What exactly is wrong/broken with internet in the US? (Net Neutrality)

[CowboyTed]

and again, how does that faster internet help them compared to our internet?

"TIME" is Money... this term fits.

I have the fastest internet you can buy in my region and you can't stream movies well, it takes forever for me to set up a listing for my shop and forever to upload the pictures for the items I am selling and forever for the customers to search and find items on the site my shop is on... when you have faster speeds then less time is wasted...

How do you know the slow-downs are on the pipes and not at the source/servers of the providers you are using?

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

Better help this debate.

Freewill, this is not about bandwidth or speed but about content.

Net Neturality stops Comcast redirecting all google.com page requests to Comcast serch engine which priotises the search engine to people who pay. That is big corps instead on mom and pop outfits. Comcast can throttle down some sites and push others.
They don't have to tell you like Goggle tell you who is paying today and who is not.

It effectively means you service provider can rig the internet to suit themselves and not tell you. So they have a hotels site they prefer you get that first and major competitors pushed to page 100...
They can also cut down Netflix or Amazon unless they pay. Today they do pay extra for access.

So the Freewill you talk about is taken away from you by your provider in a corporate meeting and you will not be told. So in your world every search of conservative topics could be pointing to liberal websites.
Now commercializing this will allow providers to give out internet at low prices because every time you want to buy something you are pushed to Amazon and the service provider is taking a cut without you knowing.

Net neutralization is about treating all roads on the internet fairly, it is about equal free expression. This is a fight between Telecom operators and content providers, Telecom providers want to be able to control what you can access and content providers want the world to be equal.

I am surprised that GOP has gone against their own principles on this one. I thought they are about fair opportunity for everyone achieve on their own merits, this is the equivalent of black empowerment without good reason.

 

[natstew]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the fucking internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

The Internet in the US is bullshit. Overpriced, corporate, slow, and often unavailable at any decent speed or at all. Time to grow up, as usual, America.

What fucking planet do you live on?

 

[Freewill]

"TIME" is Money... this term fits.

I have the fastest internet you can buy in my region and you can't stream movies well, it takes forever for me to set up a listing for my shop and forever to upload the pictures for the items I am selling and forever for the customers to search and find items on the site my shop is on... when you have faster speeds then less time is wasted...

How do you know the slow-downs are on the pipes and not at the source/servers of the providers you are using?

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

Better help this debate.

Freewill, this is not about bandwidth or speed but about content.

Net Neturality stops Comcast redirecting all google.com page requests to Comcast serch engine which priotises the search engine to people who pay. That is big corps instead on mom and pop outfits. Comcast can throttle down some sites and push others.
They don't have to tell you like Goggle tell you who is paying today and who is not.

It effectively means you service provider can rig the internet to suit themselves and not tell you. So they have a hotels site they prefer you get that first and major competitors pushed to page 100...
They can also cut down Netflix or Amazon unless they pay. Today they do pay extra for access.

So the Freewill you talk about is taken away from you by your provider in a corporate meeting and you will not be told. So in your world every search of conservative topics could be pointing to liberal websites.
Now commercializing this will allow providers to give out internet at low prices because every time you want to buy something you are pushed to Amazon and the service provider is taking a cut without you knowing.

Net neutralization is about treating all roads on the internet fairly, it is about equal free expression. This is a fight between Telecom operators and content providers, Telecom providers want to be able to control what you can access and content providers want the world to be equal.

I am surprised that GOP has gone against their own principles on this one. I thought they are about fair opportunity for everyone achieve on their own merits, this is the equivalent of black empowerment without good reason.

I don't think it takes 300 pages to fix this "problem." Nor have I ever seen what you describe as a problem. My guess would be that google, or some other search engine, could easily change policy and not take money and become the most popular of search engines, if that is the problem, if there are not those already.

As I said, if this is a problem it is easily fixed, doesn't take 300 pages. Hell it would be less costly if the government got into the ISP business and offered a bias free connection.

