Government to Takeover the Internet

[yqtszhj]

Money talks. If people want the cable companies to change, have your cable disconnected. I've done it twice before when I tired of their price hikes. I'm about there again because the price for basic cable has doubled in the last 10 years. And I don't really need the government protecting me either. If the government is so capable of doing things well why can't they stop spending and balance a budget. But they do run the VA well, huh? We can be guaranteed the goverment will overstep the published intent of what they are telling us the plan is. Thats what they do.

An as far as the bobble heads, they're on the pro net neutrality side too.

[yqtszhj]

I am an Obama hater and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit it.

I think deep down I'm a hater. Especially most folks in politics. Seen a woman this morning discrediting hillary for standing up for womans rights but accepting money from countries that give woman no rights, she's all about the money like most and the woman doing the discrediting will likely die in a major car accident in the next week or two. I can feel it in my cells.

I've figured out now that's why I love you. This whole tread now has meaning.

[ScottM]

Money talks. If people want the cable companies to change, have your cable disconnected. I've done it twice before when I tired of their price hikes. I'm about there again because the price for basic cable has doubled in the last 10 years. And I don't really need the government protecting me either. If the government is so capable of doing things well why can't they stop spending and balance a budget. But they do run the VA well, huh? We can be guaranteed the goverment will overstep the published intent of what they are telling us the plan is. Thats what they do.

An as far as the bobble heads, they're on the pro net neutrality side too.

Which ones are you referring to specifically? Or was that just meant as a populist swipe in an easy crowd?

I don't think you understand what Net Neutrality is primarily about. It's not about the CHOICE of providers, or the VA or balanced budgets or cable TV service. It's about bandwidth companies like Comcast charging content providers like Netflix extra fees to deliver their content to you over bandwidth that YOU already paid for. It's about monopolistic behavior when competing interests are at stake. It would be a lot easier if folks read something about the topic first-hand, especially about 1980s parallels. Let's put it this way - if any of you use Vonage or Magic Jack or Skype or FaceTime, you have the bell breakup and telco regulations to thank. Without that, your telephone provider would have continued to limit the market and your choices for voice over IP. Without net neutrality, the bandwidth providers would have continued the trend of limiting your options for streaming media, especially when it competes with their own media stores and so on.

I've pretty much said my peace here, multiple times too and I have no idea why I should think any level of informative dialogue will persuade anyone formulating an opinion before they read up on this topic. All I can do is try to appeal to maybe one or two readers in the group to open their minds and look at that article I linked. It's not a quick read but I promise the context is worth the investment.

[ScottM]

Now to be completely fair, it would be nice to see what specifically is in the rules they just passed.... But it looks like we will have to wait a few weeks or months to find out what has happened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...lity/?hpid=z14

Till then, it's just talk about what it "might" mean to the user. Carry on, business as usual till then.

[muggsy]

I don't think that this Net Neutrality bill goes far enough. I think that someone should amend it to include government regulation of firearms ownership.

[deadeye]

You think it's in the works? No, of course not. Ulterior motives? This administration? These nice folks in DC really do care about me. My health and well being is the 1st thing on their minds. They want to take my guns to protect me and all the little kiddies. No other reason. See? I'm not really that jaded. However it sure is funny I wasn't the least bit this way for 64 years. Seems the last 6 have done something to me. By the way global warming is about to freeze me to death.

[DubDubU]

Which ones are you referring to specifically? Or was that just meant as a populist swipe in an easy crowd?

I don't think you understand what Net Neutrality is primarily about. It's not about the CHOICE of providers, or the VA or balanced budgets or cable TV service. It's about bandwidth companies like Comcast charging content providers like Netflix extra fees to deliver their content to you over bandwidth that YOU already paid for. It's about monopolistic behavior when competing interests are at stake. It would be a lot easier if folks read something about the topic first-hand, especially about 1980s parallels. Let's put it this way - if any of you use Vonage or Magic Jack or Skype or FaceTime, you have the bell breakup and telco regulations to thank. Without that, your telephone provider would have continued to limit the market and your choices for voice over IP. Without net neutrality, the bandwidth providers would have continued the trend of limiting your options for streaming media, especially when it competes with their own media stores and so on.

I've pretty much said my peace here, multiple times too and I have no idea why I should think any level of informative dialogue will persuade anyone formulating an opinion before they read up on this topic. All I can do is try to appeal to maybe one or two readers in the group to open their minds and look at that article I linked. It's not a quick read but I promise the context is worth the investment.

This breakup that you speak of is a result of the deregulation. i'm sure you remember the cost of intra and interlata calls per minute then, as opposed to now. Voip is currently unregulated as compared to standard telephone service.

Not sure what nerd neutrality will bring,but, I believe that the gov. is more interested in creating revenues that us getting our tvoip.

[Longitude Zero]

I've pretty much said my peace here, multiple times too and I have no idea why I should think any level of informative dialogue will persuade anyone formulating an opinion before they read up on this topic. All I can do is try to appeal to maybe one or two readers in the group to open their minds and look at that article I linked. It's not a quick read but I promise the context is worth the investment.

ScottM I enjoy your counterpoint to common sense. The articles you have linked and nothing more than the OPINION of the author. Just because it was posted somewhere does NOT make it fact. Your last comment smacks loudly of an air of superiority that generally indicates waning thought for a losing point of view. To say the break up of the baby bells decades ago is responsible for Vonage or Skype it is laughable uneducation at best. The internet would have developed just as it has even with the baby bells in place. I suggest you go back and read up on the re-joining of many of the baby bells. Most experts will now say that the breakup was a horrible idea.

ScottM please educate us on your opinion of ANYTHING the government has taken control of and made better? If anybody thinks that government control of the internet thru regulation will any time soon bring us better, cheaper, faster service you are just stupid enough to buy beach front property in Montana.

[b4uqzme]

Deadeye are you just jaded just about government are are you willing to give equal time to industry? That's what I find inaccurate - folks who are anti-government, free-market worshippers can be so blind to how industry screws us at every turn of the coin. And vice-versa as well; how dyed-in-the-wool, starry-eyed anti-business folks can be so blind to cases where politicians game the system to their advantage....

I'm sorry Scott but that is about the most ignorant thing I've read anywhere. If you had the capacity to understand free markets you could recognize...

That corporatism is a result of Government having TOO MUCH INFLUENCE over free markets. You see, companies cannot screw free people on their own. The market is too big and powerful if left alone. Now, if the government steps in and regulates the market, THAT CAN BE EXPLOITED! Those corporatists you abhor use the government you love to manipulate markets. And the irony is YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE POWER.

TAKE THE POWER AWAY FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE IS NO ONE FOR CORPORATISTS TO CORRUPT. You cannot corrupt the entire market. But give the government undue influence, and you can corrupt that.

Dear Lord I hope you can find it within yourself to understand what I'm saying. But I suspect you'll just call me an uneducated hick or something.

[JohnR]

It's not about making things better, it's about sticking it to the evil bourgeoisie. Marxism at it's very core.