Just curious. How do the trumpets feel about him repealing net neutrality.
Good thing? Bad thing? So you know what net neutrality means?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
SW-User
@questionWeaver They've been upgrading for years prior to this. This changes nothing.
@SW-User Those counties that will get service do think it is something ... and $50 billion is way more than they have been investing.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I’m not a whatever and he didn’t “repeal it”.
The FCC made regulatory decision that may adversely affect it.
Now that the subject is actually framed, NON net neutrality is plain wrong. ISP’s and telecom companies have also taken over content. They have proved untrustworthy. The average family is paying $4K annually to a monopoly for cell internet and whatever else and now we are at their whim about what content we get how we get it how fast favoritism greed and too many nefarious possibilities to fathom.
All it took was a two to one FCC vote to totally screw us. One of the three was appointed by the President.
The internet was not made possible to be controlled in this way. My Craigslist ad for a sofa should have the same priority as your U!ta order lol 😀
The FCC made regulatory decision that may adversely affect it.
Now that the subject is actually framed, NON net neutrality is plain wrong. ISP’s and telecom companies have also taken over content. They have proved untrustworthy. The average family is paying $4K annually to a monopoly for cell internet and whatever else and now we are at their whim about what content we get how we get it how fast favoritism greed and too many nefarious possibilities to fathom.
All it took was a two to one FCC vote to totally screw us. One of the three was appointed by the President.
The internet was not made possible to be controlled in this way. My Craigslist ad for a sofa should have the same priority as your U!ta order lol 😀
TexChik · F
@QuixoticSoul not really . Have you not noticed the ignorance and dishonesty of the left ? The party that forced obama care on us ? . the Benghazi party? It’s very easy to be for what they are against because they are only for acquiring and keeping power ,
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@TexChik I have seen much the same behavior from the right.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Cierzo There is already an easy way in place that facilitates this without violating any net neutrality principles - such a person just needs a barebones plan with a low data cap, and those are cheap.
People who use a lot of bandwith require expensive connections, with no/high data caps, and those are more expensive.
Net neutrality is more about charging and servicing all high bandwith users the same, rather than letting people go crazy with free bandwidth.
People who use a lot of bandwith require expensive connections, with no/high data caps, and those are more expensive.
Net neutrality is more about charging and servicing all high bandwith users the same, rather than letting people go crazy with free bandwidth.
Northwest · M
@Cierzo [quote]You use more bandwidth than other users, you should pay more. Someone who only uses it only to check email should not subsidize Netflix users. The problem is monopoly, not net neutrality.[/quote]
Yes, you're right. You are however NOT arguing the correct issue. As a customer, you pay a fixed $ amount, for a level of access. Let's say you pay $35 per month, for 8Mbps speed, and $55 for 15Mbps. Removing net neutrality means that Comcast, on top of what you're paying, can charge you an additional fee, to access Netflix.
This means that they can decide that each bit on Netflix content, is worth more than each bit of your email reading.
Don't buy into "conservatives" arguments blindly.
Yes, you're right. You are however NOT arguing the correct issue. As a customer, you pay a fixed $ amount, for a level of access. Let's say you pay $35 per month, for 8Mbps speed, and $55 for 15Mbps. Removing net neutrality means that Comcast, on top of what you're paying, can charge you an additional fee, to access Netflix.
This means that they can decide that each bit on Netflix content, is worth more than each bit of your email reading.
Don't buy into "conservatives" arguments blindly.
View 16 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@TotalMiss No, that doesn't make them consumers - the people are viewing the content are still the consumers. It's just easier to separate consumers and content providers to keep the discussion making sense.
But it's true that Netflix relies on Comcast to perform a business-critical service. As does every other entity that does business on the internet. And actually, unlike what people seem to think, they do pay for their end of it. Sometimes directly - and sometimes by acquiring and operating intermediate infrastructure. Sending data costs - and paying for upstream bandwidth is part of operating any website. Title ii classification doesn't force ISPs to do anything for free - it mandates that they have to charge everyone at standard rates.
But ultimately, it's a matter of philosophy of whether ISPs should be allowed to double dip. It's not like, ethically wrong by any means. But it does make everything shittier for all of us in the end, is all - without fixing, or even recognizing, the inherent problems with the industry.
There are actual technical reasons - the end to end principle has proven tremendously successful, and removing net neutrality is a major violation of it. And it's without a doubt that net neutrality makes the internet space more competitive - lowering barriers to entry has that effect. But really, the problem is with the fundamentals of the industry in US. Major telecoms operate as public utilities by necessity, and making them into internet gatekeepers is putting far-reaching power into their hands, without the natural balancing mechanisms of the free market to offset them.
But it's true that Netflix relies on Comcast to perform a business-critical service. As does every other entity that does business on the internet. And actually, unlike what people seem to think, they do pay for their end of it. Sometimes directly - and sometimes by acquiring and operating intermediate infrastructure. Sending data costs - and paying for upstream bandwidth is part of operating any website. Title ii classification doesn't force ISPs to do anything for free - it mandates that they have to charge everyone at standard rates.
But ultimately, it's a matter of philosophy of whether ISPs should be allowed to double dip. It's not like, ethically wrong by any means. But it does make everything shittier for all of us in the end, is all - without fixing, or even recognizing, the inherent problems with the industry.
There are actual technical reasons - the end to end principle has proven tremendously successful, and removing net neutrality is a major violation of it. And it's without a doubt that net neutrality makes the internet space more competitive - lowering barriers to entry has that effect. But really, the problem is with the fundamentals of the industry in US. Major telecoms operate as public utilities by necessity, and making them into internet gatekeepers is putting far-reaching power into their hands, without the natural balancing mechanisms of the free market to offset them.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Northwest · M
The duopoly is pretty happy. They've been lobbying for this, and now they have it. Comcast, the largest beneficiary managed to pull another con job. The clueless conservatives, who think net neutrality only affects liberals, as if they're somehow insulated, are crowing about Comcast's announcement of $1000 bonuses, and $50B in investments over the next few years.
Anyone with a working brain, and knowledge of the industry, knows that Comcast's annual bonuses, historically, average more than $4000, and executive bonuses are something like $80,000. The larger investment? it represents no change from their ongoing plan.
Anyone with a working brain, and knowledge of the industry, knows that Comcast's annual bonuses, historically, average more than $4000, and executive bonuses are something like $80,000. The larger investment? it represents no change from their ongoing plan.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Please see my comment below. I may have been harsh than you if possible. @Northwest
BiasForAction · M
Graylight · 51-55, F
Definitely not looking like a good thing, but I think it's an inevitable progression. Anything good is eventually taken over, monopolized and then destroyed by marketing and advertising. Wait until we talk to our grandkids how, once upon a time, the Internet was totally free and open to everyone equally.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
This ties into the argument of trickle down economics and the wage gap. If you have money you can have it all but if you don't you live at the pleasure of the wealthy. This voodoo economics means that your affordable internet will become like broadcast tv. Just junk.
4meAndyou · F
I like free internet.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
4meAndyou · F
I like free internet.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment