Hopefully An Issue We Can Get Some Bi-Partisan Agreement On

[steve dave]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Your blind confidence that the FCC is going to make this better by regulating the internet as a public utility is pretty dumb. Maybe there's a good idea here but people are right to be sceptical.

[CNS]

I like tbe internet as is.  Dont regulate,  just give the right ppl subsidies to make it much faster and more available.  I want WiMax, or the new equivalent.   City wide high speed wifi.  Just stupud fast, too.  Stuff like this should be the only goal

[Emo EMAW]

I like tbe internet as is.  Dont regulate,  just give the right ppl subsidies to make it much faster and more available.  I want WiMax, or the new equivalent.   City wide high speed wifi.  Just stupud fast, too.  Stuff like this should be the only goal

Well, can't today Youtube or whatever pay to make their content arrive faster?  There is no regulation to prevent that, yes?

[CNS]

Ok, fair enough.  The legislation should be a couple sentences and state no pay for play.

[steve dave]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Your blind confidence that the FCC is going to make this better by regulating the internet as a public utility is pretty dumb. Maybe there's a good idea here but people are right to be sceptical.

you should really educate yourself on what the FCC has done so far in regards to net neutrality

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem I think. A lot of the right see Barry Hussein and think they should support the opposite side because they have no idea what it is or what is at risk. That's true for a lot of topics but this one is pretty clearly something everyone not paid to be a telecom lobbyist should be behind.

Since the electorate doesn't vote on net neutrality (according to Barry Hussein neither will the people they elect), I don't think it matters what Cruz says or whether people understand it. What's far more concerning is that Reid, a single senator, has successfully blocked patent reform, which has bipartisan support.  Last time I checked he's not the king. Unfortunately partisan dipshits, such as yourself, go after Cruz for his innocuous comments rather than Reid for his egregiously undemocratic behavior.

If the president actually wanted bipartisan support for this measure, he can arrange for legislation to be proposed and the Congress can pass a bill and he can sign it, just like we learned in middle school civics. He doesnt, he wants to politicize it so misinformed idiots such as yourself blame republicans when nothing happens and continue to vote for his party. He's very good at politics and very bad at president.

[steve dave]

Thanks for putting a dash in between Bi and partisan, SD. Nobody does that for some reason.

thank you. I'm very good at message boarding.

[gatoveintisiete]

The internet seems pretty fair and free right now, what is keeping cable co. From gouging us now?  I don't like the idea of the gov getting involved in it cuz i'm afraid if they do it won't be as cool, it will cost more etc.

[Mr Bread]

Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. "

[steve dave]

http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

[sonofdaxjones]

http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

I always enjoy the comments section of those articles.   While I certainly won't defend telecom providers on any extreme level, I'd just say you can't have everything all at once in an urban sprawl country like the United States.    Massive growth in suburban and semi-rural areas just prior to the advent of more affordable and plausible network buildout technologies means that literally millions of neighborhoods and developments have to be almost completely rewired if you want to move beyond the "infrastructure is crap" scenario so many Americans bitch about.   That costs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars . . . takes years and piling through mountains of red tape in many scenarios.

You wanted your little farmette on 3 acres 45 miles from city center in 1992, along with your other little "neighborhood" of other farmettes; don't bitch because you only have one option for Internet and it sucks.

 

[8manpick]

http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

You wanted your little farmette on 3 acres 45 miles from city center in 1992, along with your other little "neighborhood" of other farmettes; don't bitch because you only have one option for Internet and it sucks.

True, but it is also quite common in large cities to only have one or two ISP options. My location in Chicago has two, my girlfriend has one.  Most places in Mhk only had one until AT&T came in a couple years ago. It isn't really an open market.

[Tobias]

most people are pretty much limited to the already existing franchise utility for your municipality (i.e. one for cable, one for pots) which happens to also supply internet access.

these franchise utilities have decided to use/expand their infrastructure for internet-related purposes in public right-of-way they already have government-backed access to utilize without market competition.

to pretend that you can just "shop elsewhere" is ridiculous

[star seed 7]

Vote with your wallet 'bias

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. "

The underlying facts and circumstances this thread is premised on are the same, shitbrain.  You and your partisan pals can't have it both ways when it comes to politicizing an issue.

 I support both measures, as any reasonable person would.

A critical distinction worth pointing out is that patent trolling is very much alive and a present problem, while non-neutral net is only feared to happen and the effort to regulate against it (without passing legislation) is quixotic, arguably unnecessary under the existing legal system and likely yet another power grab by an abusive administration.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

http://gizmodo.com/what-obamas-net-neutrality-plan-gets-right-1656941650

This read like a high school girl's diary, full of hyperbole and devoid of substance. Why in the world would you post that here?

[_33]

Why do the ISPs have a monopoly?  Is it because they work together?  Is it because infastructure is so costly to build?  Is it because local government charges huge fees to build new infastructure?  I don't understand why more companies can't compete.

[CNS]

Infrastructure is immensely expensive.  Either you have to run new wire to tens of thousands of ppl, or you have to rent space on existing lines that belong to your competitor.  Your competitor, being your competitor, is going to Katdaddy you for rent on those lines.  So, either you drop multiple millions just to create what is a comparatively small region, or you pay a crazy amount of "rent" to the guy who's biz you are trying to take.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Both measures presently have bipartisan support.  The problem is two democrats:
1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated. Why he won't seek bipartisan legislation is unknown, although I've already explained the obvious answer.
2. Reid, who won't allow a vote on a measure that already passed with bipartisan report.

Quite undemocratic of the democrats. Sad, really. . . .

[Mr Bread]

Net neutrality is good too, and I support it.

I'd prefer legislative measures (eg statutes) rather than administrative (just having the FCC define what "neutral" is). The current administration has been so abusive of its administrative power, I'm surprised anyone has any faith they can do anything in a non partisan manner.

This is also my concern. NN sounds good, but I'm skeptical of the unintended (of perhaps intended hidden) consequences of administrative regulation.

It's an obvious concern, which is why I assumed this was a troll thread and offered the Harry Reid bullshit on a similar issue to turn it on its head.

Patent litigation reform isn't a similar issue at all.  That's an incredibly dumb thing to say. Are you saying that because Reid was an obstructionist whore on the patent reform that the pubs should be too on NN as payback?  That is the only way it's relevant. 

FSD: "Reid was a rough ridin' idiot so Cruz should be too! Fair's fair!!" 
K-S-U-Shitbrain!: "Go pubs, go! Booo dems, booo!!"
FSD: "Turned it on its head. "

The underlying facts and circumstances this thread is premised on are the same, shitbrain.  You and your partisan pals can't have it both ways when it comes to politicizing an issue.

 I support both measures, as any reasonable person would.

A critical distinction worth pointing out is that patent trolling is very much alive and a present problem, while non-neutral net is only feared to happen and the effort to regulate against it (without passing legislation) is quixotic, arguably unnecessary under the existing legal system and likely yet another power grab by an abusive administration.

Like I said, if dems are rough ridin' idiots on one issue then you are a rough ridin' idiot right back at them on another.  I understand you, bud.

It's only fair that the pubs let the internet get all mumped up first to show those stupid dems what happens when they eff around on patent litigation reform.  We will not prevent a problem from occurring when there is this other problem already in existence that we want fixed that you won't fix.  That'll show those fuckers, FSD.  Burn this [redacted] down if you have to. 

What's most important is pointing fingers and getting payback.  Murica!

[Mr Bread]

1. B.O., who thinks it should be regulated under the purview of the 1934 telecom act, well before the internet was even contemplated.

It regulated cable televison and cell phones and yet they too were not in existence at its inception.  How can it be!?

[star seed 7]

Were assault rifles around when the second amendment was drawn up? 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The Ted Cruz tweet is jamming up net neutrality straw man has been burned to the ground. Try again, libtards.

[Tobias]