Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?

[buttslinger]

ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money....[/CENTER]

Don’t kid yourself. Poverty and inequality expanded under Obama.

Yeah, in states with Republican Governors.
Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
I was really shocked when I first heard that Republicans didn't like being talked down to.
It's a debate!! Don't take it personally that Bush wrecked the economy of the entire world!!
Hannity does nothing but trash liberals. Like a child would.
Look at any Trump Rally.
How can you think anything but "white trash?"
Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight
Hillary lost in part because Conservative Media has targeted her ENEMY NUMBER ONE for twenty years.

Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
I disagree. It was the racists.
I hear where you're coming from, all my Mom's family live down South, and if I grew up and lived there I would probably agree 100% to everything you say. PRIDE can be a tough sin to swallow.

I confess I have no idea how net neutrality will affect my world or THE world. I'm pretty stupid. In fact I have a disability that limits the bloodflow to my brain.
But I do know that Trump is trying to undo everything Obama did not for Joe Sixpack, he's doing it for Daddy Warbucks.

Why don't you guys come down to the politics section?

[Torris]

Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?

Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

[MrFanti]

Quite a few Sanders supporters voted Trump instead of Hillary.
Democrats need to figure how to get those folks back too....

Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?

Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

[Stavros]

Re: Trump voters.

I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?
Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.

Presumably in the same way that Democrats who voted for Reagan switched back when they voted for Bill Clinton. The Democrats need candidates that inspire, that give hope, that have coherent policy alternatives.

[Stavros]

can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest

There are a number of conflicting issues here.
The basic principle behind net neutrality, as I understand it, is that a consumer should be able to access web content equally regardless of the number of times a site is visited and the bandwidth needed to access it. For example, under net neutrality it makes no difference to the cost of the service provided by the ISP if Dave in Spokane reads the main newspapers every day but only reads his friend John Doe's blog once a month.

Here are some of the arguments:
1) Increased revenue after the end of net neutrality will be used to invest in the service.
What the ISPs opposed to net neutrality want is to charge more for popular websites that eat up bandwidth adding to the cost of the service, if that is actually the case. In this way, the commercial gain from the increased revenue will pay for the ongoing investment in the service, a standard argument across industry but not one that is always realised in fact. Increased profits may just go to the senior execs in bonus payments or the shareholders/stockholders. What would investment look like? Capital expenditure on the basic infrastructure is so high it is hard to see Comcast or Verizon spending a Billion $ to open new lines to consumers in rural areas of Washington and Oregon.

2) Ending Net Neutrality will improve competition between rival ISPs
As has been pointed out in posts above, ending net neutrality does not increase competition if that is defined as the consumer having more ISPs to choose from, as the reality for most Americans is that such competition does not exist, the market being dominated by only a few companies with consumers unable to switch if they don't like the service from one, because the alternative ISP has no feed in that area.

3) Ending Net Neutrality is about monetizing clicks not offering a better service
The aim behind the end of net neutrality is to make more money from the internet, it is as simple as that. As flabbybody puts it -shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
It is a clever question, but it assumes that there is a coherent and fair way of grading internet content and that the system's consumption of speed/bandwidth and related issues should be the measures used to determine price.
This may be a valid technological point, but is it morally a fair one?
I don't use up bandwidth to play internet games, but I may check the BBC website and online newspapers every hour when I am awake and the original point I was making was that if the ISP uses/develops the software to monitor web browsing to estimate the commercial gain, and notes how many times a day I visit HungAngels, the end of net neutrality could, in theory (if I lived in the USA), lead them to ask me to pay more to visit this site rather than others even though I am already paying more for internet access in the USA than I do in the UK.

In the end it would not in fact be about the speeds or bandwidth but the choices consumers make. And people asked to pay for every site they visit may choose not to, either because they resent being asked to pay for something that used to be free, or because they can only afford a limited number of websites. This in turn may hurt the smaller independent owners of sites rather than the TV streaming or music-streaming sites. With no constant revenue coming in to help fund the content, independent performers of the kind we know on HungAngels would shut down.

One final point -some consumers may be complaining about slow speeds when it is their ageing computer that is at fault not the ISP; but my conclusion is that in the absence of real competition among ISPs in the USA, net neutrality protects the consumer, and ending it does not guarantee a better service for them, merely higher profits for corporations.

[Ben in LA]

Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.

Off-topic, but since many of those same “deplorables” are defending pedophiles such as Roy Moore and accused rapists such as trump himself, what SHOULD we call them?

Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight.

Oh and the rich conservatives are actually gonna help Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat with that “tax cut” and taking away their health insurance? How are those coal jobs coming? Who’s paying for that wall? Certainly not Mexico.

Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.

White trash DID help elect trump. So did voter suppression.

Oh...and using liberal as an insult? My thesaurus suggest these synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, easy-going, laissez-faire.

Ok, I must be a liberal. At least I didn’t vote for a narcissistic, xenophobic, Nazi-supporting, pedophile-defending liar who whines when he doesn’t get his way. Never thought I’d see an orange snowflake.

And back on topic: that extra money the ISPs will be making from the increased costs passed on to the customer will NOT go into improving the existing infrastructure; it’ll most likely go straight into their pockets or an off-shore account. Free-market, baby.

[giovanni_hotel]

Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.

Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.

Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.

Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.

[giovanni_hotel]

It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...

Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.

[MrFanti]

Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.

How many layers should the rules be? Look all the rules in North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union....
Britain wasn't too happy with the EU either....And the USA wasn't too happy with Britain in about 1776 or so....

[Ben in LA]

Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.