FCC Officially Approves New Net Neutrality Regulations
I don't get it...
I don't get this whole net neutrality thing. Is it good or bad for us? Someone explain it to me please
...
Government control of the internet....
Gov't has their finger in damn near everything lousy in this country... you decide if it's good for you to have them involved in your internet or not
Gov't has their finger in damn near everything lousy in this country... you decide if it's good for you to have them involved in your internet or not
...
Most of the people who say this retarded crap forget that we only HAVE the internet because the government regulated phone companies. Prior to that legislation, AT&T did not allow non AT&T equipment to be connected to their phone lines. Under those conditions, none of the non AT&T equipment that made the early internet work (think modems, routers, and switches) would have ever existed. You can thank the government once for inventing the internet and turning it over to the public, twice for creating an environment that allowed it to become what it is today, and a third time for ensuring net neutrality.
...
Yeah... And without government we wouldn't have roads either. What a bunch of socialist horse crap. Still pretending to be "conservative", Mr Stalin?
...
>>Still pretending to be "conservative", Mr Stalin?
I don't have to subscribe to your level of lunacy to be conservative. Nor do I have to tow the Republipuke line. Republican cronies like you are the reason that free thinking Republicans like myself often vote Libertarian or Constitution Party. Have fun with your fascism, Mr Hitler.
I don't have to subscribe to your level of lunacy to be conservative. Nor do I have to tow the Republipuke line. Republican cronies like you are the reason that free thinking Republicans like myself often vote Libertarian or Constitution Party. Have fun with your fascism, Mr Hitler.
...
Feel free to let us know which Libertarians and Constitution Party members support this Net Neutrality FCC garbage.
You can't.
Have a nice day Mrs Clinton.
You can't.
Have a nice day Mrs Clinton.
...
Unlike you, I don't tow any party line. I support the legislation and candidates that align with my beliefs. I am an individual, and so my beliefs and opinions don't perfectly align with any particular party. But yes, Libertarians and Constitution Party members usually come in pretty close to my beliefs. Republicans rarely get close, but they're usually quite a bit closer than Democrats.
But I don't validate my opinions by trying to figure out which party shares them. I validate them based on their merits. And if I ever find their merits aren't up to snuff, I change them. It's a shame you're so caught up in this "us against them" mentality. People who think for themselves aren't afraid to go against the mold when they realize it's the ri...
(continues)
But I don't validate my opinions by trying to figure out which party shares them. I validate them based on their merits. And if I ever find their merits aren't up to snuff, I change them. It's a shame you're so caught up in this "us against them" mentality. People who think for themselves aren't afraid to go against the mold when they realize it's the ri...
(continues)
...
The other commenter has one stance that's very black/white. There's a lot of grey when it comes to "Gov't in my _____". There's lots of areas where government oversight and intervention has been mutually beneficial to the consumer and the industry. Sometimes just the industry benefits (copyright law), other times just the consumer does.
In this particular case, Consumers benefit more directly, and certain affixed industries (content delivery IE: Netflix) benefit greatly. Industry doesn't really benefit directly at this time, but also really loses nothing except projected revenue streams from monetizing their assets.(Except the recent netflix paying an ISP to let them get decent speeds).
At this point, it's a good thing for consumers ...
(continues)
In this particular case, Consumers benefit more directly, and certain affixed industries (content delivery IE: Netflix) benefit greatly. Industry doesn't really benefit directly at this time, but also really loses nothing except projected revenue streams from monetizing their assets.(Except the recent netflix paying an ISP to let them get decent speeds).
At this point, it's a good thing for consumers ...
(continues)
...
Unless the rules have sneaky unnecessary bits (haven't read the whole thing, can't say), it's a good thing.
Not having this rule essentially allows billing two parties for the same thing. The carriers have all already decided to have different service levels sold to consumers for different service speeds. But, having sold you a top-speed service for a premium price, they want to also block/slow your access to Internet services if the website hasn't also paid for the high speed you already paid for. It's a scam, and we need a rule against it.
Not having this rule essentially allows billing two parties for the same thing. The carriers have all already decided to have different service levels sold to consumers for different service speeds. But, having sold you a top-speed service for a premium price, they want to also block/slow your access to Internet services if the website hasn't also paid for the high speed you already paid for. It's a scam, and we need a rule against it.
...
It is very good for you, as it classifies the internet as a utility (and not just "for entertainment purposes only") and keeps the local monopoly carriers from doing things like selective peering arrangements, fast lanes (e.g. Verizon giving you one speed to use their own VCast TV and another to use Netflix) , among other things.
...
Decreasing consumer choice is never a good thing. If I want to pay more for faster speeds then why shouldn't I be able to? If Netflix wants to pay more for faster speeds for their customers then why shouldn't they be able to?
...
>>Decreasing consumer choice is never a good thing.
Right. And net neutrality ensures that won't happen.
>>If Netflix wants to pay more for faster speeds for their customers then why shouldn't they be able to?
Net neutrality is about the last mile of service. Netflix already spends a plenty of money on the bandwidth for everything prior to that point. ISP's should deliver the speeds they promised their customers regardless of where the traffic originates. That allows customers to, you know, "CHOOSE" what services they want.
Right. And net neutrality ensures that won't happen.
>>If Netflix wants to pay more for faster speeds for their customers then why shouldn't they be able to?
Net neutrality is about the last mile of service. Netflix already spends a plenty of money on the bandwidth for everything prior to that point. ISP's should deliver the speeds they promised their customers regardless of where the traffic originates. That allows customers to, you know, "CHOOSE" what services they want.
...
Show me something other than a lame talking point from a socialist crony that agrees with what you are saying.
...
Sure thing. Since my previous comment was taken down and you had previously neglected to oblige, I'll ask again. For which point would you like evidence? And please none of your psychoanalysis and inaccurate blathering... just name the actual point that I actually made, and I'll provide the proof.
Furthermore, please provide some real evidence for the trash you peddle here other than your wild fantasies about George Soros. Anyone who knows anything knows what Georege Soros is up to. But the debate over net neutrality goes back decades to the inception of TCP/IP. This was a debate for scientists and engineers long before Republicans and Democrats began arguing over it. Just because George Soros supports net neutrality doesn't mean that it ...
(continues)
Furthermore, please provide some real evidence for the trash you peddle here other than your wild fantasies about George Soros. Anyone who knows anything knows what Georege Soros is up to. But the debate over net neutrality goes back decades to the inception of TCP/IP. This was a debate for scientists and engineers long before Republicans and Democrats began arguing over it. Just because George Soros supports net neutrality doesn't mean that it ...
(continues)
...
You keep acting as tho you are my equal and deserve some sort of respect. Keep dreaming socialist fan boy.
...
Looks like my response to this got deleted. So, I'll soften it up this time. Your smear tactics and fear mongering will never be equal to my rational arguments. And I don't desire the respect of anyone who uses your tactics. Nor will I extend my own to such a person.
...
Zpike said:
Looks like my response to this got deleted. So, I'll soften it up this time. Your smear tactics and fear mongering will never be equal to my rational arguments. And I don't desire the respect of anyone who uses your tactics. Nor will I extend my own to such a person.
So you are saying you lack self respect. Considering everytime you type it is a smear tactic and fear mongering, you lost on that point too. You have no rational arguments. You push conspiracy theories about how ISPs are ruining the internet and have zero evidence to back it up. So enjoy your narcissism...especially in the mirror. 😈
...
>>Considering everytime you type it is a smear tactic and fear mongering
Stop attributing your actions to me.
>>You push conspiracy theories about how ISPs are ruining the internet
More of your tactic of attributing your flaws to me. I don't engage in conspiracy theories. What is going on with ISP's and the internet is very real and well documented on credible tech sites and forums all over the internet. I have posted much of it for your consideration and you have ignored it. But you are the one going on about how George Soros wrote the Net Neutrality rules. THAT is a conspiracy theory.
