Jump to content

President Obama for Net Neutrality


slash23579

Recommended Posts

You all believe the government can walk in and fix things. I don't believe that to be the case. Regardless of their political affiliation.

Downzy,

would you be cool if the Gov told you guys that you have a monopoly on your new Mygnrforum t-shirts and that you are selling them for too much money. So if you want to continue selling them you'll have to reduce the price down to $6 per shirt.

Also - I read part of the picture that Rusty posted. Until I kept seeing the word "forced" in it. Paying to use an internet provider is a choice - nobody is "forcing" you to use them. If you don't like their policies/prices/ways they do business - then don't use them. It's like going to a restaurant and then complaining that they "forced" you to buy food off their menu.

I don't base my opinions on political affiliations you most of you do.

I don't care if it's a republican or democrat president. I don't want the gov taking more control over our daily lives and choices. And I think Obama has way more important things to worry about than this.

Groghan, you have heard of the economic concepts of elastic and inelastic, correct? Comparing MyGNRForum t-shirts and internet service, as if their demand elasticity are one in the same, is absurd. Technically, anyone could produce their own MYGNRFORUM t-shirts if they wanted to (though, we encourage and appreciate it if people buy them from us :P). And the supply of t-shirts isn't limited to a few large sellers. But accessing the internet for many people, particularly many Americans, is a limited operation. The government isn't going to dictate to us how to sell shirts since it's not necessary product; nor is it a product that has much bearing on people's lives.

In many cases, consumers only have a couple of options in terms of who they can purchase Internet service. Many people not living in or around large urban areas likely only have one or two options when it comes to buying their access to the Internet. It's a fantasy to think that consumers have a myriad of choices when it comes to how they communicate.

Groghan,

Please read about the lack of competition in regards to ISPs in the U.S.:

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/why-internet-access-in-the-us-is-a-ripoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all believe the government can walk in and fix things. I don't believe that to be the case. Regardless of their political affiliation.

Groghan, in this case, nothing was broken. The companies want to come in and fuck with a system that is wonderful as it is.

And never mind Former Senator Chris Dodd being chief lobbyist, and chairman of the MPAA. Fucking piece of shit.

Edited by AxlisOld
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You all believe the government can walk in and fix things. I don't believe that to be the case. Regardless of their political affiliation.

Downzy,

would you be cool if the Gov told you guys that you have a monopoly on your new Mygnrforum t-shirts and that you are selling them for too much money. So if you want to continue selling them you'll have to reduce the price down to $6 per shirt.

Also - I read part of the picture that Rusty posted. Until I kept seeing the word "forced" in it. Paying to use an internet provider is a choice - nobody is "forcing" you to use them. If you don't like their policies/prices/ways they do business - then don't use them. It's like going to a restaurant and then complaining that they "forced" you to buy food off their menu.

I don't base my opinions on political affiliations you most of you do.

I don't care if it's a republican or democrat president. I don't want the gov taking more control over our daily lives and choices. And I think Obama has way more important things to worry about than this.

You seem stuck between the right versus left delusion on this topic.

nobody is "forcing" you to use them. If you don't like their policies/prices/ways they do business - then don't use them

You're clueless. An oligopoly already exists so there is no option "to use someone else." Preventing net neutraility would only further that cause.

Think about it. Republicans supposedly LOVE free market competition. The side you're taking(whether it be defending Cruz or treating this as a small issue) would only further the problem and end up making the internet WORSE.

Undoing Bush's policy of separating ISP's from common carriers to internet providers is a must. Go back to Title II and hopefully those ISP's will lease out their lines for other companies to provide service. There would be an INCREASE of competition and thus, better for all of us.

Why do you hate free market competition?

Edited by Rustycage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Groghan, if Axl fans tried to prevent any and all discussion of or access to Slash, and did everything they could to make the board AXL ONLY, you know which side of that you'd take.

Yet here you are, calling this issue pointless while you spend paragraph after paragraph and page after page addressing that.

If you just didn't/don't know what the issue is, just say so. It looks like you jumped out of the gate ready to side with Cruz, saw it was a different discussion and now want to say it isn't a big deal and Obama shouldn't worry about it. Small government blah blah blah.

Either way, you're still wrong.


In many cases, consumers only have a couple of options in terms of who they can purchase Internet service. Many people not living in or around large urban areas likely only have one or two options when it comes to buying their access to the Internet. It's a fantasy to think that consumers have a myriad of choices when it comes to how they communicate.


Very true. I'm in the middle of nowhere and the only option I have is satelite internet. $60 for 10gb cap(lol), decent download speed but the ping is freakin 800ms. When you go over your cap, they offer you 1 additional GB of space for $10. No other option. They need competition here.

Monopolies and oligopolies are NEVER a good thing for consumers.

Edited by Rustycage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Groghan, if Axl fans tried to prevent any and all discussion of or access to Slash, and did everything they could to make the board AXL ONLY, you know which side of that you'd take.

Yet here you are, calling this issue pointless while you spend paragraph after paragraph and page after page addressing that.

If you just didn't/don't know what the issue is, just say so. It looks like you jumped out of the gate ready to side with Cruz, saw it was a different discussion and now want to say it isn't a big deal and Obama shouldn't worry about it. Small government blah blah blah.

Either way, you're still wrong.

In many cases, consumers only have a couple of options in terms of who they can purchase Internet service. Many people not living in or around large urban areas likely only have one or two options when it comes to buying their access to the Internet. It's a fantasy to think that consumers have a myriad of choices when it comes to how they communicate.

Very true. I'm in the middle of nowhere and the only option I have is satelite internet. $60 for 10gb cap(lol), decent download speed but the ping is freakin 800ms. When you go over your cap, they offer you 1 additional GB of space for $10. No other option. They need competition here.

Monopolies and oligopolies are NEVER a good thing for consumers.

You seem very angry lately. You used to be a guy I enjoyed chatting with, but now you seem to be in attack mode on a lot of people. Paragraph after paragraph and page after page? I think I've made three posts in this topic and they've all been pretty short.

Anyway -

Sure, I'll let you and Downzy "win" this issue.

I come here to chat with people, not to be insulted because I disagree with them.

Hopefully Obama and big government will fix this issue for you guys. :thumbsup:

Edit:

I've said nothing about Cruz, you seem to be hung up on him. You think I'm hung up on the dem/rep side but you guys aren't Lol.

And I'd have no problem if this forum was an Axl only forum. Nor would I care if it was an "All versions of GnR" forum.

Not every issue/disagreement has to be a big fight amongst people.

Edited by Groghan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Groghan, if Axl fans tried to prevent any and all discussion of or access to Slash, and did everything they could to make the board AXL ONLY, you know which side of that you'd take.

Yet here you are, calling this issue pointless while you spend paragraph after paragraph and page after page addressing that.

If you just didn't/don't know what the issue is, just say so. It looks like you jumped out of the gate ready to side with Cruz, saw it was a different discussion and now want to say it isn't a big deal and Obama shouldn't worry about it. Small government blah blah blah.

Either way, you're still wrong.

In many cases, consumers only have a couple of options in terms of who they can purchase Internet service. Many people not living in or around large urban areas likely only have one or two options when it comes to buying their access to the Internet. It's a fantasy to think that consumers have a myriad of choices when it comes to how they communicate.

Very true. I'm in the middle of nowhere and the only option I have is satelite internet. $60 for 10gb cap(lol), decent download speed but the ping is freakin 800ms. When you go over your cap, they offer you 1 additional GB of space for $10. No other option. They need competition here.

Monopolies and oligopolies are NEVER a good thing for consumers.

You seem very angry lately. You used to be a guy I enjoyed chatting with, but now you seem to be in attack mode on a lot of people. Paragraph after paragraph and page after page? I think I've made three posts in this topic and they've all been pretty short.

Anyway -

Sure, I'll let you and Downzy "win" this issue.

I come here to chat with people, not to be insulted because I disagree with them.

Hopefully Obama and big government will fix this issue for you guys. :thumbsup:

Dude, I fucking hate Obama, but he is not the issue. No one is asking the government to do anything, in fact they are insisting the government do nothing.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling you clueless is an insult?

It's not about "winning an argument." It's about spreading the word so everyone knows what's going on. At least for me. And when someone comes into the discussion acting like this doesn't affect many people and it's no big deal is just more enabling of the demise of the good things in this country.

The small government approach of allowing ISP's to run wild is only hurting consumers. Now, it has the potential to go even further. People from all over the political spectrum have a reason to be aware and to support neutrality.

The regurgitated "big government" talking point really doesn't have a place in this. You're either in support of monopolies, the suppression of new businesses and the extortion of other businesses and customers or you aren't for it. One or the other. No wiggle room for claiming some big government takeover.


Keeping it the way it is is NOT big government.

Edited by Rustycage
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling you clueless is an insult?

It's not about "winning an argument." It's about spreading the word so everyone knows what's going on. At least for me. And when someone comes into the discussion acting like this doesn't affect many people and it's no big deal is just more enabling of the demise of the good things in this country.

The small government approach of allowing ISP's to run wild is only hurting consumers. Now, it has the potential to go even further. People from all over the political spectrum have a reason to be aware and to support neutrality.

The regurgitated "big government" talking point really doesn't it's place in this. You're either in support of monopolies, the suppression of new businesses and the extortion of other businesses and customers or you aren't for it. One or the other. No wiggle room for claiming some big government takeover.

Keeping it the way it is is NOT big government.

Your entire response to me was basically one big insult.

This issue is obviously very important to you, whereas I don't see it with as much passion as you and Downzy do. You've taken offense to my stance.

So I'll just bow out so I don't keep filling the topic with "paragraph after paragraph and page after page of clueless Cruz loving political leaning nonsense where I am 100% wrong" and there is literally NO ROOM for debate. You guys are right, everybody else is wrong.

If I'm clueless, 100% wrong and just wasting space - it's silly for me to be in this topic. It isn't a discussion anymore. So what's the point?

You guys carry on. I'll go chat about Axl and how much I love hair metal bands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Go enjoy the internet, Groghan. No one is trying to potentially ruin it or anything.

Don't worry bro. Obama and his team will "fix" it and the evil Cruz and his henchmen won't be able to shut down the internet.

Still clueless.

Still feeling the need to insult those who disagree with you. I suppose if that tactic works...........keep on keeping on.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm sure Obama and his team will "fix" the problem that the evil Cruz and his henchmen won't "ruin it or anything."

Clueless? Sure. But I am agreeing with everything you are saying.

********

But whatever on that issue. Absolutely nothing I could say is going to change your mind. So what's the point?

What I'm really curious about is what you think my reaction would be if the forum became an All Axl forum and any mention of Slash was removed. That part of your topic threw me for a loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Groghan, if Axl fans tried to prevent any and all discussion of or access to Slash, and did everything they could to make the board AXL ONLY, you know which side of that you'd take.

Yet here you are, calling this issue pointless while you spend paragraph after paragraph and page after page addressing that.

If you just didn't/don't know what the issue is, just say so. It looks like you jumped out of the gate ready to side with Cruz, saw it was a different discussion and now want to say it isn't a big deal and Obama shouldn't worry about it. Small government blah blah blah.

Either way, you're still wrong.

In many cases, consumers only have a couple of options in terms of who they can purchase Internet service. Many people not living in or around large urban areas likely only have one or two options when it comes to buying their access to the Internet. It's a fantasy to think that consumers have a myriad of choices when it comes to how they communicate.

Very true. I'm in the middle of nowhere and the only option I have is satelite internet. $60 for 10gb cap(lol), decent download speed but the ping is freakin 800ms. When you go over your cap, they offer you 1 additional GB of space for $10. No other option. They need competition here.

Monopolies and oligopolies are NEVER a good thing for consumers.

Anyway -

Sure, I'll let you and Downzy "win" this issue.

It's not really about "winning" on an issue. Ultimately, i think we both want the same thing, but we disagree with the means by which it is achieved.

For myself, and I suppose RC, we see a facilitating role for the government for the purposes of promoting competition and ensuring a free market. Even the guy who literally wrote the book on capitalism, Adam Smith, argued that the government has a role to play in regulating business by preventing the formulation of monopolies (or in some cases, oligopolies). The concept of net neutrality speaks to this issue, because if you allow the few ISPs free reign in how they provide service to their customers you're enabling oligopolistic (and perhaps eventually monopolistic) behaviour. Fewer and fewer individuals and companies will be able to compete with the established big boys because they will not have the money to pay ISPs for faster access to potential customers. If you know anything about the rail/coal/oil/steel trusts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, you'll know that when government does not intervene in such abusive business practices consumers suffer, competition wanes, and ultimately the free market ceases to be.

Like RC states, if you support the concept of free markets, you're for net neutrality. It's something both liberals and conservatives should be behind. The few politicians who oppose net neutrality are either in the pockets of the communications industry or are so daft that they do not know America's own history in combing monopolistic type practices. Yes, it is possible, if not even required, for the government to intervene in a market to promote competition. This isn't a right vs. left issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...