A day in the life of Net Neutrality

[ClosedCaption]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

He's spot on accurate. Net Neutrality gives the FCC the power to regulate new products and services on the internet. This means that starting anything new will be prohibitively expensive, and the Big Tech Crony Oligarch will have regulatory capture of the FCC.

No it doesnt, you couldnt find one thing to support the bolded unless you link to someones musings on what could happen

And riddle me this: the Post Office charges more for overnight delivery than regular mail. Why are they allowed to "discriminate"?

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality tho...try again

 

[ClosedCaption]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

He's spot on accurate. