Net Neutrality and Sling TV

#52
#52
THE problem with net neutrality is the lawyers and pr people especially out of silicon valley have parsed and promoted the details of it to mean both sides can claim they are FOR net neutrality.

Waaaaaaaay back it started out meaning any and all packets of data are treated the same during routing in other words Netflix packets going to your house were treated the same as voice packets in a conversation by phone between your neighbor and her mother in Canada were treated.

Now you have ISPs who make the same case about telephone from back in the day about who is subsidizing who. You and me pay monthly fees and in some cases more for higher speeds so Netflix and Hulu can get their packets delivered and sell their services to us. We subsidize Netflix and Hulu who pay nothing to have their packets transported to use twice essentially by virtue of our paying for ISP service and then paying them again for their service as a content provider.

Email, web pages, stuff like that, relative packet delivery times are not that critical. Voice over IP and video over IP, packet delivery times are very critical. So which and what type of content providers are pro and con over their own version of "net neutrality."

Do I think we should be able to have competition for long distance carriers like MCI, Sprint, OR at&t? Yes and local phone should not subsidize long distance or the reverse.

Do I think we should have a variety of ISPs? Yes and we do, there is even satellite service local phone, and cable companies along with cell phone companies who offer access. You may not like some of the prices or services offered but they are getting more competitive and watch what happens to cable companies once 5G is provided by your mobile providers.

Do I think I should pay for access services which subsidizes OTTs like Netflix, Sling, and Hulu or VOIP companies that have very specific bandwidth and speed needs for their services to work? Hell naw, I want them to pay if they profit and need bandwidth and speeds more than email or web pages delivered require. Wikipedia charges nothing why the hell should I or you pay for Netflix service then?? That's TRUE net neutrality in my opinion, you profit you pay, you don'y profit no reason for you to pay as a content provider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
JCHateSteve said:
As opposed to the telecoms controlling everything? You know, the ones who's business model relies on a government legislated monopoly. They are the most hated companies in the world for a good reason, and want the repeal so they can force everyone to pay more for what they are already getting and stop cord cutting. They already tried it when the throttled Netflix to extort more money from them, leading to the law. I understand your distrust of the government. But the telecoms want to screw everyone to benefit their profit margin, plain and simple. This repeal is about money. The government had never had trouble spying on us without net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
CA_Vol said:
The bedwetting & hysteria over Net Nuetrality is beyond obnoxious at this point. The amount of this generations group think & inability to independently research & understand a topic other than what they read on Reddit is stunning.

The internet will be fine. Nothing the govt controls becomes easier, cheaper or more fair. And if you believe otherwise, I'm guessing you also believe Bernie has some great ideas too.
Click to expand...

It sucks when people let ideology control them. This isn't a left/right issue. This is about whether you want to the telecom companies to decide what part of the internet should be favored with more bandwith and what part should get less bandwidth.

Anyone with any sense should be in favor of keeping the internet the way it's been. Just because liberals are the one with the loudest voices for it right now doesn't mean if you are a conservative you should automatically be against it.

It's dumb tribal thinking like this that allows the elites to exploit us all. Stop being stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#56
#56
I say enough of the the bs. I'll bet on competition. Let's start making some wagers and put our money where out mouths are. The proceeds can go to charity. I haven't conceptualized any specific wager.. going to have to think on it...if anyone can come up with a good one, that would be great.
 
#57
#57
KBVol said:
You realize there was only “net neutrality” (which was gonna be anything but, actually the exact opposite of the name when fully implemented) the last 2 years. Pretty sure the internet was doing just fine as a free and open entity from the 1990s until 2015 before Obama decided that government interference and regulation was needed.

Now that it’s been repealed, regulation will be considerably down and the free market can go back to working and the consumer will have more options due to greater competition among providers. So in short, no, there will be no slowing of streaming speeds, unless a company chooses to do so and wants to be driven out of business.
Click to expand...

Obama did it so it must be bad!!!

It's stupid tribal thinking like this that has this country effed up.

Keep being a blind sheep running down party lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#58
#58
Defaultuser said:
Plenty in this thread. Brainwashed rich worshippers.
Click to expand...

Most of the people against net neutrality are just hardcore right wingers that saw Obama was for it so they automatically are against it. These idiots don't realize as consumers net neutrality is good for them. They just think in a tribal manner.

This is the reason America is in the state it is. Tribal thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#59
#59
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
It sucks when people let ideology control them. This isn't a left/right issue. This is about whether you want to the telecom companies to decide what part of the internet should be favored with more bandwith and what part should get less bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Almost no one thinks this is about left vs right. Probably 50%+ of R's support NN.

You've oversimplified what it's about. It's way more complicated than that, but it's by far your most valid point, so I guess I should be happy with it.

Anyone with any sense should be in favor of keeping the internet the way it's been.

It's dumb tribal thinking like this that allows the elites to exploit us all. Stop being stupid.
Click to expand...

These are not valid arguments, these are just insults.

Again, was internet service better in 2014 than it was in 2010? Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
It sucks when people let ideology control them. This isn't a left/right issue. This is about whether you want to the telecom companies to decide what part of the internet should be favored with more bandwith and what part should get less bandwidth.

Anyone with any sense should be in favor of keeping the internet the way it's been. Just because liberals are the one with the loudest voices for it right now doesn't mean if you are a conservative you should automatically be against it.

It's dumb tribal thinking like this that allows the elites to exploit us all. Stop being stupid.
Click to expand...

You mean, like, two years ago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Sure. Lets trust the telecommunication companies. I'm sure they want to do what's best for the consumers rather than their bottom line.

Only an idiot would be against net neutrality.
Click to expand...

The mega corporate ISPs all supported NN. I can’t tell you how many times I saw sponsored ads on Twitter from Comcast lobbying to save it.

It’s because they can afford the regulatory costs, but smaller competitors can’t. It regulates competition out of business.
 
#64
#64
n_huffhines said:
You have a child's understanding of markets. It's not about trust. Do you remember the internet in 2014? Was it better than it was in 2010? Why?
Click to expand...

I'm not ideologue. I don't care about market theories. I care about practical things. I want an internet that doesnt favor one site over another. Net neutrality is a prophylactic measure to keep the internet the way it's always been. That is every website should get the same band with share.

So yes I love the internet of 2014 and 2010. The 2015 legislation was about making sure we keep the internet that way. By repealing those protections, the telecom companies can know decide which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't.

Maybe you trust corporations to do what is right and in the best interest of us all. I don't. I expect them to do what is best for their bottom line. And I don't want that to come to the internet. So that is why I support the net neutrality legislation. Keep the internet the way it's been. Period.
 
#66
#66
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I'm not ideologue. I don't care about market theories. I care about practical things. I want an internet that doesnt favor one site over another. Net neutrality is a prophylactic measure to keep the internet the way it's always been. That is every website should get the same band with share.

So yes I love the internet of 2014 and 2010. The 2015 legislation was about making sure we keep the internet that way. By repealing those protections, the telecom companies can know decide which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't.

Maybe you trust corporations to do what is right and in the best interest of us all. I don't. I expect them to do what is best for their bottom line. And I don't want that to come to the internet. So that is why I support the net neutrality legislation. Keep the internet the way it's been. Period.
Click to expand...

Grocery stores shouldn't let manufacturers choose eye level slots in the aisles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
fade route said:
That’s right. Let Uncle Sam fix everything, he always has your best interest at heart.
Click to expand...

The government is us dummy. Hold them accountable and they can do what is in our best interest. The reason the government is corrupt is because we have a pay for play system. Rich people and companies are able to buy the government and use them for their benefit.

But if the general public unites and actually holds our government responsible we can get things in our interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#68
#68
n_huffhines said:
We're going back to 2015 rules you ****ing wimps.
Click to expand...

Lol ok tough guy



But to address your point in this weak insult, the market is vastly different than it was prior to NN. Before NN, cord cutters were a very small piece of the pie, especially compared to now. Is the end of NN the end of the world, No? But you want to suggest that throttling and bias of ISPs won't exist is head in the sand thinking. ISPs are so desperate for NN to go away because they are hemorrhaging money due to lost cable subscriptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#69
#69
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
I'm not ideologue. I don't care about market theories. I care about practical things. I want an internet that doesnt favor one site over another. Net neutrality is a prophylactic measure to keep the internet the way it's always been. That is every website should get the same band with share.

So yes I love the internet of 2014 and 2010. The 2015 legislation was about making sure we keep the internet that way. By repealing those protections, the telecom companies can know decide which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't.

Maybe you trust corporations to do what is right and in the best interest of us all. I don't. I expect them to do what is best for their bottom line. And I don't want that to come to the internet. So that is why I support the net neutrality legislation. Keep the internet the way it's been. Period.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the internet was all of sudden going to suck? What is this based on? My internet got better consistently over time. It's not about trusting corporations. I don't trust the government to make things better. They tend to make things worse. The market was fine before. This is a cure looking for a disease.

Again, the landmark ruling under NN hurt consumers. You have no idea what is actually at stake here.
 
#70
#70
tumscalcium said:
You mean, like, two years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes. The net neutrality legislation was a prophylactic measure. It was designed to keep the internet the way it's always been. It didn't change anything. The people who want to change the internet are the ones that want those rules repealed so that we don't have the same internet we had in 2014.

Stop being stupid and thinking just because Obama supported it that you must be against it.
 
#72
#72
BearCat204 said:
Lol ok tough guy

But to address your point in this weak insult, the market is vastly different than it was prior to NN. Before NN, cord cutters were a very small piece of the pie, especially compared to now. Is the end of NN the end of the world, No? But you want to suggest that throttling and bias of ISPs won't exist is head in the sand thinking. ISPs are so desperate for NN to go away because they are hemorrhaging money due to lost cable subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Who said there wouldn't be bias? Who said there wouldn't be throttling? Do you think there isn't bias by government regulators?

We want the government to save us from all bad actors but there are always bad actors no matter how many rules we pile on, and regulatory rules empower bad actors.

Again, the landmark ruling under NN hurt consumers and benefited certain corporations. The same problems exist, we're just allowing the feds to pick winners and losers while creating more problems along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#73
#73
n_huffhines said:
Who said there wouldn't be bias? Who said there wouldn't be throttling? Do you think there isn't bias by government regulators?

We want the government to save us from all bad actors but there are always bad actors no matter how many rules we pile on, and regulatory rules empower bad actors.

Again, the landmark ruling under NN hurt consumers and benefited certain corporations. The same problems exist, we're just allowing the feds to pick winners and losers while creating more problems along the way.
Click to expand...


For me and my opinion and stance in the issue, it the lesser of two evils for me. I normally vote and beleive in less regulation, but this market is different for me IMO.
 
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
When have you ever sided with R's?
Click to expand...

I supported Ron/Rand Paul's call to audit the federal reserve bank. I don't have a problem with true Republicans. I have a problem with corporatist democrats and republicans that are controlled by their wealthy donors and screw over the average American.

I don't even support 90% of the democrat agenda because it's corporatist/donor controlled.

My favorite candidate the last 10 years was Ron Paul in 2008 because he was honest and didn't seem bought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
Dobbs 4 Heisman said:
Yes. The net neutrality legislation was a prophylactic measure. It was designed to keep the internet the way it's always been. It didn't change anything. The people who want to change the internet are the ones that want those rules repealed so that we don't have the same internet we had in 2014.

Stop being stupid and thinking just because Obama supported it that you must be against it.
Click to expand...

The internet has not "always been" a certain way. It's only a few decades old and it's been changing dramatically all throughout the process. The market changes so fast all the time. More regulation tends to entrench the existing setup and we want more innovation.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top