Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The end of the world is here
Comments
-
All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.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.
(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.whlinder said:
All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.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.
(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH) -
Comcast disagees.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.
https://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/its-time-for-congress-to-act-and-permanently-preserve-the-open-internet -
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.RaceBannon said:You mean they covered both sides of the issue?
-
My post wasn’t about Net Neutrality, only the direction our means of Capitalism is heading to fuel and reward monopolistic mega corporations.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.
There is no increased competition in this environment. -
Your brand of stupid keeps exceeding the bar. Please go on your camping trip. Say like Northern Colorado.2001400ex said:
To people like Salem. The market didn't go up and unemployment didn't go down until Trump was elected.whlinder said:
All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.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.
(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.whlinder said:
All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.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.
(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)
I’ll just file this poast next to your “But Iggy isn’t an impact player Anymore!!! Poasts -
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?Southerndawg said: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.
-
HRYK2001400ex said:
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. -
You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
-
OBK and Hondo vs. people with half a brain
-
Government creates an unfair market advantage and we want more government to fix the problem they created. Sounds familiar.
-
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
-
I think we should abolish the FCC. Ever think of that?
-
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch -
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch -
oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game
-
Wut????salemcoog said:
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.whlinder said:
All of that was true under the previous President and the electorate gave a fuck about other shit which gave us the current President.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.
(I realize Obama didn't run again, but usually those macro indicators benefit the party in the WH)
I’ll just file this poast next to your “But Iggy isn’t an impact player Anymore!!! Poasts
-
Well this stratergy isn't swaying any votes to the correct side of the issue. Tim to appeal to the degenerate nature of the denizens that inhabit this cuntless whorehouse. The end of NN will directly impact your porno experience, and not in a good way. HTFH.
-
Plenty of free porn before 2014.oregonblitzkrieg said:Well this stratergy isn't swaying any votes to the correct side of the issue. Tim to appeal to the degenerate nature of the denizens that inhabit this cuntless whorehouse. The end of NN will directly impact your porno experience, and not in a good way. HTFH.
Besides, it's been well documented that 81% of voters are retards and I could not care less what they think.
-
Porn drives everything on the Internet and before that VCRs and tapes
-
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
You don't get it. At. All.RedRocket said:
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
Explain why or GTFO. No platitudes.PurpleJ said:
You don't get it. At. All.RedRocket said:
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
It's already been explained in this thread.RedRocket said:
Explain why or GTFO. No platitudes.PurpleJ said:
You don't get it. At. All.RedRocket said:
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
Explain it again. I didn't get your argument the first time. Maybe it's because you don't have one that makes logical sense.PurpleJ said:
It's already been explained in this thread.RedRocket said:
Explain why or GTFO. No platitudes.PurpleJ said:
You don't get it. At. All.RedRocket said:
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
Lay off Race's schtick.PurpleJ said:
It's already been explained in this thread.RedRocket said:
Explain why or GTFO. No platitudes.PurpleJ said:
You don't get it. At. All.RedRocket said:
Look at what happened to Google fiber. They've quit going forward with the wires and poles expansion model because it was too expensive. The government wasn't the problem. In Nashville their city council actually passed legislation to make it cheaper and easier for Google fiber to connect to existing utility poles but ATT and Comcast fought it tooth and nail. This was pretty much the story in every market that Google fiber tried to enter. The encumbent ISP tried to make it expensive and prohibitive as possible for Google to connect to existing infrastructure.RaceBannon said:oregonblitzkrieg said:
It would be great if competition were always the answer, but it isn't in cases where the barriers to entry are so prohibitive that new competition doesn't materialize. Giving ISPs new means to fuck you over is not the answer. Governments suck. I hate the government most of the time. How about we spur some innovation and competition, and get more than one government competing for our bidness. Lets attract this new competition by giving the government some cool new tools that they can use at your expense. Say, the ability to shut down 50 newspapers a year that they don't like, or seizing all guns in a state of their choice every year. That's essentially what's going on here.RaceBannon said:
NN had a life of about 12 months at best. It is irrelevant other than as an issue to argue over at HHoregonblitzkrieg said:
The real question is, why do you want to pay more, when you don't have to? Leave well enough alone. The net was perfectly fine under NN. NN makes it so that all traffic is considered equal, ISPs cannot slow or speed up traffic to individual sites deliberately. Repealing NN is a huge step backward, not forward. It won't add any real competition to the mix, even though they're putting out a big sign that says "Hey ISPs, look at this new way you can fuck the consumr over!!!111!" It will only result in new sites being throttled before they can even get off the ground. How much innovation will be lose there? Some of the greatest thoughts, ideas and innovations originated in basements and garages. Some of those innovations will be lost if we lose the free internet. Read a little about Ajit Pai, and you'll soon realize what a stupid fucktard we have running the FCC.RaceBannon said:You pay more for access to programming every day or do you think you're basic cable package is as good as it gets?
Nothing will ever stay the same. You get low prices to get you to dump satellite or cable and watch TV on line then the price goes up
Welcome to capitalism baby
If everyone cuts the cord the cordless price is going up with or without NN or any other N
The solution is competition. Don't tell me how we can't do it tell me how we fucking can. That's how I roll bitch
The only way that is true is if the government is rigging the game -
J is getting SLAUGHTERED in this thread.
-
WTGWT
