "become what they used to despise?" The only people who seem to "despise" them are the corporate crooks who long for the days when they could work them as long as they wanted for a dollar a day. Now they can just go to China or Taiwan for that. They need unions over there, to replicate how we got rid of seat shops in this country.
@yerk3 Unions served a true purpose when the demands were rational. Now, the only thing they fight for is nonsense wages and out of control pension plans. There are few exceptions, but for the most part unions cost us jobs in this country and are part to blame for why we have a debt driven service based economy. We haven't had a capitalist based economy for many years... the more fitting term would be corporatism. Thanks to post modern unions our economy requires Chinese seat shops.
@tube2a "Nonsense wages?" You mean fair wages? Do you want to be payed less? "Out of control pension plans?" Like the kind that allow you to have a comfortable retirement after a lifetime of hard work, in stead of working at Burger King at 80? Unions don't "cost us jobs," companies that outsource to countries where there are no labor laws, where they can work little children to death for a penny a day are "costing us jobs."
@tube2a Our economy doesn't "require" sweat shops. Companies choose to use them because they are greedy, and don't care about who gets hurt, as long as they can get their money. You seem to think the corporations' hands are tied in this, but they aren't.
@yerk3 Sure, companies can pay each employee 100 dollars per hour and give them 2.5 million dollar pensions.. but they wont be around for long. You dont seem to understand macro or micro economics one bloody bit. YOu think that a company can actually afford to pay everyone 250% more than what theyre budgets allow. Define fair and then get back to me on that one. Yes our SERVICE BASED economy requires cheap products to allow heavy consumption and easy consumer debt to makeUp4thelack of production
@tube2a Isn't that convenient, because as it would happen, nobody is asking for million dollar pensions. Just enough so that they won't be deciding, at 70, whether to spend their money on medicine or a can of Alpo for dinner.
@yerk3 Im not being literal. Its called an exaggerative point. The purpose of unions has been degraded because they have succeeded in creating a fair working environment. But just as any entity which has fulfilled its purpose but does not seek to be deemed irrelevant, it keeps going and becomes a problem by overfilling the cup of its members and subesquentally tampering the competitiveness of our work force and causing fewer people to even have jobs.
@yerk3 Companies generally use cheap labor because the margin between the value of skilled, educated manual labor and the value of cheap unskilled labor is made to broad by POSTMODERN unions. The majority of companies that do send jobs overseas do so because of profit margin risk to their fiscal existence. Also remember that thanks to the lovely free trade act companies are given the ability to place jobs overseas without a monetary penalty. So you can also thank government action as well.
@tube2a What the fuck are "POSTMODERN" unions? Do you mean unions that demand that their workers be paid fairly and treated humanely? Unions have nothing to do with it, companies love cheap labor because they love maximizing profits, whatever the cost. Companies that outsource do not do so out of any legitimate fear for their fiscal existence, they do it so that their CEO can buy a second mansion.
@yerk3 Im talking about unions which continue to demand higher wages and benefits when they already achieved what was just for much of the working class. Yes, your right, there are a lot of CEO's who make an insain amount of money. I think the greater flaw in the current means of CEO payment is that they do not tie their salary and bonuses to the future of the company they run so they setup ways to beef up the company for the short run and setup the company to tank after they leave.
@tube2a You're citing government inaction and calling it "government action." Why wouldn't you love NAFTA? It's just what the corporate masters you love defending so much wanted?
@yerk3 "its just what the corporate masters you love..." when exactly did i ever say corporations were good? I stated the exact opposite. There you go again trying to pin me to some kind of "side" when i have no side.. i only deal with truths. If you want to keep this pinning of sides game then why was it that NAFTA was instituted by bill clinton a democrat? I can answer that one for you but ill just play your game since you dont seem to understand the fallacy of a red vs blue mentality.
@mcoop221 If that's the kind of world you'd like to live in, go to China. Despite what Glenn Beck may tell you, they're communist in name alone these days, it's all unfettered capitalism, the government is actually a corporation, which rents out space to American corporations and lets them do as they please. The result is things that regulation has since gotten rid of in America: sweatshops and unsafe goods due to massive corner cutting.
As long as liberals keep crying foul on fox and conservatives keep crying foul on the rest of the liberally biased media, we all lose. The fact is, they are ALL biased. They are as well all controlled by only a handful of corporations with agenda's that come into play in their portrayal of the "news." If you give a damn about this country, stop being a puppet in this giant play called partisanship. Divided we are conquered, united we will win.
@tube2a The "liberally biased media" is one of those fairy tales that Rush has spoon fed to you. "Liberal media" is one of those buzzwords, like "government takeover," "Communism" and "Obamacare" that are a good indicator that the person using them has not only drunk the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid, but has just slurped down the entire pitcher and has it all over the front of their shirt.
@yerk3 Sure, i would give you links but youtube makes that difficult enough... just google "media is liberal statistic"... you will find plenty of trustworthy sources.
@yerk3 funny, because i put down both conservative and liberal media. Liberal media is a conglomerate of the media minus fox news. Again, you must be frustrated because it is YOU who are playing the partisan game, not i. The only kool-aid i drink IS from a pitcher, not a screen, nor a teleprompter. Glenn beck reveals information im sure people like you are scared of, but i believe he doesn't give the whole picture that includes the neocons and banking elite. I personally find beck to be a tool.
@tube2a No "liberal media" is a boogey man concocted by Rush Limbaugh to portray his extremist right wing views as more to the center, and discredit those who disagreed. The "partisan game" is a reality, we play it whether we want to or not, as long as there are two groups of people with opposing views. Glenn Beck reveals delusions and lies that he thinks you'll believe, in order to secure votes for any right-wing, freedom hating goon his boss supports.
@yerk3 The fact that the media overall is biased liberally falls upon the fact that the considerable majority of those who are in the field of journalism recognize themselves as liberals (or shall i say progressives...). No, the partisan game is pure nonsense. Anyone foolish enough to buy the idea that everyone can just be grouped up on one side or the other is honestly void of the ability to think for themselves.
@yerk3 Its very easy to call glenn a lunatic or a crazy nutt(because for the most part its true), but to say ALL of his material (notably, footage of people's own statements and factual accounts of their actions) are lies is nonsense. I doubt you've taken the time to even see any of his material. Not that you would need to see any of it because im sure your favorite talking heads can decide for you well enough right? Stop being a partisan sheep and wake up already.
Imagine, youre a avid Fox News watcher, or your just turning on the TV even. You would actually believe that net neutrality is AGAINST net neutrality....
@grendelee you see most people think others think like them. We are talking about the same political affiliations that brought us the "patriot act" no? You know the patriot act, the most unpatriotic thing this country was ever done. The Patriot act that provided the executive branch the same powers that where outline the the declaration of independence for reason why The Patriots rebelled? IMHO people really need to ready the declaration of Independence.
@grendelee All we want is the current net neutrality to continue as free as it is. Fox News makes it sound like if there will be CHANGES (WTF???) Already the government gave up net neutrality on wireless services, but the Service Providers want the whole pie.
Fuck AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the ISP's that want to charge you according to their own commercial agendas.
Ha.....FAUX News people are really pitiful....It's almost a race to see which FAUX news anchor loses their journalistic integrity first....When you completely define something wrong or purposefully mislead your viewers, it's time for that news network to leave...Oh, and everything on FAUX News is a talkshow.....not just the O'Reily Factor.....Anyway, I look foward to more FAUX News biases, they get funnier and dumber at the same time....I'm a huge fan!!!
WTF?! They're casting net neutrality as representing the exact opposite of what net neutrality is? That's a new one. Also, what is a Libertarian doing opposing expanded protections for individual freedoms? Why is it that the "conservatives" or "right wing" (both terms are historically inaccurate) fears power abuses by government, which is at least somewhat accountable to the people, but not by mega-corporations that are accountable to no one? So confusing...
What is so amusing about people freaking out over net neutrality is that they claim it will change the internet.
The internet is currently overseen by the FCC. Their power to oversee it is expiring and they want to make sure it continues to be fairly regulated. If net neutrality failed it would change the internet, if it passed it would leave the internet the same.
"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs."
"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs"
What do you think choice and costs are based on now? Meeting consumer demand. Why on earth would you replace that input process with government regulation and bureaucracy?
