Quick, tell me how you actually read the whole article and didn't just overact because you don't like anything a Dem does.  :thumbsup:

 

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat, argued that even if broadband firms are required to contribute, there are no plans to increase the annual size of the fund. That means the cost simply would be spread among more customers, and in many cases a new broadband fee would be offset by a lower fee on a consumer's phone bill.

 

Yep, and if you like your cheap 'net you can keep your cheap 'net.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yep, and if you like your cheap 'net you can keep your cheap 'net.

Fabricating quotes now? Your confirmation bias is showing.  :thumbsup:

---

Fabricating quotes now? Your confirmation bias is showing.  :thumbsup:

 

I'm the one shown right (again) by your government's behavior. But let's not let facts intrude on the discourse.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm the one shown right (again) by your government's behavior. But let's not let facts intrude on the discourse.

If coming up with conjecture based purely on something that has not happened, all the while ignoring the context of the article to confirm your bias, in your mind, proves you correct, than well.... I feel sorry for you. 

 

You're not so veiled attempt at a personal attack is adorable but feel free to keep attacking if it helps you get over a dem being the president. Anytime a dem does or says anything it makes you beyond angry. Why is that? If you don't want this government of all citizens of the US to be your government than by all means enjoy one of the others around the world. 

---

If coming up with conjecture based purely on something that has not happened, all the while ignoring the context of the article to confirm your bias, in your mind, proves you correct, than well.... I feel sorry for you.


You're not so veiled attempt at a personal attack is adorable but feel free to keep attacking if it helps you get over a dem being the president. Anytime a dem does or says anything it makes you beyond angry. Why is that? If you don't want this government of all citizens of the US to be your government than by all means enjoy one of the others around the world.

I don't even consider Obama a democrat. JFK was a democrat, Obama is a globalist just like McCain, the Bushes, and Clinton's.

---

If coming up with conjecture based purely on something that has not happened, all the while ignoring the context of the article to confirm your bias, in your mind, proves you correct, than well.... I feel sorry for you. 

 

You're not so veiled attempt at a personal attack is adorable but feel free to keep attacking if it helps you get over a dem being the president. Anytime a dem does or says anything it makes you beyond angry. Why is that? If you don't want this government of all citizens of the US to be your government than by all means enjoy one of the others around the world. 

 

Yep, using noted right wing propaganda machine The LA Times to create conjecture. Just accept that once again government intrusion is going to result in regulation, taxation, and expansion of government powers, you'll feel much better when all that cognitive dissonance dissipates.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yep, using noted right wing propaganda machine The LA Times to create conjecture. Just accept that once again government intrusion is going to result in regulation, taxation, and expansion of government powers, you'll feel much better when all that cognitive dissonance dissipates.

I know trying to explain this is a waste of time but here goes. The source is irrelevant. You think its a gotcha moment because you still don't understand the meaning of net neutrality and then cherry picked a segment of the article and used that without providing the rest of the context. I posted that context and you ignored it.

---

I don't even consider Obama a democrat. JFK was a democrat, Obama is a globalist just like McCain, the Bushes, and Clinton's.

He's the new age democrat same as the warmongering super republicans. They do enough to draw the base. I.E. gay rights and anti gay rights. Science and religion. Divide and conquer. It works as evidenced by Mr I have to win at all costs and everything they do is evil above.

---

He's the new age democrat same as the warmongering super republicans. They do enough to draw the base. I.E. gay rights and anti gay rights. Science and religion. Divide and conquer. It works as evidenced by Mr I have to win at all costs and everything they do is evil above.

 

You do realize that they already do what the article states they are going to do?

 

"The FCC sets the size of the fund, and the size has been increasing almost every year as the focus has shifted from providing phone service to providing Internet access to those without it. The fund has grown about 47% since 2004.

In December, the agency approved a $1.5-billion annual increase in the amount the fund can spend to help boost high-speed online services for schools and libraries under the E-rate program."

 

For you to go on about context you sure aren't reading any. Here's your context: net neutrality is opening a new revenue stream by allowing the government to tax internet service using an already existing and rapidly expanding regulatory fund.

 

If you believe that lawmakers will see this revenue stream and fail to capitalize on it then you aren't paying attention. And that's any law makers, quit going on about the Democrats, the others are just as likely to use it. That's why keeping the Feds entirely out of such things is so important, because they ALL take advantage of the citizenry.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You do realize that they already do what the article states they are going to do?

 

"The FCC sets the size of the fund, and the size has been increasing almost every year as the focus has shifted from providing phone service to providing Internet access to those without it. The fund has grown about 47% since 2004.

In December, the agency approved a $1.5-billion annual increase in the amount the fund can spend to help boost high-speed online services for schools and libraries under the E-rate program."

 

For you to go on about context you sure aren't reading any. Here's your context: net neutrality is opening a new revenue stream by allowing the government to tax internet service using an already existing and rapidly expanding regulatory fund.

 

If you believe that lawmakers will see this revenue stream and fail to capitalize on it then you aren't paying attention. And that's any law makers, quit going on about the Democrats, the others are just as likely to use it. That's why keeping the Feds entirely out of such things is so important, because they ALL take advantage of the citizenry.

 

And a corporate America unfettered by regulation NEVER exploits the citizenry.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You do realize that they already do what the article states they are going to do?


"The FCC sets the size of the fund, and the size has been increasing almost every year as the focus has shifted from providing phone service to providing Internet access to those without it. The fund has grown about 47% since 2004.

In December, the agency approved a $1.5-billion annual increase in the amount the fund can spend to help boost high-speed online services for schools and libraries under the E-rate program."


For you to go on about context you sure aren't reading any. Here's your context: net neutrality is opening a new revenue stream by allowing the government to tax internet service using an already existing and rapidly expanding regulatory fund.


If you believe that lawmakers will see this revenue stream and fail to capitalize on it then you aren't paying attention. And that's any law makers, quit going on about the Democrats, the others are just as likely to use it. That's why keeping the Feds entirely out of such things is so important, because they ALL take advantage of the citizenry.

Oh so it's a good thing then. Internet is necessary for modern life and this is aiding under served areas get internet since glorious free market isnt doing it? Sounds good to me. The companies could be covering this cost but nah they forward it to us and I'm OK with that. It also notes fees will shift from my phone service. Win/win to me.

---

And a corporate America unfettered by regulation NEVER exploits the citizenry.

The idea that government is incompetent is just corporate propaganda aimed at shifting public support towards deregulation. Success in business is measured in dollars gained--not people served. Regulation is an impediment to making money. These huge multinationals want to exploit, exploit, exploit. Read a people's history of the U.S. by Zinn and you will see just how monstrous industry used to be here before regulations became enforced. I mean it still happens in other parts of the world. Why do you think things are so cheap at Walmart? How can iPhones be priced so competively? Because labor is being exploited in places like China.


Anyways,

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/tom-wheeler-tells-cable-industry-to-stop-complaining-start-competing/'>http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/tom-wheeler-tells-cable-industry-to-stop-complaining-start-competing/</a>

---

The idea that government is incompetent is just corporate propaganda aimed at shifting public support towards deregulation. Success in business is measured in dollars gained--not people served. Regulation is an impediment to making money. These huge multinationals want to exploit, exploit, exploit. Read a people's history of the U.S. by Zinn and you will see just how monstrous industry used to be here before regulations became enforced. I mean it still happens in other parts of the world. Why do you think things are so cheap at Walmart? How can iPhones be priced so competively? Because labor is being exploited in places like China.


Anyways,

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/tom-wheeler-tells-cable-industry-to-stop-complaining-start-competing/'>http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/tom-wheeler-tells-cable-industry-to-stop-complaining-start-competing/</a>

 

Bernie - is that you?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

And a corporate America unfettered by regulation NEVER exploits the citizenry.

 

Corporate America doesn't have the use of force. Government does. If you don't like (say) Comcast, move to a place that has something else, or start a competitor by teaming up with like-minded people.


 

I do recognize that government sometimes provides the force for corporations. That is more the fault of government. Corporations also can't force government to ally with them, and a government that has very little power will not be bought.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The idea that government is incompetent is just corporate propaganda ...

 

Those veterans who died waiting for government run health care might disagree.


 

Even you might agree that spending a trillion dollars in Iraq after estimating the war cost at $60B is incompetent.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Corporate America doesn't have the use of force. Government does. If you don't like (say) Comcast, move to a place that has something else, or start a competitor by teaming up with like-minded people.


 

I do recognize that government sometimes provides the force for corporations. That is more the fault of government. Corporations also can't force government to ally with them, and a government that has very little power will not be bought.

 

Yes, because we all know moving is always an option when you don't like dealing with a company and you have limited choice   

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Yes, because we all know moving is always an option when you don't like dealing with a company and you have limited choice

Your limited options doesn't mean government intervention is a sound idea.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Your limited options doesn't mean government intervention is a sound idea.

Actually it does. Comcast is practically a monopoly. The government could make the cable owned by the public, and then break up Comcast, then there would be an easier opening for rival companies to enter the market.


With more companies comes more competition. And then we'd have a free market.


You got to think these things through. The mantra that government is always bad is causing you to not think freely for yourself.

---

Actually it does. Comcast is practically a monopoly. The government could make the cable owned by the public, and then break up Comcast, then there would be an easier opening for rival companies to enter the market.


With more companies comes more competition. And then we'd have a free market.


You got to think these things through. The mantra that government is always bad is causing you to not think freely for yourself.

 

Comcast is a monopoly because the government protects it from competition.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yes, because we all know moving is always an option when you don't like dealing with a company and you have limited choice   

 

If the problem is small enough that moving is not a viable option, then the problem is too small for government to intervene with their guns.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"