A Quote by Terry Gross

There's so much kind of bureaucracy involved with the whole concept of net neutrality and like technical stuff. — © Terry Gross
There's so much kind of bureaucracy involved with the whole concept of net neutrality and like technical stuff.
While repealing net neutrality rules grabs headlines... net neutrality started as a consumer issue but soon became a stepping stone to impose vastly more common carrier regulation on broadband companies.
Net neutrality is a concept that the tech industry rallies around, but it is hypocrisy.
A ban on paid priority is central to any real net neutrality proposal, beginning with the Snowe-Dorgan Bill of 2006. Indeed, the notion of 'payment for priority' is what started the net neutrality fight.
It's only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy. That is the most important concept of net neutrality.
The net neutrality game is to make everybody the same so that there's no difference and the prices are the same and if these Millennials got their way nothing would cost anything. But it's classic. This is a great illustration. Net neutrality is being stood upside down which is good because it's pro-competition, it offers customers options.
After President Obama announced his support for net neutrality yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted that 'Net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet.' While Ted Cruz continues to be the Taylor Swift of not getting over Obamacare.
Look at the way liberals name things. "Net neutrality." It's like Switzerland! They don't take sides, everybody's fair, everything's the same. It's not what it is. Net neutrality rules are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. By definition, liberals don't believe in competition, and you know that. Competition is the root of all evil, as far as leftists are concerned, 'cause there are winners and there are losers, and the losers are sad and disappointed, and that's unacceptable. So everything must be the same. Nobody can have more than anybody else.
I'm talking about technical goofs. I'm pretty much on top of it. The kind of picture you're referring to would have to be more about the effects of technical things, technical phenomena, and I'm just not interested in that kind of work at all.
The Web took off in all its glory because it was a royalty-free infrastructure . . . When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going to end in the U.S.A. If we had a situation in which the U.S. had serious flaws in its Net Neutrality, and Europe did have Net Neutrality, and I were trying to start a company, then I would be very tempted to move.
Net neutrality sounds wonky and technical but is actually quite simple. It would keep the Internet as it has always been - cable and phone companies would remain mere gateways to all sites, rather than gatekeepers determining where users can go and what innovators can offer them.
If we didn't have Net neutrality, carriers could do things like penalize companies that use a lot of bandwidth or create high-speed lanes and charge Internet companies extra fees to send their stuff over them. That would give an advantage to big companies and make life harder for startups.
I believe in the not-too-distant future, people are going to learn to trust their information to the Net more than they now do, and be able to essentially manage very large amounts and perhaps their whole lifetime of information in the Net with the notion that they can access it securely and privately for as long as they want, and that it will persist over all the evolution and technical changes.
I know that there is a near unanimous view in Congress that state or local taxes on Internet access would directly deter the ability of consumers to obtain and utilize the Internet. If that is an accepted premise, as it should be, the same concept should apply to the net neutrality debate and its certainty to increase consumer bills.
I don't like high concept movies very much, and the kind of scripts that I would occasionally get offered tended to be really high concept comedies or romantic comedies. I just don't like it. I like much more realistic movies with actual psychology and behavior in them.
My wife says that stage acting is like being on a tightrope with no net, and being in the movies, there is a net - because you stop and go over it again. It's very technical and mechanical. On stage you're on your own.
I don't like to wonder about it-I just like to do it. That's what I mean about the image stuff and all that. There's far too much emphasis being placed on that kind of stuff... the whole emphasis on what does it mean? Everybody has their own particular vision.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!