Whats the deal with net neutrality?

N801BH said:
NOPE......


I have Charter cable for home phone, internet and cable TV.... Bundled, all three are about what you pay for your single wireless account..;)
Click to expand...
Oh well. :dunno: Never claimed to be a smart shopper.
 
The conservatives here will say that having the government write more laws is a sure fire way to lose control of a free market, and we'll never get our freedom back once you start writing more laws. "You can't trust the government!".

The liberals here will say that giant corporations have a complete monopoly on providing Internet service to the citizens of America and historically, they have done everything possible to fatten their pockets at the expense of their customers, abusing their monopoly: "You can't trust corporations!".

Here's the real problem: Both of those viewpoints are correct.
 
Shepherd said:
This is tyranny in it's most basic form. The Internet is the most powerful equalizer ever created, and the government is going to lock it down and turn it into another controlled media source.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And once commenced, it will be impossible to reverse.
 
Florida Cracker said:
Given the choice between the FCC and the internet providers... there is NO CHOICE. The federal government will use net neutrality to limit freedom, restrict choices, and make internet service far less efficient for FAR more money.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely drunk the Kool Aid.

Net Neutrality has been called for by the masses and by companies that were extorted by the big communications companies. Rather than the government taking control and limiting your choices, remember OUR government INVENTED the Internet. Neutrality is an attempt at keeping the Internet free for all, instead of the big providers telling us what we can and can't watch.

You should be rejoicing that the FCC has taken this step.
 
Buy ammo cheap and stack it deep.
Soft tyranny leads to hard tyranny.
The next five to ten years will determine much.
 
Nothing to see here. If you like your internet you can keep your internet.

See where I'm going with this.

If not, carry on you low information voter.
 
My internet's the cheapest bill I've got right now. What's wrong with it? :dunno:
 
bbridges51 said:
You have absolutely drunk the Kool Aid.

Net Neutrality has been called for by the masses and by companies that were extorted by the big communications companies. Rather than the government taking control and limiting your choices, remember OUR government INVENTED the Internet. Neutrality is an attempt at keeping the Internet free for all, instead of the big providers telling us what we can and can't watch.

You should be rejoicing that the FCC has taken this step.
Click to expand...

You are completely mistaken. If that was the case, the FCC wouldn't refuse to allow preexamination of their 300 plus page bill where they grant themselves more power to do things they have no legal right to do.

When the regulation comes to light, it will be too late because the communist in the white house will have gotten his hands on more of our freedom
 
Gerhardt said:
I'll bet their ads imply that's what you'll receive.
Click to expand...

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.......period.

If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan........period.

Next :rolleyes:
 
bbridges51 said:
You have absolutely drunk the Kool Aid.

Net Neutrality has been called for by the masses and by companies that were extorted by the big communications companies. Rather than the government taking control and limiting your choices, remember OUR government INVENTED the Internet. Neutrality is an attempt at keeping the Internet free for all, instead of the big providers telling us what we can and can't watch.

You should be rejoicing that the FCC has taken this step.
Click to expand...

I do not see links to support any of the allegations you're throwing around.

Here's one you can read. http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/
 
JHW said:
If that was the case there would be no demand by budget-stretched governments for private security contractors.
Click to expand...



That might have been a kick-back infused idea invented by a certain Vice-President from Wyoming who needed to funnel as much money to his company (Halliburton) as possible.

Or, if not invented, certainly escalated.
 
bbridges51 said:
You have absolutely drunk the Kool Aid.

Net Neutrality has been called for by the masses and by companies that were extorted by the big communications companies. Rather than the government taking control and limiting your choices, remember OUR government INVENTED the Internet. Neutrality is an attempt at keeping the Internet free for all, instead of the big providers telling us what we can and can't watch.

You should be rejoicing that the FCC has taken this step.
Click to expand...



Wow missed this last night when I posted.

Talk about drinking the Kool Aid

You don't even need to show your location to know where your from.
 
Saying this as someone who's worked deeply in the Internet industry for 15 year, the FCC reclassification, while not 100% perfect, was absolutely needed.

Here's a great summary of where we've been watching the industry head in recent years. It's sophomoric, but spot on: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
 
Last edited:
johnxreid said:
Saying this as someone who's worked deeply in the Internet industry for 15 year, the FCC reclassification, while not 100% perfect, was absolutely needed.

Here's a great summary of where we've been watching the industry head in recent years. It's sophomoric, but spot on: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But when you hide the Bill from the American people. I'm thinking nothing good can come out of it from this Administration

Open and transparent "My A&&"
 
I expected to log in this morning to find that someone had put up a wall of text telling me how my simplistic definition of net neutrality was wrong and that I would learn something. Instead there are the usual rants.
 
Challenged said:
The conservatives here will say that having the government write more laws is a sure fire way to lose control of a free market, and we'll never get our freedom back once you start writing more laws. "You can't trust the government!".

The liberals here will say that giant corporations have a complete monopoly on providing Internet service to the citizens of America and historically, they have done everything possible to fatten their pockets at the expense of their customers, abusing their monopoly: "You can't trust corporations!".

Here's the real problem: Both of those viewpoints are correct.
Click to expand...

So, let's do away with government AND corporations ,
 
Pghsteel said:
Good info thanks for posting

BUT I would like to see the 300 page doc that they are voting on
This is from May 2014.

It's all the special interest crap that they snuck in the last 9 mo that worries me

It comes down to the old saying. "Fool me once,shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Sorry, not trusting this Administration
Click to expand...
Here's a bunch of documents on the FCC site. The relevant docket is 14-28, I believe.

http://www.fcc.gov/search/results/14-28?solrsort=created desc
 
Net Neutrality as a concept/ideal is great.

Problem is, someone always owns the infrastructure.

Switching from the infrastructure owners to a partisan commission made up of unelected people who are only beholden to those politicians who appointed them, and those politicians being able to be owned by the largest infrastructure owners, won't lead to Net Neutrality.

Telecom: Still working on reassembling vertically into three large companies that act like they compete, what Judge Greene tore apart horizontally in the mid 80s.
 
N801BH said:
WE don't know if that is the document under consideration...... Ma'am..
Click to expand...
You don't know it's not either. It's the NPRM. Search on the FCC site yourself if you are so curious. I am done. I don't care one way or the other. I just think it's hilarious that a year ago it was going to be a disaster if we didn't have net neutrality and now it's a disaster because we are apparently going to have it.
 
N801BH said:
I will be ObamaCare all over again....:mad2::mad2::mad:....

Pelosi will be very happy......

The bill is passed,,, now we get to see what is in it....

Transparency at its finest...:redface:
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever. Do you realize this is not the SZ?
 
Everskyward said:
You don't know it's not either. It's the NPRM. Search on the FCC site yourself if you are so curious. I am done. I don't care one way or the other. I just think it's hilarious that a year ago it was going to be a disaster if we didn't have net neutrality and now it's a disaster because we are apparently going to have it.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. We don't know. And we want to know so we can make a informed decision.

It's like Jerry McGuire

Show me the Bill Jerry , show me the Bill.

If there is nothing to hide Then show the American people.

What ever happened to post a bill on line for 30 days before a vote.

Ohh those little pesky campaign promises
 
Everskyward said:
You don't know it's not either. It's the NPRM. Search on the FCC site yourself if you are so curious. I am done. I don't care one way or the other. I just think it's hilarious that a year ago it was going to be a disaster if we didn't have net neutrality and now it's a disaster because we are apparently going to have it.
Click to expand...


Only the noobs and the uninitiated in how telecoms really work were clamoring for it. And they were clamoring for the ideal, not thinking about how government implements such things.

AT&T has been around for over 100 years under one name or another. They have lots of practice in managing politics and politicians.

Look back through my old posts on Net Neutrality. See if my story has changed. It was and still is a bad idea to have another layer of reactant attempting (and guaranteed failing) involved.

I've worked for multiple telecoms. We were "regulated". We'd get letters saying "Thou shalt provide service to area X". We had whole departments of people who's job was to send back letters saying things like, "No cable installed there and no plans to expand capacity this year" when it was unprofitable to do so.

We passed every last dime of hiring those people and maintaining the computer systems to track all the regulator stuff right straight back to the customers. We even charged for copies of the documents kept in that system to pay for it. Regulators said that was fine.

They understand mountains of paperwork and busywork that accomplishes absolutely nothing, are expensive systems to maintain. It's essentially what they also did for a living.

All this will do is create a bunch of busywork and paperwork and it won't trigger a single piece of fiber to be laid when some whiny company (Netflix) asks for bigger pipes to distribute an entire season of House of Cards to their subscribers. Their only option will still be to negotiate contacts to install servers closer to the last mile, and those contracts will have new onerous limitations on their ability to seek redress via FCC.

Guaranteed.

Seen it. Been there, done that.

Anyone with insider clue about how telecoms work, laughed and yawned when this "net neutrality" movement started. It's politicians promising things they simply can't deliver, unless they're going to grab a backhoe and start laying fiber.

Having the Commission do it both gives it a sense of legitimacy by putting it one arms length away from bought and paid for politicians, while making damn sure it's only one arms length away so they have someone to blame.

Cue: FCC will say "this is hard! We need a bigger budget!"
 
denverpilot said:
Only the noobs and the uninitiated in how telecoms really work were clamoring for it. And they were clamoring for the ideal, not thinking about how government implements such things.
Click to expand...

What I remember was this...

http://engine.is/wp-content/uploads/Company-Sign-On-Letter.pdf

Signed by some pretty big names.

Nearly 150 Internet firms are banding together to call for more stringent net neutrality regulations on broadband providers.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday, the companies asked federal regulators to reconsider a proposal that critics fear would allow Internet providers to charge for faster, better access to consumers. The list includes Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, along with dozens of other firms that called the prospect of paid fast lanes "a threat to the Internet."

With just a week to go before the Federal Communications Commission meets to consider its proposed new rules for ISPs, the letter represents a late attempt by Silicon Valley to take a stance on the open Internet.
Click to expand...
 
There is a document of well over 300 pages, that has all kinds of things hidden it, just like obamacare, that isn;t available to be examind and debated in the open, BEFORE the clown princes of DC shove it down every person's throat.
I am told the bill has many words in it that can be interpreted widely, just like.....
.... oh yeah... obamacare.

I am told by people much more in touch with the 300 plus pages, than me, that the words allow the FCC to set themselves up as judge and jury over what they call "grievances" with the power to act upon those perceived grievances any way they wish, with out fair warning, trial by jury.

Now we've seen how another federal agency that goes by the initials, IRS treats those groups who dare to disagree with the communist administration and how unwilling the left side of the aisle is to even admit that their actions are illegal, much less that they deserve honest, examination.
 
JoseCuervo said:
That might have been a kick-back infused idea invented by a certain Vice-President from Wyoming who needed to funnel as much money to his company (Halliburton) as possible.

Or, if not invented, certainly escalated.
Click to expand...
well that's quite a set of political blinders you have on there

1. Halliburton is an oil services company, not a security company.
2. Private security companies working in war zones have blossomed under both flavors of american administrations and of virtually all other countries.

IOW there is ample evidence that nothing is done most efficiently by a government entity, not even operating a military
 
JHW said:
well that's quite a set of political blinders you have on there

1. Halliburton is an oil services company, not a security company.
2. Private security companies working in war zones have blossomed under both flavors of american administrations and of virtually all other countries.

IOW there is ample evidence that nothing is done most efficiently by a government entity, not even operating a military
Click to expand...
Actually

KBR is a subsidary of Halliburton and made hundreds of billions in the war supplying and feeding all the soldiers........:yesnod:

http://www.kbr.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top