It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
This is what is wrong with conservatives these days. Just declare all regulation bad without actually looking into why the regulation exists and how effective it is. Conservatives back in the day weren't 100% against regulation you know?
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: eriktheawful
What about those born in to the world after the inception of our interwebs?
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
This is what is wrong with conservatives these days. Just declare all regulation bad without actually looking into why the regulation exists and how effective it is. Conservatives back in the day weren't 100% against regulation you know?
Repeal child labor laws and take away women's right to vote I say.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
The argument that government regulation is never the answer is the one that is absurd.
originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: nwtrucker
I don't get it, are you saying the UN benefits from net neutrality somehow? Where is this coming from?
a reply to: JinMI
So, let me get this straight; people are arguing about how to best govern the net and your solution is to stop using it? That would put an end to the problem, no doubt. And then we can shut down the whole FCC and Ajit Pai will be out of work, he can become a comedy Youtuber instead, oh wait... Hey, maybe you're right in saying that people are addicted to technology too much, but that's not the point, is it? No one here has said they're going to die if they can't get on the internet. That doesn't mean the internet can't be a huge benefit; free speech for dissidents is one benefit of a free internet, that was already brought up. Everyone keeps bitching about Youtube shutting down conservative voices, but that's nothing compared to what we may be facing. Even a Trump-skeptic like me would rather brave the fake news of the internet than rely solely on corporate MSM shills.
God knows I have my own faults but it really looks like the NN critics in this thread are victims of their own stubborn partisanship. You want the internet to work according to your specific ideological tenets and if you can't have that then you'd rather throw it all away. Where's the freedom and innovation in that?
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nwtrucker
Still nothing about the UN though?
I am not the only person in this thread, who has offered you an opportunity to explain what the UN have to do with this, and you have refused on every occasion. There can be no justification for this whatsoever, assuming you have a reason for believing that the UN are in some way involved (which, of course, is not the case at all).
You can post what you like about Alabama, if you like being horrifically off topic, but proper conduct suggests that if you are making a claim, it is upon you to explain your reasoning.
I urge you once again to do so, if there is any basis at all for your belief in the matter of the UN and its relation (or more properly, its lack thereof) to the subject matter.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
This is what is wrong with conservatives these days. Just declare all regulation bad without actually looking into why the regulation exists and how effective it is. Conservatives back in the day weren't 100% against regulation you know?
Repeal child labor laws and take away women's right to vote I say.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.
This is what is wrong with conservatives these days. Just declare all regulation bad without actually looking into why the regulation exists and how effective it is. Conservatives back in the day weren't 100% against regulation you know?
Repeal child labor laws and take away women's right to vote I say.
I don't know a Conservative that is against every regulation. They're conservative, not Libertarians or anarchists.
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: nwtrucker
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: nwtrucker
What I seem to get, in general, is the idea of zero control, complete freedom and zero to little cost. That somehow I should have the right to the fastest car, say a Corvette ZR-1 and it shouldn't be any more expensive than a Honda Accord. Is that an accurate analogy?
No that is not the right analogy.
The right analogy is that you PAID and continue to pay for a corvette ZR-1 with a chip in it that when the dealer wants more money from the Chevy manufacturer, they purposely slow down and convert your ZR-1 to a yugo.
You pay for example 80 bucks a month for 60mb downloads speeds from your ISP. Why should the ISP be able to PURPOSELY go out of their way to NOT provide you with what you are paying for and PURPOSELY slow down your speeds to 1mb. All the while they continue to charge you the full price for the 60mb speeds, but only giving you 1mb download speeds?
Hmm, so your saying I don't already know what I'm buying? That the actual Yugo isn't known? You know it, I know it. So we aren't buying a ZR-1 are we? We leasing the Yugo, not buying it.
If I really want the Vette and can afford it, I will buy/lease it. otherwise, I will settle for the Yugo....over the UN....for now...
First of all and as I mentioned above, please explain the UN connection.
Be specific. I really don't know what this internet control that you allege that net neutrality gives to the UN.
Secondly, the analogy would be that you buy the more expensive performance car, but the car company limits use of the car if they want after you buy it.
That is to say, The expensive car you paid for might handle better around curves, but if you drive around too many curves, the car company has the right to take that better handling away from you because you use it too much (even though you paid for it). I mean, how dare you make full use of that better handling you paid for.