Net Neutrality

[OldDog]

If it ain't broke, break it!

"Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/02/2...ality-a-soluti

But surely the FCC Chairman Wheeler will explain the proposal. Uh, er . . .

no.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...andrew-johnson

[Danzig]

I was pleased when I read the other day that one of the things that will change is there won't be a 'fair access policy' if this passes. I really want that to happen! we have to use a satellite for internet. if we do too many updates, or download a couple things, we get 'fapped' and our speed is slowed down to dial up speed. it's ridiculous. I pay for unlimited internet-and like they said in the article, it's the companies job to provide the service, not to limit it.
just think if your electric company decided you'd used too much? or the water company?

[GenuineRisk]

Here's the really hilarious part of the first link posted:

"Pai: I don’t think it is. I think by and large, people are able to access the lawful content of their choice. While competition isn’t where we want it to be—we can always have more choices, better speeds, lower prices, etc.—nonetheless, if you look at the metrics compared to, say, Europe, which has a utility-style regulatory approach, I think we’re going pretty well."

Which Europe is he talking about? He can't mean EUROPE, Europe, where the internet is both cheaper and faster than it is here in the United States:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/w...-the-governme/

The USA, which invented the Internet, ranks 16th in the world when it comes to how fast and how much it costs.

Net neutrality is a very, very good thing and we should all be screaming for it. Listen, Comcast has spent 18 million lobbying against it, which should be all you need to know about why you should be for it.

[GenuineRisk]

Back in June, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver did a very good (and very funny) piece explaining the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Here's the really hilarious part of the first link posted:

"Pai: I don’t think it is. I think by and large, people are able to access the lawful content of their choice. While competition isn’t where we want it to be—we can always have more choices, better speeds, lower prices, etc.—nonetheless, if you look at the metrics compared to, say, Europe, which has a utility-style regulatory approach, I think we’re going pretty well."

Which Europe is he talking about? He can't mean EUROPE, Europe, where the internet is both cheaper and faster than it is here in the United States:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/w...-the-governme/

The USA, which invented the Internet, ranks 16th in the world when it comes to how fast and how much it costs.

Net neutrality is a very, very good thing and we should all be screaming for it. Listen, Comcast has spent 18 million lobbying against it, which should be all you need to know about why you should be for it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

How much you want to bet that this bill will include subsidies for people like Danzig, and those like her who can't construct a sentence, so they can watch Jerry or Helen w/o interruption?

[Pants II]

Dell our posts will be deleted by someone in India and this sub-forum will consist of mostly pro-abortion and gay threads.

[OldDog]

I wonder what Adam Sandler thinks about net neutrality? Because comedy.



George Soros has spent $196M lobbying for it, which speaks volumes.



"As an American academic living in Europe, I’m often surprised by the cavalier pronouncements that the EU has more choices, lower costs and faster speeds in broadband and therefore the U.S. should follow the European regulatory model. A number of respected studies show the opposite is true."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...ner-in-europe/
"It is unarguable that the U.S. policy approach has incentivized investment more effectively. It seems strange that some argue that we emulate Europe while the EU is in fact abandoning its own model. European Commission VP Neelie Kroes has announced a Digital Single Market initiative to 'burn the red tape,' increase investment and move towards the facilities-based model of the U.S."


Then there's that pesky "general conduct" provision...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0VU01W20150220



"According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," the proposed (general conduct) rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...-conduct-rules

One of the FCC's seven factors on evaluating "harm" is "impact on free expression." What could go wrong?

[geeker2]

I wonder why they don't release it for public comment before they vote on it

[Danzig]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/te...vote.html?_r=0

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/the-fcc-will-v...214646803.html

What is net neutrality? The elusive term, coined by Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu in 2003, refers to the concept of an open Internet, wherein all data — from music-sharing sites to social networks to personal blogs — exists on a level playing field, free from discrimination.

Discrimination, in this sense, means the ability of Internet service providers (or ISPs), like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T, to act as Internet gatekeepers — controlling not only which websites, apps or other content is available online, but the speed at which that content may be accessed. In other words, if an ISP like Comcast charged a premium for faster service, it would give the Internet’s big money makers a major leg up over smaller, less profitable sites. Not only would users be forced to choose between waiting a painfully long time to download a song for free on SoundCloud and paying to listen instantly on iTunes, ISP fees might push sites like YouTube to start charging for things we’ve long grown accustomed to receiving for nothing.

[Pants II]

Yeah speed will increase and we'll hit the top 30 in countries for internet speed.

Mission accomplished.

Bah Bah bah.

Or something.

Damn this sub-forum is the pits. Most other sites I go to are completely against this bullshit that they won't fully disclose.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I wonder why they don't release it for public comment before they vote on it

They got 3.7 million comments during the public response period, how many more do they need?

[Pants II]

Where are the board's liberal men who support this. It's already been established that the women in this sub-forum are ridiculously pro-censorship and love the FCC and it's handling of Nipplegate.


Please WOMEN tell me how the government will make the internet BETTER. If you aren't getting paid for your shilling you should be. There's plenty of grant money for propagandists like you.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

They got 3.7 million comments during the public response period, how many more do they need?

I thought it might be nice to share the final draft - but I guess when it has been decided something is good for you there is no need to question it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I thought it might be nice to share the final draft - but I guess when it has been decided something is good for you there is no need to question it.

Final draft of what? This is, should the internet be regulated like a public utility or should the cable providers be allowed to control who has access? It's a vote on including the Internet under pre-existing law that was passed decades ago. It's no one's fault but yours if you didn't weigh in during the three months the FCC was taking public comments. You had plenty of time to do so.

(I didn't weigh in because I thought, what's the point? No way the FCC doesn't cave and give Comcast and Time Warner what they want. I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong.)

[Danzig]

i have looked and looked...and i'm not finding any reasons to be upset with this.
i mean, does anyone want the internet billed like cable, with various packages? does anyone want slower internet, and faster for those who pay more?
the electric company bills me each month for my usage-they don't cut me off or slow my power at a certain point if they think i 'used too much'.
i don't want verizon deciding if i should be able to come to derby trail 5 times a day but not 10. or hughes net to say if you want to watch a youtube video, you have to pay extra. or you've watched two, that's your limit for the day.
oh, you watched two shows from vikings season two, come back in a week, you internet hog, you.

[Pants II]

If it's so good then why wasn't the 300+ page bill or whatever the **** you wanna call it released to the public beforehand?

This opens the door for Obamanet where we're all forced to pay for a service even if we don't use it.

And this will put the government in the ISP business. They will provide a censored ISP for their voter base (broke mother****ers) that will be nothing more than a propaganda outlet for liberals.

This country is gone. Let it burn to the ground. I hope everyone turns gay so GR and Danzig can smell their own farts in wine glasses.

Then I hope the grid goes down and we have an ice age and we all die.

We're all clearly too subservient and stupid to live.

[Pants II]

They give you hints...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1p-E2xmpjA


WWIII includes the internet.

PROPAGANDA control.

Net Neutrality.

It's a 'good' thing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

If it ain't broke, break it!

"Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)."
http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/02/2...ality-a-soluti

But surely the FCC Chairman Wheeler will explain the proposal. Uh, er . . .

no.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...andrew-johnson

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-vot...bid=synd_slate