Wow I was just about to post that I didn't like the decision, because it feels like an infringement on one of our last uncensored means of communication. And the message disappeared
it just poofed.

And I didn't like his line about there should be free access for all to any legal site (or something close to that) but the "legal site" worried me who is going to be judging what's legal?

My favorite comment from a similar article:

"Sure, heard it all before...... "If you like your internet, you can keep your internet."

Do not believe ANYTHING the lying POS POTUS says. Ever."

1 - because finland has collapsed into financial ruin and the telecom industry is dead after they made internet access a human right
2 - it's already been paid for by consumers and i'm not interested in getting into your bizarre grocery store/apple analogies again
3 - innovation and competition was dead for a long time (slight exaggeration here) because there was no reason to make things better when you've got a good incoming revenue stream and the big guys stay out of each others territories. luckily for the consumer, google triggered a technological arms race and now you've got the big guys scrambling about to make sure they don't lose their customers for the shitty service they provide
4 - the government does not decide the pricing plans of the products/services that businesses offer

again i must ask you, do you have a job? i know you don't like answering it but the impression i've had so far is that you haven't had any real life experiences on the job because everything you claim just seems so far detached from reality


ty for supporting my paycheck

So because one of the most well-off countries in the world didn't collapse in the very short term it means the US government reclassifying our internet and banning forms of innovation and payment for overused services wont have serious problems, and we shouldn't be worried about it?
That is not a valid argument.


You act as if it was a one time cost and now there is free and perfect internet for anyone who wants it if not for the evil internet companies.
THAT is detached from reality. There are very real costs and concerns that are still in play. Further innovation will require even more investment.
Changing it to a public utility, adding massive regulations, and banning all kinds of potential specialized services and revenue options will discourage that potential investment and innovation.

No analogies because it obliterated your argument. Noted.



Innovation being too slow for your tastes means its a good idea to put up more barriers and large disincentives/bans on innovation?
They should be encouraging competition, not mandating stasis. (Stasis which won't even happen because its a massive change and government is inept)


There is no reason to make things better if you have a good revenue stream? How ridiculous.
And you dare accuse others of detachment from reality? You have no significant grasp of business or economics whatsoever.

If we made google a public utility and banned them from charging specific people for better services/goods do you think they'd be triggering technological arms races and innovation to the same degree?
Thats a rhetorical question. The answer is a resounding NO



The companies operate in the real word, Where there is cause and effect. When you disallow a company from charging a Netflix or Skype more for taking up massive bandwidth, it STILL has to be paid for. There is no free lunch. The costs will be passed on to others.
You advocate making my grandmother pay more for internet so Netflix can have higher profit margins. Bravo.



and we're back to "hey my arguments cant hold up on their own. i cant prove you wrong or properly address your points so ill ad hom you"

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 10 2014 12:32pm

you work for one of them lol?

been working in the industry since 2008, hopping around between different companies while i was a student, been working full time since 2010



just going to stop here and ask you

whyyyyy the hell do you keep saying stuff like this?

~also the point on lack of innovation wasn't based on revenue streams, it's based on lack of competition which i mentioned in the quote there

This post was edited by duffman316 on Nov 10 2014 12:42pm

they say the pay isn't that bad, I learned a lot about computers and networks as I was going into the IT world but atm I'm in law enforcement.

i'm always complaining about the pay but yes it is good i suppose

Here Comcast techs level 6 make a little over $25 a hour I think

it's a more a question of how the cost of living compares tbh, can't say whether 25 is high/low