Now everyone line up, roll up the bill, and take turn slapping his left cheek with it until his inner evil comes out. Then, we slap his wife (for her great idea) with it too until she shows some financial concern for her fellow citizens in the low and middle class.
Net neutrality will destroy the internet as we know it. Right now this so called censorship doesn't exist yet.
However, as video streaming and torrenting becomes more commonplace, it's important to have the capability to allow more basic services like e-mail and google have priority over a few geeks downloading terabytes of movies/music.
Anyone who's been on a college network knows that if all packets are treated equally, the torrenters essentially kill all other basic internet traffic.
You mean like the censorship that we've already seen from the ISPs like AT&T? You sure you know what you're talking about?
Are you aware that with HD content and online apps the average user is quickly catching up to your scapegoat pirates? The average user does 15GB a month now. You sure you know what you're talking about?
College networks aren't ISPs. They're free to run network management software. Or fire their IT team. Also, ISPs would still be free to ban customers for excess data.
'The average user does 15GB a month. You sure you know what you're talking about?'
I know enough that when you're talking statistics, you should be quoting what the median user uses, not the average user.
Only a small minority of users come close to using 15GB per month. I would love to see a citation that says otherwise. Or do you not know what you're talking about?
'College networks aren't ISPs.'
Blatantly wrong, but give me a citation if you're confident in this.
Legal video streaming is not some geek culture thing anymore.
Millions watch video streaming services from youtube to hulu, play flash games that need loading and many of the flash sites are updating stats and chat continuously, needing upload and download constantly.
Itunes, etc...
Comedy central, NBC, etc.. even use streaming
Theres so much legal stuff already, it shows your lack of concern for reality that you ignore them all and think the ...
for the bandwidth I use to access google, but also to charge google for the bandwidth thats used to handle my bandwidth.
en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Read a little, its about way more than just torrent and streaming packet shaping.
ISPs shouldnt be able to stop or slow legal content providers just because they dont pay for the privelage when they already pay an ISP on their own side for access.
To think McCain could have been president along with a woman who believed humans existed with the dinosaurs as his successor! Watching to much Flintstones she has!
I wonder why Old Man McCain keeps being sent back to Congress by his constituents. I see him standing for nothing worthwhile. Either the voters of Arizona are total morons or totally insane to like this fucking guy (McCain), or more proof that the voting system's rigged in America and all just a big lie, a sham, a show put on to give the illusion that there's a democracy going on.
Paid by his sponsor or doing the things he does on his own initiative, it doesn't really mater. What matters is that it's a fascist agenda McCain and his ilk advocate and are ushering in. There's a very dark future coming.
Check out this TheRealNews video I just watched on YouTube and see what the leaders of this world are allowing to go on. Former UK ambassador Craig Murray is interviewed and wrote a book on what's going on.
I just found out that BELL Canada has hired a firm from Arizona to handle our internet services and has complete access to our personal information. Now Obama, McCain and many others are pushing for complete government control, and regulation, which means unwarranted spying on Canadian Internet usersnot that they dont already do it but they will tie up 2 countries in one internet spying package.
He represents stupidity. Not the Republican party. What he proposes is against the 1st Amendment and this is a violation of AntiTrust laws. Again, It doesnt matter if your republican or democrat. Both parties do not represent the people. He is a hypocrit and a ignoramus whose wife operates the computer for him. Someone educate this guy. Again, he is a hired whore for the telecom companies.
Step 1. Government regulation over a non-existent problem.
Step 2. Government regulation creates its own unexpected problems
Step 3. Government exerts further control to fix the problems it created
Step 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until government has total control.
This is the general structure of government takeovers and has been applied to the railroads, banks, radio, television, heathcare, education, the auto industry, etc.
to all saying it will never happen, lol you. The gov can do any fucking thing they want. Sure some of the more intelligent people will put up a fight against this if it passes but in general I see America rolling over and taking it
OMG.. SHUT UP Rachel! I don't like John McCain. I don't like the idea of government telling business what they can and can't do. The FCC telling companies that their private property must be used to allow all traffic violates the fundamental right this country was founded upon. John Lock said, "Life Liberty and Property". The United States changed it to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness b/c the word "property" is limited. The FREE MARKET will work better than government. So just SHUT UP!
For a Ron Paul lover, you have your priorities a little mixed. Yes, free market can be a good thing, but not when corporations censor individuals. The internet is the first amendment living and breathing again for a lot of people. This very site, Youtube, is built on the ability for anyone to express their views regardless of what people think.
It' has also come to my attention that Ron Paul does oppose Net Neutrality. Which really does disappoint me. But my views stand as they are. At least he opposes them because of his beliefs and not because big ISPs are filling his bank accounts.
The most positive thing I can think of is that the end of net neutrality will infringe on our freedom of speech and expression. We definitely have too many freedoms and we are much better off doing what our slave masters want us to do. What is Ron Paul thinking? The Constitution is so "old-hat" and the IRS is our friend! Question: If John McCain is the "leader" of the Republican Party, why do all the Republicans sound like Ron Paul? They should all be sounding like John McCain, shouldn't they?
Pro-net neutrality people aren't stupid enough to believe that, given a long enough timeline (and, of course, past history, of which you seem completely unaware of) that a cable company wouldn't, for example, ban all competitive VOIP services and lock you in to contracts for services only their partners that paid bribes offer, thus locking you in to their crappy service and preventing competition.
Or, maybe, wouldn't censor a Pearl Jam frontman for not agreeing with his politics.
So since this problem does exist but I clearly am just not educated on it (as you claim). Give me some specifics. Some citations please of telecoms doing these awful things of which you speak.
For the Pearl Jam thing, AT&T said that was a mistake. However, even if it was intentional, it's AT&Ts own Blue Room website, which they should have the freedom to control, shouldn't they? That's not censorship.
Youtube does the same thing by taking down all porn and certain inflammatory speech.
Comcast: Bittorrent throttling/preventing seeding, deep packet inspection
AT&T: The Pearl Jam incident
Verizon: Censoring pro-choice text messages in 2007
You bring up a good point. The best point I've heard from anyone against net neutrality so far. The answer is: you're right. Although it's bull that it wasn't done on purpose.
But that's still not really valid since they WOULD retain the right to do that with their own services. The same applies to your Youtube argument.
lol, when did you start following the net neutrality issue?
How much do you follow ISP talk?
I can tell not much.
You cant always just switch ISPs if they are working together on this one, since they all benefit and know you wont give up internet altogether to boycott them.
Its about making the most money while upsetting the least people. How many people would give up internet altogether to boycott?
Next, many people wont even notice.
They will notice slowdown, but may not know who to blame
I should be able to choose the ISP that I want, even if that ISP treats content in a way that you don't approve of.
If I choose to subscribe to a service that violates net-neutrality guidelines on how streaming video packets should be treated but provides me more affordable internet, why should you have the right to stop me?
Essentially, the question is this: where do you get the right to dictate how others get to view the internet?
You could still choose whichever ISP you want. Nobody's looking to prevent an ISP from offering you a capped data plan (at say .5GB/mo) at a lower cost.
"Where do you get the right..." Which side are you on? The tone of your question indicates you're for net neutrality, not against it. Ask yourself this: why are the people most interested in keeping your view to the internet MOST open on net neutrality's side?
Services are infinitely cheaper, also, with net neutrality.
What would be nice is if an ISP would offer us who want high bandwidth the option, say a $70 plan, and put the extra money into upping the bandwidth of their whole system.
As use grows, so does the OC and Tx lines.
Too few companies are pushing fiber and wont give us an option to help pay for it by showing we want/need it.
Business lines are usually crappy bandwidths, and Tx lines are overpriced and not consumer needs.
I understand the sentiment, but I think that freedom of association is more important than my desire to dictate how things work.
Freedom has been the founding principle of the internet and occasionally bad shit happens, but as a whole the internet has been successful because it has been so free and unregulated. Take that freedom away, and you get unintended unexpected consequences.
Startup ISPs are very hard to come by for many people. Getting service at all is sometimes difficult, especially in your scenario where collusion happens.
I understand hesitance at codifying anything. But the push behind this is coming from content and IP-based service providers, not Nancy Pelosi.
De facto net neutrality is why the internet is the way it is today. Why should ISPs be able to virtually run by proxy all IP-based unrelated businesses? It makes no sense.
By the way, for your pirate argument: Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI) Usage statistics indicate 12.4GB average/mo wordlwide, and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute estimates 15GB average/mo US.
