In order for politicians to fight this, they have to think of other people besides themselves. I mean, how does this concern them? Theyre rich! They could afford any rates thrown at them. Plus, they probably barely use the internet compared to some of us. Unfortunately, it seems like there are too many inconsiderate politicians out there. It will be an easy battle, but even seemingly easy battles can be made really tough if not enough people are there to fight.
think about this, telephone companies could do the same thing. if they dont like black civil rights groups (for instance) they could choose to not give their members service or charge them more for service. Or companies pay a fee can have addvertisements played when you call thier competition. you wanna call wallgreens, well walmart paid more for thier service so you have to listen to a 30s walmart commercial before you get walgreens pharmacy. the only thing preventing this is gov regulations.
That kinda sounds like a good idea: Why should those who use more Internet be subsidized by those who use less? Bandwidth and usage cost money. It ain't free, esp. to the providers. We don't charge everyone the same for electricity use, do we? Neither for gas, water bills, and so on. Or a host of OTHER things we all use on a regular basis. So why bandwidth? If you use it to do a few low-usage things, get charged less. But if you run a site that uses A LOT, get charged more.
Cenk, next time you wanna justify some certain legislation or mandate, make sure you GET FACTS to back up your assertions. Don't give me hypothetical nonsense about how, "Comcast may charge competitors more or charge users who speak out against them more." NO THEY WON'T. That kind of shit doesn't happen! They don't give a fuck if some random guy in his basement speaks out against 'em. The charging more thing has more to do with ENDING INTERNET SOCIALISM. If you use more bandwith, u'd pay more
Hell, this model sort of IS being put to use by various companies for wireless Internet hotspots. Depending on how much you download per month, you'll pay more or less. Why not apply that to general Internet? Just a thought. But Cenk uses this bs strawman of "comcast screwing over competitors and people it just flat out doesn't like" instead.
@Extra365 Actually the US taxpayers subsidized that infrastructure, i.e. we own it. Comcast and other network providers are being allowed the privilege of making a profit to maintain said network. They ever have a government protected monopoly (this is why you only have one choice of cable provider in most areas). Since the taxpayers paid for this infrastructure, content providers should not be allowed to block anything.
@Extra365 Actually the US taxpayers subsidized that infrastructure, i.e. we own it. Comcast and other network providers are being allowed the privilege of making a profit to maintain said network. They ever have a government protected monopoly (this is why you only have one choice of cable provider in most areas). Since the taxpayers paid for this infrastructure, content providers should not be allowed to block anything.
If you look a little deeper into it too, the American people have actually paid for the cables that these corporations claim to own. The FCC granted the communications companies (AT&T, comcast and so on) a right to rake up their charges to pay for new infrastructure, and a big chunk of that money was just pocketed...
the main thing people need to understand about net neutrality, is that both the big businesses and the government have a vested interest. if big businesses get to police themselves, they will start making backdoor deals among themselves, and the ISP's will throttle rival content for profit. but if the FCC gains oversight, then they will start censoring sites.and anyone who thinks otherwise hasnt been paying attention to the RIAAA cases,among others. anything remotely copyrighted will be blocked.
He is arguing for the Borg, not against it. Once the FCC gets control, it will begin to censor. The censorship will begin with terrible things that we all would agree. But eventually it will mirror T.V. standards.
I like free online porn, so this really could affect me. So many people say porn is bad for a good public image to soccer moms, even though it isn't bad at all. I think the Internet should be owned by the government.
@Meex1989 hell man obama and the govt has no right to nose into what we are doing onthe internet this is america its none of there business if you want to look at porn we should impeach obamas ass
Has their ever been a situation, story, or incident in which Cenk is describing that has actually ever happened? I keep hearing all this scenario stuff about what "could happen", but not examples of what "has happened before".
It's more likely that the government won't like your message and censor it than having comcast charge you more. i dont think any company will censor the internet. government on the other hand...
@DrQuijano they better not they have no right to nose into what we are doing on the internet if our internet gets censored it will be just like china
@TheCrimsonKing09 Well friend, if you recall a month or so back Joe Lieberman, that excellent pro civil rights independent, stated in an interview "well... China has the right to censor and shut down sections of the Internet. I think that we should have that authority as well". This begs the question (as someone else I think stated): how do we stop it?
@TheCrimsonKing09 impeaching obama would make things worse....People would put up so much shit about us being racist or who knows what,but after that,the matter of the fact is nothing will change...most government is corrupt,and it wont be changing for a hell of a long time..sadly
If the FCC gets invovled in the internet then I won't be able to say FUCK SHIT COCK PUSSY FISTED FUCKER or post lewd comments about my darling Ana anymore so I don't know if thats a good plan.
alright this is stupid. because the internet and the World Wide Web, etc wasnt meant to be "controlled" by one person nor nation. Its not suppose to be a privledge, its meant to be a right. to share information.
Why would a conservative led court vote against this? They're the ones that want to decrease government regulation because government is "too big."
If the judge you mention would have voted against this, then I'd say he's not conservative on this issue.
And everyone else: Shut the the hell up about the "mainstream media". Remember, Fox (who created the term for their rivals) is the number one network. They are the main stream media.
I hardly watch the so called main stream media anymore. I use the internet to search for real news without the bias. This ruling is is very scary! The Supreme Court is a joke now. They don't protect anyone but Corporate America. If Obama doesn''t do anything we're screwed once again.
@anitafh1 we were always screwed, obama didnt do anything. Before you argue remember: Bush national deficeit 3 trillion -- Obamas current National Debt 13 trillion and growing
@Zyziz ~ 5 to 10 trillion of obama's debt is directly linked to bush's nightmare hangover. two wars that weren't even counted in bush's budget. losing 750,000 jobs a month when obama took office. the stimulus has worked and we are now creating jobs instead of losing them. turned around in two years. and now conservatives are voting against helping the unemployed with benefits while spending 7 billion on weapons we don't need.
@HBSchool ~ "property rights", yeah, like how americans stole the country in the first place? and how the richest people in the country designed the constitution which property owners were the only one's allowed to vote? which was about 20% of the population. so if you take property by gun or by financial blackmail that makes you the ruler of the empire? you're good with sound bites but empty on substance.
You obviously subscribe to the idea of property rights because you're bitching about property being taken from Native Americans. That being said, what the fuck does suffrage have to do with property rights?
@HBSchool ~ "wtf does suffrage have to do with property"? you're serious? well, for 250 years in this country, "property" was actual people. the free market also gave us 7 day 14 hour work weeks, child labor and indentured servitude. technically, it took government regulation to end 'property suffrage'. corporations ARE NOT people. and you're a foolish dupe to give away more public domain to the greedy few.
What the hell are you talking about Cenk? Comcast can't "Charge" extra to people who speak against them. They would have to charge their own customers more, which would just drive them to Verizon or Qwest. Same with censoring... Comcast can't keep anyone from putting anything "on the internet", they could only block their own customers from connecting to networks they don't like, which would also drive them away.
Actually, in a competitive capitalist North America we live in. Companies can do as they please with their competitiveness. Since Comcast and Shaw (Canadian equal to American Comcast) will have the first fiber-optics network; they then will be providing the best quality, and speed of the internet. Thus, they can jack up their prices to what ever rate they want. Since lower end competitors won't have what Comcast or Shaw has to offer.
The problem with your statement is many cable companies have outright monopolies on entire neighborhoods.
Like where I live. It's insight or go to hell. Dish isn't an option for many people. They are considered unreliable since they are subject to weather. Sometimes a little rain, sometimes some heavy clouds... Sometime the sun itself.
Don't go thinking the competition is really all that diverse.
YYEEEEEEEEES! Internet neutrality finally gone! Now we need control buttons and policy making officials from Microsoft so that business isn't effected on the web. No more downloading from free sites and ruining the gaming, software, music, and entertainment industries. Who knows our cruel comments may somehow not make it to it's destination
We cannot reasonably expect privacy online so already international law is being applied to the Internet. The Constitution need not apply. The internet is about Earth governance. I guess a UN treaty will regulate cyberspace.
Not that I'm aware of. Some Telcos were allowed to surcharge existing customers for "development costs", which seems a bit cheeky.
I can see the argument from both sides.
If I develop some fantastic new app that is hugely popular and bandwith-intensive - and then run it over YOUR network, you have to pay to upgrade in order to manage the traffic whist I just get rich quick.
