Internet take over ?

[JupiterBnG]

Any countries out there practice free market capitalism? Sounds like an interesting concept.

Actually, no. Free market capitalism exists only as a theoretical model. In reality, there are few places in the world that even get close to being a free market.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Actually, no. Free market capitalism exists only as a theoretical model. In reality, there are few places in the world that even get close to being a free market.

name one. I would like to check it out.

 

[JupiterBnG]

name one. I would like to check it out.

The United States.

 

[Omar10213245]

If you hate Obama, you should be all for net neutrality... he's been one of its biggest opponents.

May I please hate both? Please?

 

[Rod Farva]

If you hate Obama, you should be all for net neutrality... he's been one of its biggest opponents.

obama's a well known and skilled liar, parser of truth and dissembler. This is a firmly established fact. Actions speak louder than words. Apparently he was against it before he was for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-of-obamas-tepid-response-on-net-neutrality/

The 1934 Telecommunications Act would be the foundation of net neutrality, as envisioned by Obama, and it's not clear how much the law would be updated. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/obama-net-neutrality_n_6139238.html

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The United States.

doesn't qualify.

 

[JupiterBnG]

doesn't qualify.

I didn't say the US was a free market. I said that it's among those that get closest to being a free market. And "close" is a relative term. Far too much government regulation. But compared to most of the rest of the world, it's practically a paragon of free-market activity.

 

[ark steel]

If you hate Obama, you should be all for net neutrality... he's been one of its biggest opponents.

I don't know why I can't oppose both.

 

[ark steel]

If you hate Obama, you should be all for net neutrality... he's been one of its biggest opponents.

If he ever said he was against it, it appears that this issue is like gay marriage to him...his stance 'evolved" on this issue. Which means, he is a lying sack of **** if he ever said he was against it.

 

[JupiterBnG]

If he ever said he was against it, it appears that this issue is like gay marriage to him...his stance 'evolved" on this issue. Which means, he is a lying sack of **** if he ever said he was against it.

More or less. Early on, he made a lot of noise about being in favor of net neutrality, then dragged his feet and did everything else he could to ensure that nothing was done.

This is not a partisan issue - there are plenty of neutrality opponents (i.e., politicians in Big Cables' pockets) on both sides of the aisle. And ultimately, whether anyone realizes it or not, this IS a good thing. It prohibits the cable owners from determining WHAT happens on their wires. I saw an analogy in an article that made a lot of sense - this is like the deregulation the phone companies; the phone company shouldn't be able to decide that a call to a large company is more important than someone calling their family, and give one call better quality or charge more for the other call. Net neutrality ensures that a bit is a bit is a bit, and the cable operator can't treat it any differently whether it's an email, a VOIP phone call, a web page, or a porn video. Some people think this is an example of federal regulations interfering with the internet, but in reality, the FCC has made sure that it's nobody's business what is happening on the internet. The REAL intrusive **** will be if Congress tries to pass legislation to overrule the FCC.

 

[ark steel]

More or less. Early on, he made a lot of noise about being in favor of net neutrality, then dragged his feet and did everything else he could to ensure that nothing was done.

This is not a partisan issue - there are plenty of neutrality opponents (i.e., politicians in Big Cables' pockets) on both sides of the aisle. And ultimately, whether anyone realizes it or not, this IS a good thing. It prohibits the cable owners from determining WHAT happens on their wires. I saw an analogy in an article that made a lot of sense - this is like the deregulation the phone companies; the phone company shouldn't be able to decide that a call to a large company is more important than someone calling their family, and give one call better quality or charge more for the other call. Net neutrality ensures that a bit is a bit is a bit, and the cable operator can't treat it any differently whether it's an email, a VOIP phone call, a web page, or a porn video. Some people think this is an example of federal regulations interfering with the internet, but in reality, the FCC has made sure that it's nobody's business what is happening on the internet. The REAL intrusive **** will be if Congress tries to pass legislation to overrule the FCC.

I'd be incredibly surprised if this is all it did. We know, all of us, that this much government regulation does not, in most cases, do only what they tell us it will do. This is almost, especially, true when the name is so innocuous as 'net neutrality'. Sort of like the "Affordable Care Act" or the "Patriot Act".

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I didn't say the US was a free market. I said that it's among those that get closest to being a free market. And "close" is a relative term. Far too much government regulation. But compared to most of the rest of the world, it's practically a paragon of free-market activity.

I understand. It may be among the closest, but it is not close.

 

[Vader]

More or less. Early on, he made a lot of noise about being in favor of net neutrality, then dragged his feet and did everything else he could to ensure that nothing was done.

This is not a partisan issue - there are plenty of neutrality opponents (i.e., politicians in Big Cables' pockets) on both sides of the aisle. And ultimately, whether anyone realizes it or not, this IS a good thing. It prohibits the cable owners from determining WHAT happens on their wires. I saw an analogy in an article that made a lot of sense - this is like the deregulation the phone companies; the phone company shouldn't be able to decide that a call to a large company is more important than someone calling their family, and give one call better quality or charge more for the other call. Net neutrality ensures that a bit is a bit is a bit, and the cable operator can't treat it any differently whether it's an email, a VOIP phone call, a web page, or a porn video. Some people think this is an example of federal regulations interfering with the internet, but in reality, the FCC has made sure that it's nobody's business what is happening on the internet. The REAL intrusive **** will be if Congress tries to pass legislation to overrule the FCC.

Have you read the regulations? How can you possibly know what it does if you haven't read it? Also how is "regulating" the internet like "deregulating" the phone companies? Also the government broke up AT&T into smaller hubs. Are they going to break up Comcast, Warner, Directv.. ETC...? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say you really don't know what's in the regs.

 

[SteelChip]

What I'm finding out as we get deeper into discussion here, is just exactly how much we DON"T know. The FCC seems to have passed a regulation that nobody else knows much about and most of it is still unavailable to evaluate. It may be a good thing overall but the fact that this particular administration has not been honest or above board in their dealings to date and has shown a sneaky propensity for underhandedly politicizing Federal agencies , makes most people very leery about the long term effects....jus sayin'