Net Neutrality and Sling TV

#76
#76
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I supported Ron/Rand Paul's call to audit the federal reserve bank. I don't have a problem with true Republicans. I have a problem with corporatist democrats and republicans that are controlled by their wealthy donors and screw over the average American.

I don't even support 90% of the democrat agenda because it's corporatist/donor controlled.

My favorite candidate the last 10 years was Ron Paul in 2008 because he was honest and didn't seem bought.
Click to expand...

That's not R's. You sided with an R, not R's.
 
#78
#78
n_huffhines said:
He has no idea what the actual facts are.
Click to expand...

Actually my professor was the guy who coined the phrase net neutrality. I've been reading material on this topic since 2011.

This topic is actually very simple. Right now telcom companies have to provide the same bandwith speed on internet to consumers regardless of the site you go to. Whether it's YouTube or some new site someone created today. The anti-net neutrality argument goes like this. The telecom says let us discriminate between sites based on bandwith speeds so that we can give sites like YouTube that have billions of viewers faster speeds than some new site that people might never visit. The pro-net neutrality argument goes like this. Treat every site the same cause we don't know if this new site that just popped up today will become the new Twitter or YouTube.

Basically the telecoms wants to have a system where they decide how fast certain sites are. This gives them authority to demand money from websites if they want faster speeds. It also lets them decide which sites will succeed and which won't. In some ways it would be great if sites like YouTube that everyone visited got faster speeds but I don't trust the telecoms to believe they will do what is in the public's best interest. That is why I support net neutrality.

This is a very simple topic. Only those who wants to misinform will make it complicated. It comes down to whether you trust the telecom companies to do what is in the consumers best interest. I don't. That is why I just want to keep the interest free of anyone deciding who should get more bandwith and who shouldn't
 
#79
#79
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#80
#80
n_huffhines said:
That's not R's. You sided with an R, not R's.
Click to expand...

True. Most republicans by in large are corrupt corporatists controlled by big money interests. That is why i don't support them.

Same reason I don't support the D's either.

Both parties are corrupt. Only an idiot would support either one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#82
#82
Most of the NN supporters are Netflix subscribers and gamers that don't want to pay their fair share for their bandwidth usage. NN just means they'll pay more taxes that aren't itemized on a monthly statement. NN is Socialism.
 
#83
#83
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Most of the NN supporters are Netflix subscribers and gamers that don't want to pay their fair share for their bandwidth usage. NN just means they'll pay more taxes that aren't itemized on a monthly statement. NN is Socialism.
Click to expand...

"Fair share"? WTF are you talking about? How are Netflix users/streaming services users/gamers not paying their fair share of bandwidth? I pay more now for bandwidth than I ever did before cutting the cord.....so do most everyone else who only use services like Vue and Sling. Also, in what way is NN Socialism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
BearCat204 said:
"Fair share"? WTF are you talking about? How are Netflix users/streaming services users/gamers not paying their fair share of bandwidth? I pay more now for bandwidth than I ever did before cutting the cord.....so do most everyone else who only use services like Vue and Sling. Also, in what way is NN Socialism?
Click to expand...

Low bandwidth users are subsidizing data hogs. Grandma checks her e-mail 15 minutes per day shouldn't pay anything close to what the household full of gamer kids and Netflix watchers should pay. So what if Netflix has to cost $20/month? NN supporters just want something without paying for it and want the government to help them get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#85
#85
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Low bandwidth users are subsidizing data hogs. Grandma checks her e-mail 15 minutes per day shouldn't pay anything close to what the household full of gamer kids and Netflix watchers should pay. So what if Netflix has to cost $20/month? NN supporters just want something without paying for it and want the government to help them get it.
Click to expand...



Low bandwidth users aren't subsidizing data hogs unless they are paying for high data packages and not using that data. There are data caps with most ISPs unless you pay a pretty good chunk for unlimited. I pay 90 dollars a month for just internet through AT&T. Please explain to me how someone is subsidizing usage. I think that your "the people who support NN just want free internet" is clueless at best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#86
#86
BearCat204 said:
Low bandwidth users aren't subsidizing data hogs unless they are paying for high data packages and not using that data. There are data caps with most ISPs unless you pay a pretty good chunk for unlimited. I pay 90 dollars a month for just internet through AT&T. Please explain to me how someone is subsidizing usage. I think that your "the people who support NN just want free internet" is clueless at best.
Click to expand...

I think that you're clueless and reckless with your use of quotations. I did not say what you've quoted.

Netflix should pay for the bandwidth that they hog. $10/ month probably doesn't even cover the cost of the content that they produce and/or license.
 
#87
#87
roymcavoy83 said:
The tax bill they're about to pass is going to cut my tax burden by about 3 grand next year. I can get on board with that.
Click to expand...

Your "tax break" has a short shelf life, the breaks for the top 5% and the corps are PERMANENT. This "tax reform" is nothing but a giveaway to the super wealthy, Robin Hood in reverse. Conservatives my flaming ass!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#88
#88
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Low bandwidth users are subsidizing data hogs. Grandma checks her e-mail 15 minutes per day shouldn't pay anything close to what the household full of gamer kids and Netflix watchers should pay. So what if Netflix has to cost $20/month? NN supporters just want something without paying for it and want the government to help them get it.
Click to expand...

Your bill won't go down "Grandma".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#89
#89
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I think that you're clueless and reckless with your use of quotations. I did not say what you've quoted.

Netflix should pay for the bandwidth that they hog. $10/ month probably doesn't even cover the cost of the content that they produce and/or license.
Click to expand...

You literally just said NN supporters wanted something without paying for it lol....context says you are talking about internet. "They hog"......users pay for that **** lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#90
#90
orangeluvr said:
Your "tax break" has a short shelf life, the breaks for the top 5% and the corps are PERMANENT. This "tax reform" is nothing but a giveaway to the super wealthy, Robin Hood in reverse. Conservatives my flaming ass!
Click to expand...

Stealing less from those paying the most is hardly a giveaway.

Corps create the jobs for the citizens. A 35% corporate tax rate just drives investment and jobs off shore. A 21% rate is an incentive to bring it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#91
#91
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
True. Most republicans by in large are corrupt corporatists controlled by big money interests. That is why i don't support them.

Same reason I don't support the D's either.

Both parties are corrupt. Only an idiot would support either one.
Click to expand...

repubs received a lot more campaign contributions than the dems so now they are paying the piper. The "prez" is obsessed with obama,cable news, and the russian investigation. :yes: Not to mention Diet Coke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#92
#92
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Stealing less from those paying the most is hardly a giveaway.

Corps create the jobs for the citizens. A 35% corporate tax rate just drives investment and jobs off shore. A 21% rate is an incentive to bring it back.
Click to expand...

We 100% agree here.



Don't understand why taxes came into the NN discussion though
 
#97
#97
n_huffhines said:
The uninformed mob acting out of fear is a powerful thing.

We're going back to 2015 rules you ****ing wimps.

Internet service got substantially better consistently for 20+ years. Is that not good enough? Did we really need more regulation? It's so irrational.
Click to expand...

Quite true. The ignorance of the people is quite funny. Why does any sheep want the gove to control the internet. You people really think that the gov will be truly fair, especially when they start targeting conservative sites.

They'll accuse them of some right wing hate speech and try to shut them shut them down. just like how repressives used the IRS and domestic spying to go after conservatives.

You guys understand if a company did what the sheep feared, they'd lose customers.
 
#98
#98
BearCat204 said:
What are you suggesting NN supporters are wanting for free then?
Click to expand...

I never used "wanting for free".

I've suggested that there's nothing wrong with the heaviest consumers of bandwidth paying for what they use, whether that's directly to the ISPs or with a fee or a higher fee to the content owners and/or rights holders. It shouldn't be a government mandated pricing model that mirrors an all-you-can-eat buffet.

The scare tactic of NN supporters that Google searches will cost $1 or Tweets will be billed at $0.10 per is pure nonsense. If the existing ISPs are abusive in their pricing then competition will keep them in check. If the existing ISPs are predatory in their pricing then existing anti-trust legislation will direct their punishment.
 
#99
#99
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Actually my professor was the guy who coined the phrase net neutrality. I've been reading material on this topic since 2011.

This topic is actually very simple. Right now telcom companies have to provide the same bandwith speed on internet to consumers regardless of the site you go to. Whether it's YouTube or some new site someone created today. The anti-net neutrality argument goes like this. The telecom says let us discriminate between sites based on bandwith speeds so that we can give sites like YouTube that have billions of viewers faster speeds than some new site that people might never visit. The pro-net neutrality argument goes like this. Treat every site the same cause we don't know if this new site that just popped up today will become the new Twitter or YouTube.

Basically the telecoms wants to have a system where they decide how fast certain sites are. This gives them authority to demand money from websites if they want faster speeds. It also lets them decide which sites will succeed and which won't. In some ways it would be great if sites like YouTube that everyone visited got faster speeds but I don't trust the telecoms to believe they will do what is in the public's best interest. That is why I support net neutrality.

This is a very simple topic. Only those who wants to misinform will make it complicated. It comes down to whether you trust the telecom companies to do what is in the consumers best interest. I don't. That is why I just want to keep the interest free of anyone deciding who should get more bandwith and who shouldn't
Click to expand...

And you trust the bloated fed gov???What will the gov do when Google offers millions to a few senators to tweet the law to give them faster speeds. What's the difference.
 
#100
#100
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I never used "wanting for free".

I've suggested that there's nothing wrong with the heaviest consumers of bandwidth paying for what they use, whether that's directly to the ISPs or with a fee or a higher fee to the content owners and/or rights holders. It shouldn't be a government mandated pricing model that mirrors an all-you-can-eat buffet.

The scare tactic of NN supporters that Google searches will cost $1 or Tweets will be billed at $0.10 per is pure nonsense. If the existing ISPs are abusive in their pricing then competition will keep them in check. If the existing ISPs are predatory in their pricing then existing anti-trust legislation will direct their punishment.
Click to expand...


Allow competition and prices will go down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top