News FCC Formally Proposes Net Neutrality Rules

I don't know if subscription service falls under that law or not. If you sign a contract saying "Yes I'm a retard and I only want 1/10 of the internet to save 5 bucks" then I agree, the ISP's should be able to offer that service. My opinion is that this service has not been offered because it wouldn't survive for a variety of reasons so it doesn't even matter. My interpretation of the law would allow subscription levels but protects from arbitrarily blocking content with no way to access it, even with an "unlimited plan".

I fully understand your point of the ability of ISP's to manage themselves but I just don't believe your utopian honest business model exists. Like I said, I don't like the government getting involved any more than you do but I don't trust ISP's not to fold and start taking stuff away because money grubbing jerks in random industries want to shut down the internet to prevent the spread of their product. For example, blocking ALL P2P traffic just to stop music sharing even though PLENTY of P2P is legit.

 

You don't have to live in the sticks to have limited choices. I still don't see why I should give a **** about what's best for AT&T, Comcast, etc. I think that the intern et is fine just the way it is and I don't want them changing it.

 

you shouldnt give a damn. you simply shouldnt enlist the government to force your will on anyone. you either make a deal with them or you dont. you shouldnt need to government to tilt the odds in your favor. just dont buy fro companies if you dont trust them.

"but they owe me internet service, on my terms!" - you

"they owe you nothing" - me

 

an inquisitive press is an important part of america. so is a robust food system. so is a mail service. so is health care and insurance. that doesnt mean the government should manage the press and the farms and the mail.

left wingers always try to justify the growth of government this way. "it is too important for the free market to manage" they say. but the opposite is true. some things are so important that they should not be meddled with and should be free from government mangling.

the liberal playbook, play number one: convince people that they need things to be managed by the government.

if anything, it is because the internet is so important that it should be defended from any assault by the government. please liberals, realize that the internet is working. dont mess with it. dont invoke the government to manage every goddamn muther****ing thing on the planet.

the FCC is an incompetent bunch of power hungry morons. keep them as far away from the internet as possible.

 

Not only is your position impractical, but it's naive. I really don't think that your this naive, so that pretty much leaves you being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Not everyone has the opportunity to make a deal with them or not. Why should I be forced to do without access to the internet because there's no one to stop them from enacting unfair business practices?jn

What you can't seem to get through your head is that this legislation not imposing my will on anyone. This legislation is preventing corporations from imposing their will on consumers. I could just as easily turn the tables and say that corporations shouldn't enlist the government to force their will o n anyone. The difference is that the government is for the people, by the people and not for corporations, by corporations.

or at least it's supposed to be...

It must be a great world where you live that doesn't require consumer protection.

 

1. why should you force anyone to provide you internet access on your terms?

2. if they are using unfair practices, dont buy from them. if the practices are fraudulent. take them to court. no new laws necessary.

if that were true no law would be necessary. you want to bully the telecom companies because you are incompetent to manage your own decisions.

i dont own time warner. i dont own verizon. they are free to offer me a service, i can choose to purchase that service, or not.

"but i NEED internet, they OWE IT TO ME ON MY TERMS" - you

again, stop thinking everyone owes you something. they dont owe you a goddamn thing. if time warner wants to offer you internet service that only goes to one website and takes 3 hours to connect, deal with it. if it sucks, DONT BUY IT.

trust me, they want to offer you something you will want to buy. they are so damn evil they actually want to earn your money for their evil jobs and evil profits.

you could, and you would be right. when the corps are trying to pass laws to force you to their will on you, i will complain. for example, i have always been the loudest complainer about how the music companies and big farms have co-opted the government to the detriment of the consumer.

look, you can buy something or not buy something. they telecom companies do not owe you anything. and you do not owe them anything. you can agree to enter into a contract with them, or not. if you do enter into an agreement with them, you should expect them to follow through with their end of the deal. if you do not like the service they offer, dont buy.

again, if you have been defrauded, i suggest small claims court. have you been defrauded?

the deals you enter into with telecom companies are VOLUNTARY. if they impose their will on you, it is your fault. unless you are being cheated, in which case you have a legal recourse already.

 

Mark Cuban predicts 'net neutrality' will only help Comcast

 

one reason the internet is so spectacular now is that is almost entirely unregulated. it is a place of enormous of unregulated freedom. the government has little say it on what goes on it and who communicates on it and how they use it, how it is managed.

again, net neutrality is a solution searching for a problem. and so many of our problems were once sold to use as as solutions.

the internet is a world chaning freedom enabler because governments cant really control it. lets keep it that way. tell the FCC to **** off. keep the internet for the people.