Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality

[Plasmaball]

the best deal would be internet for maybe 25 bucks and wonderful speeds like S. Korea.

Ah yes, central price controls and entire industries run by the federal government. What could possibly go wrong with that approach?

Just imagine the innovation and progress we could expect. Why, it would as good as government run healthcare, I'm sure!

Um Google has come out and stated that Broadband should be lower, and it is lower in many nations. nobody ever said anything about price controls. Wonderful two people in this thread now who make up arguments in order to have any relevance

 

[Plasmaball]

yeah, kind of reminds Me of Obamacare. Same government meddling to make things better....but that never actually happens. It just gets worse.

You've been enjoying this government meddling as we speak and you havent bitched once have you about your internet browsing have you?

ignorance. Pure ignorance.

Yet you ***** about there being only a few dominate ISPs...all of which are apparently "evil".

Wait! Are you saying your central planners did NOT create nirvana? Color me shocked...

evil? no, just greedy

 

[Quantum Windbag]

um....the regulations make it so they cant slow down my speeds.

And, if they do, you can get a refund. The law actually says that, which actually means that you already have what you are demanding the government fix.

they..want..to..remove.. the..regulation....

You know what the whole topic is about.

They actually want to stop the new regulations, not remove the old ones. The old ones are the ones that allow them to steal from idiots who think the government cares about them, but thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

drug trafficking site in the world
I stopped reading after that. Fail

I get it, you agree with the government, and that they are right to restrict internet access, even though your argument was that they actually don't.

It was Illegal as to what he was doing. There isnt anything to argue.

Which, again, proves that the government restricts the internet, and that you are wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And, if they do, you can get a refund. The law actually says that, which actually means that you already have what you are demanding the government fix.

they..want..to..remove.. the..regulation....

You know what the whole topic is about.

They actually want to stop the new regulations, not remove the old ones. The old ones are the ones that allow them to steal from idiots who think the government cares about them, but thanks for playing.

Consumers have stake in net neutrality defeat

Higher Netflix bills might just be the beginning of the effects from a federal circuit court's recent striking-down of the Federal Communications Commission's open Internet rules.

Consumers could be facing an online future that more resembles the current pay TV ecosystem — the exact thing that many Netflix consumers attempt to evade as they cut the cord.

"People are going to be upset. What I hate about my pay TV service you are going to do to my Internet service, too?" says Phil Swann, president of TVPredictions.com. "It's opened the door to the likelihood of that reality unless something changes."

The result? "Companies are going to be able to negotiate (with Internet service providers) for certain most-favored-nation status and smaller companies that can't afford that are going to get left out," says Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "And the consumer will never know because all they will know is this service is working better than others."

Pay to play and those that cant pay, too bad. Meaning that we'll be able to see certain website faster than others. Keeping up with the Kardashians anyone? Hey where'd those blogs go?

"Companies would make deals just as they make deals to be on a cable system or satellite system," Swann says. "And your Internet would not just be $30, $40 or $50 per month; it's going to be so much per month depending on what services you get with that. I think that's where the ISPs will eventually go with this. It's too good for them not to do that."

Sorta like your phones data plan. Doesnt everyone love those?

Echoing Swann's concerns is Rashad Robinson, executive director of minority consumer group ColorOfChange.org, who said in a statement that "the Internet could very soon start looking like cable TV, where one corporation holds the power to decide which content we're able to access."

^^THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT FOLKS!

But everyone doesnt agree

Not everyone is convinced that consumers will see a lot of change on home broadband service, or that they would bear the brunt alone. "People are really concerned about the concept of quality of service and ISPs blocking things," says Dan Bowman, chief technology officer of networking company Sandvine. "We think that the court of public opinion protects from that occurring."

Basically the protection the public has against this happening is hope. Hope the public doesnt get lulled into sleep like they did with Cable. Hope that Companies will pay attention. Trust.

More likely, it is major networking companies such as Cogent and Level 3 that provide connectivity for ISPs (the AT&Ts and Verizons of the world) and content providers (Netflixes and Amazons) that will seek to adjust deals on each end of the equation, Bowman says.

For an ISP to tell a residential customer "that 'if you pay more, it will be less bad' is a hard message to sell," Bowman says.

HARD SELL...but look at cable. Cant get away from it.

 

[Plasmaball]

I get it, you agree with the government, and that they are right to restrict internet access, even though your argument was that they actually don't.

It was Illegal as to what he was doing. There isnt anything to argue.

Which, again, proves that the government restricts the internet, and that you are wrong.

that is the stupidest argument you've ever tried to win

 

[Plasmaball]

And, if they do, you can get a refund. The law actually says that, which actually means that you already have what you are demanding the government fix.

they..want..to..remove.. the..regulation....

You know what the whole topic is about.

They actually want to stop the new regulations, not remove the old ones. The old ones are the ones that allow them to steal from idiots who think the government cares about them, but thanks for playing.

uh no, they want to remove the old regulations. Jesus christ go educate yourself on the issue for once. This is why Verizon stated/argued that the regulations are a 1st amendment violation.

You should maybe go find another subject because this is out of your league.

 

[Plasmaball]

they..want..to..remove.. the..regulation....

You know what the whole topic is about.

They actually want to stop the new regulations, not remove the old ones. The old ones are the ones that allow them to steal from idiots who think the government cares about them, but thanks for playing.

Consumers have stake in net neutrality defeat






Pay to play and those that cant pay, too bad. Meaning that we'll be able to see certain website faster than others. Keeping up with the Kardashians anyone? Hey where'd those blogs go?



Sorta like your phones data plan. Doesnt everyone love those?



^^THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT FOLKS!

But everyone doesnt agree

Not everyone is convinced that consumers will see a lot of change on home broadband service, or that they would bear the brunt alone. "People are really concerned about the concept of quality of service and ISPs blocking things," says Dan Bowman, chief technology officer of networking company Sandvine. "We think that the court of public opinion protects from that occurring."

Basically the protection the public has against this happening is hope. Hope the public doesnt get lulled into sleep like they did with Cable. Hope that Companies will pay attention. Trust.

More likely, it is major networking companies such as Cogent and Level 3 that provide connectivity for ISPs (the AT&Ts and Verizons of the world) and content providers (Netflixes and Amazons) that will seek to adjust deals on each end of the equation, Bowman says.

For an ISP to tell a residential customer "that 'if you pay more, it will be less bad' is a hard message to sell," Bowman says.

HARD SELL...but look at cable. Cant get away from it.

exactly, and these people are completely missing the point as to what the issue is. They are arguing for things that do not have their interest at all.

 

[RDD_1210]

WE need more government!

Government should tell us what speed our ISP should be

so you are against a free flowing internet...Got it.

I fully support a free flowing internet, why the **** do you think I want to keep the government out of the picture?

No you don't. If you did support a "free flowing internet" you'd be in support of Net Neutrality. But you're a clueless hack who doesn't understand jack shit about this topic.

 

[Tresha91203]

Maybe I am not understanding. If I want to start an ISP that does not load music or video, but am faced with regulation requiring me to treat all sites equally, am I not forced to now load music and video? I'm sorry if I didn't get it.

I was understanding your position to be that there is no valid reason for one site to load slower on one provider over the other. Simple customization is about American as you can get. I use some things more than others and I prioritize some things over others. As an individual, why can't I choose a package that fits my needs. In my world, you'd find a provider that places no restrictions other than first come first serve. I would find a provider that limits music and video so I can argue on the internet without annoyance. In your world, we all get to have it your way.

If I put up the money and take all the risk, why can't I restrict those files? Only people like me would even use the service.

Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality: What This Means For You : All Tech Considered : NPR



this isnt a good thing and sadly people will defend this ruling.

Excellent ruling

On Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should be forced by government to treat all data on the internet equally, that is, the government plays the role of enforcer by not allowing ISPs to discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

The libertarian position is pretty clear cut here. Government should keep its hands off ISPs and allow them to operate any way they want. The ISPs, using their own equipment, are providing a service and should be allowed to use their equipment and provide their service in any fashion they choose without interference from the government. Thus, the court ruling is is consistent with a libertarian view


Why is treating all sites equally a bad thing? I notice you add the word "force" for effect I feel. Nothing is wrong with preventing ISP providers from being biased and making be equal. Remember....the liberal media will be in charge

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe I am not understanding. If I want to start an ISP that does not load music or video, but am faced with regulation requiring me to treat all sites equally, am I not forced to now load music and video? I'm sorry if I didn't get it.

I was understanding your position to be that there is no valid reason for one site to load slower on one provider over the other. Simple customization is about American as you can get. I use some things more than others and I prioritize some things over others. As an individual, why can't I choose a package that fits my needs. In my world, you'd find a provider that places no restrictions other than first come first serve. I would find a provider that limits music and video so I can argue on the internet without annoyance. In your world, we all get to have it your way.

