FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband

Well, it seems like the million dollar question is, how do you get ISPs to compete locally without the govt interfering? You think they are just going to say fuck our quarterly statement, let's re-invest in infrastructure !!

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty libertarian, I don't like the bs arguments that most liberals debate, and hate having to rely on the govt for almost anything. But honestly, I still feel like this is one particular market where the free market has failed. It's like asking Walter White to voluntarily quit cooking meth.

Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
 
Teenk9 said:
So please tell me where this magical city in the U.S. is where I can have service from TWC, Cox, Charter, and Comcast all at the same address?
Click to expand...
I have a choice of Charter or Centurylink here. Cable or DSL but no multiple providers for each medium. That's it. And there isn't a lot of reason to switch between the two. Perhaps not surprisingly their bandwidth and cost packages are about the same. Sweet! :rolleyes:
 
Booyaah said:
Well, it seems like the million dollar question is, how do you get ISPs to compete locally without the govt interfering? You think they are just going to say fuck our quarterly statement, let's re-invest in infrastructure !!

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty libertarian, I don't like the bs arguments that most liberals debate, and hate having to rely on the govt for almost anything. But honestly, I still feel like this is one particular market where the free market has failed. It's like asking Walter White to voluntarily quit cooking meth.

Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
Click to expand...

The place to start would be to make franchise agreements illegal, make municipal broadband legal (if the town wants it, who is to say they can't make their own?), and address last mile.
 
Booyaah said:
Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on your post. Since the cost of entry into this market is unbelievably expensive I don't see any way for a little guy to really compete. Due to the nature of the product itself to some degree. It's like taking a few hundred thousand on loan from a bank and trying to start an oil company. Good luck with that.

The single solution that some people want would probably be price controls/fixing via the government. Or how about just nationalizing the whole thing. I'm sure some people would get behind that as well.
 
Booyaah said:
Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
Click to expand...

Before even going this far I don't believe some even like this list of goals:

1.Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
2.They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
3.They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.
Click to expand...

However arguing against anything this list is fools errand and no one is going to actually argue against it directly, the arguments will be against government control. But obviously ISPs want to be able to charge for fast lanes they just won't be honest about it.
 
griffinhart said:
Such as? If you say Netflix, VPN traffic vs no VPN isn't proof of anything since it changes the very nature of the traffic. UDP vs TCP.

I stand by my statement.
Click to expand...

You mean...

screen-shot-2014-08-27-at-11-35_optimized.png


I do believe the inter-connect system we have today may not be the best way to handle today's traffic. Services are more specialized then before when tit-for-tat regs worked better. Some networks pretty much receive data and others send. Of course exasperated by streaming...

Comcast pretty much said they don't want to pay for Netflix's traffic (at least via the connection they use(d)) and shouldn't have to. Which can make sense but so does netflix paying to send the data and comcast (customers) pay to receive it too.. Both point of views makes sense.

Who gets to dictate how traffic gets where? Comcast wants to deal with company A for their interconnects, Netflix wants to use company B... Both don't like to use the others company lines because they don't have an exclusive contract or mass data deal etc.

Regulation imo is going to be required... Comcast has already tired to meter data (that if they get their way they don't even pay to receive) AND then offer their competing streaming services which don't count against said meter...

All of which is just compounded by lack of reasonable provider choice in most areas. No 1 DSL, 1 Cable and crappy sat services do not count.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
I'm with you on your post. Since the cost of entry into this market is unbelievably expensive I don't see any way for a little guy to really compete. Due to the nature of the product itself to some degree. It's like taking a few hundred thousand on loan from a bank and trying to start an oil company. Good luck with that.

The single solution that some people want would probably be price controls/fixing via the government. Or how about just nationalizing the whole thing. I'm sure some people would get behind that as well.
Click to expand...

Our issue is that we were such monumental idiots as a country for letting corporate thugs own the infrastructure in the first place.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
Perhaps. But the alternative is no high speed internet in their area if I'm following this line of thinking correctly. And how long do you think those in charge would stay in charge there if they kept telling potential ISP entries into their market no? Not long. People MUST have their internet.
Click to expand...

If one ISP doesn't want that market, another will come in and take it. The only thing that agreement does is ensure broadband from only that ISP. Sure there is a potential for them to install the service quicker, but if they don't, they risk losing that market. Either way, the town conducted monopolistic practices which should be reversed.


Teenk9 said:
So please tell me where this magical city in the U.S. is where I can have service from TWC, Cox, Charter, and Comcast all at the same address?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what my posts following that one have been addressing, division of territory. Also I have 3 ISP's in my area that I can think of off hand.

