FCC Officially Approves New Net Neutrality Regulations
I don't get it...
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
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.
Have a nice day Mrs Clinton.
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...
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 ...
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.
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.
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 ...
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. 😈
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...
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.
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...
BTW, are you stalking me?
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.examiner.com/article/net-neutrality-georg » ... Â»
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 » Â»
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...
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.
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...
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.
Please check yourself in somewhere before you get caught pretending to be me again.
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...
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...
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...
This forum is closed.