If I put up the money and take all the risk, why can't I restrict those files? Only people like me would even use the service.

Excellent ruling

On Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should be forced by government to treat all data on the internet equally, that is, the government plays the role of enforcer by not allowing ISPs to discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

The libertarian position is pretty clear cut here. Government should keep its hands off ISPs and allow them to operate any way they want. The ISPs, using their own equipment, are providing a service and should be allowed to use their equipment and provide their service in any fashion they choose without interference from the government. Thus, the court ruling is is consistent with a libertarian view


Why is treating all sites equally a bad thing? I notice you add the word "force" for effect I feel. Nothing is wrong with preventing ISP providers from being biased and making be equal. Remember....the liberal media will be in charge

On Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should be forced by government to treat all data on the internet equally, that is, the government plays the role of enforcer by not allowing ISPs to discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication"

.

 

[Contumacious]

Maybe I am not understanding. If I want to start an ISP that does not load music or video, but am faced with regulation requiring me to treat all sites equally, am I not forced to now load music and video? I'm sorry if I didn't get it.

I was understanding your position to be that there is no valid reason for one site to load slower on one provider over the other. Simple customization is about American as you can get. I use some things more than others and I prioritize some things over others. As an individual, why can't I choose a package that fits my needs. In my world, you'd find a provider that places no restrictions other than first come first serve. I would find a provider that limits music and video so I can argue on the internet without annoyance. In your world, we all get to have it your way.

If I put up the money and take all the risk, why can't I restrict those files? Only people like me would even use the service.

Excellent ruling

On Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should be forced by government to treat all data on the internet equally, that is, the government plays the role of enforcer by not allowing ISPs to discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication

The libertarian position is pretty clear cut here. Government should keep its hands off ISPs and allow them to operate any way they want. The ISPs, using their own equipment, are providing a service and should be allowed to use their equipment and provide their service in any fashion they choose without interference from the government. Thus, the court ruling is is consistent with a libertarian view


Why is treating all sites equally a bad thing? I notice you add the word "force" for effect I feel. Nothing is wrong with preventing ISP providers from being biased and making be equal. Remember....the liberal media will be in charge

My point precisely.

The fascist/socialist axis of evil does not recognize property rights.

.

 

[RDD_1210]

Of course, when you can't respond with logic or reason, an ad hominem attack is the way to go...

You didn't give out any logic..you proved nothing more than zero understanding on the subject.

I understand perfectly. By your way of thinking, the government should regulate car manufacturers to ensure every model goes at exactly the same speed. After all, we can't have someone paying for a fast car...

Again, if you so believe that all ISPs are so corrupt and inattentive to the needs of their customers, a new competitor that provides the same access speed to all will surely emerge and dominate the market. Problem solved.

I reject your collectivist approach to any and all perceived problems.

If you ever denied being a corporate shill, you surely have exposed yourself now. Holy shit.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe I am not understanding. If I want to start an ISP that does not load music or video, but am faced with regulation requiring me to treat all sites equally, am I not forced to now load music and video? I'm sorry if I didn't get it.

Well you couldnt start one but currently all sites must be offered at the same speeds. I understand your arguement where you want it crafted to your preference but think of it this way. Just because you go to the Buffet doesnt mean you have to eat everything there. Everything is ready for you and others IF you want it you can try it, if not have only what you like. That is what the internet is right now.

The opposite is this: You go to the Buffet but the Shimp guy didnt pay as much to the resturant as the chicken guy. Now when you see the buffet you have a shit load of chicken but a long line of people who have to wait for shrimp or pay extra to bring the shrimp to them. One day you go to the buffet and would like to try the shrimp. Sorry wait in line or pay more.

I was understanding your position to be that there is no valid reason for one site to load slower on one provider over the other. Simple customization is about American as you can get. I use some things more than others and I prioritize some things over others. As an individual, why can't I choose a package that fits my needs. In my world, you'd find a provider that places no restrictions other than first come first serve. I would find a provider that limits music and video so I can argue on the internet without annoyance. In your world, we all get to have it your way.

Currently you can customize all you want. You have access to EVERYTHING. You only access things you see as a priority. Things change and you may pick up a new hobby sometime in the future. You can change your priority and still access that new information without requesting any changes. Think data packages for cell phones.

If you craft something specifically for you thats great. Once that changes tho you'll have to call the ISP provider and change it. Will it have 2 year contract?

If I put up the money and take all the risk, why can't I restrict those files? Only people like me would even use the service.

Now look at this from the other end. What could happen if this was the case? Will it restrict sites that dont match their political ideology? What will the package levels look like? If you dont want video, great! What happens if you want to look at a video? Extra charge? Blocked?

Currently there is no penalty

 

[RDD_1210]

yeah, kind of reminds Me of Obamacare. Same government meddling to make things better....but that never actually happens. It just gets worse.

This is nothing like Obamacare at all...not in your wildest dreams.

Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with Govt intrusion at all. Do you like the internet the way it is today? Then you are for Net Neutrality.

Do you want corporations deciding what sites they want to load faster than others? If yes, the question would be Why? Why be PRO- UNEQUALITY?

In fact, My internet, as it is today, is just fine. In fact, I host a number of websites, have total freedom to develop more, upload and download to My hearts content and I never get charged more for it. I also have no slowdowns or restrictions on what I do.

That cannot be said of My government healthcare program....

I want a wild west of Internet access. I want to be able to start up My own ISP if I want. What I don't want is to be told that I have to follow some government rule.


Ever.

So you like the way the internet is today and the access you have to it? I bet you don't want that to change do you?

 

[RDD_1210]

yeah, kind of reminds Me of Obamacare. Same government meddling to make things better....but that never actually happens. It just gets worse.

This is nothing like Obamacare at all...not in your wildest dreams.

Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with Govt intrusion at all. Do you like the internet the way it is today? Then you are for Net Neutrality.

Do you want corporations deciding what sites they want to load faster than others? If yes, the question would be Why? Why be PRO- UNEQUALITY?

I actually prefer the internet the way it was before the government tried to fix it.

When was that? Be specific.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The regulations said that your Internet service provider or ISP can't favor some kinds of Web traffic over others. So, say, your ISP strikes a deal with Amazon Prime for its video streaming service, but you subscribe to Netflix. Your ISP could put Amazon on a high-speed lane on its network and relegate Netflix to a slower lane, making it less appealing. Now, Netflix might offer to pay Verizon more to get in the fast lane, and they may pass that cost onto you. So no more 7.99 a month for all you want to watch.

There's even some concern here among political groups. For example, the Christian Coalition has been a supporter of network neutrality rules because they worry that if, say, Verizon was interested in lobbying for a particular cause, it might slow traffic or block access to websites with alternative points of view.

Net Neutrality Court Ruling Could Cost Consumers, Limit Choices : NPR

Now What could the consumer do in this case? I guess you could change your video service based on whos faster and not whos you prefer.

But maybe this wont happen...except it has before.

RATH: Before the rules were made in 2010, was there any evidence that ISPs were blocking traffic?

SYDELL: As a matter of fact, there was. And it's actually why these rules were put on the books. Here's what happened. Back in around 2007, a fan of barbershop quartet music was using the software BitTorrent to uploading Cher's favorite songs. And the upload started to slow to a crawl, and he went public about it. It turns out Comcast was slowing BitTorrent traffic. Some of our listeners may know that BitTorrent software is often used by people who are sharing unauthorized music and movie files, though it's also used by college professors sharing large research papers.

But Comcast said BitTorrent traffic was hogging its pipes, so they slowed it. The FCC cited Comcast for slowing it, and Comcast took the FCC to court and it won. And that's when the FCC tried to write the open Internet rules that just go struck down.

No biggie if you dont use BitTorrent but what happens when it happens to your favorite site?

If we get rid of Net Neutrality you can try hoping. If that doesnt work you can try prayer. Or Wishing on a star is an option

 

[RDD_1210]

No one can be against Net Neutrality for any other reason than they want major ISPs to make as much money as possible at the expense of higher costs for consumers and increased difficulty for small business to compete online.

You don't understand the issue if you claim to be against Net Neutrality and say anything other than the above as your reasoning why.

 

[Pheonixops]

WE need more government!

Government should tell us what speed our ISP should be

so you are against a free flowing internet...Got it.

I need to research this subject more, but I bet the same people will be railing against "the libruls!" if it turns out that one of their political groups convinced the ISP's to slow down conservative sites.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because with the recent ruling, cable and phone companies like Verizon and AT&T now have the legal right to block any website, webpage, blog, video, web technology, app, cloud sync technology, or anything else running online through their pipes. Put another way, Comcast or Time Warner Cable can now block Netflix, BitTorrent, or even this article. They can choose to provide better service to some entities and not others, letting some websites load very, very slowly and others load instantly (for a fee!).

Internet Freedom Day: This Year We Go to War for Net Neutrality | Wired Opinion | Wired.com