![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The argument does work here. They do want more control. It's what govt does. Especially the liberals/socialists in govt.
You really think Obamacare is about getting every poor soul insurance because the govt felt so bad about it?
When a person realizes that politicians pander to get votes, create artificial crises which they claim only they can fix, and that pretty much the only things politicians really care about is getting reelected and being "elite"--a person can be said to have "grown up" to an extent. It isn't just "American politics"--it's politics everywhere. That's why the US has so many checks & balances in its system--to keep politicians honest to whatever extent that even is possible. In politics, perfection is never a choice: rather, politics boils down to accepting the lesser of two (or more) evils most of the time, unfortunately. But the government wants such a card--because ultimately politicians want to be able to control the speech and other freedoms that at the moment are beyond their control via the Internet--and they are afraid of the Internet because right now, the Internet is both open and free. That is what many politicians find so objectionable about it. If the government tries to in effect nationalize the Internet then it doesn't take a genius to know why: the government wants to control it, tax it, regulate it, etc. how would it be a republican political play when the white house wrote it? the FCC chair that proposing it is democrate? Dont' get me wrong the republican party deserves its fair share of blame on alot of shit, They listen the needs of the chamber of commerce over the needs of their constituents but i just dont think they deserve the blame other than going along with it.
You act like they did us a favor. ISP's simply did want any other entrepreneurial enterprise would, they seized on a highly lucrative product and commenced to learn how to make money with it.
There is no urban legend about it, major ISP's have received subsidies from the gov't to assist in their rollout. If you dont believe this I dont know what to tell you. Look it up perhaps?
I dont know what point you are trying to drive home here, but ISP's have exposed what their true intention is, and that is to control the internet in a manner most profitable for them. If they can charge more money to access certain websites then that is exactly what they did, and exactly what they will do. They want to model the internet the way they model their TV plans. You pay for access to certain things. You want access to Facebook and Youtube? That will require our Blogger Plus package for only $9.99 extra sir.Yes, they've shown their cards--they spell I-n-t-e-r-n-e-t. Government has no such card, don't ya' know...
This is just stupid conspiratorial nonsense. Our country prides its very self on freedom of speech. At no point have we seen such liberties diminished, and I'm pretty sure the internet isn't suddenly the last bastion for it that the gov't finally realizes it can take from us compared to the last couple of centuries when they had such opportunities.
What about Google? And facebook? And Twitter? And the other several hundred A-list enterprises of today? They're all just a bunch of easily manipulated dog's of Pavlov too?
SO THEN WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU SUPPORTING THEIR DECISIONS AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY?! If distrustful self-serving public pandering politicians are siding with internet monopolies then by your logic we should do the exact opposite and ignore their pleas. Net neutrality is an obvious win here.
So is this the new talking point? Suddenly ATT is a gov't monopoly that way you can use neutrality's arguments against itself?
What in the hell are you talking about? You really need to get off whatever blog you're sourcing all of your information from. This is so factually incorrect I dont know where to begin. And the break up of carrier monopoly's had nothing to do with Title II. Title II is what allowed smaller phone carriers and even early dialup internet to leach off of the infrastructure put in place by the original monopolies. And while it is true that deregulation will stimulate innovation, that is only true during the initial phases of such. The internet has still been a burgeoning new concept that is constantly redefining our expectations and usage of things. But the growth of the internet is starting to slow down now. There is less and less innovation created, businesses are finding their niches, and it soon it will just be another one of those things like running water and electricity that we have all grown up with and use on a daily basis. At that point once the juice fails to flow, a lack of regulation will result in total abuse as businesses like Comcast seek other ways to monetize their lack of fresh ideas. Instead of innovation there will just be exploitation, and we have already seen the beginning of it thus far with their failure to Compete with online digital distribution. Their answer to competing with Netflix? Cap em.
Because having a central all-powerful body spells freedom and prosperity for all. Like it even needs to be discussed.
It took 600 years to crawl out from under Serfdom, and division of power was how it happened. Why people want to turn back the clock because its being sold with updated 20th century Advertising tactics beats me.
