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.
That's generally considered part of what makes "an object lesson". Bit of a definition thingie, there.
But then you try to imply that this one instance is somehow proof that one side looks out for the little guy all of the time, which is a joke. Dems are just as much supporters of the very tiny elite as are their counterpart Reps.
Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft...hell, EVERYBODY already does this. I can tell you with authority, that when an advertiser buys a quality digitally delivered product, that those intended customers are commonly part of 100 or more data sources that all know something about them.
The difference is they can only obtain data about you when you use their service and/or sites they may have services embedded on like Google ads. There is also ways to prevent that collection of data. You could fe example never use Google or the their other services, use your hosts file or firewall to block their IP's/domains and they can't track you.
The ISP on the other hand minimally would has access to every single site you request with no way to prevent that other than using a VPN. If that traffic is not being sent over HTTPS they would also have access to the content and any other information with no way to stop them.
I'm going to try a different approach to explaining this to the people who think getting rid of NN is a good idea. I hope Dane or coalman will let me know if my analogy goes off the rails.
Let's say you have phone service with Sprint.
Let's say that Sprint decides not to let you call anyone who gets their phone service from T-Mobile, or, that if you can make such a call, they give you lousy service during those calls or otherwise limit the usefulness of your service to penalize you for dealing with the competition.
Now let's say that Sprint is the only service you have access to in your city, neighborhood, or building, so you are stuck with it, if you want a phone at all.
Are you okay with this?
If you want to use the phone analogy lets say a business has paid their phone company for 100 phone liness. When you go to call them your phone company decides it's going to limit your phone conversation to and demands payment from them if they want to continue getting your calls.
Phone companies can't do this with good reason and this is the equivalent of net neutrality.
So-called "net neutrality" was a scam to give the FCC control over the Internet (Thank you Obama). I prefer it to be free, as it has been since it's inception. Without government control. It worked just fine. But Obama couldn't leave it alone. Just had to give the government control.
You really don't know what net neutrality means, do you?
But then you try to imply that this one instance is somehow proof that one side looks out for the little guy all of the time, which is a joke. Dems are just as much supporters of the very tiny elite as are their counterpart Reps.
Well right now ~ ONE party is going after net neutrality. And it ain't the Dems.
I would be more willing to accept the repeal of Net Neutrality if all providers are required to offer unrestricted..
Basically, i would be more willing to accept Net Neutrality if all Internet providers are required to offer a premium tier of access with no restrictions on access, like we have now and the cheaper plans would have restrictions.
I think you are wasting your time. They have already decided NN is bad because Obama supported it. There's really nothing else we can do. NN will soon die.
Exactly. If Obama came out condemning pedophilia you'd get Republican pundits lining up to say how raping kids isn't that bad. Seriously. Or how some random Democrat was a pedophile 20 years ago and how that makes all liberals hypocrites.
Again, if you are making the privacy argument it's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it's over.
I'm not, the poster I was replying to thought that it was. I don't and know it is about speeds for certain sites and the ISPs holding companies hostage as much as it is about the "abuse" of streaming platforms and possibly the marketing of the ISPs "preferred" stream service.
Oddly enough, this makes more sense than almost any other post I've read from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
Exactly. If Obama came out condemning pedophilia you'd get Republican pundits lining up to say how raping kids isn't that bad. Seriously. Or how some random Democrat was a pedophile 20 years ago and how that makes all liberals hypocrites.
That's basically what they are doing, isn't it?
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.
I would be more willing to accept the repeal of Net Neutrality if all providers are required to offer unrestricted..
