Net Neutality

#51
#51
midnight orange said:
Is this scenario a common occurrence? Please point to any situations that this scenario played out before net neutrality.
Click to expand...


You are asking the wrong question. Netflix was fine and will be fine now. Its not the current providers of services that are the issue, its the future providers that have to worry about this.

Lets' say the next Netflix comes along with a new and better product -- you know someone will come up with one, the way technology is advancing. But for you to see it, the current providers of access, who themselves have an interest in content, will place hurdles in the way.

The loser is the consumer. Us. You and me. This retards evolution of services on the net.

The winners are the current providers of internet access.

Who do you think paid for this result? Comcast, Brighthouse, Spectrum. The list goes on and on.

Today is a banner day for companies that depend on maintaining the status quo so they can continue to make billions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#52
#52
It should be noted that there are transparency requirements under the new rules. A lack of transparency was the more valid concern, IMO, for people that are looking for responsible regulation.
 
#53
#53
lawgator1 said:
You are asking the wrong question. Netflix was fine and will be fine now. Its not the current providers of services that are the issue, its the future providers that have to worry about this.

Lets' say the next Netflix comes along with a new and better product -- you know someone will come up with one, the way technology is advancing. But for you to see it, the current providers of access, who themselves have an interest in content, will place hurdles in the way.

The loser is the consumer. Us. You and me. This retards evolution of services on the net.

The winners are the current providers of internet access.

Who do you think paid for this result? Comcast, Brighthouse, Spectrum. The list goes on and on.

Today is a banner day for companies that depend on maintaining the status quo so they can continue to make billions.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? The fear NN proponents have is that things will get bad, not that they'll stay the same. NN opponents are the ones afraid of the entrenchment of the current market winners. JFC
 
#54
#54
n_huffhines said:
We've returned to 2015 rules. Everything is fine, so far, just like it was in 2015.

The second anything happens, it's gonna get blown way out of proportion and everyone will cry "save me government".
Click to expand...

Wrong. That is exactly what Pai and the *******s that paid him to lobby for Verizon want you to think. The 2015 rules were put in place after Verizon won a court case with the goal of destroying net neutrality. This is just the nail in the coffin to the internet as we have known it since it has existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#55
#55
Vol_Maul said:
Wrong. That is exactly what Pai and the *******s that paid him to lobby for Verizon want you to think. The 2015 rules were put in place after Verizon won a court case with the goal of destroying net neutrality. This is just the nail in the coffin to the internet as we have known it since it has existed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and do you know what the first order of business was when NN passed? They were examining FREE offerings. You got that? Free wasn't good for the consumer.

You guys have no idea what you're asking for.

"It's telling that the first investigations that the prior FCC initiated under these so-called Net Neutrality rules were involving free data offerings," says Pai, pointing toward actions initiated by his predecessor against "zero-rating" services such as T-Mobile's Binge program, which didn't count data used to stream Netflix, Spotify, and a host of other services against a customer's monthly data allowance. "To me it's just absurd to say that the government should stand in the way of consumers who want to get, and companies that want to provide, free data."
Click to expand...

The evil Verizon pawn is siding with T-Mobile! How could this be?!!
 
#56
#56
Well, at least if it goes to hell the blame is clearly, plainly on Trump and the Republican Party.

Not that his supporters would care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
zeppelin128 said:
Well, at least if it goes to hell the blame is clearly, plainly on Trump and the Republican Party.

Not that his supporters would care.
Click to expand...

Obama appointed Pai to the FCC. Trump just made him the chairman. I don't think most R's feel strongly about this. I don't think most people know what to think, to be honest. They just latch onto a bit of information and then blow a fuse. Libertarians are excited as hell. We don't get many wins.
 
#58
#58
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, and do you know what the first order of business was when NN passed? They were examining FREE offerings. You got that? Free wasn't good for the consumer.

You guys have no idea what you're asking for.



The evil Verizon pawn is siding with T-Mobile! How could this be?!!
Click to expand...


There’s no point in arguing with someone as deluded as yourself. However, I will respond purely for the benefit of others. Zero ratings were investigated so that ISPs, particularly mobile ones, wouldn’t zero rate, or make free, only the services who paid them or that they wanted you to use in an anti-competitive way that stifled competition.

