The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Dude, this has nothing to do with Trump or Russia and I don't know if you're a Criminal Minds fan, but you definitely have to see this episode if you haven't already. It's from the first part of season 2, it's called "Lessons Learned". Here's a brief clip that won't give too much away (hopefully).
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I don't see old age or Scarlett Johansson on that list so I"m going to have to pass.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
So you're in favor of abridging or abrogating net neutrality? Because I know you're all about the other three things.
I'm still not sure why repealing net neutrality is a bad thing what is exactly going to happe?
57Brave
Well-known member
Douglas Harris · Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Didn't the US Supreme Court decide in 2000 that all close elections should be handed to the Republican candidate? Why are they now letting a state decide now what counts as a vote?
Like · Reply · 5 · 16 hrs
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I saw one article recently that explained it better than anything else I have seen. Sadly, this is not it. But this article is insightful, and was written by a French internet regulator.
Basically, if you like freedom, you should like Net Neutrality. And I shiver to think that France is going to have more internet freedom than the US.
http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...tien_soriano_has_a_message_for_americans.html
Net neutrality is not about preserving internet as it is. It is about keeping doors open to reshuffle it again and again.
Another point made by critics of net neutrality is that the internet developed just fine without open-internet protections in place. But it is not fair to argue that because the “internet as we know it” grew with no net neutrality rules, we do not need these rules today. Gutenberg did not benefit from any declaration of rights to invent the printing press. Nevertheless, we codified freedom of speech to keep using it.
In today’s digital world, the main challenge is to make sure that startups, entrepreneurs, and all innovators still have the ability to reinvent our world. Big companies now in place—telecom, cable, media companies, tech giants—have been doing well in recent years, and the issue is not to fight against them. But we know from history that disruptive and game-changing ideas often come from the margins. More than ever, our duty is to give a chance to a future Magellan or Columbus to forge a way in the unknown.
Some seem to forget the obstacles experienced by services like Skype less than a decade ago, struggling against blocking by major mobile network operators in Europe as in the United States, that wanted to preserve their own telecom revenues. What will happen tomorrow with the internet of things? With artificial intelligence?
I am not anxious for internet giants. They will find a way, with or without net neutrality rules. They will manage to pay the tolls. I am talking about the other guy, the one we don’t know and who has a great idea. In this regard, having net neutrality rules in Europe is also a matter of attractiveness. The message is clear for all innovators: Come to Europe and focus on your ideas and your product. We’ll keep the way open for you.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
thethe, here is another good reason, although you may have already seen it. These are internet packages available in Portugal:
[tw]923701871092441088[/tw]
Given a choice of paying for packages for news sites, or for packages of social media or streaming video, which do you think will be more popular? I certainly don't like the idea of even more people who only get their news from Facebook and Hollywood.
[tw]923701871092441088[/tw]
Given a choice of paying for packages for news sites, or for packages of social media or streaming video, which do you think will be more popular? I certainly don't like the idea of even more people who only get their news from Facebook and Hollywood.
I'll read the article you linked tonight. But why wouldn't you want people to have choices? That is what capitalism is all about.
If someone is just picking the social media package only I doubt they even search for news online outside of their social media outlets.
If someone is just picking the social media package only I doubt they even search for news online outside of their social media outlets.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
In 2016, Moroccan ISPs decided they didn't like how many people were cancelling phone service in favor of VoIP apps. So they all got together and blocked VoIP traffic.
Cell users in South America pay for two sim cards for their phones because certain apps have only paid for carriage with one provider.
My neighborhood has two options for hardline internet, Comcast and ATT. My family uses IPTV in lieu of either Comcast TV or ATT TV. Without Net Neutrality there is nothing to stop either internet provider from either slowing or blocking traffic from IPTV services in an effort to force me to pay for that ISPs TV subscription. Any company that wished to compete would have to cut through miles of government red tape to dig up and install their own wiring. We all know that the existing ISPs would find ways to pay for that to never happen.
There are also VPN services to consider. Many people pay for a VPN service to keep their internet usage hidden from the government or their ISP. That's freedom, right? Why should either of those entities have access to what we do online? The problem is, many people also use paid VPN services to download pirated digital entertainment. ISPs now have the option of blocking any traffic to a VPN service.
Look, we rag leftists all the time for their "in a perfect world" policies. "Socialism would work fine in a perfect world, with everyone doing their fair share." We know that many would not. "Entitlements are just short term safety nets, no one wants to live that way." We know that many are perfectly happy living that way. In this case, the pro free market crowd isn't living in reality. This isn't a free market industry. It isn't reasonably possible for additional competitors to enter the market as a balancing force if the existing options prove unworthy. We know government will interfere with that in favor of the big money campaign donor companies that already have the market cornered. We know that ISPs and content providers have incestuous relationships. This isn't a free market, it is a market dominated and cornered by a very small number of giant globalist conglomerates that have no reason to act in the best interests of the consumers to secure their business. There isn't enough competition to keep them honest, and going without their service in the modern world isn't realistic.
Cell users in South America pay for two sim cards for their phones because certain apps have only paid for carriage with one provider.
My neighborhood has two options for hardline internet, Comcast and ATT. My family uses IPTV in lieu of either Comcast TV or ATT TV. Without Net Neutrality there is nothing to stop either internet provider from either slowing or blocking traffic from IPTV services in an effort to force me to pay for that ISPs TV subscription. Any company that wished to compete would have to cut through miles of government red tape to dig up and install their own wiring. We all know that the existing ISPs would find ways to pay for that to never happen.
There are also VPN services to consider. Many people pay for a VPN service to keep their internet usage hidden from the government or their ISP. That's freedom, right? Why should either of those entities have access to what we do online? The problem is, many people also use paid VPN services to download pirated digital entertainment. ISPs now have the option of blocking any traffic to a VPN service.
Look, we rag leftists all the time for their "in a perfect world" policies. "Socialism would work fine in a perfect world, with everyone doing their fair share." We know that many would not. "Entitlements are just short term safety nets, no one wants to live that way." We know that many are perfectly happy living that way. In this case, the pro free market crowd isn't living in reality. This isn't a free market industry. It isn't reasonably possible for additional competitors to enter the market as a balancing force if the existing options prove unworthy. We know government will interfere with that in favor of the big money campaign donor companies that already have the market cornered. We know that ISPs and content providers have incestuous relationships. This isn't a free market, it is a market dominated and cornered by a very small number of giant globalist conglomerates that have no reason to act in the best interests of the consumers to secure their business. There isn't enough competition to keep them honest, and going without their service in the modern world isn't realistic.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
My neighbor has already received a notice of rate increase from ATT TV. His current choices are a)take it, b)Comcast (who also announced plans of an increase), c)IPTV. How long do you think it will take ATT and Comcast to figure out they can cut the competition in half by eliminating IPTV traffic? They already figured out they can raise rates together.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Thats because it was all made up from the beginning. People are seeing it now.