Net neutrality

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by classicman

anyone in particular there MTP?

I'm assuming you would know better than I do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What happens without Net Neutrality.

[spudcon]

Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

What happens without Net Neutrality.

NOOooooo!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?

Don't worry. It's coming.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

If you want to take the discussion off point with generalizations about the influence of money, so be it....even though you evidently have no direct experience in the political process or little, if any interaction, with elected officials.

I am sorry but a nameless faceless person like you has no credibility.

But you are the best cut and paster around!

And the majority are from subject matter experts who have credibility.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry but a nameless faceless person like you has no credibility.

~snip~

OK, I'll say it: HUH?

[TheMercenary]

You! You! show your face, you 1's and 0's you...

Originally Posted by spudcon

Does that mean someone would have to pay for a service that someone else provides? How long before the gubermint taxes you for that service?

No...it means that companies that were given the right to build their telephone and cable networks (Internet pipelines) on PUBLIC lands, through PUBLIC rights of way (or the PUBLIC spectrum with regard to wireless) should be regulated in the PUBLIC interest.

[spudcon]

Sooo... that really means yes.

[classicman]

That was his Obama impersonation

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

OK, I'll say it: HUH?

I think he's saying that if someone wants to use their identity and work history as their argument and proof of their credibility, they kinda need to post their resume or something... because anyone can say anything if they're anon.

Originally Posted by spudcon

Sooo... that really means yes.

Hardly.

It means that the major telecomms that control the Internet pipelines, and to a lesser extenst, ISPs, should be subject to some form of telecommunications "common carrier" regulations with a goal of assuring that the Internet will be "open and public" rather than a private domain controlled by the whims of the major telecomms.

[Shawnee123]

Redux uses just as many citations as the merc, he just doesn't cut and paste every sentence.

I have no reason to doubt red's work experience, he seems to be able to carry on as if he isn't lying about it (and frankly, wouldn't you say you were an astronaut or a cowboy or something if'n you were lookin' to impress?)

Of course, we could take it further: Redux? You are nothing but words on this forum. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you are not a robot. In fact, for all I know, most of y'all are robots.

Or merc and redux could just keep debating as if they are both real live boys, instead of pulling shit out of midair in order to create an environment of incredulity, for some kind of points (that fall flat in the minds of thinking individuals.)

Originally Posted by jinx

I think he's saying that if someone wants to use their identity and work history as their argument and proof of their credibility, they kinda need to post their resume or something... because anyone can say anything if they're anon.

Right!

Merc is credible to speak with certainty about what motivates elected offcials--- money rather than ideology -- cuz Merc is the "man of the people"

He told us so!