For the record, the internet *is* as you describe. Most content is delivered by a handful of mega giants eg youtube
ISPs were going to restrict sites unless they had a lot of capital to the point where the only sites that would be worth visiting would be very large ones. They have been fighting for this for some time and would make it impossible for new sites to arise ex. twitter, yahoo and YouTube.
bluezr1. First of all youre confusing your nightmare conspiracy with reality. ISPs are in the business of making money. They make money by exchanging goods and services with the public. If one ISP only delivered a smidgeon of the available content, they'd be beat by other ISPs that provided more for cheaper. What do I base this on? Reality. Why don't ISPs charge the same per kilobyte price they did sold 56k access? What stopped them all from colluding together as you warn us? Free market.
Facts and common sense are my logic. Some find out the story late and jump in without knowledge of the subject they are talking about. At times I feel as though I get decimated by fox news itself.
You base your knowledge on what service you get to your house. The bill has no impact in that direstriction. It is a bill that restricts ISPs from, in your language get paid off. PERIOD
Net neutrality is a bill that basically leaves things the way they are. McCain was against the bill, reason is he got very large contributions from internet service provider like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast within the past few years. This is a guy that doesnt even know how to use email. Basically without net neutrality we would lose all the freedom we have now and would wind up restricting our freedom of speech. Why some of you oppose this is beyond me.
bluezr1, you could not be more wrong. Net neutrality *is* government control of a voluntary system. Its the free market that created Youtube, Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Youtube, etc,etc. Net neutrality *is* restriction of freedom of speech. Its not restriction when you have to negotiate a price with a private property owner to use their service. Sheeze.
Why is internet access 1,000 times faster than in 1994 but not 1,000 times more expensive btw? The Market. These laws *are* fascist.
Actually, rbairos1, it is because the internet was not as widely used back then as it is by everyone today. By the way, Net Neutrality is I think regulating the Internet so it can be freely used by everyone and stuff....how is that fascist? Last I checked, America was founded on fairness, e.g. "All men are created equally." Unless, of course, Thomas Jefferson was a fascist, in which case, you would be correct.
darknut.. Implementing laws so people can use *your* private property freely is a form of communism, not protection of individual rights or property rights. "All men are created equal" refers to the individuals inalienable natural rights, not free access to everyone elses 'stuff'. Please don't re-invent Thomas Jefferson again, its very disrespectful.
You think Net Neutrality protects freedom of speech, by having the government *FORCE* private property owners (ISPs) to allow you to use their service as you see fit, and not on the owners terms? What do you think protection of free speech means? Its means protection from government threat or favortism. If you cant negotiate a better price, suck it up. Again, ISPs are about a thousand times faster for the same price as 1994. Shouldn't they all have colluded to keep the price higher? Think.
"Just to correct you AOL was $9.99 per month back in 1994. A high pseed connection these days go for around $60 per month."
Boy, you don't give people here much credit do you. You can get a dialup connection for $5 bucks a month (which is still about 4 times faster than AOL's 1994 14.4k modems). And for the $60 you quote, you forget to mention its about *** 500 times faster **** than 1994 offers. Nice try at hiding the facts.
That being said, please explain why ISPs haven't charged 500 times more for what they offered in 1994, or why you think customers wouldn't switch to the first competitor who didn't throttle most websites. But more importantly than that, tell me why *you* have the right to legally dictate what services private individuals will offer to the public. They're not allowed to give premium service to higher paying clients, but are allowed to closeup shop entirely? Net neutrality is populist garbage.
You keep going about what service you get to your house? Do you even know what net neutrality is? This wasnt pulled out of thin air; ISPs wanted to start charging web sites a fee, the more money you have the faster your service.
First of all, net neutrality debates started when ISPs wanted to throttle movie transfers since a relatively small portion of users took most of the bandwidth. It also came as a result of ISPs wanting to charge more for new and better services. You know, like Fedex vs USPS, taxis vs bus system, tolled express lanes vs congested highways etc. If you think banning new premium services means equal service for all, then you're right. Equal stagnant service for all.
@rbairos1 no they wanted to slow down the competitors of their parent companies as well. That means you will run smooth with an airline site that has ties to your ISP and the one it does not will get slow service. Premium service needs to offer something NEW, not the equivalent of a bouncer waiting outside a club saying which people can get in or not.
What evidence do you have that ISPs will suddenly stop caring about being competitive to stay in business? You do realize thats how companies survive?
Recall *all* ISPs used to charge about $45 for
0.144 megabps not that many years ago. (instead of the 10 or more you can order today). They did not band together to 'screw us' by keeping it at that speed.
They compete against other for our business as all companies must. That's how free markets work.
All net neutrallity does is prevent ISP's from blocking access to sites they don't want you to see. The government wants to keep net neutrality because the internet is an important avenue for free speech. Do you seriously believe what you're arguing? that net neutrality is a bad thing and we would all be better off if our ISPs (which in many areas are monopolies if you want broadband) could pick and choose which sites we can go to? How is net neutrality hurting us exactly?
Derrick. If an ISP is privately owned, then government imposing laws saying what they can and cant broadcast is anti free speech. You do not have the right to put whatever *you* wish on the front cover of the NY Times for example. You must negotiate with the NY Times. That is what free speech is, ability to choice how to speak free from *government* (ie. physical force and threat).
In the case of net neutrality, the government is saying that people can say anything on the internet or do anything on the internet. The government isn't saying that there are things people "cant" broadcast. That would be getting rid of net neutrallity. The only thing that costs ISPs money is bandwidth, that is, supplying a given number of kb/s per customer. Blocking certain sites or net programs wont control their costs in any way, but it would hurt free speech.
"The government isn't saying that there are things people 'cant' broadcast."
Of course there is! You have the right to not broadcast anything at all, if you own that channel of communication.
"The only thing that costs ISPs money is bandwidth".
First of all, its none of your or the government's concern how a private business maximizes (or minimizes) its profit. Secondly if an ISP wanted to broadcast nothing but jewish satanic grandmother web traffic 24/7 so be it.
What is it you think that the government is saying that people can't broadcast? In your example the ISP would be limiting their content to only jewish satanic grandmother web traffic, not the government. In your example the government has not said that there are any sites the ISP can't show, the ISP has chosen to do that, in your example. Explain to me how the government would be blocking content under net neutrality.
@DerrickBlank. In the Satanic Granny ISP example, the government is disallowing said entrepreneurs from keeping their own hand built ISP exclusive to the views they wish to represent. Why do you think forcing unwanted communication through a private person/persons is any less oppressive than banning speech they want communicated? Freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain silent on certain topics obviously. Do you not understand this?
The government wants net neutrality for the same reason Comcast can't block Direct tv commercials. Its unfair buisness practices, and Comcast isnt hosting the content, the networks are. Comcast would simply be delivering it. Do you think the government should allow Comcast to block that. If ISPs should not be forced to serve certain web publishers, by allowing access to a site (which the ISP doesnt even own) say, a conservative blogger's site, should restaurants not be forced to serve Jews?
"should restaurants not be forced to serve Jews? "
*Obviously* not if they don't want to. Restaurants aren't things. They are people. People decide with whom they wish to interact with, not you.
If somebody has something which I want, but they do not wish to give it to me, for any amount of money I offer, than what right have I to take it from them at gun point? (govt enforcement) I have no inherent rights to take things that belong to others if they do not wish to trade it with me. Man...
Okay so if I have something you want, say, food from my restaurant, and you offer me the listed price on the menu, plus extra, I can still say "Nope, sorry, I wont sell it to you because you are a Jew. It is my right as a private citizen."
"I just ask the restaurant question because I'm curious how far you are willing to take this free market anything-goes buisness practaces ideology"
Its not "anything goes" by a long shot. Societal laws should be built on *voluntary* interactions, not one person's wishes forcing another to act at gunpoint. (Such as going to jail for not trading with a particular person or persons you choose not to). That would be barbaric. Sounds like you're the one subscribing to the 'anything goes' ideology.
Okay so again you are saying the government can't step in and say you have to sell to a person if you don't want to, even if it is because they are black or jewish. I bring this up again because in our country, if you don't sell to this person because of their race your buisness gets shut down (or you go to jail, I see you are saying thats what happens, not sure I've heard that I'd like to see an example).
