Rush Limbaugh Program - February 24, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 24, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:51

February 24, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	There's no scripts, I don't know what's going to happen with, so you're just going to have to stand by be ready with all of it.
	That's the best I can tell you.
	And I sit there, I tell the broadcast engineer what sound bites I want to use, and I never use them in the same order I tell him, because once your show starts, it all changes.
	So it's a wasted bunch of time.
	So they're planning it because it's going to happen as it happens.
	It's all improv here.
	Rush Limbaugh, great to have you, folks.
	We are back at it.
	More broadcast excellence on the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network, the telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
	All right, let me let me say give you some umbrella items that we're gonna get to today, because I can't I can't get to everything here in the first segment, and everybody has their pet issues they care about, and hope that I mention first or second, and sometimes that doesn't happen.
	So the the Senate and the Department of Homeland Security and the vote and how that's gonna shake out, and how the Senate Republicans, on the one hand, are trying to show everybody how cooperative they are with the Democrats, and on the other hand, trying to make us believe that they are opposing Obama and trying to.
	So we'll give you both sides of uh of that.
	On Thursday, the FCC is gonna vote on net neutrality.
	And I have some people sending me emails asking me what it is.
	And I'll sum it up as best I can for you.
	But what is going to happen Thursday is a direct result of Obama hijacking the effort.
	Essentially, let me just put it to you this way: do you own a website, do you operate a website?
	If Obama gets his way, you're gonna have to get a license for it, just like radio and TV stations get licenses because the internet is going to be subject to regulation under Title II, like broadcast facilities are.
	Cable is not, but over-the-air broadcast, but they can't wait to regulate the internet, folks.
	They just can't wait.
	There's too much freedom out there.
	There's too many people, quote unquote, out of control on the internet, and Obama and the Democrats have got to get it controlled.
	And the way they're doing it is capitalizing on the stupidity of young people.
	Maybe stupidity is the wrong word, ignorance and lack of information resulting from they haven't lived long enough to know.
	The way net neutrality is being sold to millennials is, and I read these tech bloggers, these little guys, I read them and they hate their cable providers.
	They hate their website service providers, internet service, they hate them.
	Just like you were made to hate big oil, and just like you were made to hate big tobacco, just like you've been oriented to hate big anything, big retail, big box retail like Walmart.
	The Democrats' enemies list now includes all of the telecommunications companies and the internet service providers.
	And the way Obama is targeting support, gaining support from young people on this, and he's got them convinced that what he's gonna do with net neutrality is punish the people they hate.
	Does this sound familiar?
	You're gonna go after Comcast, they're gonna have Time Warner, any other telecommunications cell provider, internet service, they're gonna really hammer them, and they're gonna make sure that they don't overcharge.
	And they're gonna make sure they provide equal assets, access to high speed.
	The big rich people aren't gonna get any more access to high speed than people who can't afford it are.
	And the government's gonna take care of it, and the government's gonna punish it, and the government's gonna make people behave right, and the government, the government's gonna make it all fair, the government's gonna make it all equal.
	And that's what they've been led to believe.
	The same government that has right in front of these little peoples, these young people's faces, blown up the healthcare system, the same government that has made a mockery of healthcare.gov, the same government that has messed up And on the verge of totally destroying, under the guise of transforming it, the best healthcare system in the world, while that is happening.
	I mean, you can't have any better evidence of the incompetence of bureaucracies to handle massive market maneuvers like health care.
	You can't have a better example of government failure than what they're trying to do with health care or anything that Obama has touched in the economy.
	And yet, in the midst of being able to see all of this failure, in the midst of witnessing all of this government incompetence, despite that, we still have people thinking the government's going to get it right when they start regulating the internet.
	Now, I'm sorry, folks, you can blame Obama and I do, and you can blame the FCC and his commissioners and I do, and you can blame politicians, but ultimately this falls back on the gullibility and the ignorance, dare I say,
	stupidity of some people, because it's happening right in front of the very government that can't do anything right in terms of improving things that it's it claims to fix, is imminently trusted to get it right on the internet.
	And I just, I want to be around when these people have to get licenses for their websites.
	Do you know what happens when you get a license to own a radio or TV station?
	You have to prove to the government every three years, five, you don't know what it is now, but you have to prove maybe it's ten, but you never, you have to prove that you are operating responsibly.
