First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Donald Trump will probably end net neutrality
2277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
Sorry, I was VERY much against Trump and did NOT vote for him. I voted for neither candidate. I nearly voted for HIllary but decided to go third party at the last moment but I'm in Texas so my vote doesn't really count that much anyway. It's not like she had a real chance here. I truly didn't think people would vote for Trump. To me his comments about sexually assaulting women alone make him unfit to be President. I happen to be really adamant against people who abuse women and children and those were NOT the words of locker room talk but of a sexual predator. But all that aside the people have voted and while I don't have much if any respect for Trump, I do respect the people and their right to vote. Even if Trump did lose the popular election. Just another reason the electoral college is antiquated and out of date but that's a whole other topic.

Anyway what I'm getting at is even though I vehemently opposed Trump I'm NOT going to jump on the speculation bandwagon. I will wait and judge him accordingly by his own actions. I think it's important that we try to give him a chance. You can be apprehensive and there's good reason to be but let's just wait and see what he does. If Hillary or a third party candidate had won I'd want everyone to give them a chance and to judge them based on what they actually do and not just on speculation. Trump might do this, he might do that. Hell he may start global thermal nuclear war or maybe he'll make Troll dolls our new national emblem. Who the hell knows? Let's all wait and find out and then judge him. If he does a piss poor job then we'll vote him out of office next time. If not then maybe we'll reward him. I really really hate to say this but it's only fair. Let's give him a chance and then judge him based on his own actions and nothing else. Now I need to go take a shower. /shiver. I guess Hell has frozen over. Who would think I would try and defend Trump? Not me that's for damn sure but I really hate being a hypocrite and if Hillary had won I'd be telling everyone else to give her a chance so it's only fair.
91 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 16 days ago

dougeprofile wrote:

Net Neutrality is simply a buzzword allowing a government bureaucracy to expand its power since the law never gave them the authority to regulate the internet. The decision on what is "fair", who gets exceptions, those who must be made "more equal" - now rests with BIG government. Maybe they should force all car dealers to charge the same price for all cars be it a Hugo or BMW - that way all car dealerships will be equal and competition can flourish. Socialist sophistry! Less competition? Demonstrably a lie. ISPs built the infrastructure, they rightfully charged for it. End the theft of Net Neutrality.


Incorrect, while in the U.S the FCC has no authority to regulate content on the net they do have authority to regulate various practices of telecoms and cable companies even more so now that they are once subject again to Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Of course where there any actual competition net neutrality would not be needed, but thanks to revolving door between industry and regulatory bodies like FCC a few companies have been able to consolidate point of having monopolies in in areas they serve. Most people have one choice in their area for in home broadband since phone companies want to ditch their copper lines and end DSL service and replace it with more expensive wireless.

They built the infrastructure with considerable help from taxpayers and the universal service fund. They frequently take money to pay for service in rural and under served communities but more often than not don't follow through.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/145693-study-half-of-high-costq-fund-goes-to-general-operations-of-phone-companies?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Between 2008 and 2010, Verizon received $12.3 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government and had an effective tax rate of –2.9 percent.
In the same period, AT&T received nearly $14.5 billion in federal tax breaks, second only to Wells Fargo, which received nearly $18 billion. It had an effective tax rate of 8 percent.
Comcast received $2 billion in tax breaks and had an effective tax rate of 20.6 percent.
The telecom industry as a whole paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent during the 2008–2010 period — far below the standard 35 percent corporate tax rate.
http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

The sophistry is this blind pro-corporate anti-consumer cheerleading.
61159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

dougeprofile wrote:

Net Neutrality is simply a buzzword allowing a government bureaucracy to expand its power since the law never gave them the authority to regulate the internet. The decision on what is "fair", who gets exceptions, those who must be made "more equal" - now rests with BIG government. Maybe they should force all car dealers to charge the same price for all cars be it a Hugo or BMW - that way all car dealerships will be equal and competition can flourish. Socialist sophistry! Less competition? Demonstrably a lie. ISPs built the infrastructure, they rightfully charged for it. End the theft of Net Neutrality.


That's such a poor analogy that I don't even know whether I can fix it, but I'll try. Ending Net Neutrality would be more like an alternate universe where cars are not sold but rather leased to customers. Dealers would dictate what you could do with the cars you purchased licenses for, such as where you could take them, what times of day you could drive them, and whether you're making money by using them. Customers that run their businesses using cars, such as cab drivers, would be at the mercy of the whims of car dealers. The only silver lining would be that there is much more competition between car dealers than there is between ISPs, probably because the barrier to entry is much lower. I believe it's nearly impossible to get the capital required to build the infrastructure for internet connectivity without major government assistance or some sort of wealthy parent company.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.