4 ms·

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on th

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. I'm done here. Good luck!

SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity. However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet. Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >already has substantial power over end-users As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees. >you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them. OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.
syshum 9y ago
>>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes >I'm done here. Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver

SherlockeHolmes 9y ago

You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity. However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet. Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>already has substantial power over end-users As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees. >you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them. OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.

syshum 9y ago

>>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes >I'm done here. Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver