International freedom again...

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You mean so the government can decide who has what access and at what speeds?
So the government can decide what content is restricted and what is allowed?

Why do so many people want Fascism in our nation where everything is controlled and regulated by the government. Like having the government involved is always a good thing?
Look how they fucked up with forcing lenders to make loans to people that had no capability to pay them back.

Why is it that the leftists have this unending need for the government to tell them how everything should be?
I suppose it is like having to have a shepherd for the sheep.

But government interference has worked so well for health insurance, my premiums have gone up about 400% since the government take over of health insurance with the "affordable" care act.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

But government interference has worked so well for health insurance, my premiums have gone up about 400% since the government take over of health insurance with the "affordable" care act.

Bullshit.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Bullshit.

Pre obama care in 2010, $350 a month, $ 2K deductible for my family of three. Today, $1,350 a month with a $5K deductible. 1,350 divided by 350 = 3.85. Add in the 250% increase in the deductible and I would consider that a 400% increase in about 7 years.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Repelling Net Neutrality has to be good if it gets the 0zombies so upset!

https://www.komando.com/happening-no...y-do-you-agree

As you are no doubt aware, the FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday, to repeal the 2 1/2-year-old Net Neutrality rules. I’ll admit that the coined phrase, “Net Neutrality” certainly sounded good.

The words invoked images of a perfect world. You know, where there's a fair and free market and open internet. Where there's a neutral level playing field so that anyone anywhere could cook up an idea and run with it and no one could put up any barriers to get in their way.

The Washington name game
Like most legislation coming out of Washington, the name didn't really reflect what the law would have done. Here’s a case in point: Ask yourself, “Where was the internet 25 years ago in 1992?” For the most part, it did not exist!

OK, then ask yourself how in the world did it become the all-pervasive, everywhere at once, information, education, communications, entertainment, shopping and commerce giant that it is today? Was it because of early so-called Net Neutrality? Well, of course not. In fact, most agree that the internet is what it is precisely because the government did NOT interfere.

It did not regulate, oversee, act as traffic cop or playground teacher. For the government, it was strictly, HANDS OFF. And we created the freest and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace.

This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to the top. The internet thrived, business competition soared. New business opportunities became possible, think eBay, VRBO, Amazon, the list is endless. Everyone benefitted because the playing field was level. Anyone could come. And everyone DID come.

The internet became a place where anyone could do virtually anything and make money. Free speech abounded. Every viewpoint was clamoring to be heard. Suddenly, people of both sides of the political fence began coming up with ways and ideas to silence those on the OTHER side of the fence. Lots of ideas were floated including an internet “use tax” or licensing websites the same way they license radio and TV stations.

What's the "Net Neutrality" fight really about?
A few years ago, someone cooked up a coined phrase “Net Neutrality.” Who couldn’t be for a neutral internet? It played especially well with recent college graduates, ahhh the Millennials, who were not around for the beginning of the internet to be firsthand witnesses of how its level playing field grew from nothing.

The fight over net neutrality was never about a level digital playing field, although that’s what its advocates continue to claim. Its real purpose was to prohibit something called “paid prioritization.” Paid prioritization is the technical term used to describe an agreement between a content provider and a network owner to allow the provider’s data to travel on less-congested routes in exchange for an agreed-upon fee.

When networks are clogged with data during high-traffic times, prioritization agreements allow consumers to receive requested data faster. Netflix and other high-volume content providers have already begun negotiating such deals. All kinds of data including emails, cat videos, that Instagram photo of your sandwich, travel over the internet but some data types are more tolerant of delays or temporary congestion.

For instance, the bits comprising an email don’t need to arrive at a recipient’s computer all in the same order they were sent. Other kinds of data, primarily video, are less tolerant of delays. Receiving the data bits in the wrong order or at the wrong time can cause distortions, stutters and other playback problems.

You get what you pay for
If they choose to do so, content companies like Hulu and Netflix can choose to pay ISPs a little bit extra to have their content bits delivered to consumers faster than some other company, such as Amazon. Very NOT neutral, but necessary.

To prohibit it harms consumers in the name of helping them. Lost in the translation is this inconvenient fact: We’ve always had to pay for faster service! If you wanted faster service, you had to buy more bandwidth. Net Neutrality’s real name was FCC 15-24, a radical departure from the market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades.

Did we have evidence that the internet is not open? No. Did we discover some problem with our prior interpretation of the law? No. What happened was that despite 25 years of working just fine, the former FCC wanted to help large content providers like Amazon, Google, Twitter and Netflix gain leverage against traditional cable companies. So-called net neutrality would have prevented upgrading for better service.

ISPs would have been forced to treat all data alike, ignoring the different needs of the various kinds of data traveling over the internet. It stuck your favorite Netflix stream on the same slow road as your least-favorite email from work.

It would have prevented the data you want from getting to you when you want it and how you want it. Under the benign-sounding “Net Neutrality” campaign, BIG TECH companies like Google, Amazon, Yahoo would be able to censor the internet to suit their ideological preferences, ridding the internet of conservative and libertarian content.

Google's role in it all
Google was especially vested, as the tech giant helped write the 2015 net neutrality rules and Google, YouTube, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook and the others were trying to assume a kind of moral high-ground, to control the flow of data.

“Net Neutrality” would have given the Federal Government and big tech the power to choose winners and losers online, in an egregiously partisan manner. “Net Neutrality” said nothing about neutrality and everything about governmental control and nepotistic picking of favorites, which is the very opposite of neutrality.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there was a similar debate on MSNBC. host got owned by the former FCC chairman!!! lol!

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_mor...-fcc-chairman/

MSNBC Host Loses It as He Gets Schooled During Net Neutrality Debate with Former FCC Chairman

Posted at 12:30 pm on December 15, 2017 by Brandon Morse

The panic that has surrounded the rightful death of Net Neutrality has been a fascinating one to watch, but like most mob driven panic attacks, there’s little or nothing to fear.

That’s exactly what former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell kept trying to tell MSNBC’s Ali Velshi during his segment. McDowell kept attempting to educate Velshi on the fact that Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 wasn’t even around till February 2015.

This didn’t phase Velshi, who claimed that Net Neutrality’s repeal would freeze startups out of the internet game. McDowell dismissed the idea, quoting laws that have been on the books for a while that make that an impossibility.

“So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act,” McDowell said. “Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015.”

McDowell continued by pointing out that Net Neutrality slowed growth, and actually made it harder for startups to improve the internet with new technologies.

“What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent,” he continued. “We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I’ve spoken with says…the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.”

Clearly seeing he was on the losing end of the argument, Velshi switched gears and brought up a scenario where Facebook essentially purchases preferential treatment from internet service providers, making the speeds of other companies slower unless they can pay. According to Velshi, this would essentially shut down smaller companies who won’t have the power of Facebook.

But McDowell killed that idea immediately by once again going to the lawbooks.

“Section I and Section II of Sherman Act and Section III of Clayton Act…you just triggered all three of those sections,” McDowell smoothly responded. “That would be an anti-trust violation…that was against the law before February 2015 and it will be against the laws of today.”

McDowell added that Title II actually helped the bigger corporations keep their thumbs on the smaller startups.

Velshi did not appreciate being on the losing end of the mob’s talking points, and chastised McDowell for using laws and facts to argue his point instead of feelings and scenarios.

“Look, I just feel like we’re having a really unfair conversation here, I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences,” Velshi whined. “And you’re dropping a lot of legal-ese.”

“The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali,” McDowell corrected. “That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws.”
“I’m very familiar with net neutrality,” Velshi snapped. “I’m really not that familiar with being condescended to.”

Velshi kept trying to make a “broader” argument about scenarios and principles, which McDowell continued to shut down with facts, laws, and historical patterns. This just further frustrated the already nettled MSNBC host.

“You’ve come to this show ready for an argument that I’m not giving you!” Velshi snapped.

“Okay so you’re talking about consumers and entrepreneurs and discrimination of your own products, like a Comcast provider?” said McDowell repeating Velshi’s argument back to him.

“That’s NOT what I’m talking about!” snapped Velshi…even though that’s exactly what he was talking about. “I’m saying that if someone has an advantage in streaming their content over the internet…because they got the money to buy better…access, then the incumbent is favored over the startup, that’s the only point I wanted to make!”

“And that would be illegal, that’s the point I’m making,” McDowell responded. “It has been a for a long time and will be going forward, so it’s good news.”

“Sorry it’s good news,” said McDowell of the repeal of Net Neutrality.

Somewhere, McDowell heard the words “FINISH HIM!”

“I know it’s good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed and it’s not,” said McDowell with a conversation ending blow.

Here is the video from that RedState story and it hilarious!

[IIFFOFRDB]

0zombies are just plain stupid!