04-19-15 11:12 PM
235 1234 ...
tools
  1. anon(8063781)'s Avatar
    Well, I believe I already stated the same to you previously. If you believe Gov created everything, what am I supposed to say?You're entitled to your beliefs.

    I can't wait until we are all taxed (again) on top of the taxes we already pay for these new self ordained Gov services that have been provided to us. LoL.

    Good luck!

    Posted via CB10
    Where did I ever say that government created "everything"? I stated that government created certain laws. Glad to know you're aching to pay new taxes
    03-26-15 12:28 AM
  2. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    " A government that can give you everything you want is a government that can take all you have. "

    Net Neutrality is a massive Trojan Horse!

    If it is so awesome, why have we NOT seen a draft yet? Why was it voted on BEFORE it was made public by the most transparent {cough} President and administration ever.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    TX Jedi likes this.
    03-26-15 12:31 AM
  3. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    Where did I ever say that government created "everything"? I stated that government created certain laws. Glad to know you're aching to pay new taxes
    My bad. I should have said the marketplace. Which in my opinion means everything because everything "business" is part of the marketplace. LoL

    Apologies.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 12:37 AM
  4. ray689's Avatar
    " A government that can give you everything you want is a government that can take all you have. "

    Net Neutrality is a massive Trojan Horse!

    If it is so awesome, why have we NOT seen a draft yet? Why was it voted on BEFORE it was made public by the most transparent {cough} President and administration ever.

    " I do not think that word means what you think it means. "
    This exactly. This has nothing to do with your data being throttled. Red flags everywhere but they sure put a nice name like neutrality on it for the masses.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 12:40 AM
  5. birdman_38's Avatar
    I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if the OP is being sarcastic or not. Lol
    03-26-15 01:28 AM
  6. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    I'm having a hard time trying to figure out if the OP is being sarcastic or not. Lol
    About what? I think this is a bad thing and just another attempt at control.

    What makes the FCC believe they have the right to control the Internet? The Internet is a planetary entity. Why should an American Gov entity have control of what providers can and cannot do?

    Why not have the Chinese Gov control it? At least we know that they don't want anyone to have it. Not like the US where they say you can have it, but under our discretion and policies.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:34 AM
  7. FrankIAm's Avatar
    About what? I think this is a bad thing and just another attempt at control.

    What makes the FCC believe they have the right to control the Internet? The Internet is a planetary entity. Why should an American Gov entity have control of what providers can and cannot do?

    Why not have the Chinese Gov control it? At least we know that they don't want anyone to have it. Not like the US where they say you can have it, but under our discretion and policies.

    Posted via CB10
    They're not trying to control the Internet, they just don't want ISPs to be a bunch of phalluses to their customers.
    03-26-15 02:43 AM
  8. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    They're not trying to control the Internet, they just don't want ISPs to be a bunch of phalluses to their customers.
    Wow.
    If they're trying to regulate and dictate what Internet Service Providers can and cannot do, by definition, they're trying to regulate and dictate the Internet. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 02:49 AM
  9. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    I guess the Gov does not want any competition regarding who can be the largest phallus of them all. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 02:51 AM
  10. vladi's Avatar
    "Free market" is there only to be conquered.

    And boy has ISP market been conquered real good. It's so tightly controlled (regulated) by larger than life corporations that in most of the areas you can't even create community internet let alone be official ISP cause those larger than life companies have deals with your local government that guarantees them monopoly in exchange for some promised infrastructure that is yet to happen.

    Reality is US has the slowest, most expensive Internet service out of all western world. ISPs had there chance to "regulate" the market and that is the outcome. Time to change it.

    Posted via CB10
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 03:13 AM
  11. Foreverup's Avatar
    Free Market???

    Try living somewhere where there is only 1 chose of broadband
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 04:57 AM
  12. LordCrankypants's Avatar
    Wow.
    If they're trying to regulate and dictate what Internet Service Providers can and cannot do, by definition, they're trying to regulate and dictate the Internet. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    In terms of internet speed and affordability/accessibility. Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with controlling content. It's to help make the internet accessible to more people (by making it a utility on the same level as hydro and water) and affordable to just about everyone.

    It's not designed to limit what ISPs can charge or anything like that - it's about giving people what they pay for. If you're paying for an unlimited package at 150Mbps down, the company shouldn't be able to throttle your speed once you hit a certain amount of bandwidth.

    If the ISPs behaved and treated their customers fairly in the first place, regulated net neutrality wouldn't be necessary.

    JB

    Posted internationally thanks to my Passport
    Last edited by LordCrankypants; 03-26-15 at 06:34 AM.
    03-26-15 06:01 AM
  13. wincyUt's Avatar
    The government is good and evil but very essential. What would this world be like without government? The foundations for most technological advancements are as a result of government researches. The interest of the majority trumps over the selfish minority interest.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 07:24 AM
  14. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    In terms of internet speed and affordability/accessibility. Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with controlling content. It's to help make the internet accessible to more people (by making it a utility on the same level as hydro and water) and affordable to just about everyone.

    It's not designed to limit what ISPs can charge or anything like that - it's about giving people what they pay for. If you're paying for an unlimited package at 150Mbps down, the company shouldn't be able to throttle your speed once you hit a certain amount of bandwidth.

    If the ISPs behaved and treated their customers fairly in the first place, regulated net neutrality wouldn't be necessary.

    JB

    Posted internationally thanks to my Passport
    You can believe what you want and justify it in any way shape or form. That is your right. But that doesn't mean that bridge should be purchased by everyone walking by. In truth this has nothing to do with pricing to the end user except for increases. It's subversive and is a play for control. It's a money grab for an untouched industry. Just like everything else in the past...

    Why should all things be equal? This is the problem I've tried to highlight, but the welfare mindstate cannot get away from it. Life is not fair! We pay for services that we can afford as individuals. We pay for high speed services as a convenience not a necessity. That is not a "right" for everyone to have and to be distributed "fairly". And a company should not be forced by Gov to provide those very same services to those that cannot afford to pay for them. Period.

    During the BBOS days, I remember thread after thread of people who had BlackBerry devices without data plans. They constantly complained about certain things they could not do. The general consensus was that if you can't afford a BlackBerry with a data plan, you should not buy one just to come here and complain. Individuals need to live within their means instead of forcing others to give them what they don't deserve or cannot pay for.

    Fairness means that people have opportunities to create their own way in life. If you want something you strive to achieve it. It is a race to the top and your piers have no right to a head start provided by the Gov. You want high speed, you earn enough to pay for it. You don't say everyone should get it because you think it's too expensive. The market should dictate what the costs are and if the market states it should be $1k monthly, you either pay or make a decision that you can't afford it.

    I don't tell car manufacturers that because a Rolls Royce is too expensive for my blood that the Gov should regulate them to provide them for everyone.

    I don't tell Apple and Android to have Gov force them to provide apps for my platform because they are doing well and BlackBerry is not doing as well in that area.

    I don't expect that fancy restaurant to have Gov lower their prices because there are hungry people in the world. That is what personal charity is for...

    This is a mindstate of those that can't figure out how to compete and want assistance from Gov to get them where they wish they could be.

    If throttling is in your package, who's fault is it for entering that contract? If prices are too high in some individual's opinion, why sign up for the service? What about the guy that has worked hard for his family, but cannot get ISP services because he doesn't want to be taxed again for something he already pays taxes on. I guarantee content will cease, correct? So it's not like content will not be touched.

    As stated... You have your right to your opinion, but so do I. I truly cannot think of any area that Gov tried to take over and things became better.


    Posted via CB10
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 07:41 AM
  15. FrankIAm's Avatar
    There would still be packages with data caps and more expensive package with more bandwidth.
    03-26-15 07:45 AM
  16. birdman_38's Avatar
    If they're trying to regulate and dictate what Internet Service Providers can and cannot do, by definition, they're trying to regulate and dictate the Internet.
    They're trying to ensure a positive experience for the end user.

    You should see what's happening in Canada. The Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission has a new decision every few months which negatively affects ISPs, carriers, and TV providers. New regulations don't go to a bill that's voted on by our parliamentary house. The governing body just makes the rules.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 07:50 AM
  17. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    They're trying to ensure a positive experience for the end user.

    You should see what's happening in Canada. The Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission has a new decision every few months which negatively affects ISPs, carriers, and TV providers. New regulations don't go to a bill that's voted on by our parliamentary house. The governing body just makes the rules.
    The same exact thing happened here with this bill. It was hidden and enacted and never made public, yet it is to be adhered to.


    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 07:57 AM
  18. 1magine's Avatar
    Sorry OP.

    For my part, I believe free markets work as an economic theory. As a model, they tend to leach into the governmental sphere and then fall apart as a theory. This is the history of our world. In those places where they have fully taken over governance, the end result is a life for most everyone that is "nasty, brutish and short".

    The problem today is neither government or free markets but that in most of the world we have hybrids of varying degrees.

    If governments completely moved from the market, there would be no Corporations, LLCs, LPs GPs and the like, these are creations of state government framework. As such their would be no safe way to invest in ideas, no stock market, no investor shield. A wealthy person could underprice their inferior products, losing money for years, until your higher priced better product was gone from the marketplace.

    Monopolies take hold, and people's choice no longer matters. People will have no choice if they want meat or water but to obtain it from those that have it, even if it is grossly unsafe.

    Thankfully, I do not see the world as full of lazy reprobates trying to steal everything I have earned. We are here for too very short a time to embrace such darkness.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 08:34 AM
  19. redlightblinking's Avatar
    OP- your Robber Barron 1% attitude has been rejected not once but twice in the last two presidential elections. That "wild west", or "I've got mine, you get yours" philosophy has been proven over and over and over throughout history to always lead to stiffing progress and growth (except for the monopoly and it's handful of investors) and to more of a "Game of Thrones" society.

    Most of your tired, old arguments have been re-treaded so many times the rest of us can see them coming a mile away. It's like listening to a crying baby in the back sear of a car. You argument (inspired by the Mitt Romney's the world) that everyone has "opportunities" is so ridiculous it's laughable. The entire point of regulation is to maintain opportunities, otherwise many simply have opportunities that others never get because of things completely beyond the control of either of them.

    Finally, the government IS the people. It is run by people elected and appointed by those elected. What always seems so funny (scary) to me is that the same people making these anti-government arguments, in which they basically don't like the results of the election, seem to use that as a justification that the elections are pointless to begin with and we should overthrow the government. UNLESS, the election goes their way....then there's not a peep about this terrible government as they're too busy going full speed at tearing apart regulations that protect people, and installing ones that are based on their fairy tale religious beliefs.

    The very fact that you are openly opposed to being "neutral", yet use the "sticking your nose in" argument, speaks volumes. You want "neutrality", but you want it from the government. You want the government to stay out of things (that governments exist for to begin with) and yet want to leave it up to monopolistic shareholders to stay un-neutral. In other words.....you hate democracy.

    Please proceed, Governor.
    03-26-15 08:39 AM
  20. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    LoloL! It's all good when they go after others, but things change when they come after you!

    There is no good outcome from the "people" asking Gov for handouts. I can't think of anywhere that Gov intrusion resulted in things being better for anyone.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 08:46 AM
  21. redlightblinking's Avatar
    Wow.
    If they're trying to regulate and dictate what Internet Service Providers can and cannot do, by definition, they're trying to regulate and dictate the Internet. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    The ISPs are the ones suing so they can control who gets what....in other words....they want to REGULATE IT, simply because they happen to own the part of the pipe. In other words....because they can. The government is simply trying to prevent them from regulating it. It's amazing to listen to the Ted Cruz / Sarah Palin logic of of the extreme right that don't realize they're arguing against their own basic position but doing it in a way that uses nothing but passion (to make up for a lack of logic) to appeal to the weak-minded most likely to agree with them.

    If you are against regulation, why are you supporting the ISP's unilateral ability to do it?

    Could you imagine if you made the same argument about water utilities? That you believe it should be completely left up to them as to how much water you can get in their pipes and that perhaps they could shut it off for a while to divert water to a theme park or something?
    03-26-15 08:47 AM
  22. redlightblinking's Avatar
    LoloL! It's all good when they go after others, but things change when they come after you!
    In other words, you have no comment so you'll just change the subject with a common empty talking point accompanied by nervous laughter.


    There is no good outcome from the "people" asking Gov for handouts.

    Posted via CB10
    And yet that's what the big companies do all the time when they ask for tax breaks.


    I can't think of anywhere that Gov intrusion resulted in things being better for anyone.

    Posted via CB10
    That's because you're not actually thinking. Here's just a few that you and your family benefit from every day-

    Air travel regulations
    Food regulations
    Drug regulations
    Workplace regulations
    Fire code regulations
    health code regulations
    traffic laws
    Air wave regulations
    building code regulations
    Environmental regulations
    Air quality regulations


    There are places in the world that have none of these things....perhaps you'd feel more comfortable and "free" if you lived there.
    03-26-15 08:55 AM
  23. rthonpm's Avatar
    Well, I don't believe the Gov should be able to confiscate someone's legal business and distribute it to those that failed to compete. If that's what you're asking me.

    Posted via CB10
    The problem with Carnegie, Rockefeller and the like is that they eliminated competition: they were monopolies. Check real history and not some kind of Randian nonsense and you'll see nothing but anti competitive tactics used by them. For your free market to work you need competition, which most of the US does not have in terms of internet providers. With consolidation such as Comcast and Time Warner there will be even fewer choices. How many markets in the US have more than two realistic choices for broadband? How many companies own everything that you're able to consume in terms of entertainment? It's Ma Bell or Standard Oil all over again since we never learn our lessons.

    Large corporations should be anathema to free market capitalism since they represent the very lack of competition that the free market espouses. However, we don't have free and transparent markets, we have a system that moves from boom to bust because there's no fundamentals behind it.

    All of that said, capitalism is much like democracy: it doesn't completely work, but it's better than any of the alternatives.
    MarsupilamiX and Eumaeus like this.
    03-26-15 08:55 AM
  24. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    The ISPs are the ones suing so they can control who gets what....in other words....they want to REGULATE IT, simply because they happen to own the part of the pipe. In other words....because they can.
    Yes. Because anyone that has a business should be able to control that business and not be forced to provide services to those who cannot afford to pay. That is what personal charity is for. It's not hard. The Gov wants to get a piece of that pie just like every other industry touched by them.

    Could you imagine if you made the same argument about water utilities?
    Yes. I make that same argument about water utilities. Has your bill gone down since the advent of Gov interference or gone up? What has been made better by the Gov in that regard? Or have you had more issues?

    The only change I see is that before gov interference, water was free. Now everyone here in NY has to have a water (smart) meter to enforce payments and the institution of fluoridated water. LoL




    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 09:06 AM
  25. FrankIAm's Avatar
    Yes. Because anyone that has a business should be able to control that business and not be forced to provide services to those who cannot afford to pay. That is what personal charity is for. It's not hard. The Gov wants to get a piece of that pie just like every other industry touched by them.


    Yes. I make that same argument about water utilities. Has your bill gone down since the advent of Gov interference or gone up? What has been made better by the Gov in that regard? Or have you had more issues?

    The only change I see is that before gov interference, water was free. Now everyone here in NY has to have a water (smart) meter to enforce payments and the institution of fluoridated water. LoL




    Posted via CB10
    You'd make one hell of a great Comcast CEO.
    03-26-15 09:08 AM
235 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Pasting is a joke in BB10
    By trevorcroft in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-16-15, 10:53 PM
  2. Why isn't my Playbook is charging?
    By Veida Jane Mendoza in forum BlackBerry PlayBook
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-15, 11:32 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 04:37 PM
  4. Where is the voicemail indicator on my BlackBerry Classic?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 11:06 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 09:32 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD