Enter the Age of Censorship, FCC circumvents Congress to classify internet as Public Utility

[Skylar]

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

An ungodly number like 80 to 90% of US consumers have 2 or fewer choices for broadband.

Its not like going to a different fast food restaurant. Most broadband companies won't be servicing your area.

 

[orogenicman]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.?

50 years of mandated monopoly to AT&T.

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

 

[orogenicman]

Throttling is a concept that ATT and Verizon have talked about and wanted to implement for a number of years. What I am arguing against is giving the ISPs (who already have a default monopoly on the services provided to the American public) carte blanche to drive up prices for the simple reason that they refuse to keep up with technological advances. Apparently, lining their own pockets at our expense is the biggest priority for them.

No, it is not.

No? Prove it.

What the backbone providers have talked about is network prioritization. Specifically that customers with a need could purchase priority service that will have a higher QOS rating. QOS works by placing prioritized packets at the top of the queue in layer 3 switching equipment. Nothing is "throttled" and if there is sufficient bandwidth you won't notice it. IF there are bandwidth constraints, the prioritization will make the packets with a higher quality of service status take priority.

This is not a solution, and isn't even needed. It is only a means to eliminate the competition while stiffing everyone else with ridiculously high fees. It's extortion, is what it is.

Realistically, this means that streams that must be smooth, the medical applications linked, telepresence for large organizations and for emergency purposes, have a higher QOS than the porn videos that leftists demand be equal.

Realistically, it means that neither the government nor the American people are going to allow ISPs free reign on the internet to do as they please at everyone else's expense.

 

[orogenicman]

Excuse me? If there is only one service provider in an area (and that is certainly true in many locations across the country), and it happens to be the worst provider in the country, what choices do you think people in that market have?

I already told you, you can choose to not buy internet.

So what you are saying is that the internet is not, nor should it be for anyone who wants it. That it should only be accessible by the elite. Got it.

No one is forcing you to own a car, but I suspect that if your only choice was a model T, you might have one or two things to say about that.

I choose to not own a car at this time. So there goes your little theory.

You don't speak for everyone else. There goes YOUR theory.

 

[Skylar]

No, you just made a variety of claims about me. You lean almost exclusively on personal insult. You didn't touch the actual issues, or explain how net neutrality doesn't exist, or explain how things 'actually' work.

If you're the expert, explain it. If you can't, then you can hardly expect to convince anyone but your fellow partisans. And they don't ask questions anyway.

False, I explained early on about packet prioritization and the fact that no one is throttling or suggesting throttling, and that it isn't even feasible.

Prioritization of packets by content type is what is suggested. HTML5 Video packets might be given a lower priority than MIME packets or SMTP, etc. The QOS might also prioritize on service class. But this is placing traffic at the top of the queue (assuming a FILO data stack), not throttling connection speed.

If the prioritization is based on data type only and not the content provider itself....how then could companies like Comcast or Verizon offer the proposed 'super fast lane' for those content providers who are willing to pay extra?

If a video packet from say, YouTube couldn't be distinguished from one from netflix....how then would 'superfast' access to available for netflix if it paid. Or denied youtube if it didn't.

Obviously companies like Comcast and Verison can distinguish one content source from another. And prioritize accordingly. Meaning that you'd get far better speeds from a website that 'paid for priority' over one that didn't. Exactly as net neutrality advocates have claimed. With companies like Comcast and Verison proposing this 'super fast lane' concept .....for those willing to pay for it.

For those who don't....well, fuck em'.

I don't want these companies choosing priorities for me. I want to make that decision myself. So if I want video packet data, I can get it. Regardless of whether or not my content provider is paying the middle man to keep from having their data 'deprioritized'.

I also explained that leftists are petulant and selfish, thus cannot grasp why a VPN tunnel connecting a hospital to an ambulance should have packet prioritization over their Facebook page.

Wait....so the reason that Comcast and Verizon propose their 'super fast lane' where they charge fees for priority to companies like Netflix and Youtube.....is to help hospitals?

Give me a fucking break. If there's a genuine issue of hospitals being unable to send data via their VPN connections, then regulating the internet as a utility can provide a simply and easy exemption. IF that issue comes up.

But as the 'fast lane' for Netflix demonstrates elegantly, this is clearly a pay to play system that has exactly dick to do with a hospital's VPN or public safety. As Netflix can BUY comparable priority to show episodes of Monster Garage....for the right price.

Which you've already admitted to right here;

Some is vital, some is spurious. The less vital the data. the lower the QOS should be. And yes, Verizon did negotiate with Netflix higher QOS for a fee.

So you just admitted to the very pay to play prioritization that Net Neutrality prevents. And you insisted was a 'farce'. With how 'vital' a piece of information is being determined by price. Not 'public safety', or a Hospital's VPN connection.

Which is exactly what Net Neutrality advocates argue against. And exactly what you just admitted to.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

An ungodly number like 80 to 90% of US consumers have 2 or fewer choices for broadband.

Its not like going to a different fast food restaurant. Most broadband companies won't be servicing your area.

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

 

[bripat9643]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.?

50 years of mandated monopoly to AT&T.

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

Not at all. What government created, government can destroy.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, your entire position becomes bullshit when we admit that some content providers have been throttled. Let's be honest, Comcast and Time Warner don't really care about bandwidth issues. They care that Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, and the like are cutting into their cable profits. So they want to charge for it.

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

An ungodly number like 80 to 90% of US consumers have 2 or fewer choices for broadband.

Its not like going to a different fast food restaurant. Most broadband companies won't be servicing your area.

