Civil Rights Groups - Backed by Telecoms - Backing Trump on eliminating Net Neutrality

[Pressure]

There are no monoplies without government power to create monopolies, that is the whole point.
Competition isn't magic, its reality, you let businesses compete for customers instead of being granted a locked down customer base and you will get better service, because the company has to work to keep customers from leaving.


Why is there barely any competition?
Could it be the city allowed monopolies that the government allows to function?
Again if you remove the ability for municipalities to allow telecom monopolies you would see a rise in what? Competition.
So instead of saying something is dumb because you haven't thought about it and why things are the way they are, do a little research.
The internet is open and will remain open, if contracted as such, there is nothing wrong with tiered service level plans though, if that is what is contracted.
There is no corruption in paying for a contracted service, there is most definitely corruption in regulatory capture, which you all seem to think will suddenly not happen if the government takes over the internet.
SMH


My argument is they shouldn't be there on principle because we've seen this story play out with different industries. You move to a US government regulated internet you have the feds moving into a industry it has no right to be in, and you will see a decline in innovation to comply with government regulatory standards, which the internet has never needed in its history of being a commercial service.


You write this like you actually made a coherent point instead of simply fear mongering.
You also seem like you really don't understand how the internet works.

And you wonder why you were grouped in Trumpset. :whitemjpls:

You've given no reason why repealing net neutrality is good nor have you given a reason why it has been detrimental.

Go sit down and stop being a contrarian.:camtook:

 

[David_TheMan]

And you wonder why you were grouped in Trumpset. :whitemjpls:

You've given no reason why repealing net neutrality is good nor have you given a reason why it has been detrimental.

Go sit down and stop being a contrarian.:camtook:

I've literrally typed out why I think net neutrality is a negative.
Now if you don't undertand what I wrote, just say you are confused, if not go kick rocks and fish for daps elsewhere.
As for trumpset, nothign about being anti net neutrality is linked to trump, I was anti before he became a presidential candidate.

 

[satam55]

Agent.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

There are no monoplies without government power to create monopolies, that is the whole point.
Competition isn't magic, its reality, you let businesses compete for customers instead of being granted a locked down customer base and you will get better service, because the company has to work to keep customers from leaving.


Why is there barely any competition?
Could it be the city allowed monopolies that the government allows to function?
Again if you remove the ability for municipalities to allow telecom monopolies you would see a rise in what? Competition.
So instead of saying something is dumb because you haven't thought about it and why things are the way they are, do a little research.
The internet is open and will remain open, if contracted as such, there is nothing wrong with tiered service level plans though, if that is what is contracted.
There is no corruption in paying for a contracted service, there is most definitely corruption in regulatory capture, which you all seem to think will suddenly not happen if the government takes over the internet.
SMH


My argument is they shouldn't be there on principle because we've seen this story play out with different industries. You move to a US government regulated internet you have the feds moving into a industry it has no right to be in, and you will see a decline in innovation to comply with government regulatory standards, which the internet has never needed in its history of being a commercial service.


You write this like you actually made a coherent point instead of simply fear mongering.
You also seem like you really don't understand how the internet works.

I know how corporations work.

If Disney owns the ISP and they can decide what info to allow, they won't allow any anti Disney info.

That's just common sense that a child can muster.

Instead of tryna sound all mysterious and smart, refute what I am saying specifically.

You don't believe in government controlling the web at all and you don't believe in school, meaning all kids would be home schooled. This happens largely online in 2017.

Go from there how we will make sure corporations allow info that could hurt their profits.

 

[David_TheMan]

I know how corporations work.

If Disney owns the ISP and they can decide what info to allow, they won't allow any anti Disney info.

That's just common sense that a child can muster.

Instead of tryna sound all mysterious and smart, refute what I am saying specifically.

You don't believe in government controlling the web at all and you don't believe in school, meaning all kids would be home schooled. This happens largely online in 2017.

Go from there how we will make sure corporations allow info that could hurt their profits.

You don't seem to know how the internet works.
If Disney signs a customer to a open gateway to the internet with no filtering they can't, if they sign one with filtering they can. What you don't seem to understand is that it is the customer's contract that determines quality of service.

You talk about common sense, yet the more you post, the more the old time saying, common sense isn't common comes to mind because you seem to not understand what service contracts are.

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about what I've written, if it comes off as that, it is probably because you don't know what I'm talking about and like I told the other guy, just ask if you are confused, if you don't though, I just have to chalk it up to your being to slow to keep up in a basic written conversations.

I don't believe in government regulation of internet? This is true.
I don't believe in government forced/compulsory schooling? True.
This means that all kids would be home schooled? No, it doesn't at all, you jjust delivered a false choice fallacy, try to think harder next time.

Go from where a false choice and strawman you built to reinforce your own bias? No thanks.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

You don't seem to know how the internet works.
If Disney signs a customer to a open gateway to the internet with no filtering they can't, if they sign one with filtering they can. What you don't seem to understand is that it is the customer's contract that determines quality of service.

You talk about common sense, yet the more you post, the more the old time saying, common sense isn't common comes to mind because you seem to not understand what service contracts are.

There is absolutely nothing mysterious about what I've written, if it comes off as that, it is probably because you don't know what I'm talking about and like I told the other guy, just ask if you are confused, if you don't though, I just have to chalk it up to your being to slow to keep up in a basic written conversations.

I don't believe in government regulation of internet? This is true.
I don't believe in government forced/compulsory schooling? True.
This means that all kids would be home schooled? No, it doesn't at all, you jjust delivered a false choice fallacy, try to think harder next time.

Go from where a false choice and strawman you built to reinforce your own bias? No thanks.

Okay so I will type this out:

Once the government regs are gone and the ISPs do away with the current paradigm and create a new one.

Stop being obtuse.

 

[88m3]

disgusting

 

[David_TheMan]

Okay so I will type this out:

Once the government regs are gone and the ISPs do away with the current paradigm and create a new one.

Stop being obtuse.

Let me type this out for you
If ISPs offered tiered services that is their right with their property, don't buy from them.
That said most ISPs have shown no want to block traffic and only seek to monetize priority traffic.
If you are mad at lack of options of ISPs, fight the government created local cable monopolies that most of these companies benefit from.

now start actually reading arguments being presented instead of arguing against strawmen in your head.

 

[DEAD7]

There are no monoplies without government power to create monopolies, that is the whole point.

#factsonly

Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there were over 30 major ISP providers, now we are down to 6...
Regulations.

 

[the next guy]

So is anyone going to tell us why these civil rights groups are against net neutrality? Or no?

 

[Pressure]

So is anyone going to tell us why these civil rights groups are against net neutrality? Or no?

They won't answer that. It goes against their libertarian economic theory they're pushing that ignores that business is in the interest of doing what is best for the business and not the consumer.

 

[superunknown23]

Money trumps everything, even with Civil Rights groups.
Donald Sterling got awards from the NAACP despite his well-known racism because he gave them money to burnish his image

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

#factsonly

Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there were over 30 major ISP providers, now we are down to 6...
Regulations.

The legislation's primary goal was deregulation of the converging broadcasting and telecommunications markets.

 

[DEAD7]

Read the bill

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014...-will-be-unaffected-by-net-neutrality-policy/

BUT BUT, NO ONE IS GOING TO INVEST IN THE NETWORKKKSSSS !!!!!

A senior executive of Verizon, which successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s 2010 net neutrality rules in federal court, said Tuesday that the company’s plans for future investment in its networks would not be affected even if the F.C.C. decides to begin regulating Internet access as a utility.

Francis J. Shammo, Verizon’s chief financial officer, said at the annual UBS media and communications investment conference that the company planned to continue to invest in its FiOS fiber-optic network and its wireless systems regardless of the outcome of the broadband debate.

“I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest,” Mr. Shammo said, according to a transcript of the meeting. “I mean we’re going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in wireless and wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that.”