>>and have zero evidence to back it up.
I have provided a plenty of evidence, which you have completely ignored with no justification. And th...
(continues)
Stop attributing your actions to me.
>>You push conspiracy theories about how ISPs are ruining the internet
More of your tactic of attributing your flaws to me. I don't engage in conspiracy theories. What is going on with ISP's and the internet is very real and well documented on credible tech sites and forums all over the internet. I have posted much of it for your consideration and you have ignored it. But you are the one going on about how George Soros wrote the Net Neutrality rules. THAT is a conspiracy theory.
>>and have zero evidence to back it up.
I have provided a plenty of evidence, which you have completely ignored with no justification. And th...
(continues)
...
Show me where ISP's don't deliver the speeds they promised. Before you do know that I will prove you wrong by pointing out the fine print. Maybe they were misleading, sure, but if they were not fulfilling the agreement then you don't need a change in FCC regulation, just take them to court and you will easily win. But in reality you won't win because all the circumstances where your speeds will be reduced are outlined in the written agreement.
...
As usual, his "evidence" is anectdotal at best. He uses general vague terms and can't back up what he says. Don't expect him to respond...
And yeah, Ive pointed out several times advertised speeds are ALWAY "up to X megs". Only a clown would think that the FCC is going to gurantee a speed.
And yeah, Ive pointed out several times advertised speeds are ALWAY "up to X megs". Only a clown would think that the FCC is going to gurantee a speed.
...
You are dealing with the mass public so yes, they will think the fcc will guarantee a speed.
...
>>Show me where ISP's don't deliver the speeds they promised.
This is one of many places where it has been proven all over the internet that Verizon throttled Netflix's traffic. In fact, it was so bad that at one point Netflix started posting messages on the screen for their customers informing them of the issues with Verizon's network.
http://boingboing.net/2014/07/18/video-proof-of-veri ... »
>>But in reality you won't win because all the circumstances where your speeds will be reduced are outlined in the written agreement.
I didn't know any EULA included a clause for throttling high demand services so the ISP can gouge the content provider. Could you show an example of any such EULA? Furthermore, could you show where...
(continues)
This is one of many places where it has been proven all over the internet that Verizon throttled Netflix's traffic. In fact, it was so bad that at one point Netflix started posting messages on the screen for their customers informing them of the issues with Verizon's network.
http://boingboing.net/2014/07/18/video-proof-of-veri ... »
>>But in reality you won't win because all the circumstances where your speeds will be reduced are outlined in the written agreement.
I didn't know any EULA included a clause for throttling high demand services so the ISP can gouge the content provider. Could you show an example of any such EULA? Furthermore, could you show where...
(continues)
...
Well, it certainly beats your claim that George Soros masterminded net neutrality. But seriously, this is just one demonstration of many on the internet that Verizon throttled Netflix data. I can easily produce more credible articles if you want them. But not until you produce something that actually shows the link between Soros and the FCC's net neutrality rules. Go ahead. Post something that shows his influence on how the rules are drafted. Please show some proof other than conjecture.
BTW, are you stalking me?
BTW, are you stalking me?
...
Funny. You have been stalking me since Ive been on this forum. More classic projection from your disturbed mind.
Oh and I never said that Soros masterminded net neutrality. That is just more of your lunacy shining through because you are incapabke of using ligic and reason. I have already posted several links from several reputable news agencies detailing the situation, but I doubt you have the capacity to read anything that doesn't worship socialism.
But since you are too lazy or incapable of using google... Here you go, Batman:
http://www.examiner.com/article/net-neutrality-georg ... »
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/626898 »
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/a-leadin »...
(continues)
Oh and I never said that Soros masterminded net neutrality. That is just more of your lunacy shining through because you are incapabke of using ligic and reason. I have already posted several links from several reputable news agencies detailing the situation, but I doubt you have the capacity to read anything that doesn't worship socialism.
But since you are too lazy or incapable of using google... Here you go, Batman:
http://www.examiner.com/article/net-neutrality-georg ... »
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/626898 »
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/a-leadin »...
(continues)
...
You criticized me for using a credible, though left leaning newspaper as a source, and then you produce this. Just wow!
http://www.examiner.com/article/net-neutrality-georg » ... »
This article so biased it's not funny. If there are any actual facts at all, it might be that George Soros is spending a lot of money trying to sell the public on Net Neutrality. So what. That doesn't mean that George Soros or anyone affiliated with him drafted the net neutrality rules. It also doesn't make them bad.
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/626898 » »
All the same as above can be said of this article. But one quote from the article is worthy of consideration:
"Detractors fear that the proposed rules will lead to taxation and a micro...
(continues)
http://www.examiner.com/article/net-neutrality-georg » ... »
This article so biased it's not funny. If there are any actual facts at all, it might be that George Soros is spending a lot of money trying to sell the public on Net Neutrality. So what. That doesn't mean that George Soros or anyone affiliated with him drafted the net neutrality rules. It also doesn't make them bad.
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/626898 » »
All the same as above can be said of this article. But one quote from the article is worthy of consideration:
"Detractors fear that the proposed rules will lead to taxation and a micro...
(continues)
...
All we have from you is conjecture about evil ISP companies...
Oh and insults and personal attacks for those who don't buy the bs you are shoveling.
I could provide you with libertarian leaning articles too...but you would say those were biased as well. Funny how the only unbiased opinions on the subject are yours and all the socialist leaning opiniins on the subject matter.
Oh and it is NO secret that George Soros and think tanks like Free Press push policy and succeed. Those articles also pointed out that Soros and Free Press are closely aligned with Several White House officials...but you go ahead and cherry pick what you want.
Oh and insults and personal attacks for those who don't buy the bs you are shoveling.
I could provide you with libertarian leaning articles too...but you would say those were biased as well. Funny how the only unbiased opinions on the subject are yours and all the socialist leaning opiniins on the subject matter.
Oh and it is NO secret that George Soros and think tanks like Free Press push policy and succeed. Those articles also pointed out that Soros and Free Press are closely aligned with Several White House officials...but you go ahead and cherry pick what you want.
...
>>All we have from you is conjecture about evil ISP companies...
No, you see the problem with ISP's and what they are doing is well documented. The information you need is easy to find if you ever cared to look. And considering that this debate has been raging for several months, I must conclude you don't care to look.You have the problem of labeling and dismissing things you don't understand rather than considering them objectively.
>>I could provide you with libertarian leaning articles too...but you would say those were biased as well.
Right, because you're such an expert on what I think, even though you constantly call me a socialist when I have explained to you numerous times that I am not. In all honestly I would read the art...
(continues)
No, you see the problem with ISP's and what they are doing is well documented. The information you need is easy to find if you ever cared to look. And considering that this debate has been raging for several months, I must conclude you don't care to look.You have the problem of labeling and dismissing things you don't understand rather than considering them objectively.
>>I could provide you with libertarian leaning articles too...but you would say those were biased as well.
Right, because you're such an expert on what I think, even though you constantly call me a socialist when I have explained to you numerous times that I am not. In all honestly I would read the art...
(continues)
...
According to the commissioners who oppose it, that is exactly what this does...and Wheeler STILL won't release the details of the new regulations. So I will take the word of people telling us what's going on instead of the word of people trying to hide stuff from us.
...
>>...and Wheeler STILL won't release the details of the new regulations.
We may not have the entire 300 page document yet, but we do have this much, which does answer many of the arguments in the debate.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustai ... »
I won't rest easy until we've seen the entire set of rules. But it does seem that some details have definitely been released.
We may not have the entire 300 page document yet, but we do have this much, which does answer many of the arguments in the debate.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustai ... »
I won't rest easy until we've seen the entire set of rules. But it does seem that some details have definitely been released.
...
Again...you think I give a rat's behind about your opinion, you delusions, or how easy you will rest.
Please check yourself in somewhere before you get caught pretending to be me again.
Please check yourself in somewhere before you get caught pretending to be me again.
...
Yes, of course. Let's just ignore the actual facts and embrace paranoid delusions instead. Have fun with that.
...
Fact: Zpike created a fake account of me and trolled the forums pretending to miss Zpike. And responded to his own fake account be cause I had completely ignored him.
Fact: This was AFTER we had both agreed not to talk to each other. He then had to get "one last post" in and he summarily ignored.
Fact: Weeks later Zpike began trolling cainthecavebear again without provocation breaking his agreement that he would not post to cainthecavebear.
I ignored you for a dozen or so posts then as soon as I responded to one of yours, you went full bonkers and took it as "Hey he likes me again so we can talk".
As I pointed out to you before, telling a drunk in a parking lot to stop harassing me isn't an invitation for dialogue. In this analog...
(continues)
Fact: This was AFTER we had both agreed not to talk to each other. He then had to get "one last post" in and he summarily ignored.
Fact: Weeks later Zpike began trolling cainthecavebear again without provocation breaking his agreement that he would not post to cainthecavebear.
I ignored you for a dozen or so posts then as soon as I responded to one of yours, you went full bonkers and took it as "Hey he likes me again so we can talk".
As I pointed out to you before, telling a drunk in a parking lot to stop harassing me isn't an invitation for dialogue. In this analog...
(continues)
...
>>Fact: Zpike created a fake account of me and trolled the forums pretending to miss Zpike. And responded to his own fake account be cause I had completely ignored him.
That's an outright lie. I have never posted to this forum with any account other than "Zpike". If I have something to say, I will say it myself.
>>Fact: This was AFTER we had both agreed not to talk to each other.
Another lie. We agreed to end our current conversation. I am free to respond to anything on these forums I like, just as anyone else is. I'm not going to give that up just get someone to quit with his insults and warped psycho analysis.
>>He then had to get "one last post" in and he summarily ignored.
Another lie. cainthecavebear was posting on the th...
(continues)
That's an outright lie. I have never posted to this forum with any account other than "Zpike". If I have something to say, I will say it myself.
>>Fact: This was AFTER we had both agreed not to talk to each other.
Another lie. We agreed to end our current conversation. I am free to respond to anything on these forums I like, just as anyone else is. I'm not going to give that up just get someone to quit with his insults and warped psycho analysis.
>>He then had to get "one last post" in and he summarily ignored.
Another lie. cainthecavebear was posting on the th...
(continues)
...
i don't get it, either.
Of course the internet is netural, There are no companies out there blocking certain websites or slowing down certain bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Youtube.
I suppose they passed this law with the intent of making it illegal now in case a company like Time Warner Cable wanted to provide super fast speeds to their own products like HBOgo and Cinemax while slowing down other sites like Netflix and Hulu should they decide to try this at any time in some distopian future. Of course we know that would not be legal and a conflict of interest in the first place.
I also believe that ISP's should be able to manage their networks and make decisions on critical traffic vs. non critical and perhaps Netflix should n...
(continues)
Of course the internet is netural, There are no companies out there blocking certain websites or slowing down certain bandwidth hogs like Netflix and Youtube.
I suppose they passed this law with the intent of making it illegal now in case a company like Time Warner Cable wanted to provide super fast speeds to their own products like HBOgo and Cinemax while slowing down other sites like Netflix and Hulu should they decide to try this at any time in some distopian future. Of course we know that would not be legal and a conflict of interest in the first place.
I also believe that ISP's should be able to manage their networks and make decisions on critical traffic vs. non critical and perhaps Netflix should n...
(continues)
...
Conversely...
It was never an issue until some busy bodies decided we had to "fix" the internet.
It was never an issue until some busy bodies decided we had to "fix" the internet.
...
This forum is closed.
