"Net Neutrality" takes it on the Chin

[Oddball]

Not making any claims, one way or another, about bandwidth theft.

So-called "net neutrality" basically boils down to a battle between big bandwidth users in general --and big search engine in particular-- versus the providers.

Judging strictly by the structure of rhetoric (i.e. absurd scare stories that providers will eventually pick and choose which sites you'll be able to visit, as though the internet is cable or satellite teevee), it's plain to me that big user is looking for a free lunch somewhere along the line. Also, the "throttling" issue is a dead letter, as Comcast already lost a lawsuit on that very matter.

None of which have to do with "theft" of bandwidth.

BTW, I have one of "life" thingies everyone talks about. Just because I don't come a-running to reply to this or that post at the drop of a hat doesn't mean anything.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not making any claims, one way or another, about bandwidth theft.

So-called "net neutrality" basically boils down to a battle between big bandwidth users in general --and big search engine in particular-- versus the providers.

Judging strictly by the structure of rhetoric (i.e. absurd scare stories that providers will eventually pick and choose which sites you'll be able to visit, as though the internet is cable or satellite teevee), it's plain to me that big user is looking for a free lunch somewhere along the line. Also, the "throttling" issue is a dead letter, as Comcast already lost a lawsuit on that very matter.

None of which have to do with "theft" of bandwidth.

BTW, I have one of "life" thingies everyone talks about. Just because I don't come a-running to reply to this or that post at the drop of a hat doesn't mean anything.

The providers are regulated and need to be. ISPs are not the internet and neither is data services like Google. People need to wake up.

and bandwidth theft is an issue that goes to the heart of a free web. is everything for free just because it is on the web?

and that life---good luck with that.

 

[Oddball]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm shocked that anyone who posts on this board is against Net Neutrality.

Though I guess it shows the corporatist true colors of some of our posters.

Even worse, however, is that this ruling threatens the plans that have been laid to provide broadband nationwide, at high speeds, even to rural areas.

What a great thing that would have been, and good for business too. Kind of like the railway systems in the 1800's and the national highways of the 1900's.

 

[Oddball]

You're only shocked because you're dumb as a barrel of bricks.

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, Dude. Always the same empty blanket insults.

I know you have some better ammunition than that.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, Dude. Always the same empty blanket insults.

I know you have some better ammunition than that.

No he doesn't.

 

[hyakku]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

Yes, there is. This is why people need to understand what net neutrality is about. The internet isn't made up of a conglomerate of ISP's like Comcast and Verizon. They provide access to it, but the internet is not owned by them.

This is why the issue with offering unlimited access to the internet and then filtering or blocking content needs to be halted. That is all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

d'oh! there will be providers no matter what the regulations. you sound like the bots who always assume there isn't another guy waiting to make a buck.

I've always been puzzled by misfits who bought rent controlled property and then turned around and complained that the property was ---uhm---rent controlled.

Providers make huge profits and they do little to improve service. They get contracts that are scandalous--they pay off people. In other countries there are ISPs who make profits and deliver great service/

America has become a nation expecting second best under Conservative business models.

 

[Revere]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

Yes, there is. This is why people need to understand what net neutrality is about. The internet isn't made up of a conglomerate of ISP's like Comcast and Verizon. They provide access to it, but the internet is not owned by them.

This is why the issue with offering unlimited access to the internet and then filtering or blocking content needs to be halted. That is all.

Wrong. If you subscribe to Verizon and connect your modem or their modem to their network, you are on a private network. The piece of the internet between your modem and their hub is owned by them.

 

[Revere]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

d'oh! there will be providers no matter what the regulations. you sound like the bots who always assume there isn't another guy waiting to make a buck.

I've always been puzzled by misfits who bought rent controlled property and then turned around and complained that the property was ---uhm---rent controlled.

Providers make huge profits and they do little to improve service. They get contracts that are scandalous--they pay off people. In other countries there are ISPs who make profits and deliver great service/

America has become a nation expecting second best under Conservative business models.

Find a provider who will give you all the service you want. Unless you are in an area not served by high speed internet access, there is more than one ISP.

Of course, the irony is that if you are in such an area, the government will tell you which ISP to use when they wire you, the ISP that pays them off for the contract.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wrong. If you subscribe to Verizon and connect your modem or their modem to their network, you are on a private network. The piece of the internet between your modem and their hub is owned by them.

However, the rest of the network, that connects to the rest of the world, that Verizon uses, is not.

And we should remember that we, the taxpayer, paid for the initial investments that made the internet possible, not any particular provider.

And we can thank Al Gore for pushing that initial funding through.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Without providers there is no internet, you nitwit.

What big bandwidth user wants with their "net neutrality" garbage basically amounts to rent control....And we all know how well that worked out....NOT!...in NYC.

d'oh! there will be providers no matter what the regulations. you sound like the bots who always assume there isn't another guy waiting to make a buck.

I've always been puzzled by misfits who bought rent controlled property and then turned around and complained that the property was ---uhm---rent controlled.

Providers make huge profits and they do little to improve service. They get contracts that are scandalous--they pay off people. In other countries there are ISPs who make profits and deliver great service/

America has become a nation expecting second best under Conservative business models.

Find a provider who will give you all the service you want. Unless you are in an area not served by high speed internet access, there is more than one ISP.

Of course, the irony is that if you are in such an area, the government will tell you which ISP to use when they wire you, the ISP that pays them off for the contract.

More than one providing inadequate services? It's what I said about the market turning America into a second or third rate nation. The Free Markets has no loyalties.

The government doesn't tell you who to use. The private contractors make deals with the government because they tear up and use the public infrastructure as they build out their own. Private biz goes the lazy way. The most cost effective way.

I read about a few cities that built out their own high tech infrastructure and had companies compete for bids to provide service. I lived in an are with two high speed carriers competing. There are ways to provide services and NOT leave America being a second or third rate nation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wrong. If you subscribe to Verizon and connect your modem or their modem to their network, you are on a private network. The piece of the internet between your modem and their hub is owned by them.

However, the rest of the network, that connects to the rest of the world, that Verizon uses, is not.

And we should remember that we, the taxpayer, paid for the initial investments that made the internet possible, not any particular provider.

And we can thank Al Gore for pushing that initial funding through.

 

[The T]

here's a thing that explains it all, minus the conservative spin

no argument there.

but.....................................

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

It's been pointed out to you at least twice that this case began under Bush when a Republican was the head of the FCC. You are a liar and an idiot.

But the LEGISLATION has to pass Congress...and guess who wrote it?

*DEMOCRATS* Regardless who the POTUS was. And regardless as well? It was BAD legislation.



Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services." Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that "the FCC should not reclassify" broadband providers as common carriers; Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican, added that such an action by the FCC "would be illegal"; Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, called the decision "good news for the future prosperity of the Internet."


But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer--it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

__________________

SOURCE

 

[Ravi]

And WHOM exactly is the FCC to establish such a thing? -And you DO realize that the Director of the FCC is an appointment, do you not?

-And guess what that means-?

Obama was trying to take it over. He lost.

It's been pointed out to you at least twice that this case began under Bush when a Republican was the head of the FCC. You are a liar and an idiot.

But the LEGISLATION has to pass Congress...and guess who wrote it?

*DEMOCRATS* Regardless who the POTUS was. And regardless as well? It was BAD legislation.



Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services." Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that "the FCC should not reclassify" broadband providers as common carriers; Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican, added that such an action by the FCC "would be illegal"; Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, called the decision "good news for the future prosperity of the Internet."


But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer--it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

__________________

SOURCE

I'm not sure what your point is...that legislation was introduced and failed last summer. What does that have to do with Bush's FCC head?

I am actually undecided on this issue. I think it's funny though that your side feels it must lie about the progression of events.

 

[The T]

It's been pointed out to you at least twice that this case began under Bush when a Republican was the head of the FCC. You are a liar and an idiot.

But the LEGISLATION has to pass Congress...and guess who wrote it?

*DEMOCRATS* Regardless who the POTUS was. And regardless as well? It was BAD legislation.



Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services." Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that "the FCC should not reclassify" broadband providers as common carriers; Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican, added that such an action by the FCC "would be illegal"; Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, called the decision "good news for the future prosperity of the Internet."


But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer--it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

__________________

SOURCE

I'm not sure what your point is...that legislation was introduced and failed last summer. What does that have to do with Bush's FCC head?

I am actually undecided on this issue. I think it's funny though that your side feels it must lie about the progression of events.

*I* Told you what the point was. Congress crafted this. Whom has controlled Congress since 2007?

Apparently YOU didn't read ,you're incredibly stupid -or- in denial.

Which is it Ravioli?

 

[Ravi]

But the LEGISLATION has to pass Congress...and guess who wrote it?

*DEMOCRATS* Regardless who the POTUS was. And regardless as well? It was BAD legislation.



Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services." Rep. Joe Barton, the Texas Republican, warned that "the FCC should not reclassify" broadband providers as common carriers; Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican, added that such an action by the FCC "would be illegal"; Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, called the decision "good news for the future prosperity of the Internet."


But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer--it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

__________________

SOURCE

I'm not sure what your point is...that legislation was introduced and failed last summer. What does that have to do with Bush's FCC head?

I am actually undecided on this issue. I think it's funny though that your side feels it must lie about the progression of events.

*I* Told you what the point was. Congress crafted this. Whom has controlled Congress since 2007?

Apparently YOU didn't read ,you're incredibly stupid -or- in denial.

Which is it Ravioli?

A law that wasn't passed would have no bearing on what Bush's FCC head did. I know that makes you uncomfortable, but there it is.