Abbot says he will sign OC bill.

[TheDan]

Good luck doing much of anything in modern society if your internet provider can decide what content and what websites you're allowed to visit and how fast or slow they feel like letting it download. Kind of like your power company determining what brands of appliances work with their electricity and when you can or can't use it

Nothing forces you to use a certain provider, except for when the government creates a monopoly. More government regulation is not a solution to existing problems caused by government regulation.

Actually no. If you oppose net neutrality, then you don't understand how internet service works. Or you have a way to make lots of money off interfering with someone else's business.

Splain it to me please.

 

[breakingcontact]

Splain it to me please.

I don't really understand net neutrality.

I'm just going with what TheDan and Ted Cruz tell me.

 

[navyguy]

I'll attempt to explain it.... it is government intervention. Some say it's good... most conservatives say its more government trying to dictate what business, and to some extent individuals do, Large internet users such as AT&T, Verizon and countless others pay MORE for higher band width, and so doing, cause smaller users to have smaller band width. Net neutrality would dictate that no matter what a company paid, they would not get a better band width. While that would seem like a good deal for the small guy, it really isn't. If your internet provider isn't allowed pay for more bandwidth (out of their profits) to provide a faster signal to you, the consumer get's screwed. It would be like saying Krogers grocery store should not be able to buy meat or butter or whatever for less than what they charge you.

 

[Recoil45]

That's not the explanation many are giving.

Most are claiming Net Neutrality is to stop a Cable company like Time Warner from blocking or slowing access to an Internet service like Netflix for their internet subscribers.

I have no idea what the truth is. I do know whenever the government gets involved, I get screwed.

 

[jonpac07]

sign it!

 

[London]

Actually no. If you oppose net neutrality, then you understand letting the FCC muscle its way into internet service is going to result in huge infringements on free speech, as well as redefine internet service as a public utility taxable at 12% and subject to government control in times of emergency

Fify.

 

[poolingmyignorance]

I'll attempt to explain it.... it is government intervention. Some say it's good... most conservatives say its more government trying to dictate what business, and to some extent individuals do, Large internet users such as AT&T, Verizon and countless others pay MORE for higher band width, and so doing, cause smaller users to have smaller band width. Net neutrality would dictate that no matter what a company paid, they would not get a better band width. While that would seem like a good deal for the small guy, it really isn't. If your internet provider isn't allowed pay for more bandwidth (out of their profits) to provide a faster signal to you, the consumer get's screwed. It would be like saying Krogers grocery store should not be able to buy meat or butter or whatever for less than what they charge you.

Or it means thar liberal owned companies like time Warner, clear channel, um well all of them could make sites like this and say anything else they find undesirable, virtually unable to access. But it's not like liberals to use subversive tactics to impose their agenda.

 

[Fisherman777]

Opinions on this article? RINO Strauss Article Click Here

 

[bignic83]

Geez, how many different subjects in one thread! First off, I am from a northern "nanny state". Don't EVER allow that to happen here. Not all northerners are liberals, just like everywhere else they are usually contained in the urban areas. I was so happy to escape here to Texas, we need to stick together and help push these laws through. Vote, Vote, Vote to keep the anti gun establishment out. Once they gain a foothold, it's almost impossible to get rid of them.

 

[breakingcontact]

Geez, how many different subjects in one thread!

You must be new here.

 

[Younggun]

You must be new here.

My first thought as well, lol.

 

[Southpaw]

Or it means thar liberal owned companies like time Warner, clear channel, um well all of them could make sites like this and say anything else they find undesirable, virtually unable to access. But it's not like liberals to use subversive tactics to impose their agenda.

i would rather take my chances with and business away from a liberal owned company operating under a certain agenda then a government doing the same.

Oh yeah.. Joe Straus has got to go!!

 

[poolingmyignorance]

i would rather take my chances with and business away from a liberal owned company operating under a certain agenda then a government doing the same.

Oh yeah.. Joe Straus has got to go!!

Why? You cannot appeals private corporation decision. Do you recall how much luck Daniel defense had with their super bowl ad? Guys like us can't dent mega media corps pockets enough to let the free market dictate what we want to view. We need the FCC to stay off the net and meet neutrality to keep it free. I'm a libertarian and feel that this is one of the very few places where some government intervention might not be the worst idea. Unless you have an example of how this could back fire?

 

[roadkill]

Can you give me one example where govt intervention/regulation has been a good thing and brought about the desired results of said intervention/regulation?

 

[Southpaw]

Why? You cannot appeals private corporation decision. Do you recall how much luck Daniel defense had with their super bowl ad? Guys like us can't dent mega media corps pockets enough to let the free market dictate what we want to view. We need the FCC to stay off the net and meet neutrality to keep it free. I'm a libertarian and feel that this is one of the very few places where some government intervention might not be the worst idea. Unless you have an example of how this could back fire?

I suppose that with government involvement and the making of Internet service a utility, it could degrade service for those who can afford to pay in order to provide the utility to those that can't afford it. Much like electric or phone service.


Also, I support open carry.

 

[Whistler]

I'm all for net neutrality however I view this as a power play to assume government control by classifying the Internet a public utility. The resulting taxation, regulation and general bureaucracy would not benefit competition and would impose a government definition of "neutrality". Simple unencumbered legislation to minimize monopolistic behavior can be achieved without allowing the government full ownership/control.

There is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...hind-in-internet-speed-and-affordability.html however I see this plan by the POTUS to be a cover for furthering the goal of socialistic control of critical resources, especially considering the consolidation of traditional media minimizing "free press" discourse.

 

[London]

If you guys think the potential for liberal-owned companies to deny internet free speech is bad, wait 'till you see what the FCC will do.