A day in the life of Net Neutrality

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Bandwith throttling.

If you believe so, you have to prove it's a deliberate measure and not problems. Furthermore, try a third party DNS instead of the one from your ISP.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If I can explain it or not doesnt change that its happening

All I've seen on it is a bunch of conspiracy theories. No actual data to support the allegation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If I can explain it or not doesnt change that its happening

All I've seen on it is a bunch of conspiracy theories. No actual data to support the allegation.

So what did Verizon sue for then?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Bandwith throttling.

If you believe so, you have to prove it's a deliberate measure and not problems. Furthermore, try a third party DNS instead of the one from your ISP.

Because they sued for the right to do it. Facts man

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If I can explain it or not doesnt change that its happening

All I've seen on it is a bunch of conspiracy theories. No actual data to support the allegation.

So what did Verizon sue for then?

For a number of reasons. One being the ability to negotiate contracts for plump services to content providers. This is a complex issue and if you do not even understand the basic workings of the tron it's pointless to discuss it with you. All you have are pre-concieved ideas and a bunch of soundbites and half-truths.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Total bandwidth is like a pizza, if you make some slices smaller it would allow you to give others bigger slices.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If I can explain it or not doesnt change that its happening

All I've seen on it is a bunch of conspiracy theories. No actual data to support the allegation.

So what did Verizon sue for then?

For a number of reasons.

Can you read the article (or any article) on the lawsuit and show where the lawsuit is a conspiracy?

Because at this point you are just grasping for straws, ignoring information and claiming you never seen it

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Yes, they do it. Thats why they sued. Did you read it this time?

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission 2014 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Comcast ruling lead the FCC to issue its FCC Open Internet Order 2010 in December 2010. On January 20, 2011, Verizon sued the FCC, arguing that the order was exceeding the FCC's authority as authorized by Congress, violated the company's constitutional rights, and created uncertainty for the communications industry.[1][2] MetroPCS also brought suit against the FCC shortly after Verizon, but dropped its suit on May 17, 2013.[3][4]



It's right here and it doesn't say Verizon sued the FCC because they are already limiting, or as you and Ravi agreed, throttling bandwidth. Like I said, if you do not understand this, it's best to shut up and listen more than you talk.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Yes, they do it. Thats why they sued. Did you read it this time?

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission 2014 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's right here and it doesn't say Verizon sued the FCC because they are already limiting, or as you and Ravi agreed, throttling bandwidth. Like I said, if you do not understand this, it's best to shut up and listen more than you talk.

Listen closely....I said they sued the govt for the RIGHT TO LIMIT...not they already did so. So you're right about a topic that I am not talking about.

From your link it says:

Effect on 2010 Open Internet Order[edit]

The FCC Open Internet Order 2010 established three orders on fixed and mobile operators of Internet access.

Transparency
This order was applied to both fixed and mobile operators. It requires them to publicly disclose accurate information regarding their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of service. [7] This order was not vacated by the court.[5]

No blocking
This order was applied to both fixed and mobile operators. This order prevents blocking, or otherwise degrading so as to make unusable, access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.[7] This order was vacated by the court.[5]

No unreasonable discrimination
This order was applied only to fixed operators. This order forbids fixed network operators from unreasonably discriminating against lawful network traffic. The FCC did not order for mobile operators because, according to the FCC, competition in the mobile networking space rendered it unnecessary.[7] This order was vacated by the court.[5]

Do you believe your own link? Or is your link a conspiracy too?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Talk about grasping for god damned straws. I'll leave you to it, dude. ****.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.

This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.

1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).

You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts

 

[blackhawk]

Simple question what do you get from net neutrality you don't already have? This sounds like a fairness doctrine for the web which in my opinion is not needed.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Simple question what do you get from net neutrality you don't already have? This sounds like a fairness doctrine for the web which in my opinion is not needed.

For the most part we have had net neutrality but the telecoms sued to end it in February and have show interest in a tiered network for starters.

 

[bripat9643]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

When Democrats are pushing something, it's always political. I can't imagine anything more political than wanting to control the internet - or scarier.

 

[Plasmaball]

I have two.
Comcast which gives me cable internet and the dish which gives me dial up at the best case.

PM me your zip code and I will find you 10 more withing 10 minutes.

The reality is comcast owns this section of the world and thats just the way it is.
Take New york city. Certain buildings have contracts with certain companies to only support certain providers.
And no moving is not an option. Thats the lazy answer.

When i can move, im looking for google fiber, and saying goodbye to these assholes.

Again, you are a leftist and look at things from the perspective of gains for your party - reality is vastly different than the fantasy you live in. Comcast may be the only backbone provider in your area - but there are many ISP's.

No you won't because I've looked. Comcast owns my street...deal with these facts

 

[bripat9643]

it's actually the opposite of that.
your op is a very good example of what could happen without net neutrality.

Yes, yes, war is peace, slavery is freedom, changing the internet keeps it the same. We've heard your doublethink newspeak.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep him."

 

[bripat9643]

I have two.
Comcast which gives me cable internet and the dish which gives me dial up at the best case.

PM me your zip code and I will find you 10 more withing 10 minutes.

The reality is comcast owns this section of the world and thats just the way it is.
Take New york city. Certain buildings have contracts with certain companies to only support certain providers.
And no moving is not an option. Thats the lazy answer.

When i can move, im looking for google fiber, and saying goodbye to these assholes.

Again, you are a leftist and look at things from the perspective of gains for your party - reality is vastly different than the fantasy you live in. Comcast may be the only backbone provider in your area - but there are many ISP's.

No you won't because I've looked. Comcast owns my street...deal with these facts

You can thank your local government for granting them a monopoly.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And it still doesn't say they have been, plan to or are currently blocking or discriminating. Verizon sued because they felt the FCC had no place in using rules that that made up arbitrarily outside the halls of congress. The 2010 deal was...wait for it...wait for it....unconstitutional. Hence the circuit court decision to remove those items form the FCC power plate.

Dude they SUED for the right to discriminate. Its right in your link. As far as if it ever happened.

This shows that it has. So here are 2 facts for you.

1. Verizon sued to discriminate and
2. Comcast purposefully slowed down the speed of one site and not the others (just like you said they couldnt do).

You can play dumb but you cannot refute facts

And the courts agreed. They didn't sue for that right. You're making that claim. They made the claim the FCC didn't have the authority it planned to wield. The court agreed.

Frankly, I dont see an issue with using cap and throttling to a degree. It's always being done. My brother installs radio trans to towers for an ISP in a rural area. They use these because they are piggy backing of the backbone tower. The problem really comes down to better technology with more backbone providers available to the market.

Net Neutrality only means there will be one backbone just like in the telecom of the 60s. This problem will not be solved by government. it was created by them.

 

[Plasmaball]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

He's spot on accurate. Net Neutrality gives the FCC the power to regulate new products and services on the internet. This means that starting anything new will be prohibitively expensive, and the Big Tech Crony Oligarch will have regulatory capture of the FCC.

And this is a lie