No. of Recommendations: 1
Wow. What a dizzying intellect you imagine you have.

Not my fault that it's 8 to 1 here on PA, and that some of us are more than up for the challenge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That is as stupid as anything I've ever read. Just when I think stupid can't be pushed any further you raise the bar.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That’s more silly invective coming from someone whose entire posting history is nothing but the same.

Please leaving arguing to the others. It’s not what you’re hear for.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
With your record for banality your criticizing me.

LOL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Again, you’re not here to discuss the issues. It’s just not going to come easily for you.

BTW. Thanks for proving my point. You can’t argue any facts, all you can do is pound the table.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"That is as stupid as anything I've ever read. Just when I think stupid can't be pushed any further you raise the bar."

He's just re-posting the idiotic "arguments" shoveled out by some crackpot website. You think he thought all this up himself?

I especially liked this part:

"What scares the left about a free internet is the ocean of free flowing information that’s made available. An ocean unfettered by left wing filtration or control. That’s a desperately frightening thing for the left, whose influence is solely predicated on the ability to shut down differing opinions and thoughts."

Anyone who can believe that is a full-on cult member who has abandoned any pretense of having a functioning brain. This assertion is precisely the opposite of the truth. No need to argue further. Anyone who can type that out and post it is beyond help.

But I wouldn't call it as stupid as anything I've ever read. Just go to the wingnuts' "arguments" against climate science. You really can't get dumber than that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
Thanks for proving my point. You can’t argue any facts, all you can do is pound the table.
------------------------------------------------------------

Why would anyone want to engage you about anything when everything you post is so warped by blind hatred of liberals that you're incapable of having a rational discussion? Reading one of your posts is like watching a crack-addled hamster tear through a pile of carrots.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
Net neutrality was and is about increasing the government’s control over the private sector. It’s about creating a system of enforced outcomes, a system that inevitably chokes off growth and eventually, new voices.

Right. Because the internet hasn't grown at all since 2010. No new services have been created. There haven't been fortunes made and lost in the last 7 years by free people investing in winners and occasionally losers, which is what happens in a free market where upstarts can stake a claim at the feet of the giants, because they're playing from the same deck of cards.


What scares the left about a free internet is the ocean of free flowing information that’s made available. An ocean unfettered by left wing filtration or control. That’s a desperately frightening thing for the left, whose influence is solely predicated on the ability to shut down differing opinions and thoughts.

Right, because there has been such a regime of left wing filtration and control. Where, praytell, is this left-wing filtration and control manifest? Surely you have evidence that it's happening. Where is the evidence of this thing which you're so sure is happening? Hint, some nutjob getting a lifetime ban from TMF doesn't count.

So you've paid for some imagined 'security' from your imaginary "left wing filtration and control" with your REAL liberty to enjoy an internet free of ACTUAL filtration and control. Because that's what the rollback does, it makes that filtration and control possible by the people who have a profit motive (and conceivably a political motive) to do so. Obama's Net Neutrality was making it EASIER to be some unhinged right-wing nutjob on the internet. Without Net Neutrality, corporations like Verizon or Comcast could very well take up a cause to shut down Red State or PJMedia or InfoWars on general principles of good taste. This prospect should horrify you. But what's more likely is that they'll bed down with FOX and Sinclair and whatever other media conglomerate will carry their political water, for which they'll show their appreciation by throttling back visitors to the Washington Post and live streams of CSPAN and internet traffic from academic institutions. You're totally cool with this kind of filtration and control, never mind that such corporate "fettering" is, of course, being aided and abetted by the government. Just what you wanted, right? A fascist government picking winners and losers and all that.


“Some cable provider might throttle my content” is not an argument. It’s a hypothetical.

And it's now a possibility thanks to the rollback of NN. And the dupes, of course. Can't vote in the fascists without 'em.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Again, thanks for proving the point.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Right. Because the internet hasn't grown at all since 2010.

That'd be a fine comeback, if in fact it was what I said. But I didn't say that, making this a strawman.

Right, because there has been such a regime of left wing filtration and control. Where, praytell, is this left-wing filtration and control manifest? Surely you have evidence that it's happening. Where is the evidence of this thing which you're so sure is happening? Hint, some nutjob getting a lifetime ban from TMF doesn't count.

Actually I was thinking of the days when the nation got its news from Uncle Walter Cronkite and there was no questioning its veracity. Nowadays there are just too many sources for that same level of tightness in message discipline.

So you've paid for some imagined 'security' from your imaginary "left wing filtration and control" with your REAL liberty to enjoy an internet free of ACTUAL filtration and control. Because that's what the rollback does, it makes that filtration and control possible by the people who have a profit motive (and conceivably a political motive) to do so.

Oh, boy. I covered this.
If I as a consumer WANT to stream Bernie Sanders speeches until my eyes bleed, I can do so. What ISP is going to stop me? Under the free market, I'll go somewhere else if I'm not satisfied with the service that I receive as a result of my *paying* for it.

Obama's Net Neutrality was making it EASIER to be some unhinged right-wing nutjob on the internet. Without Net Neutrality, corporations like Verizon or Comcast could very well take up a cause to shut down Red State or PJMedia or InfoWars on general principles of good taste.

Really? And how will they do that, pray tell? Let's say Comcast decides that Buzzfeed and HuffPost are nothing more than left wing shill sites and since Comcast is evidently the Most Evil Place On Earth, surely they would want to cut off those paragons of web virtue.

What happens then? Think people might just switch services? Of course they will.

Without Net Neutrality, corporations like Verizon or Comcast could very well take up a cause to shut down Red State or PJMedia or InfoWars on general principles of good taste. This prospect should horrify you. But what's more likely is that they'll bed down with FOX and Sinclair and whatever other media conglomerate will carry their political water, for which they'll show their appreciation by throttling back visitors to the Washington Post and live streams of CSPAN and internet traffic from academic institutions. You're totally cool with this kind of filtration and control, never mind that such corporate "fettering" is, of course, being aided and abetted by the government. Just what you wanted, right? A fascist government picking winners and losers and all that.

"Throttling back"? Again, I covered this. You're not making an argument; you're posing a hypothetical and running with it. The two aren't the same.

And beyond that, okay, let's humor your hypothetical and lay it alongside what I typed (and what everyone in this thread is studiously ignoring): If I pay for GbE internet it means my provider is obligated to do their best to get me 1,000Mb/s. Now I want to stream Bernie Sanders extolling the virtues of Bolivarian Socialism in the US. Why would I tolerate anything less than Feelin' the Bern in all its 4k glory? Because I'm paying for it. If eeeevil Comcast doesn't want me to watch it, then I...

...go someplace else. You think there aren't left wing ISP's? Are you aware of what Google is digging into the ground all over the US?

Sorry, but your post is really not any different from Waynezero or the goofster: You're just packaging the same invective in a slightly friendlier way.

Who's next? Surely one liberal on this board can mount a decent defense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
If I as a consumer WANT to stream Bernie Sanders speeches until my eyes bleed, I can do so. What ISP is going to stop me?

Yours can now. Any of them can. Thats kind of the point. All they have to do is let you know. Think small print inserts in your bill - "Oh, we've decided that you can't watch porn anymore. Unless you pay a premium." Oh, and the GOP Congress has already made it OK fo them to keep track of where you go.

Under the free market, I'll go somewhere else if I'm not satisfied with the service that I receive as a result of my *paying* for it.

Do you not realize that in many places there are only 1 or 2 available service providers? You seem to not understand that. And what of they all decide to slow or block services you want?

They can do that now.

Your "*paying* for it" may not have much effect on them since they are now free to monetize their services by promoting or demoting certain web sites, or certain services based on whether or how much they are willing to pay up. Your monthly payment may pale in comparison.

Haven't you wondered why these companies have lobbied so hard, and spent so much money trying to make this happen?

If I pay for GbE internet it means my provider is obligated to do their best to get me 1,000Mb/s. Now I want to stream Bernie Sanders extolling the virtues of Bolivarian Socialism in the US. Why would I tolerate anything less than Feelin' the Bern in all its 4k glory? Because I'm paying for it.

Actually, they are no longer obligated as you think. They can choose to slow down BernieTV or TrumpTrashTV if they want to.

If eeeevil Comcast doesn't want me to watch it, then I...

...go someplace else.


Like you said, Oh boy. If your neighborhood has an accommodating provider, you are home free. There may not be one. But now you are suggesting that, rather than require the provider to just provide you internet access equally, you think it good that we now will have to jump to an alternative provider, assuming one is available where you live - whenever they introduce some new restriction that you don't want. Seriously? Again, what happens if you cant find one that provides you the service you want? Before this ruling, they had to provide you access equally. Now they don't.

This really isn't hard.

You guys want to trust that companies will do the right thing in their quest for profits. Sure. What could go wrong?

This ruling is a huge mistake.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yours can now. Any of them can. Thats kind of the point. All they have to do is let you know. Think small print inserts in your bill - "Oh, we've decided that you can't watch porn anymore. Unless you pay a premium." Oh, and the GOP Congress has already made it OK fo them to keep track of where you go.

"Can now"? Now we return to the days pre-2015 or 2010.

Why didn't they then, when the choices of ISP were even fewer? Answer: they have no reason to. You guys are inventing a problem that doesn't exist, hence the hypothetical that all of you keep going back to.

And so I'll keep going back to this: If I'm paying for my internet, and my ISP decides I can't view X or Y on the internet, then I can change providers.

Do you not realize that in many places there are only 1 or 2 available service providers? You seem to not understand that. And what of they all decide to slow or block services you want?

Oh, so now you're arguing two more hypotheticals:

(1) What if my ISP decides to act as a predatory monopoly?
(2) What if my 2 ISP's decide to start colluding to the detriment of their end consumer?

The answer to both your potential future, i.e. hypothetical situations is that the FTC would step in. As they can now. As they have since the Sherman Act was passed a century ago.

You'll rejoinder, who's going to sue? Fine. Let's say nobody does. But then again, what stops someone else from stepping in and providing left-wing double awesome interwebs service? All the Bern you can feelz 24/7? Nothing.

Your "*paying* for it" may not have much effect on them since they are now free to monetize their services by promoting or demoting certain web sites, or certain services based on whether or how much they are willing to pay up. Your monthly payment may pale in comparison.


"Promoting" web sites? How does an ISP do that? What Comcast direct interface am I using right now to surf the web? (Answer: I'm not). If I type "Google.com" and search "Bernie Sanders forever", I get this in return:

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=H2Q0WuuWJ43aj...

Seems to work just fine. Now what if, say, the search engine page promotes or demotes content? (Like say, Google already does).

The ISP needs to supply me the bandwidth I'm paying for. If they can't, I go someplace else.

Actually, they are no longer obligated as you think. They can choose to slow down BernieTV or TrumpTrashTV if they want to.

Again, why?
What possible reason would they have? I'm paying for fast internet. I shall therefore have, fast internet.

Feel that Bern. All the way in 4k, baby.

Like you said, Oh boy. If your neighborhood has an accommodating provider, you are home free. There may not be one. But now you are suggesting that, rather than require the provider to just provide you internet access equally, you think it good that we now will have to jump to an alternative provider, assuming one is available where you live - whenever they introduce some new restriction that you don't want. Seriously? Again, what happens if you cant find one that provides you the service you want? Before this ruling, they had to provide you access equally. Now they don't.

Erm, then another company jumps in.
This isn't that hard. These "equal access" arguments are specious. If you guys were all about equal access, you'd be up in arms over the page rank manipulation that Google routinely engages in. So that part of the "argument" (again, it's not really, as ALL of you return to the same hypothetical) is a red herring.

Next!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The ISPs contributed a ton of money for the removal of NN - how do you think they'll be that money back? Here are some peeks at things they've already been caught doing:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-redundancy-duplication-...

You know what'd serve the ISPs right? Do like some cities have and provide internet service as a utility.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here's where your link goes:
"People are ripping Trump for a White House statement with a blindingly obvious flaw"

What's this have to do with net neutrality?

BTW, as I've said in the past: If you want net neutrality done the right way, lefties should get Congressional democrats to write a bill. I've noticed not a single liberal has ever proposed any such legislation, preferring instead to use the Obama approach of legislating through the federal bureaucracy instead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
129 million Americans only have one option for broadband internet service in their area, which equals about 40 percent of the country.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjdjd4/100-millio...

Will ISPs throttle providers like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video unless extra fees are paid by the companies, consumers, or both?

Will ISPs begin blocking certain merchants' websites unless they pay a premium?

Will ISPs offer exclusivity agreements where a merchant can enter into a contract to be the sole local provider of a service?

Will ISPs block their own competitors? (For example, an ISP offering a VOIP product might block Vonage, MagicJack, and other VOIP providers.

Things could get really wild and given that the above all offer revenue to the ISP (at consumer expense, of course). Fortunately, the FTC has some say in all this and may offer consumers some ray of hope. Let's hope they do as the FCC has been bought and sold. In the meantime:

On Thursday, as the Federal Communications Commission was abolishing net neutrality, a conservative website produced a video intended to explain why it thinks net neutrality isn't all that important to internet freedom. That video immediately drew controversy, however, as it featured FCC Chair Ajit Pai dancing alongside an apparent Pizzagate conspiracy theory.
https://www.bustle.com/p/this-net-neutrality-video-with-ajit...

In a move not so much ironic as tragically stupid, the video used music without getting permission and now face legal action.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
129 million Americans only have one option for broadband internet service in their area, which equals about 40 percent of the country.

Nice try, but false on its face. Both Verizon and AT&T cover well more than 95% of the country:
https://www.androidcentral.com/what-are-coverage-maps-us-car...

Will ISPs throttle providers like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video unless extra fees are paid by the companies, consumers, or both?

Yet another series of hypotheticals. If I'm streaming HDR video from Amazon Prime, how much bandwidth do I need?

How much of the data pipe are all those services you mention allowed to consume? And if the answer is >100% of the available data pipe, who gets to pay for making it bigger?

Next!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Internet Pioneers and Leaders Tell the FCC: You Don’t Understand How the Internet Works

Internet creators and leading figures ask the FCC to cancel its vote repealing Net Neutrality protections


Below this is a letter by some technology industry heavyweights. Here are some excerpts:

We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the Internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood.

This proposed Order would repeal key network neutrality protections that prevent Internet access providers from blocking content, websites and applications, slowing or speeding up services or classes of service, and charging online services for access or fast lanes to Internet access providers’ customers. The proposed Order would also repeal oversight over other unreasonable discrimination and unreasonable practices, and over interconnection with last-mile Internet access providers. The proposed Order removes long-standing FCC oversight over Internet access providers without an adequate replacement to protect consumers, free markets and online innovation.

It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order dismantles 15 years of targeted oversight from both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet.
[Note: some portions changed to bold font for emphasis - that's my doing, not theirs]

So who signed it? Only:

Frederick J. Baker, IETF Chair 1996-2001, ISOC Board Chair 2002-2006
Mitchell Baker, Executive Chairwoman, Mozilla Foundation
Steven M. Bellovin, Internet pioneer, FTC Chief Technologist, 2012-2013
Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web & professor, MIT
John Borthwick, CEO, Betaworks
Scott O. Bradner, Internet pioneer
Vinton G. Cerf, Internet pioneer
Stephen D. Crocker, Internet pioneer
Whitfield Diffie, inventor of public-key cryptography
David J. Farber, Internet pioneer, FCC Chief Technologist 1999-2000
Dewayne Hendricks, CEO Tetherless Access
Martin E. Hellman, Internet security pioneer
Brewster Kahle, Internet pioneer, founder, Internet Archive
Susan Landau, cybersecurity expert & professor, Tufts University
Theodor Holm Nelson, hypertext pioneer
David P. Reed, Internet pioneer
Jennifer Rexford, Chair of Computer Science, Princeton University
Ronald L. Rivest, co-inventor of RSA public-key encryption algorithm
Paul Vixie, Internet pioneer
Stephen Wolff, Internet pioneer
Steve Wozniak, co-founder, Apple Computer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here's the link so that everyone can read the letter in its entirety and Dope can correct these industry experts on a point-by-point basis:

https://pioneersfornetneutrality.tumblr.com/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now you're issuing Appeal to Authority fallacies. Sheesh. Do you have anything to add, or are you just spamming this thread?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And again with the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Good grief.

Can't anyone mount a credible defense?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And LOL at this letter. Geez, what a painful read. The first 18 or so pages goes on and on about network connectivity and it doesn't get much better from there.

Let's examine one claim in particular, since I referenced it earlier:

Third, in 2012, AT&T chose to block data sent to and from users of Apple’s Facetime software.81 In particular, AT&T announced in August of 2012 that only certain, more expensive data plans would be able to use Facetime, acknowledging explicitly that “the company was using it as a lever to get users to switch over to the new plans which charge for data usage in tiers.”82 In other words, customers were forced to pay more to AT&T to send or receive certain types of data, based on a business decision by AT&T.

I remember 2012 and AT&T.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/17/att-starting-natio...
Seems they wanted to move FaceTime over to their wireless networks.

So far, activation of the service has been verified in parts of New York, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, California and Hawaii. Voice and video quality is nearly on a par with the Wi-Fi implementation of the service, suggesting AT&T is not throttling those subscribers who choose to use the feature while on the go.

Bbbbbut
While FaceTime over cellular debuted in iOS 6, AT&T limited access to Mobile Share plan subscribers and LTE device owners with a tiered plan. The telecom began expanding support for FaceTime in November 2012, with the shift initially including a few users with grandfathered unlimited data plans. The carrier later limited the service to those with tiered data plans.


So in other words, AT&T needed to prepare its networks for the additional traffic, and did so. In other words, they responded to their customer demand and got FaceTime working across both LTE and Wifi.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reading one of your posts is like watching a crack-addled hamster tear through a pile of carrots.

Wayne.... that was good.... that was very good.

Will have to remember that one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And another one proves the point.

Just how many emails did you folks get *telling* you to be outraged about net neutrality?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reading one of your posts is like watching a crack-addled hamster tear through a pile of carrots.

Wayne.... that was good.... that was very good.

Will have to remember that one.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're not recognizing dog whistle racism. Remember ghetto crack babies and Hillary's super predators?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This thread is a study in how this forum works.

Well reasoned, fact based posts are met with consistent personal attacks, and little of substance.

If the PA Left is ABLE to engaged in reasoned discourse, why does it choose not to?


VQ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The ISP needs to supply me the bandwidth I'm paying for. If they can't, I go someplace else.

No they don't. With net neutrality gone your ISP controls the speed at which edge providers can bring their content to you. And if they want speeds fast enough to stream movies & YouTube they will have to pay. That means you will start to pay for the fast lane. And we are already paying for the content and the internet. Just add another charge please we haven't paid enough. Those little guys that can't pay will have their content painfully slowed and it will be as good as inaccessible. Do you love sitting around watching the spinning wheel of death buffer every 10 seconds?

A big swathe of consumers are getting internet from a monopoly. There is no going to another ISP if you don't like yours. This gives them monopolistic powers over the product and VZ and T and Comcast have already shown a willingness to bear down on competitors when they choose to. Face Time and BitTorrent are two examples

And if you think slowing down your particular favorite edge provider is a simple matter of definition guess again. If you have ever had HughesNet and been fapped or waited on dialup to load a page then you may get a little clearer idea of how your access can be sent back to speeds not seen since the 90's

Net


Neutrality


may



be




all



that



stands



between





you



and.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................this
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Yours can now. Any of them can. Thats kind of the point. All they have to do is let you know. Think small print inserts in your bill - "Oh, we've decided that you can't watch porn anymore. Unless you pay a premium." Oh, and the GOP Congress has already made it OK fo them to keep track of where you go."

"Can now"? Now we return to the days pre-2015 or 2010.

Yes they can do that now. The rules were put in place to make sure they wouldn't. Now they can. Pretty simple.

Why didn't they then, when the choices of ISP were even fewer? Answer: they have no reason to. You guys are inventing a problem that doesn't exist, hence the hypothetical that all of you keep going back to.

Nice that you answer your own questions, but you're usually wrong - as you are in this case. There are two big factors at work here. One his that technology exists today to make it much easier to throttle certain types of traffic based of wide variety of criteria. It was more difficult and more expensive even just a few years ago. The second is that there is much more money on the table, and many more platforms for which the ISP can monetize how they influence your internet traffic. In short, they now have product in hand, and a ready market to sell it to.

And so I'll keep going back to this: If I'm paying for my internet, and my ISP decides I can't view X or Y on the internet, then I can change providers.

As I noted before, you may not have many choices, and none of them may give you what you want. Now, thanks to the GOPers at the FCC, that's just too bad for you. No one has to play nice.

"Do you not realize that in many places there are only 1 or 2 available service providers? You seem to not understand that. And what of they all decide to slow or block services you want?"

Oh, so now you're arguing two more hypotheticals:

(1) What if my ISP decides to act as a predatory monopoly?


Not hypothetical. There is nothing to stop them from doing so, and they have every incentive to do so now.

(2) What if my 2 ISP's decide to start colluding to the detriment of their end consumer?

Colluding?

The answer to both your potential future, i.e. hypothetical situations is that the FTC would step in. As they can now. As they have since the Sherman Act was passed a century ago.

You seem to be missing something. The FCC just gave them permission. They can monitor your traffic, sell information about what you are doing, and choose to block or slowdown whatever they want. The FTC would have no basis to say anything about any of that.

You'll rejoinder, who's going to sue? Fine. Let's say nobody does. But then again, what stops someone else from stepping in and providing left-wing double awesome interwebs service? All the Bern you can feelz 24/7? Nothing.

I have no idea what any of that means.

"Your "*paying* for it" may not have much effect on them since they are now free to monetize their services by promoting or demoting certain web sites, or certain services based on whether or how much they are willing to pay up. Your monthly payment may pale in comparison."

"Promoting" web sites? How does an ISP do that?

Easy. Slow down everything but what they want to promote. Have search engines insert their preferred sites above yours, or not even display yours at all.

What Comcast direct interface am I using right now to surf the web? (Answer: I'm not)

Glad you answered your own question again.

The ISP needs to supply me the bandwidth I'm paying for. If they can't, I go someplace else.

No, they don't. And again, you may have limited choices.

What possible reason would they have?

$$$

"I'm paying for fast internet. I shall therefore have, fast internet.

Limited as your ISP sees fit. You will have what they want you to have, but what they wish for you to have access to they will grant at the speed you are paying for. Is any of this beginning to sink in?

"Like you said, Oh boy. If your neighborhood has an accommodating provider, you are home free. There may not be one. But now you are suggesting that, rather than require the provider to just provide you internet access equally, you think it good that we now will have to jump to an alternative provider, assuming one is available where you live - whenever they introduce some new restriction that you don't want. Seriously? Again, what happens if you cant find one that provides you the service you want? Before this ruling, they had to provide you access equally. Now they don't."

Erm, then another company jumps in.

Erm, what if they don't? In many cities, access to new providers is limited. They can't just 'jump in' if the city does not allow it. And they may have monetary incentives to prevent that, or contractual obligations that limits their actions.

Your endless trust in big companies to provide what you expect and/or do the right thing is touching. But the history of unfettered capitalism without regulation is littered with a great deal of ugliness. There is a reason that the providers have lobbied so hard to get this done. There are many, many rea$on$.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the PA Left is ABLE to engaged in reasoned discourse, why does it choose not to?

Its difficult to have discourse when you folks have your hands clamped firmly over your ears while loudly yelling "La la la la la...".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Erm, I already covered Facetime.

There was no malicious throttling taking place. AT&T instead UPGRADED THEIR NETWORK to serve the demand.

As for this:
your ISP controls the speed at which edge providers can bring their content to you. And if they want speeds fast enough to stream movies & YouTube they will have to pay. That means you will start to pay for the fast lane. And we are already paying for the content and the internet.

If I want to stream Netflix @4k and I’m paying for 1Mb/s internet...

...I’m not going to be able to. On the other hand, if I’m paying for 1Gb/s, then I can. Comcast isn’t going to suddenly slow Netflix to a crawl and have me AND ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS trash their ballyhooed fastest speed setting.

That’d be crazy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes they can do that now. The rules were put in place to make sure they wouldn't. Now they can. Pretty simple.

“They can now” is still a hypothetical.

Nice that you answer your own questions, but you're usually wrong - as you are in this case. There are two big factors at work here. One his that technology exists today to make it much easier to throttle certain types of traffic based of wide variety of criteria.

LOl @this. IP filters have been around for a loooong time. as for me being wrong, sorry. 1. You’re no judge and 2. I’m rarely if ever wrong.

That you don’t like what you read isn’t my fault.

As I noted before, you may not have many choices, and none of them may give you what you want. Now, thanks to the GOPers at the FCC, that's just too bad for you. No one has to play nice.

BlueGrits, while spamming this thread, tried the monopoly argument. It’s false. I showed the coverage maps. 95% of the country has at least two choices for cellular data and the number goes up when you consider fiber, dsl or cable. The monopoly argument doesn’t work.

Not hypothetical. There is nothing to stop them from doing so, and they have every incentive to do so now.


Wrong. Go look up the Sherman act and revisit what the FTC does. You’re forgetting we have laws on the books already.

You seem to be missing something. The FCC just gave them permission. They can monitor your traffic, sell information about what you are doing, and choose to block or slowdown whatever they want. The FTC would have no basis to say anything about any of that.

“Permission”? Sorry, that’s just wrong. The FtC is the Federal Trade Commission and has statutory jurisdiction in trade and insterstate commerce.

The FCC actually doesn’t have much statutory control over the internet which is why Obama had to do his (usual) bureaucratic power grab.

Easy. Slow down everything but what they want to promote. Have search engines insert their preferred sites above yours, or not even display yours at all.

“Have search engines”? Also wrong. Comcast doesn’t tell Google what to do. Or Microsoft.

If you hate search engines promoting one site over another then you must really hate Google. Wonder why you never comment on them.

No, they don't. And again, you may have limited choices.

So they don’t have to provide me the bandwidth I’m paying for? That’s funny. I’ve also covered the limited choices thing 3 times. It’s false.

Limited as your ISP sees fit. You will have what they want you to have, but what they wish for you to have access to they will grant at the speed you are paying for. Is any of this beginning to sink in?

What’s sinking is that literally no one on this board has been able to cite any real harm. You’re just repeating the same illogical hypothetical over and over again.

Honestly, you’re not saying anything new here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Its difficult to have discourse when you folks have your hands clamped firmly over your ears while loudly yelling "La la la la la...".

Erm, no.
That’s actually the opposite of what’s happened in this thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
What’s sinking is that literally no one on this board has been able to cite any real harm.

Yet they have, multiple times. You just keep stamping your foot and shouting “No it isn’t”.

You’re just repeating the same illogical hypothetical over and over again.

That describes what you have been doing. The reality is that most people don’t want this, but the right has succeeded in making it happen anyway. Let’s see what happens over the next few years. The FCC chairman has predicted great innovation and lower prices for consumers as a result of this stupidity.

My prediction is that prices for internet services will stay the same or go up, service complaints will go up, privacy will be decreased, and quality of service will go down. The service providers will experience increased revenue. In other words, the public good will not be served. Corporations will benefit. The pace of innovation will be unaffected.

We’ll see.

Much like the tax cuts for the rich, this was wholly unnecessary and will benefit only a few. Such is the pattern of the efforts of the right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I’m rarely if ever wrong. -dope

LOL. Funniest post of day. There’s a mountain of evidence here to the contrary. You rarely - I suspect never - *think* you are wrong. But that’s not the same thing at all.

Not. At. All.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yet they have, multiple times. You just keep stamping your foot and shouting “No it isn’t”.

No, they haven't. You may stop with the accusations now.

That describes what you have been doing. The reality is that most people don’t want this, but the right has succeeded in making it happen anyway

Given the postings on this topic and comments made by left wingers in the media, I'd say most people don't really know what it's about. Witness this guy
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neu...

He responded to Velshi’s argument that repealing net neutrality might freeze out startups, reminding him that new tech companies like Facebook were created well before 2015.
“So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act,” McDowell said. “Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015.”
“What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent,” he continued. “We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I’ve spoken with says…the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.”


Now I don't know about his claim about the 18% reduction in infrastructure spending (companies are gearing up to switch to 5G right now), but the other statements are absolutely true. We have laws on the books already. Actual laws, passed by Congress and signed by a President. Which is the way it's supposed to be done.

(By the way, saying "most people don't want this" is an bandwagon fallacy, if that wasn't clear).

As for your prediction, I'll predict this: the internet will move along as it has since the mid-90's, now free of the threat of the government to swoop in and start messing with it.

Such is the pattern of the efforts of the right.

Now I have to start a thread on the tax bill since the details are out, just to take on 8 or nine more of you at once. That's a fair intellectual ratio, 8 or so libs against 1 of me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There’s a mountain of evidence here to the contrary.

You and some others stamping your feet doesn't amount to much of anything, but keep telling yourself that it does. BTW thanks for (largely) keeping it civil. Rare these days.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's a fair intellectual ratio, 8 or so libs against 1 of me.

Wow. What a dizzying intellect you imagine you have.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wow. What a dizzying intellect you imagine you have.

Not my fault that it's 8 to 1 here on PA, and that some of us are more than up for the challenge.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I honestly don’t understand why any one individual would be FOR getting rid of the net neutrality rules. But I am often surprised here...

Here is a little of what some here are completely missing;
...

Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Amazon wield immense control over how we interact with others, get our entertainment, consume news, and shop. Chances are if you experience something online, you're likely doing it through or by way of one of those Big Tech companies.

Those companies' power has grown almost unabated, thanks in large part due to the open nature of the internet. Now, the end of regulations designed to keep the internet open are likely to cement their dominance.

The net neutrality provisions barred broadband providers from block, slowing, or giving preferred treatment to particular sites and services. The repeal of those rules will allow the providers to do things they basically haven't been able to do before, which will likely mean fewer choices and higher prices for you and me.

But the ending of the rules likely won't just mean added costs for consumers; it's also likely to mean new fees for internet companies. In the absence of the net-neutrality provisions, one of the things broadband providers will likely attempt is to charge internet companies tolls to send their web pages or stream their videos to the providers' customers.

Ironically, this could be good news for Big Tech.

...

More at the link for those who are interested

http://www.businessinsider.com/fccs-net-neutrality-repeal-wi...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
“Wow. What a dizzying intellect you imagine you have.”

Not my fault that it's 8 to 1 here on PA, and that some of us are more than up for the challenge.

I think it is healthy to fantasize, but only if you don’t take it too far. Unhealthy when you start believing your own fantasies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wow. And here you were doing so well keeping it largely civil.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The repeal of those rules will allow the providers to do things they basically haven't been able to do before, which will likely mean fewer choices and higher prices for you and me.

This is the same exact hypothetical that's been repeated 10 times in this thread. Repeating it 11 times more doesn't change the fact that if you want Net Neutrality you should get Congress to pass a proper law instead of having liberal bureaucrats try to shoehorn the internet into a 1930's-era law meant for the telephones.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The repeal of those rules will allow the providers to do things they basically haven't been able to do before, which will likely mean fewer choices and higher prices for you and me."

"This is the same exact hypothetical that's been repeated 10 times in this thread. Repeating it 11 times more..."

It isn't hypothetical. They CAN do those things now. Period.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
> If eeeevil Comcast doesn't want me to watch it, then I...
> ...go someplace else.

That of course assumes you even figure out that it is the ISP provider that is slowing down your service, and not just that the service you are trying to get is over loaded.
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement