George Soros Paid $196 Million to Lobby For Net Neutrality.

2001400ex said:

Washington examiner? That's your source?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

Flagged for linking to a mobile site.

@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.

Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.

The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.

d2d said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.

Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.

The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.

They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.

That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.

I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

d2d said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.

Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.

The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.

They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.

That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.

I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.

You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.

And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend

Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.

Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.

d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant.

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ThomasFremont said:

RaceBannon said:

ThomasFremont said:

d2d said:

ThomasFremont said:

Southerndawg said:

ThomasFremont said:

@d2d I don't think you understand net neutrality.

Something tells me you don't either, or you simply don't care since it's being forced upon us by your team, or, of course, abundance. Net neutrality legislation has little to do with actual net neutrality. HTH.

The fact that you call it "your team" tells me you're a fucking idiot.

They won't let anybody read it, but everything YOU need to know is in the name or in Obama's talking points.

That reveals everything I need to know about Freemont and Honda.

I notice you keep dodging WHY you oppose net neutrality. But I guess if Obama is for it, you are against it. Stay stupid.

You're better than this. If we don't know what is in the 332 pages you can't say we are against net neutrality. We don't know why it takes 332 pages for something so simple. We don't have a current problem. The only manufactured outrage is this sudden need to fix a problem that doesn't exist with a secret document.

And then as usual attack anyone that dares to question Hondo's boyfriend

Fair enough, we haven't read the details. If they are bad, I'll hammer it. But I support the idea of net neutrality.

Kinda like hiring Chris Petersen. We need to wait and see what he does here before we can judge him as a HC at UW. But hiring a proven HC was a smart move regardless of the results.

d2d is condemning the bill before reading it. Which means he either hates Obama blindly, or doesn't support net neutrality. Maybe abundance. I find both positions stupid, regardless of political beliefs. I support the net neutrality bill the same way I support the Petersen hire. If they end up sucking, I'll lead the Door.Ass.Out. chant.

Terrible analogy. Firing Urban Meyer in February 2015 is far, far easier than repealing shitty legislation. And your analogical fans there would have to be required to go to the games. And so on.

We couldn't even fire Sark. And Ty got year 4. Maybe firing a HC isn't the top dick analogy you thought it was...

We don't know if the bill is shitty. But d2d declared it shitty cuz he read it in a cartoon.

That's the poont.

RaceBannon said:

it's not a bill, its an executive order. Some of you need to learn the difference.

So if it sucks, it will be even easier to repeal?

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 shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.

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.

d2d said:

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.

Bravo. $196 Million for an "Executive Order" that Obama won't let you read is too much "altruism" to be believed.

BTW, what do you spend $196 Million on? Lobbying? There are only 3 members of the FCC that needed "Lobbying".

That's the thing.

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.

ThomasFremont said:

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 shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.

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.

It is very clear to me why Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, et. al. do not want this regulation added.

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.

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ThomasFremont said:

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 shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.

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.

Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.

The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.

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.

ThomasFremont said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

ThomasFremont said:

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 shook down Netflix by throttling their streaming services. As soon as Netflix paid up, their service problems "magically" disappeared.

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.

Watch out, you made some good points against mandated neutrality.

The companies opposing net neutrality are the ones making the claim that neutrality will stifle innovation.

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.

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.