esmith
Veteran Member
When was the last time you observed zero new mandates when government gets involved in something? Don't be surprised when the dust settles you will see a new "tax" imposed on your internet bill.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Wall Street Journal Upset That Wall Street Isn't Upset About Net Neutrality"
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
esmith
Veteran Member
Government involved.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's already involved.
They're ramping up their involvement.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Because Comcast and crew aren't satisfied with making a ton of money from internet subscriptions and want more money by being able to dictate which web sites can be viewed at which surfing speeds.
I've no problem with them making a ton of money. But I ditched them for AT&T (whom I've also ditched in the past.) I'd like to ditch our government too, but they don't allow competition....we're stuck with those murderous thieving b******s.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sometimes this just has to be or should be done. As I've mentioned before, I don't trust government, but I trust corporations even less.
This just isn't one of those times where increased regulation offers potential benefit.
But it does have great potential costs, eg, taxation, restrictions.
Do you even know what's in the new regs?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, I disagree. There's no reason why you and I need slower or more limited internet speed so as corporations and the wealthy can have faster. IOW, there's simply no reason for inequality in this area, imo.
What's in the new regs?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Other than the issue of neutrality, I don't know.
This is one of the big problems I see.....those who trust government so much will allow the imposition of regulations & laws which will not be known until we're already subject to them (eg, Obamacare). We don't have an internet problem now. But government loves things like taxes, censorship, bureaucracy, the ability to threaten withholding services, & surveillance. There's an old farmer's addage...if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
First of all, the part I've been talking about was only dealing with net neutrality, not what else may or may not be in the bill. Secondly, the position the government is taking is to actually adhere to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Government's position is to impose new regulations.
FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules For 'Open Internet' : The Two-Way : NPR
I'd prefer to see them exit.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't, and it appears that I much more favor equality between people than you do.
Yer darn toot'n!I don't, and it appears that I much more favor equality between people than you do.
A government imposed equality of outcome requires a whole lot of authority over us.
You might be comfortable with that, but I bristle at the many things which government loves to impose.
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I disagree with you there. I persompnally would prefer paying a tax to have the same internet ip have now versus being told by Walmart what I can see when I google groceries, clothes, home items, yard equip,
Mint, etc. which is to say I don't really care for either, but I do see the lesser of the two evils.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As do I, but I believe one role that a democratic government should have is to try and create a relatively level playing field as much as possible, and net neutrality does just that. For example, if I'm much wealthier than you, should I be able to buy more than one opportunity to vote in an election?
It is not only the Constitution that establishes the rules we play under, but also laws. Therefore, regulatory laws are not implicitly evil any more than one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is.
OTOH, bad laws are "evil", and giving the wealthy and businesses greater access to speed on a system that was designed to benefit all as relative equals is to bastardize why the system was created in the first place, imo. Either way, the government really had no choice to get involved one way or the other, and not getting involved in this case is actually getting involved, if you know what I mean.
Wallmart tells you what you can see?
I've never had that problem.
I don't want to give government more power over us just to keep Wallmart at bay.