Montana stands up for Net Neutrality; prepares for FCC lawsuits

a reply to: DerBeobachter

I am sorry, I don't get the reference. If you're paying to access a WIFI router I will say "I'm sorry". Mainly for your bank account and other personal information.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

It was part of the joke I think. By the way, the "customers" in that bit are actors. Burger King most likely doesn't care about net neutrality (why would they?). The video is nothing more than a PR stunt by BK, though it is a good comparison.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

BK is kind of a weird friend to internet culture. They had a very off-color online campaign involving a guy in a chicken suit and... adventurous attire. I don't want to violate any T&C so if you're not a prude and have a great sense of humor, just type "subservient chicken burger king" into the search engine of your choice.

On topic, I'd argue that fast-food business has burgeoned because of the internet. Readily available menus and online promotions have to bring in a fair amount of business or they wouldn't expend the resources.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Why are you attacking me? I’m on your side. Unless you meant that post for that nibbler fellow?

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
The technology/infrastructure is directly related to defense purposes by the US military. It was developed with public money and the resulting infrastructure was subsidized with public money. $200 billion worth. Read my OP and read the main links before presenting that sort of dodging argument.

Yeah, way back then it was slow copper, maybe neophyte satellite. Today big infrastructure companies have installed fiber. The government might have paid for the initial build-out but it was mostly scraped like 52K dial up. So, I don't see where the Government has any say in internet other than right of way management and monopolistic practices.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer

It's a utility the same as electricity. Should an electric company be able to throttle a Samsung appliance?

It's not so simple. The Internet is a structure in commerce. The government pays for a lot of development tech including the fiber optic you talk about. It may not have layer it down but it comes and deals with ice heaves and certainly payed for the development of that technology.

Same reason our chips were and are dirt cheap.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer

They installed fiber optic - another public funded technology - on the public dole. $200 billion is not chicken scratch and includes the backbones which the major telecom companies are using lobbyists to try attempt a wrest of control from each other. They were equitably funded by the government to install a very modular technology onto a technology that needed modular connectivity.

And the vast majority of the funding for that technology belongs to tax payers.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: toysforadults

Higher prices for the consumer = worse.

Government regulation = higher prices for the consumer. See: Obamacare.

a reply to: ketsuko

Better models for deliver of entertainment = Enemy to the major telecom companies

Only on ATS will we defend one form of tyranny over another. And come on! Neutrality is some form of tyranny? Major telecom companies were silent before we could stream shows/movies over the infrastructure they installed, but hardly paid for.

Drop down the rabbit hole of links in my OP. I am not playing sides. This is a simple matter of facts and historic public funding plays a key. $200 billion is astronomical for profit. And big telecom is going to pocket that much tax payer money due to the end of oversight of public spending.

Read the opening article, then drift down. I know you can chase rabbits, El-ahrairah.

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you think corporations like competition? Of course not, yet the decision you guys think will lead to more competition is the same one that the big telecom companies begged for.

When the price of these internet packages ends up being more than what we pay now for less content then don't say I didn't tell you so. It's about higher profits for the companies that lobbied for it, not more competition.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not in all cases. See prescription drugs..

a reply to: luthier

A good old favorite from `round these here parts: "Follow the money."

I guess some money can be ignored more than other money?

Deflection and trolling shall commence!

a reply to: Swills

I forget that sarcasm and tone doesn't translate to text well. Apologies! I didn't mean for it to come off as an attack on you, I was just riffing along with you about our dear mouse.

ETA: I am amazed at how many "rugged individualist" types on a CT forum are supporting massive telecom conglomerates. It must have more to do with tribalism than common sense. I thought I delivered enough facts and sources in my OP to satisfy as a rebuttal to the "but they paid for all of the infrastructure" argument. Apparently we do live in a "post fact" age.