SRTie4k said:
You gotta understand, these agreements came at a time when "the internet" was a magical thing that many areas had only heard about, and at the time everyone wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Cities were standing in line asking ISP's to service their areas. They never even considered the repercussions of the non-compete clauses in the paperwork they signed when they signed on the dotted lines. All they were thinking (with help from the ISP PR guys), was "this is going to bring technology to the area, technology = more jobs, which = more votes!". All the while the ISP's are laughing all the way to the bank now that they have unrestricted access to their own patchwork of territory.

Whether it's truly legal or not if put under a microscope, I can't say. I know a lot of states have made exemptions (with campaign contributions, of course) to this monopolistic behavior.

It's an unfortunate reality in a good 80% of the US.
Click to expand...

Those agreements would then be void because they are illegal. You can't sign a contract or an agreement stating "you can go ahead and conduct illegal practices in our area" and have it be a legal contract/agreement.
 
I am against government control, not the idea of net-neutrality.

I hope I am proven wrong, but the last thing I think of is "Government Regulation" and "Utility Company" when I think of customer service and speed.

Then again Comcast and Verizon are also not on that list either :)
 
Booyaah said:
Well, it seems like the million dollar question is, how do you get ISPs to compete locally without the govt interfering? You think they are just going to say fuck our quarterly statement, let's re-invest in infrastructure !!

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty libertarian, I don't like the bs arguments that most liberals debate, and hate having to rely on the govt for almost anything. But honestly, I still feel like this is one particular market where the free market has failed. It's like asking Walter White to voluntarily quit cooking meth.

Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
Click to expand...
I'm a libertarian on most things myself, but there are some things where federal government is your only real option.

Seems to me the people here arguing for a free market approach are failing to acknowledge that ISP's have already divided up the free market so they can extort it. It would be great if we could magically conjure competition from thin air, but until then the only real option is government regulation in hopes it will provide fair service under the existing monopoly. Having overturned the states ability to prevent competition in cities though we might get a foot in the door on competing services, we'll have to wait and see how it goes.

The question is, how much is this federal regulation going to cost us? It's very possible the government regulatory fees will be passed on to us just like the "fast lane" fees would have been. We could end up paying more than if we'd just let the ISPs have their way with us.
 
Booyaah said:
Well, it seems like the million dollar question is, how do you get ISPs to compete locally without the govt interfering? You think they are just going to say fuck our quarterly statement, let's re-invest in infrastructure !!

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty libertarian, I don't like the bs arguments that most liberals debate, and hate having to rely on the govt for almost anything. But honestly, I still feel like this is one particular market where the free market has failed. It's like asking Walter White to voluntarily quit cooking meth.

Honestly, what is real solution to this problem? I'd love to hear one, cause I haven't seen a single one being offered up yet.
Click to expand...

If you want to fix the competition problem with government control then you do the same thing we have with roads ... have the government control and maintain the infrastructure (require all the infrastructure be fiber and meet a consistent standard) ... then lease the infrastructure out to ISPs in 1, 3, or 5 year contracts ... require all municipal residents to have the infrastructure wired to their locations ... with competitive bidding for access to the infrastructure you would get the competition that people want with limited government regulation

I would prefer no government involvement and that each company install their own infrastructure (as that would be true market control) but if we feel we need some level of government involvement I would find the infrastructure approach the least egregious
 
Does this mean those charts that get posted on the news page that show ISPs' netflix speed will all be equal now? lol
 
The fcc better step in when the prices go up.

Someone's paying for this battle. That someone is us.
 
kbrickley said:
If you want to fix the competition problem with government control then you do the same thing we have with roads ... have the government control and maintain the infrastructure (require all the infrastructure be fiber and meet a consistent standard) ... then lease the infrastructure out to ISPs in 1, 3, or 5 year contracts ... require all municipal residents to have the infrastructure wired to their locations ... with competitive bidding for access to the infrastructure you would get the competition that people want with limited government regulation

I would prefer no government involvement and that each company install their own infrastructure (as that would be true market control) but if we feel we need some level of government involvement I would find the infrastructure approach the least egregious
Click to expand...

I believe this is how Canada does it, right?
 
First people bitch about providers screwing them over and then government tries to regulate it and then they say big government. What the hell is the difference between free speech and free internet, both regulated by government. I never cared either way to be honest, but love how people just complain and complain about providers and this is what they said FCC needs to do, but hey its big government!! lol
 
Riptide_NVN said:
Cheap high speed internet with no baloney throttling is a human right now. The government in their competence and benevolence will protect us from these corporate crooks.When I google politifact bias I get page after page of results. Which isn't to say I think they're any more biased than any place else. But I would definitely not trust that website implicitly.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't trust it implicitly, but why would you trust the results of a google search any more? Just because you see a lot of hits doesn't make something true. You should evaluate the merits and credibility of any source. Besides, wouldn't you expect a fact check site that evaluates claims from both sides of the aisle to draw criticism?