	You have to prove that you were adequately serving the community, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	The point is, your freedom to operate your website is going to be dependent on the government approving what you do.
	Do you want somebody like Obama in his regime in charge?
	The internet is the essence in terms of the comparison to things elsewhere in America, the essence of independence, liberty, and freedom right now.
	And it's like now, to some of you who might be sensitive to the argument, well, you know what, Rush?
	Those internet providers, they do charge to my overcharge.
	I folks, let's, I'm nobody's gonna sit here and make the claim that that best it's just it's the people who are the best customers of these providers are gonna get the best service.
	It's just the way it is.
	It's this it's that way in health care.
	You can set up national health care all you want, like the Brits did.
	The rich people don't use it.
	They've got their own network of hospitals and doctors that have opted out, and it's gonna be like that here.
	There's no, and no matter how much socialism you have, no matter how much government attempts to make everybody the same, everybody equal, you're never gonna get rid of the rich.
	Look at Obama.
	If there's ever been a president that's told everybody he's targeting the rich, he's gonna get fair, gonna get even, the rich are getting richer under Obama, aren't they?
	The rich, the finance people, the banks, they're getting richer, they get bailed out.
	I thought Obama was gonna get even with these guys.
	The exact opposite of what these people think the government's going to do for them under net neutrality is what's going to happen.
	The exact opposite.
	It's gonna get slower, it's gonna get more clogged up, and they're gonna have less access than they have now.
	But they have been so conditioned, the left, what is it, profit from hatred?
	It j it profits, it benefits, it stokes it.
	And then they come in after they create all this hatred or add to the hatred that already exists wherever it is, they add to it and they create all this chaos and they gin up all this emotion, and then they come in as the guys wearing the white white hats.
	We're gonna make it fair for you.
	We're gonna make it equal for you.
	We're gonna make sure that if you can only afford $15 a month for internet service, your speeds are gonna be just as fast as people who are paying a thousand dollars a month.
	Well, I'm sorry it's not gonna ever happen.
	The providers are gonna service the people that pay them a thousand bucks a month before they service the people who pay them 15.
	It's just the way it is.
	It's not fair, Mr. Limbo, it's not fair.
	I don't have a thousand you don't right now, but you might.
	As you get older.
	Anyway, you can't legislate this Kind of stuff.
	But people live in a never-ending phase or state of blind faith hope that the government can come along and address, redress, and eliminate every injustice out there,
	be it economic, be it cultural, and they have yet to succeed at it, and yet, I mean, we're living in the middle of the absolute most glaring examples of government incompetence, as administered by Obama and his administration, and yet, despite the evidence that they don't know what they're doing, despite they lie?
	How many times did people hear from Obama, you like your doctor, you keep your doctor?
	You like your plan, you keep your plan.
	Your premium's gonna come $2,500 down.
	It isn't, none of it's happened.
	Everybody's premiums have gone up, out of pockets gone up, premiums have gone up, deductibles have gone up, the number of uninsured has not gone up, nothing's happened according to the promises, and yet when Obama comes along and tells them he's gonna lower their cable rates, he's gonna raise their speeds, he's gonna make sure the providers get they believe it.
	They believe it in the midst of knowing full well they have been lied to.
	I don't know how many times about Obamacare alone.
	And maybe I'm making a mistake in assuming they know they've been lied to.
	Maybe they don't even know that.
	Maybe my mistake is assuming they are more aware than they are.
	And in addition to websites needing a license to operate, I mean, why why you you you hadn't thought of that?
	Why else do they want to regulate the internet?
	You don't think they want to don't net neutrality, that's another one of these bogus titles for an operation.
	It's the exact opposite, it's not going to be neutral.
	That's designed to make people think that nobody's gonna get special favorite treatment, nobody's gonna be get better service.
	It's designed to lasso and rope people in.
	It's just like you could call anything you want, the Civil Rights Act of 2015, it could pass no matter what's in it.
	Yes, net freedom.
	Yes, net it just means that the big providers can't rip people off anymore.
	That's what they think it means, and that's all they think it means.
	Then they have to get their websites registered, and then the regulations.
	Because you know the Obama's incorporating the Federal Election Commission in this.
	Do you know that?
	The FEC.
	Well, because so much of the internet is perceived to be in kind campaign contributions.
	So the FCC and the FEC will now start regulating the internet.
	And there will, of course, just as there have been with Obamacare, there's been waivers, there will be exemptions for certain people from the regulations that are put in place to regulate the internet.
	And just as the Obama waivers for Obamacare were designed to shield the uh absolute disaster that was awaiting everybody upon full implementation.
	Waivers were granted so that Obama would not be punished prior to elections, waivers were granted to donors, waivers were granted to individuals and businesses friendly to Obama, same thing's gonna happen with the Internet and how it's regulated.
	Right now, the Internet has very little regulation at all.
	It is a single output.
	I I'm stunned.
	I mean the the the uh ease with which Obama has had in getting so many young people to sign on eagerly to the idea of regulating the internet, because as long as this is the way it's always worked, and it just amazes me that it keeps working, as long as the regulation of the internet is designed to punish the rich, then you get people to support it.
	If the regulation and licensing of the internet is designed to really sock it to the cable companies and the cellular companies, in the internet service providers, if that's what you're gonna do, I am all for it because I hate my cable company.
	I hate my cell company.
	I hate my provider.
	And as much as you can punish them, I'm all for it.
	They look at government as being able to wield the power they wish they could wield.
	Hillary Clinton has been wanting to control the internet since 1993.
	Net neutrality is as honest a name as is the Affordable Care Act, or as was the Fairness Doctrine.
	It's just the latest left wing power grab.
	You know how they want to get rid of Fox News?
	You know how they'd love to get rid of talk radio?
	Well, they're going to be able to get rid of people and things they don't like on the internet.
	That's why they want regulatory control over it.
	And by the way, the mechanism that they want to utilize to control the internet falls under the uh aegis of Title II.
	Title II dates back to the 1930s.
	That's how old it is.
	Let me take a brief time out.
	I got a couple sound bites on this.
	Michael Powell, who I think is the son of uh of Colonel Colin Powell.
	Uh General, sorry, General Powell.
	He was a former commissioner of the FCC.
	These are 32.
	Yeah, better take a break.
	We'll have the soundbites when we get back.
	Don't go away.
	Hi, welcome back, Rush Limboy.
	Here, the EIB network, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
	Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission toying around with regulating the Internet.
	Critics from both the FCC and the FEC are warning that speed and freedom of speech are in jeopardy and they are right.
	In a joint column, FCC Commissioner Member Ajit Pai, one of the two Republicans, and the Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman lowered the boom on Obama favored regulations of the Internet.
	They essentially charge that it'll muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet.
	In one key passage of the column.
	These two guys wrote on Monday that heavy-handed FCC regulations like those imposed in Europe will significantly slow down internet speeds.
	These internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment, and slow broadband speeds.
	How do we know?
	Compare Europe, which has had uh and long had utility-style regulations over the internet.
	Compare that with the U.S., which has embraced a light touch regulatory model.
	Broadband speeds in the U.S., both wired and wireless are significantly faster than in Europe.
	That's true if you've never been.
	Broadband investment in the U.S. is several multiples of that of Europe.
	Broadband's reach much wider in the U.S. despite its much lower population density.
	And the reason is that it's less regulated.
	It costs less to build up and build out your high-speed network.
	There are fewer payoffs required.
	It makes no sense in Europe to do it.
	That's what's called social justice.
	Democrat liberal social justice is never the equalization of people by raising or elevate people at the bottom.
	It is by lowering people at the top and punishing them.
	And that's exactly what Obama's net neutrality will do or seek to do.
	It will better stated what Obama's net neutrality falsely promises.
	People in this country is that these big providers, the cellular companies, the cable companies, the satellite companies, the internet providers, they're gonna get hammered finally.
	They're gonna be told that they're overcharging.
	They're gonna be told that they're Throttling internet speeds and that they can't do it anymore.
	And the bourgeois in the United States, yeah, yeah, man, you punish them, dude.
	You suck it to them, dude.
	You make them pay.
	What happens?
	Cable service, satellite service, internet broadband service, all get worse.
	And that's how everything is made fair.
	Nobody at the bottom has their service elevated.
	Nobody that doesn't work that way.
	It never does when the left gets hold of things.
	This is called social justice.
	Oh, yeah, you it it you bring Netflix into this and you really get these young millennials all worked up.
	Netflix is out there telling everybody they're gonna be one of the big beneficiaries of this because they compete with all these providers and so forth.
	Anyway, I'm up against it here, but yeah, there it is, the ear splitting tone, but I'm not through on this yet.
	Be right back.
	So I checked the email during the break, and it's the same old question.
	Rush, I haven't seen any of this.
	How do you know?
	How do you know this is what Obama means, my net neutrality?
	I haven't seen any of this.
	Why do you think you haven't seen any of this?
	The fact that you haven't seen any of this, you interpret as maybe evidence I don't know what I'm talking about.
	Why don't you ask yourself why Obama has not released what his regulations and his ideas for net neutrality are?
	And let me give you a little reminder.
	How many of you saw the legislation that became Obamacare before it was voted on?
	Answer?
	Very few of you.
	Remember Nancy Pelosi?
	We have to pass it to find out what's in it.
	Do you think if you had known well in advance everything that was in Obamacare, would you have in your blanket way supported it?
	I'm talking to people, young people here, not you in the audience, I'm talking to young people who are all for net neutrality.
	I hear from them, I've got these emails.
	Honey, you know, honey, you know, you haven't seen any of this.
	Why haven't you seen it?
	You haven't seen it because Obama hasn't released it.
	Obama has not released the details of his plan, his program for net neutrality.
	That's why everybody's able to make it up whatever they want it to be, just like the Obama campaign in 2008 was.
	Whatever you want him to be, he is.
	If he's a great unifier, that's what he's gonna be.
	If he's gonna make America loved ones, that's what he's gonna do.
	You had no idea who he was.
	Let me ask you this.
	Put your thinking caps on.
	How many times in the last 20 years?
	Do you recall various elements of the media saying there's too much democracy in America?
	There are too many voices.
	We gotta we gotta pair these down.
	There's too much confusion, too many viewpoints out there.
	It's confusing to the people.
	I remember every one of them.
	I remember me being on the cover of Time Magazine.
	Mm-hmm.
	In the mid-90s, and the headline was, is Rush Limbaugh bad for America?
	Why were they asking that question?
	Because my point of view was not theirs.
	Mrs. Clinton in 1998 said the following.
	We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this internet thing because there are all these competing values without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.
	What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?
	That was Hillary in 1998 sending a dog whistle about getting rid of Matt Drudge.
	It was in the heat of the Lewinsky event.
	And she was worried, as were all these libs, and they have been ever since their media monopoly was blown up.
	There are too many voices.
	It's too confusing.
	There are too many points of view.
	That ought to just offend the hell out of everybody, particularly you young people.
	It ought to offend you And cause genuine anger among you.
	Too many viewpoints.
	We gotta whittle them down.
	We gotta get rid of some of these really extreme points of view.
	It's causing chaos in the countryside.
	It's causing tumult.
	It's creating confusion.
	We've got to who are they?
	Who are they to say there are too many opinions when we have a constitution and a bill of rights and the First Amendment explains and codifies freedom of speech.
	My point is this is something they have been salivating over, getting control of the internet for 17 to 20 years.
	Just as like they salivated for control over health care for 50 years.
	And it's almost a repeat process.
	Obama's got his massive plan, but nobody's seen it.
	He won't release it.
	So everybody's able to create out of net neutrality whatever they think it is, what they want it to be.
	You got Obama administration officials here and there will drop little hints about getting even with the service providers.
	Or making sure that small customers do not have their speeds throttled and cut back.
	And thereby not reaching their data limit sooner and being charged for more data after they have reached their monthly allotted limit.
	They've dropped enough hints to make young people think that the real target of net neutrality is once again the big corporations.
	Yeah.
	Obama's gonna come give them what for.
	Obama's gonna come tame them just like he did AIG.
	And just like he did a little fat cat financial company CEOs, yeah.
	And if he doesn't, they don't if they don't fall in line, we're gonna send protesters to their front yards.
	Yeah.
	We're gonna get even with these people ripping us off.
	I don't want to have to watch cable TV if I want to watch breaking bad.
	I want to be able to stream it on my phone, and I don't want to be overcharged for it.
	I want to be able to cut the cord, and I want to make sure that the company providing me with breaking bad on my iPhone does not overcharge when Obama comes along.
	This is exactly what I'm gonna do.
	Really?
	You think you people think it's gonna get cheaper?
	You know, HBO is gonna provide a standalone streaming service, HBO Go.
	To get it now, you have to be a cable or satellite subscriber to HBO.
	And then the service is so-called free.
	It isn't because you have to be a customer now.
	But HBO is gonna cut the cord itself.
	HBO is gonna provide HBO Go streaming only.
	And one of the biggest surprises, awaiting young millennials, is how much they're gonna charge for it.
	They can charge pretty much what they are being paid now by each cable customer, and maybe add 20 or 30% to it.
	And they'll get away with it because HBO is not considered an evil cable company or provider.
	HBO's got the content.
	Yeah, HBO, we love HBO, that's we got all of our sex, and that's why we get all the gay lesbian stuff, and that's where we got all the drama, and that's where we got game of thrones.
	Yeah, man, let me have it on my phone and my iPad.
	I don't want to have to have cable for it.
	Fine, they're gonna charge you for it.
	And every one of these providers, every one of these content providers that cuts the cord out of cable, out of satellite, they're gonna charge, and you're gonna end up paying more for all these services you want than you do combined in your cable package.
	But they're not thinking this far ahead because right now they're being made satisfied and happy.
	The idea that Obama is gonna cut these providers and these cell companies and these telecoms.
	You've got to cut them down to size, finally, just like back in our younger days, folks, they were gonna get even with big oil.
	Yes, they're really gonna get even With big tobacco.
	Yeah, man, they're gonna get punished.
	They're gonna have their hats handed to them and everybody right on.
	It never works out the way it's planned.
	Social justice, social justice, making it worse for everybody under the guise of equality or fairness or what have you.
	And mark my words, here it is February 24, 2015.
	That's what's going to happen.
	And you know something else?
	For wealthy people, it isn't gonna change.
	They're gonna be able to pay whatever they want to get the same service they've got now, or even better.
	And there will be people that will provide it for them.
	There will always be, no matter what Obama does, no matter how much he regulates, no matter how much he tries, the wealthy are still gonna be able to get whatever download speeds they want.
	They're gonna be able to get whatever services and content provider service they want.
	They have the ability to pay for it, and as long as they've got the ability to pay for it, there's gonna be somebody provided.
	And so the rich are not gonna get shafted.
	The rich are not gonna get stung, the rich are not gonna get punished.
	It's just service for most everybody else is going to deteriorate under the guise of making it equal for everybody.
	And neutral, yes, net neutrality.
	Now, these two guys, Ajit Pai, FCC commissioner, he's one of the Republican members, and Lee Goodman of the FEC warned, they said that internet freedom works.
	It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanage the internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service.
	They're gonna turn the internet into a utility, folks.
	Licensed utilities.
	And then they wrote this.
	We don't need to shift control of the internet to bureaucracies in Washington.
	Let's leave the power where it belongs with the American people.
	When it comes to Americans' ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn't anything broken for the government to fix.
	To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, internet regulation isn't the solution to a problem.
	Internet regulation is the problem.
	All well and good, but I thought the era of Reagan was over.
	Isn't that what a lot of Republicans have been telling us for a couple of years or longer?
	Yeah, the era of Reagan is that's old fashioned.
	Those are old days.
	Reaganism doesn't apply to the modern era, and yet it always does.
	Internet regulation, these guys are right.
	Internet regulation is not the solution to a problem.
	Internet regulation is going to become the problem.
	Michael Brown, former commissioner FCC Republican, obviously, was on Squawkbox on CNBC today.
	And one of the co-hosts, Andrew Ross, Andrew Ross Sorkin, asked him a question, said one of the things we've all talked about is what an appeal looks like and how long it takes and what uh that does to investment during that period.
	Now we heard from the CEO of ATT who says that he plans to pull back.
	Can you speak to that broadly from all of your constituents that you've been talking about?
	What this is assuming that net neutrality becomes law of the land and that there are then lawsuits.
	Appeals to try to stop it, and Michael Powell answers that question.
	Litigation with FCC Appeals is a pretty long drawn-out process.
	I would predict that it's at least two and up to five years before the rules are fully and finally settled.
	The original classification decision uh went all the way to the Supreme Court and took a good three and a half, four years.
	They've understood the law for 15 years, and suddenly that's gonna be radically transformed to a new style of regulation, which is gonna prompt a whole myriad of questions that are gonna await answers, and I think that's gonna have an impact on investment choices.
	See, they're talking about what's gonna happen to the investments of uh people buying stock and the providers of that that's not what interests me about that the CNBC.
	But what interests me in this is once they put it in there, you're not gonna unravel it.
	And if it takes two to five years for an appeal to be heard, you're not gonna unravel anything, just like you're not gonna unravel amnesty once it starts.
	So there's no, and this is what Obama knows.
	It's gonna be total chaos.
	He doesn't care.
	All he knows, health care's total chaos.
	Doesn't care.
	Bottom line is he runs it.
	So then the next question came from Joe Kernan, who said, Well, when the adults in the room finally speak up and the FCC chairman Tom Wheeler sees what the end result's going to be, won't he say, maybe I need to rethink this?
	Is it too late for that, or are we just going to go headlong into the votes Thursday?
	Kernan saying, wait a minute, the FCC commissioner might wake up all of a sudden and see how bad this is.
	And this is what Powell says to that.
	I think they're locked and loaded, and it's too late that they're going to turn back.
	They're going to vote on Thursday.
	And when you talk about the moments of shock, I think watching the president of the United States come on a YouTube video and and direct the FCC to adopt a very specific regulatory result.
	I think that was shocking.
	Why?
	Why was that shocking?
	To see Obama try to take control of us?
	Why in the world is that shocking?
	Why shouldn't that be expected by now?
	Why is it shocking that Obama would do a YouTube video aimed at the very young people we're talking about, demanding that the FCC immediately take over the regulation of the internet?
	He doesn't have the authority to do that, just like he doesn't have the authority to grant blanket amnesty on any of this stuff.
	And I knew it was going to happen.
	This subject lit him up out there, folks.
	Our phone lines are melting with people wanting to get in here and tell me that I don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about.
	They're livid out there, right, Sturdley?
	Some of them are I I knew I knew this was gonna be the case.
	Let's go to uh Cincinnati.
	Mike, your first.
	I'm glad you called.
	It's great to have you on the program today.
	Hello.
	Great to be here, Rush.
	I am a young person who disagrees with your presentation of net neutrality.
	And uh I I don't disagree with uh politicians and when they take control of a concept like net neutrality, that they change it to mean whatever they think it means, like universal access to broadband or uh reducing the costs of large corporations like I reducing the amount a large corporation like an ISB can charge.
	But what net neutrality is really about is freedom of information that flows on the internet.
	No, and it's it's not that you've been made to believe that, but it is well let me show you an example that's happening right now about net neutrality, and that's Netflix.
	So Netflix is providing services to their customers and they pay an agreed amount rate for a certain amount of bandwidth from their servers.
	Right.
	And their customers pay a certain amount for a certain amount of traffic leaving their connections.
	Now the ISP sits in the middle and says, Wait a sec.
	Netflix is really popular, and I'm not getting paid enough, even though they've agreed to charge a certain amount.
	And what they're doing is they're seeing that information traveling between Netflix and Netflix's customers, and they're slowing it down.
	Why?
	Why are why are they wait now?
	Wait, first place, do you uh now I don't misunderstand my tone here.
	I don't I I'm not trying to sound insulting.
	I'm genuinely curious.
	Do you do you honestly really believe that the example you just gave is why the whole subject of net neutrality has come up and why it is going to be implemented?
	Whether the Obama administration and the FBC come down with regulation or legislation that that meets the original intent, I do think, because Netflix has already been forced to pay ISPs to stop them from limiting access to their services so that their customers can't just get what they paid for, get what they already paid for.
	Wait a minute, then why do you need if it's already been rectified, or if somebody's in the process of being punished already for doing this, why then do you need everything else that's gonna come at us with net neutrality in order to address this?
	Well, and I'm not saying that the FCC should proceed with their decisions without opening up to a public vote, but it's it's uh it's like the ISPs are acting like the mafia of the internet by shaking down large public companies like Netflix and Amazon, and the cost is passed along to the case.
	I'm sorry, you you have fallen for this hook line and sinker, and and the and the reason that you Have stems from a and I'm not I'm not trying to be insulting.
	It stems from a lack of understanding of simple economics.
	I've I've read this example.
	I've it you have uttered this example almost word for word in how I have read it as a complaint for years.
	Netflix is used in this example because it's extremely popular with people.
	Sadly, I'm out of time for this segment, but we will continue.
	We have more.
	What is Netflix?
	Eight bucks a month, seven ninety-nine a month if you get it like I have it through iTunes.
	My Apple IDs.
	Eight bucks a month?
	You're for crying out loud and you're complaining about the service?

▲