@billburns2 I disagree. Creating and running companies like Google, Facebook or Hotmail isn't a freeride. People choose the content they want to view and how they want to view it. I choose to use hotmail and also pay my internet provider for the infrastructure and service per month. The main focus the FCC has is controlling content and no government elected or person should be in charge of controlling content on the internet. 21 billion, I thought it was more....
It's a free ride inasmuch as these companies don't contribute towards the networks that they rely on. Your ISP is also not necessarily the same company who is actually building and maintaining the infrastructure.
@billburns2 The infrastructure was paid for buy the people. I'm a builder, we just build a subdivision of 16 homes. We paid for all the services coming in and included it all in our fees in the sale of the homes. The companies creating infrastructure are some of the richest in the country and don't deserve more.
There would be NO INTERNET IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE GREAT CONTENT created by talented people. as TV's Oprah has drawn people in to watch her network... its not a free ride.
No, you paid for installing the last few yards of copper or fiber - that's not the same as the ongoing multi billion dollar investment made by the major service providers.
The infrastructure/content debate is a bit chicken/egg - you can't run 21st Century content on a 20th Century network
The bottom line is that If you legislate to the point where enterprise can't make any money of their investments then they will simply take their money elsewhere
@billburns2 Wrong, we paid to bring in and upgrade the infrastructure for the 16 homes, more then just wire was installed. The monthly fees we all pay also have infrastructure costs built-in and these companies are making profits.
As a person that has in the past worked along side of communications giant BELL, the CFO makes 40 million dollars per year. Other smaller companies have now popped up, doing the work more efficiently and taking a piece of the trillion dollar pie.
@billburns2 I guess you don't understand the profits they're making or the word infrastructure. We paid 3 times the cost for these companies to come out and upgrade infrastructure for our 16 homes and paved the way for 2400 homes start obtaining upgraded services. We paid just over 340000 for that project and will spend over half a million for all of our projects. Over the course of the next 2 years those companies will show less profits, only because smaller companies are moving in... fuck nut.
@billburns2 also don't worry about what the bigger telecommunication companies are into... you think its unfair that Google makes 21 billion dollars and that they are getting a free ride, wow! I think my boss is getting a free ride off my back, he makes millions a year and travels more then Obama... but I didn't think of the idea or take the risk he did and so I'm like you, some loser farting about internet freedoms.
Do you want to allow service providers to control their own networks and decide what traffic they will handle? Allow them to say to Google that they want a cut in order to use their network?
or
Do you want the FCC to run up a bunch of regulations to decide what can and can't be done on the internet?
Service providers don't need to allow or not allow traffic, tax dollars along with service fee's to users will keep the systems running and up to date. The internet is limitless and technology is only getting better.
and,
The FCC has no business regulating the internet, TV or anything in my opinion.
The internet is a free society of ideas and if its ever regulated or limited... you suppress the media, you get corruption... Clear channel is a great example!
@billburns2 The FCC is dangerous to our freedoms and they are not a elected body (tv and radio have been restricted).. they are appointed and the decisions they make usually are for the benefit of large conservative corporations. Net Neutrality advocated by Google would structure itself at the top and slowly removes your rights and privacy.
Solution: Write it in the constitution "Freedom of the Internet" include the words "all freedoms, no limitations"... no regulatory body(FCC)..
So how will you enforce it? Who will set the rules of what "freedom" means? Politicians??
To Bell Canada, freedom means being able to decide what to do with their property, to set their own business cases and determine who can and can't run applications over their network.
@billburns2 Just as laws are passed by congress by elected officials, freedom means "
no limits of speech and or government control of content by government and or private companies." this sentence can be expanded, something like that.
To Bell, there wires and hubs are on my city property... I pay taxes for it and have allowed them to become a billion dollar company. Governments have made it clear to corporations that the internet is a media for the people.
@billburns2 BELL or any internet provider has no right to control content over the network we are paying for and allowed them to construct the network. Its not like a regular corporation as where they create a product without any help from me the tax payer. If they don't want to make billions per year, they may step aside and let the smaller companies in, but they won't... Freedom to use the technology is what Bell has to make billions... the people have the freedom of speech on the internet.
@billburns2 Hey are you kidding with me?? We licensed the use of city property to run wire and set up stations. Owning a mall has nothing to do with me.... a wire running on city property approved by the city counsel I elect should tell you something. The internet isn't possible without the me the voter.
Also they don't own the rights to the technology... they are only providers and are providing communication.
Again, one sentence written in law and upheld by the courts.
Licensing means you contracted and charged Bell for this access. How does this equate to "taxpayer dollars funding the network"? Sounds more like private dollars funding the City.
"Also they don't own the rights to the technology" - they certainly own the rights to their proprietary technology. You're the one who's saying they shouldn't have those rights and that THE PEOPLE should decide.
@billburns2 Taxpayers have allowed "limited use of our public areas" to run there lines and connect to networks throughout the country. Those lines are paid for by BELL, but a fee is charged monthly to customers to pay for infrastructure and service... they are not paid to monitor the Wold Wide Web.
Yes socialism... equal powers for everyone over the web.. and that's a good thing.
"limited use of our public areas" - for which Bell probably paid for, but may have been granted for free - certainly not paid for by tax dollars.
"equal powers for everyone over the web" - which is what the ISPs are trying to achieve by bandwidth choking - to make it fair and to provide an equal experience for all users, however that violates current ideas on network neutrality and has everyone fitting out about OUR RIGHTS.
"Bell didn't pay for any space" - I bet they did..
"technology is only possible because I allowed them to run there lines on public property" - Rubbish. That's like saying the internal combustion engine was only possible because you allowed cars to use roads on public property. Also look up the term "wireless".
"start putting down some regulations" - yup, you just finished saying the Internet should be socialist and equal for everyone. So who is going to ensure that happens?
@billburns2 Listen, they pay licensing fees just like I do, so don't bet (goofball). Just call your local city planning department and they can tell you all about the rules.
No its nothing like the car, cars are NOT stationery requiring a building permit from the city (no approval needed)...
The internet is already free and equal as it still stands to some degree. Congress passes laws and our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken.
So first Bell is paid for with tax dollars, then Bell didn't pay anything and now Bell pays licensing fees - care to make your mind up?
"our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken." - No, the police make sure that the laws are not broken - unless judges and court officials patrol the Canadian streets these days
So who will ensure that the internet remains equal the way you want it?
So first Bell is paid for with tax dollars, then Bell didn't pay anything and now Bell pays licensing fees - care to make your mind up?
"our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken." - No, the police make sure that the laws are not broken - unless judges and court officials patrol the Canadian streets these days
So who will ensure that the internet remains equal the way you want it?
He fell right into the trap letting by letting the FCC perpetuate this fear-mongering against this huge comcast company. But who's bigger and scarier? Comcast or the government and their whole military industrial complex. Comcast will have a much harder time trying to take away people's freedoms than the government. How easily did the PATRIOT ACT get passed?
I know some people are going to say this is fair because a company can do what they want with their product, but think about this; What we have is damn near anarchy. Too much freedom isn't good. A fair amount of regulation is what dictates a fair and decent country.
I DONT GET IT! If a internet company decides to discriminates isn't that just gonna lead customers to whichever company thats left over thats pledged to maintain net neutrality? If net neutraility isnt made available by one company, wouldnt another that allow all the other companies to make a killing? Seems to me just let the free market decide. If you dont want your internet from a provider that charges more for a particular site then switch your ISP.
@mrbasil0: Collusion. There may not be a(n) "other company" for consumers to turn to. Either that, or monopoly. Same result, different structure. The problem is that it's just like the insurance companies. The rates are based on individual merits and attributes, so if Comcast or Verizon notice a person who is downloading excessively, or providing content they disapprove of, they can give them astronomical rates, pushing them off the stage. New media becomes just as worthless as old media.
@sicklesickle remember that any power and profits internet providers have is derived from its customers, the people. In this way, private companies are more accountable to us than government. If your internet provider decides to violate the concept of net neutrality, you're free to switch to another provider, and companies will provide net neutrality if the people want it.
@mrbasil0: My point was that sometimes there is no alternative, in the case of a monopoly or industry collusion. If the cable companies do this, I'm sure they'll form some kind of Net-OPEC, to coordinate pricing etc. It's not like hundreds of millions of people can all be convinced to 'boycott' the internet. - Corporations are MUCH less accountable than the government, and private companies even less so. When was the last time you voted for a Comcast exec??
@sicklesickle Collusion is already illegal under current antitrust legislation. If OPEC members ever held an official meeting in the US they would be arrested for collusion.
@mrbasil0 ` your argument is fundamentally wrong. it is the governments job to keep private companies from monopolizing industries. it is currently private money that is corrupting the ability of YOUR government to keep the playing field even. we've been done this road before and see it today with multinational companies squashing competition.
we need to get off this idea that the private free market is the be all, end all. it fails miserably all the time.
@tomitstube Its not the governments job to redistribute wealth. The governments role is to do only the things specifically stated in the Constitution. You don't want a private free market because you've never lived in a private free market. We have gotten far far away from any type of free market with all the excessive government regulations on business taking away time & money from business owners who could otherwise create real jobs.
@mrbasil0 - and there it is. You pay and you pay and they make a new tax disguised as anything but a new tax and you pay some more. But don't get comfortable, you aren't finished paying yet. There is a tax on the tax. Prices keep rising but the worth of commodities is no different today than it was yesterday, we are just being charged more. "How much is enough?" - "Just a little more"
@UBER069 The problem is that people don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly does NOT mean they can charge whatever price it wants. A monopoly only charges the price at which the difference between MR/D(marginal revenue) and ATC(average total cost). You really should take an economics course.
@UBER069 (correction to the above comment) The problem is that people don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly does NOT mean they can charge whatever price it wants. A monopoly only charges the price at which the difference between MR/D(marginal revenue) and ATC(average total cost) is maximized. You really should take an economics course.
@mrbasil0 - I see - so I can loot the economy like all of the professional pirates that have taken economics courses in the past? So I can be a conservative jabbeermouth like you that sputs nonsensical phrases pretending I have the slightest clue what they mean? I think there are quite enough suits ruining the planet as it is, I am a person that has risked his life over and over fighting the "peace" on the streets so limp wristed people like you can debate issues that are made up and petty.
@mrbasil0 - since you are so fucking smart, what is the solution for the current manufactured economic crisis? More debate? Let's make yet another committee, pay it large to do nothing but create more problems and while we are at it, let's put you in charge of it. One day very soon, people like you are going to BEG people like me to save you. The answer in advance; fuck you. Save YOURSELF.
@UBER069 I will HAPPILY respond to your question about the current economic crisis. Everyone says people were greedy. The problem is not greed. The problem is the government, at the current moment, set up the situation of CHEAP MONEY, LOW INTEREST RATES -> ppl borrowed more than they should have been allowed. If the govt fix the int. rates so low and like the FREE MARKET reign this crisis certainly wouldnt be so prolonged or extensive
@UBER069 (correction to above) I will HAPPILY respond to your question about the current economic crisis. Everyone says people were greedy. The problem is not greed. The problem is the government, at the current moment, set up the situation of CHEAP MONEY, LOW INTEREST RATES -> ppl borrowed more than they should have been allowed. If the govt didn't fix the int. rates so low and let the FREE MARKET reign this crisis certainly wouldnt be so prolonged or extensive
@mrbasil0 - weren't you just awhile ago chastising me saying I am too anti-government? Now you're saying the problem IS government. You are arguing with yourself at this point. You're prolly an insurance salesman or sell air on the radio or some other really important job like that and think you know about economy. We're done here. You have no insight, I bet you lost your shirt last summer.
@UBER069 I've always said that the government is the problem. Before you were too much for government intervention. And btw, I'm no insurance salesman, I'm a senior in high school who's taken AP Economics.
@mrbasil0 - and I am certain you have a bright future ahead of you selling air or broken promises or telling people a bunch of noise about how much they will "save" by investing with your chosen firm, right before you help that firm to rob them blind. Learn something of REAL VALUE, like how to restart the heart of a person who has suffered a myocardial infarction. Or how to stop an MDB, a Major Deadly Bleed.
Your economics "Education" only serves to place you in debt. Good luck finding work when you get out of school. BTW, I am 41, I was taking economics courses, doing calculus, learning every computer programming language there is, on and on, 25 years before your were a shot-spot on your parents bedsheets. Dont pretend you invented the question mark because you are enthralled by some teacher that only knows the answers because they are in the back of his teacher's edition.
I mean - have you even had good sex yet? You're EIGHTEEN GUY, by default I am roughly 1,000 times your intellect, simply because I have been around 23 years longer than you. Do you even know what a girl looks like naked, outside of your older's brother's porn collection? When you grow up and solve world hunger or cure cancer or AIDS, then and ONLY THEN will I consider anything coming out of your pie hole of any value.
then, once you have saved a few lives, we can have an intelligent conversation on common ground. Until then, you are just a noisy brat who can't wipe his ass without the permission of the globalist bankers and that only if your mommy and daddy can afford to pay for toilet paper.
@mrbasil0 - you really are deluded aren't you? G.W. Bush about your "Constitution" - and I quote "it is just a godamned piece of paper". It is the governments job to maintain the military and to print currency. One they clearly do very well, the other, well the fed took that over in 1913, Congress ceded their authority there without so much as a whimper. Read up on Andrew Jackson, he was you greatest President ever. His tombstone epitaph states "I killed the bank"
if your government had ANY interest WHATSOEVER in the Constitution, this video and MILLIONS of others would be about how to apply you eye make up to pick up guys despite the fact you are a fat, homely girl. Get your head out of your ass, put down the continually revised/communized text books you pay top dollar for at school and GO OUTSIDE and talk to the people affected by your "government". That is where reality is.
@mrbasil0 ~ the "free market" is a clever misnomer. there's nothing free about it and it isn't this perfect entity that finds some mystical equilibrium. it is manipulated by the rich for their own interests. that's were regulation comes in. take the recent va. coal mine explosion, the ceo disputed a thousand safety violations so workers could continue to work in unsafe minds. they bought off regulation that would have saved 29 lives.
@DorianGrayism ~you are right about the corruption of an unregulated "free market". capitalism is inherently corrupt. after reading 'the shock doctrine' and 'a peoples history of the united states', i am thoroughly convinced capitalism would never see the light of day without forced implimentation. the facts bare this. american capitalism has waged war on competition from day one. it is a misonomer as soviet socialism was. our current capitalism is closer to facism in reality.
@HBSchool ~ "governments are the means by which 'free markets' are corrupted." that makes a good bumper sticker, otherwise it's total b.s. if you've been following any news at all, it's deregulation that has corrupted the "free market', yet again. the free market is a handull of filthy rich people manipulating the rules for their own self interests. they have bought our government. it's a corpocracy run by a small number of greedy companies who tell your politicians what to do.
Socialism is Capitalist. The State has more of the Capital/Money (largely accumulated through taxes) rather than the people and therefore can enact policies such as "Free" Healthcare.
Why do people not like it? Numerous reasons. Though I am a firm proponent of the free market, most of the fear is based upon stupidity and a warped view of History.
@DorianGrayism ~ ok, so what about 50% of the country getting government insurance right now? also "insurance" reform is not "free". btw, who do you think is paying for the 50 million uninsured now? and the free market has 95% of all wealth accumulated into the top 10%. the government, if run by the people and not corporations ensures equalities and civil rights endowed by it's constitution. your free market is feudalsim in reality.
I am not really sure what you mean by the first half of your message. What is it regarding?
In the case of that the 95% of all wealth is accumulated into the top 10%. One has to look at the State for that. Not the free market.
In fact , Corporations have to lobby the State in order to subvert the Free Market and to allow them to concentrate wealth. In a Free Market, it is hard for Corporations to gain vast Oligopoly's without the power of the State.
@DorianGrayism ~ you called it "free healthcare". it isn't "free", and it's insurance reform, not healthcare reform. again you blame "the state" for the current market failure, but without proof.
you are right about the government being overrun by corporate money. capitalists making laws to consolidate power and wealth for a few. and there in lies the core problem. it's a democracy not a corpocracy.
I know it isn't "free". That is why I placed comma's around it. Though, It is the states fault particularly in the case of healthcare.
Limiting the supply of Doctors, Granting Monopolies to Big Pharma, Preventing competition between Insurance Companies, Providing barriers to entry by Insurance Companies, Placing conditions on Insurance types through laws and etc.
All of these are placed on the healthcare system by the State making it far more expensive.
@Zyziz ~ a "republic" like communist china? you watch too much glenn beck, he's an idiot. america is a democracy. we have a bill of rights. that makes us a democracy.
