This is ridiculous spin. What the industry wants to do is take away what makes the internet great and turn it into cable TV and you somehow think that's good??? WTF You do realize that Clutch will most likely now have to pay a lot more for the BBS to run right? It's not just about throttling and speeds, it will be able access and usage. Of course, don't you think it's ridiculous that an ISP can limit certain apps when consumers are paying for the bandwidth already? ISP's shouldn't be able to given preferential treatment. If they have network congestion issues, they should charge those consumers more for the bandwidth usage, not double dip.
What's weird is that the right-wingers here blindly support it despite even opposition from their own party. Just goes to show they are all just right-wing Trumpsters
Did you bother reading those poll questions? 'As you may know, net neutrality is a set of rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which say Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon, cannot block, throttle or prioritize certain content on the Internet. Knowing this, do you support or oppose net neutrality?' 'The survey from trade group Incompas and IMGE, a GOP polling firm, shows that 75 percent of Trump voters and 72 percent of GOP voters say that internet service providers should be “prohibited from slowing or blocking websites or video services like Netflix.”' This is what you call bullshit questions. They literally asked this 'do you tinnk ISPs should be able to slow your Netflix?'. WTF. Here is the correct question: 'Do prefer banning all throttling or only that which harms the marketplace?' That's the debate. ANd I'm not sure what you are debating here. I said the American people dont care enough about net neutrality to affect their vote. This is obviously true as it hasn't swayed voting (Republicans control congress and won the presidency). As far as an un-elected official undoing Title 2; whats done with the stroke of a pen can be undone with teh stroke of a pen. Try the democratic approach our government intends next time.
Lol wut. Your question is completely whitewashing the issue. The question being asked is completely fair and neutral. You just can't see it because of your partisan prism.
You understand, in order for a user driven market, as eluded to by this post and many other idiots on the right, can only exist if competition exists. I will echo this again for those out there, 2/3 of Americans do no have a choice in who their high speed providers are, and many have the choice picked for them. In an era when the internet was a luxury this was ok. The internet has grown out of that, and thus to be agnostic to this fact is morally reprehensible.
wireless delivery technologies are exploding, and with it, the monopoly argument for government control will fade away (you will notice Pai's primary focus is removing regulatory barriers to innovation, NN is the opposite)
That's why VC investment has gone up in New technologies since NN was enacted? Furthermore, why are you selling me a burger today to get it on Tuesday. We still don't have competition in that sphere, and instead of directly addressing that issue, incentivising it, we look to remove regulation and hope the industry rights itself. If there is no motivation financially for industry to right itself it won't do so. Hence why even before 2015 competition in those markets was non existent. Here's the deal, the second that most Americans have a real choice in ISPs I will be on the line with you protesting NN, but to remove it now and hope that competition emerges is myopic, idiotic, and above all stupid.
I don't agree with those numbers, but even if i did, you can't make this argument and support Title 2. Ma Belle was a monopoly for 50 years under TItle 2. It was absolutely awful. If there is no competition then why is your internet cost not double what it is? Why do internet speeds get faster every year? Whats the incentive for ISPs to keep prices low and meet customer demand for speed (which they do)?
NN is about protecting innovation by preventing the big ISP's from stifling it. In the US there are essentially only 4 mobile providers which ultimately may become 3. None of those companies have any history of fostering innovation in the last 25 years. To depend on big fat massive corporation for innovation is about as smart as depending on the gov't for innovation. Bureaucracy whether corporate or gov't gets in the way. Being against NN is akin to being against anti-trust and monopoly law. NN ensures competition. That is why the U.S. start-up community is FOR NN, and other countries start-up communities are lobbying AGAINST NN. Don't be a tool man. For once live up to American Exceptionalism and don't support something that strikes against American Innovation. Stop believing this stupid spin.
This sort of groupthink/peer pressure mass shaming campaign makes me an instinctive skeptic of the whole thing As Cuban said, NN is the first step toward a Department of the Internet
Cuban has a vested state in defeating NN as he invests in businesses that would benefit from fast lanes. He wants there to be a way that he can pay more so his companies can get premium data bandwidth and has publically stated that. So let me ask you then - are you saying you are in favor of having a tiered system by which a company must pay extra to have faster access to consumers thereby giving rich companies an advantage in the market place over less well funded companies? And do tell me how that helps innovation.
Treating package neutral was the defacto standard. You stated it was never because QoS. Then you proceeded to show an article that said QoS was due to recent applications. You don't get that recent and never don't work together? Or you do, but ignore it because you are seeing through a I made up my mind filter and is blinded. You probably have no idea when QoS started, why and how wide spread it was and is being used. Your knowledge in this area is weak, faulty and your stance is on a foundation that is wrong. Keep being stubborn and blind
Wireless isn't competitive to landline. Thats was the mistaken assumption decades ago by the fcc. . Never will be unless some unknown breakthrough. Chances of that is close to zero.
it wasn't. you've been told this by multiple posters and shown it. you nailed it tony. it turns out when the internet was first created ISPs didn't prioritize data. Brilliant work. How could I've been so foolish. no I don't. We just all know it was before 2008 and your wrong that it was the defacto. Even you know this now. Glad I could help.
FCC helping One Web to fix that SpaceX getting access too. But I thought Pai was an ISP shill who did their bidding? Why he helping bring competition in the market?
The internet when first created wasn’t available to the public... obviously the military wouldn’t treat all data as equal or the subsequent academic uses in its infancy.
