Save net neutrality.

Our government doesn’t give a shit about the people. Government does what is best for government..... it always has and it always will
 
no fat chicks said:
Of course. Anyone defending this is a cool. Let's tell the boys in Washington to let us bang
Click to expand...
Net neutrality is a bandaid fix on a much bigger and more pervasive issue. The real issue is monopolization of the ISP market. And we have antitrust laws in place, just need to enforce them really.

It also gives control of what is 'fair' to the government. Maybe Trump decides fake news isn't fair, therefore nobody should host CNN content.

I say, before people get into a huge uproar, give it a year or two and see that the Internet will remain largely unchanged.
 
Broken arrow said:
Our government doesn’t give a shit about the people. Government does what is best for whoever donates money to elected officials..... it always has and it always will
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
Gunny said:
Dave Smith presented an interesting case against NN. He points out the high speed internet was originally implemented through technology created by the Cable TV industry and that in the early 80's the FCC was attempting to regulate cable in defense of traditional broadcast television. They failed but had they been successful we may not even have the high speed internet needed to have this argument. He also points out that if ISP's jack up the price on streaming content, it will draw investment and innovation to potential ISP competitors, thereby revitalizing what is currently a fairly stagnant market. Not wanting to attract that kind of capital to competitors, the current ISP's may just opt to maintain status quo and enforce their own net neutrality in order to keep their customers. Not sure what to believe about all of this but it's good to contemplate both sides.
Click to expand...
I cant imagine At&t or verizon doing ethical things after their history. The competition may be good, but they will still have to rent local WAN links and point of presence from the big ISP's to provide internet to cities. Im sure that wont come cheap. When in corporate history has removing restrictions in place to protect the customer ever actually benefitted the customer? Just look at any country without net neutrality and how they recieve internet. I also dont want me internet traffic throttled or filtered. "for 49.99 a month you get unlimited data to these 5 sites, oh you have another favorite website? that'll be another 5.99 for unlimited data to that particular site"
 
I’m not signing that bullshit and I’m glad this is happening. People spend far too much time on the internet and maybe people will get back to enjoying life instead of catching up on the latest Trump rumor.
 
One thing I think people dont understand is the reason there is a monopoly on the internet right now is the telecom companies like verizon and At&t own the infastructure. Those cables in your house go to a point of presence which is like a switchbox in the street owned by the phone companies. Without new infastructure, any other ISP's that come into play will still have to utilize the current infastructure and rent out that point of presence from the telecom company, id imagine at highly inflated rates. This wont help competition. The FCC needs to regulate these companies since they are really our only option as of now.
 
Scheme said:
It also gives control of what is 'fair' to the government. Maybe Trump decides fake news isn't fair, therefore nobody should host CNN content.
Click to expand...

<{fry}>
 
First commissioner is still speaking, 15 mins now. She will vote no to stripping net neutrality.
 
Scheme said:
Net neutrality is a bandaid fix on a much bigger and more pervasive issue. The real issue is monopolization of the ISP market. And we have antitrust laws in place, just need to enforce them really.

It also gives control of what is 'fair' to the government. Maybe Trump decides fake news isn't fair, therefore nobody should host CNN content.

I say, before people get into a huge uproar, give it a year or two and see that the Internet will remain largely unchanged.
Click to expand...

You sound like the EU defenders. Try it first, if you don't like it, you can leave.

Oh you don't like it? Well it looks like we were full of shit, and we rigged the game so you have to cut off your own leg, Saw style, if you want to leave.
 
ocfightfan said:
It's ironic that people advocating for big government are using the Gadsden flag as part of their logo.

Net neutrality went into effect in 2015. I don't remember life without it being a problem in the years prior. As far as I can tell having it in effect has not noticeably improved service or lowered prices. I think this is just another example of the leftist fetish for government interventionism.
Click to expand...


Just because the policy that has been termed as "net neutrality" didn't come into effect until recently doesn't mean that the FCC hadn't already been taking regulatory steps that prevent telecoms from acting unfairly by blocking other services on their networks that undercut their profits.


EG VOIP. There have been several regulatory actions in the past decade that prevented telecoms from limiting Skype access to their customers.

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/


The issue here is not only the recently enacted "net neutrality" protocol being repealed, but also that the FCC board, as it is currently composed, is no longer going to regulate the telecoms to prevent them from enacting tiered access or blocking certain services and sites altogether.
 
Last edited:
2nd commissioner states that the millions of comments stating "save net neutrality" submitted via comment form websites aren't considered because they aren't substantive objections, or are spam.
 
3rd commissioner is coming out hard against "obama regulations" will vote yes. 1-2.

remaining tie breaker is Ajit Pai. for 3rd yes

Net Neutrality is Dead

I predict in this minute netflix stock dives, telecoms rise.
 
4th commissioner (the hot one) supports net neutrality 2-2

Ajit pai is last to vote.
 
Amazing that so many proponents pose this as a consumer choice issue, when it is a monopoly at the final line level. You have one ISP choice. That's the definition of monopoly.

She state's 50% of consumers have only one ISP choice.
 
ToxicShocker said:
Amazing that so many proponents pose this as a consumer choice issue, when it is a monopoly at the final line level. You have one ISP choice. That's the definition of monopoly.
Click to expand...
To be fair, unless your in a small town usually you have 2 or so options not including spotty satalite internet. Take a look at my post a few above for a quick explanation of why there is a monopoly. Until we change our infustructure, our ISP issues will not change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,017
Messages
55,461,265
Members
174,787
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top