Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Corporations Are People Too, BIG PEOPLE, And Net Neutrality Is Dead


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#1 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 09:42 PM

Please, Mr. Corporation, don't manipulate my internet activity. 

 


"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

#2 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 09:46 PM

You're Internet goes back to the way it was 2 years ago.


  • ApolloBeachRetiree, lowrider, NewsJunky and 1 other like this
Golly gee willickers.

#3 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 10:10 PM

You're Internet goes back to the way it was 2 years ago.

 

 

Backing up is not my favorite thing to do. I'm a big man, but not as big as a Corporation. Those SOB are some big people, E Z! One day one of them will be the KING. 

 

Net neutrality will hurt right wingers because those big people don't want them talking about their customers over the internet. Corporations like a lot of little buddies. 


Edited by The Postman, 16 December 2017 - 10:13 PM.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

#4 Brian

Brian

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,162 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 10:25 PM

Youse should read http://bit.ly/2CJZWNE
  • mrshoward, El Zorro and Guard Dad like this

#5 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 10:50 PM

Youse should read http://bit.ly/2CJZWNE

 

 

Big People make big profits, Brian, while I pay for less internet. Those big people might not like what I study, nor where I get my information.  


"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

#6 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 16 December 2017 - 10:56 PM

 

 

Big People make big profits, Brian, while I pay for less internet. Those big people might not like what I study, nor where I get my information.  

Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook are now large corporations, are they not TP/  Each of them depend on the Internet to make profits, do they not?  Net neutrality protected the large footprint they have in their markets.  Doing away with net neutrality actually makes it more possible for new competitors to take penetrate their markets, cutting into their profits; while at the same time offering more affordable options to consumers.


Golly gee willickers.

#7 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 12:05 AM

If that were the case, E Z, Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook would not support getting rid of net neutrality. Big people don't like little people penetrating their market and cutting into their profits. They darn sure don't want any competition offering affordable options to their customers. Are you crazy, E Z, or are you just being funny? 


"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

#8 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 08:53 AM

You're Internet goes back to the way it was 2 years ago.

That's a lie.
 

pubby



#9 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 09:34 AM

If that were the case, E Z, Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook would not support getting rid of net neutrality. Big people don't like little people penetrating their market and cutting into their profits. They darn sure don't want any competition offering affordable options to their customers. Are you crazy, E Z, or are you just being funny? 

Nope, he's just a company man stirring the pot for the benefit of the greedy rich and famous.  

 

pubby



#10 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 09:48 AM

Nope, he's just a company man stirring the pot for the benefit of the greedy rich and famous.  

 

pubby

Did your handlers tell you to respond that way?


That's a lie.
 

pubby

No it's not and you know it. 


Golly gee willickers.

#11 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 04:05 PM

I know that there was an effort two years ago to strip the conditions of net neutrality and the decision was made to protect it under common carrier regulations and that those  regulations have been ditched.

 

What I also know is that the FCC has been captured by the companies that it regulates and has been since  Ron Reagan to one degree or another and that    their decisions have been disastrous in  many ways.

 

As far as handlers ...  Did Alex Jones tell you to say that or  are you naturally a conspiracy theorist. 

 

pubby



#12 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 09:30 PM

That's a lie.
 
pubby


You just told a whopper!
  • El Zorro likes this

"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#13 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 17 December 2017 - 09:37 PM

I know that there was an effort two years ago to strip the conditions of net neutrality and the decision was made to protect it under common carrier regulations and that those  regulations have been ditched.

 

What I also know is that the FCC has been captured by the companies that it regulates and has been since  Ron Reagan to one degree or another and that    their decisions have been disastrous in  many ways.

 

As far as handlers ...  Did Alex Jones tell you to say that or  are you naturally a conspiracy theorist. 

 

pubby

Nope,  I came up with it on my own.


Golly gee willickers.

#14 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 12:36 AM

This Net Neutrality brouhaha is a prime example of how the media and partisan politics are controlling people's minds.

All this repeal does is to change the law back to what it was two years ago (in spite of pubby's inaccurate accusation). Was the world coming to an end two years ago? Nope.

As often happens with government regulation; Net Neutrality addressed some issues but it also created other problems that might be worse than the ones it fixed.

When government stays out of the way; free market competition almost always takes care of the consumer.

 


  • cptlo306 likes this

"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#15 Domestic Violence by Proxy

Domestic Violence by Proxy

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 03:47 AM

This Net Neutrality brouhaha is a prime example of how the media and partisan politics are controlling people's minds.

All this repeal does is to change the law back to what it was two years ago (in spite of pubby's inaccurate accusation). Was the world coming to an end two years ago? Nope.

As often happens with government regulation; Net Neutrality addressed some issues but it also created other problems that might be worse than the ones it fixed.

When government stays out of the way; free market competition almost always takes care of the consumer.

 

 

Actually, Pubby is right and you are wrong. ISPs are flush with cash yet they have little incentive for innovation and improvement of infrastructure. In the past there have been attempts at monopolizing services. 

 

One clear example is the time when Google Wallet was blocked by Verizon in favor of it's own Isis Mobile Wallet (not the terrorist organization). Things like this happen more often than you know. Most people aren't tech savy enough to know when something  affects them. Blocking services in favor of your own is not innovation.

 

If ISPs, such as cable providers carve up the market such as cable providers, Comcast, Time Warner and Charter, how does this promote competition? They already have regional exclusive rights.


Edited by Domestic Violence by Proxy, 18 December 2017 - 03:49 AM.

blackrobechildabuse_zpsmub3uzz3.gif


#16 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:04 AM

 

Actually, Pubby is right and you are wrong. ISPs are flush with cash yet they have little incentive for innovation and improvement of infrastructure. In the past there have been attempts at monopolizing services. 

 

One clear example is the time when Google Wallet was blocked by Verizon in favor of it's own Isis Mobile Wallet (not the terrorist organization). Things like this happen more often than you know. Most people aren't tech savy enough to know when something  affects them. Blocking services in favor of your own is not innovation.

 

If ISPs, such as cable providers carve up the market such as cable providers, Comcast, Time Warner and Charter, how does this promote competition? They already have regional exclusive rights.

Read this.  https://www.komando....ty-do-you-agree


  • Guard Dad likes this
Golly gee willickers.

#17 Domestic Violence by Proxy

Domestic Violence by Proxy

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:41 AM

 

The FCC chair was a former Verizon employee and Verizon directly lobbied for the repeal. Nothing fishy about that.
http://reverepress.c...net-neutrality/


blackrobechildabuse_zpsmub3uzz3.gif


#18 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:26 AM

 

Actually, Pubby is right and you are wrong. ISPs are flush with cash yet they have little incentive for innovation and improvement of infrastructure. In the past there have been attempts at monopolizing services. 

 

One clear example is the time when Google Wallet was blocked by Verizon in favor of it's own Isis Mobile Wallet (not the terrorist organization). Things like this happen more often than you know. Most people aren't tech savy enough to know when something  affects them. Blocking services in favor of your own is not innovation.

 

If ISPs, such as cable providers carve up the market such as cable providers, Comcast, Time Warner and Charter, how does this promote competition? They already have regional exclusive rights.

What about repealing an Obama administration order do you not understand?

The law goes back to how it was two years ago.

So pubby is wrong, and you are wrong. Get your heads out of the partisan propaganda now and then.


"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#19 Domestic Violence by Proxy

Domestic Violence by Proxy

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:29 AM

What about repealing an Obama administration order do you not understand?

The law goes back to how it was two years ago.

So pubby is wrong, and you are wrong. Get your heads out of the partisan propaganda now and then.

 

The change was made 2 years ago to curb growing abuses.


blackrobechildabuse_zpsmub3uzz3.gif


#20 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 12:22 PM

The change was made 2 years ago to curb growing abuses.


And the recent change merely repeals the change two years ago.

So pubby lied, and you did as well.

"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#21 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 12:37 PM

http://www.theblaze....campaign=buffer

"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#22 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 04:36 PM

In a very technical sense, you are correct.  The rules regarding net neutrality had been established under another section of commuication law and while those regulations guaranteeing net neutrality were enforced, the ISP's (Comcast,AT&T etc.) fought those regulations in court ultimately getting a ruling that said the authority the FCC used in the law  to enforce net neutrality was not legal. 

 

Hence the status quo ante that these guys are using to  suggest that I was lying. 

 

In the short period of time between the loss in court, the ISP's started doing their thing throttling delivery of netflix, as one example. 

 

The OUTRAGE of consumers over the situation, not to mention the content providers, spurned the FCC to institute formal NET NEUTRALITY rules under a different section of the law; a set of regulations that the courts found legal. 

 

The greed of companies in this section have been lobbying to get those regulations reversed.  Why?  Because they want more money.  While we as consumers have been pushed to the frigging limit by the rising costs of Internet access - Are you happy with the increased costs you pay for access? - the ISP's had this great idea ... they'll make content providers pay.   Maybe they like a small company so they'll let them have access for nothing but if they don't like you; well, what they charge for access may be totally arbitrary. Hell, they may not let some content providers have any access on THEIR NETWORK... 