ISP rates vary, of course, by which sector you're talking about. In most cases, they're very hesitant any statistics at all, but most ISPs readily admit average bandwidth usage will jump tenfold in the coming decade (see Bell at the conference "Life in a Digital Fishbowl", Feb '09)
If businesses did collude and made all ISPs equally restrictive, there would be demand for a new ISP wouldn't there?
I mean, if I was limited in my ability to access the internet, I would definitely start subscribing to a start-up ISP, even if it cost me a little more.
Competition has been shown time and time again to work, even in telecoms (i.e. just look at the government/AT&T monopoly).
But even if it were to fail, it shouldn't give you a right to dictate how a company runs.
So, as to your second line, its answered, but are you such a tool that you would move or give up the internet that you use so much to boycott an ISP that makes up for the loss of you by forcing payment from others for tiered service?
Are you such a tool of big business that you think they should not have to give a good portion of the populace an option for their bandwidth needs yet give access to service they do offer below what they legally promote in contract?
There are not enough savvy people out there, where do you get such a belief from?
Most people know nothing about the internet except they pay an ISP money, they turn on their computer and it works.
Show me the stats that tell you most are tech savvy enough to know whats going on with their computer.
Again, net neutrality is now about cutting competition, its about not allowing ISPs to rip people off by double dipping or offering something then breaking contract by not giving whats paid for
You think corporations can better tell me what I can think, read, and what is availble to me for me to interact and educate myself on? Corporations should make those choices for me you say.
Hmmmm? Hmmm? Shame on you.
Best grab a dictionary. You have a very disoriented view of what this country stands for and freedom. Stick your free market bullshit up your ass. There is no free market with the disproportion of wealth in the world.
Some folks read Orwells 1984 and saw it as a cautionary tale, a dire warning about the abuse of power and word/mind manipulation. Other people missed the point entirely and just saw a standard issue Sci-Fi novel. The ones you need always fear are those who read it as an instruction manual. Most Neo's fit nicely into the third category.
Damn right! they sucked Bush's cock for 8 years. America could go up in a mushroom cloud and as long as a repuglican is President the FOX network wouldn't mind one bit.
This has been flagged as spam show
SIGN ALL THE PETITIONS! PLEASE THUMBS UP SO EVERYONE CAN SEE!
change(DOT)org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now
avaaz(DOT)org/en/save_the_internet_d/?twi
whitehouse(DOT)gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55
wfc2.wiredforchange(DOT)com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173
act.demandprogress(DOT)org/act/sopa_testimony?source=fb
act2.freepress(DOT)net/sign/sopa_letter/?source=twitter
fightforthefuture(DOT)org/pipa/
americancensorship(DOT)org/
P L S.
stunnerrocker 3 months ago
john mccain is an idiot
tallyhoman911 1 year ago
this video stopped playing to me at 5:41!
metaltwinke 1 year ago
Is McCain right?
Can we trust corporations to make the decisions about what we we deserve fast access to and which websites we don't deserve to have fast access to?
Nope.
Can we trust telecoms to pick winners and losers?
Nope.
Telecoms should not be allowed to play God and artificially turn the download speed of a website up or down by filtering.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago 3
Methinks Rachel and 'Xeni' exchanged numbers afterwards.
And that's my comment for today.
Webins 2 years ago
Now everyone line up, roll up the bill, and take turn slapping his left cheek with it until his inner evil comes out. Then, we slap his wife (for her great idea) with it too until she shows some financial concern for her fellow citizens in the low and middle class.
enemigosocultos 2 years ago
Where's all the Conservatards? What, can't comment on a video that actually truthfully explains net neutrality?
picklebarrels 2 years ago
Net neutrality will destroy the internet as we know it. Right now this so called censorship doesn't exist yet.
However, as video streaming and torrenting becomes more commonplace, it's important to have the capability to allow more basic services like e-mail and google have priority over a few geeks downloading terabytes of movies/music.
Anyone who's been on a college network knows that if all packets are treated equally, the torrenters essentially kill all other basic internet traffic.
schulwitz 2 years ago
You mean like the censorship that we've already seen from the ISPs like AT&T? You sure you know what you're talking about?
Are you aware that with HD content and online apps the average user is quickly catching up to your scapegoat pirates? The average user does 15GB a month now. You sure you know what you're talking about?
College networks aren't ISPs. They're free to run network management software. Or fire their IT team. Also, ISPs would still be free to ban customers for excess data.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
'The average user does 15GB a month. You sure you know what you're talking about?'
