- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Net Neutrality People Have Convinced Me
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:47 pm to Orange_and_Blur
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:47 pm to Orange_and_Blur
quote:
Seems that way. But I can't get a straight answer on what happens with or without NN
Both sides of the coin are shitlords.
NN paves the way for Govt control of the internet. Anti NN lets unchecked capitalism and monopolies reign.
The whole thing is a solution looking for a problem and anybody dead set that their opinion is the right one is wrong. There is no right answer.
1
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:54 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Germany and England have much better internet than the US.
This isn't either. They have almost a hundred million people living in a small area
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:54 pm to Orange_and_Blur
Repeal net neutrality, repeal Obamacare, repeal Roe v Wade! 
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:55 pm to Orange_and_Blur
quote:
Seems that way. But I can't get a straight answer on what happens with or without NN. More importantly, the NN crowd just hurls insults so I've decided to just go anti-NN. Plus Google is for NN and there's no way Google supports anything that is good for the rest of the people.
Then, why not ask
All information from/ to the internet is sent as data packets. You send data to your ISP for whatever website you want, they deliver back what you've asked for.
The principle of net neutrality is that the ISP must treat all data equally. That's it. That's all net neutrality is about plan and simple.
Where this becomes an issue in a world without net neutrality:
Let's say your ISP (with whom you have a contract) has a few bad stories about it from Fox news but favorable stories from CNN. Your ISP could then slow down your connection to Fox to limit you reading that story, but grant very fast connections to that CNN article praising them.
Or they could say, you know what I know Fox isn't in line with what my ISP stands for but if you really want to use them, pay me an extra $5/ month and I'll give you a "fast lane" to access their content.
Or, let's say they strike a deal with Hulu against Netflix. Hulu will pay your ISP a large sum of money and then your ISP can give very fast connections to Hulu for you to stream but grind Netflix to a halt so you as the consumer will cancel your Netflix subscription and pay for Hulu
This is why fighting for net neutrality is important
Posted on 11/22/17 at 10:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This isn't either. They have almost a hundred million people living in a small area
We also have more resources and are the best nation in the world
Yet we still can't figure this shite out.
Even in populated American areas and cities we still have these problems.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:02 pm to ctalati32
Is anyone doing this?
Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine? NN will have the FCC requiring Anti-fake-news-russian-meddling-coverage all over your feed so that the ISP can keep their license.
EIB Network
Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine? NN will have the FCC requiring Anti-fake-news-russian-meddling-coverage all over your feed so that the ISP can keep their license.
quote:
You know that the Regime, you know the Democrats have wanted to reenact the Fairness Doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987, and you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is. They have purposely tried to convince people the Fairness Doctrine is “equal time,” and it isn’t. But you know they would love to revive it. They’ve tried to. It’s been shot down two or three times. The FCC finally gave it up. Now we’re back to monitors in the newsroom.
To do what?
?
Well, if you look at what’s said, it looks strangely identical to what local stations used to have to go through to get their licenses to broadcast renewed every three to five years. They had to go out and ascertain “the community.” I had to do this. You probably don’t know this. (I’m speaking of Mr. Snerdley.) You may not know how this used to happen but as recently as 1980, the station management had to conduct meetings once every three years with the local librarian or whoever else, and get their thoughts on what the radio station should be doing to serve the community.
Now, it wasn’t important what was said or whether or not the station acted on any of it. What was important was that the station had to do the interviews with the local community leaders, and there did have to be a certain percentage of the broadcast week devoted to those issues identified by the community as important. That’s why you never listened to the radio on Sunday morning and late Saturday night, ’cause that’s when all that programming was dumped on people, ’cause it’s nothing anybody wants to hear.
EIB Network
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:09 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Is anyone doing this? Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine?
You think FNC, NPR, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, or any of the like adhere to that?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:10 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Is anyone doing this?
Censoring news they don't like. As of now we don't know, but it's currently prohibited, but regarding throttling websites unless they pay, well that has happened.
Comcast did throttle Netflix for users because it competed with their own product (i.e cable). They figured if Netflix was too terrible to use people wouldn't cut the cord. They also did try to extort money from Netflix to get their speeds normal again.
Netflix gave in. Check out the graph to see what happened to Netflix's speeds
source: https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/
Note this isn't based on the amount of data usage, just the connection speeds. Even if you used way more data streaming video on news sites they weren't hit the same way Netflix was.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:12 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine?
If you've watched any bit of news over the last decade you know none of the major news organizations follow this.
They all are biased one way or the other
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:13 pm to ctalati32
Wait, so you are telling me that this was handled without the government and that Comcast isn't throttling Netflix anymore?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:15 pm to AaronDeTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/3/18 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:16 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctorine?
Eliminating NN will allow ISPs to establish their own “Fairness Doctrine”. Are we OK with that?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:19 pm to ctalati32
quote:
Censoring news they don't like. As of now we don't know,
Lol.
Are you a liar or stupid?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:20 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
Wait, so you are telling me that this was handled without the government and that Comcast isn't throttling Netflix anymore?
No, Netflix is currently paying them off while they are fighting for net neutrality protections to save them from this issue. If they hadn't paid off Comcast, it would have severely hurt their business while they fought the legal battle to end the practice. It's extortion.
This would be akin to someone showing up to your house with a bulldozer demanding you pay them 500 bucks or you'll level your house. Are you going to go to court and sue them to stop? By then your house is gone.
But imagine this happening everywhere on the internet, and those prices will get passed to you, just as a way to make the ISP more money.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:21 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
But think about the glorious liberal tears!
As the liberals control the ISP's I highly doubt they will be the ones crying, but you already knew that.
AT&T ownes CNN, guess what AT&T customers that like Fox news, they can bill you more to watch it or just decide it does not fit their corperate values and block it. They are also the ONLY option for tens of millions of folks, especially those in flyover red states.
The same twats will be back here crying about how now their free market is being violated.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:24 pm to CptBengal
quote:quote:
Censoring news they don't like. As of now we don't know,
Lol.
Are you a liar or stupid?
I know this might be a shock to you, but not all of us on here make up shite constantly like you do CptBengal
But if you actually read posts instead of tried to stir shite up to make your godking look good, you'd have realized the context in which that statement was made. In that we don't have evidence currently that an ISP is censoring news from getting delivered to its customers by throttling the connection to that site.
I know that critical thinking taxes your mind greatly, but please try to keep up.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:26 pm to ctalati32
It's kind of amazing to me that some here actually want companies like Comcast and AT&T to have complete control over the content to which millions of Americans are exposed.
Comcast owns NBC Universal. AT&T is about to own Time Warner, which owns CNN, Time Warner, and HBO.
Those companies will prioritize their own assets to the detriment of others - as in, outright throttling and blocking competing content. And if you think that's merely a fantasy, here's how some of these companies have tested the waters in the past -
- 2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
- 2005 - Comcast was denying access to P2P services without notifying customers.
- 2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
- 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except Youtube.
-2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their own services.
-2012 - Verizon was demanding that Google block tethering apps on Android devices because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
-2012, AT&T - Tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
-2013 - Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
So once the protections for net neutrality are completely repealed, AT&T and Verizon will be able to block applications like FaceTime to push users towards their own in house video based chat apps. T-Mobile will be able to block access to your favorite streaming app if it's not a part of their Binge On service. Cox can block your access to certain websites unless you upgrade your plan to include a premium digital cable subscription along with whole home phone service.
These are exactly the types of practices and possibilities that some on here are openly endorsing.
Comcast owns NBC Universal. AT&T is about to own Time Warner, which owns CNN, Time Warner, and HBO.
Those companies will prioritize their own assets to the detriment of others - as in, outright throttling and blocking competing content. And if you think that's merely a fantasy, here's how some of these companies have tested the waters in the past -
- 2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
- 2005 - Comcast was denying access to P2P services without notifying customers.
- 2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
- 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except Youtube.
-2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their own services.
-2012 - Verizon was demanding that Google block tethering apps on Android devices because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
-2012, AT&T - Tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
-2013 - Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
So once the protections for net neutrality are completely repealed, AT&T and Verizon will be able to block applications like FaceTime to push users towards their own in house video based chat apps. T-Mobile will be able to block access to your favorite streaming app if it's not a part of their Binge On service. Cox can block your access to certain websites unless you upgrade your plan to include a premium digital cable subscription along with whole home phone service.
These are exactly the types of practices and possibilities that some on here are openly endorsing.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:30 pm to AaronDeTiger
quote:
1. Don't let the FCC censor the internet and be the gatekeeper for what gets put on the internet.
I would hope just about everyone agrees with this. It's just application of basic First Amendment law.
quote:
2. My internet speeds have been getting faster and cheaper without NN.
Not sure NN is helping you there. Better technology and more broadband options are driving down prices--or at least lowering the cost-per-megabyte. If NN goes away, ISPs would be able to recoup some of the delivery costs from sites seeking priority status (i.e., Amazon, Netflix), thus lowering the cost to the consumer. Of course, those same consumers would pay extra for that priority status when using those services.
quote:
3. This answer looking for a problem gives the government a foot in the door for regulating the internet.
How so? Under NN, the government's position is that all traffic must be treated equally; without NN, companies could prioritize certain traffic. How does this get the government's "foot in the door?"
quote:
4. Investment in infrastructure will grind to a halt if companies are forced to share lines they installed with others.
You lost me here. What does NN have to do with companies being "forced to share lines they installed with others"?
quote:
The house I'm moving in to in 2 weeks is wired for Cox and att fiber. I'm going to go with att 100 mbps for $50 with the option of upgrading to 1000 mbps for $70.
Welcome to AT&T. I'm one of their field technicians, so if you get fiber hsia installed in/around the B.R. area, there's probably a 1/100 chance I'll be the guy crawling through your attic. Fun times. See you mid-December
My main issue with NN is that it gets conflated with the idea of treating HSIA as a public utility. These are two separate issues, and it is completely possible that HSIA could be declared a public utility while still maintaining the principles of NN.
The power company doesn't care how much energy you consume, nor the specific use you have for that energy (meth labs, pedophilia conferences, Klan rallies, whatever). If HSIA were treated like a public utility, the old rural electrification initiatives would be revamped to roll out a new massive rural broadband initiative, and prices would drop while access would spike. And, all of that would happen without regard for NN. At least IMHO.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:31 pm to CptBengal
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:33 pm to rocket31
We been trying to tell them
they don't care
they don't care
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News