Net neutrality takes a major leap today!

[hydrogen3]

Bloomberg news is a crook?

I do listen to Bloomberg.


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

 

[Just_Me_D]

That is too absolute a view for my taste. Government does some things better than private industry and the revers is also true. Some regulations are a necessary part of life.

Government, in and of itself, is not a problem. The problem arises from our view of government and from the things we expect from government. Instead of viewing it as something that "we" control, we see it as this entity that will save us from anything we see as displeasing. Again, it goes back to taking responsibility for our own actions. Example: We know going in that investing our money in the stock market is a risk, yet, many of us take that risk anyway. However, when things go wrong, and we lose our money and more, we turn to government to find fault in the way our money was invested. I mean, someone had to have cheated me out of my money, right? Well, government will indeed step in and find anything you want them to find, even if they have to make it up. In addition, they'll pass new laws that, in "reality", will give them total control of your money, but "officially", you'll be told that it is to ensure that something like this will have less of a chance happening in the future. Anyway, we are ultimately responsible for the actions of the government. If you want a government to be more involved in personal affairs, that is what you'll get. Personally, i want government to be as our framers created it to be, and nothing more.

 

[kch50428]

Personally, i want government to be as our framers created it to be, and nothing more.

Agreed.

 

[grover5]

These new rules have yet to be published for public consumption by the FCC... what are they waiting for?

They have to wait until all the appeals have been dealt with before they can release it. Verizon and gang are appealing.

 

[grover5]

Government, in and of itself, is not a problem. The problem arises from our view of government and from the things we expect from government. Instead of viewing it as something that "we" control, we see it as this entity that will save us from anything we see as displeasing. Again, it goes back to taking responsibility for our own actions. Example: We know going in that investing our money in the stock market is a risk, yet, many of us take that risk anyway. However, when things go wrong, and we lose our money and more, we turn to government to find fault in the way our money was invested. I mean, someone had to have cheated me out of my money, right? Well, government will indeed step in and find anything you want them to find, even if they have to make it up. In addition, they'll pass new laws that, in "reality", will give them total control of your money, but "officially", you'll be told that it is to ensure that something like this will have less of a chance happening in the future. Anyway, we are ultimately responsible for the actions of the government. If you want a government to be more involved in personal affairs, that is what you'll get. Personally, i want government to be as our framers created it to be, and nothing more.

I don't think your concerns match up with keeping the internet the way it has always been and not allowing the comcasts of the world alter how quickly we can view the information we want. I don't want them telling me how quickly I can access the sites where I get my information. They have a vested interest in where I get information and what information I get. But we can agree to disagree as well.

 

[Just_Me_D]

I don't think your concerns match up with keeping the internet the way it has always been and not allowing the comcasts of the world alter how quickly we can view the information we want. I don't want them telling me how quickly I can access the sites where I get my information. They have a vested interest in where I get information and what information I get. But we can agree to disagree as well.

Do you have to pay for internet access in your home? Do you have to pay for internet access via your wireless service? The answer is probably "yes". Those who charge you for access to the internet have a vested interest. We started out with dial-up, then we had DSL, then cable and soon fiber optics. Do the companies who invest their time, money and research to bring us faster speeds not have a right to be compensated? We seem to have lost sight of the difference between a right and a privilege. Having access to the internet is a "privilege" and a bigger privilege for the fastest available. Don't think for one second that the government does not have a "vested" interest in this matter because it does. They will eventually "control" it, and don't be naive to think that that's a good thing. Anyway, I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, and I truly do appreciate your input.

 

[anon(4698833)]

I think the question this whole thing begs is whether a company like Comcast, who corners a market and creates an environment barren of competition, should follow guidelines that protect the consumer given the spectrum of users they service.

(And we're talking beyond what the FCC already regulates...I'm talking more in line with guidelines and regulated service cost like this net neutrality is working towards)

And if you say yes...where do you draw the line?

 

[gdruin74]

So the same administration that couldn't build a website will be running the Internet. Too much government control.

 

[grover5]

So the same administration that couldn't build a website will be running the Internet. Too much government control.

The government isn't running the internet. They are regulating the companies who sell it to you.

 

[anon(4698833)]

So the same administration that couldn't build a website will be running the Internet. Too much government control.

You're saying that as if the government didn't already have control over the internet, lol!

 

[grover5]

Do you have to pay for internet access in your home? Do you have to pay for internet access via your wireless service? The answer is probably "yes". Those who charge you for access to the internet have a vested interest. We started out with dial-up, then we had DSL, then cable and soon fiber optics. Do the companies who invest their time, money and research to bring us faster speeds not have a right to be compensated? We seem to have lost sight of the difference between a right and a privilege. Having access to the internet is a "privilege" and a bigger privilege for the fastest available. Don't think for one second that the government does not have a "vested" interest in this matter because it does. They will eventually "control" it, and don't be naive to think that that's a good thing. Anyway, I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, and I truly do appreciate your input.

I don't feel like you're busting chops. We just have completely different opinions on the topic. I can live with that. I don't envision the slippery slope you do. But what I think it boils down to is you trust big business more than I do and I trust the government more than you do. No one is saying the companies don't have a right to profit. That isn't the argument. The argument is do they have the right to even more profit by creating slow lanes for those sites who can't afford to pay extra. The answer by about 75% of the population is no they don't. The internet isn't a privilege and wasn't created by those who profit from it. But it is a service you can pay for and we do.

 

[gdruin74]

The government isn't running the internet. They are regulating the companies who sell it to you.

That's the problem, people actually believe that. This administration is all about control. Obamacare is about control not healthcare. Which by the way if it is so good why have so many opted out? Why are the leaders in Washington not on it? It is all a slow push to socialism. The frog in boiling water experiment. It's happens so slow no one even notices.

 

[grover5]

That's the problem, people actually believe that. This administration is all about control. Obamacare is about control not healthcare. Which by the way if it is so good why have so many opted out? Why are the leaders in Washington not on it? It is all a slow push to socialism. The frog in boiling water experiment. It's happens so slow no one even notices.

I'm sorry but that is paranoia. The members of the government have government healthcare. Obamacare has provided healthcare for over 10 million people who didn't have it before.

 

[gdruin74]

I'm sorry but that is paranoia. The members of the government have government healthcare. Obamacare has provided healthcare for over 10 million people who didn't have it before.

So Obama is flipping the bill? And the government employee healthcare is not the same. No paranoia here. The more you depend on the administration the better for them.

 

[Premium1]

I'm sorry but that is paranoia. The members of the government have government healthcare. Obamacare has provided healthcare for over 10 million people who didn't have it before.

It's also caused many places to cut or limit how many hours you can work because of the mandate. I know first hand at my one job they cut the hours for part timers. (it's not my main job, but it was my summer fund job and cut down on the hours I could work) It's not all rainbows and butterflies. I think healthcare is something that is needed, but the way the Government implemented it is wrong, and like others have said is all about control. Obama wants nothing more than total control.

 

[grover5]

It's also caused many places to cut or limit how many hours you can work because of the mandate. I know first hand at my one job they cut the hours for part timers. (it's not my main job, but it was my summer fund job and cut down on the hours I could work) It's not all rainbows and butterflies. I think healthcare is something that is needed, but the way the Government implemented it is wrong, and like others have said is all about control. Obama wants nothing more than total control.

Poorly run businesses have always cut hours to avoid benefits. That will and has always happened regardless of obamacare. I do agree that healthcare is needed for all and I think obamacare definitely has room for improvement which is what I'd like to see both parties working on together. I'll disagree on Obama's desire for total control but I don't see much value added in our debating that.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Poorly run businesses have always cut hours to avoid benefits.

No. Smartly run businesses do.

 

[Premium1]

Poorly run businesses have always cut hours to avoid benefits. That will and has always happened regardless of obamacare. I do agree that healthcare is needed for all and I think obamacare definitely has room for improvement which is what I'd like to see both parties working on together. I'll disagree on Obama's desire for total control but I don't see much value added in our debating that.

This is government where I work so I guess it's poorly run


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grover5]

This is government where I work so I guess it's poorly run


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many government run offices are poorly run. I would never say otherwise.

 

[grover5]

No. Smartly run businesses do.

If a business is run solely to make as much money for the owner at the expense of others then they tend to avoid hours and benefits. If a business is run for reasons beyond strictly squeezing every penny they can out of it then they tend to exhibit a different behavior. A business can be successful for many including the workers who are actually doing work for the business and positively impact a community. There are just different philosophies on what success is.