@tomitstube Sadly he is right actiually, The united states is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, Always has been, and will be for the near future. and the bill of rights has nothing to do with democracy, its just a charter of rights, the english monarchy had something that was almost exactly like our bill of rights called The charter of rights. Did that make their king any less of a monarch?
@KusuriRX ~ fortunately, you and they, are wrong. the bill of rights is a democracy. as is the constitution and the declaration of independence. they all loudly proclaim democratic rights to it's citizens. t. jefferson and t. paine couldn't be any clearer on this subject. "republic" is just a fancy word for government. democracy is a 'type" of government. don't let these hacks steamroll you with their bullshit. stand up for you individual and "democratic" rights. peace.
take a history class, the united states is a Representative Republic also some times called a Representative democracy. A democracy is categorized as majority or mob rule only, a good way to put it is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. They are both well defined on the internet with a little searching, Don't be confused and dont read past what the founders said, they said that they didn't want a full democracy because it was tried and had failed in rome.
@KusuriRX ~ "take a history class"? really? you're going there? tsk. "mob rule' and the "sheep/wolf" story. uh yeah, i'm getting lectured by someone who get's their history from libertarian sites. sigh, i gave you some great irrefutable stuff and you're coming back with this rubbish?
a democracy and the bill of rights protects minorities from majorities. the constitution is full of that ideology. the "establishment clause", "life liberty and the pursuit"? we live in a democracy.
I get my news from many many sources. More than you obviously. Same with my history also it seems. The founders were against direct democracy, they stated it was a failed experiment and Rome was the proof, you gave me no irrefutable proof because everything you said is refuted by history texts themselves. The US always has been and always well be a Representative Republic. If the US was a democracy we wouldnt have the style senate we have, and we would have to direct vote system.
@KusuriRX ~ you make claims but don't back any of it up with sources. the three branches of government is directly taken from early greek and roman democracies. even the architecture is designed from rome. you make no sense dude. democracy is a government with checks and balances and rights.
who said "(democracy) was a failed experiment and rome was proof"? what "republic" are we modeled after? how does the senate make this a "republic"? and what is a "direct vote system"?
a little too simplistic for me to believe that companies hold the key to their consumers' best interest and all that they need is to know what you want so that they give it to the way you want it
@mrbasil0 There is competition? Where is this magic place? In a major U.S. city the best DSL access a person can hope for is a choice between two ISP's. There's only one ISP where I live. And wow the company is so responsive and accountable. NOT! Whenever you have a handful of corporations providing a vital service they always control the market between each other. That's some pathetic excuse for competition. Hella free enterprise. At any rate, net neutrality is another matter.
@TylerNul1 Well ima Half "Nigger" and half "cracker" if you must and I dont need a thing, I serve my country with honor to protect you and other citizens along with other "needy Niggers" we dont destroy anything about the country.
Funny how you say "Niggers" dont contribute anything to this country
brown skinned people are inferior I guess. Sucks we have one in the white house who graduated from law school
but the absence of NN will be abused... you know it. NN has always been in place and it works fine. why get rid of it if not to exploit the system and send the free medium the way f shitty radio and cable tv.
Doesn't this allow companies to effectively block sites by raising prices? Oh hell no! Guess we can't use Hulu or youtube anymore cause we have to support television.
So what you are saying is that if someone owns the service lines that run to my house, that they don't get to say what they can charge me for use of their property? Hay I know let let the politicians decide how it should work. After all they are very trustworthy and never lie. And they have done such a great job with everything they touch. Yea the politicians should decide. After all it a democracy and mob rules!
at the end of the day, corporations are ultimately motivated by profit, which means they are always on the short leash of the consumers. government on the other hand has the power to over people, and is often influenced most by the ones with the most money ie corporations. these stupid libs dont realize that giving control of the internet directly to the government is basically giving up the internet completely over to corporations
What will it take for America to wake up and stop fighting each other so they can come together and protect there Rights? It's all over once the rich and greedy control the internet. I'll be moving east before that happens.
Yeaaaaaa......Controlled Internet....
et34888 4 months ago
his shirt is moving
kiel108 5 months ago
Oh my God, it's true, Anonymous and hacker groups like them might have to be our saviors now.
"but it can be fought if the people in power care to fight" NOT A VERY COMFORTING THOUGHT
Piriathy 7 months ago
In order for politicians to fight this, they have to think of other people besides themselves. I mean, how does this concern them? Theyre rich! They could afford any rates thrown at them. Plus, they probably barely use the internet compared to some of us. Unfortunately, it seems like there are too many inconsiderate politicians out there. It will be an easy battle, but even seemingly easy battles can be made really tough if not enough people are there to fight.
LotusDragon09 7 months ago
YO!! ANONYMOUS!!! YOU LISTENING TO THIS? GET TO WORK!!!
bbphnix 8 months ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbphnix the people who attacked the ps3 lol
kittdaviss12321 6 months ago
think about this, telephone companies could do the same thing. if they dont like black civil rights groups (for instance) they could choose to not give their members service or charge them more for service. Or companies pay a fee can have addvertisements played when you call thier competition. you wanna call wallgreens, well walmart paid more for thier service so you have to listen to a 30s walmart commercial before you get walgreens pharmacy. the only thing preventing this is gov regulations.
jgrakowski 9 months ago
TYT, YOU ARE INTERFERING.
Beulah502 9 months ago
i will stealz ur interwebs!
Solidox2k 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
If you can meet naughty women benaughtyman.info
shenwotson12 1 year ago
That kinda sounds like a good idea: Why should those who use more Internet be subsidized by those who use less? Bandwidth and usage cost money. It ain't free, esp. to the providers. We don't charge everyone the same for electricity use, do we? Neither for gas, water bills, and so on. Or a host of OTHER things we all use on a regular basis. So why bandwidth? If you use it to do a few low-usage things, get charged less. But if you run a site that uses A LOT, get charged more.
whoo689 1 year ago
Cenk, next time you wanna justify some certain legislation or mandate, make sure you GET FACTS to back up your assertions. Don't give me hypothetical nonsense about how, "Comcast may charge competitors more or charge users who speak out against them more." NO THEY WON'T. That kind of shit doesn't happen! They don't give a fuck if some random guy in his basement speaks out against 'em. The charging more thing has more to do with ENDING INTERNET SOCIALISM. If you use more bandwith, u'd pay more
whoo689 1 year ago
Hell, this model sort of IS being put to use by various companies for wireless Internet hotspots. Depending on how much you download per month, you'll pay more or less. Why not apply that to general Internet? Just a thought. But Cenk uses this bs strawman of "comcast screwing over competitors and people it just flat out doesn't like" instead.
Pathetic. Purely pathetic
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 He's not saying that will happen but it will be possible now that the companies have control over what can be accessed by their customers
phr33Thinker 1 year ago
i wouldn't wipe my ass with mainstream media.
ThatDifferentGuy 1 year ago
This is scary stuff. Corporations are the greatest threat to our freedom. We need to challenge their power somehow
epsilon8998 1 year ago
@epsilon8998 @LesediLoFi
Viva La Revolución!
conan1845 1 year ago
so everyone what are we gonna do to fix this?
LesediLoFi 1 year ago
in situations like these, only hackers proseper over the internet. them and trolls.
Extra365 1 year ago 26
@Extra365 Actually the US taxpayers subsidized that infrastructure, i.e. we own it. Comcast and other network providers are being allowed the privilege of making a profit to maintain said network. They ever have a government protected monopoly (this is why you only have one choice of cable provider in most areas). Since the taxpayers paid for this infrastructure, content providers should not be allowed to block anything.
redhook916 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Extra365 Actually the US taxpayers subsidized that infrastructure, i.e. we own it. Comcast and other network providers are being allowed the privilege of making a profit to maintain said network. They ever have a government protected monopoly (this is why you only have one choice of cable provider in most areas). Since the taxpayers paid for this infrastructure, content providers should not be allowed to block anything.
redhook916 1 year ago
@Extra365 everybody's a troll one time...even if they fail.
SangtotheDy 8 months ago
@Extra365 Our bridges protect us from even nuclear bombs! Just duck & cover!
