Net Neutrality

[taiyuu_otoko]

not having access to their financial records is a moot point since i can say that the argument is invalid for the same reason

Your argument was that the publicly owned Internet was cheaper than the competition.

That is the only point made moot by the lack of budgetary data, since you do not know that is true (that it's cheaper than the competition).

Since the TRUE COST is unknown, you don't know HOW expensive that super fast Internet is.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I'm here, and you're not.

Correct.

Don't sit ten thousand miles away and tell me about my own country,

I'm pretty sure none of Sosuave's terms of services describe the conditions under which I can share my opinion.

based on what you read on right-wing think tank propaganda sites.

I get my information from a variety of sources. Most of them are NOT right wing.

Not that you would know, because you're not here, but these people still hate Obama with a passion...

I'll take your word for it. But a lot of people hate Obama with a passion. Most republicans hate democrats with a passion. Most democrats hate republicans with a passion (your excessive use of hate language is a case in point)

for being a commie muslim traitor to Amurrika and founding Al-Qaeda, etc.

In case you haven't studied American History, mudslinging is part of the process.

And in case you're interested in FACTS, it was Ronald Reagan (a right winger if there ever was one) who was president when Al-Qaeda was formed. His CIA was the ones that formed them.

They will tell you any bullsh!t reason, except the real one, which is that they hate him for being black.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion if that's the only reason they DON'T say? Are you making a pre-judged opinion about white rednecks based on what they DON'T say?

And those are the buttons that Trump pushes on these people.

All politicians are popular because they know what buttons to push. Obama is popular because he knows what buttons to push. Hillary didn't become president because she couldn't push the buttons effectively enough.

Seems you don't understand how politics work, which seems strange seeing as you are there, on the ground, compared to me who is 10,000 miles away...

he promised to take Amurrika back from that goddamn....well, you know the word.

Globalists? Illegal immigrants? Special Interests? Or this something else you know that was never said, just because you KNOW how "those people" think?

 

[Bible_Belt]

Seems you don't understand how politics work

My undergrad degree is political science, thank you very much. I didn't take many internationally-focused courses, though. So wherever the hell you are, I don't know sh!t about the politics there. See how that works?

How exactly do you come to that conclusion if that's the only reason they DON'T say? Are you making a pre-judged opinion about white rednecks based on what they DON'T say?

You are talking to a redneck. I blend right in with the Trumpers. That's why I know them so well. They open up to me, because they think I am one of them. I try not to argue politics with anyone in person. There's no point. People tend to assume I agree with them, so I just let them. My interest in the topic is more of a macro perspective.

 

[speed dawg]

I'm here, and you're not. Don't sit ten thousand miles away and tell me about my own country, based on what you read on right-wing think tank propaganda sites. I live in Trump country. He took 80-90% of the vote in some counties here. Not that you would know, because you're not here, but these people still hate Obama with a passion...for being a commie muslim traitor to Amurrika and founding Al-Qaeda, etc. They will tell you any bullsh!t reason, except the real one, which is that they hate him for being black. And those are the buttons that Trump pushes on these people. That's why they like him - he promised to take Amurrika back from that goddamn....well, you know the word.

Just so you know, your credibility goes in the crapper when you post stuff like this. Not once have you discussed his point. You are simply trying way too hard to kill his credibility, and push yours'.

Smart people see through this, and there are a lot of smart guys on this site. Remember that.

(I know, I know, you don't care about your 'internet' credibility)

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

My undergrad degree is political science, thank you very much. I didn't take many internationally-focused courses, though. So wherever the hell you are, I don't know sh!t about the politics there. See how that works?

It seems you believe the only way to "get" what's happening is by being on the ground and talking to local folk.

Peculiar viewpoint.

But it allows to easily disregard any arguments I make.

Whatever works, I suppose.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The cable tv cartel was largely behind the net neutrality repeal. If you think your options are bad now, they are only going to get worse.

"Freedom from government" sounds great, but government is the only check on the giant corporations. With no government, they run everything.

 

[Sneaky Pete]

Don’t be so naive, the corporations already run everything. Government officials are merely puppets on a string.

 

[Bible_Belt]

the corporations already run everything. Government officials are merely puppets on a string.

I agree. (Citizens United v FEC) The issue now is the length of the string. And those strings keep getting shorter.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

I don’t think a citizen of any country actually wants unneeded government regulations. It begins to smell like communism or a dictatorship if it goes too far.

Aren't some things a public good... like water? And if the government weren't there to ensure that 'utility' then what would stop business from privatizing it and commodifying it. Do we really want unregulated big business to run the internet? The underlying assumption at work here is that somehow it is just the economy that provides everything that is great. The reality is that any stable economy has evolved from state and law... from government.

 

[Bible_Belt]

This is why Trump is fantastic, he hasn't been bought by any of them.

It doesn't matter that he hasn't been bought. He's appointing every billionaire buddy of his he can, regardless of if they are morons and have no clue about the agency they are supposed to be running. The ones with a clue only care about "delivering shareholder value," which comes by stripping away all government regulation.

Why do we even bother to have a government if we let billionaires run it for the sake of making their rich buddies richer? We should disband congress and the supreme court and just let the richest people run the country. That's what we are doing right now, and the irony is that poor people like you (and you might as well be a welfare queen if we compare you to your buddy Don) are cheering it on. If you give the poor idiots someone to hate - and there are so many options these days - then you can distract them as you rape and pillage the government for your own financial gain.

 

[speed dawg]

Aren't some things a public good... like water? And if the government weren't there to ensure that 'utility' then what would stop business from privatizing it and commodifying it. Do we really want unregulated big business to run the internet? The underlying assumption at work here is that somehow it is just the economy that provides everything that is great. The reality is that any stable economy has evolved from state and law... from government.

This is a good post. Like anything else, truth is in the middle.

Look, this is what's going to happen. Internet is eventually going to become a utility anyway. The ISPs will gobble each other up and form a monopoly, at which point the government will be FORCED to regulate it, to prevent us all from getting a big thick fiber optic cable shoved right up our asses.

I'm a conservative, but some government regulation is good. Take the privatization of air traffic control. Republicans love it but it is the dumbest effing thing possible for the American Air Traffic system. Honestly, Democrats are much better for infrastructure.

 

[Von]

So the United-States will do exactly what China is doing (China doesn't have NET neutrality and made an ''internet wall'' at this borders to regulate/process online life?

Interesting....

FCC voted NET neutrality in 2015... issue been discussed since 1980's... likely nothing will change...

I mean corportations target ads are in the ''cookies''... if you have cookies corporations can track you and analyze your data to have personnal adds. You free to go everywhere and catch a cookie

It will likely also force USA citizens to chose among ''US internet provider aka America Service First''

Oh well its possible: the average american will have a average internet... the top americans will have top internet ..Money talk

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Do we really want unregulated big business to run the internet?

Government did such a bang up job with ONE WEBSITE (healthcare.gov that cost BILLIONS and didn't even work), why not let them have the ENTIRE INTERNET.

yeah, that'll end well...


Fed Ex vs. the Post Office

Private schools vs. Public schools

Netflix vs. PBS

Cash Medical Procedures (always down in cost and up in quality) vs. Insurance covered procedures (increasing in cost and decreasing quality)

Private security vs. thuggish cops

Private toll roads vs. broken down and overcrowded freeways and city streets

Government run entity vs. private entity

Government run entities ALWAYS COST MORE and provide less

Ask anybody who goes into private industry why---they want to get paid.

Ask anybody who goes into public service why -- so they CAN NEVER get fired and they get a FAT PENSION worth WAY MORE than what they paid in

Yeah, turning over the ENTIRE INTERNET to the DMV type employees is a FINE IDEA

 

[Bible_Belt]

This is why Trump is fantastic., he hasn't been bought by any of them

The Jewish political lobby just bought him off to pardon a man who facilitated the invasion of hundred upon hundreds of illegal immigrants who came here to steal jobs from hard-working real Americans. Is that your president? How could your president do such a thing?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017...atpacking-business-executive-rubashkin-311389
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday commuted the sentence of an Iowa kosher meatpacking executive who had been sentenced to 27 years in prison for money laundering, marking the first time he’s used the presidential power.

The decision to intervene on behalf of Sholom Rubashkin, who ran the Iowa headquarters of a family business that was the country’s largest kosher meat-processing company, came at the urging of numerous members of Congress and a long list of high-ranking law enforcement officials, who argued the sentence was far too harsh for a first-time, nonviolent offender.

The action was “encouraged by bipartisan leaders from across the political spectrum, from Nancy Pelosi to Orrin Hatch,” the White House said.

Rubashki was convicted in 2009 for submitting fake invoices to a bank that made Agriprocessors’ finances appear healthier than they were so that it could borrow more. His prosecution came after federal authorities raided the plant and arrested 389 illegal immigrants in 2008.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Yeah, turning over the ENTIRE INTERNET to the DMV type employees is a FINE IDEA

Thank you for the right-wing talking points. Lucky for you that you have no iron in this fire, given that you don't live in this country. For those of us who do, we're all about to pay more for our Internet service, so that giant corporations can deliver greater shareholder value. That's what all that right-wing propaganda is really about - tricking poor people into joining the cause of making rich people richer.

https://www.consumerreports.org/net-neutrality/end-of-net-neutrality-what-to-watch-for/
How You'll Know Net Neutrality Is Really Gone

The FCC has repealed the rules governing internet providers. Here are five changes consumers should watch for.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I see the cons and pros on both sides. The pros on either side are mostly just the lack of cons of the other though.

Something that I noticed that’s a bit strange, is that it seems that no matter what situation you put yourself in regarding this issue (or any other type of issue regarding capitalistic concepts vs socialistic concepts), you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Most people lack the mental omniscience to see the cons of their side because they only push for one idealistic vision in their head. That vision is typically labeled as being either conservative or liberal.

Now I’m not one to use morals when it comes to many things simply because they’re so easily manipulated, but no one seems to look at it as good or bad. Just liberal or conservative. Well it seems to me that both sides are bad. In other words, EVERYONE sucks. Go too liberal and you have a weak nation due to globalism (which I’ve come to realize is just a euphemism for world-domination), and then government-controlled services and institutions which in turn control all of us. Go to conservative and you have a non-stoppable super power that can pretty much do whatever it wants in global affairs (which is also world-domination, just via different means...), and then you also have monopolies that control us through their services since they are technically privately owned and can do as they wish... Again, you are screwed regardless of which side you take. It seems that both sides still have the same goals in mind, just through different means. This is why we are all arguing right now. We all want what’s best for us and those we care about. Shoot, I’m still sure that most of you don’t actually hate someone enough to to REALLY wish ill for them. Most people are willing to show at least some magnanimity towards others they dislike or disagree with if they themselves are fortunate enough. Then why are we all still fighting? Not because we dislike doing things one way or the other, it’s because the end goal on BOTH sides is just a bad one.

Well you have to ask something: why is this the end goal in the first place?

Keep in mind that again, most people aren’t fully capable of backtracking against themselves and looking for cons on their own side; they lack the mental omniscience. So then who is so slick and clever as to trick both sides into doing their own personal bidding? Well the fact is, they aren’t. They are just using both sides to push their own interests and goals, but they themselves cannot see the cons of said goals. The question is, who is this mysterious person/group of people?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Thank you for the right-wing talking points.

No problem. Always happy to help.

 

[speed dawg]

Government did such a bang up job with ONE WEBSITE (healthcare.gov that cost BILLIONS and didn't even work), why not let them have the ENTIRE INTERNET.

yeah, that'll end well...


Fed Ex vs. the Post Office

Private schools vs. Public schools

Netflix vs. PBS

Cash Medical Procedures (always down in cost and up in quality) vs. Insurance covered procedures (increasing in cost and decreasing quality)

Private security vs. thuggish cops

Private toll roads vs. broken down and overcrowded freeways and city streets

Government run entity vs. private entity

Government run entities ALWAYS COST MORE and provide less

Ask anybody who goes into private industry why---they want to get paid.

Ask anybody who goes into public service why -- so they CAN NEVER get fired and they get a FAT PENSION worth WAY MORE than what they paid in

Yeah, turning over the ENTIRE INTERNET to the DMV type employees is a FINE IDEA

The kicker here, IMO, is that Republicans need to be in office to lead. The country is going to trend more liberally, because, well, that's what people do. So Republicans, while they seem like they are trying to kill the government, they are really just fighing back against too much government overreach that's happening naturally anyway.

So, while I maybe agree with some Democratic stuff in theory, I don't want them in office ACTING on anything, because they are going to get what they want over time. I'd rather just stay on the slow decline, rather than dive right into their idealistic hell. At least when you move slowly, you give people a chance to get used to things, therefore they don't revolt. See Obamacare as the way NOT to do it.

HOWEVER....

That is the reality, but IF we could all get what we want, I think we'd get a good mix of private vs. public. The BEST schools for everyone (to use that example) are public schools with great private support from the community (or private schools, with public support, but that doesn't exist - yet).

A totally private system would result in a dictatorship, and that's not what we want.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

A totally private system would result in a dictatorship, and that's not what we want.

I disagree. A totally private system would be the opposite of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are when the guy in charge IS the government, and he has a monopoly on EVERYTHING.

But the reason a totally private system would never work is most people are too scared/lazy to be totally responsible for themselves. They very much need a government "safety net."

And very many people are very good at PROMISING them a safety net in value that EXCEEDS what they are expected to contribute.

But once the government safety net turns into hammock, it's over.

All societies collapse the same way.

The group people PRODUCING get smaller and smaller.

The group of people RECEIVING gets larger and larger.

Whatever your moral argument is (corporations are evil, poor people should be taken care of, money should be taken from rich people and given to poor people because it's "fair") the system is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

Dudes on sosuave and elsewhere can argue and wring their hands until they lose their voice, but our system is beyond the point of no return.

The people RECEIVING are increasing.

The people PRODUCING are shrinking.

Clever reframes and one liners and witty attacks on the moral structure of your enemy won't allow goods to be poofed out of thin air.

 

[speed dawg]

I disagree. A totally private system would be the opposite of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are when the guy in charge IS the government, and he has a monopoly on EVERYTHING.

I see as the circle completing itself. On the far side of right or left, it's the same thing.

But the reason a totally private system would never work is most people are too scared/lazy to be totally responsible for themselves. They very much need a government "safety net."

Agree, I'm one of them. It's a scary thought.

And very many people are very good at PROMISING them a safety net in value that EXCEEDS what they are expected to contribute.

But once the government safety net turns into hammock, it's over.

All societies collapse the same way.

The group people PRODUCING get smaller and smaller.

The group of people RECEIVING gets larger and larger.

Whatever your moral argument is (corporations are evil, poor people should be taken care of, money should be taken from rich people and given to poor people because it's "fair") the system is MATHEMATICALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.

Dudes on sosuave and elsewhere can argue and wring their hands until they lose their voice, but our system is beyond the point of no return.

The people RECEIVING are increasing.

The people PRODUCING are shrinking.

Clever reframes and one liners and witty attacks on the moral structure of your enemy won't allow goods to be poofed out of thin air.

We agree, thus the slow decline I alluded to earlier.