Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Net Neutrality: Red vs. Blue


Spirit

Recommended Posts

So, maybe some of the AW members that are smarter than I am (all of you?) can clue me into what the hubbub is about.  Why are some people so wrapped around the axel on this?  Is net neutrality not good?  Is that not what we all want?  Is that not what the POTUS is advocating for?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would have to wonder why he didn't do this a few weeks ago.  Might have made a difference for a few of the closer races.

Maybe the opposite. Could have been some Dems who had been purchased by companies wanting the new rules. If they aren't wearing their NACSAR jumpsuits you never know who all their sponsors might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the president doing something positive affects local elections then I think that is another problem with our country.

 

Are you kidding?  The mid-terms are almost always about the president.  Also, I don't think I would characterize senatorial and house races as "local" elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, maybe some of the AW members that are smarter than I am (all of you?) can clue me into what the hubbub is about.  Why are some people so wrapped around the axel on this?  Is net neutrality not good?  Is that not what we all want?  Is that not what the POTUS is advocating for?  

 

I think, and I'm probably wrong here.  But the telecoms like Verizon, ATT, Time Warner etc wanted to be able to limit the use on web access.  you go over so so a month, and they can throttle you down.  Also, Verizon, ATT, Time Warner etc wanted to charge say Netflix a $$ amount to make sure that their content streamed at top speed.  If websites did not pay the providers, they would put them in the slow lane.  

 

In other words, if net neutrality didn't go through and the telecoms won.  The After Dark section would load a lot slower.  That alone should make you vote for net neutrality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, and I'm probably wrong here.  But the telecoms like Verizon, ATT, Time Warner etc wanted to be able to limit the use on web access.  you go over so so a month, and they can throttle you down.  Also, Verizon, ATT, Time Warner etc wanted to charge say Netflix a $$ amount to make sure that their content streamed at top speed.  If websites did not pay the providers, they would put them in the slow lane.  

 

 

 

So, that's what I thought it was.  So why would Cons (see the comments at the end of that article) be all pissed off that Obama is saying he wants to keep Net Neutrality in place?  (Other than because they hate everything he does, of course.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, that's what I thought it was.  So why would Cons (see the comments at the end of that article) be all pissed off that Obama is saying he wants to keep Net Neutrality in place?  (Other than because they hate everything he does, of course.)

Because telecoms are paying them perfectly good money to get it changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because telecoms are paying them perfectly good money to get it changed.

 

 

I totally get why some corporations and telecoms are pissed.

 

But Cons (who would claim to support net neutrality) are pissed at Obama for supporting net neutrality because ... well ... because he's Obama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get why some corporations and telecoms are pissed.

 

But Cons (who would claim to support net neutrality) are pissed at Obama for supporting net neutrality because ... well ... because he's Obama?

 

Pretty much, because (1) they are stupid and (2) a lot of people aren't totally clear on what the issues are and what each position is calling themselves.

Edited by mtangelsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much, because (a) they are stupid and ( B) a lot of people aren't totally clear on what the issues are and what each position is calling themselves.

 

This is like Prop 8.  most people didn't know if voting yes meant it was for giving gays the right to marry.  Or if it was voting yes meant no you can't marry.

 

Net Neutrality, people don't know if being for Net neutrality means a neutral net, or for Net Neutrality means in favor of a new set of rules that the FCC is considering.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get why some corporations and telecoms are pissed.

 

But Cons (who would claim to support net neutrality) are pissed at Obama for supporting net neutrality because ... well ... because he's Obama?

I don't believe they support net neutrality. They get a ton of money from the industries who want to end it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone needs to come up with a simple ad campaign that says something like "net neutrality means using the internet will continue to be a free service instead of a pay service."

 

i'm guessing most people don't really know what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a serious note, the president could still make a big difference if he were to become a president who was concerned about personal freedoms.  Order his new AG to stop fighting in court for wireless searches.  Order the FBI chief to do the same.  Be the head person and voice to demiliterize the police and to stop civil forfeitures in their tracks.  Stop the actions of recidivism, close Gitmo for good and stop executing U.S. citizens without a trial.

 

That would be a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Presidential Seal>

<Switch to the POTUS in Oval Office>

"My fellow Americans, I speak to you tonight to protect what is most important in our lives. Porn. Without Net Neutrality, your feed may stutter or even stop right before you are able to nut. Nobody wants that. Except for Republicans. They want you holding a limp member while sitting there disappointed staring at a buffering notification. But I will not stand for that. Americans deserve better and stand behind them. Thank you and may God bless the United States of America. Good night.

<Fade to black>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...