If the internet wasn't broke, why is the gov't trying to fix it?
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
You're already paying more for your faster connection, that's not what this is about.
Would you be OK with your provider charging Rivals so much they could no longer afford to provide this content? How about if they blocked your access to political news sites like the Drudge Report because they carry content contrary to the provider's views? Or if they blocked Netflix and Amazon Prime so that you could only watch shows produced by their own production company -- for example, Comcast owns NBC Universal, so they block Netflix in order to keep you from watching House of Cards.
This post was edited on 2/27 3:10 PM by Popeer
You would find a "new internet"? How many choices of providers do some have? I'll venture a guess and say 1.
So you like someone else controlling what is fast and what is slow? What is easily viewable and what is not? What costs extra and what doesn't?
I think you've been watching too much Pat Robertson.
Poor fella
So you like someone else controlling what is fast and what is slow? What is easily viewable and what is not? What costs extra and what doesn't?
I think you've been watching too much Pat Robertson.
Poor fella
What you stated is why I originally thought that net neutrality was a good idea. The hundreds of pages and massive secrecy are why I was probably wrong. They really need to release what, exactly, is in this (if they haven't already. Been too busy to read much news this week).
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Have you read the changes?
It's just the opposite, no interference, primarily from companies that wanted to stick their hands in this thing and make some bucks off of it at our expense. Fox is totally wrong on this one (and I'm not just saying that because I don't like Fox, I don't like Fox). This keeps the big internet service providers, such as ComCast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. from charging extra and costing you and I more money to use the internet. No one will tell us which sites will have preference and where we can and cannot go.
You mean like nobody told me which doctors I could see and that to provide the same insurance for my employees as I did in 2012 would cost me 250,000 more in 2013 and 2014? We stood still while they passed Dodd Frank unread costing everyone who buys a home or a car or has a credit card more money. We did nothing when they passed Obamacare unread. What did they say? We'll have to pass it to know what's in there. How damn absurd is that? Now here's another proposed law they want passed with little or no info or commentary.
Left wing, right wing , moderate, doesn't matter. We as a society need to say WHOA UP HERE FOLKS. Lets look at this and see what it says and who it wil impact and who gets to decide who it will impact. Sometimes we are like lambs led to slaughter. Like robots who don't know and don't want to know. Let somebody else decide for me. I know a bunch of politicians at the local, state and national levels. I think most mean well but frankly they ain't the smartest folks in the room usually. Plus many at bought and paid for by people with agendas that usually turn out good for them and maybe not so good for most of us.
This may be a good thing but I'd really hope we'd let our reps know that we'd like to know what's in the bill before blindly passing it.
Just my two cents. But honestly both side of the aisle need to start paying attention to these big potential change bills before voting yay or nay. Sometimes gridlock is a good thing.
Left wing, right wing , moderate, doesn't matter. We as a society need to say WHOA UP HERE FOLKS. Lets look at this and see what it says and who it wil impact and who gets to decide who it will impact. Sometimes we are like lambs led to slaughter. Like robots who don't know and don't want to know. Let somebody else decide for me. I know a bunch of politicians at the local, state and national levels. I think most mean well but frankly they ain't the smartest folks in the room usually. Plus many at bought and paid for by people with agendas that usually turn out good for them and maybe not so good for most of us.
This may be a good thing but I'd really hope we'd let our reps know that we'd like to know what's in the bill before blindly passing it.
Just my two cents. But honestly both side of the aisle need to start paying attention to these big potential change bills before voting yay or nay. Sometimes gridlock is a good thing.
Re: How in the world do you know this?
Because I have read up on it and have followed multiple news sources. There were a few "select groups" trying to slide this under the radar, and in fact had turned it into a "nasty Obama" thing with very deceiving commercials. So, in a nutshell, there won't be any "tax" on the internet and these big companies don't have the ability to monkey around with speeds for various services. The FCC said no, not congress.
Now, when the next administration takes office and they have good buddies at Comcast, AT&T or Verizon or have received large donations from them or enough politicians are able to pass a law, maybe this changes. And I really hope not, for all of our sakes.
Because I have read up on it and have followed multiple news sources. There were a few "select groups" trying to slide this under the radar, and in fact had turned it into a "nasty Obama" thing with very deceiving commercials. So, in a nutshell, there won't be any "tax" on the internet and these big companies don't have the ability to monkey around with speeds for various services. The FCC said no, not congress.
Now, when the next administration takes office and they have good buddies at Comcast, AT&T or Verizon or have received large donations from them or enough politicians are able to pass a law, maybe this changes. And I really hope not, for all of our sakes.