PiratedComedy 5 months ago
HELL NO
Supercucu123 1 year ago
Dicks lol
kibilocomalifasa 1 year ago
If you look a little deeper into it too, the American people have actually paid for the cables that these corporations claim to own. The FCC granted the communications companies (AT&T, comcast and so on) a right to rake up their charges to pay for new infrastructure, and a big chunk of that money was just pocketed...
darkclown1985 1 year ago
so what can we do as voters? when can we vote on this?
rockbutt123 1 year ago 2
the main thing people need to understand about net neutrality, is that both the big businesses and the government have a vested interest. if big businesses get to police themselves, they will start making backdoor deals among themselves, and the ISP's will throttle rival content for profit. but if the FCC gains oversight, then they will start censoring sites.and anyone who thinks otherwise hasnt been paying attention to the RIAAA cases,among others. anything remotely copyrighted will be blocked.
Slayer8957 1 year ago 2
He is arguing for the Borg, not against it. Once the FCC gets control, it will begin to censor. The censorship will begin with terrible things that we all would agree. But eventually it will mirror T.V. standards.
joepglass 1 year ago 2
I like free online porn, so this really could affect me. So many people say porn is bad for a good public image to soccer moms, even though it isn't bad at all. I think the Internet should be owned by the government.
Meex1989 1 year ago
@Meex1989 hell man obama and the govt has no right to nose into what we are doing onthe internet this is america its none of there business if you want to look at porn we should impeach obamas ass
TheCrimsonKing09 1 year ago
Has their ever been a situation, story, or incident in which Cenk is describing that has actually ever happened? I keep hearing all this scenario stuff about what "could happen", but not examples of what "has happened before".
Someone give me one please.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
its not only that, comcast can slow down traffic to your site if they dont like your message.
elchinonica 1 year ago
It's more likely that the government won't like your message and censor it than having comcast charge you more. i dont think any company will censor the internet. government on the other hand...
DrQuijano 1 year ago
I SERIOUSLY hope the gov. doesn't get involved. I don't want my internets censored.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
@DrQuijano they better not they have no right to nose into what we are doing on the internet if our internet gets censored it will be just like china
TheCrimsonKing09 1 year ago
@TheCrimsonKing09 Well friend, if you recall a month or so back Joe Lieberman, that excellent pro civil rights independent, stated in an interview "well... China has the right to censor and shut down sections of the Internet. I think that we should have that authority as well". This begs the question (as someone else I think stated): how do we stop it?
DrQuijano 1 year ago
@DrQuijano Impeach obama, demolish our corrupt government
TheCrimsonKing09 1 year ago
@TheCrimsonKing09 impeaching obama would make things worse....People would put up so much shit about us being racist or who knows what,but after that,the matter of the fact is nothing will change...most government is corrupt,and it wont be changing for a hell of a long time..sadly
009semibond 1 year ago
would this effect time warner triple play
keithbu 1 year ago
Do The Young Turds realize that it is Obama's administration that's pushing this and not fighting it?
BloodTar 1 year ago
If the FCC gets invovled in the internet then I won't be able to say FUCK SHIT COCK PUSSY FISTED FUCKER or post lewd comments about my darling Ana anymore so I don't know if thats a good plan.
Shadowlit001 1 year ago
Partisan hack Cenk can't bring himself to admit that 1 the FCC are unelected Donk-serving scum and 2 Obama wants control of the net.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
alright this is stupid. because the internet and the World Wide Web, etc wasnt meant to be "controlled" by one person nor nation. Its not suppose to be a privledge, its meant to be a right. to share information.
ti07shadow 1 year ago
If we lose internet, ill kill myself. So. Heres hoping.
Derka33 1 year ago
Glenn Beck said almost the same exact thing Cenk just said a few weeks ago. O.o
siika20 1 year ago
Why would a conservative led court vote against this? They're the ones that want to decrease government regulation because government is "too big."
If the judge you mention would have voted against this, then I'd say he's not conservative on this issue.
And everyone else: Shut the the hell up about the "mainstream media". Remember, Fox (who created the term for their rivals) is the number one network. They are the main stream media.
trlkly 1 year ago
without internet the fight is over
shaneclone15 1 year ago
Resistance is futile?
gaara2910 1 year ago
I hardly watch the so called main stream media anymore. I use the internet to search for real news without the bias. This ruling is is very scary! The Supreme Court is a joke now. They don't protect anyone but Corporate America. If Obama doesn''t do anything we're screwed once again.
anitafh1 1 year ago
@anitafh1 we were always screwed, obama didnt do anything. Before you argue remember: Bush national deficeit 3 trillion -- Obamas current National Debt 13 trillion and growing
Zyziz 1 year ago
@Zyziz ~ 5 to 10 trillion of obama's debt is directly linked to bush's nightmare hangover. two wars that weren't even counted in bush's budget. losing 750,000 jobs a month when obama took office. the stimulus has worked and we are now creating jobs instead of losing them. turned around in two years. and now conservatives are voting against helping the unemployed with benefits while spending 7 billion on weapons we don't need.
conservatives are complete failures!
tomitstube 1 year ago
Internet... great equalizer... WHAT THE FUCK!!! That's bullshit and you know it.
FollowMyDamnedLaws 1 year ago
What's with all the fear mongering? Has no one have any respect for property rights anymore?
HBSchool 1 year ago
@HBSchool ~ "property rights", yeah, like how americans stole the country in the first place? and how the richest people in the country designed the constitution which property owners were the only one's allowed to vote? which was about 20% of the population. so if you take property by gun or by financial blackmail that makes you the ruler of the empire? you're good with sound bites but empty on substance.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
You obviously subscribe to the idea of property rights because you're bitching about property being taken from Native Americans. That being said, what the fuck does suffrage have to do with property rights?
HBSchool 1 year ago
@HBSchool ~ "wtf does suffrage have to do with property"? you're serious? well, for 250 years in this country, "property" was actual people. the free market also gave us 7 day 14 hour work weeks, child labor and indentured servitude. technically, it took government regulation to end 'property suffrage'. corporations ARE NOT people. and you're a foolish dupe to give away more public domain to the greedy few.
tomitstube 1 year ago
What the hell are you talking about Cenk? Comcast can't "Charge" extra to people who speak against them. They would have to charge their own customers more, which would just drive them to Verizon or Qwest. Same with censoring... Comcast can't keep anyone from putting anything "on the internet", they could only block their own customers from connecting to networks they don't like, which would also drive them away.
electrostatic1 1 year ago
@electrostatic1
Actually, in a competitive capitalist North America we live in. Companies can do as they please with their competitiveness. Since Comcast and Shaw (Canadian equal to American Comcast) will have the first fiber-optics network; they then will be providing the best quality, and speed of the internet. Thus, they can jack up their prices to what ever rate they want. Since lower end competitors won't have what Comcast or Shaw has to offer.
SturmWolfe 1 year ago
@electrostatic1
The problem with your statement is many cable companies have outright monopolies on entire neighborhoods.
Like where I live. It's insight or go to hell. Dish isn't an option for many people. They are considered unreliable since they are subject to weather. Sometimes a little rain, sometimes some heavy clouds... Sometime the sun itself.
Don't go thinking the competition is really all that diverse.
nosferotica1 1 year ago 2
i am so glad net decision cuz it will make govt. more bigger.
Octoberskylight 1 year ago
How about regulating violent porn, child porn, gross stuff like 2girls1cup and beheadings?
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
Obama has massive corporation backing, not comcast as far as I know but I doubt he'll do the right thing anyway the man's all talk.
PocusUK 1 year ago
YYEEEEEEEEES! Internet neutrality finally gone! Now we need control buttons and policy making officials from Microsoft so that business isn't effected on the web. No more downloading from free sites and ruining the gaming, software, music, and entertainment industries. Who knows our cruel comments may somehow not make it to it's destination
Omega231984 1 year ago
and the NWO continues its evil plotting!
whoareyapauldunn 1 year ago
We cannot reasonably expect privacy online so already international law is being applied to the Internet. The Constitution need not apply. The internet is about Earth governance. I guess a UN treaty will regulate cyberspace.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
solution: nationalisation
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
Net neutrality: ALL PACKETS OF INFO SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY.
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom from corporation's internet content control!
NO INTERNET APARTHEID POLICY
teleutube 1 year ago 38
@teleutube Internets is communists? |:
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@teleutube
I agree.
The problem is that the companies who provided the infrastructure feel that everyone else is making money off their investment.
Google turned over 21 billion last year, all by taking a free ride off of the companies who make their product possible.
billburns2 1 year ago 8
@billburns2 i thought tax payers provided the grants for companies to build the infrastructure?
BenJEMean 1 year ago
@BenJEMean
Not that I'm aware of. Some Telcos were allowed to surcharge existing customers for "development costs", which seems a bit cheeky.
I can see the argument from both sides.
If I develop some fantastic new app that is hugely popular and bandwith-intensive - and then run it over YOUR network, you have to pay to upgrade in order to manage the traffic whist I just get rich quick.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I disagree. Creating and running companies like Google, Facebook or Hotmail isn't a freeride. People choose the content they want to view and how they want to view it. I choose to use hotmail and also pay my internet provider for the infrastructure and service per month. The main focus the FCC has is controlling content and no government elected or person should be in charge of controlling content on the internet. 21 billion, I thought it was more....
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
It's a free ride inasmuch as these companies don't contribute towards the networks that they rely on. Your ISP is also not necessarily the same company who is actually building and maintaining the infrastructure.
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 The infrastructure was paid for buy the people. I'm a builder, we just build a subdivision of 16 homes. We paid for all the services coming in and included it all in our fees in the sale of the homes. The companies creating infrastructure are some of the richest in the country and don't deserve more.
There would be NO INTERNET IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE GREAT CONTENT created by talented people. as TV's Oprah has drawn people in to watch her network... its not a free ride.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
No, you paid for installing the last few yards of copper or fiber - that's not the same as the ongoing multi billion dollar investment made by the major service providers.
The infrastructure/content debate is a bit chicken/egg - you can't run 21st Century content on a 20th Century network
The bottom line is that If you legislate to the point where enterprise can't make any money of their investments then they will simply take their money elsewhere
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Wrong, we paid to bring in and upgrade the infrastructure for the 16 homes, more then just wire was installed. The monthly fees we all pay also have infrastructure costs built-in and these companies are making profits.
As a person that has in the past worked along side of communications giant BELL, the CFO makes 40 million dollars per year. Other smaller companies have now popped up, doing the work more efficiently and taking a piece of the trillion dollar pie.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
16? As many as that?? Why, then you practically paid for the whole internet.
"upgraded the infrastructure" = putting in $20 of fiber optic cable, unless your construction company is also an internet service provider.
Bell Canada is one of the biggest OPPONENTS of net neutrality for the reasons I've already mentioned
LMFAO
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 I guess you don't understand the profits they're making or the word infrastructure. We paid 3 times the cost for these companies to come out and upgrade infrastructure for our 16 homes and paved the way for 2400 homes start obtaining upgraded services. We paid just over 340000 for that project and will spend over half a million for all of our projects. Over the course of the next 2 years those companies will show less profits, only because smaller companies are moving in... fuck nut.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@billburns2 also don't worry about what the bigger telecommunication companies are into... you think its unfair that Google makes 21 billion dollars and that they are getting a free ride, wow! I think my boss is getting a free ride off my back, he makes millions a year and travels more then Obama... but I didn't think of the idea or take the risk he did and so I'm like you, some loser farting about internet freedoms.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
So what is your actual position here?
Do you want to allow service providers to control their own networks and decide what traffic they will handle? Allow them to say to Google that they want a cut in order to use their network?
or
Do you want the FCC to run up a bunch of regulations to decide what can and can't be done on the internet?
Your choice.
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Here is the point...
Service providers don't need to allow or not allow traffic, tax dollars along with service fee's to users will keep the systems running and up to date. The internet is limitless and technology is only getting better.
and,
The FCC has no business regulating the internet, TV or anything in my opinion.
The internet is a free society of ideas and if its ever regulated or limited... you suppress the media, you get corruption... Clear channel is a great example!
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
You can't simply declare something to be a "free society", you need to explain how it will work
Are SPs to be allowed to decide what to do with their property or not?
If so, how will you stop them from implementing tiered pricing / bandwidth choking/content censorship etc? Pass a regulation?
If not, who, other than the FCC will police this?
Tax dollars?? You're advocating the nationalization of the internet? Handing over control to the Govt?
Please explain.
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 The FCC is dangerous to our freedoms and they are not a elected body (tv and radio have been restricted).. they are appointed and the decisions they make usually are for the benefit of large conservative corporations. Net Neutrality advocated by Google would structure itself at the top and slowly removes your rights and privacy.
Solution: Write it in the constitution "Freedom of the Internet" include the words "all freedoms, no limitations"... no regulatory body(FCC)..
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
So how will you enforce it? Who will set the rules of what "freedom" means? Politicians??
To Bell Canada, freedom means being able to decide what to do with their property, to set their own business cases and determine who can and can't run applications over their network.
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Just as laws are passed by congress by elected officials, freedom means "
no limits of speech and or government control of content by government and or private companies." this sentence can be expanded, something like that.
To Bell, there wires and hubs are on my city property... I pay taxes for it and have allowed them to become a billion dollar company. Governments have made it clear to corporations that the internet is a media for the people.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@billburns2 BELL or any internet provider has no right to control content over the network we are paying for and allowed them to construct the network. Its not like a regular corporation as where they create a product without any help from me the tax payer. If they don't want to make billions per year, they may step aside and let the smaller companies in, but they won't... Freedom to use the technology is what Bell has to make billions... the people have the freedom of speech on the internet.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
What help has Bell had from taxpayers?
How have we "allowed" them to build their network?
How is a corporation owning a network different from a corporation owning a shopping mall or an airline?
Again, who will set the rules of what "freedom" means and who will enforce it?
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Hey are you kidding with me?? We licensed the use of city property to run wire and set up stations. Owning a mall has nothing to do with me.... a wire running on city property approved by the city counsel I elect should tell you something. The internet isn't possible without the me the voter.
Also they don't own the rights to the technology... they are only providers and are providing communication.
Again, one sentence written in law and upheld by the courts.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
Licensing means you contracted and charged Bell for this access. How does this equate to "taxpayer dollars funding the network"? Sounds more like private dollars funding the City.
"Also they don't own the rights to the technology" - they certainly own the rights to their proprietary technology. You're the one who's saying they shouldn't have those rights and that THE PEOPLE should decide.
It all sounds very socialist to me...
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Taxpayers have allowed "limited use of our public areas" to run there lines and connect to networks throughout the country. Those lines are paid for by BELL, but a fee is charged monthly to customers to pay for infrastructure and service... they are not paid to monitor the Wold Wide Web.
Yes socialism... equal powers for everyone over the web.. and that's a good thing.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
"limited use of our public areas" - for which Bell probably paid for, but may have been granted for free - certainly not paid for by tax dollars.
"equal powers for everyone over the web" - which is what the ISPs are trying to achieve by bandwidth choking - to make it fair and to provide an equal experience for all users, however that violates current ideas on network neutrality and has everyone fitting out about OUR RIGHTS.
are you beginning to see the problem?
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Bell didn't pay for any space and there technology is only possible because I allowed them to run there lines on public property.
No they are talking about bringing in a un-elected body like the FCC to monitor the web and to start putting down some regulations.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
"Bell didn't pay for any space" - I bet they did..
"technology is only possible because I allowed them to run there lines on public property" - Rubbish. That's like saying the internal combustion engine was only possible because you allowed cars to use roads on public property. Also look up the term "wireless".
"start putting down some regulations" - yup, you just finished saying the Internet should be socialist and equal for everyone. So who is going to ensure that happens?
billburns2 10 months ago
@billburns2 Listen, they pay licensing fees just like I do, so don't bet (goofball). Just call your local city planning department and they can tell you all about the rules.
No its nothing like the car, cars are NOT stationery requiring a building permit from the city (no approval needed)...
The internet is already free and equal as it still stands to some degree. Congress passes laws and our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken.
OMFG.... education is needed here.
davejsmith 10 months ago
@davejsmith
So first Bell is paid for with tax dollars, then Bell didn't pay anything and now Bell pays licensing fees - care to make your mind up?
"our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken." - No, the police make sure that the laws are not broken - unless judges and court officials patrol the Canadian streets these days
So who will ensure that the internet remains equal the way you want it?
billburns2 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davejsmith
So first Bell is paid for with tax dollars, then Bell didn't pay anything and now Bell pays licensing fees - care to make your mind up?
"our court system makes sure that the laws are not broken." - No, the police make sure that the laws are not broken - unless judges and court officials patrol the Canadian streets these days
So who will ensure that the internet remains equal the way you want it?
billburns2 10 months ago
@teleutube grow a brain, reptile
alphecca2539 1 year ago
@alphecca2539 What a helpful and incisive comment.
Phelan666 1 year ago
He fell right into the trap letting by letting the FCC perpetuate this fear-mongering against this huge comcast company. But who's bigger and scarier? Comcast or the government and their whole military industrial complex. Comcast will have a much harder time trying to take away people's freedoms than the government. How easily did the PATRIOT ACT get passed?
GQstatus66 1 year ago
I know some people are going to say this is fair because a company can do what they want with their product, but think about this; What we have is damn near anarchy. Too much freedom isn't good. A fair amount of regulation is what dictates a fair and decent country.
SgtSprayin 1 year ago
Any one that listens to this fuck head is an idiot.
sharky734 1 year ago
I DONT GET IT! If a internet company decides to discriminates isn't that just gonna lead customers to whichever company thats left over thats pledged to maintain net neutrality? If net neutraility isnt made available by one company, wouldnt another that allow all the other companies to make a killing? Seems to me just let the free market decide. If you dont want your internet from a provider that charges more for a particular site then switch your ISP.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0: Collusion. There may not be a(n) "other company" for consumers to turn to. Either that, or monopoly. Same result, different structure. The problem is that it's just like the insurance companies. The rates are based on individual merits and attributes, so if Comcast or Verizon notice a person who is downloading excessively, or providing content they disapprove of, they can give them astronomical rates, pushing them off the stage. New media becomes just as worthless as old media.
sicklesickle 1 year ago
@sicklesickle remember that any power and profits internet providers have is derived from its customers, the people. In this way, private companies are more accountable to us than government. If your internet provider decides to violate the concept of net neutrality, you're free to switch to another provider, and companies will provide net neutrality if the people want it.
mrbasil0 1 year ago 9
@mrbasil0: My point was that sometimes there is no alternative, in the case of a monopoly or industry collusion. If the cable companies do this, I'm sure they'll form some kind of Net-OPEC, to coordinate pricing etc. It's not like hundreds of millions of people can all be convinced to 'boycott' the internet. - Corporations are MUCH less accountable than the government, and private companies even less so. When was the last time you voted for a Comcast exec??
sicklesickle 1 year ago
@sicklesickle Collusion is already illegal under current antitrust legislation. If OPEC members ever held an official meeting in the US they would be arrested for collusion.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 ` your argument is fundamentally wrong. it is the governments job to keep private companies from monopolizing industries. it is currently private money that is corrupting the ability of YOUR government to keep the playing field even. we've been done this road before and see it today with multinational companies squashing competition.
we need to get off this idea that the private free market is the be all, end all. it fails miserably all the time.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube ~
'we've done this before", or "we've been down this road before". obviously not a combination of the two.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube Its not the governments job to redistribute wealth. The governments role is to do only the things specifically stated in the Constitution. You don't want a private free market because you've never lived in a private free market. We have gotten far far away from any type of free market with all the excessive government regulations on business taking away time & money from business owners who could otherwise create real jobs.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - and there it is. You pay and you pay and they make a new tax disguised as anything but a new tax and you pay some more. But don't get comfortable, you aren't finished paying yet. There is a tax on the tax. Prices keep rising but the worth of commodities is no different today than it was yesterday, we are just being charged more. "How much is enough?" - "Just a little more"
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 The problem is that people don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly does NOT mean they can charge whatever price it wants. A monopoly only charges the price at which the difference between MR/D(marginal revenue) and ATC(average total cost). You really should take an economics course.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@UBER069 (correction to the above comment) The problem is that people don't understand what a monopoly is. A monopoly does NOT mean they can charge whatever price it wants. A monopoly only charges the price at which the difference between MR/D(marginal revenue) and ATC(average total cost) is maximized. You really should take an economics course.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - I see - so I can loot the economy like all of the professional pirates that have taken economics courses in the past? So I can be a conservative jabbeermouth like you that sputs nonsensical phrases pretending I have the slightest clue what they mean? I think there are quite enough suits ruining the planet as it is, I am a person that has risked his life over and over fighting the "peace" on the streets so limp wristed people like you can debate issues that are made up and petty.
UBER069 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - since you are so fucking smart, what is the solution for the current manufactured economic crisis? More debate? Let's make yet another committee, pay it large to do nothing but create more problems and while we are at it, let's put you in charge of it. One day very soon, people like you are going to BEG people like me to save you. The answer in advance; fuck you. Save YOURSELF.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 I will HAPPILY respond to your question about the current economic crisis. Everyone says people were greedy. The problem is not greed. The problem is the government, at the current moment, set up the situation of CHEAP MONEY, LOW INTEREST RATES -> ppl borrowed more than they should have been allowed. If the govt fix the int. rates so low and like the FREE MARKET reign this crisis certainly wouldnt be so prolonged or extensive
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@UBER069 (correction to above) I will HAPPILY respond to your question about the current economic crisis. Everyone says people were greedy. The problem is not greed. The problem is the government, at the current moment, set up the situation of CHEAP MONEY, LOW INTEREST RATES -> ppl borrowed more than they should have been allowed. If the govt didn't fix the int. rates so low and let the FREE MARKET reign this crisis certainly wouldnt be so prolonged or extensive
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - weren't you just awhile ago chastising me saying I am too anti-government? Now you're saying the problem IS government. You are arguing with yourself at this point. You're prolly an insurance salesman or sell air on the radio or some other really important job like that and think you know about economy. We're done here. You have no insight, I bet you lost your shirt last summer.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 I've always said that the government is the problem. Before you were too much for government intervention. And btw, I'm no insurance salesman, I'm a senior in high school who's taken AP Economics.
mrbasil0 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - and I am certain you have a bright future ahead of you selling air or broken promises or telling people a bunch of noise about how much they will "save" by investing with your chosen firm, right before you help that firm to rob them blind. Learn something of REAL VALUE, like how to restart the heart of a person who has suffered a myocardial infarction. Or how to stop an MDB, a Major Deadly Bleed.
UBER069 1 year ago
Your economics "Education" only serves to place you in debt. Good luck finding work when you get out of school. BTW, I am 41, I was taking economics courses, doing calculus, learning every computer programming language there is, on and on, 25 years before your were a shot-spot on your parents bedsheets. Dont pretend you invented the question mark because you are enthralled by some teacher that only knows the answers because they are in the back of his teacher's edition.
UBER069 1 year ago
I mean - have you even had good sex yet? You're EIGHTEEN GUY, by default I am roughly 1,000 times your intellect, simply because I have been around 23 years longer than you. Do you even know what a girl looks like naked, outside of your older's brother's porn collection? When you grow up and solve world hunger or cure cancer or AIDS, then and ONLY THEN will I consider anything coming out of your pie hole of any value.
UBER069 1 year ago
then, once you have saved a few lives, we can have an intelligent conversation on common ground. Until then, you are just a noisy brat who can't wipe his ass without the permission of the globalist bankers and that only if your mommy and daddy can afford to pay for toilet paper.
UBER069 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 - you really are deluded aren't you? G.W. Bush about your "Constitution" - and I quote "it is just a godamned piece of paper". It is the governments job to maintain the military and to print currency. One they clearly do very well, the other, well the fed took that over in 1913, Congress ceded their authority there without so much as a whimper. Read up on Andrew Jackson, he was you greatest President ever. His tombstone epitaph states "I killed the bank"
UBER069 1 year ago
if your government had ANY interest WHATSOEVER in the Constitution, this video and MILLIONS of others would be about how to apply you eye make up to pick up guys despite the fact you are a fat, homely girl. Get your head out of your ass, put down the continually revised/communized text books you pay top dollar for at school and GO OUTSIDE and talk to the people affected by your "government". That is where reality is.
UBER069 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 ~ the "free market" is a clever misnomer. there's nothing free about it and it isn't this perfect entity that finds some mystical equilibrium. it is manipulated by the rich for their own interests. that's were regulation comes in. take the recent va. coal mine explosion, the ceo disputed a thousand safety violations so workers could continue to work in unsafe minds. they bought off regulation that would have saved 29 lives.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
No one says the free market is perfect. Actually, any free market economist will tell you that it is inherently imperfect.
The example of the CEO buying off regulation is corruption. You get corruption in any Economic system.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism ~you are right about the corruption of an unregulated "free market". capitalism is inherently corrupt. after reading 'the shock doctrine' and 'a peoples history of the united states', i am thoroughly convinced capitalism would never see the light of day without forced implimentation. the facts bare this. american capitalism has waged war on competition from day one. it is a misonomer as soviet socialism was. our current capitalism is closer to facism in reality.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
Governments are the means by which "free markets" are corrupted.
HBSchool 1 year ago
@HBSchool ~ "governments are the means by which 'free markets' are corrupted." that makes a good bumper sticker, otherwise it's total b.s. if you've been following any news at all, it's deregulation that has corrupted the "free market', yet again. the free market is a handull of filthy rich people manipulating the rules for their own self interests. they have bought our government. it's a corpocracy run by a small number of greedy companies who tell your politicians what to do.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
Your argument, "it's deregulation that has corrupted the 'free market'", is too rich. Who deregulates and regulates markets?
My original quote: "Governments are the means by which 'free markets' are corrupted."
HBSchool 1 year ago
@HBSchool ~ ok genius, tell us how government deregulation cause the free market to fail.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
Every Economic System is Capitalist. The difference is where the Capital lies.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism ~ so you're saying socialism is a form of capitalism? why all the fuss then?
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
Socialism is Capitalist. The State has more of the Capital/Money (largely accumulated through taxes) rather than the people and therefore can enact policies such as "Free" Healthcare.
Why do people not like it? Numerous reasons. Though I am a firm proponent of the free market, most of the fear is based upon stupidity and a warped view of History.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism ~ ok, so what about 50% of the country getting government insurance right now? also "insurance" reform is not "free". btw, who do you think is paying for the 50 million uninsured now? and the free market has 95% of all wealth accumulated into the top 10%. the government, if run by the people and not corporations ensures equalities and civil rights endowed by it's constitution. your free market is feudalsim in reality.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
I am not really sure what you mean by the first half of your message. What is it regarding?
In the case of that the 95% of all wealth is accumulated into the top 10%. One has to look at the State for that. Not the free market.
In fact , Corporations have to lobby the State in order to subvert the Free Market and to allow them to concentrate wealth. In a Free Market, it is hard for Corporations to gain vast Oligopoly's without the power of the State.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@DorianGrayism ~ you called it "free healthcare". it isn't "free", and it's insurance reform, not healthcare reform. again you blame "the state" for the current market failure, but without proof.
you are right about the government being overrun by corporate money. capitalists making laws to consolidate power and wealth for a few. and there in lies the core problem. it's a democracy not a corpocracy.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
I know it isn't "free". That is why I placed comma's around it. Though, It is the states fault particularly in the case of healthcare.
Limiting the supply of Doctors, Granting Monopolies to Big Pharma, Preventing competition between Insurance Companies, Providing barriers to entry by Insurance Companies, Placing conditions on Insurance types through laws and etc.
All of these are placed on the healthcare system by the State making it far more expensive.
DorianGrayism 1 year ago
@tomitstube Its a Republic, not a democracy.
Zyziz 1 year ago
@Zyziz ~ a "republic" like communist china? you watch too much glenn beck, he's an idiot. america is a democracy. we have a bill of rights. that makes us a democracy.
democracy. democracy. democracy.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube Sadly he is right actiually, The united states is not a democracy, it is a representative republic, Always has been, and will be for the near future. and the bill of rights has nothing to do with democracy, its just a charter of rights, the english monarchy had something that was almost exactly like our bill of rights called The charter of rights. Did that make their king any less of a monarch?
KusuriRX 1 year ago
@KusuriRX ~ fortunately, you and they, are wrong. the bill of rights is a democracy. as is the constitution and the declaration of independence. they all loudly proclaim democratic rights to it's citizens. t. jefferson and t. paine couldn't be any clearer on this subject. "republic" is just a fancy word for government. democracy is a 'type" of government. don't let these hacks steamroll you with their bullshit. stand up for you individual and "democratic" rights. peace.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
take a history class, the united states is a Representative Republic also some times called a Representative democracy. A democracy is categorized as majority or mob rule only, a good way to put it is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. They are both well defined on the internet with a little searching, Don't be confused and dont read past what the founders said, they said that they didn't want a full democracy because it was tried and had failed in rome.
KusuriRX 1 year ago
@KusuriRX ~ "take a history class"? really? you're going there? tsk. "mob rule' and the "sheep/wolf" story. uh yeah, i'm getting lectured by someone who get's their history from libertarian sites. sigh, i gave you some great irrefutable stuff and you're coming back with this rubbish?
a democracy and the bill of rights protects minorities from majorities. the constitution is full of that ideology. the "establishment clause", "life liberty and the pursuit"? we live in a democracy.
tomitstube 1 year ago
@tomitstube
I get my news from many many sources. More than you obviously. Same with my history also it seems. The founders were against direct democracy, they stated it was a failed experiment and Rome was the proof, you gave me no irrefutable proof because everything you said is refuted by history texts themselves. The US always has been and always well be a Representative Republic. If the US was a democracy we wouldnt have the style senate we have, and we would have to direct vote system.
KusuriRX 1 year ago
@KusuriRX ~ you make claims but don't back any of it up with sources. the three branches of government is directly taken from early greek and roman democracies. even the architecture is designed from rome. you make no sense dude. democracy is a government with checks and balances and rights.
who said "(democracy) was a failed experiment and rome was proof"? what "republic" are we modeled after? how does the senate make this a "republic"? and what is a "direct vote system"?
tomitstube 1 year ago
@mrbasil0
a little too simplistic for me to believe that companies hold the key to their consumers' best interest and all that they need is to know what you want so that they give it to the way you want it
tafxkz 1 year ago
@mrbasil0 There is competition? Where is this magic place? In a major U.S. city the best DSL access a person can hope for is a choice between two ISP's. There's only one ISP where I live. And wow the company is so responsive and accountable. NOT! Whenever you have a handful of corporations providing a vital service they always control the market between each other. That's some pathetic excuse for competition. Hella free enterprise. At any rate, net neutrality is another matter.
hamnose 1 year ago
Obama probably gave this the OK.
MondoMedia7 1 year ago
@TylerNul1 Well ima Half "Nigger" and half "cracker" if you must and I dont need a thing, I serve my country with honor to protect you and other citizens along with other "needy Niggers" we dont destroy anything about the country.
Funny how you say "Niggers" dont contribute anything to this country
brown skinned people are inferior I guess. Sucks we have one in the white house who graduated from law school
yeah All Niggers suck so bad at life I guess
USPrivate1991 1 year ago
The best and the worst of all humanity is on the internet. If we are ever to find our way as a species we must protect freedom of thought.
Joxman2k 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith
but the absence of NN will be abused... you know it. NN has always been in place and it works fine. why get rid of it if not to exploit the system and send the free medium the way f shitty radio and cable tv.
if it isnt broken dont fix it?
knowledgethief 1 year ago
Doesn't this allow companies to effectively block sites by raising prices? Oh hell no! Guess we can't use Hulu or youtube anymore cause we have to support television.
Give me LOLcats or give me death!
VocabWord 1 year ago
why are Americans so fucking stupid? The fact that the republican party is still intact is proof enough
xtralimit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TylerNul1
"I used to be a left-winger until I finally saw the light 10 years ago. "
That explains a lot about you
Freethought42 1 year ago
So what you are saying is that if someone owns the service lines that run to my house, that they don't get to say what they can charge me for use of their property? Hay I know let let the politicians decide how it should work. After all they are very trustworthy and never lie. And they have done such a great job with everything they touch. Yea the politicians should decide. After all it a democracy and mob rules!
putittogether 1 year ago
who is the judge who voted in favor of this??
he should be disbarred
undregroundfreedom 1 year ago
at the end of the day, corporations are ultimately motivated by profit, which means they are always on the short leash of the consumers. government on the other hand has the power to over people, and is often influenced most by the ones with the most money ie corporations. these stupid libs dont realize that giving control of the internet directly to the government is basically giving up the internet completely over to corporations
AgentOrange04 1 year ago
If things keep going this way, then you know what? Fuck it. I'll leave the US.
SeBakasam 1 year ago
What will it take for America to wake up and stop fighting each other so they can come together and protect there Rights? It's all over once the rich and greedy control the internet. I'll be moving east before that happens.
TheKeypushers 1 year ago
@TylerNul1 God your willfully ignorant.
A True "Nigger"
USPrivate1991 1 year ago
I dont agree with Cenk here simply because of his hypocritical stance. It&#