for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: Net Neutrality thread: big news!!!

NoPeanutz : 2/25/2015 9:06 am
Yesterday, Republican opposition in Congress folded in the face of popular support for Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality means that your ISP (Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, TWC, etal) is prohibited from charging different rates to visit certain websites, or charging websites to get faster delivery over an ISPs network. The NN movement wants the FCC to treat broadband Internet like a public utility (called "Title II") to maintain equal access among the sites that Internet users can visit and publish.

NYTimes:
Quote:
Republicans hoped to pre-empt the F.C.C. vote with legislation, but Senate Democrats insisted on waiting until after Thursday’s F.C.C. vote before even beginning to talk about legislation for an open Internet. Even Mr. Thune, the architect of draft legislation to override the F.C.C., said Democrats had stalled what momentum he could muster.


This is big for two reasons:

1) Although nothing is yet set in stone, NN may be preserved in some form, without some raidcal hair-brained overhaul to 'enhance' the free Internet.

2) Popular support (with 11th hour help from Silicon Valley) beat beack a major industrial lobby on the Hill in favor of consumers and entrepreneurs. A rare occurrence, to say the least.

More from the Times:
Quote:
In mid-October, the tech activist group Fight for the Future acquired the direct telephone numbers of about 30 F.C.C. officials, circumventing the agency’s switchboard to send calls directly to policy makers. That set off a torrent of more than 55,000 phone calls until the group turned off the spigot on Dec. 3.

In November, President Obama cited “almost four million public comments” when he publicly pressured the F.C.C. to turn away from its paid “fast lane” proposal and embrace a new regulatory regime.

Since then, the lobbying has grown only more intense. Last week, 102 Internet companies wrote to the F.C.C. to say the threat of Internet service providers “abusing their gatekeeper power to impose tolls and discriminate against competitive companies is the real threat to our future,” not “heavy-handed regulation” and possible taxation, as conservatives in Washington say.


Here, Consumerist blog breaks down, in Comcast's own words, why NN needs to be preserved. In short, Cable companies, who enjoy monopoly status in many markets, are experiencing troubling trends in their overpriced and subpar tv service, including falling revenues and subscribers despite raising prices. They can only raise prices so much, and need an unregulated monopolized Internet in order to be able to raise revenues from their broadband-only subscribers.

Consumerist: 2 charts from Comcast show why NN is vital - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: 'How does that foster competition?'  
BeerFridge : 2/26/2015 12:08 pm : link
In comment 12153877 schabadoo said:
Quote:
I agree, to really foster competition they should be forced to wholesale the lines, like with phones.


The problem with that is that it is a huge disincentive to putting money into the infrastructure.
No. ISPs are a natural monopoly.  
NoPeanutz : 2/26/2015 12:08 pm : link
Like other utilities, such as telephone, power, etc. So maybe they should be regulated like other utilities. Why is there anything positive about an unregulated private monopoly?
RE: well all the access nerds are having a come-apart  
bbfanva : 2/26/2015 12:27 pm : link
In comment 12153838 Bake54 said:
Quote:
but I worry about the other issues embedded in the rule. The headline benefit is making all these people have orgasms but the rest of the rule is where the scariness resides. Let us see it.

How many of you would be happy if the FCC wrote itself the ability to filter content?


It might have already done so because nobody has been allowed to see the regulations that are blindly being imposed on the country.
RE: And again  
BMac : 2/26/2015 12:34 pm : link
In comment 12153531 buford said:
Quote:
if this new law is so wonderful, why not release the details?


Whoever said it was "wonderful?" More bloviation.
RE: RE: And again  
BeerFridge : 2/26/2015 12:38 pm : link
In comment 12153969 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12153531 buford said:


Quote:


if this new law is so wonderful, why not release the details?



Whoever said it was "wonderful?" More bloviation.


It's not even a new law. It's a ruling under existing law.
Cable companies refuse to compete with eachother  
Deej : 2/26/2015 12:43 pm : link
They're like the new baby bells. Their children, the cell phone companies, are not a lot better. Its pretty absurd that wireless data is getting MORE expensive.

We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.
I should add  
Deej : 2/26/2015 12:47 pm : link
that the FTC needs to start stepping in across the board to stop all these anti-competitive mergers. There is really no reason that Comcast and TW should be merging after decades of refusing to compete for eachothers customers.
FCC votes in favor of Net Neutrality  
NoPeanutz : 2/26/2015 1:02 pm : link
3-2.
A question...  
River Mike : 2/26/2015 3:05 pm : link
its pretty well established that most of the world, certainly Europe, Japan, etc. have superior, faster, and cheaper broadband, cell and internet service than we do. Am I wrong in assuming that those services are government regulated in those places?
Fuck the providers...  
EricJ : 2/26/2015 3:12 pm : link
it is bullshit when they say they are losing money. They sell air.

I have had Cablevision forever and there is no Fios in my neighborhood. I was one of the first in the area to get Optimum Online. The speeds were fast. Even when everyone else got the product and the traffic increased my speeds were still fast.

Then, they invented a product called "Boost" which was supposed to be faster internet. They invented it one month after they slowed down the speed. So, they basically began to charge people $10 per month for the speed they had one month prior.

Not all of europe  
pjcas18 : 2/26/2015 3:14 pm : link
only specific countries have faster internet than the US. No clue about cheaper.

and there are a lot of reasons some countries have faster internet, for one the US laid the groundwork first, so has the oldest infrastructure. second, many of the countries with faster internet than the US are so small they're like a medium sized state. South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, these are all smaller than Texas (combined), so laying an infrastructure is ridiculously less costly and feasible for smaller geographies.

But places like the UK, Italy, Spain, etc, still have WORSE internet than the US - according to stat about upload and download speed (and latency) as opposed to the US.

So there is a lot of mis-perception out there.
Cheaper, yes. Superior and faster is not as clear.  
BeerFridge : 2/26/2015 3:17 pm : link
.
Link - ( New Window )
RE: Cable companies refuse to compete with eachother  
giants#1 : 2/26/2015 3:22 pm : link
In comment 12153992 Deej said:
Quote:
They're like the new baby bells. Their children, the cell phone companies, are not a lot better. Its pretty absurd that wireless data is getting MORE expensive.

We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.


Wireless data is getting more expensive because:
1) People are using a lot more infrastructure to handle the increased traffic. Any decrease in the base station infrastructure costs that you'd normally see due to the maturing of a technology is more than offset by the need for many more base stations to handle the extra traffic (and higher fees for the sparsely available spectrum)
2) Threads like this that illustrate how dependent many are on their wireless devices and how they feel connectivity is essential. Thus they can charge more
3) Wireless service is basically a duopoly. Too many people stick with (for whatever reason) AT&T/Verizon no matter what. Sprint/T-Mobile and the myriad of tiny providers (Cricket, Ting, etc) offer cheaper options, but many don't want to switch companies.
RE: Cable companies refuse to compete with eachother  
buford : 2/26/2015 4:16 pm : link
In comment 12153992 Deej said:
Quote:
They're like the new baby bells. Their children, the cell phone companies, are not a lot better. Its pretty absurd that wireless data is getting MORE expensive.

We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.


And what happened to all those companies? We wound up with two, Verizon and ATT. And they are mostly dumping hardline for digital. The real revolution is wireless. As soon as people realize they could have a cell phone and didn't need a landline, they dumped it. So the Teleco's are dumping it. I think the same will happen with internet.
RE: RE: Cable companies refuse to compete with eachother  
River Mike : 2/26/2015 4:23 pm : link
In comment 12154318 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 12153992 Deej said:


Quote:


They're like the new baby bells. Their children, the cell phone companies, are not a lot better. Its pretty absurd that wireless data is getting MORE expensive.

We're not there yet, but what will probably happen is a repeat of the Telecom Act of 1996, where the incumbent companies (ILECs) were forced to open up their networks to new companies (CLECs), with rules for payment if no deal was reached between an ILEC and CLEC.



Wireless data is getting more expensive because:
1) People are using a lot more infrastructure to handle the increased traffic. Any decrease in the base station infrastructure costs that you'd normally see due to the maturing of a technology is more than offset by the need for many more base stations to handle the extra traffic (and higher fees for the sparsely available spectrum)
2) Threads like this that illustrate how dependent many are on their wireless devices and how they feel connectivity is essential. Thus they can charge more
3) Wireless service is basically a duopoly. Too many people stick with (for whatever reason) AT&T/Verizon no matter what. Sprint/T-Mobile and the myriad of tiny providers (Cricket, Ting, etc) offer cheaper options, but many don't want to switch companies.


Has nothing to do with not wanting to switch. I want to be able to make calls in and around my area. Often I have a signal with AT&T while others with me that have one of the smaller co.s like sprint or Consumer Cellular can't make a call. I would absolutely love to dump the big guys, if only the little guys could deliver.
Some interesting comments from Mark Cuban  
pjcas18 : 2/26/2015 6:17 pm : link
here.

Quote:
Cuban further said that due to court and regulatory battles that will ensue if the proposed regulations are adopted, innovation online will be halted, declaring “if you love the Internet the way you know it today, this is what you’re going to have for a long time. But, if you’re like me, and you think the best is yet to come, then you don’t the FCC involved because of all the uncertainty.”

Cuban also commented on the transparency regarding of the FCC’s regulation process, sarcastically remarking “lots of transparency, right? Yeah, Lots of transparency.” And “that’s the FCC, that’s the Department of Internet that we’re going to get, no transparency.”



Cuban doesn't like this - ( New Window )
yes The same mark Cuban who is paid millions to make AT&T  
Stu11 : 2/27/2015 1:52 pm : link
commercials? Come on the guy had a superb idea for Real Audio, sold it for billions and is a great businessman. I won't argue that but when it comes to net neutrality he's simply shilling for his corporate sponsor. Bottom line is that this was one of the greatest net roots victories in recent history. There is no hidden agenda here. The hearings and vote were public and as I said in a previous post, the public comments on this issue to the FCC broke all records in the millions.
I don't think there's a hidden agenda  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 1:54 pm : link
I do believe however most (or many) people don't really understand it. And they misunderstand the perceived consumer benefit.

Can you tell me how net neutrality will benefit YOU.

Because not to be selfish, but I only care how it would benefit ME.
Cuban's input is certainly welcome, since he's knowledgeable  
Ten Ton Hammer : 2/27/2015 1:54 pm : link
about this stuff, but it's pretty clear where his interest is in this. He's been fairly well tied in to big telcom.
Well of course  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 2:11 pm : link
I just feel like Cuban's perspective balances out Netflix or Hulu, etc. who don't want to pay for private connections to the ISP's anymore.

not sure why the Netflix or content providers of the world are viewed as having the consumer in mind, but Cuban, etc. have their self in mind.

they all have their own interests in mind.
pjcas not sure who your provider is but due to this decision  
Stu11 : 2/27/2015 2:13 pm : link
you probably won't notice much change at all in the near future which is a good thing. Has NN not been passed by the FCC, telecom companies would have been free to tier services based on deals they cut with companies and sites. As things stand you can pull up your friends tiny little site at the same speeds as any site like ESPN.com with the only change being the content on the site itself slowing the download due to it's technology or bells and whistles. Despite what those in the pockets of the telecoms are touting, the govt. has very little interest in regulating the internet.
"the govt. has very little interest in regulating the internet."  
ctc in ftmyers : 2/27/2015 2:20 pm : link
What happened to online poker? :)
I'm quite sure the gov't barely understands the internet, frankly.  
Ten Ton Hammer : 2/27/2015 2:20 pm : link
To the point though, what we avoided as consumers is your internet service provider having the freedom to tier and price plan the internet down to specific sites.

Just like Optimum has 'broadcast basic' 'gold' 'silver' etc, they'd have applied the same price structure to internet usage.

And they'd have probably also used the ability to control flow of information to squeeze torrenting.

This is just a mock-up made by people talking about the issue. But, anything like this would suck.

Stu11 this is the point I think people are very possibly  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 2:22 pm : link
confusing:

Quote:
As things stand you can pull up your friends tiny little site at the same speeds as any site like ESPN.com with the only change being the content on the site itself slowing the download due to it's technology or bells and whistles.


I believe it could very possibly be that instead of your friends tiny little site being accessed at the same speed as ESPN.com, I believe ESPN.com will now be accessed at the same speed as your friend's tiny little site.

In other words, some people seem to be assuming that no packet prioritization means all packets would be treated to a higher standard, but I'm not so sure. I think it could mean all packets are treated equally at a lower standard.

If the ISPs no longer get the money from the content providers, I don't see how they're going to be expected to provide even them the same level of service.

In the end, we will all pay more for the same or worse level of service.

Or what am I missing? How is an ISP that currently prioritizes streaming content from Netflix or Hulu Plus or Amazon prime, and collects a premium from those content providers to allow them to offer that service level, is expected to not just maintain that level for the streaming content, but also upgrade all other content to that same level.

It will be interesting to see what happens, I'm expecting the worst.
RE: Well of course  
Stu11 : 2/27/2015 2:25 pm : link
In comment 12155796 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I just feel like Cuban's perspective balances out Netflix or Hulu, etc. who don't want to pay for private connections to the ISP's anymore.

not sure why the Netflix or content providers of the world are viewed as having the consumer in mind, but Cuban, etc. have their self in mind.

they all have their own interests in mind.


Fair enough. The difference here is that I could care less what Netflix has to say. I prefer to listen to the over 8 million public comments to the FCC in favor of NN.
What you're missing is that it was already gonna get shittier  
BeerFridge : 2/27/2015 2:30 pm : link
Comcast and the ISPs were pushing for more ability to set up pricing tiers. And because there's no competition and cable companies have near monopoly status for broadband in most places that was going to be bad for consumers and for websites trying to get to consumers. This is an attempt to cut that off.

There was no "keep things awesome the way they were" option because Comcast, Time Warner and VZ were already looking to ditch that. The ISPs were already throttling netflix to extract more money from them and consumers were next.
For the average residential user this is a win  
Stu11 : 2/27/2015 2:36 pm : link
it's hard for anyone reasonable and neutral to dispute that.
I don't mind  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 2:38 pm : link
paying for better service or tiered levels of service. Maybe a bad analogy (and this issue is littered with them) if I want to fly first class I will - and that has no impact on anyone else's coach class trip.

and as for 8M comments, LOL, I'm not listening to any of them and to be clear I'm not listening to Mark Cuban, I said his comments were interesting, and they are.

My POV is people don't really know what they're going to get, yet their ravenous for it.

I do not view this as a democrat vs. republican issue, telco vs content provider issue, for me it's a consumer issue and I don't see how it benefits me, and until I do see that I'm skeptical it will, and in fact the way I conceptualize it, I think it will hurt me.
heh, your assumption that you'd get more than you're currently getting  
BeerFridge : 2/27/2015 2:44 pm : link
wasn't the likely outcome.

It would be tiered access to sites. Bundled in groups like the stupid channels they have for cable.
RE: I don't mind  
Bramton1 : 2/27/2015 3:07 pm : link
In comment 12155857 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
paying for better service or tiered levels of service. Maybe a bad analogy (and this issue is littered with them) if I want to fly first class I will - and that has no impact on anyone else's coach class trip.

and as for 8M comments, LOL, I'm not listening to any of them and to be clear I'm not listening to Mark Cuban, I said his comments were interesting, and they are.

My POV is people don't really know what they're going to get, yet their ravenous for it.

I do not view this as a democrat vs. republican issue, telco vs content provider issue, for me it's a consumer issue and I don't see how it benefits me, and until I do see that I'm skeptical it will, and in fact the way I conceptualize it, I think it will hurt me.


Except at the moment, there were no pricing tiers. We don't even know if there actually would have been. It's purely theoretical. What was not theoretical, however, is that Comcast was throttling Netflix service to their customers until Netflix forked over money for preferred service.

So while you can say you're willing extra for the tiered plans, if a company isn't willing to fold to Comcast's extortion, what you are willing to do won't matter.

So if you have Sunday Ticket to watch the Giants, but can't watch a game on your computer, tablet, or phone without it stopping every 3 seconds because DirecTV didn't pay Comcast for protection ("That's a nice service you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."), there won't be a damn thing you can do.
I'd watch it on my TV  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 3:12 pm : link
like I paid to do. If I could not watch it on a mobile device that requires WIFI, then I wouldn't pay for it, then DTV would be incented to make the necessary agreements to support that. If it weren't economically feasible they wouldn't offer it. That's how capitalism works.

streaming quality internet service is not a right.

and yes this is all theoretical, on both sides of the coin.
RE: I'd watch it on my TV  
Sgrcts : 2/27/2015 3:29 pm : link
In comment 12155913 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
like I paid to do. If I could not watch it on a mobile device that requires WIFI, then I wouldn't pay for it, then DTV would be incented to make the necessary agreements to support that. If it weren't economically feasible they wouldn't offer it. That's how capitalism works.

streaming quality internet service is not a right.

and yes this is all theoretical, on both sides of the coin.


Its a right if you are paying for it- it shouldn't be up to someone else what you have access to and at what speeds based on whether they are paying a fee on top of the one you are paying.

Being against NN is beyond my comprehension. The idea that we are somehow going to throttle innovation because ISP's are forced to treat all sites equally is beyond stupid. The real reason we see no innovation in this country is because ISPs are basically a monopoly. They just want to protect their monopoly and then shaft the consumer into better bottom lines, this does nothing to impact innovation.
How can anyone be  
fireitup77 : 2/27/2015 3:38 pm : link
so for something that they have not even seen. We still have no idea what is in the regulations.
It's not I'm against  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 3:42 pm : link
it, it's that I'm not for it without understanding how it impacts me.

and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.

And to say
Quote:
The real reason we see no innovation in this country
is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.

The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.

I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.
Anything Comcast and the ISP industry is for, I'm against  
baadbill : 2/27/2015 4:53 pm : link
(and vice versa) ... USA has the slowest internet speeds of the modern world ... there is a complete lack of any true competition ... look at what happened when AT&T was finally treated as a utility and broken up into the baby bells - we had competition that benefits consumers to this day.

The bottom line is that Comcast is EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.

It wants to control content. It wants the right to regulate and "sell" internet speed. Fuck that. The internet needs to become a regulated highway like a telephone line - that every provider has access to and every provider then can sell me high speed access (and Comcast can't block Netflix or other TV providers from using the common network to provide TV services - nor can Comcast charge whatever it wants for internet access).

Hooray!
US is 18th  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 5:03 pm : link
in internet speed, and the 17 countries ahead of the US are mostly the size of medium sized states or tiny states meaning infrastructure is easier to layout and maintain.

I have no love for Comcast but I don't know when this passes people are going to magically see super fast internet at the same price or less they pay today.

I think a lot of people could be disappointed.

RE: US is 18th  
baadbill : 2/27/2015 5:11 pm : link
In comment 12156103 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
in internet speed, and the 17 countries ahead of the US are mostly the size of medium sized states or tiny states meaning infrastructure is easier to layout and maintain.

I have no love for Comcast but I don't know when this passes people are going to magically see super fast internet at the same price or less they pay today.

I think a lot of people could be disappointed.


Oh, I think we'll be disappointed because Comcast buys politicians like I buy peanuts. But Comcast is against this regulation, so every thinking American should be for it. It's really not much more difficult than that.
RE: It's not I'm against  
Sgrcts : 2/27/2015 5:51 pm : link
In comment 12155977 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it, it's that I'm not for it without understanding how it impacts me.

and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.

And to say

Quote:


The real reason we see no innovation in this country

is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.

The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.

I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.


I clearly implied there is no innovation in terms of what we are seeing with internet speed. All of the companies you named support NN, so clearly the ones with innovation on their mind are on the same page.
RE: It's not I'm against  
BMac : 2/27/2015 6:01 pm : link
In comment 12155977 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
it, it's that I'm not for it without understanding how it impacts me.

and no one can articulate that without a lot of speculation.

And to say

Quote:


The real reason we see no innovation in this country

is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Google (and Youtube), Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Microsoft (yes, MS), Twitter (with Vine), Instagram, etc. - many more are all American companies and at the forefront of innovation wrt technology.

The common thread you will notice though is they're all investing more in wireless not wired technologies which is where I have the biggest question about how net neutrality will have an impact.

I think anyone who thinks they have all the answers here is a crazy kool-aid drinker. There is a lot of unknown.


But pj, you've been speculating far more than any other participant in this discussion.
Did I?  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 6:04 pm : link
What did I speculate about?

I think all I've done is shown that instead of what people are assuming the opposite could be true as well.

Not speculating it will happen, but pointing out it could and offering an opinion that I think people will be disappointed. If that constitutes speculation - guilty.

Because honestly none of us know.

I prefer to take a wait and see approach.

RE: Did I?  
BMac : 2/27/2015 6:35 pm : link
In comment 12156190 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
What did I speculate about?

I think all I've done is shown that instead of what people are assuming the opposite could be true as well.

Not speculating it will happen, but pointing out it could and offering an opinion that I think people will be disappointed. If that constitutes speculation - guilty.

Because honestly none of us know.

I prefer to take a wait and see approach.


Yes, it's true that, at this point, none of us know what will happen. But you've been an unfailing voice of doom from the beginning, and that's no more warranted than the most sunny projections. Surely you understand that.
Well I did back off  
pjcas18 : 2/27/2015 6:38 pm : link
my initial claim of "this will be a disaster"

So, I do have an open mind, despite my pessimism.

NFT: Net Neutrallity thread  
SteveMD : 2/28/2015 10:00 am : link
Anytime the Government get their hands on something everyone will suffer. The innernet was free, now every one will pay more. So all Socialists/Marxist enjoy government "help"
SteveMD
SteveMD  
manh george : 2/28/2015 10:23 am : link
So exactly how does net neutrality create a new cost for internet service? How exactly does that work? How will we all suffer?

Or is this some more "private sector good, government bad" bullshit?
Net Neutrality tread  
SteveMD : 3/5/2015 12:12 pm : link
Manh George, exactly, hows obamacare doing? HOw did the net ever survive without previous dictarorship?
SteveMD
I'd be interested in comments on this article  
njm : 3/5/2015 12:32 pm : link
I'm anything but an expert on net neutrality. The link is to a Washington Post columnist.


Link - ( New Window )
njm  
pjcas18 : 3/5/2015 12:38 pm : link
that article explains my cynicism and pessimism far more eloquently than I have been able to.

My biggest question for the supporters is how do they think this will help them personally?

I am skeptical it will at all and I would not be shocked if things get worse. that's been my point all along.
Does the FCC only look at providers, etc  
Bill L : 3/5/2015 12:39 pm : link
as has been talked about on this thread, or do they have the ability to control content as well? Can they do ratings (like on movies or video games or tv shows) or prevent certain people or certain ages from accessing a site or block specific sites?
RE: NFT: Net Neutrallity thread  
Sgrcts : 3/5/2015 12:49 pm : link
In comment 12156711 SteveMD said:
Quote:
Anytime the Government get their hands on something everyone will suffer. The innernet was free, now every one will pay more. So all Socialists/Marxist enjoy government "help"
SteveMD


When was the "innernet" free?
RE: I'd be interested in comments on this article  
schabadoo : 3/5/2015 12:51 pm : link
In comment 12165117 njm said:
Quote:
I'm anything but an expert on net neutrality. The link is to a Washington Post columnist.
Link - ( New Window )


His railroad analogy--deregulating a once-regulating industry vs regulating and already regulated industry, I don't get.

And his worry about stifling competition between existing monopolies?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner