The end of the world is here

whlinder

salemcoog said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.

Disagree.

If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit.

All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.

(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)

2001400ex

whlinder said:

salemcoog said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.

Disagree.

If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit.

All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.

(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)

To people like Salem. The market didn't go up and unemployment didn't go down until Trump was elected.

RedRocket

RaceBannon said:

Southerndawg said:

salemcoog said:

PurpleJ said:

The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.

You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.

It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.

This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.


And I don’t like it.

Not one bit.

The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.

So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.

The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.

Comcast had no issue with Net Neutrality. They helped write it

Comcast disagees.

https://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/its-time-for-congress-to-act-and-permanently-preserve-the-open-internet

RaceBannon

You mean they covered both sides of the issue?

RedRocket

RaceBannon said:

You mean they covered both sides of the issue?

No Comcast never supported the title II reclassification which was the backbone of the 2015 bill and what is being repealed.

Kaepsknee

Southerndawg said:

salemcoog said:

PurpleJ said:

The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.

You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.

It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.

This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.


And I don’t like it.

Not one bit.

The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.

So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.

The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.

My post wasn’t about Net Neutrality, only the direction our means of Capitalism is heading to fuel and reward monopolistic mega corporations.

There is no increased competition in this environment.

Kaepsknee

2001400ex said:

whlinder said:

salemcoog said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.

Disagree.

If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit.

All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.

(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)

To people like Salem. The market didn't go up and unemployment didn't go down until Trump was elected.

Your brand of stupid keeps exceeding the bar. Please go on your camping trip. Say like Northern Colorado.

Kaepsknee

whlinder said:

salemcoog said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.

Disagree.

If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit.

All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.

(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)

No Whindbag. 401k’s didn’t rise at near the level as 2017. Home values weren’t rising across the country as they are now. And incomes were stagnant during Obama’s terms.

I’ll just file this poast next to your “But Iggy isn’t an impact player Anymore!!! Poasts

oregonblitzkrieg

Southerndawg said:

salemcoog said:

PurpleJ said:

The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.

You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.

It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.

This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.


And I don’t like it.

Not one bit.

So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.

The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.

Companies like Google are already viewed as monopolies. How will ending NN help deal with that? And how will it spur investment and competition? It's already been discussed, the barrier to entry is too high for new ISPs in most cases. How does giving them new tools to fuck over the consumer in any way benefit you?

oregonblitzkrieg

2001400ex said:

Southerndawg said:

salemcoog said:

PurpleJ said:

The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.

You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.

It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.

This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.


And I don’t like it.

Not one bit.

The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.

So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.

The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.

Please to be explaining how content providers made money on net neutrality rules. I know how ISPs will monetize this. At some point you'll pay more for access to Netflix or whatever.

And no this won't spur investment like you say it will.

HRYK