Tiny,tiny sliver that elected Trump president. And as long as you keep thinking that he will keep on winning !!!
Net neutrality gone in the bat of an eye
- Thread starter Tibs
- Start date
Tiny,tiny sliver that elected Trump president. And as long as you keep thinking that he will keep on winning !!!
i really dont want comast / suddenlink , (insert your cable company here) to be able to make me pay more for faster internet. Because really its all the same speed,,, they would just be slowing it down.
Suddenlink hasnt upgraded any cable lines in our town since it was put in. in the 70s.
I really dont want them to be able to slow down the services i access, to further their own agenda ,, (netflix vs on demand movies )
It sounds like this is a bad move that doesnt help the avg. consumer.
It also sounds like it would be easier to spy on average citizens and tax purchases.
but we all know that is coming,, because it has to. It's inevitable.
Suddenlink hasnt upgraded any cable lines in our town since it was put in. in the 70s.
I really dont want them to be able to slow down the services i access, to further their own agenda ,, (netflix vs on demand movies )
It sounds like this is a bad move that doesnt help the avg. consumer.
It also sounds like it would be easier to spy on average citizens and tax purchases.
but we all know that is coming,, because it has to. It's inevitable.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
The hysteria is just outrageous.
As quickly as this was enacted and eliminated, it can be re-enacted. So stop with the sky is falling ****. If the ISP's push it too far, the FCC will get involved again (both this one and a future democrat one) because it's literally "that easy" to pass regulations like this.
The truth is, I have yet to see one good ******* reason why this was needed in the first place. Nothing changed from 2014 to 2015 with my internet, access, prices, etc. Nothing. And Tibs and Trog know that to be true. Hell, this doesn't even EFFECT Tibs because he's in Hungary so stop with the bullshit. Hell, for all we know Tibs' ISP has been running without this "government protection" for the last 2 years and he still has access to Steeler Nation (unfortunately sometimes).
In all reality, this was a regulation that wasn't needed, over-reached on regulatory power (without Congress) and wouldn't have held up to litigation anyway (which really is how much of Obama's Presidency can be described).
I will believe this turns the internet into "bundled TV cable plans" when I see it because I think that is just a bunch of bullshit scare tactics.
As quickly as this was enacted and eliminated, it can be re-enacted. So stop with the sky is falling ****. If the ISP's push it too far, the FCC will get involved again (both this one and a future democrat one) because it's literally "that easy" to pass regulations like this.
The truth is, I have yet to see one good ******* reason why this was needed in the first place. Nothing changed from 2014 to 2015 with my internet, access, prices, etc. Nothing. And Tibs and Trog know that to be true. Hell, this doesn't even EFFECT Tibs because he's in Hungary so stop with the bullshit. Hell, for all we know Tibs' ISP has been running without this "government protection" for the last 2 years and he still has access to Steeler Nation (unfortunately sometimes).
In all reality, this was a regulation that wasn't needed, over-reached on regulatory power (without Congress) and wouldn't have held up to litigation anyway (which really is how much of Obama's Presidency can be described).
I will believe this turns the internet into "bundled TV cable plans" when I see it because I think that is just a bunch of bullshit scare tactics.
Oh, bullshit. Net neutrality was initiated in 2015, LESS THAN THREE YEARS AGO! So how did we possibly survive before then????
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
They already do this WITH the regulation. I have a couple options with Verizon that allows me to pay for "faster internet". Supposedly jumping my internet speed from 30M bits/second (minimum) up to a guaranteed 50M bits/second (minimum).
The truth is most things on the internet don't NEED higher download/upload ability unless they want to push more and more advertising down our throats (look at how ****** ESPN's website is). And it's frustrating for the ISP's to guarantee all this increased power to EVERYONE when only a few are really asking for it.
All this does is allow this hiccup in the evolution of the internet to work itself out naturally (with marketplace forces) rather than have the government come in and think they can do better. There are just a few website and content providers that want/need HUGE data ability. And we're at a point as to who is going to pay for that and how.
The left really doesn't want to even talk about that elephant in the room. They just think it will "happen" and ISP's and content providers will pay for it without the consumers paying for it (which is bullshit). We're all going to pay for it somehow, someway.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,372
- Reaction score
- 5,442
- Points
- 113
I have options, but after the introductionary promotion ends, the competitor will charge me as much as they can which is just enough to make it too much of a pain in the *** to switch back. The demand for internet service is huge and the supply (ISPs) is low and there are many barriers to entry. There isn’t much competition and little hope for more anytime soon. The alternative to cable isn’t the other cable company, it’s internet programming. As I see it, killing net neutrality is letting the companies that have been screwing cable consumers take control of the cable alternative.
All is lost! All is lost!
Ha ha, lmao @ libtards.
Ha ha, lmao @ libtards.
Innocuous? Bullshit.
Right-wing extremists? Your name-calling antics are becoming passe. Carry on.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,431
- Reaction score
- 22,163
- Points
- 113
Extremist...hahaha. I have his Hungarian *** blocked for a reason. Socialist nonsense
My understanding of this, to use Tape’s hospital analogy- it’s not just the services provided at the hospital. It’s the speed in which you can get access to those services. Kinda like having the upgraded speed now, but you may pay more for that. And you wouldn’t simply be able to go to another hospital (ISP).
AT&T owns the vast majority of the infrastructure here for telecom. Those antennas you use for your cell service,regardless of provider, are on the same tower that AT&T owns. Which is why, for the most part, you get better service with AT&T. Smaller cell phone service providers simply do not have the capital to put up their own towers, so they lease space on AT&T’s towers. The drawback for getting service with a smaller provider is they may not have leased space on towers near you. Meanwhile, AT&T already has the tower in place and providing coverage. So, yes, you could go to a smaller provider, if you won’t get the same quality of service ... or coverage.
If you have Brighthouse and Brighthouse chooses to create their own version of Netflix, don’t assume that you will be accessing Netflix at the same speed as you would the service Brighthouse has invested their money in creating.
I also believe that this will end any chance for future ISPs, if the current ISPs are seen as a utility. I’m at the mercy of my current electricity provider to provide electricity to my house. I choose which lights or appliances to operate and spend what I choose based on their rates. Sure, there are people like me who hate paying high utility bills, but there quite simply is no other option. People can’t just pool their money and create a new utility company ... all the current infrastructure is property of someone else.
AT&T owns the vast majority of the infrastructure here for telecom. Those antennas you use for your cell service,regardless of provider, are on the same tower that AT&T owns. Which is why, for the most part, you get better service with AT&T. Smaller cell phone service providers simply do not have the capital to put up their own towers, so they lease space on AT&T’s towers. The drawback for getting service with a smaller provider is they may not have leased space on towers near you. Meanwhile, AT&T already has the tower in place and providing coverage. So, yes, you could go to a smaller provider, if you won’t get the same quality of service ... or coverage.
If you have Brighthouse and Brighthouse chooses to create their own version of Netflix, don’t assume that you will be accessing Netflix at the same speed as you would the service Brighthouse has invested their money in creating.
I also believe that this will end any chance for future ISPs, if the current ISPs are seen as a utility. I’m at the mercy of my current electricity provider to provide electricity to my house. I choose which lights or appliances to operate and spend what I choose based on their rates. Sure, there are people like me who hate paying high utility bills, but there quite simply is no other option. People can’t just pool their money and create a new utility company ... all the current infrastructure is property of someone else.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
" Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.
>>>This is a security issue. Some things on the web that threaten national security should be able to be blocked by a service provider.
A freedom of speech type of argument. While you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can to say all kind of bad information over the web.
>>>This is a security issue. Some things on the web that threaten national security should be able to be blocked by a service provider.
A freedom of speech type of argument. While you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can to say all kind of bad information over the web.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,228
- Points
- 113
This is a pretty even-handed overview. Also mentions why and how net neutrality laws came into effect to begin with.
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fbbcnews%2Fvideos%2F10155400682107217%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fbbcnews%2Fvideos%2F10155400682107217%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,022
- Reaction score
- 585
- Points
- 113
I think the presentation was ok, but slanted towards support of Net Neutrality.
Again it comes down to... how were things handled before Net Neutrality was instituted, and is it better or worse currently.
I don't have the answer to that, but I do think it's a case where the proponents of keeping Net Neutrality are big companies who want to control their service, versus letting other big companies dictate to them how their service gets distributed.
Corporate vs Corporate -- I think the consumer pays either way.
Yeah baby!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,228
- Points
- 113
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump supporters on 4Chan and Reddit cheering the net neutrality repeal is some real cows voting for the slaughterhouse type stuff.</p>— Will Sommer (@willsommer) <a href="https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/941382780340113410?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I agree. Have at it I guess, but the FCC can change their minds in the blink of an eye the other way too. At any time, under any circumstance or reality of impropriety by the ISP's.
The left wants you to believe the ISP's can now do whatever the **** they want. They can't. The checks and balances still exist. If we start falling behind Europe or China on internet access or speed, Congress will get involved, heads will roll and hearings will happen with the heads of Comcast, Verizon and who knows who else.
There is literally no reason to think things will get WORSE. It's clearly about the cost of improvements and how to pay for them and who gets access to the really, really high speed pipes/highways.
Yep pretty simple eye test for just about anything inside the beltway.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,431
- Reaction score
- 22,163
- Points
- 113
Right after he gets done with his time machine .
After the polar bears are dead. Which was supposed to happen 15 years ago. Or some such ****.
I have made my living in the world of ISPs, the Internet, websites, and content for over two decades. Every day I wake and go to bed helping to build this world. I work with some of the world's largest ISPs, content providers, retailers etc.
I'll simply say after viewing five pages of this dribble that the utter lack of knowledge shown is shocking.
The vast majority of arguments here are politically driven, lacking information and knowledge.
Oh, the sky is falling.
LOL
I'll simply say after viewing five pages of this dribble that the utter lack of knowledge shown is shocking.
The vast majority of arguments here are politically driven, lacking information and knowledge.
Oh, the sky is falling.
LOL
Similar threads