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

So how do you switch to a different broadband ISP if there is none? I've got access to Comcast and Verizon. BOTH are chomping at the bit to dismantle net neutrality protections.

The proverbial 'douche and a turd sandwich'. My best option? Don't dismantle net neutrality.

 

[bripat9643]

Your post has to be one of the stupidest posts ever put on the board. Network providers don't care about bandwidth? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't have a fucking clue what any of this is about.

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

An ungodly number like 80 to 90% of US consumers have 2 or fewer choices for broadband.

Its not like going to a different fast food restaurant. Most broadband companies won't be servicing your area.

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

So how do you switch to a different broadband ISP if there is none? I've got access to Comcast and Verizon. BOTH are chomping at the bit to dismantle net neutrality protections.

The proverbial 'douche and a turd sandwich'. My best option? Don't dismantle net neutrality.

As I already explained, the FCC isn't planning on doing anything about local cable monopolies. So what's the point of "net neutrality?"

 

[Skylar]

You really don't get how net neutrality works, do you? It isn't about the bandwidth of your connection to the internet. Its about your ISP throttling access to your bandwidth to content providers unless they pay a special fee.

If Comcast limits Netflix to 1.5 mbps when streaming to you computer, it doesn't matter if your bandwidth is 5mbps download or 500. You're still getting just 1.5mbps from Netflix. That's what net neutrality prevents.

Under net neutrality, all data is treated the same. And YOU, not your ISP that decide what data gets priority. If you want to download from Netflix, now you're only limited by your bandwidth and the speed netflix is streaming. Your ISP doesn't get a say. So if you have a 25mbps connection and Netflix is streaming at 10mbps, you get the 10mbps.

That's Net Neutrality. Where your download speeds are between you and the website you're visiting. And your ISP doesn't stick its dick into it.

Why is it that so many conservatives don't even know what Net Neutrality is?

Switching to another ISP would accomplish the same thing.

An ungodly number like 80 to 90% of US consumers have 2 or fewer choices for broadband.

Its not like going to a different fast food restaurant. Most broadband companies won't be servicing your area.

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

So how do you switch to a different broadband ISP if there is none? I've got access to Comcast and Verizon. BOTH are chomping at the bit to dismantle net neutrality protections.

The proverbial 'douche and a turd sandwich'. My best option? Don't dismantle net neutrality.

As I already explained, the FCC isn't planning on doing anything about local cable monopolies. So what's the point of "net neutrality?"

To paraphrase the hilarious John Oliver, by 'preventing cable company fuckery'. They can't deprioritize the data of companies that aren't willing or able to pay for access to me. All data is treated equally.

So I decide which website have priority to my bandwidth by visiting their sites. With the speeds available to me limited by my bandwidth and theirs. Not by a middle man skimming money off the content provider to keep their data from going to the bottom of the priority list.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?

 

[SwimExpert]

So what you are saying is that the internet is not, nor should it be for anyone who wants it. That it should only be accessible by the elite. Got it.

That's not at all what I said. You're sounding just like Uncensored now. You're making things up.

I said that you have the choice to not buy it if you don't like the services you receive, or if you don't like the quality for the price. Buy or don't buy, it's your decision. Has nothing to do with elitism.

You don't speak for everyone else. There goes YOUR theory.

No, I speak for myself. I make my own decisions. Everyone else can make their own decisions. You are arguing from a position of wanting. I am arguing from a position of choosing. I assure you, taking action is always superior to wallowing in emotion.

 

[OnePercenter]

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

To make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.

 

[OnePercenter]

"Profiteering" is an absolutely meaningless term. It eliminates something that has never occurred.

ISP's never charged more for tiers of bandwidth?

 

[SwimExpert]

I've seen no evidence of that.

I don't think you would see a nuclear explosion in your back yard if you'd been given a heads up from someone you didn't want to agree with.

There are an extreme few on this board who can honestly say that they support reducing government spending and taxes, and marginalizing government intrusion into people's personal lives as much as me. There are plenty of people who pretend to do so. But when confronted with the hard questions, they back down and have a hissy fit. Just a couple examples...

Stop all benefits for one year. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Eliminate income taxes for the 95 on the bottom. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Zoom-boing]

If the 1934 rule the internet has been placed under is so good, then why did they get rid of it for AT&T?

 

[bripat9643]

"Profiteering" is an absolutely meaningless term. It eliminates something that has never occurred.

ISP's never charged more for tiers of bandwidth?

You mean they charge according to what their customers use?

Shocking!

 

[bripat9643]

The rule has nothing to do with censorship, it eliminates profiteering by ISP's.

Profiteering: To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

All profit is excessive, eh comrade?

To make or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market.

The terms "excessive" and "unfair" are totally meaningless. We obviously aren't discussing anything illegal either.

 

[bripat9643]

That's because it's illegal. Your local government granted a monopoly to one of them.

I wonder....do you tell such blatant bullshit lies because you're that audacious, or because you're that stupid?

I simply note the facts, dumbass. I lived in Denver when the city council granted a monopoly to one of the cable providers. The cable companies were falling all over each other attempting to bribe the council members. One cable company actually publicly offered to give each council member a certain number of shares of company stock. They had a press conference to announce they were offering to bribe the city council!

That's how your local cable company became a government protected monopoly.

 

[orogenicman]

What makes you think that the Federal government would ever allow one provider to run the entire market in the U.S.?

50 years of mandated monopoly to AT&T.

Erm, mandated? And I suppose the antitrust lawsuit ATT lost has no bearing whatsoever on your silly claim?

Not at all. What government created, government can destroy.

Right. It's all a government run conspiracy. Got it.