Net Neutrality moved to trash

[FantasticDan]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-explainer/index.html

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote Thursday on a controversial plan to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections. The repeal is expected to pass along a party-line vote.

And then it will be on to the courts:

https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/

One thing I'm confused about.. doing some searches, I see old posts from folks attacking Obama for wanting to get rid of Net Neutrality.. like these:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113005

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120647

But in actuality Obama and the FCC wrote rules to PROTECT net neutrality, which are now being gutted by Trump?

Right?

[JustRalph]

The problem is that both sides of the issue have benefits for the everyday user. You lose in one area, but you gain in another depending on which type of user you are.

I disagree with what they are going to change.....because I think it’s a problem that doesn’t need fixed, for right now. But eventually as we move to a more heavy daily usage, streaming etc, you are going to have to move to a more sliced up Network with higher fees. Bandwidth will soon be treated like a commodity.

As usual, the haves will be able to pay more. And get more.

But! There is some new tech coming down the road that’s going to Cause serious change. Much faster and cheaper ways to move data are on the horizon. The problem will be who owns the tech. Phone companies will always be the bad guys and we were warned about this throughout the 80s and 90s. They will either fight against or buyout the new technology. Which is unclear at the moment.

[reckless]

This repeal is good because it tempers the increasing power of cess pools such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the entire Google complex.

Why should these Left Tech coalition (a George Soros-funded enterprise) of companies -- who wrote the law FCC 15-24 Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet... yikes, better known as Net Neutrality basically have unfetted control of the Internet?

The law stated that the FCC can pick and choose whom they could regulate vigorously and for whom to give a free pass.

The now old law forced only the ISPs to abide by the Net Neutrality Law in 2015, heavily written by the Google totalitarians, and not the ISPs. Anyone paying even a passing interest knows how the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google simply hate free speech and sought to eliminate libertarian and conservative points of view from their ecosystem.

[reckless]

This repeal is good because it tempers the increasing power of cess pools such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the entire Google complex.

Why should these Left Tech coalition (a George Soros-funded enterprise) of companies -- who wrote the law FCC 15-24 Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet... yikes, better known as Net Neutrality basically have unfetted control of the Internet?

The law stated that the FCC can pick and choose whom they could regulate vigorously and for whom to give a free pass.

The now old law forced only the ISPs to abide by the Net Neutrality Law in 2015, heavily written by the Google totalitarians, and not the ISPs. Anyone paying even a passing interest knows how the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google simply hate free speech and sought to eliminate libertarian and conservative points of view from their ecosystem.

... not the ISPs

Make that content providers.

[elysiantraveller]

This repeal is good because it tempers the increasing power of cess pools such as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and the entire Google complex.

Why should these Left Tech coalition (a George Soros-funded enterprise) of companies -- who wrote the law FCC 15-24 Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet... yikes, better known as Net Neutrality basically have unfetted control of the Internet?

The law stated that the FCC can pick and choose whom they could regulate vigorously and for whom to give a free pass.

The now old law forced only the ISPs to abide by the Net Neutrality Law in 2015, heavily written by the Google totalitarians, and not the ISPs. Anyone paying even a passing interest knows how the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google simply hate free speech and sought to eliminate libertarian and conservative points of view from their ecosystem.

:lol::lol::lol:

Data is data.

[Tom]

One thing I'm confused about..

How many others are there? ;)

It is like this, the issue changes over time, and the reg change over time, and what is said and what is passed is not always the same thing.
Like the ACA.

The internet should be treated like a public utility and fairly prices unlimited data made available to all. No one company should be making money off the internet.

[Clocker]

The internet should be treated like a public utility and fairly prices unlimited data made available to all. No one company should be making money off the internet.

Why should I pay for unlimited data if I don't want or need it? E-mail and streaming video are data. If all I want is e-mail and the ability to read articles on the net, why should I pay for the ability to stream movies?

Net neutrality forbids unbundling, or charging a premium fee for priority routing of streaming video or similar applications.

Innovation is driven by making money. Competition is driven by the ability to offer new products and services.

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It was promoted as a way to prevent anti-competitive practices, but there is no evidence of significant problems pre-neutrality. Also, the FTC was in place and experienced with dealing with such problems. Net neutrality took anti-competitive practices away from FTC jurisdiction and moved it to the FCC.

[Tom]

Why should I pay for unlimited data if I don't want or need it?

I'm talking a public utility, like running water.
You pay for what you use, but you have no limit on how much you use.

[MONEY]

When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.

Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.

Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.

Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?

I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.

[barahona44]

When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.

Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.

Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.

Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?

I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.
You should charge your son for watching HULU when he comes to visit.No freeloaders. :D

[boxcar]

When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.

Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.

Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.

Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?

I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.

According to sound bytes I heard from liberal politicians, NN, apparently, was created for women and the airhead pols complained and whined that if NN was taken away women wouldn't know where to get abortions. (I'm serious...I'm not making this up.)

[_______]

When my son visits he likes to watch HULU.
For a long time HULU worked well with what AT&T was selling as it's fastest internet service.

Then AT&T came up with an even faster service for more money.
Well guess what, HULU began to freeze with the service that used to be fast enough.

Because of the freezes I had to pay more for the faster AT&T service, now HULU works fine.

Is Net Neutrality supposed to be better for the Content Makers/Owners, the Service Providers or the end Users/Customers?

I don't know how I've benefited because of Net Neutrality, but then I don't understand who Net Neutrality is for. What I do know is that I am paying more for internet service.

AT&T as a data stream through your nearest cell phone tower or AT&T as a internet provider through a DSL connection?

It matters as net neutrality never applied to the telecoms providing cell service. What you describe sounds a lot like throttling over a cell connection.

And that's what's enabled now for everyone with a DSL or Cable connection.

This isn't going to hurt any company with scale. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and any other company that is familiar will pay whatever it costs to get in the fast lane. It may set up some occasions where negotiations get stuck and you can't get a decent connection on Netflix for a week the same way channels might disappear on a cable provider while they negotiate carrying costs.

Who is hurt is some company you will never hear of because instead of becoming the next Amazon or Netflix that we would be talking about in 10 years, they will be choked off in the slow lane.

Big existing companies are winners. Future choices are a loser. The real problem is that the future has a crappy lobbyist.

[MONEY]

AT&T as a data stream through your nearest cell phone tower or AT&T as a internet provider through a DSL connection?

It matters as net neutrality never applied to the telecoms providing cell service. What you describe sounds a lot like throttling over a cell connection.

And that's what's enabled now for everyone with a DSL or Cable connection.

This isn't going to hurt any company with scale. Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and any other company that is familiar will pay whatever it costs to get in the fast lane. It may set up some occasions where negotiations get stuck and you can't get a decent connection on Netflix for a week the same way channels might disappear on a cable provider while they negotiate carrying costs.

Who is hurt is some company you will never hear of because instead of becoming the next Amazon or Netflix that we would be talking about in 10 years, they will be choked off in the slow lane.

Big existing companies are winners. Future choices are a loser. The real problem is that the future has a crappy lobbyist.
Thanks for the info, I had a cable connection and had to upgrade to Fiber Optic.

[elysiantraveller]

Why should I pay for unlimited data if I don't want or need it? E-mail and streaming video are data. If all I want is e-mail and the ability to read articles on the net, why should I pay for the ability to stream movies?

Net neutrality forbids unbundling, or charging a premium fee for priority routing of streaming video or similar applications.

Innovation is driven by making money. Competition is driven by the ability to offer new products and services.

Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. It was promoted as a way to prevent anti-competitive practices, but there is no evidence of significant problems pre-neutrality. Also, the FTC was in place and experienced with dealing with such problems. Net neutrality took anti-competitive practices away from FTC jurisdiction and moved it to the FCC.

No one says you shouldn't be charged based on consumption. But data is data is data. Its measured in bytes not by the application or website you are using it through.

I responded the way I did to reckless because this is the antithesis to free speech and market.

[Dave Schwartz]

This is not really a "conservative vs. liberal" issue.

People do not seem to see the potential doom for the way it is now.

Draw a parallel between the internet and horse racing.

Consider a track (or worse, a coalition of tracks) who decide that a particular ADW needs to pay more for their signal. ExpressBet gets CD but BetAmerica doesn't, unless they pay more for it.

So, if you are not with a big outfit that has a lot of handle, you do not get CD.

The possibility exists that at some time in the future only big players will be allowed to have websites. That means the little guy (or start up) has got to pony up big bucks to get even standing room at an already crowded table.

Do you watch NetFlix? Expect the cost to be $25 per month instead of the $12 it is now.

Anything that uses big bandwidth will cost more. If it is currently free and it uses a lot of bandwidth, it will cost something.

Amazon will wind up with YOUR internet provider wanting a cut in order for YOU to shop there.

Do you surf porn? Expect to pay more. And the free stuff will go away.

Websites like mine will eventually be gone, too, as will PA, and all those other horse racing blog sites you read.


Sure, the conservative side can counter back and say, "Well, that's not what NN is about," and they are right... but only for today.

I would love to be wrong. Tell me what prevents that. But remember, "They probably won't do that" is not a good answer. Tell me why they CAN'T.

Best Buy and Walmart would charge you for browsing their site (if they could get away with it) to cover cost increases. LOL

Just my opinion.


Dave Schwartz

[JustRalph]

Dave,

I agree w just about all you’ve written, there is the …”competition"
Factor. Some say prices will stay low because the big boys will have to compete on price. We shall see.

I have a rule. If the Obama admin was for it, then I’m suspect.

