And we should have municipal broadband in more places.. then the free market and NN wouldn’t be an issue!
<hides>
<hides>
Disney Sets Deal To Acquire Most Of Fox, A Game-Changing Deal That Will Redraw Hollywood Landscape
- Thread starter osu1991
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 111
- Views 7K
Just curious why the belief that internet should be something provided by the government? The best way for the consumer to protect themselves is to not subscribe to a service that they feel is not meeting their needs for the value. This may require some changes, and might even humble Disney after this purchase, but the fact of the matter is the internet is a tool that is not necessary. That means if people really do not like who is providing it, there are plenty of ways to adapt, including seeing shared connections, new business created in mom and pop, stress put on local politicians not working in benefit of their constituents, and maybe, just maybe, more people reading books and one on one time. I see more positives to this, that the fear mongering is just that. Baseless.
I’ll play.. and even be respectful in the process because you probably wont agree with me anyways... I don’t agree that Internet is optional and something most people can go without.. especially since so many things are done online from job applications, communications, entertainment, finances, etc.. so I’ll start with that premise.
If you want to depend on free market, which is fine by the way, people have to have another choice in providers. In many cases, that choice just isn’t there. I have 2 options.. spectrum and junky DSL from frontier. IF Spectrum tried some funny business, I really have no other option if I want to switch.. unless I want inferior DSL (sorry for those of you that only have DSL).
Look at google fiber. ISPs sued left and right to stop that deployment. Even went to the extreme of preventing them from running fiber to tho the utility poles. I’ll try to find a source on that if u don’t believe me. (And google is far from a municipality)
So to me, having more choice is awesome. If I don’t want to go with a municipal broadband provider, you have the choice to choose someone else. At the very least, it’ll keep the larger ISPs honest, so everyone wins.
This thread has nothing to do with Dish. Why is it here in the first place? MAGA
You have two additional providers to choose from. You have HughesNet and Viasat. You talk about things like job applications, well, good thing there is almost certainly no effect it will have on that. Same with finanaces. You have alternative to entertainment. We are on a forum dedicated to one of those. Again, internet is not a requirement. It is a desire, a luxury. And the free market will let the big guys who think they are too big to fail, fail because they prey on folks such as yourself, that deem it a necessity at any price. NN is not the answer. Consumerism is.
Appears to be regressing into yet another mumbo jumbo thread about net neutrality, something that's already been done to death on here. That's not evolving or progressing, it's re-hashing, and has nothing to do with the intent of the thread.
I disagree as a large portion of the acquisition is the online streaming, specifically Hulu. I think this is a natural evolution since that would be directly affected.
Everyone remembers the Internet was built by the government with tax revenue to begin with right?
Nah, he only invented it. The work of building it was sub-contracted out.I thought it was built by Al Gore.
The internet was built by the military (DOD) back in the 60's to link some networks among defense contractors including universities.
It was so successful that it had to be split into two pieces, one military and one non-military.
Soon IP protocols allowed for there to be thousands of networks and the internet was born uncontrolled except for things like assignment of IP addresses.
The old government protocols were too slow and soon died out and companies like AT&T and Sprint began building faster and faster networks and connections (with no government involvement).
"Net neutrality" is really designed to force cable companies and internet providers to bow to the likes of Amazon, Netflix and Google. They lobbied the democrats on the FCC (BRIBED) to prevent internet providers from differentiating between different types of data - which really is a BAD thing since some types of data need faster broader bandwidth and some do not.
If their plans had gone through to the end game we all would be getting one speed of internet (SLOW) for the same price and nothing woud work like it does now - the internet would ne neutral - the same for everybody - I DON'T WANT THAT - if I can afford faster internet I want to be able to buy it.
Net neutrality would prevent providers from having tiers of service where video (which needs broader bandwidth an faster connections) would work better and putting less data hogging data like email on a slower boat from china. It is more important that your video gets through without buffering than it is for an email to be delayed a second or two.
Net neutrality puts all data on the same boat and therefore slows everything down. It was the impositiyo og controls where none were needed and where none were wanted and was sold as a bill of goods by claiming it would do exactly the opposite of what it would have really done and the geeks in the basement fell for the LIE!
We don't really want that, now do we.
It was so successful that it had to be split into two pieces, one military and one non-military.
Soon IP protocols allowed for there to be thousands of networks and the internet was born uncontrolled except for things like assignment of IP addresses.
The old government protocols were too slow and soon died out and companies like AT&T and Sprint began building faster and faster networks and connections (with no government involvement).
"Net neutrality" is really designed to force cable companies and internet providers to bow to the likes of Amazon, Netflix and Google. They lobbied the democrats on the FCC (BRIBED) to prevent internet providers from differentiating between different types of data - which really is a BAD thing since some types of data need faster broader bandwidth and some do not.
If their plans had gone through to the end game we all would be getting one speed of internet (SLOW) for the same price and nothing woud work like it does now - the internet would ne neutral - the same for everybody - I DON'T WANT THAT - if I can afford faster internet I want to be able to buy it.
Net neutrality would prevent providers from having tiers of service where video (which needs broader bandwidth an faster connections) would work better and putting less data hogging data like email on a slower boat from china. It is more important that your video gets through without buffering than it is for an email to be delayed a second or two.
Net neutrality puts all data on the same boat and therefore slows everything down. It was the impositiyo og controls where none were needed and where none were wanted and was sold as a bill of goods by claiming it would do exactly the opposite of what it would have really done and the geeks in the basement fell for the LIE!
We don't really want that, now do we.
You lost me Jim. Let's take video. We pay for our bandwidth at home. The Big Boys like Netflix pay for their bandwidth too. Why is it even slightly reasonable for your ISP to start charging Netflix more (passed through to us of course) just because they provide the last few miles of the connection?
This is all about your ISP having complete control over what you do and sucking your wallet dry as well.
They also got a lot of subsidies to build out infrastructure... just like the phone company.
I already pay for access to their “last mile”. Charging for peering agreements is just double dipping.
And still their right to do so. If they want to tier their bandwidth, it would be the same as having “free long distance” or “caller ID” just like the phone companies.
Stadiums are heavily subsidized, but me as a tax payer does not get 50 yard line tickets for the price of nose bleed.
Stadiums are heavily subsidized, but me as a tax payer does not get 50 yard line tickets for the price of nose bleed.
Simply put yes you are correct....but
One is deemed a utility(or necessity) and the other is for entertainment....Just like gas, or electricity.
