Ted Cruz is Brilliant

[JohnStOnge]

I'm always open to the idea that the news media misrepresent things. However, it seems pretty clear that the proponents of "net neutrality" have been saying we need it to prevent things like intentionally slowing down access.

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/arc ... ty/361237/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not seeing that as disagreeing with what I typed.

[JohnStOnge]

even if his constituency does have the collective IQ of a turnip patch.

I haven't seen exit polling on Cruz's elections but I wouldn't surprised if I did see them the picture painted would suggest that the average IQ of people who voted for him is higher than the average IQ of people who voted for the current President in each election.

That's because, as is the case with all Democrats running for President, Obama enjoyed overwhelming support among demographic groups that tend to have relatively low IQs on average. That's pretty much how Democrats win national elections. What I call the "Zombie Vote."

There are some exceptions. Like Democrats typically win by a modest (by comparison) majority among those with graduate degrees and by a solid majority among Asians. But the numbers suggest that if you were to be able to IQ test everybody who votes the average IQ of Obama voters overall would've been lower than the overall population average each time.

This thing where liberals think that Republicans benefit from support among the least informed, educated, and intelligent is delusional. It really is. Exit polling consistently suggests that the Party that benefits from that is the Democratic Party.

[JohnStOnge]

[Baldy]

From your article:

Providers are against net neutrality, the status quo is the tiered service system, "good" progs are for net neutrality, etc.

But, I think it's cute that you're such a Conk on the issue.

Not sure what you're saying here. Is the internet a part of the commons that should remain open or not?

It's obviously clear what I'm saying and what you're showing us. You don't know the difference between Net Neutrality and the status quo.

[kalm]

Not sure what you're saying here. Is the internet a part of the commons that should remain open or not?

It's obviously clear what I'm saying and what you're showing us. You don't know the difference between Net Neutrality and the status quo.

It's the opposite of what you think. Again…status quo = open internet. Net neutrality = open internet.

Again, I suggest you and John actually READ the article. I can only lead you to water.

[Ivytalk]

I read the whole Atlantic piece, and it brought back memories of my Harvard antitrust law class, taught by a visiting professor (and big DC law firm partner) who was openly skeptical of the "size matters" trust-busters in the 70s who thought that monopolists, or oligopolists, lacked the incentive to innovate. That brought on the big AT&T case that ground through the system for years, with no clear victory for either side and huge costs. The net neutrality debate does seem to depend on competing business models as well as ideology. My fear about FCC regulation is what starts out as a "noble" effort to preserve competition will become an effort to control content from the back end.

[Baldy]

It's obviously clear what I'm saying and what you're showing us. You don't know the difference between Net Neutrality and the status quo.

It's the opposite of what you think. Again…status quo = open internet. Net neutrality = open internet.

Again, I suggest you and John actually READ the article. I can only lead you to water.

I READ the article, but that still doesn't erase the fact that you don't know what Net Neutrality actually is. Either that or you're just being conveniently dense.
The status quo (tiered service system) is not an open internet in the eyes of the pro-NN progtards.

Try as you wish, you just can't run away from these quotes:

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites.

Yeah...that's why the providers were SOOO for NN.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) i.e...the PROVIDERS, are against Net Neutrality:

NCTA Opposes Net Neutrality Rules

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has split the difference between those that want the Federal Communications Commission to apply its network neutrality rules to wireless broadband and specialized services (the Open Internet Coalition, for example), and those that want the FCC to apply them to neither (AT&T).

In comments filed at the FCC Tuesday, NCTA said that the FCC should not expand and codify its network-neutrality rules, period. But if it does, the cable trade group says, it should apply them only to a "clearly defined broadband Internet access service" and not a managed service, which is not delivered via the public Internet.

Quit trying to hide behind an article and learn what Net Neutrality is.

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neut ... d-know-now

[kalm]

It's the opposite of what you think. Again…status quo = open internet. Net neutrality = open internet.

Again, I suggest you and John actually READ the article. I can only lead you to water.

I READ the article, but that still doesn't erase the fact that you don't know what Net Neutrality actually is. Either that or you're just being conveniently dense.
The status quo (tiered service system) is not an open internet in the eyes of the pro-NN progtards.

Try as you wish, you just can't run away from these quotes:

Net neutrality is obviously another topic you know nothing about. It would allow providers to intentionally slow down certain access and sites.

Yeah...that's why the providers were SOOO for NN.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) i.e...the PROVIDERS, are against Net Neutrality:

NCTA Opposes Net Neutrality Rules

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association has split the difference between those that want the Federal Communications Commission to apply its network neutrality rules to wireless broadband and specialized services (the Open Internet Coalition, for example), and those that want the FCC to apply them to neither (AT&T).

In comments filed at the FCC Tuesday, NCTA said that the FCC should not expand and codify its network-neutrality rules, period. But if it does, the cable trade group says, it should apply them only to a "clearly defined broadband Internet access service" and not a managed service, which is not delivered via the public Internet.

Quit trying to hide behind an article and learn what Net Neutrality is.

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neut ... d-know-now

Seriously...what are you even arguing about?

Try reframing your position. Thanks!

[Baldy]

I READ the article, but that still doesn't erase the fact that you don't know what Net Neutrality actually is. Either that or you're just being conveniently dense.
The status quo (tiered service system) is not an open internet in the eyes of the pro-NN progtards.

Try as you wish, you just can't run away from these quotes:





The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) i.e...the PROVIDERS, are against Net Neutrality:

NCTA Opposes Net Neutrality Rules


Quit trying to hide behind an article and learn what Net Neutrality is.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neut ... d-know-now

Seriously...what are you even arguing about?

Try reframing your position. Thanks!

Who's arguing?

[HI54UNI]

Obamanet.

Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet.

That’s unfair to ObamaCare.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-cr ... 1424644324

[kalm]

Obamanet.

Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet.

That’s unfair to ObamaCare.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-cr ... 1424644324

The internet isn't broken, yet. But we already lag behind much of the rest of the world (who have net neutrality-like laws in place) when it comes to access and speed.

Ivy's post on this is very solid and the slippery slope of control issues applies to both big cable and big government. Calling it Obamanet (snort, chortle, snort) is just another sign of the WSJ going down the crapper. Glad I couldn't access the rest of that article.

[CID1990]

I really don't know much about the whole Net Neutrality proposal. I haven't read it. However, based on the conversation here I do know the following:

1) Clitz is for it and is the only one who has really offered up a problem that needs fixing, but doesn't really come out and say if Net Neutrality will do so. So based on Cliteris' take on it, it might not be a terrible idea, but who knows? He's just pissed about bandwidth and speed and Ma Bell.

2) Any law written by a modern COngress is going to be so full of sh!t and pork and worthless spendy bullsh!t that the original intent of the bill will be completely lost, and the new law itself will probably compound the problem. But that won't stop the faithful proglodytes from once again proclaiming that more government regulation is the cure for what ails us

which brings me to

3) the board progs are for it, which probably means it is a bad idea at best

[kalm]

I really don't know much about the whole Net Neutrality proposal. I haven't read it. However, based on the conversation here I do know the following:

1) Clitz is for it and is the only one who has really offered up a problem that needs fixing, but doesn't really come out and say if Net Neutrality will do so. So based on Cliteris' take on it, it might not be a terrible idea, but who knows? He's just pissed about bandwidth and speed and Ma Bell.

2) Any law written by a modern COngress is going to be so full of sh!t and pork and worthless spendy bullsh!t that the original intent of the bill will be completely lost, and the new law itself will probably compound the problem. But that won't stop the faithful proglodytes from once again proclaiming that more government regulation is the cure for what ails us

which brings me to

3) the board progs are for it, which probably means it is a bad idea at best

The market can't regulate the commons.

[Grizalltheway]

I really don't know much about the whole Net Neutrality proposal. I haven't read it.

You really should have quit typing here.

[HI54UNI]

Full article

From Internet to Obamanet
BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulations.

Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet.

That’s unfair to ObamaCare.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet. A recent page-one Wall Street Journal story headlined “Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief” documented “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House . . . acting as a parallel version of the FCC itself.”

Congress is demanding details of this interference. In the early 1980s, a congressional investigation blasted President Reagan for telling his FCC chairman his view of regulations about television reruns. “I believe it is imperative for the integrity of all regulatory processes that the president unequivocally declare that he will express no view in the matter and that he will do nothing to intervene in the work of the FCC,” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat.

Mr. Obama’s role raises legal as well as political questions. Those harmed by the new rules could argue in court that political pressure made the agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious.”

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.

Title II authorizes the commission to decide what “charges” and “practices” are “just and reasonable”—an enormous amount of discretion. Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has found 290 federal appeals court opinions on this section and more than 1,700 FCC administrative interpretations.

Defenders of the Obama plan claim that there will be regulatory “forbearance,” though not from the just-and-reasonable test. They also promise not to regulate prices, a pledge that Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has called “flat-out false.” He added: “The only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are ‘just and reasonable,’ which isn’t much of a restriction at all.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that if the FCC applies Title II to the Internet, all uses of telecommunications will have to pass the “just and reasonable” test. Bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google ’s search results, Facebook ’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones. Bureaucrats will oversee peering, content-delivery networks and other parts of the interconnected network that enables everything from Netflix and YouTube to security drones and online surgery.

Supporters of Obamanet describe it as a counter to the broadband duopoly of cable and telecom companies. In reality, it gives duopolists another tool to block competition. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test—as truly disruptive innovations often do.

AT&T has decades of experience leveraging FCC regulations to stop competition. Last week AT&T announced a high-speed broadband plan that charges an extra $29 a month to people who don’t want to be tracked for online advertising. New competitor Google Fiber can offer low-cost broadband only because it also earns revenues from online advertising. In other words, AT&T has already built a case against Google Fiber that Google’s cross-subsidization from advertising is not “just and reasonable.”

Utility regulation was designed to maintain the status quo, and it succeeds. This is why the railroads, Ma Bell and the local water monopoly were never known for innovation. The Internet was different because its technologies, business models and creativity were permissionless.

This week Mr. Obama’s bureaucrats will give him the regulated Internet he demands. Unless Congress or the courts block Obamanet, it will be the end of the Internet as we know it.

[Ibanez]

Full article

From Internet to Obamanet
BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulations.

Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet.

That’s unfair to ObamaCare.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet. A recent page-one Wall Street Journal story headlined “Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief” documented “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House . . . acting as a parallel version of the FCC itself.”

Congress is demanding details of this interference. In the early 1980s, a congressional investigation blasted President Reagan for telling his FCC chairman his view of regulations about television reruns. “I believe it is imperative for the integrity of all regulatory processes that the president unequivocally declare that he will express no view in the matter and that he will do nothing to intervene in the work of the FCC,” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat.

Mr. Obama’s role raises legal as well as political questions. Those harmed by the new rules could argue in court that political pressure made the agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious.”

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.

Title II authorizes the commission to decide what “charges” and “practices” are “just and reasonable”—an enormous amount of discretion. Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has found 290 federal appeals court opinions on this section and more than 1,700 FCC administrative interpretations.

Defenders of the Obama plan claim that there will be regulatory “forbearance,” though not from the just-and-reasonable test. They also promise not to regulate prices, a pledge that Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has called “flat-out false.” He added: “The only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are ‘just and reasonable,’ which isn’t much of a restriction at all.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that if the FCC applies Title II to the Internet, all uses of telecommunications will have to pass the “just and reasonable” test. Bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google ’s search results, Facebook ’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones. Bureaucrats will oversee peering, content-delivery networks and other parts of the interconnected network that enables everything from Netflix and YouTube to security drones and online surgery.

Supporters of Obamanet describe it as a counter to the broadband duopoly of cable and telecom companies. In reality, it gives duopolists another tool to block competition. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test—as truly disruptive innovations often do.

AT&T has decades of experience leveraging FCC regulations to stop competition. Last week AT&T announced a high-speed broadband plan that charges an extra $29 a month to people who don’t want to be tracked for online advertising. New competitor Google Fiber can offer low-cost broadband only because it also earns revenues from online advertising. In other words, AT&T has already built a case against Google Fiber that Google’s cross-subsidization from advertising is not “just and reasonable.”

Utility regulation was designed to maintain the status quo, and it succeeds. This is why the railroads, Ma Bell and the local water monopoly were never known for innovation. The Internet was different because its technologies, business models and creativity were permissionless.

This week Mr. Obama’s bureaucrats will give him the regulated Internet he demands. Unless Congress or the courts block Obamanet, it will be the end of the Internet as we know it.

I don't see the value in this legislation. What problem(s) is Obama trying to avoid/fix? What a crock of *word removed for failure to adhere to the FCCs regulations against speaking out against POTUS".

[Chizzang]

I really don't know much about the whole Net Neutrality proposal. I haven't read it. However, based on the conversation here I do know the following:

1) Clitz is for it and is the only one who has really offered up a problem that needs fixing, but doesn't really come out and say if Net Neutrality will do so. So based on Cliteris' take on it, it might not be a terrible idea, but who knows? He's just pissed about bandwidth and speed and Ma Bell.

2) Any law written by a modern COngress is going to be so full of sh!t and pork and worthless spendy bullsh!t that the original intent of the bill will be completely lost, and the new law itself will probably compound the problem. But that won't stop the faithful proglodytes from once again proclaiming that more government regulation is the cure for what ails us

which brings me to

3) the board progs are for it, which probably means it is a bad idea at best

Couple of issues are worth discussing:

1) The American Tax Payers built and paid for the Internet (Not Time Warner and Comcast or AT&T)
2) HUGE piles of cash that have been paid by tax payers that went directly to Comcast and TW and AT&T to expand the internet and to increase bandwidth - have simply been pocketed (see: STOLEN)
3) The communists in Europe and the troglodytes in South America have faster service than we do

That is the starting point of the debate

We're throwing huge gobs of money at Time Warner Comcast and AT&T to build this public highway called the Internet and ISP connectivity and NOT getting what we're paying for...

Meanwhile:
The Broadband coalition is the second largest lobby (see: bribery ) conglomerate in existence....
Only Military contractors spend more to secure their coffers
and assure they are brimming with tax payer money

Here' the thing:
For what we spend we should have the most kick ass internet on planet earth..!!!
Not only because our outrageous monthly fees but our annual funding of the build out
We should have the American Military equivalent of the Internet - F22's for every man woman and child

But we don't
We've paid for (and continue to pay for) F22's and we're getting the MiG-19

NEXT:
Now after all this ^ above...
The fuckers on the dole (Time Warner AT&T Comcast) want to be able to randomly charge more to whoever they feel like charging more to because they feel like it

That's kinda like Ford and Chrysler saying they OWN THE HIGHWAYS and are going to start charging a TOLL for some people to use it and not others - or something like that - its hard to find an exact equiv example

and there's more... but lets start there

[kalm]

I really don't know much about the whole Net Neutrality proposal. I haven't read it. However, based on the conversation here I do know the following:

1) Clitz is for it and is the only one who has really offered up a problem that needs fixing, but doesn't really come out and say if Net Neutrality will do so. So based on Cliteris' take on it, it might not be a terrible idea, but who knows? He's just pissed about bandwidth and speed and Ma Bell.

2) Any law written by a modern COngress is going to be so full of sh!t and pork and worthless spendy bullsh!t that the original intent of the bill will be completely lost, and the new law itself will probably compound the problem. But that won't stop the faithful proglodytes from once again proclaiming that more government regulation is the cure for what ails us

which brings me to

3) the board progs are for it, which probably means it is a bad idea at best

Couple of issues are worth discussing:

1) The American Tax Payers built and paid for the Internet (Not Time Warner and Comcast or AT&T)
2) HUGE piles of cash that have been paid by tax payers that went directly to Comcast and TW and AT&T to expand the internet and to increase bandwidth - have simply been pocketed (see: STOLEN)
3) The communists in Europe and the troglodytes in South America have faster service than we do

That is the starting point of the debate

We're throwing huge gobs of money at Time Warner Comcast and AT&T to build this public highway called the Internet and ISP connectivity and NOT getting what we're paying for...

Meanwhile:
The Broadband coalition is the second largest lobby (see: bribery ) conglomerate in existence....
Only Military contractors spend more to secure their coffers
and assure they are brimming with tax payer money

Here' the thing:
For what we spend we should have the most kick ass internet on planet earth..!!!
Not only because our outrageous monthly fees but our annual funding of the build out
We should have the American Military equivalent of the Internet - F22's for every man woman and child

But we don't
We've paid for (and continue to pay for) F22's and we're getting the MiG-19

NEXT:
Now after all this ^ above...
The fuckers on the dole (Time Warner AT&T Comcast) want to be able to randomly charge more to whoever they feel like charging more to because they feel like it

That's kinda like Ford and Chrysler saying they OWN THE HIGHWAYS and are going to start charging a TOLL for some people to use it and not others - or something like that - its hard to find an exact equiv example

and there's more... but lets start there

Bullshit! It's a progtard ploy to enshrine the nanny state.

[Grizalltheway]

[kalm]

And net neutrality regulation. Fucking commies!

[Chizzang]

Bullshit! It's a progtard ploy to enshrine the nanny state.

What should get everybody's attention is this...
Comcast and Time Warner benefit dramatically from Tax Payer funding of what they call "their infrastructure"
We (me and you) paid to have that infrastructure built

Now:
They want to arbitrarily charge Netflix (for example) more for usage than the standard fixed rate

Netflix is using the Tax payer built infrastructure to provide competitive services to citizens

Comcast bills citizens and businesses that use that infrastructure

All the while - Comcast also has a streaming service that just so happens to compete with Netflix

So they would like to conveniently run Netflix out of business (obviously)
and the watchful eye of the federal government
if we let Comcast make all the decisions about our broadband usage
America will have exactly ONE streaming service and that will be Comcast's

for example...

I don't know what the answer is - but I know its NOT Comcast raising the billing and deciding what to charge its competition for the pleasure of competing with them...

[CAA Flagship]

What should get everybody's attention is this...
Comcast and Time Warner benefit dramatically from Tax Payer funding of what they call "their infrastructure"
We (me and you) paid to have that infrastructure built

Now:
They want to arbitrarily charge Netflix (for example) more for usage than the standard fixed rate

Netflix is using the Tax payer built infrastructure to provide competitive services to citizens

Comcast bills citizens and businesses that use that infrastructure

All the while - Comcast also has a streaming service that just so happens to compete with Netflix

So they would like to conveniently run Netflix out of business (obviously)
and the watchful eye of the federal government
if we let Comcast make all the decisions about our broadband usage
America will have exactly ONE streaming service and that will be Comcast's

for example...

I don't know what the answer is - but I know its NOT Comcast raising the billing and deciding what to charge its competition for the pleasure of competing with them...

Wouldn't the answer be to buy stock in Comcast?

[Chizzang]

What should get everybody's attention is this...
Comcast and Time Warner benefit dramatically from Tax Payer funding of what they call "their infrastructure"
We (me and you) paid to have that infrastructure built

Now:
They want to arbitrarily charge Netflix (for example) more for usage than the standard fixed rate

Netflix is using the Tax payer built infrastructure to provide competitive services to citizens

Comcast bills citizens and businesses that use that infrastructure

All the while - Comcast also has a streaming service that just so happens to compete with Netflix

So they would like to conveniently run Netflix out of business (obviously)
and the watchful eye of the federal government
if we let Comcast make all the decisions about our broadband usage
America will have exactly ONE streaming service and that will be Comcast's

for example...

I don't know what the answer is - but I know its NOT Comcast raising the billing and deciding what to charge its competition for the pleasure of competing with them...

Wouldn't the answer be to buy stock in Comcast?

Sure... except that if Comcast were exposed to the true forces of Free Market they'd be out of business
They are the lowest ranking company in customer service since companies have been tracking customer service rankings

It must be nice to totally suck at something and get treated like they do by our Government

Free Money apparently is Good - if you're a darling of the Federal Government
free Money is bad if you're a person