Surely you can see how AT&T making data from their own DirecTV now service not count against your “allowance” and data from a competitor, such as Sling or PlayStation Vue, count against your allowance could be considered an unfair advantage. The consumer doesn’t win there unless he or she chooses DirecTV Now. AT&T is using its market power in the mobile ISP industry to give their own online tv service an advantage. That is not neutral. It is just a preview of the future corporate internet where they won’t even have to be sneaky about it.

It’s telling that you would misrepresent it that way though. And your second comment is a pure red herring and makes a distinction where there isn’t one. Pai lobbied for the entire industry on Verizon’s behalf. They won and he won. Go have a party if you think this is a good thing. Be prepared to be the only one who shows up not on the payroll of these companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#59
#59
n_huffhines said:
What on earth are you talking about? The fear NN proponents have is that things will get bad, not that they'll stay the same. NN opponents are the ones afraid of the entrenchment of the current market winners. JFC
Click to expand...


The current companies controlling access promoted this so as to maintain and in fact increase their control over that access. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

Do you really think that those companies championed this rule change to help their future competitors? Grow up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#60
#60
Vol_Maul said:
There’s no point in arguing with someone as deluded as yourself. However, I will respond purely for the benefit of others. Zero ratings were investigated so that ISPs, particularly mobile ones, wouldn’t zero rate, or make free, only the services who paid them or that they wanted you to use in an anti-competitive way that stifled competition.

Surely you can see how AT&T making data from their own DirecTV now service not count against your “allowance” and data from a competitor, such as Sling or PlayStation Vue, count against your allowance could be considered an unfair advantage. The consumer doesn’t win there unless he or she chooses DirecTV Now. AT&T is using its market power in the mobile ISP industry to give their own online tv service an advantage. That is not neutral. It is just a preview of the future corporate internet where they won’t even have to be sneaky about it.

It’s telling that you would misrepresent it that way though. And your second comment is a pure red herring and makes a distinction where there isn’t one. Pai lobbied for the entire industry on Verizon’s behalf. They won and he won. Go have a party if you think this is a good thing. Be prepared to be the only one who shows up not on the payroll of these companies.
Click to expand...

I know what the justification is. The point is it ****ed over consumers.
 
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
The current companies controlling access promoted this so as to maintain and in fact increase their control over that access. Its not a hard concept to grasp.

Do you really think that those companies championed this rule change to help their future competitors? Grow up.
Click to expand...

What about the huge corporations tat lobbied for and supported NN?

This is not a valid argument against laissez faire. It's smoke and mirrors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
n_huffhines said:
We've returned to 2015 rules. Everything is fine, so far, just like it was in 2015.

The second anything happens, it's gonna get blown way out of proportion and everyone will cry "save me government".
Click to expand...

Deranged Lefties resorted to bomb threats in protest. You’d think that 2015 was some horrible dystopia.
 
#65
#65
Al Gore invented the Internet, but it didn’t truly become great until Obama enacted “net nuetrality”.
 
#72
#72
What's the point of government interference because the ISPs MIGHT do something harmful to consumers? There are already laws against monopolistic practices AND if the ISPs take advantage of the lack of NN then legislation can be introduced later.

Net Neutrality guarantees a larger government agency, the cost of which won't be itemized on a monthly bill.
 
#73
#73
BearCat204 said:
The internet is definitely a necessity. Please point to a law that requires shelter.
Click to expand...

Nope.. food, water and shelter are necessities. Internet is a tool to some and a luxury to others. The law requiring shelter is in the same section that requires internet. Please point to where I stated necessities are required by law.

Leconte implied he had no choice and had to do business with an isp. I was not aware of any such requirement to do business with an isp and was kindly asking to be referred to such a statute, as my conscience could not bear the thought of being in violation of said requirement.

MT LeConte said:
Don't do business with them? The only other choice is to do business with someone just like them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#74
#74
I pity those that have to deal with Comcast and their ilk. Municipal broadband is the tits. You are all being royally screwed with expensive, **** service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#75
#75
Obama legacy rapidly being erased 👍
 

Attachments

  • 248514DE-0588-4B2B-9BA6-24878254FB1B.jpeg
    248514DE-0588-4B2B-9BA6-24878254FB1B.jpeg
    37.3 KB · Views: 0
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top