That's pretty much how I've always seen it... NN always seemed to me more of a solution to a problem that people were afraid might be there someday, which the market would more than likely take care of by itself if it actually does happen, than a solution to an actual real problem.
On Sep 27, 2017 11:26 PM, "Jason McKemie" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd think the big guys getting greedy (and being allowed to do as they > wish with their networks) would only help the smaller providers. It's > certainly possible that I'm missing something though. > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2017, George Skorup <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think Steve is saying, what was broken 4 years ago that needed NN to >> come fix it? >> >> On 9/27/2017 10:08 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >> >>> How so? >>> >>> It depends on which session. Sometimes we at least had lube, or there >>> was the threat of getting fucked, but we just hadn't been moved into >>> the same cell block of our admirer yet. Sometimes we just got "raw >>> dogged". >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Were we fucked 4 years ago? >>>> >>>> On Sep 27, 2017 9:30 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's some points that are obviously wrong, and some that are not. >>>>> >>>>> Also, as consumers, if net neutrality is repealed we are fucked. >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 27, 2017 8:27 PM, "Steve Jones" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/27/16374136/ajit-pai-fcc-net >>>>>> -neutrality-isp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I pretty much had to quit reading when this idiot sated what the FCCs >>>>>> job >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>> >>
