End of Net Neutrality

[$Bullsfam$]

BrushMyHair. This is what your looking forward too if this gets passed. It won't harm the average old head who doesn't need all the different internet platforms, or the upperclass who shell out thousands a year on hookers and coke anyways.

But for the average joe this is horrible which is why republicans don't care to pass this. And it could easily help crack down on pirating and a lot of other things us religious sports fans rely on.

[$Bullsfam$]

Lol @ the trump heads coming in here with big picture rhetoric with no facts to back the up.

Blindly sucking off Trump as usual

and I stand by this 100%. These hoes yelling "but its basic economics doe" girl if economics was so predictable and easy we wouldn't owe the rothschilds and the other 1% trillions of dollars. Your being ****ing played.

You can't guarantee it would make things cheaper because the internet providers won't do a damn thing unless they are making more profit at the end of the day.

[siablo14]

You made the claim, now the onus is on you to prove that claim.

Yo! That's not how it works around here! You are being lazy. Go find it yourself.

[siablo14]

Regulations are sold by a belief that they protect the consumer, yes. Whenever a new regulations is proposed, the affect on the consumer consumes the main focus of most media outlets and usually garners lots of support. Only a few publications give any mention of the long term effects on businesses. And if you like to focus on one part of the whole picture or at least what we can see of it, then most any new regulation makes sense for sure. Under the assumption that markets cannot dictate themselves fairly(without fairly ever having any concrete definition), most any regulation would make sense, as does net neutrality.

A country with more laws tends to be more corrupt as history has repeatedly shown us. So, whenever a new law or regulation is proposed, I always ask myself if it truly necessary, what the overall cost will be and will it be effective, despite any intention? Usually, the answer is no. Many economists said "No" to Net neutrality before it became law. They are now still saying "No" to it, as am I.

Anthony, let us get a link for that.

[Motorcity Cobra]

They have monopolies because of city governments then? So the government still causes the monopoly.

Yes, and the fact that you don't want 10 different lines on a pole because of the way it looks. Or 10 different boxes in your yard for underground lines. The solution woulda been to allow other companies to lease the current infrastructure to sell their products. But as we've seen with the phone & gas/electric companies, that hasnt worked out well either. But my original point remains, there won't be increased competition

[Motorcity Cobra]

I'll concede to any regulation that shows a proven track record of helping business more than hurting it.

Regulations are to help the consumers. You can't expect business to self regulate.

[JimRaynor]

How is net neutrality stifling competition?

Net neutrality isn't stifling competition it just benefits big corporations like google or facebook, because they don't have to pay extra for bandwidth.

In the end I don't think one way or the other is going to affect people significantly.

People are pointing to Portugal, but Portgual has net neutrality because they're a EU nation and therefore by law they have to have it. They just structure their internet differently, which isn't anything that companies in the USA or anywhere else are banned from doing. The argument is with the end of net neutrality everyone is going to structure their internet like Portugal.

[JimRaynor]

One part of me is trying to say this is corporate greed and another part saying this to control the flow of information.

Every corporation that isnt Verizon, ATT, Comcast, are against this.

[JimRaynor]

BrushMyHair. This is what your looking forward too if this gets passed. It won't harm the average old head who doesn't need all the different internet platforms, or the upperclass who shell out thousands a year on hookers and coke anyways.

But for the average joe this is horrible which is why republicans don't care to pass this. And it could easily help crack down on pirating and a lot of other things us religious sports fans rely on.

A lot of people are uninformed about Portugal, and propaganda spreads faster than herpes.

Portugal HAS net neutrality. It's required to have it under EU laws, since its a EU member state.

What Portugal is doing in the example you listed is just structuring their internet differently than the rest of the EU. What that means is that any old EU member, as well as the USA could legally do the same exact thing right now as Portugal when it comes to internet! You had this similar structure for the longest time on your smart phones with companies like ATT and Verizon charging you different amounts based on the data bundles you chose. Well if comcast wanted to do the same exact thing as Portugal's ISP Meo does, they could do it tomorrow and it would be completely legal.

[AllBoxingAD]

I was a bit extreme in claiming this.

My position on it is best summed up in the article below. Just like with the railroad commission which pretty much beat the industry into ribbons, I see NN doing the same. It didn't happen overnight and hadn't been intrusive to a hugely detrimental effect yet, but each year is a new opportunity for new things to be added and for it to grow and grow, like all government does.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/031...son030515.php3

So look, maybe you shouldnt be accusing people of fear mongering when you are the one who is doing it.

There is too much ideology in this thread and not enough factual information.

I understand you ideology, but if you cant explain how your ideology applies here then your argument isnt worth very much.