The end of the world is here
Comments
-
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.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.
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. -
Disagree with your disagreement.salemcoog said:
Disagree.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.
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.
Getting ripped off and knowing ISPs now have the ability to control the flow and access to information on the internet, pisses people off who understand the situation, regardless of wage increase, home values continuing to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge.
-
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.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.
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. -
They don’t.2001400ex said:
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.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.
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. -
If they did, Hillary would have won. Clearly she was awful and there were other reasons.PurpleThrobber said:
They don’t.2001400ex said:
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.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.
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. -
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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. -
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.Southerndawg said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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.
And no this won't spur investment like you say it will. -
Comcast had no issue with Net Neutrality. They helped write itSoutherndawg said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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. -
If that's the case I'm against it.RaceBannon said:
Comcast had no issue with Net Neutrality. They helped write itSoutherndawg said:
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.salemcoog said:
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.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.
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.
Comcast may be the worst company in the entire us.
Even if OBK is right and Amazon is more destructive, at least they provide a legit service and make things very easy and convenient for people.
