No, because without the current setup, those channels would likely be much, much, much more expensive per subscriber than they are. Not to mention that the market is an AWFUL decider of what should live and die when it comes to quality programming. Leave it up to the market, and everything will be lowest common denominator. Everything.
And you completely fucking missed the point of my comment. He doesn't want to subsidize sports. Ok. However, the people who do watch sports are also subsidizing his watching of indie films on IFC, or Mythbusters on Discovery.
Oh go to hell. Just because something is "optional" does NOT mean that the person offering it should be able to take advantage of their customers. This whole "don't buy it" meme is retarded, as it doesn't get any kind of solution to the actual problem.
You're not going to pay less. And I could say the same damn thing for whatever channel you don't like to watch. And if you go to the whole "Then just let everyone pay for what they watch" thing, then I'm going to submit that what they watch is popular enough to survive on it's own. Odds are what you watch isn't.
You realize that every damn thing you watch is subsidized by others as well, right? That you're not an island, and rely on others to split the cost of providing the channel with you just as much as they do for sports?
Actually, you want things written like that. You don't want them to mention specific protocols or anything, because what happens when those protocols are obsolete a year from now? Too bad, the law only mentioned these protocols.
I'm gonna guess 0. Now, on the other hand, how many times have ISPs abused their power to the detriment of businesses or alternative distribution means they just happen to disagree with, politically or otherwise?
What scares me most about net neutrality is idiots like you thinking that companies can slice up the PUBLIC INTERENT however they see fit.
If they want to "regulate their network traffic on their private network", then they need to have a private network to start with. The Internet is not a private network. If they want to regulate traffic, then they need to cut all connections to the greater Internet.
How can you talk about a national sales tax and NOT talk about how regressive it is? By its very nature, the poor would spend a far higher percentage of their income on these taxes, severely reducing their buying power.
And what yours ignores is that the poor spend a greater percentage of their income, meaning they'd be paying a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes.
Still extremely regressive, and now you're trying to penalize the poor for trying to enjoy some kind of entertainment or something that's not even a luxury, but not a necessity either.
No, that's an awful idea too. For one, the rich can dodge the sales tax as well, as they can afford to go outside the country to avoid it. Second, the poor spend most of their income, meaning they'd be hardest hit by a sales tax.
So why aren't you earning money from other people's labors?
Because it takes money to make money? Seriously, this whole, "The rich make their money by investing; you can too!" meme is absolutely fucking retarded. The rich have surplus income that they can throw into stocks and investments. The poor don't.
No, you're trolling, especially if you think that the best way to implement the "Flat tax" is using a flat dollar amount for everyone. You're either trolling, or you hate the poor and want to make them suffer even more. That's the only explanation for that stance.
given that the rich 'pay for services' that only they'll probably never touch.
They don't touch them, but they definitely benefit from them. For one, these social programs help decrease violent crime, as they make fewer people need to steal in order to eat. Secondly, thanks to these programs, the rich are able to pay their employees less, garnering themselves more profit. Do you honestly think that Walmart would be able to get away with the wages it pays if they couldn't dump their employees onto food stamps and welfare?
But allowing for a person w/ a normal income, one would easily pay off the $1000 tax every year
Now I know you're full of shit. What of the poor, huh? What of those only making $10,000/year? First you're going to cut any government assistance they were using, and now you're going to force them to give up 10% of their income? A 10% that they very much cannot afford to lose?
Slashdot Mirror
WRONG. Broadcast channels are free.
No, because without the current setup, those channels would likely be much, much, much more expensive per subscriber than they are. Not to mention that the market is an AWFUL decider of what should live and die when it comes to quality programming. Leave it up to the market, and everything will be lowest common denominator. Everything.
Do you honestly think that Samsung would enter into a "licensing agreement" with Microsoft without knowing exactly which patents are covered?
And you completely fucking missed the point of my comment. He doesn't want to subsidize sports. Ok. However, the people who do watch sports are also subsidizing his watching of indie films on IFC, or Mythbusters on Discovery.
Why should I have to pay extra to be able to do what I want with the stuff I purchase?
As of now, the presumption is that the patents are valid. Proof has to be brought in order to overturn that presumption.
Even that is far too much. Microsoft actually uses their patents in their products. Patent trolls don't have any kind of product to speak of.
Oh go to hell. Just because something is "optional" does NOT mean that the person offering it should be able to take advantage of their customers. This whole "don't buy it" meme is retarded, as it doesn't get any kind of solution to the actual problem.
You're gonna need to break out something to back up your assertion that ESPN is required to be carried by the FCC.
And you want the people who do watch ESPN-9 to help you pay for whatever it is you watch.
You're not going to pay less. And I could say the same damn thing for whatever channel you don't like to watch. And if you go to the whole "Then just let everyone pay for what they watch" thing, then I'm going to submit that what they watch is popular enough to survive on it's own. Odds are what you watch isn't.
You realize that every damn thing you watch is subsidized by others as well, right? That you're not an island, and rely on others to split the cost of providing the channel with you just as much as they do for sports?
Actually, you want things written like that. You don't want them to mention specific protocols or anything, because what happens when those protocols are obsolete a year from now? Too bad, the law only mentioned these protocols.
I'm gonna guess 0. Now, on the other hand, how many times have ISPs abused their power to the detriment of businesses or alternative distribution means they just happen to disagree with, politically or otherwise?
No she didn't. That quote is as off base as the rest of them.
What scares me most about net neutrality is idiots like you thinking that companies can slice up the PUBLIC INTERENT however they see fit.
If they want to "regulate their network traffic on their private network", then they need to have a private network to start with. The Internet is not a private network. If they want to regulate traffic, then they need to cut all connections to the greater Internet.
It's more fair than that, but that isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. And remember, I wasn't talking about jet planes. I was talking about DVDs.
How can you talk about a national sales tax and NOT talk about how regressive it is? By its very nature, the poor would spend a far higher percentage of their income on these taxes, severely reducing their buying power.
And what yours ignores is that the poor spend a greater percentage of their income, meaning they'd be paying a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes.
Still extremely regressive, and now you're trying to penalize the poor for trying to enjoy some kind of entertainment or something that's not even a luxury, but not a necessity either.
No, that's an awful idea too. For one, the rich can dodge the sales tax as well, as they can afford to go outside the country to avoid it. Second, the poor spend most of their income, meaning they'd be hardest hit by a sales tax.
So why aren't you earning money from other people's labors?
Because it takes money to make money? Seriously, this whole, "The rich make their money by investing; you can too!" meme is absolutely fucking retarded. The rich have surplus income that they can throw into stocks and investments. The poor don't.
No, you're trolling, especially if you think that the best way to implement the "Flat tax" is using a flat dollar amount for everyone. You're either trolling, or you hate the poor and want to make them suffer even more. That's the only explanation for that stance.
No, it's not 30%. It's 30% MARGINAL. Meaning you only pay that 30% on the income earned ABOVE that limit.
given that the rich 'pay for services' that only they'll probably never touch.
They don't touch them, but they definitely benefit from them. For one, these social programs help decrease violent crime, as they make fewer people need to steal in order to eat. Secondly, thanks to these programs, the rich are able to pay their employees less, garnering themselves more profit. Do you honestly think that Walmart would be able to get away with the wages it pays if they couldn't dump their employees onto food stamps and welfare?
But allowing for a person w/ a normal income, one would easily pay off the $1000 tax every year
Now I know you're full of shit. What of the poor, huh? What of those only making $10,000/year? First you're going to cut any government assistance they were using, and now you're going to force them to give up 10% of their income? A 10% that they very much cannot afford to lose?