New Yorker: "A Clear Violation of Obama's Promise"

[merrily]

201. "So is net neutrality worth losing tiers, and thus upgrades?" Yes. As YOU said, NN is the ideal.

Besides, the meme that service will be bad with NN is something someone made up. The market forces that conservatives are always trying to protect do, after all, have some impact. So does regulation, if used for the benefit of something other than big business. Oh, and phone companies somehow manage to have tiers (unfortunately).

We have TV tiers now, and people have to pay hundreds of dollars a month to get the best. That's what you want for consumers of broadband? Tiers? Tough on poorer people and good stuff for the rich in yet another form?

And that overlooks the people who have to pay more and more for access to internet. That's never going to cause a problem for consumers, especially poorer ones right? (I have a feeling that is the myth that Wheeler is trying to sell--no impact on consumers because broadband providers will only raised prices on people who want to put entertainment and other things on the net for consumers to see.)

No problem with the free flow of information to and from those who are less able to pay, either, right?

And that's the conversation you keep saying we should be having?




You've done your level, albeit transparent, best to, to use Dragonfli's term, to polish this turd and change the direction of the thread from the OP. Still, no one but the Secret Service Keyboard Squad is buying that your makeweight arguments convert the turd into a silver lining.

Guess your options now are keep kicking the thread to keep trying to sell this "silver" lining to people other than the members of SS Keyboard Squad or some other comment on some other thread that you think may reflect badly on Obama. Then you can try to refute that or change the subject of that thread.