It has served me well :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

Dave,

I agree w just about all you’ve written, there is the …”competition"
Factor. Some say prices will stay low because the big boys will have to compete on price. We shall see.

I have a rule. If the Obama admin was for it, then I’m suspect.

It has served me well :lol:

Didn't you support net neutrality when you thought Obama opposed it?

You said this 3 years ago...

"This will create a "premium internet toll road" and you won't even know which road you are on, or if you got what you pay for. It will line the pockets of phone companies and the Comcasts of the world. With no accountability at all."

[JustRalph]

Didn't you support net neutrality when you thought Obama opposed it?

You said this 3 years ago...

"This will create a "premium internet toll road" and you won't even know which road you are on, or if you got what you pay for. It will line the pockets of phone companies and the Comcasts of the world. With no accountability at all."


Yep.....but things have changed a ton. And as I said above, I don’t think there needs to be a change right now. But the train is coming. It’s called streaming. That’s one reason I’ve given a little. Everything will be streamed in ten years. Having television over the cable setup we have now will evolve or die.

The new tech that’s 2-4 years out (if not impeded) is going to have a huge impact. Very cheap streaming models are going to appear. Network television could die as we know it. A true renaissance may occur. DISH and Direct Tv are already in panic mode. The major networks will soon be ignored. Netflix and Prime from Amazon have proven that the learning curve to producing good quality programming was only a few years. All bets from 3 years ago are off.

[elysiantraveller]

Yep.....but things have changed a ton. And as I said above, I don’t think there needs to be a change right now. But the train is coming. It’s called streaming. That’s one reason I’ve given a little. Everything will be streamed in ten years. Having television over the cable setup we have now will evolve or die.

The new tech that’s 2-4 years out (if not impeded) is going to have a huge impact. Very cheap streaming models are going to appear. Network television could die as we know it. A true renaissance may occur. DISH and Direct Tv are already in panic mode. The major networks will soon be ignored. Netflix and Prime from Amazon have proven that the learning curve to producing good quality programming was only a few years. All bets from 3 years ago are off.

So...?

What does that have to do with how you choose to use your data that you purchased?

Other than propping up a dying industry? Because nothing in your post would explain the reversal in position your last paragraph that I quoted is still spot on.

You aren't being charged based on how much of a good you are consuming you are being charged based on how you consume it.

[Clocker]

I have a rule. If the Obama admin was for it, then I’m suspect.

It has served me well :lol:

My rule is that if it expands government regulation, I'm dead set against it. Net neutrality put more companies under FCC regulation with no showing of need to do so, no showing of abuses that needed to be corrected, and no proof after the fact of any benefit.

[JustRalph]

So...?

What does that have to do with how you choose to use your data that you purchased?

Other than propping up a dying industry? Because nothing in your post would explain the reversal in position your last paragraph that I quoted is still spot on.

You aren't being charged based on how much of a good you are consuming you are being charged based on how you consume it.

I’m saying the Comcast’s and such "of the world" will quite possibly be usurped or disrupted by smaller companies, some that don’t even exist right now. That means competition. It’s a gamble though. It depends on the tech coming of age.

We are talking about bandwidth prices plummeting because the current infrastructure even in rural areas will be able to provide 1gig and as much as 5 gig of bandwidth on what’s already there. That will even the playing field. If it’s developed.

That puts the content creators in the drivers seat, not the provider such as Comcast etc. if you can make a good product you can stream it cheap. That changes the business model. But I think we are still several years away from the true open market for content. That’s why I say it’s not really needed now. But it will need to change. Eventually. Btw, I get 1gig speed now for 70 bucks a month with no limit. On the same hardware that was limited to about a third of that 10 yrs ago. Plus there were various limits.

[elysiantraveller]

I’m saying the Comcast’s and such "of the world" will quite possibly be usurped or disrupted by smaller companies, some that don’t even exist right now. That means competition. It’s a gamble though. It depends on the tech coming of age.

We are talking about bandwidth prices plummeting because the current infrastructure even in rural areas will be able to provide 1gig and as much as 5 gig of bandwidth on what’s already there. That will even the playing field. If it’s developed.

That puts the content creators in the drivers seat, not the provider such as Comcast etc. if you can make a good product you can stream it cheap. That changes the business model. But I think we are still several years away from the true open market for content. That’s why I say it’s not really needed now. But it will need to change. Eventually. Btw, I get 1gig speed now for 70 bucks a month with no limit. On the same hardware that was limited to about a third of that 10 yrs ago. Plus there were various limits.

You're missing the point though. If I purchase 1024gigs through my ISP it shouldn't matter what the hell I use those on. The changing of this allows the providers to provide sub quality service or additional fees based on how I choose to use the bandwith I purchased.

This would be like going into a gun store to buy bullets and the guy asking at the counter what you planned on using them for before giving you a price. Hunting - $10 Self-defense - $12.50.

Or being told at the dealership that since you don't plan on towing anything with your truck you'll have to pay more for it.

At the end of the day your simply buying data... bytes... what I choose to use those on shouldn't affect my quality of service or price.

This is simply a way of protecting the telecoms which are now apparently deemed too big to fail... sound familiar? This is their first lifeline.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,

I agree w just about all you’ve written, there is the …”competition"
Factor. Some say prices will stay low because the big boys will have to compete on price. We shall see.

I have a rule. If the Obama admin was for it, then I’m suspect.

It has served me well :lol:

LOL - Good point but remember... neither side is on "our" side.

[Dave Schwartz]

I’m saying the Comcast’s and such "of the world" will quite possibly be usurped or disrupted by smaller companies, some that don’t even exist right now. That means competition. It’s a gamble though. It depends on the tech coming of age.


Ralph,

So, your belief is that the little guy is going to dominate the big guy?

Sorry, but the graph showing the performance of small companies has gone so low as to fall off the chart, down the wall, and onto the floor.

I believe exactly the opposite will happen.

I believe that the big boys club is getting more and more difficult to join, and the big boys mean to make the club even more exclusive.

So many wonderful ideas have been developed by virtual guppies. Ironically, removing the governmental controls will likely curtail competition at anything below the level of shark.

[elysiantraveller]

Ralph,

So, your belief is that the little guy is going to dominate the big guy?

Sorry, but the graph showing the performance of small companies has gone so low as to fall off the chart, down the wall, and onto the floor.

I believe exactly the opposite will happen.

I believe that the big boys club is getting more and more difficult to join, and the big boys mean to make the club even more exclusive.

So many wonderful ideas have been developed by virtual guppies. Ironically, removing the governmental controls will likely curtail competition at anything below the level of shark.

Correct.

This is simply a cash grab by the big players. The consumer always loses in those scenarios.

Ironically the government control in this instance actually is allowing more freedom for the consumer not less.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

OK. I haven't followed this nearly as much as I should.

Short, sweet, laymans terms, what does this really mean?

[elysiantraveller]

OK. I haven't followed this nearly as much as I should.

Short, sweet, laymans terms, what does this really mean?

Bare bones the concept of net neutrality is that the quality and/or price of your internet service can't be determined based on what you are using that service for.

[Clocker]

Bare bones the concept of net neutrality is that the quality and/or price of your internet service can't be determined based on what you are using that service for.

Even if you want to pay more to do so. Like if you want to pay more for service that prioritizes your provider's transmission of streaming video ahead of transmission of email or web browsing, you can't, because data is data.

[JustRalph]

Dave, Elysian, we are in agreement. In most ways. I’m rooting for the little guy and New tech to equalize some of this.

Elysian, I agree on your simple explanation on purchasing bandwidth. But I don’t think we will be any further away from what we are doing today, which is close to your explanation, for awhile. Hopefully the new tech and streaming models will influence the future and increase competition.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Bare bones the concept of net neutrality is that the quality and/or price of your internet service can't be determined based on what you are using that service for.

ALright.

So I can be charged based upon use, number of sites, and/or amount of bandwith then, right?

[reckless]

Correct.

This is simply a cash grab by the big players. The consumer always loses in those scenarios.

Ironically the government control in this instance actually is allowing more freedom for the consumer not less.

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

[elysiantraveller]

ALright.

So I can be charged based upon use, number of sites, and/or amount of bandwith then, right?

No with Net Neutrality providers can slow down the ways in which you use data. Netflix for instance can be slowed down unless you want to pay a premium for faster "streaming data." It can be targeted and providers like Comcast will do exactly that because they compete with that service for viewership.

Even if you want to pay more to do so. Like if you want to pay more for service that prioritizes your provider's transmission of streaming video ahead of transmission of email or web browsing, you can't, because data is data.

I have ZERO issue paying for the amount of Data I use. The problem is I don't want a provider being able to determine my ease of use depending on how I play to spend my data.

This is very similar to a targeted use tax.

[elysiantraveller]

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

[elysiantraveller]

Elysian, I agree on your simple explanation on purchasing bandwidth. But I don’t think we will be any further away from what we are doing today, which is close to your explanation, for awhile. Hopefully the new tech and streaming models will influence the future and increase competition.

I get what you are saying too but lets use an example. Sling TV currently offers what is tantamount to a streaming cable service. In the world of ISPs they don't compete with anyone but Comcast does. However, in the world of entertainment programming they compete directly with Comcast and in many ways surpass them. (Try calling Comcast customer service). Whats to keep a ISP like Comcast from throttling a company like Sling or causing their service to become too expensive to be competitive? The answer is nothing. That's why I feel points like reckless' make no sense.

This is exactly like the ACA in that the big players benefit but the smaller ones can't survive.

[Tom]

I am sure no one intends to hurt the little guy.
I doubt anyone even considered the little guy.

Internet must be FREE for everyone.
cities are doing it now - it is good for business and good for the country.

[boxcar]

I get what you are saying too but lets use an example.

Okay, let's do that. The WWW is still here like a big fuzzy, warm, cuddly fungus in cyberspace. The internet has survived yesterday's actions. All is well. Life is good. :coffee:

[Clocker]

I have ZERO issue paying for the amount of Data I use. The problem is I don't want a provider being able to determine my ease of use depending on how I play to spend my data.



The issue is not the provider charging you based on different data. The issue is allowing you to chose a plan that charges you less for something like email and browsing and more for something like streaming video.

Under net neutrality, you have to pay for everything at the rate for the highest quality you need for any particular use, like the poster here who said he had to upgrade his service to use Hulu. So he is now paying for a higher quality service for all usage, even though he only needs it occasionally when he uses Hulu. Eliminating net neutrality allows the provider to unbundle usage and charge more for better service only on the traffic that you want better service for.

[Clocker]

Internet must be FREE for everyone.
cities are doing it now - it is good for business and good for the country.

It looks like Bernie Sanders hijacked Tom's account. :eek:

Hint: It ain't free. Someone is paying for it.

Why just the internet? Why not phone service too? That is as important as the internet, and just as good for business and the country.

[elysiantraveller]

The issue is not the provider charging you based on different data. The issue is allowing you to chose a plan that charges you less for something like email and browsing and more for something like streaming video.

Under net neutrality, you have to pay for everything at the rate for the highest quality you need for any particular use, like the poster here who said he had to upgrade his service to use Hulu. So he is now paying for a higher quality service for all usage, even though he only needs it occasionally when he uses Hulu. Eliminating net neutrality allows the provider to unbundle usage and charge more for better service only on the traffic that you want better service for.

That is EXACTLY the problem. Net Neutrality is you pay $X amount for X amount of data/bandwidth regardless of how its used.

And on the flip side the provider who is simply moving bytes of data can arbitrarily determine the quality of the service based on how its being used.

Hence the problem.

[boxcar]

That is EXACTLY the problem. Net Neutrality is you pay $X amount for X amount of data/bandwidth regardless of how its used.

And on the flip side the provider who is simply moving bytes of data can arbitrarily determine the quality of the service based on how its being used.

Hence the problem.

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

[Dave Schwartz]

In today's USA Today (print version) there is an article that begins by saying, "Expect to pay more for access to your favorite internet sites."

Welcome to all that wonderful competition that will make it better for the consumer.

It will go downhill from here.

[elysiantraveller]

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

I'm beginning to think you are missing the issue here or don't understand what data even is. No one says you shouldn't pay more if you consume more. NO ONE. The problem is you will be charged differently not for the amount of data you use or the speed in which you get it but by the sites you are accessing.

This is actually a bipartisan issue with the majority of Republicans also favoring net neutrality.

"Democrats — urged on by consumer advocates, digital rights groups and online giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook — said the tougher federal oversight is needed because the internet’s increasingly vital role in business and daily life is vulnerable to exploitation by telecom companies."

"But there is bipartisan support for net neutrality, and some lawmakers want to pass net neutrality legislation that would enshrine some of the principles in law."

"“I call on Democrats and Republicans who want to preserve a free and open internet to work together on permanent consumer protections,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) after the FCC vote."

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214-story.html)

75% of Republicans don't support the reversal. 80% of the electorate is against it.

Maryland Poll on Net Neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.c93e0bbcdea7)

[elysiantraveller]

The internet is like anything else in a free market economy: If you want better quality, you can get it by paying for it. Can you go out and buy a Lexus for the price of a Ford Focus?

Its not a free-market economy and quite frankly I find it asinine that Trump supporters are on here trying to paint it as such... since they don't want a free economy.

If I use 60gigs of data watching movies on Netflix and you use 60gigs of data making your arguments in the religious thread I still have to pay more because I'm using Netflix? That's a free market to you? :confused::confused::confused:

[thaskalos]

In today's USA Today (print version) there is an article that begins by saying, "Expect to pay more for access to your favorite internet sites."

Welcome to all that wonderful competition that will make it better for the consumer.

It will go downhill from here.

This may be a blessing in disguise. It may force family-members to start noticing one another...

[boxcar]

Its not a free-market economy and quite frankly I find it asinine that Trump supporters are on here trying to paint it as such... since they don't want a free economy.

When did we move to communism?

If I use 60gigs of data watching movies on Netflix and you use 60gigs of data making your arguments in the religious thread I still have to pay more because I'm using Netflix? That's a free market to you? :confused::confused::confused:

So your objection is that you don't want to pay Netflix's subscription price? I gladly pay Netflix's price. Now...if PA charged to access his site....then I would have take that under advisement. :lol::lol:

I know what you could use for Christmas: A large crying towel.

[boxcar]

I'm beginning to think you are missing the issue here or don't understand what data even is. No one says you shouldn't pay more if you consume more. NO ONE. The problem is you will be charged differently not for the amount of data you use or the speed in which you get it but by the sites you are accessing.

This is actually a bipartisan issue with the majority of Republicans also favoring net neutrality.

"Democrats — urged on by consumer advocates, digital rights groups and online giants such as Amazon, Google and Facebook — said the tougher federal oversight is needed because the internet’s increasingly vital role in business and daily life is vulnerable to exploitation by telecom companies."

"But there is bipartisan support for net neutrality, and some lawmakers want to pass net neutrality legislation that would enshrine some of the principles in law."

"“I call on Democrats and Republicans who want to preserve a free and open internet to work together on permanent consumer protections,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) after the FCC vote."

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214-story.html)

75% of Republicans don't support the reversal. 80% of the electorate is against it.

Maryland Poll on Net Neutrality (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.c93e0bbcdea7)

Now...I know I'm on the right side of the issue. Going with the crowd is is very rarely wise. I certainly know it never works betting the ponies over the long haul. :coffee:

And I'm not surprised by the level of support NN has with Republicans since that number sounds about right for the ratio of Rinos to conservatives. Most Republicans make their home in the Swamp.

By the way...how have we survived on the internet all these years before NN was invented?

[PaceAdvantage]

So your objection is that you don't want to pay Netflix's subscription price? I gladly pay Netflix's price.Oh my, for such a self-proclaimed "smart guy," you sure are having a problem with the easy stuff.

[boxcar]

Oh my, for such a self-proclaimed "smart guy," you sure are having a problem with the easy stuff.

I never claimed to be smart only that people such as yourself (most especially) make me look so smart.

By the way it was ET who brought Netflix (an apple) and your website (an orange) into this discussion. So...my question to him is legit. He obviously is willing to "patronize" your free site, but not so much with Netflix who is in the business of selling entertainment. Got it now? It really is easy. :coffee:

But this gets even better: When NN was in force, Netflix still wasn't free to anyone, and I seriously doubt that is going to change now, after the government reverted back to the way things were in the good ol' days.

[reckless]

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

What nonsense? Platforms for free speech? You mean Twitter and Facebook? If you think that Twitter and Facebook espouse free speech then you are the one uttering nonsense, elysian.

Tell that to the conservatives that were banned by Twitter or the anti-Hillary groups on Facebook who set up pages simply to counter their perceived pro-Hillary bias in the main stream media. Oh yes, liberal groups calling for Black Lives Matter to riot were never banned or the constant calling for Trump to be murdered seemed to be okay too... but any anti-Obama or anti-Hillary tweets and FB postings were thrown out and barred regularly. I know this first hand by having a FB friend who hates Obama, he was banned. And he wasn't even incendiary; he's a rabbi in South Florida who says Obama is pro-Palenstinian!! And they tossed him.

And then we have this data, data, data point you are continuing to make. NN is much more serious than this being strictly a 'data' issue. It is not just about data as you continue to mention.

But let's talk data. Why should an ISP be forced by the government to charge the same amount of money for their internet service to someone who just sends email and photos to their grandchildren as opposed to the person who stays online all day on Facebook or Twitter? Or streams movies on Fire stick for many hours and hours at a time?

You do know that the then Net Neutrality bill had different provisions for ISP and telecoms than the NN provisions 'imposed' on liberal creeps such as Twitter, Google and Facebook -- who were very huge Obama donors, btw.

Oh I see... you probably didn't know that.

[PaceAdvantage]

I never claimed to be smart only that people such as yourself (most especially) make me look so smart.

By the way it was ET who brought Netflix (an apple) and your website (an orange) into this discussion. So...my question to him is legit. He obviously is willing to "patronize" your free site, but not so much with Netflix who is in the business of selling entertainment. Got it now? It really is easy. :coffee:

But this gets even better: When NN was in force, Netflix still wasn't free to anyone, and I seriously doubt that is going to change now, after the government reverted back to the way things were in the good ol' days.Sigh. The discussion you were having with him had nothing to do with the price Netflix charges for its services.

Other than the fact that Netflix might start charging more because they themselves are faced with higher access fees charged them by internet service providers due to the elimination of NN...that's but one scenario...

[Tom]

"FaceBook is a platform for FREE speech!"
---------The new owner of the Brooklyn Bridge

[boxcar]

Sigh. The discussion you were having with him had nothing to do with the price Netflix charges for its services.

Other than the fact that Netflix might start charging more because they themselves are faced with higher access fees charged them by internet service providers due to the elimination of NN...that's but one scenario...