 

In essence, what the destruction of net neutrality rules does is make the Internet service providers ... internet companies that can decide who can be on their network or not.  The FCC, by dropping the common carrier provisions, created whole new companies that can control who gets to have content on their services. 

 

The theft was kind of like your telephone.  Yep, before, under the rules, you could call anyone and anyone could call you.  What Trumps FCC did was basically say that the telephone company can now say who can call you and who you can and can't call. 

 

This 'common carrier' rule is what was repealed.  It sucks, it is wrong and it changes the power dynamic from what succeeds on the internet being the choice of the people to   success depending on whose palm is greased at Comcast.  They've stolen your choice plain and simple. 

 

And why would Trump or even our local  authoritarians want these companies to have this power?  Because they are authoritarian control freaks who are afraid of the ideas of others ... I mean, you  might find information they don't want you  to know (like how they lie) and this way, wow, man, they can. 

 

pubby



#23 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 07:04 PM

I'll give a good example how some people are freaking out about the repeal.  My wife came home from shopping the other day and said three women were talking about the repeal.  One said she saw one the news the repeal will allow ISPs to start charging it's customers fees for viewing sites like youtube, Netflix, Hulu, or anyother site that streams video.  This woman stated the news also said ISPs will start charging customers higher monthly fees like they did before net neutrality.  Some people are just stupid as hell.


Golly gee willickers.

#24 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 07:09 PM

  Some people are just stupid as hell.

That's what the political left is counting on.

That, and people who think they need the government to protect them from everything.

As for prices...if anything, they went up after Net Neutrality was passed.


  • ApolloBeachRetiree and lowrider like this

"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#25 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 07:23 PM

Former FCC director speaks the truth in spite of MSN trying to twist it around. The media is lying to us.



"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#26 El Zorro

El Zorro

    The Fox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,630 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:04 PM

Former FCC director speaks the truth in spite of MSN trying to twist it around. The media is lying to us.


The guy from NBC was an ass.  He was attempting to push a false narrative and failed.  If AT&T wants to bundle packages of their own products and services to provide lower prices to their customers; that's their business.  They shouldn't have to include services or products of their competitors.  What that asshat failed to realize is what the former FCC chair said about how Title II / Net Neutrality made it much more difficult for startups and how those have declined 18% since net neutrality.  Net neutrality favors the big boys and that's why Google pushed for it.

 


Golly gee willickers.

#27 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:26 PM

So the argument is that net neutrality is not needed because the Clayton anti-trust act is there to stop abuse.

 

And the last time the Clayton Anti-trust act was invoked was in the 1980 AT&T case which broke up AT&T which, incidentally was great but if you look around, AT&T is back together.  Further these laws have not been used effectively in the US since the sea change in attitude that happened during the Reagan administration when merger mania began.  Since then the media ownership landscape has shrunken from it taking nearly 200 media companies to cobble together 95 percent reach in the US to today where 90 percent of the media impressions are concentrated in five  mega-media companies.

 

Oh, and this same FCC seems poised to drop the limit on ownership to more than 49 percent reach to any local TV media company making way for both an expansion of Fox Television and Sinclair Broadcasting; both right wing media purveyors of alternative facts. (The fairness doctrine, btw, was also a casualty of the Reagan era.)

 

The real point and reality of the dropping of net neutrality is that it changes the dynamic in the market so that legacy media businesses - folks like Comcast and AT&T and Time-Warner Cable etc.gain the upper hand in their negotiations with newer companies like Apple, Amazon and Google/youtube, Netflix, etc.

 

It is no more than a regulatory sell out to established government lobbyists over the less government-oriented players who don't have years of success coming from their effective lobbying to capture regulatory bodies for fun and profit.

 

The reason that Alli Velshi made his statements suggesting that competitiveness will be hurt is because you have to know that the cable companies and others will exert greater control over the use of their lines/cables, etc. under the new regime, which, contrary to the Bush appointee's effort to say that the regulatory regime in the pre-2015 period is exactly as it was  ... is wrong. The only thing that is the same is the 'authority' expressed by the FCC ... as the rules that invoked that authority of the FCC in the pre-2015 period that established defacto net neutrality were struck down by the courts.  Literally, the courts said to maintain net neutrality under the 1934 communication law you had to designate the cable providers, etc. as common carriers under the telephony statutes.

 

Here, watch this video;  It is entertaining :)

 

 

pubby



#28 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:35 PM

So the argument is that net neutrality is not needed because the Clayton anti-trust act is there to stop abuse.

 

And the last time the Clayton Anti-trust act was invoked was in the 1980 AT&T case which broke up AT&T which, incidentally was great but if you look around, AT&T is back together.  Further these laws have not been used effectively in the US since the sea change in attitude that happened during the Reagan administration when merger mania began.  Since then the media ownership landscape has shrunken from it taking nearly 200 media companies to cobble together 95 percent reach in the US to today where 90 percent of the media impressions are concentrated in five  mega-media companies.

 

Oh, and this same FCC seems poised to drop the limit on ownership to more than 49 percent reach to any local TV media company making way for both an expansion of Fox Television and Sinclair Broadcasting; both right wing media purveyors of alternative facts. (The fairness doctrine, btw, was also a casualty of the Reagan era.)

 

The real point and reality of the dropping of net neutrality is that it changes the dynamic in the market so that legacy media businesses - folks like Comcast and AT&T and Time-Warner Cable etc.gain the upper hand in their negotiations with newer companies like Apple, Amazon and Google/youtube, Netflix, etc.

 

It is no more than a regulatory sell out to established government lobbyists over the less government-oriented players who don't have years of success coming from their effective lobbying to capture regulatory bodies for fun and profit.

 

The reason that Alli Velshi made his statements suggesting that competitiveness will be hurt is because you have to know that the cable companies and others will exert greater control over the use of their lines/cables, etc. under the new regime, which, contrary to the Bush appointee's effort to say that the regulatory regime in the pre-2015 period is exactly as it was  ... is wrong. The only thing that is the same is the 'authority' expressed by the FCC ... as the rules that invoked that authority of the FCC in the pre-2015 period that established defacto net neutrality were struck down by the courts.  Literally, the courts said to maintain net neutrality under the 1934 communication law you had to designate the cable providers, etc. as common carriers under the telephony statutes.

 

Here, watch this video;  It is entertaining :)

 

 

pubby

Is that what they told you to say?


"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#29 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:59 PM

Oh, and since you're likely too dense to understand as well as deferential to your commandant, let me show this little video explaining the way the Internet was in the time you  suggest we went back to.  You know, when you claim all is well.
 
 
I'll point out the publisher of this bit of 'truth' was that bastion of liberal-think, the Wall Street Journal.  Yep, they are the one's who pointed out  how the ISPs are now salivating with the new found power Ajit Pie has heaped on them with the help of Donald Trump.
 

pubby

 

PS:  I especially like the bit how they started censoring opinions they don't like.  You're gonna love NBC's sensibilities :)



#30 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 10:02 PM

Is that what they told you to say?

 

Nope, as an internet entity and content creator I've been keeping up  with the issue and can think on my own.

 

It does seem you keep to the right wing party line more consistently than I do the left.

 

pubby



#31 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 10:41 PM

Oh, and since you're likely too dense to understand as well as deferential to your commandant, let me show this little video explaining the way the Internet was in the time you  suggest we went back to.  You know, when you claim all is well.
 
 
I'll point out the publisher of this bit of 'truth' was that bastion of liberal-think, the Wall Street Journal.  Yep, they are the one's who pointed out  how the ISPs are now salivating with the new found power Ajit Pie has heaped on them with the help of Donald Trump.
 

pubby

 

PS:  I especially like the bit how they started censoring opinions they don't like.  You're gonna love NBC's sensibilities :)

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of free market economics.

But that's what I would expect from a Socialist.


"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#32 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:02 PM

What you  promote and call free markets are rarely free.  To wit, in the cable ISP delivery scheme, 82% of all consumers either have no access to high speed broadband Internet or have access to only one provider. This, of course means that for all intents and purposes, cable TV and its sister broadband Internet service is provided in markets where there is a monopoly provider.

 

I think we here in Paulding are pretty well versed in the wonders and benefits of a monopoly internet provider. http://paulding.com/forum/topic/322183-dear-local-monopoly-media-provider/  

 

Gosh, you can tell just how elated everyone 'round here is with the wonders and benefits of the free market.

 

pubby



#33 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:11 PM

What you  promote and call free markets are rarely free.  To wit, in the cable ISP delivery scheme, 82% of all consumers either have no access to high speed broadband Internet or have access to only one provider. This, of course means that for all intents and purposes, cable TV and its sister broadband Internet service is provided in markets where there is a monopoly provider.

 

I think we here in Paulding are pretty well versed in the wonders and benefits of a monopoly internet provider. http://paulding.com/forum/topic/322183-dear-local-monopoly-media-provider/  

 

Gosh, you can tell just how elated everyone 'round here is with the wonders and benefits of the free market.

 

pubby

Free markets become much less than free when government sticks their nose in. While there are times that regulation is necessary; a lot of it is excessive and destructive. Net neutrality, as enacted under the Obama administration, is a prime example of excessive and destructive. It actually caused some of the problems we have today, including higher prices and lack of development.

Of course, you will disagree with that because you think only  government can do good things. But the reality of it is; today's federal government often does more harm than good. Net Neutrality did some damage that the free market must now fix.

Now...I won't tell you that there won't be adjustments to how things work, because there likely will. But it will shake out, and we'll see an almost immediate investment by the ISPs in internet infrastructure which will deliver superior products and more competition. Why? Because government stepped out of the way.

Again...a Socialist wouldn't understand this.


"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#34 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,440 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 11:14 PM

Free markets become much less than free when government sticks their nose in. While there are times that regulation is necessary; a lot of it is excessive and destructive. Net neutrality, as enacted under the Obama administration, is a prime example of excessive and destructive. It actually caused some of the problems we have today, including higher prices and lack of development.

Of course, you will disagree with that because you think only  government can do good things. But the reality of it is; today's federal government often does more harm than good. Net Neutrality did some damage that the free market must now fix.

Now...I won't tell you that there won't be adjustments to how things work, because there likely will. But it will shake out, and we'll see an almost immediate investment by the ISPs in internet infrastructure which will deliver superior products and more competition. Why? Because government stepped out of the way.

Again...a Socialist wouldn't understand this.

 

 



#35 Domestic Violence by Proxy

Domestic Violence by Proxy

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 03:27 AM

Free markets become much less than free when government sticks their nose in. While there are times that regulation is necessary; a lot of it is excessive and destructive. Net neutrality, as enacted under the Obama administration, is a prime example of excessive and destructive. It actually caused some of the problems we have today, including higher prices and lack of development.

Of course, you will disagree with that because you think only  government can do good things. But the reality of it is; today's federal government often does more harm than good. Net Neutrality did some damage that the free market must now fix.

Now...I won't tell you that there won't be adjustments to how things work, because there likely will. But it will shake out, and we'll see an almost immediate investment by the ISPs in internet infrastructure which will deliver superior products and more competition. Why? Because government stepped out of the way.

Again...a Socialist wouldn't understand this.

I don't know what's worse, that you said this or that you actually believe it. I guess if you repeat it you might actually have simpletons believing it too.

You don't have to admit it but Pubby dragged your point of view across the fireplace mantel and threw it.
 

tenor.gif?itemid=9163530


blackrobechildabuse_zpsmub3uzz3.gif


#36 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,776 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 08:36 AM

I don't know what's worse, that you said this or that you actually believe it. I guess if you repeat it you might actually have simpletons believing it too.

You don't have to admit it but Pubby dragged your point of view across the fireplace mantel and threw it.
 

tenor.gif?itemid=9163530

 

Funny....wrong and stupid...but slightly funny.


  • mrshoward likes this
This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.

#37 lowrider

lowrider

    QUEASY RIDER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,391 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 11:44 AM

Trump has done more in less than a year than what most presidents can’t/won’t do in 8 years.

#38 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 12:35 PM

Trump has done more in less than a year than what most presidents can’t/won’t do in 8 years.

 

 

I agree, Lo!

 

Citizens For Change Love Him! 

 


"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence

#39 Guard Dad

Guard Dad

    The Propaganda Buster

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,470 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 01:23 PM

I don't know what's worse, that you said this or that you actually believe it. I guess if you repeat it you might actually have simpletons believing it too.

You don't have to admit it but Pubby dragged your point of view across the fireplace mantel and threw it.
 

tenor.gif?itemid=9163530

You must be a Socialist as well.


"The belief is that the political incorrectness involved in the discussion will destroy the community" - posted by pubby on 10-22-16

No, pubby; the only thing free speech will destroy are lies. - Guard Dad


#40 The Postman

The Postman

    Bennett

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,940 posts

Posted 19 December 2017 - 05:56 PM

You must be a Socialist as well.

 

 

Are you a Republican socialist, G D?

 

I think so. A lot of Republicans are on Social Security, which is a dead giveaway because of its name "SOCIAL SECURITY". They also have Medicare insurance; do they not? You probably know a lot of fine Socialist Republicans 

 

But, how do you explain their Social Welfare to Corporations?  

 

"Republicans love the guys who give tax money, or even deficit spending, to corporate billionaires. Your average Republican is not a corporate billionaire, so it is a bit confusing. However, they are very pro-billionaire welfare. Always make sure to remember that the single mom with two kids who need 100 bucks extra per month for food is just a whore and deserves nothing while a person with 50 billion dollars in the bank needs an extra 2 million dollars in tax giveaways per year." - News.com


"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. ... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." ~ The Chief Author of our Declaration of Independence




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics