To everyone who does not follow the Mainstream media, you'd better get used to it, because it is now legal for your ISPs to slowdown and block alternative news sites that post things they disagree with. Like Netflix? Comcast(which owns Hulu) can now slow down Netflix so that you are forced to switch.
Hell, it is possible for ISPs to charge every site an individual fee to load at broadband speeds, including this one.
I love how some of them said this will be great because it will allow them to be “creative” with their pricing... I’m sure it will benefit customers...
The Internet was awesome and great, in my opinion before Net Neutrality.
For over 20 years, the Internet has been a Wild West of everything and all things and no doubt has been one of the greatest inventions in our lifetimes.
Then a few years ago. Left-wing advocates wanted to force content on us, regardless if we wanted it or not. Left Wing advocates, wanted to spew their hate speech and wanted the fastest lanes of traffic on the Internet, without having to pay the ISP's for it. Basically they wanted Welfare internet.
Now it is hard to find any information any useful information at all, because providers have to gain money through ads, because the ThreeDogs of the world don't want to pay for it, yet they demand Gigabyte service and NetFlix level download speed for their Blog post, that nobody reads, because they are "entitled"
With it overturned, we can go back to the great days of the Internet again, that sparked the likes of Amazon, Google, FaceBook and many others. Note: Anyone notice that no new companies have emerged since ObamaNet?
This is a great day for freedom and a great day to resort the panhandlers of the internet to be sidelined to the slow lane, where they belong.
Funny that the Left is spinning this as a apocalyptic horror scenario, as if we lived in chains and darktimes before ObamaNet? Really?
I guess isn't an issue, just a reaction.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-14-2017).]
The Internet was awesome and great, in my opinion before Net Neutrality.
For over 20 years, the Internet has been a Wild West of everything and all things and no doubt has been one of the greatest inventions in our lifetimes.
Then a few years ago. Left-wing advocates wanted to force content on us, regardless if we wanted it or not. Left Wing advocates, wanted to spew their hate speech and wanted the fastest lanes of traffic on the Internet, without having to pay the ISP's for it. Basically they wanted Welfare internet.
Now it is hard to find any information any useful information at all, because providers have to gain money through ads, because the ThreeDogs of the world don't want to pay for it, yet they demand Gigabyte service and NetFlix level download speed for their Blog post, that nobody reads, because they are "entitled"
With it overturned, we can go back to the great days of the Internet again, that sparked the likes of Amazon, Google, FaceBook and many others. Note: Anyone notice that no new companies have emerged since ObamaNet?
This is a great day for freedom and a great day to resort the panhandlers of the internet to be sidelined to the slow lane, where they belong.
Funny that the Left is spinning this as a apocalyptic horror scenario, as if we lived in chains and darktimes before ObamaNet? Really?
I guess isn't an issue, just a reaction.
This.. They didn't have an issue before N/N but had to try to fix something that was not broken, it was a money grab, gimmie free service that I don't need to pay for.. The no new companies is a fact they'll dismiss, All they care about is someone else paying for their fast service speed..
The Internet was awesome and great, in my opinion before Net Neutrality.
For over 20 years, the Internet has been a Wild West of everything and all things and no doubt has been one of the greatest inventions in our lifetimes.
Then a few years ago. Left-wing advocates wanted to force content on us, regardless if we wanted it or not. Left Wing advocates, wanted to spew their hate speech and wanted the fastest lanes of traffic on the Internet, without having to pay the ISP's for it. Basically they wanted Welfare internet.
Now it is hard to find any information any useful information at all, because providers have to gain money through ads, because the ThreeDogs of the world don't want to pay for it, yet they demand Gigabyte service and NetFlix level download speed for their Blog post, that nobody reads, because they are "entitled"
With it overturned, we can go back to the great days of the Internet again, that sparked the likes of Amazon, Google, FaceBook and many others. Note: Anyone notice that no new companies have emerged since ObamaNet?
This is a great day for freedom and a great day to resort the panhandlers of the internet to be sidelined to the slow lane, where they belong.
Funny that the Left is spinning this as a apocalyptic horror scenario, as if we lived in chains and darktimes before ObamaNet? Really?
Conservatives generally want less government regulation. Net Neutrality was a solution looking for a problem. There are already laws on the books to handle the 'boogieman' issues. In that regard, this is not that different from the gun control debate.
Is odd that FCC said "bundling is legal and good" yet FTC/DOJ sued Microsoft and others for same. MS bundling IE is a main reason why Netscape went bankrupt and Navigator became Mozzila then Firefox. Chrome now hold top spot because it is default browser on every Android & ChromeOS devices while FF is getting lower and lower share and IE and Edge are barely reaching 8% total. Google has been a target in EU govmnts and elsewhere but DOJ just ignore them for antitrust problems. ------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
People Thinking NN is dead is good have no clue how Internet works right now. You can't compare when most users had modems or DSL. Not even to earlier years of broadband internet.
Yes, Netflix Google and many News Outlets worldwide want NN and pays Billions to push it But Is not just about a "free ride" thru the ISP. All Telco and Cable companies are spending Billions to fight NN and saying that but hiding real issues.
Unlike the Internet past, >~7 years past... 1. Comcast Verizon and a very few others now control most of the Internet "last mile" to your home, cell phone and businesses and can throttle or totally block almost anything even w/ NN rules now.
2. Worse the same huge ISP's now owns MSM News Outlets and a lot of other content. They want all control of what you see and read including News. In the US... Comcast now owns NBC Universal and other content makers. ATT owns content by owning DirectTV and Time Warner. Verizon owns AOL and Yahoo and others. Disney have many content brands includes ABC TV and now soon Most on Fox, Sky in UK and others. Many believe will soon try to buy or otherwise take over Verizon... https://www.investors.com/n...n-next-up-for-mouse/ others say V will takeover D but same results for you.
Without NN... 3 short Examples: Any news not just "fake news" and any other content can be blocked because goes against whatever message Comcast and others are pushing like NBC News already kills most stories that are negative to Comcast PR machine. In the near future viewing Breitbart etc, even The Onion and other comic news/toons, could be very hard. An older story when Comcast bought NBCU highlights this https://www.huffingtonpost....-is-ba_b_378345.html
"zero-rating" for using X service means X service is paying or owned by Y ISP to removed data caps for X but caps will count for X competitors. Most to all "Unlimited" data plans advertise in the US have "will throttle after __MB or __GB" in fine print. This bs market plane is the same capping system but doesn't charge more for going over the cap. IOW Comcast and ATT have zero-rating for their own stream services but Netflix YT etc count under data caps. Cell and some some DSL data caps are very low, 1-25GB, but Comcast have them too but not enforce right now in most areas. Verizon FiOS doesn't only because can't sell FiOS now in areas w/ this. Several lawsuits going thru courts for zero-rating because customers will always lean to data that won't be capped and slows down to be useless.
But Nexflix etc want a Free Ride... Netflix and others are already paying Many Millions of $ for fees to ISPs including to install "local copies" in their space. Other media content and web stores are using 3rd parties for same thing in or near the ISPs. Here's a quick overview how it works... How Does Netflix Work? from Linuxtechtips Even w/ OCA installed, Comcast can charge more for Netflix et al And/Or Charge You for access to them IOW Treat them as "new" HBO and other premium channels on top of what you pay Netflix.
[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 12-16-2017).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug85GT: . Google has been a target in EU govmnts and elsewhere but DOJ just ignore them for antitrust problems.
Not now, n/n let 2nd tier's like google play dirty games, now google is shaking as that just left the building.. The DOJ hands were tied whill Obama n/n was law.. not now the cuffs are off.. Google and others that control what you see by burying what they don't want you to see that was agenda driven is now going to cost them and others dearly.. Facebook will also be on that hit list..
Problem was/is to many think n.n. was pushed for controlling the internet providers, it wasn't it was to allow the 2nd tiers to control what you can see and have to dig for..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 12-16-2017).]
Then a few years ago. Left-wing advocates wanted to force content on us, regardless if we wanted it or not. Left Wing advocates, wanted to spew their hate speech and wanted the fastest lanes of traffic on the Internet, without having to pay the ISP's for it. Basically they wanted Welfare internet.
Net Neutrality did not force anything on us, it actually prevented ISPs from forcing things on us. Welfare internet? What are you even talking about? That implies that it costs the ISPs something to give each individual site priority, but that is not how the technology works. The ISPs will be pocketing money despite no difference in cost.
There were not fast lanes before these rules because ISPs did not have the technology or monopolies that they they do now on the American consumer. Also, if the "Main Stream Media" has a "Liberal Bias" then Liberals stand the most to gain from repealing it. The alternative news sites that many on the right have championed will not be successful.
quote
Originally posted by Wichita: With it overturned, we can go back to the great days of the Internet again, that sparked the likes of Amazon, Google, FaceBook and many others. Note: Anyone notice that no new companies have emerged since ObamaNet?
This is just not true.
Jet - Worth 1.4 Billion, Opened for Business in 2015
Porch - Valued at $500 Million, Started in 2015
Just because you don't use the services, doesn't mean they did not start up. Also, there is no logic or reasoning on why Net Neutrality laws would hurt new businesses, they would only help them. How could a competitor to youtube ever rise if they can't afford to be as fast as youtube? How could a new social media platform challenge twitter or facebook if they can just pay to be much faster?
quote
Originally posted by Wichita: This is a great day for freedom and a great day to resort the panhandlers of the internet to be sidelined to the slow lane, where they belong.
Wait, what? Do you think that somehow only liberal blogs are going to be impacted? This site will be impacted, alternative news sites will get hit hard, everyone who is not a major company will get hit hard.
quote
Originally posted by Wichita: Funny that the Left is spinning this as a apocalyptic horror scenario, as if we lived in chains and darktimes before ObamaNet? Really?
The "left" is not doing anything, this is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Americans support Net Neutrality, in fact, the number is 83%
The "left" is not doing anything, this is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Americans support Net Neutrality, in fact, the number is 83%
That is only because they hear the name and run with it without even knowing what it entails like um. you. net neutrality was a play on words to get the masses that are asses on board just like the affordable care act nothing affordable about it, but the name/label the masses that are asses double downed on.. without knowing what it entailed.. it is only partisan because both sides the left and rino's want to control what you see.. Again you claim to be a teacher.. Why you leave your union teaching job in the other state? you leave or get canned?
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 12-16-2017).]
Originally posted by Threedog: There were not fast lanes before these rules because ISPs did not have the technology or monopolies that they they do now on the American consumer. Also, if the "Main Stream Media" has a "Liberal Bias" then Liberals stand the most to gain from repealing it. The alternative news sites that many on the right have championed will not be successful.
Complete total monopoly for most areas because Cable TV as ISP has no competition for broadband even now. Google Fiber is now charging same or more then others for the few cities covered. Verizon have problems selling FiOS to the point sold off FiOS in at least 3 states because losing money big time. Big reason why FiOS win JD Power awards because less users to piss off. Most Anyone does regular business w/ Verizon hates them as bad as Comcast TWC etc. To get same speeds and channels thru FiOS cost more then Comcast etc in most areas. DSL barely reach low broadband speeds even when your close to Telco Central Office. A lot of people in the US are too far from CO to use DSL or even get best modem speeds w/ best modems available. May have 33.6 or 56kbps modems but most get 22.8 and less.
"5G" is supposed to be faster then Cable but that only switch to Verizon and other Mobile operations that will charge a lot and under same "plans" already in use like same "unlimited" schemes that is anything but.
Sorry but "Fast lanes" are easy and very old news. Most people have no clue that "Fast Lanes" is Just new label for an old net protocol. QoS (or see Wiki) is old tech use to priorities data transfers. In basic terms, You simply put a "slow tag" or no tag to most data and a "fast tag" for data used for Phones Streaming and so on to prevent dropouts and buffering. Windows XP & up and other OS'es have support for QoS but most users and even Net Admins never configured this. Most big routers and switches have supported this for 10+ years. Many SOHO (home use) routers built in last 10+ years support this too but turned off by default. DD-WRT and others support this as well.
Comcast and other ISP's and many others uses QoS now to priority VoIP (phone) services at very minimum. Adding/Changes priority for other things is trivial for most large businesses. Just add/remove/change them in tables built into the router's software/firmware. Cisco and other big routers can set/charge this using management software or remote admin access. Quick overview: Configure QoS on your Cisco router at TechRepublic
The "left" is not doing anything, this is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Americans support Net Neutrality, in fact, the number is 83%
I guess the "Judge" bared the whole truth from being seen? Now the public does not have enough facts to make a proper verdict? Threedog, you are to bias to make a judgment on the Off Topic issues you try to argue here. You are a typical broken record of liberal lemming lamenting.
Porch.com was funded by Wayfair and Lowes, but they are failing.
From Wiki: (Thanks to Open Internet)
Layoffs[edit] After quickly growing to 500 employees Porch began a series of layoffs which resulted in the headcount being reduced to about 250 employees. In addition, many key executives including the Chief Product Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Technology Officer left the company. I guess Obama NN can save them.
Remember, deregulation of the telecommunication industry brought us the mobile industry, smart phones, internet and etc.
If we left it to the heavy hands of government, we would all be using payphone and corded phones connected to our walls.
I don't want the Internet to be like that, because Leftist want it to be government regulated. Anyways, Net Neutrality doesn't mean neutral, anymore than Affordable Care Act means health care is affordable or Progressive means progress is being made.
It is a feel good slogan the government types put out to market themselves so leftist chumps can believe it.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-16-2017).]
Ooooh kay. So who here still thinks Net Neutrality was a good thing?
Have we fleshed this out yet, or is there someone here that still wants to rumble?
There has not been a single piece of evidence or explanation describing why NN is bad. The only things against NN in this thread is "leftists are stupid" and "all regulation is bad".
There is no reasoning behind the statements, no thought process. Just "no regulation=good, regulation=bad", even though there is no understanding of what NN actually is.
There has not been a single piece of evidence or explanation describing why NN is bad. The only things against NN in this thread is "leftists are stupid" and "all regulation is bad".
There is no reasoning behind the statements, no thought process. Just "no regulation=good, regulation=bad", even though there is no understanding of what NN actually is.
The timing is bad too, it did not help that this was forced on us by the obama administration. Another clue that it is bad AND politically influenced is that the liberal media is backing it. That says it is no good.
The timing is bad too, it did not help that this was forced on us by the obama administration. Another clue that it is bad AND politically influenced is that the liberal media is backing it. That says it is no good.
And when it's taken away the lefies start melting down. That's my biggest clue that something is good anymore. When the Left hates something there is a good chance it's something that's good for the country, and that I'll like.
Actually, this principle stands up pretty well on it's own merit.
Let's not forget that the "leftists are stupid" principle stands up pretty well on it's own merit as well.
Over a century of the absolute failure of the teachings of Marx and Engels seems to mean nothing to them.
There is a lot of Marxist redistributive economic ideology behind the left's angst over the "net neutrality" issue.
The poll that Threepup keeps mentioning, (83%), was 1,077 anonymous respondents to an online / internet poll over a 2 day period.
But that isn't the biggest problem with this. It's the fact that the poll itself is insanely slanted, (biased) in it's 2 operative questions; Q13 and Q14
It's immediately obvious to anyone with an education beyond the 8th grade and having even a small level of critical thinking skills what's wrong in how the "pro" and "con" arguments are stated.
This poll is what is commonly referred to as a "push poll" and is intentionally written / structured to produced a desired result.
The big give away is in the very first sentence of Q14: "This proposal is basically giving ISPs a license to steal from consumers."
Yup, There's nothing that says "unbiased polling" any more than a completely false and unfounded allegation of criminal behavior.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-19-2017).]
So again, no one has anything about the actual impact of NN to talk about, instead of insults and anti-left pro-right talking points?
Well, I guess you have not read all the posts in this thread. Who backs a law says a lot about the law. If liberal, politically bias politicians, "news outlets" and talking heads back it,....then, that is what is is about. The actual law is about bad regulations. Does that clear it up?
So again, no one has anything about the actual impact of NN to talk about, instead of insults and anti-left pro-right talking points?
OK, now don't take this as me personally trying to insult you but, have you considered this:
1) Due to your previous positions and discussions on this forum, others already know they aren't going to change your mind so, why bother? 2) Other posters really consider anything left of center (politically speaking) inherently wrong and don't give a damn about your opinion. 3) Few really give a damn about the issue. 4) Few can discuss the issue due to lack of knowledge. 5) Some don't trust what any lefty has to say anyway. 6) Way too many options for me to type them out but basically, folks just like to pull your chain.....
There has not been a single piece of evidence or explanation describing why NN is bad. The only things against NN in this thread is "leftists are stupid" and "all regulation is bad".
There is no reasoning behind the statements, no thought process. Just "no regulation=good, regulation=bad", even though there is no understanding of what NN actually is.
Single piece of evidence = "Title 2" go look it up, so I don't have to verbally spew for you.
ALL of your comments about why Net Neutrality is good, is based on PURE hypotheticals about what COULD happen.
(Oh please, PLEASE... start listing examples so I can destroy every single one of them)
I have read Title 2 many times, can you explain [I]why forcing companies to identify as common carriers is a bad thing[/I?]
When the government can regulate a communications company as a utility, that gives them the ability to essentially do whatever they want... that includes regulating speech from the perspective of FCC. They can future regulate political websites, enact taxes and fines on various services provided on the Internet... it gives them broad sweeping powers. Basically, it allows them to pretty much do anything and everything that SUPPORTERS of Net Neutrality thought that Net Neutrality was going to protect them against.
I encourage you to read the 400 page regulation (it is exactly 400 pages). The last 14 pages of the document is the dissension piece written by the then minority chair and Ajit Pai.
