DISQUS

Well Mahtli69, then you have added a nice counterpoint to their (BHO, Ballard Guys) point. Maybe you are the "Air America" to their "Fox News".

I like angelatini's POV, there will be a spectrum of opinions and non-opinions and we can agree or disagree as we choose. I personally enjoy hearing all POV's. It adds spice to the debate. How boring would it be if we all agreed?

But more to the point and to the poor business owners who are taking the "hits", something has to change in Ballard. Look at all the businesses that have folded or are moving out for one reason or another. That can't be healthy. Or are you OK with what you see day in and day out in Ballard ?

Mahtli69 - You and others that share your same opinion seem to think that those with a vested interest should compromise their quality of life in deference to a flood of drug users, drunks and transients.

You ignore the fact that Ballard has become a magnet for this element of society. I can't understand why anybody would be for more homeless people, more drug users and more drunks inhabiting Ballard. Can you explain why you are for that? The more of them, the lower the quality of life in Ballard sinks. I think this is what has everybody ramped up. That and the feeling of helpless in the face of this influx of vagrants of all forms. There are no police on the beat, there are homeless organziations targeting Ballard. Its a perfect storm in its own little Ballardian way. Why are you a proponent?

You really can't use this post as authority for the claim that "This legislation would completely ban charges to application and service providers so that all fees for broadband would be paid directly by consumers."





You know darn well that application and service providers already pay (huge) fees for bandwith. They are consumers. You are misleading your readers by implying that Wyden's legislation would "ban" these fees. If you are going to argue against net neutrality, it would be cool if you would do it honestly.