I agree, and more people are catching on, just very slowly. It's how the Libertarian ticket got a record high votes this past election despite the fact that their presidential candidate spoke as if he was always high (for the record, I voted for him anyways because he was leaps and bounds better than the two major parties).
OT: Net Neutrality
- Thread starter BBG
- Start date
I agree, and more people are catching on, just very slowly. It's how the Libertarian ticket got a record high votes this past election despite the fact that their presidential candidate spoke as if he was always high (for the record, I voted for him anyways because he was leaps and bounds better than the two major parties).
Soooo. When I stay at the Hilton, they advertise free wifi but when I get there they also offer a higher speed for an additional price. The free wifi is slower than any wifi access I've ever had in my life!
Once this is in place, is it possible for our major carriers to slow down our current pipelines so that we will be forced to use their more expensive lines?
Once this is in place, is it possible for our major carriers to slow down our current pipelines so that we will be forced to use their more expensive lines?
Over the past 12+ months, nothing has been exposed or reinforced more than this.
Whatever people might think of Trump and a handful of other politicians recently in the news, too many people in Washington are DEEPLY defensive of what they have going, and too many people are willing to blindly follow along, as long as they're promised a trip on the gravy train.
Unfortunately, yes I do.
It's equally unfortunate, too many people are willing to buy into the way this monstrosity has been packaged, marketed and sold. It's not about "neutrality" of the 'net. It's a power grab.
That's what most of you folks don't actually realize.
Hint: For all the good they promise you, the very people you want to seize control can do whatever they wish once they have control. And, if you want to put these people in charge, some day someone else will take control, and you might not like what they do with that. All too many advocates of NN cannot process that simple concept.
Working for the government for a few years, I will just state your current government and politicians are lying to you a lot less than their predecessors! Because of the media, your government has become a lot more transparent than it ever was before, and people don't like what they are seeing! I will just add you've seen only about 1/10th of the lies of the 60's , 70's and 80's! Eventually somebody will be brave enough to reveal the truth and the lies! But what purpose or benefit would it serve, other than to make you more sceptical of your previous heros? Sort of like steroids in baseball! Do you really want to know all of the users? Or drug use? I still am amazed Hugh Hefner was never accused of sexual abuse! Or none of Wilt Chamberlin's conquests have come forward! It was a different era, full of mostly lies!
Completely agree. Having worked on some government contracts in the past, present and future, I have seen first hand how true your post is.
Correct and that is how it should work. If you plan to stream movies and download large quantities of data you are putting a strain on the network. People shouldn’t complain about something complimentary if there are alternatives available to them. Granted I would never pay for WiFi in a hotel because I’m cheap and can live without the extra bandwidth.
My State Leg. looking make NN law in the state. Next thing you know, FCC will want to make VPNs illegal.
Sorry for the political post, but this might end up impacting all if us.
If you hadn't heard, the vote to repeal Net Neutrality passed yesterday and opens the door for ISPs to pull some major shenanigans on us consumers.
Things can get so bad that it possibly can even impact your access to this site and any others, unless you pay more.
I encourage all of you to research this and then call your congressmen to try and get this stopped (I'd you oppose it).
Again sorry for the political and dire post, I just thought it was important enough, for all of us, that it needed brought up.
Thanks. Now we can go back to bickering
Most people do not understand NN but the sound of it steers people to believe in it. I can't say I completely understand all aspects of it because it's huge and complex but repealing it is far from a disaster.
A few people on here have made good points
Shouldn’t you have at least attributed this to the Huffington Post while copying and pasting an entire article?
Should I go copy and paste something countering this from Breitbart or Daily Caller now?
ya it can be great, IF the deregulation continues and addresses the big telecom duopoly/monopoly in many places.
the big corps seem to like the change as-is, as many have control over consumer availability now, and could up their 'power grab' by restricting consumer content as well.
One big problem the Net Neutrality advocates have, is NN is seen by many skeptics as a solution in search of a problem.
There have been far too many "ifs", "butts", "coulds" and "maybes" in defending this power grab by politicians (another red flag) and their supporters.
i was referring beyond NN, to older original issues.
do you think the current admin will stop here though? will the big corps be able to continue the typical duopoly/monopoly in many areas and leave consumers with reduced choice?
Last edited:
Don’t forget Obama’s signature legislastion “Obamacare” is destroying the medical insurance market but I realize everyone has a case of amnesia from the last 8 years.
Are you high? The top insurers in the country all had triple digit growth under Obama.
Do I think they'll stop where?
Whether you know it or not, your federal government has expanded ("bloated" is more accurate) beyond belief. Government regulations do not leave consumers with more choice, less cost, or any other such notion of social utopia.
Too many people have bought into the hype of, "were from the government, and we're here to help."
They've also bought into the age-old tactic of politicians gaining power by convincing the people someone is out to screw them. Or, vote for me, give me all kinds of money, and I'll screw "Big Corporation" so they don't screw you.
You're being played, and it's not by "Big Internet".
Did you read what I replied to?
The main reason for growth was people were forced to buy insurance and it was subsidized by the government.
Well it didn’t seem to bother the insurance companies to cash those checks as you inferred.
I don’t care to talk politics on here and I never voted for Obama, but this undoing everything he did nonsense is just stupid and real people are suffering for it. Just dumb.
Real people didn’t suffer when Obamacare was passed? I remember “if you like your doctor you can keep you doctor”.
pete, they've lost millions on Obamacare. It was bad legislation. Why do you think the politicians handled it they way they did? "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it"?
Undoing really bad legislation is the point, not "undoing everything he did." To be generous, Obamacare was based on sleight of hand, deception and manipulating numbers.
the question was, will they stop with net neutrality or also address the longer duopoly/monopoly issue in various areas.
i generally want little no to gov regulation as well... but are you in favor of, or see a benefit to continue to allow big corps to have monopoly, and consumers only have 1 choice for internet and potentially cable tv ?
are you for monoply in other industry?
I'd like to be kind here, but I need to be blunt: That's an absurd question, and a false choice. The only path to competition is not NN, nor did it require such legislative over-reach. You don't get competition via onerous legislation.
NN has always been the default until ISP seeing opportunities to make more money wanted to overturn it. The Title II regulations from 2015 to large extent put rules in place to protect the status quo (i.e. net neutrality). What Ajit Pai just did was remove those protections. We survived 20 years because we had net neutrality those 20 years.
- Imagine a public beach everyone has been going to forever.
- One day, one owners with land, buys out several other landowners next to the beach, decide they want to block public access to the beach except if you pay them.
-The city commision then makes a rule that the beach must remains public.
- The next commissioner now comes around and makes a new rule that scraps the previous commision's rule using silly excuses like regulations bad, these new rules will increase public access to the beach? (like wtf!!)
- NewPalboiler then defends the new commissioners move by making a silly argument like "how did we survive 20 years".
Last edited:
definitely not an absurd question.
you keep bringing up NN, but my question is beyond the elimination of net neutrality. I am referring to the initial availibility , not just content/throttling/etc.
what is the plan for addressing the long-standing issue of monopoly in many areas? will many consumers still have restricted availibility to one/limited choice for their actual provider? im unclear how *only* eliminating net neutrality will improve this past issue of colluding big telecom and government.
Last edited:
what does this stupid write-up have to do with net neutrality. Too many people writing in defence of scrapping NN have minimal understanding of the subject beyond "government bad", "my side did it so it must be good". how pathetic
that's not a compelling argument: "people are stupid, so we need NN".
I'm not sure what 'side' you're referencing, or what it has to do with the argument.
Yes, the question of "are you in favor of monopolies" is an absurd question.
NN keeps coming up because it was supposed to be the solution.
You mention lack of competition. What monopolies? What areas? What consumers? My suggestion would be to Identify that as a part of the plan, and not have as 'the plan' more bloated government affects everyone, even in areas with sufficient competition.
If NN was always the default, why did we need the legislation? We didn't. That's the point of the 20-year reference.
nope you do not understand NN. NN was not brought up as the solution to fix lack of competition. In a world where perfect market conditions exist, there is no need to protect NN. But that's not the world we live in.
god. you really don't get it. you keep making this silly arguments that show how little you understand the issue at hand.
i would say it is not... because that is the scenario that has existed.
many towns and cities have only 1 or a limited number of options. towns that do have 2 options, are typically split by address... thus still really one option to each consumer.
example: various towns in IN that i have resided, i typically have only 1 provider option. if i want a diff provider, i would physically move to a different side of town, a whole new town, etc. basically a fake-choice.
well, we currently have law/legislation to thwart monopoly/duopoly, yet it still effectively exists for many areas & consumers.
so i come full circle to the original question... what does the current administration do for a 'new plan' to eliminate monopoly and create consumer choice (even though we/you do not want government regulation)? or do they go with zero regulation, and simply allow the monopoly/duopoly to continue with these big corps?
Last edited:
it is an absurd question, because you asked that of me. never have I taken a position that favors monopolies.
Again, where are the monopolies? My point is clear: Address those market issues, but not by feeding more of the insatiable beast that has become the federal government. But, NN was never going to create competition.
You continue to highlight my point: too many people think government is the answer. It is not.
You have a really compelling argument there.
Too often that's the only response from the big government advocates: "you don't get it."
To the contrary: I DO understand NN.
And the argument FOR NN is what's brought us to the issue of competition and monopolies. I'm simply responding to the arguments in favor of NN. Don't like that? Take it up with the NN advocates.
Similar threads
