"Net Neutrality" takes it on the Chin

[Coyote]

You addressed ZERO except talking points and called yerself a 'Bitch' of what I wrote.

Thing is? The lot of you are sore that Obama's entry to take over the Internet has failed.

Buh-Bye.

Example A: wheel still turning, hamster decomposing

Remember how everyone used to blame everything on Bush? Welll now it's - Obama. Obama's trying to take over the internet (is a dictator, marxist, fascist....) - and guess what T?

It's no. more. true. now. than. it. was. then.

Learn to think critically.

The incredible abundance of partisan hacks lately (is it a full moon or something?) is like a horde of itchy annoying mindless little mosquitos.

Excuse me? HAD you bothered to READ this thread? I posted what this issue was about.

*YOU* however are way off the mark.

To revisit?

What this issue is about? Explain please, how this is "an attempt by Obama to take over the internet" ?

 

[Polk]

No they Don't. You are saying that ISP's tha OWN their own Networks have to provide any and ALL information just like any other. NO they don't.

It is their property, and they can do with it how they see fit. Do you think ALL Search engines should provide the same amount of information?

Same thing applies here. Don't like what you see? Don't like what you find? There are other avenues.

Don't like what you see here On USMB? What's stopping you from going elsewhere?

You really think there are other avenues? Most markets have two ISPs at most.

By me the only high-speed options are Comcast cable or Verizon DSL.

Comcast cable and AT&T DSL here. Hopefully this Google fiber project will blow a hole in the market and make this moot. Otherwise, people should get ready for the end of Hulu, among other things.

 

[Polk]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With Net Neutrality a service provider has to provide unlimited data transfer across their wires to anyone hosting a website. Most of the time this doesn't matter, the lines can handle it. Thanks to existing Net Neutrality the internet keeps making technological leaps and bounds. From Cam Girls last decade to on line medical services from across the globe.

BUT sometimes its just like when we had AOL back in the day, there are bottlenecks.

Comcast says some folks use 99.999% more bandwidth than others and should be charged accordingly since those folks are the reason Comcast needs to upgrade its transmission lines.

As much as I am for freedom and against China's (I mean Comcast's) ability to regulate net traffic I do understand their point that dork boy Steve sharing files 24 x 7 is taxing the system way more than Marge and Ethel who just check their emails.

I'd split the difference. Either find a point where if someone hits the 99.5 percentile of highest internet users they get charged double and the FCC investigates if copyrighted materials were transferred Or declare that person a business and just make them pay double for internet access.

They can do that even with net neutrality rules, as net neutrality doesn't eliminate the ability of ISPs to tier service.

 

[Coyote]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With Net Neutrality a service provider has to provide unlimited data transfer across their wires to anyone hosting a website. Most of the time this doesn't matter, the lines can handle it. Thanks to existing Net Neutrality the internet keeps making technological leaps and bounds. From Cam Girls last decade to on line medical services from across the globe.

BUT sometimes its just like when we had AOL back in the day, there are bottlenecks.

Comcast says some folks use 99.999% more bandwidth than others and should be charged accordingly since those folks are the reason Comcast needs to upgrade its transmission lines.

As much as I am for freedom and against China's (I mean Comcast's) ability to regulate net traffic I do understand their point that dork boy Steve sharing files 24 x 7 is taxing the system way more than Marge and Ethel who just check their emails.

I'd split the difference. Either find a point where if someone hits the 99.5 percentile of highest internet users they get charged double and the FCC investigates if copyrighted materials were transferred Or declare that person a business and just make them pay double for internet access.

Thanks for a post that makes sense of a complicated issue

 

[Ravi]

The big government stooges lose.

Get used to that, you will soon see a lot more of it.

Um, no, they win. Corporations can dictate what we see on line.

Apparently your dream come true.

Wow. What an argument. Shame no one will ever see it. I mean after all if corporations arent trying silence people who are fighting their evil power, who are they going to silence?

I must have simply imagined your response because clearly these corporations are evil.

That's not what I said. I forgot what a moron you are.

 

[blu]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With Net Neutrality a service provider has to provide unlimited data transfer across their wires to anyone hosting a website. Most of the time this doesn't matter, the lines can handle it. Thanks to existing Net Neutrality the internet keeps making technological leaps and bounds. From Cam Girls last decade to on line medical services from across the globe.

BUT sometimes its just like when we had AOL back in the day, there are bottlenecks.

Comcast says some folks use 99.999% more bandwidth than others and should be charged accordingly since those folks are the reason Comcast needs to upgrade its transmission lines.

As much as I am for freedom and against China's (I mean Comcast's) ability to regulate net traffic I do understand their point that dork boy Steve sharing files 24 x 7 is taxing the system way more than Marge and Ethel who just check their emails.

I'd split the difference. Either find a point where if someone hits the 99.5 percentile of highest internet users they get charged double and the FCC investigates if copyrighted materials were transferred Or declare that person a business and just make them pay double for internet access.

I was with you until this... how would you suggest the FCC investigate? ISP records only? what records should ISPs be forced to keep? should they be allowed to search your machine(s)?

 

[Oddball]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

That bullshit yammering point was spewed when the feds intervened in the cable teevee industry, and prices have only gone up.

If you want to torrent a dozen movies at a time, you should pay the costs for the bandwidth you're using.

Tough titties, cheapskate.

 

[Oddball]

what is "net neutrality" code for?

Chinese internet in America.

uh really? net neutrality is GOOD! I will see how happy you are once net neutrality is defeated and your ISP decides that this board isn't worth carrying or that you have to pay an extra $20 a month to access your web-based email

Another brain dead jabbering point that has no basis in reality.

The only thing ISPs have been limiting is how much bandwidth subscribers can draw at one time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh, I also believe ISP's receive some kind of government sponsored RIGHTS to cross my property with their lines even if I don't want them to. This is because running their lines all over the place is considered to be good for the general welfare.

So by taking this government sponsored advantage of protection on my property they have to give something back for the general welfare

Bingo!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Example A: wheel still turning, hamster decomposing

Remember how everyone used to blame everything on Bush? Welll now it's - Obama. Obama's trying to take over the internet (is a dictator, marxist, fascist....) - and guess what T?

It's no. more. true. now. than. it. was. then.

Learn to think critically.

The incredible abundance of partisan hacks lately (is it a full moon or something?) is like a horde of itchy annoying mindless little mosquitos.

Excuse me? HAD you bothered to READ this thread? I posted what this issue was about.

*YOU* however are way off the mark.

To revisit?

What this issue is about? Explain please, how this is "an attempt by Obama to take over the internet" ?

this should be good. I love watching paint dry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

With Net Neutrality a service provider has to provide unlimited data transfer across their wires to anyone hosting a website. Most of the time this doesn't matter, the lines can handle it. Thanks to existing Net Neutrality the internet keeps making technological leaps and bounds. From Cam Girls last decade to on line medical services from across the globe.

BUT sometimes its just like when we had AOL back in the day, there are bottlenecks.

Comcast says some folks use 99.999% more bandwidth than others and should be charged accordingly since those folks are the reason Comcast needs to upgrade its transmission lines.

As much as I am for freedom and against China's (I mean Comcast's) ability to regulate net traffic I do understand their point that dork boy Steve sharing files 24 x 7 is taxing the system way more than Marge and Ethel who just check their emails.

I'd split the difference. Either find a point where if someone hits the 99.5 percentile of highest internet users they get charged double and the FCC investigates if copyrighted materials were transferred Or declare that person a business and just make them pay double for internet access.

They can do that even with net neutrality rules, as net neutrality doesn't eliminate the ability of ISPs to tier service.

really? if this is so---hmmmm---are the righties throwing around red herrings?

I'm hungry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

That bullshit yammering point was spewed when the feds intervened in the cable teevee industry, and prices have only gone up.

If you want to torrent a dozen movies at a time, you should pay the costs for the bandwidth you're using.

Tough titties, cheapskate.

So Dude supports stealing bandwidth from individual web site owners, but not demanding ISPs provide equal service?

hmmmm,

 

[Oddball]

What in hell are you talking about?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What in hell are you talking about?

hotlinking images. without permission is considered theft. If I am in error I apologize.

Do you support theft of bandwidth? I know you do not support copyright infringement and I agree with you there.

 

[Oddball]

What does any of that have to do with net neutrality?

 

[Xenophon]

The big government stooges lose.

Get used to that, you will soon see a lot more of it.

Um, no, they win. Corporations can dictate what we see on line.

Apparently your dream come true.

Wrong again, but at least you are consistant.

Big Gov again tried to 'regulate' and 'control' something that it has no business being involved in, trying to again expand itself into yet another aspect of our lives.

Its hardly surprising you view it as a bad thing they failed this time.

 

[Ravi]

Here's some interesting commentary from, of all places, the Wall Street Journal.

Why Net Neutrality Ruling Is A ‘Tragedy’ For Small Businesses - Venture Capital Dispatch - WSJ

 

[Oddball]

...but to Steve Westly – a cleantech venture capitalist who formerly served as controller for the state of California...

Yeah...Ask a former Fornicalia bureaucrat as to whether gubmint should have more power.

Color me unsurprised that he says yes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What does any of that have to do with net neutrality?

The same thing any discussion of bandwidth does. every issue has side bars.

but to be more exact, it has to do with principle(s). How can somebody (not you of course) complain about theft of bandwidth in one case, but not another?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Property rights for big corporatons scores a win.

Guess who will be paying more and getting less?

That bullshit yammering point was spewed when the feds intervened in the cable teevee industry, and prices have only gone up.

If you want to torrent a dozen movies at a time, you should pay the costs for the bandwidth you're using.

Tough titties, cheapskate.

So Dude supports stealing bandwidth from individual web site owners, but not demanding ISPs provide equal service?

hmmmm,

What in hell are you talking about?

hotlinking images. without permission is considered theft. If I am in error I apologize.

Do you support theft of bandwidth? I know you do not support copyright infringement and I agree with you there.

What does any of that have to do with net neutrality?

What does any of that have to do with net neutrality?

The same thing any discussion of bandwidth does. every issue has side bars.

but to be more exact, it has to do with principle(s). How can somebody (not you of course) complain about theft of bandwidth in one case, but not another?