Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to repeat myself again. If you're unhappy with your service provider, no one is forcing you to use them now are they? In other words, even without this being heavily regulated, American consumers are powerful enough to keep big companies on their toes, and we've seen various examples of this.
That was then and this is now, that's my point. The question is do we need to over regulate, and have the regulations that currently exist been effective? My take on it is people are more up in arms about it because they hate Trump, not so much because they really care about net neutrality. It's nauseating to see how people inject politics into EVERY conversation. If someone can convince me that this "outrage" has nothing to do with Trump, maybe then I could buy it, but I don't think so.
I've heard of this before. I personally never saw the big deal because if I wasn't happy with my service, guess what? I changed providers to one that met my needs. I know that's a very hard concept for you to understand because you know we need the "gubment" to protect us from everything. Those big bad Republicans are so terrible. The Democrats will save us, just like they did with the whole banking mess. They've supposedly regulated that very well too...
First you were already wrong on whether there had been issues prior to enforcement of net neutrality. You flat out just didn't know, but you wanted to weigh in for some reason. My guess is that somewhere you identified this as simply a liberal issue and needed to run your mouth as a kneejerk reaction.
Secondly, no you cannot simply just switch every time because this is essentially an inelastic utility for a lot of people. If you do not have the physical infrastructure there to switch to another ISP, you cannot switch. That's the end of it. It is not given the kind of regulatory controls that utilities have, but it's pretty much beholden to the same issues.
There has been no sign that net neutrality has caused over regulation in any industry. In fact, the industries that rely on the network infrastructure has been one of few very bright spots within our economy. What basis has there been to say this has been over regulation?
Lastly, you're citing who again? Did you have any idea who Powell is and who he works for? Or did your ability to use google stop at just about any article that looked about right for your uninformed opinions rather than, you know, try to do any substantiative reading on the subject? Even without identifying who the writer is, his arguments aren't sensible. Why exactly does net neutrality mean that the pipeline/bandwidth won't remain full? How is that a sensible argument? What was his actual explanation of why the common carrier model dragged growth? Did you find any actual examples or explanation for this? What was his explanation for how net neutrality was the reason why rural communities often have to wait a long while for broadband? Where is the actual connection being made between these points? Your mind has to go on cruise control for that to just slide right in as compelling arguments.
Again, I don't think this is the end of the world at all. The sky isn't going to fall because of this, however, this is essentially still bad policy driven by a huge amount of lobbying from an oligopoly. Your babies aren't going to be born inside out and there's not going to be rain of poisonous toads, but the idea that this is somehow better is silly.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-15-2017 at 11:15 AM..
I don't know what people are up in arms for. If there is proof that companies are giving priority based on what data plans you have that's one thing, but this fear mongering and misinformation is ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix had multiple cases against throttling. Essentially, those who had a stake in it, who wanted Netflix to pay more for access to their pipes. As if their customers are not already paying for bandwidth. But NOOO... it's not as if corporations like Time Warner never had disputes with television carriers for the rights to carry their chanels. I have a bridge for sale.
Spare me with your BS and holier-than-thou routine. If it's as horrible as everyone is claiming that it is then I would think numerous states would be working vehemently to stop this from coming to fruition. I haven't heard that. This seems to be another case of liberals (especially here in NYC) being up in arms about anything that the Trump administration puts forth. I'm of the belief that if this issue is as egregious as you and others claim it is, the government will step in and see to it that is better regulated. It's that simple. Furthermore, if you're so unhappy with your service provider, no one is forcing you to stick with them now are they? Now you can respond with your usual little smart ass comment.
This is my field in that it provides me with income. It IS egregious. We in the industry have been concerned about this for the past 10 years. It is a huge deal. The problem is that the vast majority of the public don't understand what this really means because they aren't technical enough.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix had multiple cases against throttling. Essentially, those who had a stake in it, who wanted Netflix to pay more for access to their pipes. As if their customers are not already paying for bandwidth. But NOOO... it's not as if corporations like Time Warner never had disputes with television carriers for the rights to carry their chanels. I have a bridge for sale.
Why are you carrying water for the telecom industry, are you a lobbyist? If not your argument is well...let's just say "peculiar"
I'm not carrying anything. I just think it's absurd that people are acting as if the world is coming to an end. I've had the same service provider now for years and it's been just fine. Imagine that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think you really don't understand.
First you were already wrong on whether there had been issues prior to enforcement of net neutrality. You flat out just didn't know, but you wanted to weigh in for some reason. My guess is that somewhere you identified this as simply a liberal issue and needed to run your mouth as a kneejerk reaction.
Secondly, no you cannot simply just switch every time because this is essentially an inelastic utility for a lot of people. If you do not have the physical infrastructure there to switch to another ISP, you cannot switch. That's the end of it. It is not given the kind of regulatory controls that utilities have, but it's pretty much beholden to the same issues.
There has been no sign that net neutrality has caused over regulation in any industry. In fact, the industries that rely on the network infrastructure has been one of few very bright spots within our economy. What basis has there been to say this has been over regulation?
Lastly, you're citing who again? Did you have any idea who Powell is and who he works for? Or did your ability to use google stop at just about any article that looked about right for your uninformed opinions rather than, you know, try to do any substantiative reading on the subject? Even without identifying who the writer is, his arguments aren't sensible. Why exactly does net neutrality mean that the pipeline/bandwidth won't remain full? How is that a sensible argument? What was his actual explanation of why the common carrier model dragged growth? Did you find any actual examples or explanation for this? What was his explanation for how net neutrality was the reason why rural communities often have to wait a long while for net neutrality? Where is the actual connection being made between these points? Your mind has to go on cruise control for that to just slide right in and think that was a compelling argument.
Again, I don't think this is the end of the world at all. The sky isn't going to fall because of this, however, this is essentially still bad policy driven by a huge amount of lobbying from an oligopoly. Your babies aren't going to be born inside out and there's not going to be rain of poisonous toads, but the idea that this is somehow better is silly.
No, I really do understand. We just don't share the same opinion. That's what you don't understand. The point of me posting the link was to share a different perspective as to why this isn't the end of the world. He makes a lot of points that I happen to agree with. If the decision doesn't work out then you fix it. Jesus Christ. You would think we lived in a f-ing country where every policy we've had has been the greatest thing since sliced bread. You people are a trip.
And second, yes it is a liberal issue because anything that the Trump administration has put out, the liberals have been up in arms about. The Democrats have been b-ing and moaning about every single thing that has come out of the White House. I foresee another stupid protest here in NYC with idiots tying up traffic to foam at the mouth. I wonder what in the hell these people do that they have time to protest every time you turn around.
It was found that Netflix was actually creating their own throttling lanes to create a disinformation campaign.
Now why would they do a thing like that do you think?
I know what you're citing, but that argument is technically unsound. Netflix throttling itself is separate from having the carrier throttle it. Both of these can happen at once. Netflix throttled itself on mobile because data streams on mobile data plans are usually not unlimited and you'd probably stop using or delete Netflix on your phone if it turned out you were breaking the data limit by a massive amount each time. That's a crinkle on a lot of media intensive apps, games and websites work where they shift depending on best guesses of what the recipient connection is like. It is not the same thing as throttling an entire service or packet type.
It was found that Netflix was actually creating their own throttling lanes to create a disinformation campaign.
Now why would they do a thing like that do you think?
Do you think Time Warner, and Verizon among are good actors in this industry? Why are we paying more than double for half the speed that our European brothers pay.... on the free communication network that was built by American Tax dollars and spearheaded in many ways by Tim Berners-Lee?
Without NN we wouldn't have Amazon, Google, Wikipedia and so many other power houses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