Oh...so ET was proffering a theory that now that NN has been rescinded, things would not go back to the way they were prior to NN being implemented but rather now those evil capitalistic, for-profit ISPs would get greedy and charge Netflix users more dough rei me for consuming so much bandwith. Two things: First it's a theory. Secondly, a rather dumb one since in a free market the market will ultimately determine what is fair and/or what the market itself will bear. It's also a crazy theory because why should the ISPs play wild and loose with consumers or content providers? Who is going to win in such a move? At the end of the day, content providers and ISPs need Joe Blow Consumer.

Further, ET's attempted analogy is rather poor; for he's comparing raw "data" consumption with streaming. With the former, the end user might not be very inclined to concern himself with "quality" data transfers to and fro; whereas with the latter, the quality of streaming and, therefore, viewing experience, can be adversely affected if one's speed is not fast enough. Speaking from first hand experience with my ISP after I upgraded to fiber optics, they initially suggested that I go with a faster speed to improve streaming quality, which tends to be quite noticeable. At first I ignored them. But then after a couple of months I upgraded a couple of notches and everything was fine. But then eventually, because of another totally unrelated issue I had with my ISP which involved my threat to dump them, I negotiated for their best speed internet service for just slightly more than they wanted to charge me for the appreciably slower speed at which I was operating. Bottom line: It all worked out. Free markets work. Money talks wherever there is competition. And all the BS, especially about NN, walks.

So, you wanna do another scenario? Netflix this month is increasing by $1. their monthly subscription fee. I accepted the increase because I think it's reasonable. But what would happen if they decided to increase their fee by $10.? I would cancel in a heartbeat, and I'm quite sure many other subscribers would as well. Since most businesses are in business to grow their business, then such a move by Netflix would ultimately be self-defeating.

[elysiantraveller]

When did we move to communism?



So your objection is that you don't want to pay Netflix's subscription price? I gladly pay Netflix's price. Now...if PA charged to access his site....then I would have take that under advisement. :lol::lol:

I know what you could use for Christmas: A large crying towel.

You are simply not understanding the issue.

You have an ISP. You pay them x amount for x amount of data and bandwidth. You also have a Netflix account. You pay them X amount for their streaming services.

Removal of NN allows your ISP to CHARGE you more simply to use Netflix. Not because of data or bandwidth usage... simply because they feel like it. OR they will charge Netflix who will then pass the burden on to you.

[elysiantraveller]

"FaceBook is a platform for FREE speech!"
---------The new owner of the Brooklyn Bridge

Tom the some of the stuff you say on here would get your ass beat in a N.Y. minute out in the real world. For the most part it's cool though we all get your schtick.

But one can only wonder what your FB feed looks like. :lol:

[elysiantraveller]

Sigh. The discussion you were having with him had nothing to do with the price Netflix charges for its services.

Other than the fact that Netflix might start charging more because they themselves are faced with higher access fees charged them by internet service providers due to the elimination of NN...that's but one scenario...

He simply isnt comprehending.

[elysiantraveller]

Oh my, for such a self-proclaimed "smart guy," you sure are having a problem with the easy stuff.

A lot of people here will be pissed when sites like drudge, infowars, and Breitbart suddenlynstart running slower.

This is the antithesis of free speech.

[Clocker]

Removal of NN allows your ISP to CHARGE you more simply to use Netflix. Not because of data or bandwidth usage... simply because they feel like it. OR they will charge Netflix who will then pass the burden on to you.

It allows it, but they have to tell you. That would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

[Clocker]

A lot of people here will be pissed when sites like drudge, infowars, and Breitbart suddenlynstart running slower.



That would be considered an enhancement for people who move their lips when they read. ;)

[elysiantraveller]

It allows it, but they have to tell you. That would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

Not really.

Most places only have a couple of carriers available.

It's allowing a corporation to steer how you access the internet monetarily. Think Comcast won't come down hard on streaming services and I've got a bridge to sell you.

[boxcar]

You are simply not understanding the issue.

You have an ISP. You pay them x amount for x amount of data and bandwidth. You also have a Netflix account. You pay them X amount for their streaming services.

Removal of NN allows your ISP to CHARGE you more simply to use Netflix. Not because of data or bandwidth usage... simply because they feel like it. OR they will charge Netflix who will then pass the burden on to you.

You're fretting over something that has never happened before NN was invented. Furthermore, you have no idea how the free enterprise system works. See my reply to PA.

One of the reasons millennials, snowflakes and others don't like the removal of NN is because they were all hoping for a totally free internet or an internet where everyone would be operating at the same speed. (Liberal ;politicians don't like the removal of NN for other reasons already stated by others.) I pay for high speed internet, which is why I don't worry about my ISP upcharging me for watching Netflix, Amazon or any thing else. So...if my ISP wants to get cute and upcharge me for watching steaming content, I will not only cancel my service with the content providers but will at the very least downgrade my service with my ISP and pay less to that company -- if indeed not cancel my service with them altogether. Again, such a policy by my ISP would be so customer-unfriendly that it would defeat their purpose for why they're in business in the first place.

[boxcar]

Not really.

Most places only have a couple of carriers available.

It's allowing a corporation to steer how you access the internet monetarily. Think Comcast won't come down hard on streaming services and I've got a bridge to sell you.

Ever hear of technology? The Comcasts of the world will adjust or find ways to compete or they'll go out of business because they chose to let technology to be their demise. Cable and satellite will pass from the scene soon. AT&T is so serious about exploring new ways to do ethernet, they have partnered up with some electric company in the great sovereign Peach Tree State to test the feasibility of using existing overhead electric wires as conduit for the ethernet, thereby saving more than a few shekels on expanding old infrastructure.

Gotta love capitalism and all that this entails...

[Jeff P]

It allows it, but they have to tell you. That would put them at a competitive disadvantage.

A competitive disadvantage vs. who exactly?

From what I can tell, in my neighborhood Spectrum has a monopoly as the lone high speed internet provider.

Now if I want sloooower internet, I do have a few options.

But not for high speed internet.

Imo, if monopoly high speed internet providers:

a. Start slowing the internet down for certain sites that compete with them (Netflix, Hulu, etc.)...

b. Start charging an arm and a leg to access those sites...

c. Start doing the same for sites featuring content that runs contrary to political views held by said owners of the high speed internet monopoly...

Imo, this vote to do away with NN has potential to be a VERY big deal.


-jp

.

[elysiantraveller]

One of the reasons millennials, snowflakes and others don't like the removal of NN is because they were all hoping for a totally free internet or an internet where everyone would be operating at the same speed. (Liberal ;politicians don't like the removal of NN for other reasons already stated by others.).

Get ready because here it comes...

They know you can't live without internet and they already had a monopoly. Sure give them more power though.

And even now... even if you're right. Why are you for it?

To the quoted part. Literally no is saying that. Except Tom the flaming liberal of PA.

[FantasticDan]

https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/941439809012322304

[boxcar]

Get ready because here it comes...

They know you can't live without internet and they already had a monopoly. Sure give them more power though.

And even now... even if you're right. Why are you for it?

To the quoted part. Literally no is saying that. Except Tom the flaming liberal of PA.

But I can live with a much slower internet either by my current ISP or a different one. Under my current high speed plan, I'm allowed 1 terabyte of usage per month. That's an awful lot of bandwith! I could probably stream movies 12 hours a day every day and still have plenty left over.

And no one has a monopoly on the internet!

And I'm against NN because the internet doesn't need fixing. It wasn't broke to begin with! :bang::bang: The only people who thought the 'net was broken are liberal politicians because they want to control political content. They want the internet to be politically "neutral" which in liberal speak means to have appreciably fewer conservative sites available to the general public. Remember what libs wanted to do with radio broadcasts to limit its political content? Do you remember their proposed "fairness" doctrine? :rolleyes: (Their Fairness Doctrine was about as fair as the Affordable Care Act is affordable!) How come liberals are afraid to death of public free choice? Why not just let the public decide what it wants to listen to and what it doesn't? Ditto for the internet.

[boxcar]

https://twitter.com/kumailn/status/941439809012322304

Forget RIP. May NN rot in hell forever and ever -- and then some.

[elysiantraveller]

But I can live with a much slower internet either by my current ISP or a different one. Under my current high speed plan, I'm allowed 1 terabyte of usage per month. That's an awful lot of bandwith! I could probably stream movies 12 hours a day every day and still have plenty left over.

And no one has a monopoly on the internet!

And I'm against NN because the internet doesn't need fixing. It wasn't broke to begin with! :bang::bang: The only people who thought the 'net was broken are liberal politicians because they want to control political content. They want the internet to be politically "neutral" which in liberal speak means to have appreciably fewer conservative sites available to the general public. Remember what libs wanted to do with radio broadcasts to limit its political content? Do you remember their proposed "fairness" doctrine? :rolleyes: (Their Fairness Doctrine was about as fair as the Affordable Care Act is affordable!) How come liberals are afraid to death of public free choice? Why not just let the public decide what it wants to listen to and what it doesn't? Ditto for the internet.

No.

This isn't a left/right issue. This is major Telecoms stacking the deck in their favor to make more money. This isn't anything other than crony capitalism where the consumer loses.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon win. Consumers lose.

You want the real answer why Net Neutrality is a big deal? Why it's crony capitalism? See below.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5936e558b74af41f008b6b96-1000/screen%20shot%202017-06-06%20at%20115256%20am.png

[elysiantraveller]

Forget RIP. May NN rot in hell forever and ever -- and then some.

Interesting post from you a few years back about cutting the cord.

But there is a difference. I can control what I access on the internet. But I have zero control over what crosses the airwaves.

Boxcar

But now after this the airwaves DO get a say in what you can access on the internet.

I find it interesting that people who were once for NN have flipped on the issue around these parts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

I find it interesting that people who were once for NN have flipped on the issue around these parts.

SHOCKING
:lol:

[boxcar]

Interesting post from you a few years back about cutting the cord.


But now after this the airwaves DO get a say in what you can access on the internet.

I find it interesting that people who were once for NN have flipped on the issue around these parts.

No! The consumers have determined the content of radio broadcasts. Consumers overwhelmingly prefer conservative talks shows over the liberal drivel counterparts.

As far as the internet goes, I still get to choose what I will read and won't read, what sites I will access and will not access. I liken the internet to be very much like TV. The ratio of noise to signal for both is very high, and for this reason many moons ago, I stopped subscribing to satellite since I felt I wasn't getting good value for my monthly fees. Once again, the free market works. I got to choose to not pay to watch commercial-free garbage over which I have no control. And this differs significantly from commercial-driven radio broadcasts. Businesses are not going to waste their money advertising with a talk show host who can attract only small audiences. Why do you think guys like Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. have not only survived all these years but have thrived? There is demand for their voices by listeners, and so advertisers are most eager to advertise on their shows.

The free market system does work -- whether you want to believe that or not. :coffee:

[boxcar]

No.

This isn't a left/right issue. This is major Telecoms stacking the deck in their favor to make more money. This isn't anything other than crony capitalism where the consumer loses.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon win. Consumers lose.

You want the real answer why Net Neutrality is a big deal? Why it's crony capitalism? See below.

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5936e558b74af41f008b6b96-1000/screen%20shot%202017-06-06%20at%20115256%20am.png

Well...here's a clue for you: This is why FOR-PROFIT businesses are in business in the first place-- to make as much money as the market can bear. But once a company steps over that line of tolerance, consumers will react unkindly, and this will have an adverse effect on the corporation's bottom line.

Of course, you have another avenue open to you: You could lobby your congress critters to take over the Telecom industry the way Obama did with Healthcare which is one-sixth of the U.S. economy. See how that works out for ya.

Or you could join a bunch of snowflakes to lobby congress to subsidize you to help out with those "obscene" telecom fees.

[elysiantraveller]

No! The consumers have determined the content of radio broadcasts. Consumers overwhelmingly prefer conservative talks shows over the liberal drivel counterparts.

As far as the internet goes, I still get to choose what I will read and won't read, what sites I will access and will not access. I liken the internet to be very much like TV. The ratio of noise to signal for both is very high, and for this reason many moons ago, I stopped subscribing to satellite since I felt I wasn't getting good value for my monthly fees. Once again, the free market works. I got to choose to not pay to watch commercial-free garbage over which I have no control. And this differs significantly from commercial-driven radio broadcasts. Businesses are not going to waste their money advertising with a talk show host who can attract only small audiences. Why do you think guys like Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. have not only survived all these years but have thrived? There is demand for their voices by listeners, and so advertisers are most eager to advertise on their shows.

The free market system does work -- whether you want to believe that or not. :coffee:

I've determined at this point you are being either factually dishonest or deliberately obtuse.

AT&T or whatever provider you have now gets to determine the ease in which you can access certain locales on the internet. This flies directly in the face of your previous post of being able to filter what you get online.

You were for net neutrality before you were against it. Common theme among the Trumpers that was for free markets before Trump and tariffs.

I assure you my voting record is more free market than yours.

[elysiantraveller]

Well...here's a clue for you: This is why FOR-PROFIT businesses are in business in the first place-- to make as much money as the market can bear. But once a company steps over that line of tolerance, consumers will react unkindly, and this will have an adverse effect on the corporation's bottom line.

Of course, you have another avenue open to you: You could lobby your congress critters to take over the Telecom industry the way Obama did with Healthcare which is one-sixth of the U.S. economy. See how that works out for ya.

Or you could join a bunch of snowflakes to lobby congress to subsidize you to help out with those "obscene" telecom fees.

Hilarious... now you make generalizations about my income...

One post you celebrate your unfettered internet access the next... well it's okay if it's tethered.

At least JR admitted he flipped.

[Clocker]

Robert McDowell is a former FCC Commissioner who was appointed by George W. Bush and reappointed to another term by Obama. Here he dismantles an MSNBC host who says the sky is falling because of the death of net neutrality:

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2017/12/15/watch-msnbc-host-gets-progressively-upset-loses-net-neutrality-debate-former-fcc-chairman/

[elysiantraveller]

Robert McDowell is a former FCC Commissioner who was appointed by George W. Bush and reappointed to another term by Obama. Here he dismantles an MSNBC host who says the sky is falling because of the death of net neutrality:

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2017/12/15/watch-msnbc-host-gets-progressively-upset-loses-net-neutrality-debate-former-fcc-chairman/

I never said the sky is falling I just think it's bullshit.

Data is data. However I choose to use it, since I paid for it and as long as it's legal, is no one's ****ing business.

[Clocker]

Data is data. However I choose to use it, since I paid for it and as long as it's legal, is no one's ****ing business.

That's why the FCC has removed a strict form of regulation on the internet, allowing providers to offer a variety of different services and allowing customers to chose the services that they want.

If it's nobody's business, how can you object to deregulation?

[elysiantraveller]

That's why the FCC has removed a strict form of regulation on the internet, allowing providers to offer a variety of different services and allowing customers to chose the services that they want.

If it's nobody's business, how can you object to deregulation?

Because I fail to see how a regulation that requires ISPs to treat all data (the actual thing you are paying for) the same (since to them it is) hurts options, competition, or market freedom. Again data is data whether us PA, Netflix, or Breitbart. Want less buy less.

You make it seem like these options didn't already exist... they did.

The only group that gains leverage is the telecoms who can now strong arm any content provider they see fit to.

Who in your area is going to step in and replace them if they jack fees on the consumer? The answer is no one.

[Clocker]

Because I fail to see how a regulation that requires ISPs to treat all data (the actual thing you are paying for) the same (since to them it is) hurts options, competition, or market freedom. Again data is data whether us PA, Netflix, or Breitbart. Want less buy less.

You make it seem like these options didn't already exist... they did.

The only group that gains leverage is the telecoms who can now strong arm any content provider they see fit to.



Data is data, but it can be blocked, throttled, or prioritized. All of the major providers already state in their terms of service that they will not block or throttle any data. Enforcement of those terms now reverts to the FTC, where it was before net neutrality. The FTC has a better reputation and history of enforcing anti-competitive laws than the FCC. Any telecom that would "strong arm any content provider" would be subject to FTC action.

What providers want, and what was prohibited under net neutrality, was the ability to openly offer prioritized switching and delivery of selective data (such as streaming video) at a higher price. You would then have the option of having all of your data delivered at the same base speed at a flat monthly rate, or having your data unbundled, paying more as you use more prioritized data. It's like sending a letter 1st class or Express Mail, your choice.

[Clocker]

Bonus question: What was wrong with the internet prior to 2015 that net neutrality fixed?

[elysiantraveller]

Data is data, but it can be blocked, throttled, or prioritized. All of the major providers already state in their terms of service that they will not block or throttle any data. Enforcement of those terms now reverts to the FTC, where it was before net neutrality. The FTC has a better reputation and history of enforcing anti-competitive laws than the FCC. Any telecom that would "strong arm any content provider" would be subject to FTC action.

What providers want, and what was prohibited under net neutrality, was the ability to openly offer prioritized switching and delivery of selective data (such as streaming video) at a higher price. You would then have the option of having all of your data delivered at the same base speed at a flat monthly rate, or having your data unbundled, paying more as you use more prioritized data. It's like sending a letter 1st class or Express Mail, your choice.

This ability already exists. I the consumer already have the ability to determine the amount and speed of my data through what I'm willing to pay.

This is simply ISPs, who also happen to be content providers, attempting to steer you to use their content by charging different amounts for what is tantamount to the exact same service, data and bandwidth.

Netflix is a good example since they are a standalone entity. The ISP has the ability to charge you more for access than say Hulu in the case of Comcast since they own part of it. If not they can simply charge Netflix who in turn passes that on to you.

And the result is you as the consumer can switch services (not possible for most as they only have 1 or maybe 2 options) or pay more for the exact same thing... data and bandwidth simply because of what content you consume.

[elysiantraveller]

Bonus question: What was wrong with the internet prior to 2015 that net neutrality fixed?

For starters the content providers weren't nearly considered the threat they are now. House of Cards launched in 2013. At the time Netflix was laughed at and mocked for attempting to compete with the traditional industry.

The market has completely changed and this is a life raft to telecoms seeing their shares of a market they previously had a Monopoly in being sliced into.

I don't see how you can't see this as crony capitalism.

[boxcar]

I've determined at this point you are being either factually dishonest or deliberately obtuse.

AT&T or whatever provider you have now gets to determine the ease in which you can access certain locales on the internet. This flies directly in the face of your previous post of being able to filter what you get online.

You were for net neutrality before you were against it. Common theme among the Trumpers that was for free markets before Trump and tariffs.

I assure you my voting record is more free market than yours.

I was never for NN. What gives you this idea? NN wasn't needed because the internet was working fine without it.

My ISP does not determine the "ease at which [I] can access certain locales on the internet." I DO! I'm the one who chose my plan. I could have stayed with appreciably more modest speeds or upgrade (for relatively little more) to a much higher speed. I chose the latter because it represented far greater value -- and not because the slower speed was inadequate for streaming.

[elysiantraveller]

I was never for NN. What gives you this idea? NN wasn't needed because the internet was working fine without it.

My ISP does not determine the "ease at which [I] can access certain locales on the internet." I DO

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can! :bang:

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

[AndyC]

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can! :bang:

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

Are you claiming that a business similar to Netflix in all ways can be allowed more bandwidth at the whim of the ISP? If so there should be a huge business opportunity for a company to pick up the disgruntled customers of some ruthless ISP.

[boxcar]

Then you don't understand Net Neutrality because now they can! :bang:

They can bottle neck your Netflix or charge Netflix to have the same bandwidth as other services they currently offer themselves.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending this. Read up on the issue. Read both sides. Then come back and explain to me how this isn't a telecom cash grab.

Because you're telling me what "they CAN do", yet I have never experienced with or prior to NN what you're claiming. Why don't you want to understand that the internet wasn't broken prior to NN and it isn't broken now?

Furthermore, can you tell me what was the great benefit I was supposed to experience with NN? What was supposed to improve to make my experience so much better before NN was implemented? IOW, what am I supposed to be missing with NN now in the dumpster?

[elysiantraveller]

Are you claiming that a business similar to Netflix in all ways can be allowed more bandwidth at the whim of the ISP? If so there should be a huge business opportunity for a company to pick up the disgruntled customers of some ruthless ISP.

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to create fiber networks?

Another company simply can't step in and do it. My father was senior VP of Verizon installation and repair for the Midwest and the Carolinas. Where Verizon is AT&T and Comcast aren't and vice versa. It's too expensive and the return too risky. How many providers do you have access to? My guess is one cable and one DSL am I correct?

[elysiantraveller]

Because you're telling me what "they CAN do", yet I have never experienced with or prior to NN what you're claiming. Why don't you want to understand that the internet wasn't broken prior to NN and it isn't broken now?

See the previous graph I posted. Do you think the internet and media consumption has changed in the past 5 years? You're seriously going to argue it hasn't? NN was actually forward thinking. You pay for data and thats it. Now you potentially can pay for data BUT also how you use it? And you're going to argue this is good or beneficial in some way?

Furthermore, can you tell me what was the great benefit I was supposed to experience with NN? What was supposed to improve to make my experience so much better before NN was implemented? IOW, what am I supposed to be missing with NN now in the dumpster?

That all you paid for was data and speed. Now you can potentially pay for not just the data but how you use it.

I seriously feel like you all are just supporting this because the guy who reversed it has an R next to his name and a Trump appointee. You really have no idea what NN is. (Except Clocker whose opposition also doesn't make sense to me but is based entirely on a different premise)

You buy data and you use it. There can be no additional charge for the type of data you're using and now there can be...

That's the difference.

It's literally just a way for telecoms to charge you more for using the exact same things you already have been.

But I digress... I'm sick of discussing this. You all were against it when you thought Obama was for it. Now you flip because... well Trump. You in particular espoused how great the internet is because you can access whatever you want. I've showed you over and over again how that ability might cost more now and you simply choose to ignore it.

I've said the same thing a million times and no has refuted that it can potentially cost you more for doing the same things you have already been doing and diligently paying for... just sheeple sheeping... or flocking... or whatever you call it.

[JustRalph]

Do you have any idea how much money it takes to create fiber networks?

Another company simply can't step in and do it. My father was senior VP of Verizon installation and repair for the Midwest and the Carolinas. Where Verizon is AT&T and Comcast aren't and vice versa. It's too expensive and the return too risky. How many providers do you have access to? My guess is one cable and one DSL am I correct?

Take out the infrastructure cost, provide very high speed Internet on what’s already there..........forget about fiber. This tech is out there and coming. It should change the market drastically if allowed to flourish


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/technology/gfast-internet-speeds/index.html

[elysiantraveller]

Take out the infrastructure cost, provide very high speed Internet on what’s already there..........forget about fiber. This tech is out there and coming. It should change the market drastically if allowed to flourish


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/technology/gfast-internet-speeds/index.html

5G is going to crush everything. But it still has to have an access point. Which is infrastructure. The towers and lines still have to have the capacity. Which is owned predominately by only 4 entities. Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Uncle Sam.

It all siphons up.

Hell AT&T is the one behind this financially according to your article... hardly a little guy stepping in. And totally irrelevant when it comes to streaming media and potential premiums associated with NN repeal. The topics aren't related.

Back to 5G... we will soon be a wireless society. The ease at which we will have access is a serious threat to the way we have traditionally consumed media. Why the do you think they want to repeal NN? It's a means to charge more for the same thing you've already been doing and offset the losses they know they are going to suffer from the dying way we still consume media.

[boxcar]

See the previous graph I posted. Do you think the internet and media consumption has changed in the past 5 years? You're seriously going to argue it hasn't? NN was actually forward thinking. You pay for data and thats it. Now you potentially can pay for data BUT also how you use it? And you're going to argue this is good or beneficial in some way?


That all you paid for was data and speed. Now you can potentially pay for not just the data but how you use it. emphasis mine!!!

"POTENTIALLY", you say? Now...we're getting somewhere. Thank you very much for supporting my foundational premise, which was once again: The NN was implemented to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with!

And, yes, consumption has changed and that will impact supply and demand. In fact, sir, are you familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand? Do you have any idea what happens, normally, when demands exceed supplies?

To what shall I liken NN that had actually fixed nothing in its few years of existence? I liken it to a traffic cop pulling over the driver of a really red hot, jazzy, fast really cool looking sports car to give the driver a ticket for breaking no laws. The driver being really incredulous wants to know what that's all about. The cop tells him the ticket is to discourage the driver's potential for actually speeding in the car. Now...if this makes sense to you, then I can understand why you favor NN. Obama making NN a rule is a classic case of someone crying, "WOLF", when there was none to be found at the time, nor is there any to this day.

I've said the same thing a million times and no has refuted that it can potentially cost you more for doing the same things you have already been doing and diligently paying for... just sheeple sheeping... or flocking... or whatever you call it.

And this is the second thing you have right. No one can refute anything that hasn't happened and may never happen, anymore than you can prove that it will happen! :bang::bang::bang:

Have a pleasant evening, sir.

[boxcar]

Take out the infrastructure cost, provide very high speed Internet on what’s already there..........forget about fiber. This tech is out there and coming. It should change the market drastically if allowed to flourish


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/technology/gfast-internet-speeds/index.html

I wonder if this G-Fast thing is what AT&T is experimenting with in Georgia with an electric utility company?

Someday we may not only catch up to Europe's internet speeds but actually surpass them.

[elysiantraveller]

I wonder if this G-Fast thing is what AT&T is experimenting with in Georgia with an electric utility company?

Someday we may not only catch up to Europe's internet speeds but actually surpass them.

Why are they slow?

Because no competition...

"So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

That’s why a handful of cities have chosen to create their own municipal broadband services to compete with private broadband providers: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bristol, Virginia, Lafayette, Louisiana, Cedar Falls, Iowa, and Wilson, North Carolina.

The municipal broadband services in these cities often provide faster speeds using fiber instead of traditional telephone or cable lines, though not necessarily for cheaper. Other cities have even partnered with Google to roll out high-speed internet."

Link (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive)

Again this is why NN is an issue. It helps keep lousy providers on top.

[elysiantraveller]

emphasis mine!!!

"POTENTIALLY", you say? Now...we're getting somewhere. Thank you very much for supporting my foundational premise, which was once again: The NN was implemented to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with!

And, yes, consumption has changed and that will impact supply and demand. In fact, sir, are you familiar with the Law of Supply and Demand? Do you have any idea what happens, normally, when demands exceed supplies?

To what shall I liken NN that had actually fixed nothing in its few years of existence? I liken it to a traffic cop pulling over the driver of a really red hot, jazzy, fast really cool looking sports car to give the driver a ticket for breaking no laws. The driver being really incredulous wants to know what that's all about. The cop tells him the ticket is to discourage the driver's potential for actually speeding in the car. Now...if this makes sense to you, then I can understand why you favor NN. Obama making NN a rule is a classic case of someone crying, "WOLF", when there was none to be found at the time, nor is there any to this day.



And this is the second thing you have right. No one can refute anything that hasn't happened and may never happen, anymore than you can prove that it will happen! :bang::bang::bang:

Have a pleasant evening, sir.

Every one of your points is based on illogical thinking. You can now be billed more for Netflix simply because... well... Netflix.

I'm glad you're okay with that. But I have shown you countless times how this can negatively impact you and your only response is "well it hasn't happened yet."

Fine. Now it can happen again. Wanna place a wager that ISPs don't roll out new plans in the next 6-12 months?

[JustRalph]

Things are getting better already.......on my iPad via WiFi in my living room

[elysiantraveller]

Things are getting better already.......on my iPad via WiFi in my living room

Notes the time it was ran... also has nothing to do with NN.

:bang:

[JustRalph]

Notes the time it was ran... also has nothing to do with NN.

:bang:

Can’t take a joke?

[boxcar]

Every one of your points is based on illogical thinking. You can now be billed more for Netflix simply because... well... Netflix.

I'm glad you're okay with that. But I have shown you countless times how this can negatively impact you and your only response is "well it hasn't happened yet."

Fine. Now it can happen again. Wanna place a wager that ISPs don't roll out new plans in the next 6-12 months?

I'm illogical but it is you who has your panties in an uproar over what "can"happen -- over what may happen -- over what the future may bring.

A very wise man once said, "Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow for tomorrow will care for itself. Today has enough trouble of its own."

[boxcar]

Why are they slow?

Because no competition...

"So why are Americans paying more for slower service? The answer: There’s limited competition in the broadband market.

In fact, half of American homes have only two options for Internet service providers for basic broadband, according to the Federal Communications Commission. And for faster speeds, a majority of households have only one choice.

That’s why a handful of cities have chosen to create their own municipal broadband services to compete with private broadband providers: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bristol, Virginia, Lafayette, Louisiana, Cedar Falls, Iowa, and Wilson, North Carolina.

The municipal broadband services in these cities often provide faster speeds using fiber instead of traditional telephone or cable lines, though not necessarily for cheaper. Other cities have even partnered with Google to roll out high-speed internet."

Link (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive)

Again this is why NN is an issue. It helps keep lousy providers on top.

Yeah....like NN had really pushed us far ahead of Europe, heh?

Btw, I'm already on fiber optics service that I buy from an "evil" corporation.

[boxcar]

Things are getting better already.......on my iPad via WiFi in my living room

I just tested mine this morning to see if my "evil" ISP is defrauding me. But my speeds are still about 10% faster than the advertised service. Looks like I'm good to go for today. :jump:

[Tom]

My ISP is Rectum, and they have been consistent.
Slow last week, slow yesterday, slow today.

[classhandicapper]

1. I have owned shares in Level 3 Communications on and off for last 17 years. It just closed a deal is now called Century Link.

2. During that entire time (including now), I belonged to a forum that is dedicated to discussing Level 3, the telecommunication industry, and issues like net neutrality, stock prices etc..

3. The people that participate are private investors, telecommunications executives, stock analysts, and money managers.

From experience, I would suggest you not believe anything you are reading in the media. They are a bunch of clueless dolts that are repeating the same tired arguments and scare tactics that have been coming from both sides all along. I've been reading this nonsense for 10 years. The smartest objective people in the industry barely understand all the ramifications and don't agree even when they do. After all these years nether do I and at times I've had a very significant amount of money at stake.

There was only one thing I came away with from all the debates. The bottom line is that in order to handle the ever expanding amounts of data and information flowing through the internet, telecommunications companies have to keep investing in capacity and new technology (including last mile). The billions they invest have to be recovered.

There are really only 2 ways to do that.

1. Charge the end consumer more money for their internet access because they are demanding more data, faster speeds etc.. and the only way it can be delivered is by making larger and new investments. They could use different charging models, but bottom line is prices for consumers have to go up.

2. Charge the individual companies based on how much data they are sending through the pipes. The most popular sites would get charged more.

If they choose option one everyone will scream they have a strong business position and are using that position to pillage consumers.

If they close option two, the companies getting charged will scream and then charge the consumer for access to recover their costs. Then everyone will scream that they don't get Twitter, Google and whatever else for free anymore.

Well guess what?

Nothing is free.

Someone has to pay for the pipes. So while everyone is arguing whether or not the last mile pipe owners might choose to slow the traffic of competitors or do something else to gain an advantage or whether major left leaning information providers are controlling the information getting to end users, WE ARE GOING TO PAY EITHER WAY. The rest of it is BS. I'm not sure the smartest people in the industry have any idea how it's all going to play out. I have seen no problem either way.

[boxcar]

1. I have owned shares in Level 3 Communications on and off for last 17 years. It just closed a deal is now called Century Link.

2. During that entire time (including now), I belonged to a forum that is dedicated to discussing Level 3, the telecommunication industry, and issues like net neutrality, stock prices etc..

3. The people that participate are private investors, telecommunications executives, stock analysts, and money managers.

From experience, I would suggest you not believe anything you are reading in the media. They are a bunch of clueless dolts that are repeating the same tired arguments and scare tactics that have been coming from both sides all along. I've been reading this nonsense for 10 years. The smartest objective people in the industry barely understand all the ramifications and don't agree even when they do. After all these years nether do I and at times I've had a very significant amount of money at stake.

There was only one thing I came away with from all the debates. The bottom line is that in order to handle the ever expanding amounts of data and information flowing through the internet, telecommunications companies have to keep investing in capacity and new technology (including last mile). The billions they invest have to be recovered.

There are really only 2 ways to do that.

1. Charge the end consumer more money for their internet access because they are demanding more data, faster speeds etc.. and the only way it can be delivered is by making larger and new investments. They could use different charging models, but bottom line is prices for consumers have to go up.

2. Charge the individual companies based on how much data they are sending through the pipes. The most popular sites would get charged more.

If they choose option one everyone will scream they have a strong business position and are using that position to pillage consumers.

If they close option two, the companies getting charged will scream and then charge the consumer for access to recover their costs. Then everyone will scream that they don't get Twitter, Google and whatever else for free anymore.

Well guess what?

Nothing is free.

Someone has to pay for the pipes. So while everyone is arguing whether or not the last mile pipe owners might choose to slow the traffic of competitors or do something else to gain an advantage or whether major left leaning information providers are controlling the information getting to end users, WE ARE GOING TO PAY EITHER WAY. The rest of it is BS. I'm not sure the smartest people in the industry have any idea how it's all going to play out. I have seen no problem either way.

Unlike ET, you have obviously heard of the Law of Supply and Demand...and seem to understand it to boot. :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

Unlike ET, you have obviously heard of the Law of Supply and Demand...and seem to understand it to boot. :ThmbUp:

Listen asshole I understand it quite well and regret getting into a debate with a person who thinks the earth is only 3000 years old.

If you could actually read I never said I have an issue paying more. Again you own bias is getting in the way of being rational.

What I have a problem with is telecoms charging me more for one byte than another because of what comes after the www.

If you actually go back through this thread I have flat out said countless times I have no issue paying for anything.

When it comes to understanding networks my father personally installed the one in my town so I have a slight bead on how the shit works.

[classhandicapper]

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

If you think Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others are platforms for free speech you are not only wrong, you are literally delusional. They are platforms where the terms of service reflect the politics of the management - which are all left leaning. That's why there "are" free speech platforms sprouting up (which in turn are getting attacked by mainstream leftist media outlets as promoting hate, bigotry, etc.. to destroy them before they take off.

There are right wing people I personally used to follow getting barred every day for "offenses" to terms of service I deem trivial and others promoting pedophilia, terrorism, overthrowing Trump, killing the first family etc.. that get a free pass despite me and others reporting them.

[elysiantraveller]

Someone has to pay for the pipes. So while everyone is arguing whether or not the last mile pipe owners might choose to slow the traffic of competitors or do something else to gain an advantage or whether major left leaning information providers are controlling the information getting to end users, WE ARE GOING TO PAY EITHER WAY. The rest of it is BS. I'm not sure the smartest people in the industry have any idea how it's all going to play out. I have seen no problem either way.

Everything you said made absolute perfect sense up until this point.

Isn't it just easier though to pay a flat rate for an amount of data and speed in which you can access it? Seems the best for the consumer to me... but...

Occams Razor.

[elysiantraveller]

If you think Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others are platforms for free speech you are not only wrong, you are literally delusional. They are platforms where the terms of service reflect the politics of the management - which are all left leaning. That's why there "are" free speech platforms sprouting up (which in turn are getting attacked by mainstream leftist media outlets as promoting hate, bigotry, etc.. to destroy them before they take off.

There are right wing people I personally used to follow getting barred every day for "offenses" to terms of service I deem trivial and others promoting pedophilia, terrorism, overthrowing Trump, killing the first family etc.. that get a free pass despite me and others reporting them.

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.

In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

[classhandicapper]

Listen asshole I understand it quite well and regret getting into a debate with a person who thinks the earth is only 3000 years old.

If you could actually read I never said I have an issue paying more. Again you own bias is getting in the way of being rational.

What I have a problem with is telecoms charging me more for one byte than another because of what comes after the www.

If you actually go back through this thread I have flat out said countless times I have no issue paying for anything.

When it comes to understanding networks my father personally installed the one in my town so I have a slight bead on how the shit works.

If you don't care about paying more, then what's the difference if you pay Spectrum an extra $10 or keep the same bill and pay $10 to Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc...

As long as there is competition at the last mile (which there still is) and no one is slowing competitor traffic it's all good.

[boxcar]

Listen asshole I understand it quite well and regret getting into a debate with a person who thinks the earth is only 3000 years old.

If you could actually read I never said I have an issue paying more. Again you own bias is getting in the way of being rational.

What I have a problem with is telecoms charging me more for one byte than another because of what comes after the www.

If you actually go back through this thread I have flat out said countless times I have no issue paying for anything.

When it comes to understanding networks my father personally installed the one in my town so I have a slight bead on how the shit works.

Take a deep breath...and now exhale slowly. Feelin' relaxed?

Firstly, I think the earth is older than 3,000 years old. From which of your orifices did you pull that number?

Secondly, if you have "no issue for paying for anything" then why do you have an issue for how you're charged for what you're paying? One way or the other, as the demand increases, costs will go up...unless, of course, you and your ilk get on the government dole and get subsidized for your playtime on the 'net because, after all, life is just so unfair... :coffee:

And last but not least, did you daddy ever teach you how life works or were you too dull to understand him?

[classhandicapper]

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.


In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

I realize there are many issues getting conflated, but you don't know what you are taking about on free speech. I'm telling you I've seen right wing/libertarian guys I personally followed get barred for nonsense and personally reported death threats that went undisciplined because of who was doing the threatening and who was threatened.

These are leftist organizations. They barely even hide their bias anymore.

[Dave Schwartz]

For the record, Facebook IS FREE SPEECH.

That is, it comes without COST.

But it is certainly not FREE as in OPEN and without limits.

[elysiantraveller]

If you don't care about paying more, then what's the difference if you pay Spectrum an extra $10 or keep the same bill and pay $10 to Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook etc...

As long as there is competition at the last mile (which there still is) and no one is slowing competitor traffic it's all good.

Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.

Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.

But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.

Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.

As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.

[JustRalph]

For the record, Facebook IS FREE SPEECH.

That is, it comes without COST.

But it is certainly not FREE as in OPEN and without limits.

Ding! Perfect!

I got suspended from Facebook because I was reported as being a spammer. I had no idea what they were talking about. When I appealed they released me after 48 hours with the explanation "we are unsure why the complaint was filed “ and they would not tell me who filed the complaint. I have 23 friends.......only about 5 participate with me. I assume a lot of there suspensions are automated

[elysiantraveller]

Ding! Perfect!

I got suspended from Facebook because I was reported as being a spammer. I had no idea what they were talking about. When I appealed they released me after 48 hours with the explanation "we are unsure why the complaint was filed “ and they would not tell me who filed the complaint. I have 23 friends.......only about 5 participate with me. I assume a lot of there suspensions are automated

It's not at all uncommon.

[reckless]

But not freedom of thought or expression, especially conservative points of view.

The Obama Administration pulled this fast one -- the benign sounding 'Net Neutrality' law in his final year as President.

The lobbying Google villains had more documented visits to Obama during his last term than the number of visits by most high ranking Cabinet administrators.

The law was anything but 'net neutral' ... it was meant for the government to pick winners and losers -- and in Obama's case it was for Google, Facebook, Twitter and the other purveyors of free speech and totalitarianism -- such as the George Soros-funded Tech Left Coalition companies.

This is absolute nonsense. The sources you are citing are the greatest platforms of free speech ever created. I can post something there and reach MILLIONS if I so choose.

If anything this will strengthen their hand as they are already established platforms.

No.

This isn't a left/right issue. This is major Telecoms stacking the deck in their favor to make more money. This isn't anything other than crony capitalism where the consumer loses.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon win. Consumers lose.

You want the real answer why Net Neutrality is a big deal? Why it's crony capitalism? ...

Wow, how it must feel to be a traveller down the slippery slope of double talk and confused perspectives...

When this thread began I was the first (and only) one to say the repeal of Net Neutrality was good because it was only about crony capitalism -- the government picking winners and losers. The uber liberal Tech Left coalition of companies wanted NN -- and after millions donated to Obama and Democrats in 2016 we got 'Net Neutrality' -- written by the lobbyists from Google, Amazon, Soros, et al.

Yet, you said all this was nonsense. You said it was all about data. Data has nothing to do with NN, just as the Affordable Care Act lacked both care and affordability and had nothing to do with health care.

Net Neutrality was all about left wing Too Big To Fail totalitarians such as Facebook and Google controlling the flow of information while stifling conservative and libertarian thought, and they got it thanks to the Obama administration giving them its seal of approval.

So now, many pages later into this thread, you now say it's all about crony capitalism -- with the telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer. Thanks for agreeing with me for a change.

[elysiantraveller]

Wow, how it must feel to be a traveller down the slippery slope of double talk and confused perspectives...

When this thread began I was the first (and only) one to say the repeal of Net Neutrality was good because it was only about crony capitalism -- the government picking winners and losers. The uber liberal Tech Left coalition of companies wanted NN -- and after millions donated to Obama and Democrats in 2016 we got 'Net Neutrality' -- written by the lobbyists from Google, Amazon, Soros, et al.

Yet, you said all this was nonsense. You said it was all about data. Data has nothing to do with NN, just as the Affordable Care Act lacked both care and affordability and had nothing to do with health care.

Net Neutrality was all about left wing Too Big To Fail totalitarians such as Facebook and Google controlling the flow of information while stifling conservative and libertarian thought, and they got it thanks to the Obama administration giving them its seal of approval.

So now, many pages later into this thread, you now say it's all about crony capitalism -- with the telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer. Thanks for agreeing with me for a change.

Huh?!?

So you're okay with telecoms and ISPs sticking it to the consumer? Facebook and Google aren't telecoms.

How does Net Neutrality allow Facebook and Google to control the flow information? NN doesn't deal with them at all. What it does is prevent an ISP from charging you more for using whatever website it deems fit even though the actual good you are purchasing from them isn't any different.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints. It's about $.

Say you owned two companies and wanted to advertise on a bill board. One business sells widgets and the other trinkets. The owner of the billboard says it will cost $100 to advertise the trinket business but the widget one it's going to charge you $125 for... That's what the repeal of NN allows your ISP to do just instead of billboards it's websites.

[davew]

You can log on to Facebook and post literally anyrhing you want and it reach millions. That's free speech.

In any case this is not a partisan issue. This is a terms of service issue and which is better for the consumer. This method isn't...

Anyone who wants to make it a partisan issue is an idiot. 83% of people are against because it adds more variables to their bill.

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news

[elysiantraveller]

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news

"Leon Wolf, an author at Redstate, one of the publications listed by the Gizmodo interviewees as having been targeted for exclusion, said he had not seen evidence of the kind of tampering mentioned by Gizmodo. “I watch our Facebook stats very closely,” Wolf told the Guardian."

Your article.

[elysiantraveller]

Yes, unless the censors are political hacks and lower likes and keep some things off their front page trending crap....

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news

And if this is really that concerning to you now content providers like the evil Google, Netflix, and Facebook can give kickbacks to ISPs and wireless providers for UNLIMITED access. Ironically those were some of the first cases the FCC went after when NN was passed.

They're big enough. They can afford it.

[Tom]

Facebook is hardly free speech to anyone posting conservative ideas.

[boxcar]

Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.

Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.

But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.

Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.

As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.

Be sure to let us know when you come up with a real world example of an ISP upcharging for how their services are used.

Meanwhile...(what is this: Day Three without NN?) and all is still well in the wild, wooly web. :coffee:

[davew]

and Twitter is suspending accounts of some people Trump retweeted....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-suspends-far-right-britain-first-leaders-retweeted-donald-trump-142334952.html

[fast4522]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI

for you leftys

[classhandicapper]

Because the ultimate issue here isn't how much it costs. I've made this clear multiple times. I keep saying Data is Data because it doesn't matter if I use 20 gigs on this forum or 20 gigs on Netflix. To the ISP it makes absolutely ZERO difference.

Sure I'll use more bandwidth streaming but we also determine our speed when selecting our high speed package. Again it makes absolutely ZERO difference to them.

But now they can choose to charge you more or less depending not on speed or data but how you use it. This is simply a way for telecoms to charge more, filter our options, and harass content providers they feel they compete with. It does not make the market freer in fact it's the opposite.

Like my example to JR it's like going to buy ammo and having to pay different prices for how you plan to use it. Or having to pay more for a truck because you don't actually plan on pulling a trailer with it... it's much more similar to that than a supply/demand curve.

As far as free speech sorry but there are ****ing nutso's on both ends of the spectrum on the internet. It has nothing to do with that and speech on the internet is MUCH freer than it is in everyday America. Pointblankperiod.

The bottom line is that ever increasing amounts of data are being streamed. Someone has to pay for the increasing investments in capacity, new technology, maintenance, and workers to accomplish that.

1. If Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Google/Youtube, Pornhub and the other tech/content companies get their way, consumers will wind up with higher bills for their internet access and/or competition will be stifled because no one new will want to make investments when they can't recover their costs.

Various models of charging consumers are possible based on usage, but on average we will have higher bills and/or less competition.

2. If the content companies lose and access companies win, then people's access bills can theoretically remain the same (all else being equal), but people will probably have to start paying fees for things like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Pornhub etc.. because those companies are going to get charged for all the capacity they are using. They will then try to recover those fees.

There is no free lunch. At the end of the day, IMO, we are just arguing over who consumers are going to pay.

As far as slowing down competitor service goes, if they do that, people will complain and start changing service providers. It will also just reopen the political debate and probably be self destructive. That what the FCC is there for.

Personally, I'd rather go back to the way things were. If I'm a heavy data user from a particular content company (let's call it HorseHub lol), I'll pay them. If not, I'm good.

I don't see why content companies should get a free lunch when their content is clogging up all the pipes and is a major cost to others. They are using someone else's infrastructure as part of their business model. They should pay some fair amount of the costs.

I agree there are nutsos on all sides so the political spectrum. I am being critical of the free speech claim because only one side's nutsos are getting their accounts suspended. In a true free speech environment, it's pretty much a free for all unless someone says something criminal. To avoid speech you personally find distasteful, there are mute and block options.

To selectively suspend only some views is censorship.

[PaceAdvantage]

Be sure to let us know when you come up with a real world example of an ISP upcharging for how their services are used.NN was just repealed...the examples will be coming in the future...

I really can't comprehend how anyone can be opposed to NN.

Why should telecoms be allowed to slow down certain websites/providers?

Not that they would do it, since I'm a relatively tiny website...but would you guys be all happy if the major internet providers decided to slow down PaceAdvantage.com unless I paid them a certain amount of money to speed me up?

Because that's what you're supporting if you supported NN going bye bye.

[boxcar]

NN was just repealed...the examples will be coming in the future...

I really can't comprehend how anyone can be opposed to NN.

Why should telecoms be allowed to slow down certain websites/providers?

Not that they would do it, since I'm a relatively tiny website...but would you guys be all happy if the major internet providers decided to slow down PaceAdvantage.com unless I paid them a certain amount of money to speed me up?

Because that's what you're supporting if you supported NN going bye bye.

If you say so....:sleeping: I think I need more :coffee: