George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.
Comments
-
It couldn't be because your news source is lying is it? I mean cartoons are very reliable.d2d said:
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.topdawgnc said:I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying". -
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it. -
Weird,, I dont see George Soros and his $196 million. Wtf?ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it. -
That's the thing.d2d said:
Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.topdawgnc said:I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".
None of the pea brains on this board can understand the play that Soros is making here.
It's too far into the future.
Nobody invests that type of coin on something unless it is going to give a massive ROI. -
It seems like an open and public debate is called for here. Not a secret executive order.
-
It is very clear to me why Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, et. al. do not want this regulation added.ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
You are stoned, slow, or stupid if you think the other side has your best interest at heart.
It is possible I am too skeptical, however, no rich man ever did anything to benefit the middle and lower class unless it too benefited him and in a much better way. -
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it. -
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back. -
You're so right. The Internet has been void of innovation.ThomasFremont said:
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
) -
It is also demand.ThomasFremont said:
The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.ThomasFremont said:
Comcast shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.topdawgnc said:I tend to lean towards Net Neutrality, simply because I don't understand it and the argument put forth by Obama makes sense.
We can say things have worked fine, why change. Well the reality is we are sailing into uncharted waters and there is content providers (Netflix), and content distributors (Comcast). I like Netflix, I like Amazon, and I love homemoviestube.com ... I don't want to have to pay more to get those things. I don't believe Comcast will stop investing in the infrastructure, as the argument goes.
I know it is follow the money, and there is a reason, which I don't know why, that Obama and Soros want this so badly. I am not thinking I will like those reasons when revealed.
Comcast also paid off our faggot mayor to block Google fiber in Seattle. Because it would suck to have another product to compete with. Especially a more advanced product that has fewer limitations. Why innovate when you can legislate?
Comcast opposes net neutrality. They've been lobbying (so have Verizon and AT&T) to pass internet regulations of their own for years. Regulations that they write. I wonder who that would benefit...hint: rhymes with "podcast."
Notice that the only real innovator on that list (Google) isn't trying to re-write the rulebook to give themselves an advantage over any competitors? Follow the money. Or don't. Do you support Comcast's profits, or freedom of information. Their stance on innovation is clear: they fear it.
Except, they've had years to do innovate, and haven't. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that neutrality isn't what has been holding them back.
It has only been recently that the demand for really fat pipes have been demanded by the public.
Think of it like this:
When HD TV was in it's infancy, you couldn't get a lot of programming. So there weren't a lot of TV's being sold at reasonable prices. Once HD became more and more in demand TV prices came down.
Same here.
Comcast hasn't had to invest in fat pipes, because the demand wasn't there. Now that the demand is picking up, Comcast won't be able to increase the size of their pipe because they can't charge Netflix (as an example) a proportionate rate for what is being used. Netflix (95% of pipe use, homemovietubes.com 5% ... who should pay more).
The end of the day, infrastructure will stagnate and the government will be forced to step in and develop the pipes, giving them control of the flow to the home ... or would be one thought.
As stated ... it is not easily understood, because no public debate was had.
