Jump to content

Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers


Saxum

Recommended Posts

Just now, OCinBuffalo said:

Can you go look up adhominem, and provide a definition, as well as an example of its practical use, to this board?

When attack a person personally insteadof their arguments

 

 

Which is what Tom did, so I returned the favor

 

If he's constantly using ad hominem. It's impossible to debate

 

 

U see the difference???:wallbash:

Not to mention stalking....<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

When attack a person personally insteadof their arguments

 

 

Which is what Tom did, so I returned the favor

 

If he's constantly using ad hominem. It's impossible to debate

 

 

U see the difference???:wallbash:

Not to mention stalking....<_<

You just called DC_Tom a name {{ 

}}

 

yet you've been invoking "ad hominem" for the last 3 pages. It's not impossible to debate, because there is no debate: you are either an unmitigated moron, or, you're a hypocrite.

 

Choose. I eagerly await() your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Tra la la

lala la la

tra la la 

lala la la

 

Flipping like a pancake 

popping like a cork

fleagle bingo drooper and snork

 

 

 

Thanks...........................an obscure 60's  "saturday morning" show reference was just what I needed as a break from the 

"OC setting up an unaware westerndecline" faceoff

 

13686968_1592585624374945_1853723892_n.j

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great show, they all had their own breakfast cereals as well, but the Danger Island segments were a bit spooky for young kids.

 

besides, love is kinda crazy with a spooky little tramp like blue.....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

You just called DC_Tom a name {{ 

}}

 

yet you've been invoking "ad hominem" for the last 3 pages. It's not impossible to debate, because there is no debate: you are either an unmitigated moron, or, you're a hypocrite.

 

Choose. I eagerly await() your response.

 

 

If u keep posting reasons

 

And Tom keeps calling u a dumbass ( ad hominem)

 

You then call him a dick face Because, BECAUSE 

 

HE WONT DEBATE

 

 

that's called a person who u can't debate because they refuse to debate

 

Get it????

 

:blink:

Ppl can't be this !@#$in stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, westerndecline said:

 

 

If u keep posting reasons

 

And Tom keeps calling u a dumbass ( ad hominem)

 

You then call him a dick face Because, BECAUSE 

 

HE WONT DEBATE

 

 

that's called a person who u can't debate because they refuse to debate

 

Get it????

 

:blink:

Quoted for...I dunno...perhaps some poster with experience in mental health can aid in explaining...this abortion. Rest assured: I will keep posting...reason.

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Thanks...........................an obscure 60's  "saturday morning" show reference was just what I needed as a break from the 

"OC setting up an unaware westerndecline" faceoff

 

13686968_1592585624374945_1853723892_n.j

 

 

.

I'm not old enough to remember your nostalgia, and never going to care. Perhaps you can share it with the other nurses on your shift. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Can any supporters of removing net neutrality tell me why it is a good thing? I'm beat, sorry.

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

Can any supporters of removing net neutrality tell me why it is a good thing? I'm beat, sorry.

 

Look no further than this very thread:

 

On 11/22/2017 at 6:41 PM, GG said:

 

This is the official ruling in the Fed Register.  But your link also lays out the ridiculous assertion by Netflix & Google.  They are taking a disproportionate share of Internet traffic, but want others to pay for that transit.

 

On 11/22/2017 at 6:52 PM, GG said:

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

 

On 11/27/2017 at 5:16 PM, Azalin said:

 

Not only ridiculous, but obvious. All anyone needs to do is look at the relative lack of progress in telecom up to January 8th, 1982 compared with the explosion of innovation between then and 2015 to see exactly what government regulation of the telecom industry did versus what deregulation did.

 

People need to stop making this a political issue, and should always support keeping federal regulators out of it.

 

 

 

 

And since when has government ever needed to prove anything before seizing regulatory power over something?

 

On 12/1/2017 at 3:28 PM, GG said:

 

The intention of the currently proposed rules is to: 

 

GET THE FCC OUT OF REGULATING THE INTERNET.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 1:45 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill.  In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

 

And this article in particular is good:

 

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

BREAKING: Net Neutrality Repealed, Left Loses Its DAMN MIND https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691/breaking-net-neutrality-repealed-left-loses-its-ben-sh

 

 

 

Edited by Azalin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Do you think that a highly competitive and innovative industry in the 21st century should be regulated like a 1870's railroad monopoly?

 

That alone should be enough reason for everyone.  Even if you support Net Neutrality, it makes zero sense to do it within the framework of a century-old law.

 

If Democrats had ANY sense, they'd see Trump's rescinding of Obama's bull **** for what it is: a chance to address these issues correctly via legislation.  Too bad they're crypto-fascists who've lost sight of the concept of "legislature."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

No, no...  now that the poor internet companies can charge giants like Netflix their fair share, I’m sure prices will drop for everyone else!

 

And I’m sure Netflix won’t pass on these extra costs to the consumer, either.

Edited by SWATeam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, joesixpack said:

News flash: the ISPs are going to charge more for service regardless of whether or not Netflix pays more. To act like consumers will pay less because of this ruling is disingenuous at best. This ruling is a power play by the ISPs to clamp down on non commercial below board streamers, not Netflix, nothing more nothing less 

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...