Users Online Now:
1,684
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
172,029
Pageviews Today:
223,687
Threads Today:
51
Posts Today:
813
01:43 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Hell Yeah! Senate votes to reverse FCC order and restore net neutrality
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM5MDcxX0E0RjhDQTdB] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM5MDA4XzkyNjVFNDE5] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4OTk1XzhBN0I3RjA3] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4ODg2X0JBQjc1Q0I=] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4ODM0XzY1MUNEMkM=] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NzQzX0RDMjg4OTc1] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NzExXzRGNTExQzFD] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NTYzX0VEOUEzRjk5] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NTMwXzlFNDlBNjY=] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NDUzX0M3NzUwNjZE] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4NDA4XzJERDAyQkEw] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4MjkxXzgxNDM1NEZG] [quote:Anonymous Coward 73577072:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4MjI3XzhCRDQyODAx] [quote:Anonymous Coward 42079668:MV8zODMyOTg4XzY4OTM4MDQ0XzQ3MDMwQTUz] Net Neutrality came about when people wanted to use face time apps and other high intensity bandwidth uses over wireless internet. Imagine if netflix were a trucking company, and they wanted the exclusive use of the highway system to deliver their goods. That's what's happening here, higher bandwidth services such as streaming, chatting in real time, etc demanded higher network services. They should be charged more. People don't realize what's involved in sharing their stupid conversations over the internet. [/quote] Your points don't actually make sense. Your analogy with a trucking company is quite uneducated to be honest. Within that example netflix with be using the roads paid for by taxes (ISP subscription charges for the Internet and Taxes for actual roads) but they would then be required to pay a surcharge to use the road alongside of you to deliver the packages you want to you. Big difference is that the roads cost a lot of money, extra bandwidth is pretty cheap and generally doesn't require much extra hardware where we are now. And keep in mind that the actual bandwidth (The actual roads of the internet) Have long been subsidized by the government and your tax payer money. The ISPs are just milking every dollar out of their monopolies. [/quote] Sorry I felt I needed to use a very small brained analogy to break it down for you. Anyone who supports net "neutrality" ( a misleading name by the way ) supports the full government control of the internet. Bottom line. That is what will lead to internet being like television. It's been proven time and time again government control makes things worse, not better. Net neutrality gives the government the power to regulate and with it, it's only a matter of time before the internet in fact becomes not free, and websites like this will disappear. As far as bandwidth you aren't going to argue that more demand on the network puts more stress and requires more power, more maintenance, etc. You simply can't deny that. So companies as well as people who want "fair internet" don't realize the costs involved in what they want. Lets be honest, mostly folks who support net neutrality are concerned with their download speeds being slowed, because they are downloading tons of media, illegally. The only other people supporting this lunacy would be brainwashed liberals. Which one are you? [/quote] Thanks for jumping right into demeaning my intelligence and showing a clear lack of your own cognitive abilities to boot! 'Net Neutrality' Does not allow the the government the power to regulate the content on the internet. It just limits your ISP's ability to do so! And you pay your ISP for a speed and a dataplan..... Net Neutrality actually is a regulation of the ability of ISP's to limit your access to content within the 'Service contract' you have with them. It stipulates that the ISP is required to provide the terms of their contract to all content providers online equally. 'Net Neutrality' Does not add government oversight over the internet. It's a means to not allow ISPs to discriminate the content you have access to within your service contract with them. It stipulates that your ISP cannot choose to limit your access to a service (or forum) because they do not like the content on it, or it takes more bandwidth then others. [/quote] No. I was responding to you calling my analogy uneducated. You are also wrong about government oversight, net "neutrality" does add it, by the truckloads. How do you think the government is supposed to enforce the neutrality and keep little old you safe from the evil corporations who want to limit your internet? They will have to oversee these corporations of course, the same way they oversee television and radio corporations. With an iron fist. Face it bub, this so called net neutrality is bad business. [/quote] How does it add oversight? Any content provider that gets a shake down from a ISP will complain.... And they already oversee the ISP's. They are monopolies and the infrastructure that carries the content (bandwidth) is paid for with taxpayer dollars.... You're argument boils down to the town having to work the communal farm and then pay the local grocer who runs the farm to get the produce..... [/quote] Monopolies implies one company that controls all the avenues of a particular good or service. Considering there are hundreds of internet service providers out there, where's this monopoly? Government oversight comes in the form of regulation as I have explained a number of times. If you don't get it I can't help you. Furthermore if no government oversight is needed why is net neutrality needed? Do you even understand what it does? Because it puts the control of the internet directly in the hands of the government. If you can't understand this one simple thing you won't understand why net neutrality is bad. [/quote] No ISP monopolies in the US? Do some research... There are a lot but most areas are serviced by one. And Net Neutrality is not a government oversight measure, it's a limitation on companies to expand their revenue streams. It means that they get their profit from their users not the content providers. It does not increase government control over the internet it just requires ISP's to adhere to the basic rule that they provide unhindered access to all things online. I understand that you want to think that any rule increases government power. Net Neutrality did something else. It limited the markets ability to monetize and discriminate your ability to access content online. Something that was generally accepted in the early days of the internet until a corporation saw a means to defy and milk it. Net Neutrality is not a new idea, it's always been here, long before 2015. Hence why the internet worked good. Then ISP's got greedy and tried for new revenue streams. Hence it was deemed necessary to codify it. [/quote] You don't understand how internet service providers work. First off there's hundreds of wireless providers. Secondly there are only 2-3 hard wired connections to choose from, the reason for that is because companies aren't allowed to come in and run new utility hard lines. Why aren't they allowed to do that though? Oh that's right more government regulation that says they can't. That's right dummie, the reason why you can only get 1 cable internet service provider per area is because the government regulated how many hard wired utility lines could be installed per area. More government control stifling innovation and progress. And you support more of the control. Like the good puppet you are. [/quote] You have your points reversed... The government payed for the infrastructure and the ISP holds a stranglehold over it to keep competition out (Lobbying plays a part). I'll grant you the government is complicit, but it is the ISP's that are creating the mess. Giving them oversight over the content you can consume isn't smart. [/quote] Sorry can't help you. The intense amount of brainwashing they have over you can't be easily broken. You are so convinced that evil corporation are out to get you, despite they never have done anything wrong to you, but you feel the government is your savior. I can't help you break that programming, that's something you will have to figure out yourself. [/quote] Likewise I am sorry for you, that think the government is set out to harm you in every way and that regulations that limit the free market are bad. In theory I agree that limiting a free market is bad, but when it comes to infrastructure like the internet there is no free market and monopolies quickly form because initial cost of deployment is too high. ISP's don't give a shit about you, they know you need them, they will f' you whenever possible. And your bending over and begging as the government is trying to tell them not to. [/quote] Show your proof where corporations were raising internet rates unexplainably, and net neutrality helped to lower those rates. Go on I'll be waiting here. [/quote] "A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[9] Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop.[10] In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services.[11] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[12] In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices".[13]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality) Geez you really researched didn't you? [/quote]
Original Message
The Senate today voted 52-47 to disapprove the FCC’s recent order replacing 2015’s net neutrality rules, a pleasant surprise for internet advocates and consumers throughout the country. Although the disapproval will almost certainly not lead to the new rules being undone, it is a powerful statement of solidarity with a constituency activated against this deeply unpopular order.
[
link to techcrunch.com (secure)
]
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>