I know enough that when you're talking statistics, you should be quoting what the median user uses, not the average user.
Only a small minority of users come close to using 15GB per month. I would love to see a citation that says otherwise. Or do you not know what you're talking about?
'College networks aren't ISPs.'
Blatantly wrong, but give me a citation if you're confident in this.
schulwitz 2 years ago
torrenting is already more important.
Legal video streaming is not some geek culture thing anymore.
Millions watch video streaming services from youtube to hulu, play flash games that need loading and many of the flash sites are updating stats and chat continuously, needing upload and download constantly.
Itunes, etc...
Comedy central, NBC, etc.. even use streaming
Theres so much legal stuff already, it shows your lack of concern for reality that you ignore them all and think the ...
waltermh111 2 years ago
bandwidth is all taken up by a few geeks
The networks need to be upgraded, not people ripped off.
These ISPs dont even give some people a reasonable priced option that can suit their needs, hows that good business?
Net neutrality isnt about blocking only certain packet types anyway.
Shows your lack of knowledge on a subject you think you can speak on.
Net netrality also started when ISPs started wanting to double dip.
Basically, an ISP says they should be able to charge me not only ...
waltermh111 2 years ago
for the bandwidth I use to access google, but also to charge google for the bandwidth thats used to handle my bandwidth.
en.wikipedia . org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Read a little, its about way more than just torrent and streaming packet shaping.
ISPs shouldnt be able to stop or slow legal content providers just because they dont pay for the privelage when they already pay an ISP on their own side for access.
waltermh111 2 years ago
To think McCain could have been president along with a woman who believed humans existed with the dinosaurs as his successor! Watching to much Flintstones she has!
dmp079 2 years ago
"John McCain Wants To CENSOR The Internet"
That's because he's a fascist douche!
JixMa 2 years ago
I wonder why Old Man McCain keeps being sent back to Congress by his constituents. I see him standing for nothing worthwhile. Either the voters of Arizona are total morons or totally insane to like this fucking guy (McCain), or more proof that the voting system's rigged in America and all just a big lie, a sham, a show put on to give the illusion that there's a democracy going on.
JixMa 2 years ago
i dont think hes a fascist, i think he is paid by his sponser and he says what they want him to...
leykisfan1 2 years ago
@leykisfan1
Paid by his sponsor or doing the things he does on his own initiative, it doesn't really mater. What matters is that it's a fascist agenda McCain and his ilk advocate and are ushering in. There's a very dark future coming.
Check out this TheRealNews video I just watched on YouTube and see what the leaders of this world are allowing to go on. Former UK ambassador Craig Murray is interviewed and wrote a book on what's going on.
"Uzbek terror and the UK/USA"
watch?v=GBkQlm2ifpo
JixMa 2 years ago
If they fuck with my internet........
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
Fu*king disgraceful waste of skin... 1st he vote again anti-rape... now he try this... time to get rid of him...
Nerd of the world unit... hack the crap out of his bank account... let him taste poverty...
BioCapsule 2 years ago
John McCain admits his hero is Saddam Hussein.
Pvtjamesryan2 2 years ago 2
I just found out that BELL Canada has hired a firm from Arizona to handle our internet services and has complete access to our personal information. Now Obama, McCain and many others are pushing for complete government control, and regulation, which means unwarranted spying on Canadian Internet usersnot that they dont already do it but they will tie up 2 countries in one internet spying package.
2minstral 2 years ago
John McNazi
ZankDigiTrash 2 years ago
fizzuck mcizzain!
Steadno 2 years ago
He represents stupidity. Not the Republican party. What he proposes is against the 1st Amendment and this is a violation of AntiTrust laws. Again, It doesnt matter if your republican or democrat. Both parties do not represent the people. He is a hypocrit and a ignoramus whose wife operates the computer for him. Someone educate this guy. Again, he is a hired whore for the telecom companies.
thomas290 2 years ago
you dumb fucks its the net neutrality bill thats going to censors the internet oh my god fucking morons.
internet is fine as its right now
chan0chap 2 years ago
Few people can see the big picture.
Step 1. Government regulation over a non-existent problem.
Step 2. Government regulation creates its own unexpected problems
Step 3. Government exerts further control to fix the problems it created
Step 4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until government has total control.
This is the general structure of government takeovers and has been applied to the railroads, banks, radio, television, heathcare, education, the auto industry, etc.
They always fuck it up...
schulwitz 2 years ago
Fuck McCain
Intervene 2 years ago
I kept looking at this boing chick and singing in my head "White Wedding." Why is that?
OmarThePug 2 years ago
to all saying it will never happen, lol you. The gov can do any fucking thing they want. Sure some of the more intelligent people will put up a fight against this if it passes but in general I see America rolling over and taking it
sethvicious 2 years ago
WHOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH!
This is like listening to an argument over how many troops we should send rather than if we should be sending them at all...
CivilRadiant 2 years ago
OMG.. SHUT UP Rachel! I don't like John McCain. I don't like the idea of government telling business what they can and can't do. The FCC telling companies that their private property must be used to allow all traffic violates the fundamental right this country was founded upon. John Lock said, "Life Liberty and Property". The United States changed it to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness b/c the word "property" is limited. The FREE MARKET will work better than government. So just SHUT UP!
RonPaulLover123 2 years ago
For a Ron Paul lover, you have your priorities a little mixed. Yes, free market can be a good thing, but not when corporations censor individuals. The internet is the first amendment living and breathing again for a lot of people. This very site, Youtube, is built on the ability for anyone to express their views regardless of what people think.
Keitarokun581 2 years ago
It' has also come to my attention that Ron Paul does oppose Net Neutrality. Which really does disappoint me. But my views stand as they are. At least he opposes them because of his beliefs and not because big ISPs are filling his bank accounts.
Keitarokun581 2 years ago 2
Why does it disappoint you that ron paul opposes net neutrality? What positive thing do you think can come out of net neutrality?
reaperofgenocide 2 years ago
The most positive thing I can think of is that the end of net neutrality will infringe on our freedom of speech and expression. We definitely have too many freedoms and we are much better off doing what our slave masters want us to do. What is Ron Paul thinking? The Constitution is so "old-hat" and the IRS is our friend! Question: If John McCain is the "leader" of the Republican Party, why do all the Republicans sound like Ron Paul? They should all be sounding like John McCain, shouldn't they?
Humpahna 2 years ago
I hope you just dont know what net neutrality is.
The idea ISPs got was that they could double dip if they all collude on one idea.
When I say access, I mean send and recieve
I pay to access the internet, most often on partially public funded lines.
Google pays to access the internet along those same lines.
What ISPs want to do is say that google has to pay not only for its access to the internet, but also for each person that accesses them.
Google then has to pay not only its own ISP...
waltermh111 2 years ago
But my ISP also, or any inbetween ISPs that want to get involved.
Its double dipping, and it should be illegal.
The big problem is that it limits access to the people with the biggest pockets.
It can severely limit access to startup site operators, small business, etc...
Even the founders wouldnt be kept from my disdain if they supported business screwing people over like that.
waltermh111 2 years ago
The reason that hasn't happen and won't happen is that if an ISP tried to pull that shit, people would stop using that ISP.
Are you such a tool that you would still pay your ISP if they limited your ability to access the internet?
Probably not, but even if you are, there are enough savvy people out there that would not put up with that kind of bullshit.
That's why allowing ISPs to compete with one another and find the best way to deliver content is better than ceding power to the bureaucrats
schulwitz 2 years ago
Pro-net neutrality people aren't stupid enough to believe that, given a long enough timeline (and, of course, past history, of which you seem completely unaware of) that a cable company wouldn't, for example, ban all competitive VOIP services and lock you in to contracts for services only their partners that paid bribes offer, thus locking you in to their crappy service and preventing competition.
Or, maybe, wouldn't censor a Pearl Jam frontman for not agreeing with his politics.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
So since this problem does exist but I clearly am just not educated on it (as you claim). Give me some specifics. Some citations please of telecoms doing these awful things of which you speak.
For the Pearl Jam thing, AT&T said that was a mistake. However, even if it was intentional, it's AT&Ts own Blue Room website, which they should have the freedom to control, shouldn't they? That's not censorship.
Youtube does the same thing by taking down all porn and certain inflammatory speech.
schulwitz 2 years ago
Comcast: Bittorrent throttling/preventing seeding, deep packet inspection
AT&T: The Pearl Jam incident
Verizon: Censoring pro-choice text messages in 2007
You bring up a good point. The best point I've heard from anyone against net neutrality so far. The answer is: you're right. Although it's bull that it wasn't done on purpose.
But that's still not really valid since they WOULD retain the right to do that with their own services. The same applies to your Youtube argument.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
lol, when did you start following the net neutrality issue?
How much do you follow ISP talk?
I can tell not much.
You cant always just switch ISPs if they are working together on this one, since they all benefit and know you wont give up internet altogether to boycott them.
Its about making the most money while upsetting the least people. How many people would give up internet altogether to boycott?
Next, many people wont even notice.
They will notice slowdown, but may not know who to blame
waltermh111 2 years ago
It's a freedom issue. Pure and simple.
I should be able to choose the ISP that I want, even if that ISP treats content in a way that you don't approve of.
If I choose to subscribe to a service that violates net-neutrality guidelines on how streaming video packets should be treated but provides me more affordable internet, why should you have the right to stop me?
Essentially, the question is this: where do you get the right to dictate how others get to view the internet?
schulwitz 2 years ago
You could still choose whichever ISP you want. Nobody's looking to prevent an ISP from offering you a capped data plan (at say .5GB/mo) at a lower cost.
"Where do you get the right..." Which side are you on? The tone of your question indicates you're for net neutrality, not against it. Ask yourself this: why are the people most interested in keeping your view to the internet MOST open on net neutrality's side?
Services are infinitely cheaper, also, with net neutrality.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
What would be nice is if an ISP would offer us who want high bandwidth the option, say a $70 plan, and put the extra money into upping the bandwidth of their whole system.
As use grows, so does the OC and Tx lines.
Too few companies are pushing fiber and wont give us an option to help pay for it by showing we want/need it.
Business lines are usually crappy bandwidths, and Tx lines are overpriced and not consumer needs.
waltermh111 2 years ago
I understand the sentiment, but I think that freedom of association is more important than my desire to dictate how things work.
Freedom has been the founding principle of the internet and occasionally bad shit happens, but as a whole the internet has been successful because it has been so free and unregulated. Take that freedom away, and you get unintended unexpected consequences.
schulwitz 2 years ago
Startup ISPs are very hard to come by for many people. Getting service at all is sometimes difficult, especially in your scenario where collusion happens.
I understand hesitance at codifying anything. But the push behind this is coming from content and IP-based service providers, not Nancy Pelosi.
De facto net neutrality is why the internet is the way it is today. Why should ISPs be able to virtually run by proxy all IP-based unrelated businesses? It makes no sense.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
By the way, for your pirate argument: Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI) Usage statistics indicate 12.4GB average/mo wordlwide, and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute estimates 15GB average/mo US.
ISP rates vary, of course, by which sector you're talking about. In most cases, they're very hesitant any statistics at all, but most ISPs readily admit average bandwidth usage will jump tenfold in the coming decade (see Bell at the conference "Life in a Digital Fishbowl", Feb '09)
picklebarrels 2 years ago
what if you have no choice?
You say freedom should be so absolute that businesses in collusion should be able to limit your freedoms and privileges based on their profit motive?
Absolute freedom is not real freedom because its an excuse for one side to limit the freedom of others.
My only option against a group interest, such as a cities ISPs working together, is to fight back with the government or move.
I will stick to fighting for my own rights and privileges just as you would i hope
waltermh111 2 years ago
If businesses did collude and made all ISPs equally restrictive, there would be demand for a new ISP wouldn't there?
I mean, if I was limited in my ability to access the internet, I would definitely start subscribing to a start-up ISP, even if it cost me a little more.
Competition has been shown time and time again to work, even in telecoms (i.e. just look at the government/AT&T monopoly).
But even if it were to fail, it shouldn't give you a right to dictate how a company runs.
schulwitz 2 years ago
First, I dont want a dozen different lines being put through the city.
Do you know how much digging up of our city that would cause?
Second, you think just asking for another ISP will produce the money for somebody to start one?
The barrier to entry on such things is extremely high. Whos going to give that multi-million dollar loan which may never be paid back?
And then when that new ISP finds out they can get away with ripping us off, what, get another ISP to put down more lines?
waltermh111 2 years ago
Competition has been shown time and time again to not work also.
You can ignore the failures, but it doesnt make them go away.
I dont know what modern telecoms have to do with anything.
Really, what about it?
That because theres competition somewhere that it cant fail anywhere?
Much of modern telecom comes from gov help and the old anti-trust case that broke up the old bell company. Forget exact company name.
Yes, failure to provide ethicly/legally gives the right to dictate it do so.
waltermh111 2 years ago
So, as to your second line, its answered, but are you such a tool that you would move or give up the internet that you use so much to boycott an ISP that makes up for the loss of you by forcing payment from others for tiered service?
Are you such a tool of big business that you think they should not have to give a good portion of the populace an option for their bandwidth needs yet give access to service they do offer below what they legally promote in contract?
waltermh111 2 years ago
There are not enough savvy people out there, where do you get such a belief from?
Most people know nothing about the internet except they pay an ISP money, they turn on their computer and it works.
Show me the stats that tell you most are tech savvy enough to know whats going on with their computer.
Again, net neutrality is now about cutting competition, its about not allowing ISPs to rip people off by double dipping or offering something then breaking contract by not giving whats paid for
waltermh111 2 years ago
Just a reminder, October 23, 2009.
Roonskii 2 years ago
You think corporations can better tell me what I can think, read, and what is availble to me for me to interact and educate myself on? Corporations should make those choices for me you say.
Hmmmm? Hmmm? Shame on you.
Best grab a dictionary. You have a very disoriented view of what this country stands for and freedom. Stick your free market bullshit up your ass. There is no free market with the disproportion of wealth in the world.
Roonskii 2 years ago 2
Some folks read Orwells 1984 and saw it as a cautionary tale, a dire warning about the abuse of power and word/mind manipulation. Other people missed the point entirely and just saw a standard issue Sci-Fi novel. The ones you need always fear are those who read it as an instruction manual. Most Neo's fit nicely into the third category.
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
Blame others of what you are most guilty of to distract from them questioning you.
Roonskii 2 years ago
Oldest ploy in the Neo-Con satanic Bible and operators manual.
I really wish I could get my hands on an unabridged copy of that unholy tome, I'll put it on the shelf next to the Necronomicon ;-)
Plutonwolf 2 years ago
McCains a fucking joke, old fuck needs to go away.
Churchx77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wonder when she's getting the the penis installed
TheVikingNinja 2 years ago
she will as soon as u pull it out of ur ass
3star2nr 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what do balls taste like?
TheVikingNinja 2 years ago
You tell me dint u have a pair tapping ur assright now? Taste it for yourself.
I couldnt tell u Im not into guys.
I could tell u how good pussy tastes though
3star2nr 2 years ago
I heard you like having midgets shit on you while playing violins, fucking creap
TheVikingNinja 2 years ago
Never done it but that sounds like one heck of a party.
3star2nr 2 years ago
wanna get a beer or something?
TheVikingNinja 2 years ago
yeah id grab a drink
3star2nr 2 years ago
It couldn't happen. The nerds would become radicalized and the pirate internet would be up and running within 48 hours.
MTL911Truth 2 years ago 8
I am watching channel 69..
RodgersRevolution 2 years ago
Johnny McInsane wants to censor the NET? no way? could you imagine if this asshole was President right now? thank GOD he is NOT!
666bushisnazi666 2 years ago
can i interest you in censorship of the internet imposed by president obama?
RoyalDemonforChrist 2 years ago
Porch commie. Get it ?
Churchx77 2 years ago
Could I interest you in internet censorship imposed by Disney corp? How about Viacom or Time-Warner?
Plutonwolf 2 years ago 8
You don't know what net Neutrality is and where it has it roots do you.
Man it is to bad the intertubes don't have a IQ test associated with it so we don't get you rabble in her.
GO back to being a redneck and stop stinking up the internetz!!
Waage83 2 years ago
i can almost guarantee that my IQ is higher than yours
RoyalDemonforChrist 2 years ago
Congratulations! Took a 30 second IQ test that was online?
Garlannd 2 years ago
what would fox news have said, they would have praised him....
ykw68 2 years ago 3
Damn right! they sucked Bush's cock for 8 years. America could go up in a mushroom cloud and as long as a repuglican is President the FOX network wouldn't mind one bit.
666bushisnazi666 2 years ago 2
The description lists this as a Olbermann clip. It's actually Maddow. Feel free to delete this comment.
bamboozlewatch 2 years ago
Is that Crazy old Senile still Alive?
Die Already Old man, or die trying to censor the internet, because that will NEVER Happen.
0xTRX007 2 years ago 2