Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Should we have net neutrality?

Should we have net neutrality?

+2
othershoe1030
boards of FL
6 posters

Should we have net neutrality?

Should we have net neutrality? I_vote_lcap70%Should we have net neutrality? I_vote_rcap 70% [ 7 ]
Should we have net neutrality? I_vote_lcap30%Should we have net neutrality? I_vote_rcap 30% [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 10


Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Should we have net neutrality? Empty Should we have net neutrality? 8/7/2014, 12:01 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

I hate to see another regulatory bureaucracy set up that would probably be better served by a few common sense regulations and a level field. Stripping the service down to some notion of equal doesn't really reflect the way the market works... email doesn't equate with online gaming. But what I think we'll see is a burdensome/cumbersome system entrenched in govt controls... that will eventually be subject to censorship and content manipulations... for our own good of course. Just another progressive step... not a bellwether in itself.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

In an ideal world we would have up to date Internet access, not the third world hook ups we now have that sometimes remind me of dial up.

I am not in favor of a system that would allow communications companies ISP's or the government to set up various levels of service, fast for those who could pay and not so fast for everyone else.

One of the great things about the Internet as I understand it is that everyone is pretty much getting equal access. I sometimes suspect that ma-bell or whoever is the provider for my service, monkey's around with it at times when I'm trying in vain to get into a site I think they may not be crazy about. I don't want anyone favoring access to one site or another because slower access will discourage people from trying to get access.

Equal access also gives start-up companies the ability to compete against the ones who are already established.

boards of FL

boards of FL

We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that? Care to explain why?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

I didn't vote. The reason being that there has been some regulation... and there has already been some abuse (comcast).

There has to be a common sense solution... one that creates a level field... and allows private corps to compete with the product.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Yes, today it means something other than its original intent. The original intent was to make sure that each political party received the same air time to communicate their views.

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Yes, today it means something other than its original intent.  The original intent was to make sure that each political party received the same air time to communicate their views.

I think you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Yes, today it means something other than its original intent.  The original intent was to make sure that each political party received the same air time to communicate their views.



Actually, it never meant that. Tell your handlers to supply you with some fodder on the subject, because you embarrass yourself when you're off script, TelePrompTer-boy.


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Yes, today it means something other than its original intent.  The original intent was to make sure that each political party received the same air time to communicate their views.

I think you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine.

Quite true, I was wrong.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
Sal wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:We have one person who says we shouldn't have net neutrality?

Who was that?   Care to explain why?  

Simple, the perceived need for net neutrality came about when we had three TV stations and a limited number of radio stations.

Now we have THOUSANDS of each plus the internet.


I don't think "net neutrality" means what you think it means.

Yes, today it means something other than its original intent.  The original intent was to make sure that each political party received the same air time to communicate their views.

I think you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine.

Quite true, I was wrong.


So then you do support the concept of net neutrality?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Take your time now, Markle.  You may want to consult your handlers first so that they can tell you what your opinion is here.

After all, critical thought is outside of your scope.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Should we have net neutrality? Forrest


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle appears to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance here.


_________________
I approve this message.

16Should we have net neutrality? Empty Re: Should we have net neutrality? 8/15/2014, 11:00 am

Guest


Guest

He said he was wrong... that he had confused the terms. That's more than a smug asshole is capable of.

17Should we have net neutrality? Empty Re: Should we have net neutrality? 8/15/2014, 11:04 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:He said he was wrong... that he had confused the terms. That's more than a smug asshole is capable of.


Yes. We're past that now.

Now that Markle is on the correct page, I'm curious as to where he stands on net neutrality. Don't you find it a bit odd that Markle is unwilling to state his position on this? I don't at all, but do you?


_________________
I approve this message.

18Should we have net neutrality? Empty Re: Should we have net neutrality? 8/15/2014, 12:44 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

boards of FL wrote:

That was excellent. LOL..."Nutflix...you don't even know you want it; that's why it's brilliant..."

I already have a slow connection (AT&T). I upgraded it for a minute until the bill came and I found that the rate I was promised was not the rate I was charged. I also lose my wireless connection briefly several times a day. Yes...I've called tech support numerous times, but nothing really helps. I got rid of Cox because they were too expensive, had Dish but they cheated me, finally went to AT&T and here we are now. We have so few choices as it is, and everyone offers poor service. And, like Othershoe said, I sometimes feel that my searches are being monitored and possibly my service interrupted intentionally. Meanwhile, my bill is inching up every month. I pay almost twice what AT&T is offering as an introductory price to U-Verse. These people are also lobbying against cities who are trying to offer blanket broadband.

Dcat

Dcat

boards of FL wrote:

Thanks for posting this boards. I have heard the term "net neutrality" tossed about for many years without an understanding of what exactly it entails. Even after reading about the description in the wiki link, I still wasn't any closer to understanding it completely, and if I should be for or against it. The video while humorous was also educational and enlightening for me. And so I voted 'for' it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Last chance for Markle...


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Should we have net neutrality?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum