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.
Yeah, just as I suspected from you - utter nonsense, insults, wrong information.
I posted a substantive clarification, and a substantive repudiation of the nonsense you posted. No nonsense from me. No insults from me. And correct information from me.
Rather than just whining, why not post evidence of your claim that you have more accurate information? Discussing the discussion is foolishness. Post something - anything - that shows you actually know something, instead of just parroting the silliness you've discovered through confirmation bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolac
You're not worth my time.
Your evasion is noted. By comparison, I'm ready to help you understand the issue better, should you ever break out of the shell you've encased yourself in to shield you from information you don't like.
Nonsense. This had nothing to do with either. This battle was between two sets of huge companies. One set of huge companies won; the other set of huge companies lost. The consumers were just used to bring it about and will lose as much as they'll gain.
While true, that wasn't the main point of Net Neutrality. Earlier in the article you linked to:It bears repeating: This effort has not been in reaction to anyone slowing down specific websites but rather the opposite - the focus is on concerns about allowing speeding up of specific websites. That distinction is very important.
The quotes you chose were vacuous exhortation rather than operational information. I think there are a lot of people with a vested interest in blowing things out of proportion to derail whatever efforts are made. Some people just want to sell newspapers/gain ratings/increase clickthroughs. Some people feel they'll benefit from the anarchy. Some people just like anarchy.
That's my biggest concern about this Net Neutrality debate: I see the rationale both for and against it, but what I'm really concerned about is how the issue is being exploited without regard to any specific conclusion desired. There is far too much appealing to people's baser instincts on both sides of the matter.
this is where i agree with you completely. both sides have good arguments for and against "net neutrality", and if we look only at the arguments for this set of rules, there are good things to recommend it. my problem though is that when government gets heavy into regulating a thing, that thing becomes more expensive, and less capable, and in the end everyone loses with the one size fits all approach that government takes, except the ones that the government wants as the winners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Nonsense. This had nothing to do with either. This battle was between two sets of huge companies. One set of huge companies won; the other set of huge companies lost. The consumers were just used to bring it about and will lose as much as they'll gain.
actually i think in the end the consumer loses more than they gain. so called net neutrality is basically going to make the internet more expensive to access in the future.
Could Net Neutrality Lead To Government Control And Censorship Of The Internet? Why or why not?
I'm genuinely ignorant on the subject of net neutrality, and am trying to learn a little more about it.
no -
1) net neutrality was the lay of the land before Verizon took the FCC to court.
2) court says "only way you can do it is title 2"
Title 2 doesn't give FCC the ability to influence the data on the internet, just how that data is managed. Did Title 2, for example, influence what words you were able to speak on the phone?
no. . .title 2 didn't.
Anyone who thinks Tier 2 impacts the internet content, is misinformed.
While true, that wasn't the main point of Net Neutrality. Earlier in the article you linked to:It bears repeating: This effort has not been in reaction to anyone slowing down specific websites but rather the opposite - the focus is on concerns about allowing speeding up of specific websites. That distinction is very important.
We don't know how /what the tier 2 will take into account.. . yet slowing down competitive websites (Comcast slowing down netflix) was a very big concern and reason for title2 regulation. The fact of the matter is these companies own virtual monopolies and have little reason to invest in technology that will improve their customers experiences to websites that are "competitive"
I think most people voiced support for Title 2 . .due to this fear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's my biggest concern about this Net Neutrality debate: I see the rationale both for and against it, but what I'm really concerned about is how the issue is being exploited without regard to any specific conclusion desired. There is far too much appealing to people's baser instincts on both sides of the matter.
I for one . . argument from authority here. . with my computer science background and passion for the internet. .. .I was for one absolutely surprised the FCC went with title2. I always thought a limited title 2 was the right thing. .(devil in details of course) but I didn't think it would happen. learn something new.
Bottom line: I like the direction the FCC took; I hope the title 2 regs look good; and I worry that this might mean they are going to okay the TWC and Comcast merger
yet slowing down competitive websites (Comcast slowing down netflix) was a very big concern and reason for title2 regulation.
Comcast never specifically slowed down Netflix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
The fact of the matter is these companies own virtual monopolies and have little reason to invest in technology that will improve their customers experiences to websites that are "competitive"
This doesn't change any of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
I think most people voiced support for Title 2 . .due to this fear
Yes, I mentioned early in one of the three Net Neutrality threads in this forum (I think this one) that the big problem with this whole situation is how irrational fear - "mob mentality" - was deliberately incited and exploited to help the interests of one set of companies prevail over the interests of another set of companies, all the while expectations were fostered in consumers that there is no pretension shall be served.
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.
