FCC Votes To Protect Net Neutrality, Reclassify Broadband

griffinhart said:
Such as? If you say Netflix, VPN traffic vs no VPN isn't proof of anything since it changes the very nature of the traffic. UDP vs TCP.

I stand by my statement.
Click to expand...

Netflix shelling out $$$ to Comcast to get their streams through is extortion, period, and part of the current problem.
 
all I want is a choice. some options. some competition. right now if i want broadband there is only 1 option. one cable company, and that is all.
 
Zale00 said:
Alot of young techies get off on "punishing" the evil big bad ISPs. Grrr its not fair, I want faster netflix and porn grrrrr. Yet they hate the NSA spying on them, lol. You just jammed uncle sam even further deep inside your precious internet with this crap.

I can't wait till the tech bloggers choke on their naivety. It shall be a glorious day.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the pore little guy who's blog will now require a permit to operate.
Anything can be deemed a telecommunication under Title II...things like, SnapChat, video conferencing and so forth... this whole thing is a pandoras box for the hand of government.
 
bbartlett said:
None.

Cable companies make profits that high on selling high speed data if you completely ignore the fact they spend billions deploying, upgrading, and maintaining the networks.
Click to expand...

LOL

Makes me wonder where these "billions of dollars" for "network upgrades" are actually going, because I sure as hell don't see the benefit. I think it's far more likely that infrastructure hasn't been updated in years and cable companies are pocketing the extra.
 
Zale00 said:
Yes I can guarantee they wouldn't censor. BECAUSE IT WILL COST THEM MONEY! And the profit motive is king in the free market. But now you are going to have politicians and bureaucrats passing regulation to throttle and censor. All in the name of the "public interest." Quick question, why is the Federal Election Commission playing a role in all of this? Because the Almighty B Hussein O, wants to the FEC to piggyback off of this ruling and regulate political websites. Havent heard much about that now have you? I WONDER WHY?!?!?!!
Click to expand...

This is a fantastic example of paranoid extremism.
Moment you wrote "almighty B Hussein O" it was clear where you head was at and how limited you are in your thought process.
Shout about guns all you want but let the grown ups work on the internet ok?

I am pretty sure Steve Wozniak knows more than you about this and he supports it.
But you guys can add some conspiracy theory to anything the moment its not going your way.Will this regulation be like those 'death panels' fox news told us about? Yeah I fucking thought so.
 
bbartlett said:
None.

Cable companies make profits that high on selling high speed data if you completely ignore the fact they spend billions deploying, upgrading, and maintaining the networks.
Click to expand...

Like fuck they upgrade their networks. TWC has done jack shit in this neck of the woods for a decade or more. ISPs in the USA are fat and fucking happy. They'd rather bone their customers with artificial data caps than upgrade their networks...which is exactly what they've been doing.
 
Domingo said:
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that there will be no middle ground on this. Seems that people always either sound like Ralph Nader or Ayn Rand when talking about things like this.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true.

This regulation may not go far enough. It doesn't force companies to share the same last mile, as telecom regulation does, it doesn't put cost limits in place, it doesn't tackle the problem of wireless carriers 0-billing data for specific services they want to promote (like T-Mobiles music service) It may not tackle intentional peering congestion (like what caused the famous Netflix slowdowns), etc. etc.

It's a big step in the right direction, it just may not go far enough, and there may be unintended loopholes in it.

I would say I am cautiously optimistic.
 
cptnjarhead said:
Not to mention the pore little guy who's blog will now require a permit to operate.
Anything can be deemed a telecommunication under Title II...things like, SnapChat, video conferencing and so forth... this whole thing is a pandoras box for the hand of government.
Click to expand...

Do you have facts or are you just fear mongering?
Wait forget I asked, its obvious what you are doing.
 
NeghVar said:
And it was the removal of this doctrine that brought about today's liberal media.
Click to expand...

And it gave us Rush Limbaugh. Free speech is "Free" Why should the Government decide what you, me or anyone else should listen to, read, blog, stream... this list goes on.
 
griffinhart said:
They were neither throttling, nor prioritizing traffic.
Click to expand...