I'm not saying the government cannot intervene in such a case, I'm saying they have no moral right to do so.
For what its worth, there are countless examples of discriminatory hiring practices: Women cannot be hired as Roman Catholic priests. Men are generally not hired as front line workers in abused women shelters. Republicans are not hired to canvas for the Democratic party. You cannot be president before age 35. The elderly are not hired as exotic dancers, etc, etc, etc.
Horrible analogy. The NY times hosts the content in their newspaper. They pay for the newspaper's paper, ink, journalists salary's etc. ISPs don't host content. They don't host youtube or ebay. Ebay has their own servers, so does youtube. In your analogy, The mail services (like UPS) that deliver the papers to their destination would be like the ISPs. No mail carrier on the planet tells companies "we wont ship your freight because we dont like your politics." There would be an uproar.
Fine, they will, they're called UPS, the US postal service, and FEDEX. All of them will be happy to deliver it to you, after all each of them will deliver bundles of NY times papers to vendors around the world.
"Fine, they will, they're called UPS, the US postal service, and FEDEX. All of them will be happy to deliver it to you, after all each of them will deliver bundles of NY times papers to vendors around the world. "
Actually Fedex and UPS are not allowed to use people's mailboxes nor deliver non-urgent material such as a newspaper daily to someone. Its against US postal law.
Too much of a cash cow I suppose.
You should soon clue in where the only stable monopolies exist....
You're right they don't use Fedex and UPS. I knew they used carriers, I assumed those were some of them. I looked into it more closely and although those specific thrid party companies dont deliver newspapers, other third party companies (not owned by the newspapers) deliver the papers. The New York Times is no exception. They contract out to carriers who may also have contracts with other papers. Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they.
"Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they."
First of all, you're ignoring my comments about how the State is enforcing a monopoly barring others from competing in daily non-urgent mail delivery, which is something you obviously care about.
Secondly many companies hold exclusivity agreements with their employees. Freight carriers are no exception.
"Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they."
Thirdly, its none of your business with whom another person decides to trade with. You yourself obviously favor some in your circles more than others. Why do you reserve your best resources for your own children and not mine? Why do you invite some to dinner and not others? Why did you marry one woman and not the others? Discrimination is part of life. To illegalize any part of it is rubbish.
You'll claim that personal interactions are simply not what you meant when you spoke about discrimination. Youre talking about economic decisions. However I'll simply reply that the choice of marriage and who raises you affects an individual just as much if not more than simple economic transactions. The whole notion of anti discriminatory law is completely self contradictory and morally absurd.
"No mail carrier on the planet tells companies "we wont ship your freight because we dont like your politics." There would be an uproar. "
Only by self-entitled people like you who think you have some god given right to demand two outside parties include you in their circle against their will. Do you even realize how long it took for the government to 'allow' Fedex and UPS to delivery mail? It has to be considered 'urgent' and they cant even use your mailbox. Hypocrites...
So you're saying that UPS, the Postal Service, and FEDEX all have people that they won't serve due to that person's politics? Or are you just going on an unrelated rant? It is the government's job to look out for each and every person in the US to make sure that they are not being discriminated against. This idea that the US government sets out to hurt people is unfounded and based on untested "free market" theory. Last time I checked, anarchys don't work out too well.
"It is the government's job to look out for each and every person in the US to make sure that they are not being discriminated against."
Its the governments job to make sure people are protected from fraud, violence and theft. "Discrimination" is an illigitimate government protection as its *entirely* subjective. I wouldn't hire a republican to write speeches for the Democratic party. Its an individuals perogative to prioritize their criteria for making a decision definitely not yours!
I'm not sure what you're saying here as it pertains to what I was talking about. I was talking about buisnesses descriminating against customers, not buisnesses deciding not to hire people who are unqualified. Seriously these are apples and oranges. I like analogies but only when they are relevant.
""I'm not sure what you're saying here as it pertains to what I was talking about. I was talking about buisnesses descriminating against customers, not buisnesses deciding not to hire people who are unqualified""
Anti-discriminatory laws are basically others deciding how *you* must prioritize your value system when deciding what services or property *of your own* to share with others, under penalty of imprisonment or worse. They're immoral.
Net neutrality = state control??? Thats like saying freedom = slavery. They are opposites. Now the chinese government regulates the internet by imposing something that is the opposite of net neutrality. The Chinese government controls what content the Chinese people can and can't see. They block some content, the way ISPs would be able to if there were no net neutrality.
Derrick. I find your youtube blog very one sided. How about I have the government force you to host a number of anti-net neutrality videos? After all, won't that be protecting my free speech?
And as for your monopoly boogey man, realize the only stable monopolies are government enforced. If you want a real example of broadband monopolies come visit Canada.
ISPs don't "host" content. Content like this is hosted on youtube's servers. So the existence of this site or any other site is not costing your ISP or my ISP one cent. By monopolies in broadband internet I was talking about the fact that in a given region there is usually only 1 broadband provider (whatever the local cable company is). Some areas also have fios available, but that gives you 2 whole companies to choose from for those who are even that lucky. ISPs only provide bandwidth.
"Large American areas"? How about small American neighborhoods where people actually live. In those neighborhoods there are 1, 2 at most broadband providers. And what if they both decide to block access to conservative websites? At that point it is impossible to access that media. This is whats known as a market failure. The purpose of the government regulating the private market is to correct market failures.
@DerrickBlank "In those neighborhoods there are 1, 2 at most broadband providers. And what if they both decide to block access to conservative websites? "
Sheese. Name *one* area in which a non government enforced monopoly did not succumb to its competition given such horrible service plans as described in your scenario.
So you acknowledge that these companies are monopolies, government- made or otherwise. So are you saying these monopolies, these government-produced monopolies, should be able to control your web content?
Actually there is something stopping more competition, its called existing infrastructure. Cable companies (in this case there is always only 1 available per neighborhood) own the cable lines on the telephone poles. Now you could have 10 different companies putting 10 differrent cable lines on the same pole just to ensure that people can get to the sites that they want to. This would be rediculous. It is the governments job to intervene. You see we don't live in anarchy, so this is preventable
"you could have 10 different companies putting 10 differrent lines on the same pole just to ensure that people can get to the sites that they want to...It is the governments job to intervene. You see we don't live in anarchy, so this is preventable."
I see, this is why Somalia has one of the most accessible telecommunication systems in all of Sub-saharan Africa even without a govt. Your nightmare scenario does not happen as it ignores all market pressures. Stop giving false predictions.
China is a good example of state controlled internet. Our government is going to great lengths to make sure no one can control what you can and can't see.
Derrick writes: "Our government is going to great lengths to make sure no one can control what you can and can't see."
If the private owner of a device or service cannot peacefully decide who can and cannot use their *own* property then the difference between US and Chinese government internet involvement is in degree only..
They can peacfully decide who uses their service or "property" under net neutrality. Anyone who pays for it can use it (the customer using the internet at his/her home/office. Everyone knows that. who is it you think the government is forcing these ISPs to serve for free?
"Net neutrality wouldn't even allow ISPs to charge for faster routes"-- Now you're making me think you don't even know what net neutrality is. We have net neutrality right now, and broadband companies can charge more money for faster service. Comcast has regular broadband service, and a faster broadband service that costs more money because it uses more of their bandwidth. Net neutrality only deals with whether ISPs should be allowed to block internet content from their users.
"'Net neutrality wouldn't even allow ISPs to charge for faster routes'-- Now you're making me think you don't even know what net neutrality is"
As proposed here (and Im sure there are analogs in the States) "Net Neutrality" would bar an ISP from restructuring data flow based on the content in order to provide realtime services such as on demand movie streaming etc.
I apologize, I thought you were saying that ISPs wouldnt be able to charge for faster routes to the entire internet, not provide faster access to some sites and slower access to others (which i now think is what you were saying). I think it's naive to assume that they would restructure data flow to provide faster video streams. If they wanted they could block certain videos alltogether if it went against their ideology. And as you said, some of these companies are government made monopolies.
You should also keep in mind that the computer science research at DARPA (a government agency) led to those researchers creating what is today known as the internet. That's right, your sacred free market didn't even create the internet, the government did.
"the computer science research at DARPA (a government agency) led to those researchers creating what is today known as the internet. That's right, your sacred free market didn't even create the internet, the government did."
Spare me. The free market took a military project, increased the bandwidth about 10,000 times and redefined the way the world operates. Pretty much everything about the *Web* is defined by non-govt organizations. Why not go back to Marconi and Bell and base it on that?
Are you aware of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991? The act produced the National Information Infrastructure or "information super highway" as it was called then.
"Are you aware of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.."
Yes Al Gore invented the internet. However the point is you do not require a government forcing you to do what you voted them to do in the first place, if there is genuine market pressure. Somalia, for all its war torn problems, is an embarrassing counter example to your inference that the State is necessary to deliver these types of goods in an efficient manner.
Not telling the story using applicable terms while substituting other terms is not news, it's partisan.
JTurner427 5 months ago
hold on... are they agreeing with McCain or are they disagreeing with him? they mention that big government is trying to regulate the internet, which would obviously be what net neutrality is fighting against, but McCain makes it sound evil? i'm confused.........
WowUrFcknHxC 8 months ago
The net seems to be doing fine as is without the government sticking their mitts into it. Like everything else, they dress it up with pretty words so the most gullible will fall for it... 'Net Neutrality'.... Maybe its a good idea, maybe it's not. But while we have people in control who think Hugo Chavez is a good role model of government leadership, I will never be comfortable letting them have ANY say in ANY form of media.
Metool2 1 year ago
@Metool2 You know it would be good if you actually looked up the definition of net nutrality before deciding who the bad guys are on this issue.
Hint - Net neutrality is the polar opposite to what's described in the fox report. It is designed to keep the net operating as it currently does by making it illegal for ISP's to extract payments from (say) youtube by throttling traffic based on content. Basically it's an anti-extortion law.. - And yes I am a computer scientist.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 yes, because we all know how much trouble we're having with businesses doing that right now that we need a law passed to stop it! Face it, there is no problem, there likely won't be a problem... and if there is? Then maybe we can address it. However in this case its passing more laws, with stricter control (while hiding behind pretty words like 'neutrality' and 'protection from big businesses') that will only hinder development.. and yes, I too am an IT professional.
Metool2 1 year ago
@Metool2 You said yourself "maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not", my objection is not about judging the idea on it's merits (or lack of), my objection is about the deliberate lies that are in the Fox report, it is by definition propoganda. Also if you believe in judging an idea on it's merits then the belief that regulation is inherently a "bad thing" is just pure nonesense, for example who in their right mind would want to deregulate murder or rape?.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Assuming noone ever committed murder or rape in the first place, why would there be a need to create laws determining the maximum/minimum amount of people in any given area to deter/prevent it? The true liars are those who paint it as anything other than a mindless unnecessary control grab by the government. They are creating a problem that doesn't exist, and offering up a 'solution' that's not needed, that just so happens to give them more regulatory powers
Metool2 1 year ago
@Metool2 Whatever, I have better things to do than argue with a Fox zombie.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Metool2 Assuming noone ever committed murder or rape in the first place, why would there be a need to create laws ---So a good idea would be to wait for someone to rape or murder someone before deciding we'd like a rule against it? That makes no sense. It's perfectly reasonable for us as a society to anticipate what would be a problem and try prevent it. In the case of Net Neutrality we don't want a handful of corporations drowning out the voices of individuals. So it's a good idea.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@Metool2 "Face it, there is no problem, there likely won't be a problem." What on Earth are you basing that on? If Comcast has a chance to stop any net traffic that might make comcast or any of it's advertisers look bad or not agree with the political agenda of comcast, you think they won't do it? You trust corporations that much? And don't think the "free market" will take care of that there aren't a whole lot of choices for the average consumer.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 Yet they haven't. They haven't stopped net traffic to anyone. I don't know of any cases that has. Like I said, they're just creating a false problem so they can give you a solution they wanted to implement anyway. 'Net Neutrality' wouldn't protect you from anything, because there is nothing to be protected from, if Comcast could stop net traffic you think they wouldn't have done it by now? Aren't corporations untrustworthy? Compared to the government which is flawless?
Metool2 1 year ago
@sinistar99 It also ignores that the restrictions and regulations forced upon internet companies would only harm the providers, forcing them to give up bandwidth to 'intellectual liberationists' sharing illegal movie torrents through p2p networks while crowding out other customers who would use it in tele conferencing or the like. These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it.
Metool2 1 year ago
@Metool2 "These 'regulations' would also de-incentive's innovators from developing new technology to make the most of what they have now, as they couldn't implement it." OMG that is ridiculous.
That's like saying the First Amendment (A Government regulation) de-inscentives innovators from figuring out new ways to ban free speech. And how the hell do you know they havne't "stopped net traffic to anyone?" How could you possibley know that? They're not going to report it on Fox when they do.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@Metool2 The net seems to be doing fine as is without the government sticking their mitts into it. UM the net was originally a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM so not really. Also if they do just fine then what's wrong with having a rule about it? If no one committed murder would it be so bad to have a law on the books against murder? And why would anyone be against that law unless they intended to break it?
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 Excellent point.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@Metool2 "I will never be comfortable letting them have ANY say in ANY form of media."
So you're uncomfortable with the First Amendment? Maybe we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment too so the government "get's it's mits off our right to bear arms." lol!
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 ... So you're saying getting rid of the right to free speech means getting rid of government control? Yeah, that abouts meshes with the rest of your arguements. "Well, clearly if we need more freedom we need to let the government control more things! We're only safe when politicians get to decide everything. They're more honest and trustworthy."
Metool2 1 year ago
blogs already exist, LiberalViewer a;ready exists. so why do we need government regulation on the internet if its not broken? watch 'End Game" then research and make up your own mind. the 2 party system is a distraction to pit us against each other. There are many Americans with good intentions who love this country however we are working against each other for some reason ... (can you say divide and conquer)
dnboland 1 year ago
Shit let's just say fuck technology ... And let's see how fucked up this world will get .... Now don't act surprised this is just more of the New World Order.... Ps... hackers will prevail ... And I will be behind them all the way .... Wiki leaks is just the be gaining to expose a lot of fuckery......
ceez561 1 year ago
what liberal nonsense, its just more government control. the net works just fine as it is.
LiamCareyBrown 1 year ago
@LiamCareyBrown The net works fine just as it is... and Net Neutrality would keep it that way. Government control is We the People control. You're either gonna have Government control or Corporate control. Hint: One has a constitution and Bill of Rights and the other does not.
sinistar99 1 year ago
Net neutrality.. Give govt controll of net neutrality instead of letting the market protect it... Hmm? China's government controlls the internet there. I wonder why anti Chinese government websites get censored? I wonder why google is censored? Im sure it's for the protection of the people no doubt...
panzerkilla 1 year ago
@panzerkilla you clearly don't understand what net neutrality actually is...
taytaydebrizzle 1 year ago
@taytaydebrizzle You clearly don't Know how markets work.
panzerkilla 1 year ago
@panzerkilla the government is not trying to censor the internet, they are trying to keep internet providers from censoring the internet
taytaydebrizzle 1 year ago
@taytaydebrizzle I'm sure they are not.. Our government has totally earned our trust..
panzerkilla 1 year ago
@panzerkilla actually i trust the government more on this issue, because it is their job to look out for the best interests of the american people, rather than large corporations who are solely motivated by profit. the fact that you even say "give government control of net neutrality" shows your ignorance on this issue, because net neutrality is the concept of the government not allowing companies to give priority to certain internet users. corporations could not "control net neutrality"
taytaydebrizzle 1 year ago
@panzerkilla I'm sure they are not.. Our government has totally earned our trust.. I trust the Government a hellofa lot more than I trust ENRON.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@panzerkilla The Market protect it? Hahahaha yeah the market really protects our rights doesn't it. Great example... Maybe we shouldn't have ANY laws why the market will protect us!
sinistar99 1 year ago
BAN NET NEUTRALITY KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY INTERNET
BAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY SPEECH.
HURR AMURIKA
peapodsss 1 year ago
@peapodsss BAN NET NEUTRALITY KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY INTERNET
BAN THE FIRST AMENDMENT KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY SPEECH. YES Thank you someone gets it! Finally!
sinistar99 1 year ago
Gullible people will believe anything. The thing about net neutrality legislation, is that it protects even those idiots from being able to watch Fox News online. Without it, a so-called "liberal" ISP could decide to shut down access to FOX news. This is a perfect example of spin designed to take a civil liberties issue and suppress it by claiming it does the exact opposite of what the bill actually says. This is not news, it's a blatant LIE about net neutrality, and an attack on freedom.
bigglebunny 1 year ago 4
Get over it! So Fox sees it from a right wing perspective..so the he'll what. All news outlets have their tone. MSNBC is obviously left and that's ok... CNN trends to the center.. So Fox has a conservative point of view. Get over it..
Blit67 1 year ago
done
godsplan4thechildren 1 year ago
I find it ironic that someone with the channel name "LiberalViewer" has their panties all in a bunch about "unbiased" reporting...and a weak argument for bias at that.
logicaldrive 1 year ago
@logicaldrive if 'Fox "News" ' would call it self 'The Conservative Viewer' all would be fine
wildhias 1 year ago 4
@wildhias Valid point! Love that idea...
logicaldrive 1 year ago
@logicaldrive
A weak argument? Read up on network neutrality. They portrayed it as the exact opposite of what it is. NN does not regulate what you can or cannot view online. It makes it illegal for your ISP to dictate those things for you.
ztkm1 1 year ago
so which news organization honestly reported this issue??? someone send me a link....thanks
erichon00 1 year ago
McCain is a dick. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't spreading bull* to the public.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
Those are some old computers Fox News shows 02:25-02:40
NewsPoliticsInfo 1 year ago
That;s because that's what it is; a big gov power grab!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 No it isn't. net neutrality is about preventing comcast from controlling what you can view. It allows blogs (you know what everyone uses to complain about everything) to exist.
vargulf19 1 year ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@vargulf19 blogs already exist, LiberalViewer a;ready exists. so why do we need government regulation on the internet if its not broken? watch 'End Game" then research and make up your own mind. the 2 party system is a distraction to pit us against each other. There are many Americans with good intentions who love this country however we are working against each other for some reason ... (can you say divide and conquer)
dnboland 1 year ago
@vargulf19 not jsut comcast, but charter and at&t and verizon as well...
WowUrFcknHxC 8 months ago
@mcoop221 Safeguarding free speech is a "power grab?" What an inside out world you must live in.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Anytime the government get's involved, it's not to safe guard it. Stop making laws and regulations and that protects it!!!!!!!!!
THAT'S what kind of world I live in. Try it sometime!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 Whenever the government doesn't regulate, the powerful abuse and exploit the powerless.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 --True Capitalism will take care of it. We need to STOP being such a sissy prissy nanny state. STOP making so many laws and STOP allowing the govenmnet to trample on our rights! More government equals less freedom. Any idiot who can put two brain-cells together can figure that one out.
The only powerful one out there anymore IS the government!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 "True Capitalism" is a pipe dream. Unregulated markets lead to corruption. The "invisible hand of the market" is a myth, there is only greed.
yerk3 1 year ago
@mcoop221 "Try it sometime?" We already have. It was called the 19th century. Small children were put to work in factories where they worked for a penny a day and were always in danger of falling into the gaping, open gear systems of one of the machines and having their arms ripped off by the gears. Meat packers fell off of slippery catwalks and into rendering vats full of boiling lard, where they were deep-fried alive.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3
UNIONS!!! They worked before they became what they use to despise!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 How did they "become what they used to despise?" The only people who seem to "despise" them are the corporate crooks who long for the days when they could work them as long as they wanted for a dollar a day. Now they can just go to China or Taiwan for that. They need unions over there, to replicate how we got rid of seat shops in this country.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Unions served a true purpose when the demands were rational. Now, the only thing they fight for is nonsense wages and out of control pension plans. There are few exceptions, but for the most part unions cost us jobs in this country and are part to blame for why we have a debt driven service based economy. We haven't had a capitalist based economy for many years... the more fitting term would be corporatism. Thanks to post modern unions our economy requires Chinese seat shops.
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a "Nonsense wages?" You mean fair wages? Do you want to be payed less? "Out of control pension plans?" Like the kind that allow you to have a comfortable retirement after a lifetime of hard work, in stead of working at Burger King at 80? Unions don't "cost us jobs," companies that outsource to countries where there are no labor laws, where they can work little children to death for a penny a day are "costing us jobs."
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Also.. i am not surprised that you did not address my points regarding partisanship, media bias, and glenn beck. Dont play focus fire now ;).
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a Our economy doesn't "require" sweat shops. Companies choose to use them because they are greedy, and don't care about who gets hurt, as long as they can get their money. You seem to think the corporations' hands are tied in this, but they aren't.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Sure, companies can pay each employee 100 dollars per hour and give them 2.5 million dollar pensions.. but they wont be around for long. You dont seem to understand macro or micro economics one bloody bit. YOu think that a company can actually afford to pay everyone 250% more than what theyre budgets allow. Define fair and then get back to me on that one. Yes our SERVICE BASED economy requires cheap products to allow heavy consumption and easy consumer debt to makeUp4thelack of production
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a Isn't that convenient, because as it would happen, nobody is asking for million dollar pensions. Just enough so that they won't be deciding, at 70, whether to spend their money on medicine or a can of Alpo for dinner.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Im not being literal. Its called an exaggerative point. The purpose of unions has been degraded because they have succeeded in creating a fair working environment. But just as any entity which has fulfilled its purpose but does not seek to be deemed irrelevant, it keeps going and becomes a problem by overfilling the cup of its members and subesquentally tampering the competitiveness of our work force and causing fewer people to even have jobs.
tube2a 1 year ago
@yerk3 Companies generally use cheap labor because the margin between the value of skilled, educated manual labor and the value of cheap unskilled labor is made to broad by POSTMODERN unions. The majority of companies that do send jobs overseas do so because of profit margin risk to their fiscal existence. Also remember that thanks to the lovely free trade act companies are given the ability to place jobs overseas without a monetary penalty. So you can also thank government action as well.
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a What the fuck are "POSTMODERN" unions? Do you mean unions that demand that their workers be paid fairly and treated humanely? Unions have nothing to do with it, companies love cheap labor because they love maximizing profits, whatever the cost. Companies that outsource do not do so out of any legitimate fear for their fiscal existence, they do it so that their CEO can buy a second mansion.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Im talking about unions which continue to demand higher wages and benefits when they already achieved what was just for much of the working class. Yes, your right, there are a lot of CEO's who make an insain amount of money. I think the greater flaw in the current means of CEO payment is that they do not tie their salary and bonuses to the future of the company they run so they setup ways to beef up the company for the short run and setup the company to tank after they leave.
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a You're citing government inaction and calling it "government action." Why wouldn't you love NAFTA? It's just what the corporate masters you love defending so much wanted?
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 "its just what the corporate masters you love..." when exactly did i ever say corporations were good? I stated the exact opposite. There you go again trying to pin me to some kind of "side" when i have no side.. i only deal with truths. If you want to keep this pinning of sides game then why was it that NAFTA was instituted by bill clinton a democrat? I can answer that one for you but ill just play your game since you dont seem to understand the fallacy of a red vs blue mentality.
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a outsourcing is the source of job loss in America.
803brando 1 year ago
@803brando "..is THE source" no, its A source of job loss and im sorry but thats kind of a captain obvious statement. What is your point exactly?
tube2a 1 year ago
@mcoop221 If that's the kind of world you'd like to live in, go to China. Despite what Glenn Beck may tell you, they're communist in name alone these days, it's all unfettered capitalism, the government is actually a corporation, which rents out space to American corporations and lets them do as they please. The result is things that regulation has since gotten rid of in America: sweatshops and unsafe goods due to massive corner cutting.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit!
You really need to learn what Communism is if that's your definition.
Wow!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 My definition happens to be correct, whether Glenn Beck agrees or not.
yerk3 1 year ago
WOW... thanks, always wanted to use that share function someday : )
FlamingCuntLips 1 year ago
As long as liberals keep crying foul on fox and conservatives keep crying foul on the rest of the liberally biased media, we all lose. The fact is, they are ALL biased. They are as well all controlled by only a handful of corporations with agenda's that come into play in their portrayal of the "news." If you give a damn about this country, stop being a puppet in this giant play called partisanship. Divided we are conquered, united we will win.
tube2a 2 years ago
@tube2a The "liberally biased media" is one of those fairy tales that Rush has spoon fed to you. "Liberal media" is one of those buzzwords, like "government takeover," "Communism" and "Obamacare" that are a good indicator that the person using them has not only drunk the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid, but has just slurped down the entire pitcher and has it all over the front of their shirt.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3
If you don't think this media is liberally biased then you live in a fairytale world.
Explain how they can always cover one side of any given story???
I can't wait!!!
mcoop221 1 year ago
@mcoop221 If you think the media is liberally biased, you live in a world of delusion controlled by Glenn Beck. Can you give examples?
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 Sure, i would give you links but youtube makes that difficult enough... just google "media is liberal statistic"... you will find plenty of trustworthy sources.
tube2a 1 year ago
@yerk3 funny, because i put down both conservative and liberal media. Liberal media is a conglomerate of the media minus fox news. Again, you must be frustrated because it is YOU who are playing the partisan game, not i. The only kool-aid i drink IS from a pitcher, not a screen, nor a teleprompter. Glenn beck reveals information im sure people like you are scared of, but i believe he doesn't give the whole picture that includes the neocons and banking elite. I personally find beck to be a tool.
tube2a 1 year ago
@tube2a No "liberal media" is a boogey man concocted by Rush Limbaugh to portray his extremist right wing views as more to the center, and discredit those who disagreed. The "partisan game" is a reality, we play it whether we want to or not, as long as there are two groups of people with opposing views. Glenn Beck reveals delusions and lies that he thinks you'll believe, in order to secure votes for any right-wing, freedom hating goon his boss supports.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 The fact that the media overall is biased liberally falls upon the fact that the considerable majority of those who are in the field of journalism recognize themselves as liberals (or shall i say progressives...). No, the partisan game is pure nonsense. Anyone foolish enough to buy the idea that everyone can just be grouped up on one side or the other is honestly void of the ability to think for themselves.
tube2a 1 year ago
@yerk3 Its very easy to call glenn a lunatic or a crazy nutt(because for the most part its true), but to say ALL of his material (notably, footage of people's own statements and factual accounts of their actions) are lies is nonsense. I doubt you've taken the time to even see any of his material. Not that you would need to see any of it because im sure your favorite talking heads can decide for you well enough right? Stop being a partisan sheep and wake up already.
tube2a 1 year ago
China has taken over as the #1 economic superpower and the US will never be the same
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
not yet, but they are #2
russg2415 1 year ago
Imagine, youre a avid Fox News watcher, or your just turning on the TV even. You would actually believe that net neutrality is AGAINST net neutrality....
grendelee 2 years ago 21
@grendelee you see most people think others think like them. We are talking about the same political affiliations that brought us the "patriot act" no? You know the patriot act, the most unpatriotic thing this country was ever done. The Patriot act that provided the executive branch the same powers that where outline the the declaration of independence for reason why The Patriots rebelled? IMHO people really need to ready the declaration of Independence.
masluxx 1 year ago
@grendelee All we want is the current net neutrality to continue as free as it is. Fox News makes it sound like if there will be CHANGES (WTF???) Already the government gave up net neutrality on wireless services, but the Service Providers want the whole pie.
Fuck AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and all the ISP's that want to charge you according to their own commercial agendas.
topthickproducer 1 year ago
Ha.....FAUX News people are really pitiful....It's almost a race to see which FAUX news anchor loses their journalistic integrity first....When you completely define something wrong or purposefully mislead your viewers, it's time for that news network to leave...Oh, and everything on FAUX News is a talkshow.....not just the O'Reily Factor.....Anyway, I look foward to more FAUX News biases, they get funnier and dumber at the same time....I'm a huge fan!!!
darknut79 2 years ago
WTF?! They're casting net neutrality as representing the exact opposite of what net neutrality is? That's a new one. Also, what is a Libertarian doing opposing expanded protections for individual freedoms? Why is it that the "conservatives" or "right wing" (both terms are historically inaccurate) fears power abuses by government, which is at least somewhat accountable to the people, but not by mega-corporations that are accountable to no one? So confusing...
JohannVII 2 years ago
Damn, so much drama!
However the internet is, right now, is the way I want to keep it.
Getting rid of child pornography and such should be more important than a company's paycheck.
MyOverflow 2 years ago
What is so amusing about people freaking out over net neutrality is that they claim it will change the internet.
The internet is currently overseen by the FCC. Their power to oversee it is expiring and they want to make sure it continues to be fairly regulated. If net neutrality failed it would change the internet, if it passed it would leave the internet the same.
Viperzka 2 years ago
we should all watch CNN cause Kanye West's new outbursts or where Obama ate lunch is what is important.
jasonwhy 2 years ago
I love what you are doing!!!
Thank YOU!!!!
kat74n1 2 years ago 2
Obama's a puppet anyway.
lofty49 2 years ago
Look up Printa video on youtube by Christopher Irons.You need to see this!It's BIG news
rassclatirons 2 years ago
"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs."
bluezr1 2 years ago
"Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs"
What do you think choice and costs are based on now? Meeting consumer demand. Why on earth would you replace that input process with government regulation and bureaucracy?
For the record, the internet *is* as you describe. Most content is delivered by a handful of mega giants eg youtube
rbairos1 2 years ago 2
It would have turned into GREED on the internet
bluezr1 2 years ago
ISPs were going to restrict sites unless they had a lot of capital to the point where the only sites that would be worth visiting would be very large ones. They have been fighting for this for some time and would make it impossible for new sites to arise ex. twitter, yahoo and YouTube.
bluezr1 2 years ago
bluezr1. First of all youre confusing your nightmare conspiracy with reality. ISPs are in the business of making money. They make money by exchanging goods and services with the public. If one ISP only delivered a smidgeon of the available content, they'd be beat by other ISPs that provided more for cheaper. What do I base this on? Reality. Why don't ISPs charge the same per kilobyte price they did sold 56k access? What stopped them all from colluding together as you warn us? Free market.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Facts and common sense are my logic. Some find out the story late and jump in without knowledge of the subject they are talking about. At times I feel as though I get decimated by fox news itself.
bluezr1 2 years ago
Comment removed
bluezr1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You base your knowledge on what service you get to your house. The bill has no impact in that direstriction. It is a bill that restricts ISPs from, in your language get paid off. PERIOD
bluezr1 2 years ago
Net neutrality is a bill that basically leaves things the way they are. McCain was against the bill, reason is he got very large contributions from internet service provider like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast within the past few years. This is a guy that doesnt even know how to use email. Basically without net neutrality we would lose all the freedom we have now and would wind up restricting our freedom of speech. Why some of you oppose this is beyond me.
bluezr1 2 years ago
bluezr1, you could not be more wrong. Net neutrality *is* government control of a voluntary system. Its the free market that created Youtube, Amazon, PayPal, Facebook, Youtube, etc,etc. Net neutrality *is* restriction of freedom of speech. Its not restriction when you have to negotiate a price with a private property owner to use their service. Sheeze.
Why is internet access 1,000 times faster than in 1994 but not 1,000 times more expensive btw? The Market. These laws *are* fascist.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Actually, rbairos1, it is because the internet was not as widely used back then as it is by everyone today. By the way, Net Neutrality is I think regulating the Internet so it can be freely used by everyone and stuff....how is that fascist? Last I checked, America was founded on fairness, e.g. "All men are created equally." Unless, of course, Thomas Jefferson was a fascist, in which case, you would be correct.
darknut79 2 years ago
darknut.. Implementing laws so people can use *your* private property freely is a form of communism, not protection of individual rights or property rights. "All men are created equal" refers to the individuals inalienable natural rights, not free access to everyone elses 'stuff'. Please don't re-invent Thomas Jefferson again, its very disrespectful.
rbairos1 2 years ago
You think Net Neutrality protects freedom of speech, by having the government *FORCE* private property owners (ISPs) to allow you to use their service as you see fit, and not on the owners terms? What do you think protection of free speech means? Its means protection from government threat or favortism. If you cant negotiate a better price, suck it up. Again, ISPs are about a thousand times faster for the same price as 1994. Shouldn't they all have colluded to keep the price higher? Think.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Just to correct you, AOL was $9:99 per month back in 1994. A high speed connection these days go for around $60 per month.
bluezr1 2 years ago
"Just to correct you AOL was $9.99 per month back in 1994. A high pseed connection these days go for around $60 per month."
Boy, you don't give people here much credit do you. You can get a dialup connection for $5 bucks a month (which is still about 4 times faster than AOL's 1994 14.4k modems). And for the $60 you quote, you forget to mention its about *** 500 times faster **** than 1994 offers. Nice try at hiding the facts.
rbairos1 2 years ago
That being said, please explain why ISPs haven't charged 500 times more for what they offered in 1994, or why you think customers wouldn't switch to the first competitor who didn't throttle most websites. But more importantly than that, tell me why *you* have the right to legally dictate what services private individuals will offer to the public. They're not allowed to give premium service to higher paying clients, but are allowed to closeup shop entirely? Net neutrality is populist garbage.
rbairos1 2 years ago
You keep going about what service you get to your house? Do you even know what net neutrality is? This wasnt pulled out of thin air; ISPs wanted to start charging web sites a fee, the more money you have the faster your service.
bluezr1 2 years ago
First of all, net neutrality debates started when ISPs wanted to throttle movie transfers since a relatively small portion of users took most of the bandwidth. It also came as a result of ISPs wanting to charge more for new and better services. You know, like Fedex vs USPS, taxis vs bus system, tolled express lanes vs congested highways etc. If you think banning new premium services means equal service for all, then you're right. Equal stagnant service for all.
rbairos1 2 years ago
@rbairos1 no they wanted to slow down the competitors of their parent companies as well. That means you will run smooth with an airline site that has ties to your ISP and the one it does not will get slow service. Premium service needs to offer something NEW, not the equivalent of a bouncer waiting outside a club saying which people can get in or not.
Bigbird5553 2 years ago
bigbird
What evidence do you have that ISPs will suddenly stop caring about being competitive to stay in business? You do realize thats how companies survive?
Recall *all* ISPs used to charge about $45 for
0.144 megabps not that many years ago. (instead of the 10 or more you can order today). They did not band together to 'screw us' by keeping it at that speed.
They compete against other for our business as all companies must. That's how free markets work.
Net neutrality = state control.
rbairos1 2 years ago
LiberalViewer, you should use audacity to clear up your monovoice.
TruthfulChristian 2 years ago
(you replied to the wrong comment).
rbairos1 2 years ago
All net neutrallity does is prevent ISP's from blocking access to sites they don't want you to see. The government wants to keep net neutrality because the internet is an important avenue for free speech. Do you seriously believe what you're arguing? that net neutrality is a bad thing and we would all be better off if our ISPs (which in many areas are monopolies if you want broadband) could pick and choose which sites we can go to? How is net neutrality hurting us exactly?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Derrick. If an ISP is privately owned, then government imposing laws saying what they can and cant broadcast is anti free speech. You do not have the right to put whatever *you* wish on the front cover of the NY Times for example. You must negotiate with the NY Times. That is what free speech is, ability to choice how to speak free from *government* (ie. physical force and threat).
rbairos1 2 years ago
In the case of net neutrality, the government is saying that people can say anything on the internet or do anything on the internet. The government isn't saying that there are things people "cant" broadcast. That would be getting rid of net neutrallity. The only thing that costs ISPs money is bandwidth, that is, supplying a given number of kb/s per customer. Blocking certain sites or net programs wont control their costs in any way, but it would hurt free speech.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"The government isn't saying that there are things people 'cant' broadcast."
Of course there is! You have the right to not broadcast anything at all, if you own that channel of communication.
"The only thing that costs ISPs money is bandwidth".
First of all, its none of your or the government's concern how a private business maximizes (or minimizes) its profit. Secondly if an ISP wanted to broadcast nothing but jewish satanic grandmother web traffic 24/7 so be it.
rbairos1 2 years ago
What is it you think that the government is saying that people can't broadcast? In your example the ISP would be limiting their content to only jewish satanic grandmother web traffic, not the government. In your example the government has not said that there are any sites the ISP can't show, the ISP has chosen to do that, in your example. Explain to me how the government would be blocking content under net neutrality.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
@DerrickBlank. In the Satanic Granny ISP example, the government is disallowing said entrepreneurs from keeping their own hand built ISP exclusive to the views they wish to represent. Why do you think forcing unwanted communication through a private person/persons is any less oppressive than banning speech they want communicated? Freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain silent on certain topics obviously. Do you not understand this?
rbairos1 2 years ago
The government wants net neutrality for the same reason Comcast can't block Direct tv commercials. Its unfair buisness practices, and Comcast isnt hosting the content, the networks are. Comcast would simply be delivering it. Do you think the government should allow Comcast to block that. If ISPs should not be forced to serve certain web publishers, by allowing access to a site (which the ISP doesnt even own) say, a conservative blogger's site, should restaurants not be forced to serve Jews?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"should restaurants not be forced to serve Jews? "
*Obviously* not if they don't want to. Restaurants aren't things. They are people. People decide with whom they wish to interact with, not you.
If somebody has something which I want, but they do not wish to give it to me, for any amount of money I offer, than what right have I to take it from them at gun point? (govt enforcement) I have no inherent rights to take things that belong to others if they do not wish to trade it with me. Man...
rbairos1 2 years ago
Okay so if I have something you want, say, food from my restaurant, and you offer me the listed price on the menu, plus extra, I can still say "Nope, sorry, I wont sell it to you because you are a Jew. It is my right as a private citizen."
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
I just ask the restaurant question because I'm curious how far you are willing to take this free market anything-goes buisness practaces ideology.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"I just ask the restaurant question because I'm curious how far you are willing to take this free market anything-goes buisness practaces ideology"
Its not "anything goes" by a long shot. Societal laws should be built on *voluntary* interactions, not one person's wishes forcing another to act at gunpoint. (Such as going to jail for not trading with a particular person or persons you choose not to). That would be barbaric. Sounds like you're the one subscribing to the 'anything goes' ideology.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Okay so again you are saying the government can't step in and say you have to sell to a person if you don't want to, even if it is because they are black or jewish. I bring this up again because in our country, if you don't sell to this person because of their race your buisness gets shut down (or you go to jail, I see you are saying thats what happens, not sure I've heard that I'd like to see an example).
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
I'm not saying the government cannot intervene in such a case, I'm saying they have no moral right to do so.
For what its worth, there are countless examples of discriminatory hiring practices: Women cannot be hired as Roman Catholic priests. Men are generally not hired as front line workers in abused women shelters. Republicans are not hired to canvas for the Democratic party. You cannot be president before age 35. The elderly are not hired as exotic dancers, etc, etc, etc.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Horrible analogy. The NY times hosts the content in their newspaper. They pay for the newspaper's paper, ink, journalists salary's etc. ISPs don't host content. They don't host youtube or ebay. Ebay has their own servers, so does youtube. In your analogy, The mail services (like UPS) that deliver the papers to their destination would be like the ISPs. No mail carrier on the planet tells companies "we wont ship your freight because we dont like your politics." There would be an uproar.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
""The NY times hosts the content in their newspaper. They pay for the newspaper's paper, ink, journalists salary's etc. ISPs don't host content. "
Fine. I want the NY Times delivery service to deliver my competing newspaper. Everyone's "free speech" protected according to you.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Fine, they will, they're called UPS, the US postal service, and FEDEX. All of them will be happy to deliver it to you, after all each of them will deliver bundles of NY times papers to vendors around the world.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"Fine, they will, they're called UPS, the US postal service, and FEDEX. All of them will be happy to deliver it to you, after all each of them will deliver bundles of NY times papers to vendors around the world. "
Actually Fedex and UPS are not allowed to use people's mailboxes nor deliver non-urgent material such as a newspaper daily to someone. Its against US postal law.
Too much of a cash cow I suppose.
You should soon clue in where the only stable monopolies exist....
rbairos1 2 years ago
You're right they don't use Fedex and UPS. I knew they used carriers, I assumed those were some of them. I looked into it more closely and although those specific thrid party companies dont deliver newspapers, other third party companies (not owned by the newspapers) deliver the papers. The New York Times is no exception. They contract out to carriers who may also have contracts with other papers. Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they."
First of all, you're ignoring my comments about how the State is enforcing a monopoly barring others from competing in daily non-urgent mail delivery, which is something you obviously care about.
Secondly many companies hold exclusivity agreements with their employees. Freight carriers are no exception.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Companies that deliver frieght in the US can't descriminate against customers nor should they."
Thirdly, its none of your business with whom another person decides to trade with. You yourself obviously favor some in your circles more than others. Why do you reserve your best resources for your own children and not mine? Why do you invite some to dinner and not others? Why did you marry one woman and not the others? Discrimination is part of life. To illegalize any part of it is rubbish.
rbairos1 2 years ago
You'll claim that personal interactions are simply not what you meant when you spoke about discrimination. Youre talking about economic decisions. However I'll simply reply that the choice of marriage and who raises you affects an individual just as much if not more than simple economic transactions. The whole notion of anti discriminatory law is completely self contradictory and morally absurd.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"No mail carrier on the planet tells companies "we wont ship your freight because we dont like your politics." There would be an uproar. "
Only by self-entitled people like you who think you have some god given right to demand two outside parties include you in their circle against their will. Do you even realize how long it took for the government to 'allow' Fedex and UPS to delivery mail? It has to be considered 'urgent' and they cant even use your mailbox. Hypocrites...
rbairos1 2 years ago
So you're saying that UPS, the Postal Service, and FEDEX all have people that they won't serve due to that person's politics? Or are you just going on an unrelated rant? It is the government's job to look out for each and every person in the US to make sure that they are not being discriminated against. This idea that the US government sets out to hurt people is unfounded and based on untested "free market" theory. Last time I checked, anarchys don't work out too well.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"It is the government's job to look out for each and every person in the US to make sure that they are not being discriminated against."
Its the governments job to make sure people are protected from fraud, violence and theft. "Discrimination" is an illigitimate government protection as its *entirely* subjective. I wouldn't hire a republican to write speeches for the Democratic party. Its an individuals perogative to prioritize their criteria for making a decision definitely not yours!
rbairos1 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you're saying here as it pertains to what I was talking about. I was talking about buisnesses descriminating against customers, not buisnesses deciding not to hire people who are unqualified. Seriously these are apples and oranges. I like analogies but only when they are relevant.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
""I'm not sure what you're saying here as it pertains to what I was talking about. I was talking about buisnesses descriminating against customers, not buisnesses deciding not to hire people who are unqualified""
Anti-discriminatory laws are basically others deciding how *you* must prioritize your value system when deciding what services or property *of your own* to share with others, under penalty of imprisonment or worse. They're immoral.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Net neutrality = state control??? Thats like saying freedom = slavery. They are opposites. Now the chinese government regulates the internet by imposing something that is the opposite of net neutrality. The Chinese government controls what content the Chinese people can and can't see. They block some content, the way ISPs would be able to if there were no net neutrality.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Derrick. I find your youtube blog very one sided. How about I have the government force you to host a number of anti-net neutrality videos? After all, won't that be protecting my free speech?
And as for your monopoly boogey man, realize the only stable monopolies are government enforced. If you want a real example of broadband monopolies come visit Canada.
rbairos1 2 years ago
ISPs don't "host" content. Content like this is hosted on youtube's servers. So the existence of this site or any other site is not costing your ISP or my ISP one cent. By monopolies in broadband internet I was talking about the fact that in a given region there is usually only 1 broadband provider (whatever the local cable company is). Some areas also have fios available, but that gives you 2 whole companies to choose from for those who are even that lucky. ISPs only provide bandwidth.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"So the existence of this site or any other site is not costing your ISP or my ISP one cent"
Again, not your concern. Perhaps someone wants to build an ISP that only promotes Eco-friendly websites. Its not yours to stop.
"By monopolies in broadband internet I was talking about the fact that in a given region there is usually only 1 broadband provider "
(1) thats wrong for large american areas, and
(2) theres nothing stopping more competition except govt. (like up here).
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Large American areas"? How about small American neighborhoods where people actually live. In those neighborhoods there are 1, 2 at most broadband providers. And what if they both decide to block access to conservative websites? At that point it is impossible to access that media. This is whats known as a market failure. The purpose of the government regulating the private market is to correct market failures.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
@DerrickBlank "In those neighborhoods there are 1, 2 at most broadband providers. And what if they both decide to block access to conservative websites? "
Sheese. Name *one* area in which a non government enforced monopoly did not succumb to its competition given such horrible service plans as described in your scenario.
rbairos1 2 years ago
Comment removed
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
So you acknowledge that these companies are monopolies, government- made or otherwise. So are you saying these monopolies, these government-produced monopolies, should be able to control your web content?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Actually there is something stopping more competition, its called existing infrastructure. Cable companies (in this case there is always only 1 available per neighborhood) own the cable lines on the telephone poles. Now you could have 10 different companies putting 10 differrent cable lines on the same pole just to ensure that people can get to the sites that they want to. This would be rediculous. It is the governments job to intervene. You see we don't live in anarchy, so this is preventable
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"you could have 10 different companies putting 10 differrent lines on the same pole just to ensure that people can get to the sites that they want to...It is the governments job to intervene. You see we don't live in anarchy, so this is preventable."
I see, this is why Somalia has one of the most accessible telecommunication systems in all of Sub-saharan Africa even without a govt. Your nightmare scenario does not happen as it ignores all market pressures. Stop giving false predictions.
rbairos1 2 years ago
China is a good example of state controlled internet. Our government is going to great lengths to make sure no one can control what you can and can't see.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
Derrick writes: "Our government is going to great lengths to make sure no one can control what you can and can't see."
If the private owner of a device or service cannot peacefully decide who can and cannot use their *own* property then the difference between US and Chinese government internet involvement is in degree only..
rbairos1 2 years ago
They can peacfully decide who uses their service or "property" under net neutrality. Anyone who pays for it can use it (the customer using the internet at his/her home/office. Everyone knows that. who is it you think the government is forcing these ISPs to serve for free?
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"They can peacfully decide who uses their service or "property" under net neutrality. Anyone who pays for it can use it."
Net neutrality wouldn't even allow ISPs to charge for faster routes through their network. You have no working knowledge of basic property rights.
rbairos1 2 years ago
"Net neutrality wouldn't even allow ISPs to charge for faster routes"-- Now you're making me think you don't even know what net neutrality is. We have net neutrality right now, and broadband companies can charge more money for faster service. Comcast has regular broadband service, and a faster broadband service that costs more money because it uses more of their bandwidth. Net neutrality only deals with whether ISPs should be allowed to block internet content from their users.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
@DerrickBlank "
"'Net neutrality wouldn't even allow ISPs to charge for faster routes'-- Now you're making me think you don't even know what net neutrality is"
As proposed here (and Im sure there are analogs in the States) "Net Neutrality" would bar an ISP from restructuring data flow based on the content in order to provide realtime services such as on demand movie streaming etc.
rbairos1 2 years ago
I apologize, I thought you were saying that ISPs wouldnt be able to charge for faster routes to the entire internet, not provide faster access to some sites and slower access to others (which i now think is what you were saying). I think it's naive to assume that they would restructure data flow to provide faster video streams. If they wanted they could block certain videos alltogether if it went against their ideology. And as you said, some of these companies are government made monopolies.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
You should also keep in mind that the computer science research at DARPA (a government agency) led to those researchers creating what is today known as the internet. That's right, your sacred free market didn't even create the internet, the government did.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"the computer science research at DARPA (a government agency) led to those researchers creating what is today known as the internet. That's right, your sacred free market didn't even create the internet, the government did."
Spare me. The free market took a military project, increased the bandwidth about 10,000 times and redefined the way the world operates. Pretty much everything about the *Web* is defined by non-govt organizations. Why not go back to Marconi and Bell and base it on that?
rbairos1 2 years ago
Are you aware of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991? The act produced the National Information Infrastructure or "information super highway" as it was called then.
DerrickBlank 2 years ago
"Are you aware of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.."
Yes Al Gore invented the internet. However the point is you do not require a government forcing you to do what you voted them to do in the first place, if there is genuine market pressure. Somalia, for all its war torn problems, is an embarrassing counter example to your inference that the State is necessary to deliver these types of goods in an efficient manner.
rbairos1 2 years ago