So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Mardukk · November 2017

I do not see the great things that will happen for the consumer in this change. I don't care about high level philisophical arguments or my thoughts on the market as an overview. I think pragmatically. We will see if any of these companies have the balls to jerk us around. I predict most will not, if they do there will be a severe push back, and they know that. Unfortunately there are only one of two ISP in most areas. I guess if they all screw us, we can't do much.

Quizzical · November 2017

Bladeburaiba said:

Quizzical said:

I would submit that what actually happened in real life when ISPs had exactly the power you're so terrified of in the years leading up to 2015 are a better indication of how ISPs

I'm really quite surprised by your reaction. The internet is still very new, though it seems like it's been here forever. Net neutrality became a thing when concerned people realized this was the next direction the companies were going. Net neutrality didn't come out of a vacuum, it was 5-7 years ago there were discussions and rumblings in the industry about creating and monetizing fast lanes on the internet. The only reason we're able to have discussions now is because some very smart people got out ahead of this thing.

Real life examples? Verizon a few months ago rolled out a throttling of Youtube and Netflix on Verizon phones. No, they WEREN'T ready before, but now they are. There was an article about Time Warner being ready now.

More real life examples? Portugal and UK are the only European countries that have "anti-net neutrality" rules, as reported by the NY Times. In those countries, the consumer pays a basic fee, then you pay separately for packages like unlimited social media, video media. etc. Obviously, they also charge those companies in the fast lanes, who in turn charge back those fees to customers. This is only the legal stuff, not the borderline stuff like screwing your competitors.

What's wrong with different carriers having different policies? If Verizon does something that annoys you, switch to T-Mobile. Or AT&T. Or Sprint. Or some regional carrier where you live. If they can save a ton of bandwidth by doing something that annoys a tiny fraction of their customers, and thus provide better service to the rest of their customers, then good for them. And if they drive away a large chunk of their customer base by doing things that everyone hates, then they'll lose a ton of money on it and deservedly so.

There's a stronger case for regulation of wired connections where it's harder to have competition than wireless where there is already a lot of competition. There is a need for regulations to force companies to do what they promise, but not so much to meddle with the fine details of what companies are allowed to offer.

Asm0deus · November 2017

Quizzical said:

Asm0deus said:

Wow almost prophetic ...lolz
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml

This idea is just as awesome as building the Trump wall....but hey Trump will make America great again.....sure!

Why NN should stay and is still needed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5

I'll bet you that a whole lot of people who don't use the Internet all that much would love to get access to everything they actually care about for less than they pay today. American ISPs traditionally haven't gone for that because it would result in too many people paying too much less than what they pay today. It's actually very similar to the cable bundling argument, where you might actually watch 5 channels, but in order to get the five you want, your cable company makes you pay for access to 100 channels.

Just FYI I live in Canada so I know all about overly expensive cell phone and cable bundles. Canada did not have much net neutrality originally and ISP had pretty much free hand in how they could throttle you depending on time of day and what you were actually downloading, IE streaming or p2p etc. It was bloody awful, our net was a complete joke and we paid up the arse for it, in 2009 our CRTC started in with NN and it all got loads better (both in speeds, availability and infrastructure) now I am now not saying every single regulation in the US NN is for the best but what they are doing IS going backwards.

Here in Canada now that the whole last mile BS is done with and ISPs MUST share their lines with the little resellers it has put some power back into the customer by giving them options on ISP where there use to be none (only cogeco, videotron or bell) which in turn has forced the big three to be a little less douchey towards their customer, has forced them to be willing to offer better deals and indeed grow and build out.

Funny cause before the CRTC stepped in this wasn't happening.

Way things work presently in the USA if you give ISP free reign there's not really anything to force them to play nice and saying well they wont want to piss off or be mean to their customers is more than a little naive.

Quizzical · November 2017

MadFrenchie said:
Verizon throttled Netflix and YouTube after stating they don't manipulate said content less than a year before.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

If they're promising customers one thing and doing the opposite, that's fraud. Sure, that should be illegal. But you don't need Title II net neutrality to make it illegal. The proposed replacement for the Title II regulations basically consists of, ISPs can do largely what they want, but have to make it clear to consumers what they're doing, so customers who don't like it can switch carriers if they want to.

