Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 146

Thread: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

  1. #61
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,056

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    I know all about net neutrality, understand packet prioritization, and it's functions in relation to peers, sockets, routing, pipelines, tiers, et al. I am for net neutrality wich is simply every packet is equal if you want to simplify it. ,

    That's it, there it is, end of story, net neutrality.
    Yeah, we actually know all that. In fact, the reason we want net neutrality is because we know what it is. From everything I can tell the people who oppose the FCC regulating the internet as a title II utility...

    a)don't know what net neutrality is (this is the simplest and most common issue)
    b)don't know that net neutrality is something we've had since essentially the rise of the internet and think net neutrality is new
    c)cannot or will not explain in detail, and beyond emotional rhetoric, how the new regulation will stifle creativity/competition/etc. (this one applies to you)

    These three render debate with those people pretty much impossible.


    What ever it is you are speaking of is NOT "net neutrality".
    I was addressing the idea that the FCC will stifle competition when there are already clear cut examples of isps doing precisely that. You avoid this as if ignoring it will make the argument go away, even though "stifling competition" is one of the primary criticisms of the FCC's impending action.

    Would you like to know why the biggest rally case for net neutrality the netflix/comcast spat also had nothing to do with net neutrality. At the end of the discussion we could then review the whole "smartened" vs "not smartened" in our relationship.
    I know that Comcast fought hard and eventually successfully to remove the FCC's regulation and the ability to set NN in stone. I know that isps have lobbied successfully in (at least) twenty states to ban local communities from setting up their own isps. Internet providers have given every indication they don't have users' interests at heart, I don't trust them and neither should you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    Now if you want to discuss the decentralization of the government mini monopolies that is the cable companies, I'm with you, I'm all for ending government inteference in the market, but then again, if everyone had to lay "the last mile"., our telephone poles will start to resemble the Favelas of Brazil.

    Do we want that?
    So you want corporate monopolies then?

  2. #62
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    All of this depends on who you want to believe (confirmation bias) and unfortunately, "net neutrality" is an ideological divide with the Republican/conservatives against it because;

    1 - They always oppose anything Obama is for, regardless of how good it is for the country and consumer.

    2 - The political right is pro-corporation to an extent where they will support them, even if it harms their own members.

    3 - "Another clue to the Republican leaders' true intentions is their citation of a thoroughly debunked "study" from the so-called Progressive Policy Institute. In the study, PPI falsely claimed that Title II could lead to as much as $15 billion in new taxes on Internet users. The recent reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act killed any such threat. (Sen. Ron Wyden called PPI's claims "baloney.") But thanks to the cable lobby, the Wall Street Journal and noted progressive Grover Norquist, this zombie lie keeps coming back to life". - source

    Also see: Congress Puts to Rest the Great Internet Tax Hoax of 2014
    The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about.
    This isn't good for the nation.

    And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided.

    From your cite.
    WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.

    This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.

    The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.


    Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

    There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #63
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about.
    This isn't good for the nation.

    And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided.

    From your cite.
    WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.

    This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.

    The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.


    Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

    There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
    She reads huffpo and other leftwing extreme sources. I've read them, but to see more of the story. Soemthing tells me Pax doesn't ever expand her news and information sources.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    The above is you engaging in partisan politics and not knowing what you are talking about. This isn't good for the nation. And what you cite as debunking does no such thing. I seriously doubt you even read what you provided.
    From your cite.WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, Congress passed the $1.1 trillion spending package, which includes a provision to extend a moratorium on local and state taxes for Internet sales and services. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), reauthorized through October 2015, bans states from imposing taxes on Internet access no matter how the FCC classifies it.This extension erases any concern that reclassifying Internet-access services under Title II of the Communications Act could lead to a new tax burden on consumers.The above claim is nonsense as it is irrelevant to what has been provided in these multiple threads.Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?
    There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
    `
    I have no idea what you are talking about....but have a good day.

  5. #65
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    I have no idea what you are talking about....but have a good day.

    No, you had no idea what you are talking about, as shown. You were wrong.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,855

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Do you understand the difference between local State and Federal?

    There will be a Federal "required" tax/fee which is currently set at 16.1%.
    There might be such a tax at 16.1%, or it might be set at 0.0% or 145%.

  7. #67

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    What do you expect from a politically given administration with its own agenda.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    No, you had no idea what you are talking about, as shown. You were wrong.
    `

  9. #69
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    There might be such a tax at 16.1%, or it might be set at 0.0% or 145%.
    Wrong.
    The fee/tax is currently set at 16.1.
    That means that is what currently would be charged.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #70
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    Yes, your comments are funny and still wrong as shown.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •