McCain comes out against Net Neutrality; Says would hire Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ly2, May 30, 2007.

  1. #1
    http://www.thedailybackground.com/2...-says-would-hire-microsoft-ceo-steve-ballmer/


    Very nice, round of applause for the idiot. He has already been bought and paid for and he's not even the president yet.
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  2. allout

    allout Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    461
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    340
    #2
    It does not surprise me, McCain was one of the good guys at one point but he decided to sell out to further his career. He is like a lot of politicians, bought and paid for in a nice neat package. Censorship of any sort should be fought against with the last breath of good Americans.
     
    allout, May 30, 2007 IP
  3. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #3
    I'm not so sure about net neutrality myself. Phone companies, etal made the infrastructure, shouldn't they be able to profit from it?

    I also don't think the government regulating the internet is a great idea. Instead of imagined censorship by the phone companies; you'll get actual real censorship by the government, much like what happens with TV. Is that really an improvement?

    It's not a real issue anyways. Repealing (or not renewing) the internet sales tax bandirectly affects far more businesses and consumers online.
     
    lorien1973, May 30, 2007 IP
  4. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #4
    Woah.
    Are you saying you are against net neutrality too?

    Lets take this slow, one thing at a time or my F'ing head will explode. When the hell is the internet sales tax need renewing?
    And I disagree about net neutrality not being as important as the internet sales tax, they are at least equally important.
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  5. akula

    akula Peon

    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Actually you paid for it. Phone companies, cable etc were mandated to asses a new tax and then use that money to upgrade the information backbone. If I remember correct it was like 75-90% of homes were suppose to have fibre to their curb by 2002 or 3...forget.

    In actuality they squandered and pocketed most of the money while never making the promised upgrades. So no I do not believe they should be able to profit on it at all.
     
    akula, May 30, 2007 IP
  6. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #6

    Oh yea, I totally forgot about that point ^^^
    They took billions in taxes. We should all have 50mbit connections right now. What DO we have? Dialup and DSL/Cable with 1.5 - 8mbit speeds. Oh yay.
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  7. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #7
    Next year, I think. There was an update on it recently. I don't believe states should be able to violate the constitution by imposing an internet sales tax. It impedes commerce between the states; but will that be challenged? Who knows.

    It shifts the tax burden from people to businesses. As current law exists (and always has existed), people who live in FL but buy something from CA are required to file a sales & use tax to pay the taxes on the purchase. Of course, no one does this. If an internet sales tax is imposed; businesses will file that for the customers, effectively adding 7-8% to all purchases online and that rate can vary from state to state, county to county. What a mess it'd create.

    Yes, I understand that our paying our bills pays for the infrastructure improvements; but by not allowing the people who own the lines to charge for use, how can future upgrades be made? What is the incentive to upgrade service, expand service if there is never a return on it.

    I'm saying I don't think we should hand over regulation of the internet to the government. Do you think that's a good idea? I sure don't. I think you need to back off from the "net neutrality" and look at this from a more complete angle - look at it from both a pro and con standpoint. There is a good case to be made either way. I think I'm on the free market side, as always, which would oppose government regulation.
     
    lorien1973, May 30, 2007 IP
  8. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #8
    It wouldn't create a mess, it would simply drive all the American buyers and sellers over seas to avoid the tax. America is getting very good at driving companies away, I'm sure they can tackle this one too. Of course, many smaller sites would be run out of business, but just so long as the politicians are getting that tax money, who cares, certainly not them ;)

    Depends on what you consider fair. You talk as though these companies are just barley getting by? They are making billions of dollars profit...

    But what's wrong with the way things are now? Everything is good, right? Why fix it if it's not broken. What the cable and phone companies want to do is basically break it and tell the small website owners to either pay a fee, or get degraded. It will be like the days of the closed AOL type internet all over again, only comcast and sprint will take AOL's place.
    We all know this internet won't last anyway. They will build a 2nd generation internet that can be monitored and regulated. You don't think they are going to allow us unfiltered freedom of information and news forever do you? China isn't backwards, they are just ahead of their time ;)
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  9. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #9
    How does this affect you? Are you upset they are making money? I don't get the "they are making profit" argument in this regard, against oil companies, walmart, or whoever.

    Exactly. Why impose government regulation where its not needed?

    You think this would operate outside the free market, don't you? If one company's fees are too high, another's would be lower. That's what competition is for, isn't it?

    What has no competition is when government steps in, regulates the internet, and decides what is acceptable content and what's not. The internet like TV; imagine the fines they could impose on sites for anything under the sun. That's not the internet I want.
     
    lorien1973, May 30, 2007 IP
  10. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #10
    No no no, I'm just saying, you acting like nobody is giving them a chance to make money. In reality they are making PLENTY of money and stealing PLENTY of billions worth of taxes and tax breaks. Meanwhile, we get nothing that was promised.


    Because the telcos want to do this and openly state they want to do it. I don't like the government anymore than most, but sometimes they are needed and this is one of those times.


    [/QUOTE]
    No, there will be no lower fee because just one or two companies control almost all of the infrastructure. If they are given free rain to do what they want, how will anyone offer lower fee's? The 'competitors' would have to rent the lines from the monopoly telco, you don't think the telco's will underbid themselves do you?


    The only way out of this without regulation is if Google takes all that darkfiber they have been buying up and creates a Google ISP. Now that's something I would like to see. But who knows if they will ever do that or not, nobody knows the reason behind them buying up the dark fiber, only time will tell. In the meantime, I want the telcos to leave my F'ing internet alone.
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  11. AGS

    AGS Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,543
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    265
    #11
    Who was that total BOZO that said the internet was a series of tubes? (or toobs in a US accent. :D)

    It wasn't "Insane McCain" was it?

    Whoever said it it always makes me giggle when I thing about it lol.
     
    AGS, May 30, 2007 IP
  12. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #12
    No, it was Ted Stevens.
    He also said the tubes were so clogged, it took 3days for his email to arrive. Said it was sent on Friday and didn't arrive till Monday. lmfao
    What a F'ing national embarrassment. Wow.
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  13. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #13
    That's the nature of taxes; and that's the government. I'll sum up your position for you.

    The government taxed us; said we'd get superfast internet connections and didn't monitor the situation. So they took our money and didn't give us what they promised.

    So you want to give the government more control over the infrastructure they failed to build (or have built) the first time; ensure it never gets improved because there is no profit motive; and give them power to regulate the content on the internet like they do TV.

    Awesome. Do you not see the issue here?

    If Telco's got tax breaks/incentives to build something they didn't built, that's not right. But compounding the issue by giving government more control isn't right either, is it?

    I'm just making the overall point, that "net neutrality" is just a buzz word. It's a deeper issue than people let on and is more insidious than people really think about.
     
    lorien1973, May 30, 2007 IP
  14. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #14

    We will agree to disagree then. I think the day the cable companies get the green light remove net neutrality will be a very dark day.
    You know, the government HAS done SOME things right in the past. Granted not many, but there are things here and there :)
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  15. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #15
    Wow, McCain actually said something that makes him appear to be on the right...wow..
     
    d16man, May 30, 2007 IP
  16. ly2

    ly2 Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Likes Received:
    222
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    #16
    He hasn't been feeling well all week :(
     
    ly2, May 30, 2007 IP
  17. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #17
    Perhaps. But I think you need to rethink your idea of a free market if you think that government regulation is a good way to go. It's a little worrying that you can't or won't look at the other side of this to see the issues with instituting regulation of this magnitude. Too many people jumped on the "net neutrality" bandwagon a few years back without realizing the implications. And I think those advocates still ignore the downside to it.
     
    lorien1973, May 30, 2007 IP
  18. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #18
    Must have been a slip-up. Have you listened to him talk lately? I think he is rapidly losing it. He sounds like a mouth full of marbles.

    Was the telco tax the one that they called the Gore tax because the Clinton administration found a loophole that allowed them to add a tax to everyone's phone bill without any legislative action? I think that one was focused on providing Internet access to schools.
     
    TechEvangelist, May 30, 2007 IP
  19. AGS

    AGS Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,543
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    265
    #19
    Ah righty.

    Every time I think about that quote I smile, the guy is a fookin star!

    Imagine if he was on Broadband Tech Support and you had a prob with your DSL or whatever, it would be a fooking riot hearing his diagnosis as to the problem! :D

    EDIT:

    I can imagine him now:

    "Sir, you need to disconnect your modem and blow down them tooooobs to clear the blockage" LMFAO!!!"
     
    AGS, May 30, 2007 IP
  20. akula

    akula Peon

    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    There is paying your bill for services rendered then there is a tax or extra charge on top of the bill to go directly (supposedly) to upgrading an infrastructure of the US communication network. Just because you may not have notice it does not mean that they didn't collected billions of dollars that was then suppose to go directly into upgrades........still waiting.
     
    akula, May 30, 2007 IP