"We'll lose money because fewer people will buy from us if we do X" is actually quite a powerful incentive for companies to do what people want.

Mardukk · November 2017

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:
Verizon throttled Netflix and YouTube after stating they don't manipulate said content less than a year before.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

If they're promising customers one thing and doing the opposite, that's fraud. Sure, that should be illegal. But you don't need Title II net neutrality to make it illegal. The proposed replacement for the Title II regulations basically consists of, ISPs can do largely what they want, but have to make it clear to consumers what they're doing, so customers who don't like it can switch carriers if they want to.

"We'll lose money because fewer people will buy from us if we do X" is actually quite a powerful incentive for companies to do what people want.

Assuming they don't all do that. There are very limited options for ISPs at this time, in most regions.

I just don't understand the need for this change. One of those situations where we will have an answer in the near future.

Quizzical · November 2017

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

DMKano said:

Throttling down or downright blocking access to sites that belong to your competitor is an extremely shitty practice. Net neutrality is here to prevent that, without it - Comcast, Time Warner etc... they will have free reign of how they are going to control your internet access.

They had exactly that free rein that you're so scared as recently as 2015. Did they use it to wantonly block sites that they didn't like? Most of the scandals of American Internet companies blocking sites are bowing to pressure from some foreign government to censor sites that said government doesn't like, only block foreign access to the sites, and are against the wishes of the American company. Let's not rush to impose costly regulations to ward off hypothetical problems.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/fact-checking-isps-claims-of-support-for-net-neutrality

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

2.5 minutes of internet searching.

So your argument for why we need Title II regulations is that companies did some things that you don't like before the Title II regulations existed, and then were forced to stop by other rules before the Title II regulations existed? So basically, the system worked before, and so we needed to change it?

I'd think that a real-world historical argument for the Title II regulations would have to be that companies commonly did something that people were against and got away with it before the Title II regulations, but the new regulations forced them to stop.

Asm0deus · November 2017

SedrynTyros said:

Quizzical said:

"We'll lose money because fewer people will buy from us if we do X" is actually quite a powerful incentive for companies to do what people want.

Not if there's only a few companies to choose from and they all work in collusion with each other .... so in other words, not in the real world.

Indeed this only works if there truly is competition which frankly I do not believe will happen, we have seen this first hand in Canada where each region was served by only one of the big three until the CRTC stepped in and said enough.

This whole argument doesn't work Quiz if ISP have a free reign and no one forces them to follow certain rules.

Quizzical · November 2017

I'd like to raise an important point that I haven't seen anyone else raise on this thread yet. Suppose that we have three options:

1) Congress passes a law and the president signs it saying that the FCC must use Title I regulations and not Title II to regulate the Internet, and then the FCC follows that law.
2) Congress passes a law and the president signs it saying that the FCC must use Title II regulations and not Title I to regulate the Internet, and then the FCC follow that law.
3) The FCC bounces around erratically between Title I and Title II depending on who happens to be on its board at the time, with lots of lawsuits and courts getting involved and people don't know what the situation will be a year hence.

Option (3) is the worst of the three. Even fairly bad regulations that are clear, predictable, well-understood, and not constantly changing are often preferable to not knowing what the regulatory regime will be.

MadFrenchie · November 2017

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

DMKano said:

Throttling down or downright blocking access to sites that belong to your competitor is an extremely shitty practice. Net neutrality is here to prevent that, without it - Comcast, Time Warner etc... they will have free reign of how they are going to control your internet access.

They had exactly that free rein that you're so scared as recently as 2015. Did they use it to wantonly block sites that they didn't like? Most of the scandals of American Internet companies blocking sites are bowing to pressure from some foreign government to censor sites that said government doesn't like, only block foreign access to the sites, and are against the wishes of the American company. Let's not rush to impose costly regulations to ward off hypothetical problems.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/fact-checking-isps-claims-of-support-for-net-neutrality

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

2.5 minutes of internet searching.

So your argument for why we need Title II regulations is that companies did some things that you don't like before the Title II regulations existed, and then were forced to stop by other rules before the Title II regulations existed? So basically, the system worked before, and so we needed to change it?

I'd think that a real-world historical argument for the Title II regulations would have to be that companies commonly did something that people were against and got away with it before the Title II regulations, but the new regulations forced them to stop.

C'mon Quizzical, you know why regulations exist. When a body can't be trusted to regulate itself, government steps in to ensure it gets done. ISPs have shown, quite clearly, that they will continue to attempt to monopolize the internet to their exclusive benefit. Any idea that they will turn a new leaf and stop attempting to monopolize the internet without a regulating body overseeing it and able to intervene isn't a logical one.

Ridelynn · November 2017

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:
Verizon throttled Netflix and YouTube after stating they don't manipulate said content less than a year before.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/07/verizon-wireless-apparently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

If they're promising customers one thing and doing the opposite, that's fraud. Sure, that should be illegal. But you don't need Title II net neutrality to make it illegal. The proposed replacement for the Title II regulations basically consists of, ISPs can do largely what they want, but have to make it clear to consumers what they're doing, so customers who don't like it can switch carriers if they want to.

"We'll lose money because fewer people will buy from us if we do X" is actually quite a powerful incentive for companies to do what people want.

The counter to that: If a person doesn't agree with X, and doesn't want to buy it from Company A, then who do they buy it from? Or is doing without worse than living with whatever X is?

I won't speak for everyone, I can do without internet connectivity for a few days, but I've really come to like having open and unfettered access, even though I only have a 375kbps radio connection. I can't imagine what a fiber connection would be like, our 10MBps connection at work blows my mind already, and I equally can't imagine totally doing without internet in today's world, honestly.

Oh, I'm sure it's possible - there are plenty of people that do it all over the world. But you can say the same thing about electricity, or running water, or toilets.

I don't know about you, but I do like my toilet too.

FlyByKnight · November 2017

Lots of willful obtuseness going on right now. I wish I could be a fly on the wall with these folks to see what the actual motivation was.

ConstantineMerus · November 2017

We're a funny species. We fight for equality. But whatever we gain, we lose another.

RexKushman · November 2017

I've been reading this thread all day at work, lots of good points on both sides IMO. Regardless, this isn't something that is going to be up for a vote. The new FCC chairman will be the one that decides and he takes his marching orders from the White House and it looks like it is most likely going away. If you really want to see Net Neutrality stay in place I'd suggest writing him and your congressmen.

Quizzical · November 2017

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

DMKano said:

Throttling down or downright blocking access to sites that belong to your competitor is an extremely shitty practice. Net neutrality is here to prevent that, without it - Comcast, Time Warner etc... they will have free reign of how they are going to control your internet access.

They had exactly that free rein that you're so scared as recently as 2015. Did they use it to wantonly block sites that they didn't like? Most of the scandals of American Internet companies blocking sites are bowing to pressure from some foreign government to censor sites that said government doesn't like, only block foreign access to the sites, and are against the wishes of the American company. Let's not rush to impose costly regulations to ward off hypothetical problems.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/fact-checking-isps-claims-of-support-for-net-neutrality

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

2.5 minutes of internet searching.

So your argument for why we need Title II regulations is that companies did some things that you don't like before the Title II regulations existed, and then were forced to stop by other rules before the Title II regulations existed? So basically, the system worked before, and so we needed to change it?

I'd think that a real-world historical argument for the Title II regulations would have to be that companies commonly did something that people were against and got away with it before the Title II regulations, but the new regulations forced them to stop.

C'mon Quizzical, you know why regulations exist. When a body can't be trusted to regulate itself, government steps in to ensure it gets done. ISPs have shown, quite clearly, that they will continue to attempt to monopolize the internet to their exclusive benefit. Any idea that they will turn a new leaf and stop attempting to monopolize the internet without a regulating body overseeing it and able to intervene isn't a logical one.

I don't tend to trust either corporations or governments to do what I want. The advantage of corporations is that, in a properly competitive market, at least if one corporation annoys me for whatever reason, I can switch to a competitor instead, and without substantially disrupting my life or having to convince anyone else that I'm right to be annoyed at the company. Switching governments is rather harder to do.

I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave. Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.

Grintch · November 2017

It's just another power grab from Obama's 8 years of misery. I'll choose the free market over government control any time of the day. If you think more big government is the solution, then you're probably for it. Remember this, the establishment always craves more power and any legislation they come up with almost always means the reverse of what it's named. They're masters of that. If the bill passes, don't complain when your choices shrink to 1 or 2 companies.

Moirae · November 2017

I feel the net NEEDS to remain neutral. We can't allow government or companies to control what we see and here in a free society.

MrMelGibson · November 2017

Horusra said:

SedrynTyros said:

Ozmodan said:

Cleffy said:

Title II regulations doesn't adhere to the tenant of the internet. Communication companies were removed from title II in the 90s. Most of what we would attribute to being the internet age was under Title I regulations. Title II regulations would handle ISPs worse as it was made for copper telephone service using switch operators.
The FCC was budget neutral. It was funded through licensing RF spectrum. They don't really levy a tax, but operate more like a business. The subsidies they provide are gained through fees and licenses they charge to ISPs.

Well sorry, but just because they did not do it in the past does not mean they won't do it. To start with most of the big ISPs are monopolies. Only a few big cities have any choice of ISP, they tend to avoid areas serviced by other providers. So there is really nothing a subscriber can do if an ISP decides to do such. These big ISPs are in the business of making money and as cable fees continue dropping you can bet they will be looking at these other methods of making income and it will not be good for the consumer.

Of course they will. It is insanely naive to believe otherwise.

I mean, I get the anti-government ideology, but do the people who believe in that ever come up for air and look at what happens when government regulations are removed? We have to live in the real world and deal with things as they are not as we believe they should be. And the truth is that given half a chance the corporations would own us. The only thing stopping them is government.

Look what regulation gave us...Obama Care crap

Very true, can't wait for those awesome pre-existing conditions to come back so my insurance can tell me my injury in Afghanistan is pre-existing condition and I'm free to pay for it myself.

Ridelynn · November 2017

Quizzical said:

I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave. Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.

I agree with all of that, but see, most people don't have the luxury of choice. In the major city I'm near, it's Comcast up to 100MB or ... I guess there's AT&T DSL at 1/10th the speed, or radio wireless for 1/30th the speed, or LTE cellular for 1/2 the speed and data caps.

Comcast lobbies very hard to keep it that way, and makes it extremely difficult for another company to get permitting and use rights to install a competing infrastructure. The radio ISP isn't even independant, they use Comcast backbone and pay a good bit to do so - and it's reflected in the pricing. You pay more for a 3MB radio link than you would 100MB cable, but Comcast isn't willing to run cable everywhere - hence radio has a market, even at that price.

It's kinda like saying you always have the option of walking, but when your destination is 50 miles away, is isn't an appealing option.

MrMelGibson · November 2017

Quizzical said:

SedrynTyros said:

Ozmodan said:

Cleffy said:

Title II regulations doesn't adhere to the tenant of the internet. Communication companies were removed from title II in the 90s. Most of what we would attribute to being the internet age was under Title I regulations. Title II regulations would handle ISPs worse as it was made for copper telephone service using switch operators.
The FCC was budget neutral. It was funded through licensing RF spectrum. They don't really levy a tax, but operate more like a business. The subsidies they provide are gained through fees and licenses they charge to ISPs.

Well sorry, but just because they did not do it in the past does not mean they won't do it. To start with most of the big ISPs are monopolies. Only a few big cities have any choice of ISP, they tend to avoid areas serviced by other providers. So there is really nothing a subscriber can do if an ISP decides to do such. These big ISPs are in the business of making money and as cable fees continue dropping you can bet they will be looking at these other methods of making income and it will not be good for the consumer.

Of course they will. It is insanely naive to believe otherwise.

I mean, I get the anti-government ideology, but do the people who believe in that ever come up for air and look at what happens when government regulations are removed? We have to live in the real world and deal with things as they are not as we believe they should be. And the truth is that given half a chance the corporations would own us. The only thing stopping them is government.

For example, when they deregulated the airlines, it resulted in planes becoming more cramped--but with airfare much cheaper than before. Apparently most fliers wanted cheaper flights--in multiple senses of the word--that the airlines couldn't offer while heavily regulated.

That's a pretty terrible example. Airlines are a mess now. Overbook and over sell seats so that when everyone shows up not everyone can get on? Check. Price gouging for extra carry on bags and etc. No meals in flight. The list goes on. Jesus, they should put those regulations back in. Flying is a nightmare now. This really doesn't bode well for your argument.

Zahn51 · November 2017

Ocean's dying, plankton's dying... it's people. *Soylent Green is made out of people.* They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

Horusra · November 2017

SedrynTyros said:

Ridelynn said:

Quizzical said:

I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave. Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.

I agree with all of that, but see, most people don't have the luxury of choice. In the major city I'm near, it's Comcast up to 100MB or ... I guess there's AT&T DSL at 1/10th the speed, or radio wireless for 1/30th the speed, or LTE cellular for 1/2 the speed and data caps.

Comcast lobbies very hard to keep it that way, and makes it extremely difficult for another company to get permitting and use rights to install a competing infrastructure. The radio ISP isn't even independant, they use Comcast backbone and pay a good bit to do so - and it's reflected in the pricing. You pay more for a 3MB radio link than you would 100MB cable, but Comcast isn't willing to run cable everywhere - hence radio has a market, even at that price.

It's kinda like saying you always have the option of walking, but when your destination is 50 miles away, is isn't an appealing option.

Again, pragmatism vs ideology. Real world, versus theoretical.

I don't understand why this situation is so hard for some people to grasp. Do you want to get fucked or not? If you want to get fucked, go ahead and give all the power to corporations that have no other agenda than to squeeze every cent out of you possible. If you don't want that, then accept that the only watch dog capable of keeping them in check is government. Even if you don't like government for whatever reason, this is the world we live in. Side lining them and leaving everything up to the people who want to fuck you for as much money as they can possibility get out of you is not in your best interest. It just isn't.

You don't like the current government? Then elect other people. But don't give big money telecoms total power over your utilities and expect things to work out okay. That ain't going to happen. They won't keep each other in check. They'll have back door meetings, and they'll squeeze you. And the entire time they're doing it, they'll blow smoke up your ass and claim that's it's beyond their control. And we'll all be fucked, regardless of our political leanings.

I love your trust of government to actually be able to manage any situation without making it cost more and run less efficiently. With government regulation you will get 1 mb speeds for double the price.

Solar_Prophet · November 2017

Giving government control over net neutrality basically puts it in a position where it can redefine the meaning of the term. 'neutrality', as it sees fit. If a company decides to block or slow down access to certain sites, you can always go to a competitor. If the government decides to do so, there's almost nothing you can do about it.

In a perfect world where government could be trusted to safeguard the rights of the people, I'd be all for it. Here in reality where corruption, cronyism, and 'nanny stating' have run rampant for more than a century (in the USA at least), I'm very much against it.

Horusra · November 2017

SedrynTyros said:

Horusra said:

SedrynTyros said:

Ridelynn said:

Quizzical said:

I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave. Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.

I agree with all of that, but see, most people don't have the luxury of choice. In the major city I'm near, it's Comcast up to 100MB or ... I guess there's AT&T DSL at 1/10th the speed, or radio wireless for 1/30th the speed, or LTE cellular for 1/2 the speed and data caps.

Comcast lobbies very hard to keep it that way, and makes it extremely difficult for another company to get permitting and use rights to install a competing infrastructure. The radio ISP isn't even independant, they use Comcast backbone and pay a good bit to do so - and it's reflected in the pricing. You pay more for a 3MB radio link than you would 100MB cable, but Comcast isn't willing to run cable everywhere - hence radio has a market, even at that price.

It's kinda like saying you always have the option of walking, but when your destination is 50 miles away, is isn't an appealing option.

Again, pragmatism vs ideology. Real world, versus theoretical.

I don't understand why this situation is so hard for some people to grasp. Do you want to get fucked or not? If you want to get fucked, go ahead and give all the power to corporations that have no other agenda than to squeeze every cent out of you possible. If you don't want that, then accept that the only watch dog capable of keeping them in check is government. Even if you don't like government for whatever reason, this is the world we live in. Side lining them and leaving everything up to the people who want to fuck you for as much money as they can possibility get out of you is not in your best interest. It just isn't.

You don't like the current government? Then elect other people. But don't give big money telecoms total power over your utilities and expect things to work out okay. That ain't going to happen. They won't keep each other in check. They'll have back door meetings, and they'll squeeze you. And the entire time they're doing it, they'll blow smoke up your ass and claim that's it's beyond their control. And we'll all be fucked, regardless of our political leanings.

I love your trust of government to actually be able to manage any situation without making it cost more and run less efficiently. With government regulation you will get 1 mb speeds for double the price.

What? Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance and it's government run. Conservative talking heads are blowing smoke straight up your ass and you think it's a massage.

What I trust is that government officials want my vote. I don't get to vote for corporate executives. I don't get to vote for which ISPs service my area.

Open your eyes, man. This is real. This isn't some sociology project.

SedrynTyros said:

Horusra said:

SedrynTyros said:

Ridelynn said:

Quizzical said:

I'm more open to regulations to ensure a properly competitive market than to regulations that try to grant someone (whether a government or a private corporation) an artificial monopoly and then try to get them to behave. Cellular already has a suitably competitive market in most of the United States, though some places could really use more competition in wired ISPs. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to switch from Comcast to Verizon where I live--and the threat of switching helps to keep both ISPs in line.

I agree with all of that, but see, most people don't have the luxury of choice. In the major city I'm near, it's Comcast up to 100MB or ... I guess there's AT&T DSL at 1/10th the speed, or radio wireless for 1/30th the speed, or LTE cellular for 1/2 the speed and data caps.

Comcast lobbies very hard to keep it that way, and makes it extremely difficult for another company to get permitting and use rights to install a competing infrastructure. The radio ISP isn't even independant, they use Comcast backbone and pay a good bit to do so - and it's reflected in the pricing. You pay more for a 3MB radio link than you would 100MB cable, but Comcast isn't willing to run cable everywhere - hence radio has a market, even at that price.

It's kinda like saying you always have the option of walking, but when your destination is 50 miles away, is isn't an appealing option.

I love your trust of government to actually be able to manage any situation without making it cost more and run less efficiently. With government regulation you will get 1 mb speeds for double the price.

What? Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance and it's government run. Conservative talking heads are blowing smoke straight up your ass and you think it's a massage.

What I trust is that government officials want my vote. I don't get to vote for corporate executives. I don't get to vote for which ISPs service my area.

Open your eyes, man. This is real. This isn't some sociology project.

Medicare costs 3 trillion dollars and is constantly on the rise and is projected to fail in 2026 due to the fact that when you pump federal tax dollars price inflate. Same with college tuition. Medicare much like Social Security is great in the short run, but horrible for the future. It artificially props up the market. Liberals never can look past helping today to see how it screws the future.

Fearum · November 2017

I don't need some government or large company to tell me what i can view or what not to view. I also don't believe that the earth is flat... so go figure.

MadFrenchie · November 2017

Horusra said:

Medicare costs 3 trillion dollars and is constantly on the rise and is projected to fail in 2026 due to the fact that when you pump federal tax dollars price inflate. Same with college tuition. Medicare much like Social Security is great in the short run, but horrible for the future. It artificially props up the market. Liberals never can look past helping today to see how it screws the future.

Not to get in a partisan pissing match, but the reason Medicare can't change is because there's quite the large population of elderly folks that benefit from it.... And guess what the majority of that population votes?

Guess who also benefits from Social Security?

EDIT- To further the point, who utilizes healthcare the most in general? That same group. What's so special about that demographic that might cause healthcare costs to skyrocket? The term "Baby Boomer" comes to mind. They're all aging and retiring right now. Which means less workforce pulling their weight to pay into the system, and more consumers benefiting from the system than ever before. Part of the rise of healthcare costs is unavoidable due to the population demographics, not some idea that government bureaucracy is crippling the industry. Another large portion is the American way of "ignore health now, treat conditions later" instead of preventative practices.

Howdy, Stranger!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments