- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:23 am to kingbob
quote:
The whole functionality of the internet is based on open equal access
Create a separate regulatory system for broadband.
Are you a fan of using Title II?
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:24 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Your desires are irrelevant to economics. What you WANT isn't a reason for policy. If it were, there would be nicer cars in my driveway right the frick now.
Sure. But the desires of ~200 million people can, does, and should shape economic policy. Its part of our social contract.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:24 am to ShortyRob
quote:
If, in 1998, a person on the internet couldn't conceptualize for you how he would, "from scratch" take on WalMart, that would definitely mean we should have considered it impossible
How are these comparable?
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:24 am to kingbob
Boomers are so out of touch when it comes to NN.
Also, Shorty is missing a few brain cells.
Also, Shorty is missing a few brain cells.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:25 am to bmy
quote:
Sure. But the desires of ~200 million people can and should shape economic policy.
Just nationalize the industry.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:26 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Create a separate regulatory system for broadband.
That sounds reasonable
quote:
Are you a fan of using Title II?
No, but I don't see a better option right this moment. What I would do is use title II in the short term while a new classification is debated and created.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:26 am to kingbob
quote:
To remove that cornerstone is to remove what makes the internet valuable and useful to all mankind.
this is exactly why many companies want that cornerstone removed.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:26 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I was imply asking "so" to what you posted.
IE, so what? Define why it's bad
It's bad because net neutrality principles are good. Removing a good thing = bad.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:26 am to kingbob
quote:Not really.
The whole functionality of the internet is based on open equal access.
Hell, that's demonstrably not true even today.
quote:
It allows anyone anywhere to have access to everyone everywhere. It allows people to start businesses in their mother's basement that can do sales in Nigeria, India, and Taiwan at will. It allows a blog post in Beirut to trigger a revolution.
I'm aware of this.
quote:Romanticism. Well, actually, Romanticism along with fear.
Free, open, and equal access is the cornerstone of "the internet". To remove that cornerstone is to remove what makes the internet valuable and useful to all mankind.
Markets are a son of a bitch over time.
If you're asking me, "will there be ANY unevenness to the application of the market", then I most assuredly will tell you yes.
If you're asking me "will NOTHING negative occur that you are predicting", my answer will be no.
But that's the argument EVERY TIME when talking about economics and markets long term.
It is ALWAYS between the "but granny will melt" and the "shite will play out and we'll be fine" crowd.
I haven't seen a single discussion in any net neutrality there that with a mere few word changes couldn't have easily taken place in 1910, 1930, 1950, 1970, 1990.......
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:27 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Create a separate regulatory system for broadband.
Has anyone here said they are against this? Other than ShortyRob who believes there is never a reason for government regulation in any aspect and the free market will always win no matter what the situation.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 10:28 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:27 am to bmy
quote:Meh
It's bad because net neutrality principles are good.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:27 am to Breesus
quote:
Has anyone here said they are against this?
Absolutely.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:28 am to kingbob
quote:
No, but I don't see a better option right this moment.
WTF????
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:28 am to bmy
quote:Well yes, it does.
Sure. But the desires of ~200 million people can, does, and should shape economic policy.
Which is why we get a lot of really stupid economic policy.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:28 am to IllegalPete
Wait, there are really people who want Xfinity and Uverse to be able to sell you internet like this?:
I mean, there are dudes out there who enjoy getting kicked in the balls so I guess anything is possible.
I mean, there are dudes out there who enjoy getting kicked in the balls so I guess anything is possible.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:28 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Create a separate regulatory system for broadband.
Are you a fan of using Title II?
P4p politicians would never let this pass. Too many republicans getting their campaign efforts paid for by ISPs.
But youre right about what needs to happen. Its a no brainer.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:29 am to bmy
quote:
Too many republicans getting their campaign efforts paid for by ISPs.
Canned partisan response.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:29 am to bmy
quote:
So his claim that the democrats blocked republicans from passing legislation protecting net neutrality principles is false?
It isn't. The FCC tried to implement open internet rules in 2010 and 2014, both were struck down because they did not have the authority to regulate broadband. The republican proposal granted the FCC authority to regulate broadband, but forbid it from classifying it as a common carrier utility. The FCC would then be able to achieve the goals of NN while avoiding Title 2. Clean. Simple.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:29 am to Breesus
quote:Can we restrict this to shite I've actually said please?
Other than ShortyRob who believes there is never a reason for government regulation in any aspect
Oh, and you asked if I was real. I took the time to answer.
Popular
Back to top


0





