Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
FCC Chair Unveils Premium Comment Line To Fast-Track Net Neutrality Complaints For $49.99 Per Month
while the providers can't do anything wrt charging them more for taking advantage of most of the bandwidth.
mell sayswhile the providers can't do anything wrt charging them more for taking advantage of most of the bandwidth.
Yes, exactly. Why can't the ISPs get some kind of monopoly on content as well as the fees for the connection. They should get it all.
Each person can stream at most one movie at a time. Why should Netflix and a handful of other people that won the race get to cash in leaving the cable, DSL and Dish out of the action ? Don't they get something for having control of the actual hardware that brings us the internet ? AT&T demands their taste. Common people !
If that's your position, doesn't it make more sense to "nationalize" comcast etc. and make ISP a public utility? Who paid for the infrastructure? Who built the internet?
I don't think anyone who is against net neutrality understands it very well.
It isn't Comcast or AT&T that are censoring speech on the internet.
So explain
Absolutely--they can charge an extra fee to access Netflix or youtube. It's not only about paying more for bandwidth.
Expect soon to buy a package with the "Facebook service" the way you pay News networks packages, plus a Twitter option for an added $10/month.
Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.
Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.
mell says
Great! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.
The point is: you will pay more one way or an other. It's a toll booth not a service on a free market.
mell saysGreat! I'm all for it. Facetwat is clogging up the bandwith immensely while making the population dumber, leftoider and sadder. They can't charge enough for the FB package, maybe start at $100, better $1000 to save the kids.
Tell me again how it's the libtards that are superior and want to tell us how to live our lives?
However it is no different than charging people for different service-tiers now, business, normal vs high-speed dsl etc. I
mell saysHowever it is no different than charging people for different service-tiers now, business, normal vs high-speed dsl etc. I
No, right now the only features they can compete on are what they actually produce: bandwidth and price.
Now they will divert competition toward things they didn't produce: For example you might premium for normal access to Netflix even though your overall bandwidth is not better.
This is actually a good example of why the absence of regulation is not a good regulation.
Disagree, they could also easily simply charge by bytes transferred both ways, that would surely be the fairest pricing. Why should I have reduced bandwidth because somebody binge-watches Netflix with their flat plan?
Not saying there's an easy solution, but I don't see how the current status is somehow the holy grail.
Cable companies own the internet now since they hold a monopoly on the fastest pipelines and they will extort money for access to certain parts because they like money.
Sure. They do it almost everywhere. While FB is proven to be detrimental. I am not saying access to FaceTwat should be denied, that would be a leftoid thing,I am just saying providers should be free to charge what they want for it. That is not the same as denying access. Maybe we can take some of the added profits - should they charge more if NN i repealed - and fix our broken roads in SV.
mell saysSure. They do it almost everywhere. While FB is proven to be detrimental. I am not saying access to FaceTwat should be denied, that would be a leftoid thing,I am just saying providers should be free to charge what they want for it. That is not the same as denying access. Maybe we can take some of the added profits - should they charge more if NN i repealed - and fix our broken roads in SV.
Kind of like a soda tax to pay for health care for all the obese people?
What prevents them from doing it?
Clue: using the word "you" is probably a personal attack.
Second, there is still the FTC.
Third, it creates conflict between Content Provider Monopolies and Cable Monopolies; in the breach it'll likely be better for consumers.
More than 50% of right wing memes contain a grade school level spelling or grammar error. Nonetheless, millions pass them on unedited.
Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
#Censorship #NetNeutrality #Politics