I'm not trying to be Politifact's champion, but they are owned by a newspaper, they won a Pulitzer Prize, and their methodology is typically thorough. It isn't "some guy" on the internet. They consult experts and offer the subjects an opportunity to respond. Try reading some articles and assess for yourself.

Bottom line: doing a google search, by itself is not research. That's like citing Wikipedia (which is lazy and dangerous). We have to assess information for credibility, otherwise we only find what we want to find.
 
So has this finally been published in the Federal Register so we can actually read it instead of being told about it?
 
The arguments against this can be quieted pretty quickly by either pulling your fingers out of your ears and listening to what the FCC had to say or by reading their talking points. No, we don't know the exact language or even everything that the ruling touches on but the main points here diffuse the main arguments.

Complaint: Our bills are going to go up because of this!
Fact: Forbearance of taxes/terriffs found in Title II.

Complaint: Government is going to regulate prices and stifle innovation!
Fact: Forbearance of price regulation rules in Title II.

Complaint: This isn't gonna fix shit.
Fact: Your probably right, without the requirement of last mile unbundling, the regional monopolies still get to control who gets access to what, unless that separate company is capable of laying infrastructure, then Title II will help because it touches on utility pole access. Also, I'll take government attempts at making things better over the ISPs current process of fucking their customers with poor/spotty service and bold attempts, and successes, at extorting edge providers.



On a side note, those of you that decry government as this big bad thing that consumes all good and spews nothing good, I'm glad you haven't had hardships in your life. Personally, the government, and you all, helped turn me into a man when I graduated high school and joined the Marine Corps. You enabled me to be fed, clothed, and trained to protect your ideals. Whether or not I was used for those American ideals is a separate argument. After I left the Corps., the first thing I did as a free citizen was be an idiot and knock up a woman without having a stable/well paying job. It was ok though, because the programs that government enacted allowed me and this woman to provide for ourselves and our child while we went to college to better ourselves and become additional, productive members of society.

There's been a lot of ups and downs since I left the Corps., and I'm only 30. One thing I know for sure though is that if it wasn't for those government programs that we all pay for, I wouldn't be the man I am today, I'd be much worse off, and I know I'm not alone in that experience. So for all the terrible that government may do, there's a lot it does right and there's a lot of good things that come from government.
 
SRTie4k said:
The place to start would be to make franchise agreements illegal, make municipal broadband legal (if the town wants it, who is to say they can't make their own?), and address last mile.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I'm somewhat unfamiliar with some of these laws about states not allowing competition or whatever. So what you are saying, if residents don't like TWC and they are the only ISP in town, they can put 'local internet' on their city ballot and vote on it, and if it passes, the city can raise taxes (or re-budget) to pay for laying fiber?

I guess local govt and voters at the grass roots level is way better than a federal one policy to rule them all set of laws. Worst case it causes regional competition, if residents hate their internet, they can move over to the next town or no new residents will come in.

kbrickley said:
If you want to fix the competition problem with government control then you do the same thing we have with roads ... have the government control and maintain the infrastructure (require all the infrastructure be fiber and meet a consistent standard) ... then lease the infrastructure out to ISPs in 1, 3, or 5 year contracts ... require all municipal residents to have the infrastructure wired to their locations ... with competitive bidding for access to the infrastructure you would get the competition that people want with limited government regulation

I would prefer no government involvement and that each company install their own infrastructure (as that would be true market control) but if we feel we need some level of government involvement I would find the infrastructure approach the least egregious
Click to expand...

First off, thanks for actually offering a suggestion. Too much of internet debates nowadays focus on arguing about who's right vs wrong, instead of trying to come up with a real solution.

To your 2nd point, I believe what we have had for so long has been true market control.
 
I say the companies that build the infrastructures and own them get to say what goes through their own pipes. If you folks think the government is the answer to fix this is totally laughable. The one group of people that don't know crap about the internet what so ever is now going to watch dog it. HAHAHAA. I can't wait to see the cable bills in the next 6 months to a year. Hold on tight it's gonna hurt.
 
Something tells me this could all be a wolf is sheep's clothing ruling all said and done. I don't know enough about this reclassification of the internet to a public utility and what that really means at the end of the day but I'm thinking it could be used in other ways than the public thinks it will. I'm scared to death about usenet.
 
mullet said:
I say the companies that build the infrastructures and own them get to say what goes through their own pipes. If you folks think the government is the answer to fix this is totally laughable. The one group of people that don't know crap about the internet what so ever is now going to watch dog it. HAHAHAA. I can't wait to see the cable bills in the next 6 months to a year. Hold on tight it's gonna hurt.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the government has paid the ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure?
 
Skripka said:
Our issue is that we were such monumental idiots as a country for letting corporate thugs own the infrastructure in the first place.
Click to expand...
Corporate profiteering or government incompetence and bureaucracy. Pick your poison I suppose. Maybe this is one of those things that no matter what choices are made nobody is going to be wholly happy with the results.
 
MarkVI said:
Are you aware that the government has paid the ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure?
Click to expand...

Again thanks for proving my point that the government should never get involved. All subsidies of all kind should end. Either your company has a good business model or it doesn't.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working Mr. President?”

Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology.

LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012


Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now.

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling.

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all.

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term.

A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M.

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help.

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money.

Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt.
 
MarkVI said:
I'm not trying to be Politifact's champion, but they are owned by a newspaper, they won a Pulitzer Prize, and their methodology is typically thorough. It isn't "some guy" on the internet.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with any of your post regarding checking and verifying claims on your own. Including those of politifact. I honestly couldn't care less that they won some prize or are owned by a newspaper. That might be slightly more trustworthy on it's face than some guy in a garage but that isn't really saying all that much IMO. Let's just say I've seen enough distortions and lies bandied about by both sides these days that I've become a bit of an extreme skeptic any more.
 
mullet said:
Again thanks for proving my point that the government should never get involved. All subsidies of all kind should end. Either your company has a good business model or it doesn't.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working Mr. President?”

Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology.

LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012


Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now.

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling.

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all.

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term.

A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M.

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help.

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money.

Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt.
Click to expand...

How about those federal oil subsidies? Farm subsidies? Propping up a failing industry?
 
Hello. I would like to say high to my friends in Turkistan and do a lottery ticket car drawing with the secret swear word on behalf of a democratic affiliation. OOPS. FCC prohibits it. Sorry I'll go back and watch my approved cartoons and eat my approved lunches!
 
This can prevent "fast lanes" but I don't think it's going to do anything for data caps.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Heres a concept for you!
Thats not some easy option and we shouldn't be paying out the ass for bad customer service and low data rates. As another poster mentioned things have not changed for 15 years.
To you its always the individuals fault and never a giant corporations.
Click to expand...

And to you its whenever a person passes a certain dollar amount in their bank account, they become Satan. Spare me, the individual has the most power and influence over their own lives. What is the obsession with the left to force people who disagree with them to bend and be shaped to their will. And if you don't capitulate you will be punished by the force of government. Its loony-toon fascism and you tell yourself its for the "greater good" just to get that warm and fuzzy feeling deep inside your empty heart. Oh boy I finally stand for something in my miserable life! Yeah I'm a good person, I'm sticking it to these evil RICH ISPs yeah! I'm a good person!
 
Riptide_NVN said:
Corporate profiteering or government incompetence and bureaucracy. Pick your poison I suppose. Maybe this is one of those things that no matter what choices are made nobody is going to be wholly happy with the results.
Click to expand...

But I think we can all agree...the decision-making by our elected-corrupt idiots has been incredibly short-sighted and only hurt us in even the middle-term. Most of the rest of the civilized world has much faster and better, and needless to say cheaper ISP service by simply doing one thing...not doing the colossal string of fuck-ups that we did.

The alternative to reclassifying broadband put forward by ISPs and pundits amounts to continuing to stand in the bonfire and complaining about it being hot.
 
MarkVI said:
While I'm not claiming that they are perfect, they did win a Pulitzer Prize. What would you consider to be an "independent, unbiased" source? They fact check Democrats and Republicans alike.

Did you actually read the article, or did you just look for what you wanted to find? If all you are doing is trying to reinforce what you already believe, I doubt you'll ever challenge your preconceptions.

What, exactly, are you even claiming that these supposed panels are supposed to be doing? You are engaging in fear mongering. The government does not run "death panels." It isn't "taking over the internet." How exactly are either of these things supposedly going to happen?
Click to expand...

Death panels is the true lives system within obamacare. In a nutshell its a failsafe when the system is overloaded, people will be given treatment based off their value to the collective. Government takeover of the internet is via regulation. Now if you want to run a website you will need to get a permit and you must prove to the government its in the public interest. Public interest being whatever those in power want it to be.

Not that hard to follow is it?
 
Zale00 said:
Death panels is the true lives system within obamacare. In a nutshell its a failsafe when the system is overloaded, people will be given treatment based off their value to the collective. Government takeover of the internet is via regulation. Now if you want to run a website you will need to get a permit and you must prove to the government its in the public interest. Public interest being whatever those in power want it to be.

Not that hard to follow is it?
Click to expand...

Someone bought out all the Reynolds Wrap today I see.
 
Zale00 said:
Death panels is the true lives system within obamacare. In a nutshell its a failsafe when the system is overloaded, people will be given treatment based off their value to the collective. Government takeover of the internet is via regulation. Now if you want to run a website you will need to get a permit and you must prove to the government its in the public interest. Public interest being whatever those in power want it to be.

Not that hard to follow is it?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link with the section of the Affordable Healthcare Act about the True Lives system?

Cursory google search turns up nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top