As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
I do not know if the internet columnists are full of asstards or shills, but am convinced it is a combination of both as no one is explaining what Net Neutrality is, and why a conglomerate like ATT was so against it and why a conglomerate like Google was so for it.
The Lame Cherry will explain this in two link sites, the Patriotic American Christian Conservative site Liberty Daily and the deep state anti Christian sodomite site, Matt Drudge Drudge Report.
Liberty is a site which loads readily, has an immense volume of link content, does not steer you to read deep state Mockingbird propagandists and is not spamming you with ads.
Drudge Report is a site which consumes your bandwidth, with a low volume of content, and steers people to CIA sites like New York Times and Washington Post, as it spams you.
In this Liberty is like ATT, which is a company that has effectively been looking out for it's consumers, because happy consumers keep coming back. Drudge Report is a company like Google what is always pulling something in censoring content and telling you that being a Christian is a pariah thing, so consumers get upset.
ATT historically in America, as was Ma Bell, back in the day a most unique consumer friendly environment. Originally they gave you a phone, put in the phone lines, gave you world access, and you paid for nothing except your monthly phone bill which was cheap and you paid absolutely nothing more if you did not dial "long distance" which cost nothing, but was a gimmic to increase revenues the FCC agreed to.
The increased revenues meant all repairs were free and all upgrades were free as the telephone companies wanted you happy and paying your cheap phone bill every month.
ATT has been engaged in this same practice for consumers, and is even with the Obama regional monopoly, gaining consumers. I reside in a non ATT area for landlines, but I can get a cell phone here in access, as anyone can from Tracfone to Verizon. This is a Verizon zone, but here is the rub in this, in Verizon lies to customers telling them they can match ATT rates, but then you read the fine print that there is a hook up charge each month and you are being charged like 80 bucks a month, compared to ATT which charges 55 a month, around 60 after all the regime taxes and access charges which the regime swindles people out of each month.
ATT has expanded this in it is bringing in satellite television, as well as computer and phone. I hate television, but many consumers love it, and I love that part, because ATT uses the television profits to keep it's phone service at a much more affordable level, so consumers win big time.
See that is the reality of this, in ATT is being consumer friendly as it is being responsible to their customers.
Some of you reading this, knew of the problems I was having with an HTC phone that almost started on fire. HTC from Taiwan is a crooked company and gave me the run around. This blog does not get produced if I do not have net access, and my phone was warped back sitting there for months in I did not know what to do, as I was not spending 400 to 1100 dollars on a new smart phone.
God is good to me, because I got a flier in email one day, and it stated that I could get a Samsung for around 100 dollars, shipping included. I really liked that as previously I was looking at a cheap end phone of 174 dollars and I was hemming and hawing about that price as I rarely use the phone and just require a hot spot.
So I purchased the phone after some research. I spoke to an ATT representative who literally on order, installed the SIM card for me, shipped it out, and all I had to do was call on the HTC, have them activate the Samsung and I was up and running in a few minutes. That is what customer service looks like.
So this blog alone on net service costs 720 dollars a year for wifi. If I was doing Verizon, that would be 960 dollars, and when TL was in the metro, she was being gouged by Verizon for like 120 a month, and when TL purchased additional bandwidth the helpful folks at Verizon ate it up with the phone off, probably reporting to the NSA.
This real economics lesson of 20 dollars is a great deal of money, in a real life example, is what leads to ATT helping consumers as that company traditionally has.
Big telecom companies hate the stricter regulation that comes with the net neutrality rules and have fought them fiercely in court. They say the regulations can undermine investment in broadband and introduced uncertainty about what were acceptable business practices. There were concerns about potential price regulation, even though the FCC had said it won't set prices for consumer internet service.
The above is the point to understand in all of this in ATT doing what it is doing, can reinvest in infrastructure in rural areas which have limited service helping consumers. The Obama conglomerates like Facebook, Google etc... eat bandwidth like cancer, and they wanted their monopolies protected by the regime and forcing their huge footprint having the same access as a smaller site. The problem is the smaller sites can never break through in this monopoly, because of the spyware that the Silicon giants are monitoring everyone with, including voice aps that monitor your conversations and soon ads for Hamms Beer appears on your pages after you discuss beer with your spouse.
Monopolies as ATT do not harm the public as they understand the line of trust busting and fines. Corporates protected though by the regime spy on you, and do their worst to direct traffic to only sources which they will profit off of, and not ATT.
See ATT markets a service, but someone like NETFLIX is reselling that access at a higher rate and ATT does not get rewarded for that which his wrong.
ATT gives away movie access and charges NETFLIX for access, but not the per movie access. It is as Rush Limbaugh stated and it is correct and I agree that a fat man with a billion dollars named Limbaugh who want 8 billion gigs of speed, should get it if they pay for it. That does not mean my 4 g's gets slower, but it means my rates get cheaper, because ATT will charge Limbaugh for super speed, and when Limbaugh wants to pay 10,000 a month for that, that means Limbaugh is subsidizing 200 poor people for the internet.
That is what free market looks like. If you want a bigger soda at the store you pay more. Yet the Obama internet has had everyone paying the same price for a small Coke or a large Pepsi. If someone wants faster internet than what is the normal gig, then let them pay for it, as in the long run just as Kansas City gets better steaks than Chatanooga due to numbers of steaks sold, it does not mean Chatanooga steaks are bad, they are just not premium like KC.
Net Neutrality makes everyone suffer equally with bad steaks or you get the small pop while Mark Zuckerberg gets the big gulp. Silicon Valley wants to keep it's monopoly in gouging you. ATT wants to make lucrative markets pay more, so they can be more efficient and gain more market share from Verizon. In the end the consumer wins.
The reason you are not being informed of the above as the Lame Cherry has, is shills are not telling you that not all monopolies are bad as the consumers win when they are properly managed and bad conglomerates which the regime protects and are subsidized by the NSA are the problem in ruining the internet.
Who would not want to see a dozen new Facebooks and Twitters appear, more Youtube, more Netflix, to stop spying on you, and to provide a better service cheaper or less terroristic?
A Neutral Net is like a communist America, you get screwed over while others eat caviar. Just remember that the protesters against Net Neutrality is the same rent a riot paid for by Soros making your life a gulag. That probably should explain a great deal in which side an American should be on.
Once again another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
Nuff Said