I guess you didnt see the charts showing Netflix speeds tanking during their talks with Comcast until they ponied up a ton of $$$.

Extortion.
 
Limahl said:
I guess you didnt see the charts showing Netflix speeds tanking during their talks with Comcast until they ponied up a ton of $$$.

Extortion.
Click to expand...

Yeah the guy is just straight up lying to support his POV.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041451676 said:
Reality has a well documented liberal bias :p
Click to expand...

This line is about as tired as other similar, empty platitudes such as "speak truth to power". It's the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"
 
Pretty crazy that some people think that this is a bad thing. Have they not been paying attention to what ISP's have been doing to the american consumer for the last 10+ years?

paid shills must be out in full force.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Do you have facts or are you just fear mongering?
Wait forget I asked, its obvious what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I hope im wrong, hell, what would i gain from fear mongering?
If you think that private businesses that strive to deliver the best products possible for the best price are the bad guy, and the Government that operates solely on forced taxation has your best interest at heart. Then you are hopelessly lost.
 
Zale00 said:
Yes I can guarantee they wouldn't censor. BECAUSE IT WILL COST THEM MONEY! And the profit motive is king in the free market. But now you are going to have politicians and bureaucrats passing regulation to throttle and censor. All in the name of the "public interest." Quick question, why is the Federal Election Commission playing a role in all of this? Because the Almighty B Hussein O, wants to the FEC to piggyback off of this ruling and regulate political websites. Havent heard much about that now have you? I WONDER WHY?!?!?!!
Click to expand...

There is little free market in the ISP field. Monopoly in many places. So profit motive can be set aside while censorship is forced upon the users and if consumers complain to an ISP about the censorship. ISP: Well then choose another ISP...Oh wait! We are the only ISP available to you. tought luck <finger>
images
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Yeah the guy is just straight up lying to support his POV.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I guess all the customers who couldnt get HD streams before the "agreement" and who could after is just coincidence?

Back in February, Comcast and Netflix were in negotiations. The black line in the chart below shows Netflix internet speeds on Comcast's service. Then, Netflix finally gave in to Comcast demands...and look what happens.

netflix-40.jpg
Click to expand...
 
NeghVar said:
There is little free market in the ISP field. Monopoly in many places. So profit motive can be set aside while censorship is forced upon the users and if consumers complain to an ISP about the censorship. ISP: Well then choose another ISP...Oh wait! We are the only ISP available to you. tought luck <finger>
images
Click to expand...

You know what you are right. We as human beings are forced to remain in the same place and are unable to move and make decisions to get what we want. So if I'm at a certain location. IT IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO GET WHAT KIND OF CABLE/INTERNET I WANT AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Oh wait I have the freedom to relocate or make adjustments to my life? Meh screw it thats too hard, Uncle Sam come take care of me!!
 
So now everybody can watch Netflix a bit faster...on the same ISP they had before, getting charged exorbitant rates because there is STILL no competition between ISP's.

Wooptie-doo.
 
griffinhart said:
Extortion is illegal. You have that right. Of course, this isn't extortion. They were neither throttling, nor prioritizing traffic. Personally, I think that Netflix footing the bill for any deals makes perfect sense. No matter who paid for it, it was going to be passed to the consumer. I would much rather see Netflix pass the cost to their subscribers since they are the ones directly using the service, rather than passing the cost on to all ISP customers who may or may not be using the service.


And in the governmental world this sort of thing happens all the time. If ISP's were a town and Netflix a new mall that wanted to be built the towns often require these new projects that will increase traffic pay for the civil upgrades, such as widening highways and adding on/off ramps.
Click to expand...

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/...peeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

isp-speed.png



You can say Netflix having to pay the bill is how it should be but, you can't say they weren't throttling or prioritizing traffic.
 
Terpfen said:
This line is about as tired as other similar, empty platitudes such as "speak truth to power". It's the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"
Click to expand...

But fairly accurate when your entire ideology is based on the complete and total denial of scientific findings, which IS what defines reality. :p
 
HardLiner said:
Was there any doubt that this wasn't going to happen?
Click to expand...

Corporations are People. And some "people" gave a hell of a lot of "speech" away to try to get this to go the other way...almost worked too. 3-2 is just barely in any setting.
 
frelled said:
What a joke. The ISP's are the problem. They hold a monopoly that allows them to make up to 99% profit. If there was actual competition, Title II wouldn't be necessary. Right wing stooges have brought the gov't bad bandwagon again. Thankfully for once, the majority of people aren't getting on that sad train of bullshit.
Click to expand...

What in the fawk are you talking about. How can multiple ISP's hold monopolies? Last I remember a monopoly is when one company controls the entire market for that service and/or good. Sure some ISP's are bigger than others, such as Comcast, Xfinity, and Charter for examples. Wait a second, I just stated three major ISP's. How can there be a monopoly when those 3 are fighting for business. Maybe if the gov would stop sticking its hands where it doesn't belong, there wouldn't be the "gov is bad" bandwagon. If ISP's are doing crap they aren't suppose to, the natural law of things is another competitor will come along and begin to take over since they will offer something better than their competition. But you don't see that now a days... Hmm maybe because the gov keeps sticking its hands in places and creating more rules, regulations, and taxes that make it harder for new businesses to start or existing ones to expand.
 
AliceCooper said:
What in the fawk are you talking about. How can multiple ISP's hold monopolies? Last I remember a monopoly is when one company controls the entire market for that service and/or good. Sure some ISP's are bigger than others, such as Comcast, Xfinity, and Charter for examples. Wait a second, I just stated three major ISP's. How can there be a monopoly when those 3 are fighting for business. Maybe if the gov would stop sticking its hands where it doesn't belong, there wouldn't be the "gov is bad" bandwagon. If ISP's are doing crap they aren't suppose to, the natural law of things is another competitor will come along and begin to take over since they will offer something better than their competition. But you don't see that now a days... Hmm maybe because the gov keeps sticking its hands in places and creating more rules, regulations, and taxes that make it harder for new businesses to start or existing ones to expand.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

YOu forgot the part where they have carved up territories in order to avoid competing with eachother.

An overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. have only one choice for a "high speed internet provider". It doesn't really matter if there is another company the next town over, or down the street. They don't live there.

Thus, monopoly. Whenever a customer doesn't have a readily available competitor to choose, should they not be happy with their service/product that is a monopoly.
 
Better this than letting companies run the internet. Competition my butt! There isn't any in most areas. I live in small town USA Northern NY. For 10 Mb fiber I pay 200 a month.I have no Time Warner or Comcast. Most companies only care about their shareholders, customers are dollar signs in their eyes. You say no govt regulations, but without there would be anarchy in the streets...
 
AliceCooper said:
How can there be a monopoly when those 3 are fighting for business.
Click to expand...

Regional monopolies.

And they all agree not to compete with one another in their repsective geographic boundaries. That is how. Would you like me to explain long division, too?
 
Despotes said:
When the govt get's involved nothing is "neutral". I'm shocked by the foolish acceptance of this. You really think what you see on the surface is all you get? I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's comment regarding passing Obamacare. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it".
The Obama administration and the IRS only have the best of intentions for you. LOL SUCKERS!
Click to expand...

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/19/8069117/obamacare-critics-wrong

I'd say it's working really well.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041451676 said:
Reality has a well documented liberal bias :p
Click to expand...

Evolution, Big Bang, climate change are inherently "liberal" concerns these days. When you have right wing politicians that flat out refuse to acknowledge the almost certainty of evolution how can science be anything these days but liberally biased? Conservatives refuse to talk about it.
 
cptnjarhead said:
I hope im wrong, hell, what would i gain from fear mongering?
If you think that private businesses that strive to deliver the best products possible for the best price are the bad guy, and the Government that operates solely on forced taxation has your best interest at heart. Then you are hopelessly lost.
Click to expand...

If you think private business cares about anything other then its stock price, then you need your head examined.
 
griffinhart said:
Extortion is illegal. You have that right. Of course, this isn't extortion. They were neither throttling, nor prioritizing traffic. Personally, I think that Netflix footing the bill for any deals makes perfect sense. No matter who paid for it, it was going to be passed to the consumer. I would much rather see Netflix pass the cost to their subscribers since they are the ones directly using the service, rather than passing the cost on to all ISP customers who may or may not be using the service.


And in the governmental world this sort of thing happens all the time. If ISP's were a town and Netflix a new mall that wanted to be built the towns often require these new projects that will increase traffic pay for the civil upgrades, such as widening highways and adding on/off ramps.
Click to expand...

If an isp's infrastructure is substandard then that is the isp's problem. If they are selling bandwidth that they can't deliver, fuck them. They need to invest their 97% profit in their own damn company. You don't simply go to an unaffiliated company that your costumers do business with and demand payment in exchange for allowing their product to pass through your territory. That's what the mafia does. That's racketeering & extortion. That's illegal.
 
Among the most challenging aspects of Title II for reclassification proponents is the fact that Title II permits discrimination. Section 202 of the Act prohibits “unjust and unreasonable discrimination” and by inference permits just and reasonable discrimination; this is an inconvenient fact for those proposing strict non-discrimination requirements on the Internet.
Click to expand...

http://www.coats.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/coats-obamas-net-neutrality-regulations-would-stifle-innovation

I hope im wrong, but the government inherently consumes and controls... again, I hope im wrong.
 
Zale00 said:
You know what you are right. We as human beings are forced to remain in the same place and are unable to move and make decisions to get what we want. So if I'm at a certain location. IT IS MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO GET WHAT KIND OF CABLE/INTERNET I WANT AND I WANT IT NOW!!!

Oh wait I have the freedom to relocate or make adjustments to my life? Meh screw it thats too hard, Uncle Sam come take care of me!!
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that people who are unhappy with their internet service, buy a new home in a different community?

Are you nuts?

You do realize there is a long tradition of tacking local and regional monopolies, right?
 
Zale00 said:
Heya Fidel, or Castro would be a better name for you. I see you are upset about me pissing on your commie parade and pointing out some logical problems with all this. Its ok, I see you resorted to your condescending pseudo intellectual left Snark. Its cool bro, I'm not mad. You are though :)

But, I just wanna take a quick moment and point out that the death panels in Obamacare is referred to the "True Lives System" in the actual text of the bill. But I doubt you would even care to know that. But hey, if you want to educate yourself, Ctrl f it in the bill.
Click to expand...

Im not angry man and I am sure that you are since you are on the losing side of most every national debate.
Also Death Panels are not real. Keep spewing nonsense but they do not exist.
It was PolitiFacts 'Lie of the Year'.
I am glad some people are ignorant enough to still go for that garbage lie though lol!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/
 
AliceCooper said:
What in the fawk are you talking about. How can multiple ISP's hold monopolies? Last I remember a monopoly is when one company controls the entire market for that service and/or good. Sure some ISP's are bigger than others, such as Comcast, Xfinity, and Charter for examples. Wait a second, I just stated three major ISP's. How can there be a monopoly when those 3 are fighting for business. Maybe if the gov would stop sticking its hands where it doesn't belong, there wouldn't be the "gov is bad" bandwagon. If ISP's are doing crap they aren't suppose to, the natural law of things is another competitor will come along and begin to take over since they will offer something better than their competition. But you don't see that now a days... Hmm maybe because the gov keeps sticking its hands in places and creating more rules, regulations, and taxes that make it harder for new businesses to start or existing ones to expand.
Click to expand...

You don't see any competition anymore because the surviving business have gotten so large, they're impossible to compete against. No one can raise the money to compete head to head, so you're ending up with 2/3 giants in pretty much every industry. The tech industry is going through that right now, with Google/Apple eating everyone else up.
This doubles when you have infrastructure to consider, which raises startup costs even more.

The lack of competition is due to the Federal government not doing it's damn job and allowing and endless stream of corporate mergers, reducing competition and leaving giants in their wake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top