-—————You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say net neutrality regulations are a solution in search of a problem-—————
I’m not trying to have it both ways. The phrase “net neutrality” and the word “marxism” are synonymous.
Net neutrality regulations do have a problem to solve. Our freedom.
————and that we can’t do anything because it’s a “new freedom,” which requires that there is infringement. ——————
There is plenty that we the people can do without setting dictators free.
—————The FCC’s powers have no relation to whether or not it is a new freedom.-————
The FCC has NO POWER until we set them free.(or they usurp it) The new freedom here is the FCC’s gaining of power where they don’t currently have it.
-————I see you’re going for that camel’s nose thing again.-————
Nope. I’ve always been on that “nail in the coffin” thing.
-————You have it backwards.-—————
No I don’t have it backwards. It’s Clyburn’s own words.
-—————One of the main purposes of net neutrality regulation is to PREVENT telcos from putting up tollbooths-——————
The FCC rejects this view.
The main purpose of net neutrality is for the FCC to set up FCC tollbooths. Their own words.
-————No conspiracy theory please—————
I can prove it. Their own words.
————and universal access invariably are injected into any net neutrality discussion by its opponents.-—————
Genachowski came one step away from using the phrase universal access just the other day.
-————A big sign of an unsupportable argument is the inability to argue the subject itself,——————
Only one person around here ignores everything that FCC spooks say, and tries to label provable facts as conspiratorial. You are in the wrong, at all levels.
OMG we've been living under "Marxism" all these years!
The new freedom here is the FCC’s gaining of power where they don’t currently have it.
You've gone way off script. New freedoms are supposedly for the people. You're talking about a power of government. Governments do not have freedoms or rights, only powers.
It’s Clyburn’s own words.
Copy and paste exact words in relation to net neutrality.
Genachowski came one step away from using the phrase universal access just the other day.
No, he actually said the words "universal access" in relation to -- wait for it -- the subject of universal access! Go figure, how strange that he would do that, actually speak of something in the context of a conversation about it. You could learn from that, argue universal access on the subject of universal access, and argue net neutrality on the subject of net neutrality.
Hey, did you know that the FTC regulates both false advertising and antitrust laws? Is it possible to debate false advertising without bringing antitrust enforcement into the picture? Why yes, yes it is.