net neutrality

And they are both wrong.
Net neutrality is not neutral at all--it hands control of USA invented internet to foreign powers. Globalist in nature; surrender. So do not believe anything this "bill" says; obviously a left wing liberal that adores Obama.

 

STFU clownface--you are not even remotely as astute as the real archy.

 

Does Barry's ISP address originate from Russia or something?

 

if the broadband market place was a vibrant and competitive marketplace, that might make sense. but in fact, for most of us, ISP service is at best a duopoly and for many, it's a monopoly.

 

commie pinko lol

 

There's still hope, and a chance, that an exceptionally large solar flare will crisp all our satellites and set us back a few decades.


#9/12

 

I think you meant Corp control vs free market.

 

Cable companies ALREADY throttle access. I know this for a fact, and have fought it a number of times... winning each time. If this kind of regulation of data is endorsed by policy, we'll all lose.

 

This is what I've been hearing from the other side of the coin, but I don't understand.

Is "neutrality" actually keeping the internet the way it already is, or not? If not, what exactly are the changes to be made?

And why hasn't anyone else explained this part yet? Is it a lie, or an inconvenient truth?

 

There are TWO ASPECTS to the issue:
1)political,
2) commercial.

To those with brains, you do not hand over your technology to China, Russia etc, because as we know, they will hack the hell out our government.

Commercial--one can argue that some will benefit more than others, but that remains to be proven.

My view is this--anything, absolutely anything Obama was for, is BAD for the USA in both aspects.

 

Not true, "Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all."

 

def a flat spell around here if this is being talked about. jeebus

 

And the source of that is??? Obama and his minions?? Sounds like it....

 

Yep, def flat spell + post holiday slump. Hope for surf on the horizon though.

 

It's from a website, I think it was obama.com

 

Who says our technology would be sold to Russia, China or Europe? And how exactly is that maintaining the status quo?

And if it were indeed "sold" to a foreign entity, what guarantees would Americans receive that our internet wouldn't look like Billdrit's European example above?

Seriously, none of what has been explained up to this point is the full and complete answer, and leaves nothing but more questions.

Maybe if someone could explain everything without deference to their political party preference, the real truth could be discovered.

 

Also, Siggy has provided some unconfirmed examples of abuse. So fine them, thump them and move on, if true.

Also, if true, why replace the entire engine when only 2 wheels (AT&T, Comcast) are causing the problem? Seems like a lot of political posturing and just general overkill.

 

This is off topic on a buried thread, but this type of thinking is the cause of a lot of problems with our government (and it works both ways from both sides of the aisle). If people would have a more open mind about their convictions (and who they vote for), our country would be much better off.

 

.

 

Spoken like a true apologist for an asshole president. So what does that make you?? Likewise.