Obama Picks Net Neutrality Backer as FCC Chief

Either refute the point or don't say anything at all.. because you didn't make an argument there.

Who is going to pay for the entire infrastructure overhaul so every person has equal priority on the internet?

Hehe funny guy. Nobody has an argument and you have all the answer.

And you have no source of your claims to top it all.

What a jackass.
 
Well lets try that with civil laws too, then.. If a completely lawless free market would give us a Utopian-style crime-free economic environment, then why wouldn't a completely lawless social environment do the same?

Or do both just lead to criminality-fueled chaos?

Government has a role, in my opinion in terms of public safety. If a product or service that is sold hurts people or something that would be considered illegal commerce or black market then I would say government has a role in making sure that is remedied. Also, government does have a role in protecting its interests with regards to the Constitution and national security and interests. Beyond that I don't see a role for them, but government has a way, it seems of interpreting laws to intrude into the most innocuous places of commerce. However, this incessant need for people to change the argument or premise like you just did to include a lawless social environment is a straw man.
 
I'm all for net neutrality. I don't want my ISP dictating who gets priority over me.

Actually here is an interesting idea. Net neutrallity means that all traffic has equally priority.

I for example, would pay extra for a service that prioritized packets for games I played, so I had shorter ping times in game, compared to people who got vaniela service. With net neutrality that is not possible.

I DO NOT want anyone to decide what opinions I have access to, and blocking sites because they do not like what is said, or regulating the internet with a new fairness doctrine. That is far more likely to happen once you hand the FCC the ability to regulate the internet.

What we also need is less government sanctioned monopolies in ISP providers.
 
Damn no edit button and hitting Submit instead of Preview!
Regardless, how does everyone who're pulling for Net Neutrality feel about QoS?

For me, under net neutrality like how I think it should be, QoS would be a no-no. All packets are treated like any other packet and without discrimination.
 
People need to understand that based on our Consititution (I know most people here haven't even read it, but just hear me out) the role of government is generally pretty small. It's supposed to protect people's life, liberty and property. Basically it is there to provide public services such as roads, a national defense, etc. etc.

That's it.

This hybrid of capitalism/socialism isn't going to work because you can't regulate some things and not others. Either your government is in control of all of it, or it's in control of none of it. The correct thing to do in a capitalist society is to let businesses fail that are not run correctly, you can't throw a government bailout to people because "Awww, but it's Ford! They're American! Think of the jobs!" By creating "stimulus" bills you're only delaying the inevitable, propping up a failing business and creating hyperinflation.

The government literally has no place anywhere near the internet, or it shouldn't anyway. You guys need to understand that the government is one of the most inefficient entities out there, and free deregulated competition is always going to be better. When was the last time the government did anything efficiently? How about social security and medicare? How about education? I know I sure as hell am not getting any social security even though I've been paying into it for years now.
 
I agree -partly-.

But with healthcare you take the wrong example. Why is that you Americans spend a three times larger percentage of your GDP on healthcare while getting worse healthcare then I as a European do with government run healthcare? Exactly: there doesn't have to be a profit. Making a frofit on someones disease is IMO not morally right.

Anyway; if you say free market you should also get rid of the special interest groups and lobbyists. Because in effect they buy votes. (For example the drug prescription act...)
 
I agree -partly-.

But with healthcare you take the wrong example. Why is that you Americans spend a three times larger percentage of your GDP on healthcare while getting worse healthcare then I as a European do with government run healthcare? Exactly: there doesn't have to be a profit. Making a frofit on someones disease is IMO not morally right.

Anyway; if you say free market you should also get rid of the special interest groups and lobbyists. Because in effect they buy votes. (For example the drug prescription act...)

Healthcare?

You mean we don't die while waiting 3 months for treatment in the US? There are a variety of stories and events where people who live in countries with socialized medice will instead come to the US for an urgently needed operation, instead of being put on a waiting list. In the US we also have much better access to newer medicine, that may bypass surgery. AN example is clot busting drugs. In some of the countries with socialized medicine, it is cheaper to have a bypass or surgery then to take the drugs that will do it, without an operation. So the state then arranges for you to be operated on, and be out of action for a little bit, when you do eventually get your operation.
 
Companies (ISPs) don't want a free Internet. They want a monopoly. Governments don't want a free Internet. They want control. The whole concept of 'network neutrality' is to me kinda like "power to the people". Perhaps I'm being too rhetorical, but I don't trust the government to enforce neutrality. At the same time I don't expect the ISPs to go along with self-imposed neutrality especially with our monopolies and duopolies that America seems to favor so much.

But at least I trust companies a little bit more; businesses only care about money. All it takes is some politician spewing out moralistic BS for our government to turn our 'network neutrality' into a government sanctioned and sanitized Internet.
 
Alright, so what I get from this thread is, "if the government sticks its hands into something, it's going to screw it up." Actually, I sort of agree with that for the United States government. I think some of you are thinking that because of that, you should all give up on the government entirely. Why not figure out what's wrong with your government? What do you need to fix to get them to be effective? What do you need to fix to avoid them eventually screwing up the consumer? But, let me be the first to say that it won't be easy, because the problem with some governments (including yours), is that the trash that fill it up also vote to keep the trash in. You need to get the trash out, and that requires some drastic measures.
 
Hehe funny guy. Nobody has an argument and you have all the answer.

And you have no source of your claims to top it all.

What a jackass.
Truths that are self evident need no source. Read into net neutrality, then read into the U.S. Constitution. You never came up with any counterpoints.. only empty rhetoric in the form of personal attacks. Go ahead, flame some more and call more names. Your argument of anger is almost working..
 
I agree -partly-.

But with healthcare you take the wrong example. Why is that you Americans spend a three times larger percentage of your GDP on healthcare while getting worse healthcare then I as a European do with government run healthcare? Exactly: there doesn't have to be a profit. Making a frofit on someones disease is IMO not morally right.

Anyway; if you say free market you should also get rid of the special interest groups and lobbyists. Because in effect they buy votes. (For example the drug prescription act...)

It's a matter of perspective. We are a profit oriented society. We are also a charitable society as well. In Europe, many countries have made the conscious decision to treat health care like a charity. That which stems from government control to you. We in America don't. We view, in large part that our health care is a personal responsibility and in doing so the healthcare system is their to service that responsibility by charging us a fee for that service. European values don't reflect profit as a motivator for doing better, that's why you see the EU meandering the way it has for years. When profit isn't a motivator, then you have to find another one and that would be government and government ends up being the provider for that which you choose not to make a profit from. Coincidentally, governments don't have profits as their motivators either, hence why the giant sucking sound you are hearing globally is them eating up other producers profits instead in the form of onerous regulations and taxation.

But even your healthcare isn't free considering the level of taxes you are paying. I don't know where you live, but since you are in Europe, they certainly aren't low. Even in the UK you can get your basic HMO type healthcare, but if you want more than that in the form of a PPO, you have to pay an extra 5% of your pay on top of that to get it as a supplemental. And a lot of people in the UK do pay that extra because of the extra value it gives them.

I agree with you that getting rid of special interest groups and lobbying groups would go a long way in eliminating a lot of the special favors that are doled out by government to those that pay the most to get their voices heard loudest and first while the average citizen is left holding the bag.
 
Companies (ISPs) don't want a free Internet. They want a monopoly. Governments don't want a free Internet. They want control. The whole concept of 'network neutrality' is to me kinda like "power to the people". Perhaps I'm being too rhetorical, but I don't trust the government to enforce neutrality. At the same time I don't expect the ISPs to go along with self-imposed neutrality especially with our monopolies and duopolies that America seems to favor so much.

But at least I trust companies a little bit more; businesses only care about money. All it takes is some politician spewing out moralistic BS for our government to turn our 'network neutrality' into a government sanctioned and sanitized Internet.

That's because the negative connotation of a monopoly has been allowed to pervade the American psyche for decades. I have no problem with monopolies. I mean after all why are you in business then? My basic four rules for being in business is to A) Provide a product or service that people want to buy, B) provide that product or service at your lowest price possible while charging your customer the highest price possible to maximize your profit and balancing it with a price the market will bear, C) be #1 in your market, & D) destroy all competition.

If you are in business you want to be the only source for whatever product or service it is that you provide right? ISP's, cable companies, telco's are already regional monopolies unto themselves. Their monopolies stem from their regional infrastructure (wherever that may be) and the regions that they service. Monopolies have a place. How to deal with them is what needs to be revised.
 
Truths that are self evident need no source. Read into net neutrality, then read into the U.S. Constitution. You never came up with any counterpoints.. only empty rhetoric in the form of personal attacks. Go ahead, flame some more and call more names. Your argument of anger is almost working..

All you say is go read the American constitution but provide no logic to defend your arguments.

And I don't need to read about net neutrality. When asked about reference to your claims (to give base to your complete opposite idea of what it really is) you provide none.
 
All you say is go read the American constitution but provide no logic to defend your arguments.

And I don't need to read about net neutrality. When asked about reference to your claims (to give base to your complete opposite idea of what it really is) you provide none.
I already cited examples and you didn't understand them, then when I explained them, you refused to understand them claiming ignorance saying you did not care about the Constitution. If I'm going to make a logical argument with you, and you refuse to take up participate, I can do nothing further but refer you to open your mind and read into what I'm speaking about. Ignorance is bliss.
 
That's because the negative connotation of a monopoly has been allowed to pervade the American psyche for decades. I have no problem with monopolies. I mean after all why are you in business then? My basic four rules for being in business is to A) Provide a product or service that people want to buy, B) provide that product or service at your lowest price possible while charging your customer the highest price possible to maximize your profit and balancing it with a price the market will bear, C) be #1 in your market, & D) destroy all competition.

If you are in business you want to be the only source for whatever product or service it is that you provide right? ISP's, cable companies, telco's are already regional monopolies unto themselves. Their monopolies stem from their regional infrastructure (wherever that may be) and the regions that they service. Monopolies have a place. How to deal with them is what needs to be revised.

As soon as you have a monopoly the benefits of a free market are loss. The consumer ends up paying more for products that are not as good.

It should be common knowledge that monopolies have no place in a healthy economy.
 
