What's hysterical is watching you twist into a pretzel in your attempt to support every god damn outrageous assault on the American people by this dangerous administration.
I expect very little indeed from the Ensign. Since I have few members like him that haven't made their way to my ignore list, yet, I feel an obligation to give my opinion about the posts I notice from those that remain. Who knows? They may yet find some modicum of sanity. I know it's doubtful, but one must cling to a shred of hope that the minority of Americans that hold such extreme positions, the Ensign actually being a milder version, and who possess such a dearth of apparent humanity, may yet find sanity within the hollow depths of their minds.
You are one stupid person. The whole reason ISP'S support rescinding net neutrality isn't so they can lower prices and earn less money. Do you really think that's how they work??? NO - it's so they can get rev share from streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. They can now go to them and say either you pay us a share of the rev you generate or you get throttled. To consumers, they can hike prices by breaking up sites into groups and making them add-ons - just like your cable provider does. They do this to make MORE money, not less.
I have to say that it's tempting to think that RussianLegend is actually a Russian "bot," and not a real person at all. It would explain a lot.
Their entire argument is ridiculous. If anyone still has questions about which side of this to be on simply lay out the last several years worth of ISP/Wireless bills in front of them vs. their bills from content providers like Netflix/Hulu etc. Let's see...companies that have continually reamed their consumers for years or advertiser driven/low subscription cost providers? Easy choice for non idiots.
Hey you idiot I never said ISP won't make more money but their money will come from charging for bandwidth. 2 ways price for the consumer will be lowered 1. ISP will add another revenue stream when they start charging billion dollar companies like Facebook or Netflix for bandwidth use so now they can lower the price for their internet service 2. In a free market more competition always results in lower price and higher quality products. You're really an idiot if can't comprehend this easy logic.
The goal of NN is simple. To continue operating the internet in an open environment, allowing continuing innovation and freedom of use of any content by all. QoS as NW management that isn't application agnostic (applied to particular application by the ISP) is against the idea of an open environment, and allow ISP to choose to prioritize their own service (VoIP, gaming, streaming, whatever come next). This is especially critical in the US where there is little competition. QoS as NW management that isn't application agnostic (applied to particular application by the end-user) isn't against the idea of an open environment. It's done at the user end by the user own choice. QoS as NW management that IS application agnostic (applied to class of applications), done transparently with user choice, to me isn't against the spirit of NN. Providing the user choice to pick which class is a value to the user. Specialized service through NW management (to guarantee performance to certain applications) to me isn't against the spirit of NN either. It is in the consumer/busn hands to choose to purchase these higher level and more expensive services. Outside of QoS, as today, providing different level of access at different pricing based on cap, speed, BW, even package agnostic throttling (after reaching a cap) aren't against NN. Again, consumer choice. When ISP get to unilaterally choose and pick who to prioritize, who to de-prioritize, without transparency and without user choice, especially in an non-competitive environment, is where the danger comes, in inhibiting an open environment that has worked so well for innovation. ISP has plenty of room for innovation. They can innovate in their network management for efficiency and optimum performance, as long as it is not anti-competitive and with user choice. They can also innovate in the area of enhanced security, protection against attack (DoS), virus and spam. NN wouldn't be as much of a concern if there are real and robust competition in the US. For now, given the limited competition, we definitely need sensible NN protection, and we need to be pushing for more competition. Local and federal government can work together to lower the bar for new comers to enter the broadband market.
Odd... consumer watchdog groups supporting NN and the large tobacco companies, er, I mean large ISPs oppose NN. And not surprisingly, the majority of Americans favor net neutrality protections.
There is a complete lack of competition in most areas, where the monopolies are supported by the current FCC and controlled locally by telecoms and their corrupt local politicians. https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ounts-as-competition-faces-scrutiny-in-court/ Now, if this change leads to unbundling, then I'd be all for it. A pretty good article below that criticized both the current format but also doubt Pai's actual plan (but at least it's different) http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-isps-competition-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-fcc-2017-4
The Graphics I found QUESTION: Is this true? Is this a possibility? Yes or No? Is this the future of the internet? Rocket River
It depends @Rocket River If you believe the big telecom companies, that graphic is totally ridiculous and is something that would never happen. If you believe their defenders on this forum it's something that's "not even possible." If you believe Ted Cruz that would never happen because this is about helping small business compete with Comcast despite Comcast supporting it (and him.) If you believe consumer watchdog groups that is what will absolutely happen. If you believe content providers like Netflix they say that's what is going to happen. If you believe in the existence of Portugal that IS what happened there. You'll have to decide for yourself. Both sides are full of facts and consist of people and groups that historically look out for your interests.
No. Both sides believe this would violate anti-competition laws and be illegal. Ajit Pai's proposal would be to have scenarios like this be handled case by case in the FTC with anti-trust laws. The above image is false. Also most ISPs have publicly stated they don't want what Rocket River's image suggests. Whether you believe them is up to you but they never tried anything like this before net neutrality. no its not. content is not blocked in Portugal. Thats even illegal under EU net neutrality. That's zero-rating which happens in the US all the time. nobody cares about it. HEre is AT&T's statement yesterday:
Why was none of this implemented before 2015? Blocking websites is ignorant and impractical. If it was as simple as blocking a website, please explain to me why there are thousands of pirate sites that you can visit? This applies to tiered services also. How are they going to monitor and throttle millions of websites? Just FYI, we have had these tiered plans for a long time now and still do. Business accounts that pay hundreds a month have higher priority than consumer accounts who pay 50 bucks a month. If ISP's want to play hardball with providers like Netflix, that is not on the consumer. Let the FTC handle it. Both sides have a legit argument. ISP's should not be forced to upgrade costly nodes because Netflix is saturating 70+ of their traffic. I am not completely against NN, however I am against hypothetical pointless regulation. NN is an argument between big companies like Netflix and ISP's and using the consumer as pawns. NN should be fighting government and utilities that prevent new ISP's from coming in the market and fighting existing ISP's upgrading their networks.
What's sad is those against Net Neutrality here are arguing it on a website that will most likely be hurt by losing Net Neutrality.
I like this thread and most of the input I am tilting toward Net Neutrality and not liking the idea of the end of it Things that always make me a bit confused 1. People who says they don't trust the government to do the right thing but turn around an fully trust corporations to do the right thing? --- Primarily because alot of things the government is doing 'wrong' generally is because some corporation is paying them indirectly to do what they want. 2. the concept that Corporations will do the right thing without external regulation --- The history of our country says otherwise. Without proper regulation YES I TRULY BELIEVE alot of the things in the past would come back . . 16 hour days, child labor etc . . . . . NO they would not come back tomorrow but corporations would definitely slowly creep them back in . .. there is not a doubt in my mind That said . . .. I don't trust the Government much but I d*mn sure don't trust Corporations more Rocket River
Since corporations are people too, this post is largely racist. It's been flagged and you've been reported.
