FCC chair Wheeler proposes using Title 2 authority to make internet a utility
-
queencitybuckeye
But you WILL pay more.Commander of Awesome;1708591 wrote:If you like your pr0n, you can keep it. -
Mooney44CardsThese arguments make no sense. Why would the cost of Internet go up if the cable companies are now blocked from doing something that they mostly weren't doing anyways, but just WANTED to do?
Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically. -
queencitybuckeyeYou regulate away new sources of revenue, they are going to increase it in their existing lines of business.
It's not political, it's basic business. And there's nothing wrong with it. -
iclfan2
Right, Mark Cuban, self made billionaire and probly liberal, is against it for politics. Or he knows how the system works 100 times better than anyone on here or in our government. He is probably even against the big cable companies, but realized how stupid this is.Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote: Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
cruiser_96
Wow! That's racist.iclfan2;1708613 wrote:Right, Mark Cuban, self made billionaire and probly liberal, is against it for politics. Or he knows how the system works 100 times better than anyone on here or in our government. He is probably even against the big cable companies, but realized how stupid this is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anywho, I can't see anything good coming from this. -
rydawg5I'm surprised so many people support this. When I clicked on the thread I was expecting to read completely different comments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Jawbreaker
So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor? Isn't it funny that Verizon blocked Google Wallet from being install on phones running on their network when Verizon had a stake in Softcard (formally ISIS). AT&T did the same thing with Google Hangouts and FaceTime. Hey, its just business.queencitybuckeye;1708611 wrote:You regulate away new sources of revenue, they are going to increase it in their existing lines of business.
It's not political, it's basic business. And there's nothing wrong with it. -
Commander of Awesome
Welcome to political discussions on the OC!Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote:These arguments make no sense. Why would the cost of Internet go up if the cable companies are now blocked from doing something that they mostly weren't doing anyways, but just WANTED to do?
Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically. -
queencitybuckeye
Where did I indicate that I was for or against the decision? I simply pointed out that this was not the no-brainer its supporters suggest. With legislation or regulation, if we get really lucky, the upside slightly outweighs the downside. At best this is no exception.Jawbreaker;1708617 wrote:So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor? Isn't it funny that Verizon blocked Google Wallet from being install on phones running on their network when Verizon had a stake in Softcard (formally ISIS). AT&T did the same thing with Google Hangouts and FaceTime. Hey, its just business. -
gut
Do you have any proof of this, or just spewing talking points?Jawbreaker;1708617 wrote:So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor?
Blocking apps IS and HAS BEEN an anti-trust issue dealt with in the past. OH MY GOD - the current system is actually already set-up to handle abuses and REAL issues of anti-competition. Mind blownt. -
gut
LMFAO....Or it's because she knows exactly what she's talking about and knows the idiots are going to default to their normal response for stuff they don't understand or don't like.Mooney44Cards;1708587 wrote:I did read it, and it's funny because she pretty much admits that she knows she'll be called a shill for the cable companies in the very last paragraph. This is because she explains the issues exactly the way the cable companies do.
So, it's not that you didn't understand it, it's that you didn't WANT to understand it. No surprise here. -
gut
Sounds like you need to read a few books on economics and business...and, likely, logic.Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote: Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically. -
gut
They shouldn't. And when there's evidence of them actually doing this (not merely suspicion, or "knowing" because you just don't like reality or understand how the world works) THEN we take action.Mooney44Cards;1708589 wrote: why should ISPs be allowed to restrict whatever data they want? Why should they be allowed to restrict what the consumer sees, when they see it, and how long it takes to see it? -
gut
Yawn....There's a bucket of costs, and a choice of how to charge those costs to people using your network, up and down. This is about the pricing model and who should pay and how much to charge them and nothing about net neutrality. It's the simple. Do you even know how much Netflix paid Comcast, or how much that amounts to in PENNIES per GB?Jawbreaker;1708594 wrote:Yes I understand them and I understand that you think that Netflix should pay for their bandwidth a couple times over depending on the the network their customers are on. It must be nice to have content providers pay of access and also have customers paying to see the content from said providers. It also must be nice to block applications on your network since it directly competes with one of your own services.
Either it's not simple enough for simpletons, or people just refuse to acknowledge they're ignorance is being exploited like so many other political issues. -
Belly35Obamanet for the Internet .. Fuck up what is not broken, and screw it up, along with a shit load of other related issue in the future that will require more government legislation. Next operating system will be Vasoline
-
Commander of Awesome
Wow those Ppl wear aluminum hats.
-
WebFireDamn it, I don't know what to think.
-
QuakerOatsFCC Votes to Regulate the Internet and Chill Manufacturing Innovation. Despite opposition from manufacturers from all industry segments, President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of new rules that will regulate the Internet using 1930s-era telecommunications laws. This was not a surprise, as FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated earlier this month that this was his intent. The NAM opposed the move then and opposes the move now. Applying decades-old laws to a technology that manufacturers are increasingly using throughout their entire shop floor and integrating throughout their products will only lead to a decreased level of investment in our nation’s Internet backbone. The NAM will continue to advocate a legislative solution to this now very uncertain regulatory environment. We encourage you to learn more through our coverage of this manufacturing issue in this month’s edition of Member Focus and get involved.
http://www.nam.org/Issues/Technology/Broadband-Open-Internet/Multi-Industry-Letter-to-Senate-in-support-of-an-Open-Internet.pdf -
justincredible
So do I, I guess.Commander of Awesome;1708767 wrote:Wow those Ppl wear aluminum hats. -
rydawg5
The Tinfoil hat comments are a powerful tactic aren't they?justincredible;1708859 wrote:So do I, I guess.
Person 1: Makes argument
Person 2: Counter argument
Person 1: Says person 2 is wearing tinfoil hat, does NOT counter argument or address anything person 2 said.
Readers: Think Person 2 is crazy
History Books: Normally side with person 2. -
derek bomar
there is evidencegut;1708678 wrote:They shouldn't. And when there's evidence of them actually doing this (not merely suspicion, or "knowing" because you just don't like reality or understand how the world works) THEN we take action.
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
-
gut
Another person who can't even read and understand what they themselves are posting. And, FYI, that shows a bottleneck and isn't proof of Comcast doing anything nefarious. But to spell it out for you, over the time period in question Comcast is middle of the pack in net change over the time period.derek bomar;1708873 wrote:there is evidence
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
AT&T and Verizon also saw similar dips (for multiple forms of service)....as did - wait for it - Google Fiber although it did not continue such a severe downward trend. This was all a result of Netflix overtaxing the Cogent capability, which was very nicely spelled out in the article I linked. The downward trends reversed when Netflix secured direct access links, and I'm guessing with Cabevision and Cox that went off without a hitch before Cogent became overwhelmed. Your nice little chart shows Cogent was the bottleneck and isn't proof of anything more.
Estimates are Netflix pays ONE PENNY per streamed movie. And this whole direct connect thing is a fraction of that but net neutrality and the future of the internet are at risk? LMFAO, are you frickin' kidding me?!? -
gutQuakerOats;1708926 wrote:recent links
FCC HIDES DETAILS OF NEW INTERNET RULES...
Commissioner: 'When you see this document, worse than you imagine'...
Remember the day Netflix torched the internet as we know it solely to help THEIR bottom line. People can be such wonderfully useful idiots.