As soon as you have a monopoly the benefits of a free market are loss. The consumer ends up paying more for products that are not as good.

It should be common knowledge that monopolies have no place in a healthy economy.
Are you bipolar? Then why are you advocating net neutrality. hahaha
 
Are you bipolar? Then why are you advocating net neutrality. hahaha

Please give a link to the information you are basing your opinion on net neutrality!

Give me the information you have to make the connection with monopolies!
 
Well, it would be nice if linking was allowed on this forum, rofl. Replace it with tiny url.

I'm not basing my opinion on anything. I'm making the argument based on what we are told net neutrality is.
 
I am sick of your bullshit w1retap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

... A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, ...
...
Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners Lee, father of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favour of network neutrality.

Now tell me: how this gives advantage to monopoly and removes your freedom?

Have a cup of STFU.
 
I am sick of your bullshit w1retap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality



Now tell me: how this gives advantage to monopoly and removes your freedom?

Have a cup of STFU.
There's no need to get angry.

But of course those people want it. It's because they'll get more money through exclusive government no-bid contracts based on their technology. You'd have to be retarded to say no otherwise.
 
Please give a link to the information you are basing your opinion on net neutrality!

Give me the information you have to make the connection with monopolies!

He'll have to pour his brain out of his ear... That's where the info is.
 
There's no need to get angry.

But of course those people want it. It's because they'll get more money through exclusive government no-bid contracts based on their technology. You'd have to be retarded to say no otherwise.

The evil government, right? LOL
 
The evil government, right? LOL
It isn't the evil government. It's the over-reaching government that the founding fathers warned us about, and put safeguards in the constitution to protect against, which of course have been ignored and legislated over.

But back to your original argument... which is it? You are all over the map with your logic, and it seems you don't even understand your own argument.
 
Meh, I have proven my point. Keep spreading FUD, lets see if anyone actually gives a shit about what you say.
 
Meh, I have proven my point. Keep spreading FUD, lets see if anyone actually gives a shit about what you say.
You had no point.
lol.gif
I started by giving various reasons based off of the constitutional role of government.. then you didn't understand my arguement. I told you to read about it, then you refused. Then after some more of your anger and flaming, you actually ask for links... then you don't read them and flame some more. Now, still without even making a coherent logical argument, you're giving up. Nice. :p
 
I love how [H] news threads turn into political soapboxes for users who think they have all the answers.
The article is about a political issue featuring politicians.. it never turned into a political thread; it started out as one. If you don't want to participate, that's fine.
 
For me, under net neutrality like how I think it should be, QoS would be a no-no. All packets are treated like any other packet and without discrimination.

Somy VoIP traffic, tagged Citrix traffic and other mission-critical services that I rely on QoS to make sure my packet gets there faster than your torrent should suffer?
People have managed to sway me even farther from this NN crap.
 
Ok can we stop this bullshit please?

W1retap you need to learn to chill. Stop using inflammatory language, if you have a point make it, but do so honestly and with RESPECT.

I have gotten out of line on here too but it is a mistake. I understand that you are a super neo-con, but really can't you argue politics on a site that is designed for arguing politics?

this is not the place for this shit, and I am tired of reading it. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me but frankly we shouldn't be talking about this shit anyway. Not every single thread has turn into an opportunity for you to lay out the days republican talking points.

I suggest we do as MaxPC does and discourage all political conversations. This is [H]ard forum not the nation.com or the NYpost.com, so lets all STFU about the political nonsense K?
 
Ok can we stop this bullshit please?

W1retap you need to learn to chill. Stop using inflammatory language, if you have a point make it, but do so honestly and with RESPECT.

I have gotten out of line on here too but it is a mistake. I understand that you are a super neo-con, but really can't you argue politics on a site that is designed for arguing politics?

this is not the place for this shit, and I am tired of reading it. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me but frankly we shouldn't be talking about this shit anyway. Not every single thread has turn into an opportunity for you to lay out the days republican talking points.

I suggest we do as MaxPC does and discourage all political conversations. This is [H]ard forum not the nation.com or the NYpost.com, so lets all STFU about the political nonsense K?
So basically you flame me and call me names in order to tell us to stop flaming and stop calling names, and put a nice shut the fuck up at the end? Nice... a bit hypocritical, but nice.

We're having a debate.. we don't need to be told by you how to conduct ourselves.. thanks.
 
Oh.. if you want to not see political debate, do not click on a topic that is clearly about political debate. That's what the entire topic, article, and thread is all about.
 
So basically you flame me and call me names in order to tell us to stop flaming and stop calling names, and put a nice shut the fuck up at the end? Nice... a bit hypocritical, but nice.

We're having a debate.. we don't need to be told by you how to conduct ourselves.. thanks.

when did I call you names? I said lets ALL stfu which would include myself, and no you aren't having a debate. Everytime someone makes a point you don't have a good response to, your answer is to just call them a commie and tell them to GTFO. Frankly its borderline trolling.
 
Wait, so people are saying that net-neutrality is a bad thing for making sure ISPs keep their hands out of monitoring/controlling what we access online?

o_O
 
Back
Top