What i fear is a trojan horse, Regs we don't want wrapped in a reg that we should want.

 

[kaz]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the fucking internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

If government isn't controlling something and people aren't getting things they didn't pay for then Democrats have to intervene just on principle

 

[Freewill]

FCC CHAIR REFUSES TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS AHEAD OF INTERNET TAKEOVER...
LEFT GROUPS NOW FEAR: GOV'T NET GRAB GOING TOO FAR!
Plan Could Lead to UN Takeover of Internet...
SOROS CASH BEHIND PUSH...
Commisioner: 'Independence of agency has been compromised'...
Lawless?
'Net neutrality' tweeked after GOOGLE push...
Historic vote set for today...

 

[kaz]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the fucking internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

The Internet in the US is bullshit. Overpriced, corporate, slow, and often unavailable at any decent speed or at all. Time to grow up, as usual, America.

What fucking planet do you live on?

Planet earth, Stalinist Russia, 1935. That was the bar Paint set for his ideals. He thinks liberalism refers to authoritarian leftism and the Founding Fathers were Marxists. He wants to kill anyone who resists authoritarian government, but since he can't currently do that he just invites anyone who disagrees with him on any subject to leave the country.

Are you saying that's not right? Hmm...you may have a point

 

[LoneLaugher]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

There is no bill, dummy.

Learn of what you speak.

Do you agree that such a takeover, whether warrented or not, should be a bill?

There is no takeover. That is bullshit.

 

[B. Kidd]

The internet is all that stands against total control of information. Which is why it will be censored as soon as Vichy,D.C. can get away with it.
Hope and change, bitchez!

 

[OKTexas]

"TIME" is Money... this term fits.

I have the fastest internet you can buy in my region and you can't stream movies well, it takes forever for me to set up a listing for my shop and forever to upload the pictures for the items I am selling and forever for the customers to search and find items on the site my shop is on... when you have faster speeds then less time is wasted...

How do you know the slow-downs are on the pipes and not at the source/servers of the providers you are using?

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

Better help this debate.

Freewill, this is not about bandwidth or speed but about content.

Net Neturality stops Comcast redirecting all google.com page requests to Comcast serch engine which priotises the search engine to people who pay. That is big corps instead on mom and pop outfits. Comcast can throttle down some sites and push others.
They don't have to tell you like Goggle tell you who is paying today and who is not.

It effectively means you service provider can rig the internet to suit themselves and not tell you. So they have a hotels site they prefer you get that first and major competitors pushed to page 100...
They can also cut down Netflix or Amazon unless they pay. Today they do pay extra for access.

So the Freewill you talk about is taken away from you by your provider in a corporate meeting and you will not be told. So in your world every search of conservative topics could be pointing to liberal websites.
Now commercializing this will allow providers to give out internet at low prices because every time you want to buy something you are pushed to Amazon and the service provider is taking a cut without you knowing.

Net neutralization is about treating all roads on the internet fairly, it is about equal free expression. This is a fight between Telecom operators and content providers, Telecom providers want to be able to control what you can access and content providers want the world to be equal.

I am surprised that GOP has gone against their own principles on this one. I thought they are about fair opportunity for everyone achieve on their own merits, this is the equivalent of black empowerment without good reason.

I was told by a person in my congressmans office that 80% of the traffic on comcast is netflix. All those movie downloads are slowing the system for everyone else. Why shouldn't comcast be able to throttle netflix back to maintain an acceptable experience for their other customers?

 

[Freewill]

How do you know the slow-downs are on the pipes and not at the source/servers of the providers you are using?

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

Better help this debate.

Freewill, this is not about bandwidth or speed but about content.

Net Neturality stops Comcast redirecting all google.com page requests to Comcast serch engine which priotises the search engine to people who pay. That is big corps instead on mom and pop outfits. Comcast can throttle down some sites and push others.
They don't have to tell you like Goggle tell you who is paying today and who is not.

It effectively means you service provider can rig the internet to suit themselves and not tell you. So they have a hotels site they prefer you get that first and major competitors pushed to page 100...
They can also cut down Netflix or Amazon unless they pay. Today they do pay extra for access.

So the Freewill you talk about is taken away from you by your provider in a corporate meeting and you will not be told. So in your world every search of conservative topics could be pointing to liberal websites.
Now commercializing this will allow providers to give out internet at low prices because every time you want to buy something you are pushed to Amazon and the service provider is taking a cut without you knowing.

Net neutralization is about treating all roads on the internet fairly, it is about equal free expression. This is a fight between Telecom operators and content providers, Telecom providers want to be able to control what you can access and content providers want the world to be equal.

I am surprised that GOP has gone against their own principles on this one. I thought they are about fair opportunity for everyone achieve on their own merits, this is the equivalent of black empowerment without good reason.

I was told by a person in my congressmans office that 80% of the traffic on comcast is netflix. All those movie downloads are slowing the system for everyone else. Why shouldn't comcast be able to throttle netflix back to maintain an acceptable experience for their other customers?

By what I read they can do that now, why the regs? Or more to the point, they do do that now. BTW that 80 percent are people watching netflix, throttle it and you are effecting 80 percent of the people using the net, or so it would seem.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right now we pay for broadband with a flat fee for a certain speed.

With Net neutrality, it is my understanding that this would stay the same...?

And without Net Neutrality, Internet service providers are considering making us pay by usage, not the flat fees we all pay now....

So, someone who uses Nexflix and/ or streams movies, will be charged much much more for their service??

Am I understanding this correctly?????????????

You are close. Currently, the common practice is for service providers to offer packages based on speed. This is entirely a market phenomenon. In times past providers would offer packages based on amount of data. The progression was: Pay for amount of data used > unlimited data for everyone > dialup/DSL speed options with unlimited data > assorted speed options at tiered pricing > the current precipice.

Information traveling the internet requires two connections. As the end user, you receive data through an internet connection, but it has to come from somewhere that also has an internet connection. Your internet experience can be affected indirectly by interfering with the source. What some service providers have been starting to do is that they want to throttle internet speeds based on the origin. It does not really have anything to do with how your service package would be designed. At least, not yet. It's certainly possible that providers could start having Netflix booster packages for an additional $14.95. In fact, I would put money on someone trying to develop such a thing right now.

The case of Netflix is the most prominent example. Not long ago Comcast decided that it didn't like the fact that people are using Netflix instead of buying Comcast cable, so they throttled Netflix speeds to unusability, until Netflix relented and agreed to pay millions of dollars to Comcast. Net neutrality seeks to make actions like this illegal. It would require that all data be treated equally. Service providers cannot black out or throttle data from certain sources while giving preferential treatment to other sources. Comcast would not be able to block google search results for news content that comes from places other than NBC (which Comcast owns). Proponents have many concerns. There are worries that requiring companies to pay to simply be visible would be particularly harmful to small businesses who use the internet as their primary avenue for operations. Everyone from small online retailers to local services who rely on their websites as their key form of advertising and marketing would be substantially effected if they had to pay hefty prices (seen as mafia style bribes) for "protection" against their sites being blacked out to consumers. There are also consumer advocates who find it objectionable that a consumer pays for X speed, but does not actually receive X speed. There are then others who believe that it is a conflict of interest for service providers who nowadays are also content providers to block content in order to pressure consumers to consume their own.

Opponents to net neutrality fall into four categories:

The Uninformed - These people tend to mistake net neutrality for government screening of internet content. Net neutrality involves no government screening of content. "Net neutrality" is itself just a concept. It is an internet where information flows freely and without discrimination; i.e. where information is treated with neutrality. It is what has happened for the vast majority of the time the internet has existed, and only recently has it been infringed upon. Some have proposed legislation as a means to protect it. Obama has proposed that the FCC take regulatory power to classify the internet as a utility, which would liken internet data to water; nobody knows the origins of one drop of water from the next, it just comes out of our faucets without discrimination.

The Obama Deranged - These people dislike net neutrality because Obama supports it. If not for their ODS some of them would be members of The Uninformed. But more often than not, these people are outright lying. They often make up the lies that The Uninformed have fallen for. They invent their fictions because they do not want something Obama has supported to take place. They will not address facts. If asked to provide facts to support their fairy tales they will most likely resort to name calling, with references to government censorship in China and to Nazi Germany. They will often make the ass backwards claim that net neutrality is an attack on free speech. But they will offer no facts to support their claims because they have none and don't care about them anyway.

The Libertarian - These people have a sincere support for service providers, such as Comcast, charging content providers, such as Netflix and Fox News, additional money. The Libertarian sees it as a simple business transaction and typically believes that the market can and will handle it well enough. The Libertarian does not find any problem with alleged conflicts of interest in the fact that large service providers are also content providers. If a service provider like Comcast chooses to throttle or block content that it does not own, then that is Comcast's right as a business and nobody should interfere. The Libertarian is generally unshaken by concerns about large corporations exerting power or control over the people, because The Libertarian believes that amassing and exerting power over the people is only evil when done by the government. The same power wielded by corporate interests not only lacks evil, it often is deemed righteous.

The Cable Company - The Cable Company provides media, in the form of cable, and they provide access to other media, in the form of internet. The Cable Company wants you to buy both things so they can make money from you, but they don't want to deal with competition. In recent years internet has led to competition for The Cable Company, because through the internet alternative forms of media can now be delivered to consumers. For The Cable Company, this is the business equivalent of lupus; their right hand is killing their left hand. Contrary to popular misconception about corporate ventures being decidedly conservative in mentality, The Cable Company is typically a liberal entity who feels entitled to other people's money whenever it wants it and seeks greater and greater power to force itself upon you and your wallet. Hence, the two predominant cable companies in the country (Time Warner and Comcast) own the two most liberal news outlets in the media, CNN and NBC respectively. So naturally, they object to you using the internet to consume media that they're not producing (and thus, not making a profit from). But the overall effect on them was not so substantial (or immediately quantifiable) as recent trends whereby people have resorted to the internet to consume video media that was previously consumed through cable service. After a mad scramble, The Cable Company decided to start throttling content coming from competition for their own content. This event marks the death of the old free market net neutrality and has given rise to calls for legally enforceable net neutrality.

 

[Freewill]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

There is no bill, dummy.

Learn of what you speak.

Do you agree that such a takeover, whether warrented or not, should be a bill?

There is no takeover. That is bullshit.

Yep, argue over words, right. Should the regs be a bill or not?

 

[Freewill]

Right now we pay for broadband with a flat fee for a certain speed.

With Net neutrality, it is my understanding that this would stay the same...?

And without Net Neutrality, Internet service providers are considering making us pay by usage, not the flat fees we all pay now....

So, someone who uses Nexflix and/ or streams movies, will be charged much much more for their service??

Am I understanding this correctly?????????????

You are close. Currently, the common practice is for service providers to offer packages based on speed. This is entirely a market phenomenon. In times past providers would offer packages based on amount of data. The progression was: Pay for amount of data used > unlimited data for everyone > dialup/DSL speed options with unlimited data > assorted speed options at tiered pricing > the current precipice.

Information traveling the internet requires two connections. As the end user, you receive data through an internet connection, but it has to come from somewhere that also has an internet connection. Your internet experience can be affected indirectly by interfering with the source. What some service providers have been starting to do is that they want to throttle internet speeds based on the origin. It does not really have anything to do with how your service package would be designed. At least, not yet. It's certainly possible that providers could start having Netflix booster packages for an additional $14.95. In fact, I would put money on someone trying to develop such a thing right now.

The case of Netflix is the most prominent example. Not long ago Comcast decided that it didn't like the fact that people are using Netflix instead of buying Comcast cable, so they throttled Netflix speeds to unusability, until Netflix relented and agreed to pay millions of dollars to Comcast. Net neutrality seeks to make actions like this illegal. It would require that all data be treated equally. Service providers cannot black out or throttle data from certain sources while giving preferential treatment to other sources. Comcast would not be able to block google search results for news content that comes from places other than NBC (which Comcast owns). Proponents have many concerns. There are worries that requiring companies to pay to simply be visible would be particularly harmful to small businesses who use the internet as their primary avenue for operations. Everyone from small online retailers to local services who rely on their websites as their key form of advertising and marketing would be substantially effected if they had to pay hefty prices (seen as mafia style bribes) for "protection" against their sites being blacked out to consumers. There are also consumer advocates who find it objectionable that a consumer pays for X speed, but does not actually receive X speed. There are then others who believe that it is a conflict of interest for service providers who nowadays are also content providers to block content in order to pressure consumers to consume their own.

Opponents to net neutrality fall into four categories:

The Uninformed - These people tend to mistake net neutrality for government screening of internet content. Net neutrality involves no government screening of content. "Net neutrality" is itself just a concept. It is an internet where information flows freely and without discrimination; i.e. where information is treated with neutrality. It is what has happened for the vast majority of the time the internet has existed, and only recently has it been infringed upon. Some have proposed legislation as a means to protect it. Obama has proposed that the FCC take regulatory power to classify the internet as a utility, which would liken internet data to water; nobody knows the origins of one drop of water from the next, it just comes out of our faucets without discrimination.

The Obama Deranged - These people dislike net neutrality because Obama supports it. If not for their ODS some of them would be members of The Uninformed. But more often than not, these people are outright lying. They often make up the lies that The Uninformed have fallen for. They invent their fictions because they do not want something Obama has supported to take place. They will not address facts. If asked to provide facts to support their fairy tales they will most likely resort to name calling, with references to government censorship in China and to Nazi Germany. They will often make the ass backwards claim that net neutrality is an attack on free speech. But they will offer no facts to support their claims because they have none and don't care about them anyway.

The Libertarian - These people have a sincere support for service providers, such as Comcast, charging content providers, such as Netflix and Fox News, additional money. The Libertarian sees it as a simple business transaction and typically believes that the market can and will handle it well enough. The Libertarian does not find any problem with alleged conflicts of interest in the fact that large service providers are also content providers. If a service provider like Comcast chooses to throttle or block content that it does not own, then that is Comcast's right as a business and nobody should interfere. The Libertarian is generally unshaken by concerns about large corporations exerting power or control over the people, because The Libertarian believes that amassing and exerting power over the people is only evil when done by the government. The same power wielded by corporate interests not only lacks evil, it often is deemed righteous.

The Cable Company - The Cable Company provides media, in the form of cable, and they provide access to other media, in the form of internet. The Cable Company wants you to buy both things so they can make money from you, but they don't want to deal with competition. In recent years internet has led to competition for The Cable Company, because through the internet alternative forms of media can now be delivered to consumers. For The Cable Company, this is the business equivalent of lupus; their right hand is killing their left hand. Contrary to popular misconception about corporate ventures being decidedly conservative in mentality, The Cable Company is typically a liberal entity who feels entitled to other people's money whenever it wants it and seeks greater and greater power to force itself upon you and your wallet. Hence, the two predominant cable companies in the country (Time Warner and Comcast) own the two most liberal news outlets in the media, CNN and NBC respectively. So naturally, they object to you using the internet to consume media that they're not producing (and thus, not making a profit from). But the overall effect on them was not so substantial (or immediately quantifiable) as recent trends whereby people have resorted to the internet to consume video media that was previously consumed through cable service. After a mad scramble, The Cable Company decided to start throttling content coming from competition for their own content. This event marks the death of the old free market net neutrality and has given rise to calls for legally enforceable net neutrality.

So all of this so people can watch movies faster? Is that what I am getting out of this?

 

[Wildman]

Time to grow up,

>>>>><<<<<<<
THAT is a very good suggestion.., why don't you liberfucks try it adulthood is great, but no liberfuck has ever attained it !

 

[B. Kidd]

It'll lead to censorship of content. First, they start with 'hate speech' and expand the definition to cover political dissent. Next step will be using the excuse of national security to ban access to sites they deem causes self-radicalization, etc., etc. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Freewill]

How about this analogy.

The internet is like two streets that cross at a red light. One street has lots of traffic thus the wait is longer. so they build an HOV lane so some vehicles get through faster. What these regs would do is shut the HOV lane.

 

[Freewill]

It'll lead to censorship of content. First, they start with 'hate speech' and expand the definition to cover political dissent. Next step will be using the excuse of national security to ban access to sites they deem causes self-radicalization, etc., etc. The writing is on the wall.

The truth is we don't know that these regs would actually lead to that type of censorship.

BUT, if that were their aim this is how it would start. They have done it before and i think that is really what the protest about the regs is all about. The INTERNET now works fine for me, why would we do anything that might jeopardize that?

 

[edthecynic]

I was told by a person in my congressmans office that 80% of the traffic on comcast is netflix.

And you are stupid enough to believe your bought and paid for congressman!
CNET claims netflix and YouTube COMBINED make up only 50.31% of the internet traffic, so how can netflix alone take up 80%?

 

[OKTexas]

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

Better help this debate.

Freewill, this is not about bandwidth or speed but about content.

Net Neturality stops Comcast redirecting all google.com page requests to Comcast serch engine which priotises the search engine to people who pay. That is big corps instead on mom and pop outfits. Comcast can throttle down some sites and push others.
They don't have to tell you like Goggle tell you who is paying today and who is not.

It effectively means you service provider can rig the internet to suit themselves and not tell you. So they have a hotels site they prefer you get that first and major competitors pushed to page 100...
They can also cut down Netflix or Amazon unless they pay. Today they do pay extra for access.

So the Freewill you talk about is taken away from you by your provider in a corporate meeting and you will not be told. So in your world every search of conservative topics could be pointing to liberal websites.
Now commercializing this will allow providers to give out internet at low prices because every time you want to buy something you are pushed to Amazon and the service provider is taking a cut without you knowing.

Net neutralization is about treating all roads on the internet fairly, it is about equal free expression. This is a fight between Telecom operators and content providers, Telecom providers want to be able to control what you can access and content providers want the world to be equal.

I am surprised that GOP has gone against their own principles on this one. I thought they are about fair opportunity for everyone achieve on their own merits, this is the equivalent of black empowerment without good reason.

I was told by a person in my congressmans office that 80% of the traffic on comcast is netflix. All those movie downloads are slowing the system for everyone else. Why shouldn't comcast be able to throttle netflix back to maintain an acceptable experience for their other customers?

By what I read they can do that now, why the regs? Or more to the point, they do do that now. BTW that 80 percent are people watching netflix, throttle it and you are effecting 80 percent of the people using the net, or so it would seem.

I don't see the reason for the regs and as I've said earlier, they will be struck down by the courts for the way they are doing it. As for your other point, why should the other 20%, who are paying the same, lose decent service because of what the other folks are doing?

 

[Freewill]

I was told by a person in my congressmans office that 80% of the traffic on comcast is netflix.

And you are stupid enough to believe your bought and paid for congressman!
CNET claims netflix and YouTube COMBINED make up only 50.31% of the internet traffic, so how can netflix alone take up 80%?

50 percent is still a lot.