171–180 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though. Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.
Fear of losing to the other party is the only thing that keeps them from being more awful. So please don’t stop voting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They are un-interested in any semblance of reasonable governance, it's siphoning your money to their backers in the most direct and aggressive fashion, plain and simple. They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality.
>They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality. Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. *Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them…
My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference.
Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow.
We could debate the extent to which they were "reasonable" people, but I think that their opinions were reasoned out. They just started from assumptions that I disagree with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more they tighten their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers. What ever happened to the ~2003 promise of local WISPs and wireless mesh networks?
Wireless doesn't really have the bandwidth for anything more dense than a suburb (and even that's probably really pushing it). Approaches like microwave are also less reliable due to LoS/weather problems. 2.4Ghz is noisy in cities/apartments, 5Ghz doesn't penetrate well. All that on top of the fact that there's still not really a standard, easily set up protocol for that kind of mesh ISP arrangement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They are uninterested in your view of reasonable governance. Reasonable people can and do disagree with things like net neutrality. Really? On what grounds? Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. *Mind you, I'm not personally friends with any executives from one of the big 8 companies that stand to benefit from it... but outside of them…
> Because I've literally not run into a single person, democrat or republican, who thinks net neutrality should go away. My father. In his opinion, businesses should be allowed to manage themselves as they see fit, without outside interference. Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing thi…
So consumers are just at the mercy of the corporate monopolies then? I'm curious how he expects a democracy to survive in the face of monopolies owning the media and controlling our "free" press. History has shown that's basically impossible, but I assume he's got a solution given you've said he's reasonable.
>Various people I've had 1-on-1 conversations with online. Often some variation on the regulations being difficult to enforce, and pointless because companies weren't doing things that were that bad before net neutrality anyhow
Then they haven't bothered to do basic research. It isn't hard to enforce and there was a framework in place already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't a "reasonable" party, the Democrats could have made this a law making repealing it difficult. They found the to give ISPs billions of dollars, and to legalize spying on their customers though. Both parties are a joke, voting for either is an awful choice.
That's a lie, plain and simple. 2017 is the year that the claim that both parties are just as bad went from being a somewhat valid commentary on American politics to the cries of the intellectually lazy. One party would not attempt to ram throw a bill that took away health insurance for millions without a back plan. One party would not attempt to ram through a tax reform bill that was literally being amended on the f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a referee in business: the court system. What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist. An example of this is banning innovations like Aluminum bats.
The court system isn't suited for this anymore. It was a different time in 1776 when corporations were not allowed to live in perpetuity, amassing as much of the valuable resources as they can, handing it off to ancestors upon the owners death (sounds a bit like monarchism, IMO). "What your proposing is more like a league which will solidify the rules as they currently exist." According to Thomas Jefferson, this is e…
Your quote says laws should evolve with the people which lends to neither of our arguments as we're discussing how it should evolve not "if".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lie, plain and simple. 2017 is the year that the claim that both parties are just as bad went from being a somewhat valid commentary on American politics to the cries of the intellectually lazy. One party would not attempt to ram throw a bill that took away health insurance for millions without a back plan. One party would not attempt to ram through a tax reform bill that was literally being amended on the f…
Not a lie, supported third parties for my voting life as it's clear the system is a broken joke. Voting Hillary in wouldn't have created a liberal paradise, just changed the details of the mess we are in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lie, plain and simple. 2017 is the year that the claim that both parties are just as bad went from being a somewhat valid commentary on American politics to the cries of the intellectually lazy. One party would not attempt to ram throw a bill that took away health insurance for millions without a back plan. One party would not attempt to ram through a tax reform bill that was literally being amended on the f…
Be careful who you call “intellectually lazy.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's a good assessment. You can think of it this way: ISPs act like roads between people's houses and the sites they want to access. People currently pay ISPs to reserve a certain amount of road, and net neutrality says they can drive whatever cars they want over that fraction of road without being discriminated against in pricing or speed. The ISPs say things like "xx% of traffic is Netflix -- that uses up an…
> People currently pay ISPs to reserve a certain amount of road, and net neutrality says they can drive whatever cars they want over that fraction of road without being discriminated against in pricing or speed. In the case of roads, heavy vehicles like big rigs cause more wear-and-tear than light vehicles like compact cars. It would be fair then to charge heavy vehicles more so users of light vehicles aren't paying…
The motivation though, should be on the ~55% of eligible voters who don't vote. If nothing else I think we'd get a better signal to noise ratio in the actual election results, which is exactly why Republicans make up lies about voter fraud, in order to make it harder for citizens to vote. Notice how they aren't running to secure old voting systems and make them auditable. No they go directly to voter suppression and gerrymandering. And it makes complete sense, because if they stop doing that, they lose.