Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogDX55
Printable View
Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogDX55
No more fake twitters or catfish..... Ole Miss is doomed!
Absolutely this all day!Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwolf
The govt isn’t “monitoring” anything. (I mean they are but that has nothing to do with net neutrality). All the govt was doing is ensuring that you paid for an internet speed, that you then didn’t have to pay again for Netflix access. Or that your cnn.com loaded just as fast as your foxnews.com. This isn’t the govt picking and choosing winners, it was ensuring every website had equal access. I don’t know what the clarion ledger or the Starkville daily make as local newspapers from their online presence, but you can bet bigger, richer newspapers will be paying on their end to make sure their newspapers load faster than the local papers. It creates an environment where the rich can buy access and the upstarts have no chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
^^^^^^^ This all day....when you look back a year from now you won't notice anything different in your service, only that the Govt's dirty hands won't be as firmly gripped to it. Do you not think the govt. uses these agencies for political purposes? (IRS, FBI, EPA, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
You’re wrong about there being no differencesQuote:
Originally Posted by Doggie_Style
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...story,amp.html
Again, you have no clue what you are talking about at all, and you seem to grossly misunderstand the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
Having this government regulation in place doesn't allow the government to monitor the internet and it doesn't give the government extra power. It is a rule that is in place that tells telecoms to lay off internet regulation that favors one thing over another, which would destroy competition. That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition. It stops Comcast and Co. from doing to the internet what you are currently incorrectly imagining the government is doing to it.
So, once again, please attempt to understand the issue before you comment on it.
I swear, everyone who is in favor of what just happened has no idea what they are talking about in the slightest. It is just a bunch of people who get violently twitchy when they hear the phrase "government regulation".
If Comcast or uverse has an Ole Miss fan in a high position, be prepared to have a huge monthly fee to access Elite Dawgs, if they let us see it at all.
If not us, it will be other websites, including ones you like.
Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogDX55
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004...y-khachatrian#
This is not good for any normal American citizen, republican, democrat, or otherwise. It is also not neutral. If folks weren't being paid by the telecom industry they wouldn've never supported it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5049
OOOOH! Daily Caller! The publication that employs PizzaGate conspiracy theorists.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
I'll humor you- I read the article. The only argument that it is making is that google ought to pay more to ISPs in order to function so that they do not get an unfair advantage over their competitors. All this is doing is giving ISPs the power to say who deserves how much access at any given time. What if you do not want to pay what Comcast says you should pay to advertise your website? What if comcast only wants you to have access to websites of a certain political persuasion? What if comcast wants to charge you an extra $20/month to watch netflix, which you are already paying $10/month for, but they'll give you their streaming service at no additional charge? Also, now you have to use Bing to search for everything just because.
No private, profit driven company should have access to the ability to decide what we view on the internet, and shouldn't be able to control how our bandwidth is used. Yes, the ISPs put in the hardware, but in 21st century society the internet IS NOT OPTIONAL.
This will literally kill the competition that Daily Wire is trying to claim it promotes.
False. This is being spun as a party thing. It's not. I'm as libertarian as they get and am adamantly against the abolishment of net neutrality.Quote:
Originally Posted by mparkerfd20
The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.
I can see where it would be something a libertarian would have to think about though. You have to choose between a government regulation and between "the free market" but in this case the free market actually creates a regulation that stifles competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dawg
I voted to protect the 2nd amendment, to at least not have my personal and corporate taxes raised, to halt illegal immigration, and no have my little girl have to go into apublic bathroom with a pervert in a dress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond
So I'm getting what I voted for so for, and damn glad
This is hyperbole, but yes that scenario is now in play. Not that it would ever happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
You're looking at a very small point of this and so does that article. It is ignoring so much. Google isn't an ISP, they're just a search engine. Search engines can be written at any time by any of us. You can write your own search engine if you don't like how google does it. They're a middle man that can be replaced. ISPs cannot so easily be replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by TXDawg
This article could only seem informative if you had no idea about what net neutrality really is before you read it. In that case I could see how you could be so easily fooled, but not if you already had any concept of what you were talking about.
I feel like you've purposely shut down half your brain to make sure you aren't looking at the whole picture.
Even if you believe that the LA Times is a bad source (it's not), there is nothing in that article or picture that is wrong. Also, what does Portugals political leanings have to do with this? They've haven't been lead by their socialist party since the 70s, well before the internet was really a thing. What do you need to just look at a source?Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
I'm not getting into my beliefs about the veracity of the LA Times b/c that really belongs on the political page. And this whole thread really does too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogDX55
1) literally google “Portugal internet” and there’s hundreds of links citing the same information, the links being to a variety of sites with left, right, and balanced viewpoints. There’s also a ****ing difference between opinion and facts, these are literally facts and it doesn’t matter whether brietbart or Rachel Maddow links them, they are facts and facts don’t have a bias. LA times just happened to be the first ****ing link on google.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
2) what does portugal’s Socialist leanings (not that the socialists are even running the country) have to do with the fact that they ended net neutrality and let the ISPs “regulate” themselves and it resulted in nickel and dime’ing customers for steaming services and access to certain websites? Nothing, so stop trying to turn this into some “see socialist/democratic/leftist government is bad” example.
The sky is not falling snowflake.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
2015 internet standards were just as good as 2017.
Get over it.
Wow, snowflake, quite the original thinker over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
The reason Obama implemented net neutrality in 2015 was because he (and anyone on the internet) could see this coming from a mile away. He acted to stop it before it could be implemented. But hey, if Obama did it, then trump is hell bent on reversing it, even if it makes no sense to reverse it.
It will be ok. Trump won't block Pornhub.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
TrapGame, you haven?t made any kind of argument as to why this is okay. All you?ve done is show that you?re a rabid partisan who can?t identify something bad happening even though even 70%+ of your party and 83% of society recognizes it as such. Great job!
Dude, I'll be honest. I really don't give a shit. My life revolves around other things. Net Neutrality ain't one. It can stay or go. I really don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogDX55
This is an interesting statement in the thread. Why even read the thread and respond if you don't care? For anyone that thinks corporations will not take advantage of the situation, I have some oceanside property in Tishomingo MS for sale really cheap. Corporations didn't spend 100s of Millions of dollars buying politicians just because they wanted to help the average person. It was an investment in a future revenue stream.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
Well back to basics and to keep it from getting locked. Net Neutrality was a good thing. One of the few purely good things this govt has ever done. This should never have been a political issue to begin with, but a bunch of politicians were bought and paid for. FCC was politicized to a critical point. Now we have the clearest failure of representation I can think of.
Thanks MS US Congress members. Thank you very much. Integrity sold for 10 pieces of silver, some less.
I promise you that your day to day life revolves around the internet. A lot. More than you even realize.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
Listening to you on this topic is like hearing a drowning man say they don't care anything about oxygen. This has everything to do with you, and if you're not pissed about it, you are not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
Disagree. This directly affects websites like this one and belongs on the main board. If Comcast, AT&T tell Coach34 that he'll have to pay them extra money in order for this site to be available, or tell you that you'll have to pay to see it, at least this thread will have told everyone why.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
Ditto for any other websites you like or own.
Well I like the conversation fellas. Glad to know on this one issue, I think almost everyone can agree.
Now lets get this tax cut passed and hope it benefits people like us more than it benefits people with a few billion in the bank.
And that's the problem with the world. Our lives revolve around something like the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgs
I like hanging out with you guys and talking MSU sports but this is why I don't talk politics or religion.
I'm sure the pro-NN people have a valid concern. However, this repeal does not make the internet a lawless wasteland.
Ok, Sleepy tell me what I should be pissed about. I'm all ears and willing to listen. Shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dawg
Do you use google maps when traveling? Do you stream Netflix? Amazon prime? Are you a cord cutter and use roku or psvue? Stream MSU games on espn now? Do you manage your bank account online? Pay bills online? Do you still read an actual newspaper and watch the nightly local news, or do you browse the weather and daily news on your news website of choice? If you are looking for a new job, do you still go through the classifieds? Or are you using indeed and LinkedIn and glassdoor to find jobs? Do you hand delivery your application or email/post it online to apply?Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapGame
This goes FAR beyond access to reading people bitch about MSU sports.
Hate to break it to you, but corporate and rich tax breaks have never resulted in a trickle down to folks like us. There’s plenty of economic research from post-WW2 until now that prove as much. I don’t like paying taxes either, but it’s undeniable which tax breaks actually do benefit the average person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
So does nominating unelectable people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dparker
Run like a business like the power company? Run like a business like the phone company?Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofozarka
Imagine if GE, who makes the power, made electric power that only worked with the appliances.
Yeah, this right here is one of the major concerns. All major ISPs are also content providers. What is to stop them now from only allowing access to their content, or charging an exorbitant rate to use someone else?s? That kills competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by SheltonChoked
AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Ezsoil
Standard deduction doubles. That should help a lot of ppl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead