net neutrality

I thought "net neutrality" had something to do with Switzerland. Man, i am a dumbass

 

Regardless of how I feel about the current or prior president, it's true.

 

My mentor doing what he does best.

 

Exactly--trying to bring back some piss and vinegar back into the site. Using hate usually works.....
Everybody has gotten kind of bland and boring recently.

 

For those of you that are reading/research challenged:

"Classified as an information service, the internet saw staggering growth as government gave it a light regulatory touch. While spawned inside a lab, the cutting edge infrastructure needed to build it out came through the innovative entrepreneurial spirit of risk-takers willing to commit at-risk capital for the opportunity of profit somewhere down the road.

In 2015 the FCC under then-President Obama launched Net Neutrality putting broadband under the same Title II regulatory framework as telephone companies a century earlier. In an open letter that year President Obama wrote; “Today’s FCC decision will protect innovation and create a level playing field for the next generation of entrepreneurs…”

The word innovation doesn’t often come to mind when you’re talking about a regulated utility which is just what the government wanted to achieve with the FCC decision. Leading up to that decision and perhaps influencing its outcome were calls from internet giant Netflix that service suppliers like AT&T and Verizon were throttling delivery of content. (Editor’s note: Verizon owns Yahoo Finance.)

As it turns out, Netflix’s claims from that period may have been fraudulent and self-serving. "

This above comes from the financial pages of an extreme liberal organization--Yahoo. If even they say the traitor Obama was wrong, I will buy into it.

 

Let me summarize. Obama policies are never any good (see Obamacare), internet providers are and always were allowed to make curated internet packages (It just in not marketable in the US) and don't believe the liberal media hype (they're full of it).



From the FCC Chairman:




"For one thing, the Obama Administration itself made clear that curated Internet packages are lawful in the United States under the Commission’s 2015 rules. That’s right: the conduct described in a graphic that is currently being spread around the Internet is currently allowed under the previous Administration’s Title II rules. So, for example, if broadband providers want to offer a $10 a month package where you could only access a few websites like Twitter and Facebook, they can do that today. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out that net neutrality rules don’t prohibit these curated offerings.

So the complaint by Mr. Takei and others doesn’t hold water. They’re arguing that if the plan is adopted, Internet service providers would suddenly start doing something that net-neutrality rules already allow them to do. But the reason that Internet service providers aren’t offering such packages now, and likely won’t offer such packages in the future, is that American consumers by and large don’t want them.

Additionally, as several fact-checkers have pointed out, as part of the European Union, Portugal does have net neutrality regulations! Moreover, the graphic relates to supplemental data plans featuring specific apps that customers could get from one provider, beyond the various unrestricted base plans that provider offered. As one report put it, this example “is pointing to an example that has nothing to do with net neutrality.”

Perhaps the most common criticism is that ending Title II utility-style regulation will mean the end of the Internet as we know it. Or, as Kumail Nanjiani, a star of HBO’s Silicon Valley put it, “We will never go back to a free Internet.”

But here’s the simple truth: We had a free and open Internet for two decades before 2015, and we’ll have a free and open Internet going forward.

Many critics don’t seem to understand that we are moving from heavy-handed regulation to lighttouch regulation, not a completely hands-off approach. We aren’t giving anybody a free pass. We are simply shifting from one-size-fits-all pre-emptive regulation to targeted enforcement based on actual market failure or anticompetitive conduct.

For example, the plan would restore the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, America’s premier consumer protection agency, to police the practices of Internet service providers. And if companies engage in unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to take action. This framework for protecting a free and open Internet worked well in the past, and it will work well again. Chairman Ohlhausen will soon offer further details.

The plan would also empower the Federal Trade Commission to once again police broadband providers’ privacy and data security practices. In 2015, we stripped the Federal Trade Commission of that authority. But the plan would put the nation’s most experienced privacy cop back on the beat. That should be a welcome development for every American who cares about his or her privacy."

 

In a nutshell, "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[2] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.".

 

Turning into a one trick pony Barry.

 

Yeah but it got a response from you asshole!!!
BWahahahahaha!!!

 

You're a moron.

Do you believe that customers would choose an internet provider that slow down or block specific websites?

Answer is no.

That would be bad for business. In a free market they would never succeed. Just like pre 2015, the internet will remain free.

 

You're a whinny socialist imbecile.

 

^^^ Case in point: In 2016, Verizon throttled my school. About a half dozen times. We're going with Lightpath as soon as we get approval.

 

I honestly get the feeling that there are more serious underlying truths to both sides of the "net neutrality" coin than our politically partisan contributors here can conceive.

Simply put, there is obviously more to this story than Obama trying to save the internet, or Trump attempting to overturn it simply because of his desire to axe everything Obama.

Maybe try to knock off the political partisan bull**** and try actually *thinking* for once, as opposed to blindly regurgitating what you read in your media preferences ffs

 

we have had net neutrality ever since al gore invented the internet. north korea does not have net neutrality. russia does not have net neutrality. china does not have net neutrality. you can do the math from there.

i have found that when multi-billion dollar corporations are fighting hard for particular legislation it is usually not because they have the best interests of joe consumer in mind.

 

I have *zero* argument with this statement because the logic cannot be argued, except for maybe the fact that Portugal and other Euro countries have "neutrality" yet obviously "throttle" and provide access packages.

I will go to my original statement (or question): If only AT&T and Comcast are attempting to circumvent existing rules, then why doesn't our government penalize the players, rather than create an entirely new set of laws?

There just appears to be more going on here than what's being reported or regurgitated.

And I had hoped (in vain) that maybe someone with some stronger insight could provide those answers.

 

net neutrality establishes the principal that all data is equal. That was the point of the 2015 FCC classification of broadband as deserving of Title II protection - that broadband is a common carrier and all traffic on it is equal. this is the same classification as that of telephone service. not sure why you singled out ATT and Comcast - all the big ISP's are lobbying hard to have Title II classification thrown out, for obvious reasons.

without it, all kinds of things are possible, such as the obvious (ISP's charging more to stream video, which might affect a site's (like SI) ability to host/stream video, to the not-so-obvious: ISP's filtering or throttling content they deem objectionable (no more porn for you .

 

Ever hear of "Deep State"?? That is a reality, Rock, and absolute reality. Trump will get little done as he promised, simply because of Deep State. As George Orwell said decades ago, the people will never know they have been taken over because their eyes will never lift away from the screen. He was right--it has happened.
A lot of the crap we think is but nothing other than political rhetoric is actually true; Deep State is one, and it is run by self-serving democrats.

 

I use those 2 as examples because Sigmund used them as examples for his argument in favor of net neutrality.

Also, as I understand the situation, Title II protection was administered due to Sigmund's example of AT&T and Comcast attempting to create their own rules. Am I wrong? And if so, then my statement still stands: punish the abusers, new laws are most likely unnecessary.

I can understand why ISP's are now fighting those rules, as the gauntlet has officially been thrown down. It's in their best interests to find out if the government is acting lawfully on this issue, as literally billions of dollars are now at stake.

But FWIW, this seems like a good regulation for consumers...at face value.

But, if net neutrality ends up as a means for ISP's and the government to censor things that they don't like, then maybe the entire industry needs to be reevaluated and a reasonable and prudent set of rules need to be out in place.

 

Barry's got cheerleaders now?

 

yep you said it fren