throwaway23497

8 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   Net Neutrality has literally nothing to do with this. Stop with the concept creep already.
2. 2.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   Sorry, I don't remember this magical time pre-2005 where there were line-sharing requirements on cable networks and I could get more than one cable provider over the same line.
3. 3.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   >which operated over phone lines... which meant they were covered by Title II. Do you have a source on this?? I've seen this claim made a few times in this thread and have been unable to find anything to back it up. I was under the
4. 4.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   I readily acknowledge I'm attacking your metaphor and not your argument here, but I'm curious about your perspective because I don't understand it. You really think that if the government decided to stop regulating car safety
5. 5.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   It doesn't follow that because there haven't been any large trust-busting actions since 1980's that the laws don't still cover the behavior.
6. 6.▲
   by throwaway23497 9y ago

   But he's making the same argument that you say he was making on his podcast. Regulation has a cost. The article literally states: "To believe that Chairman Pai is right is not to be against net neutrality; rather, it is to believ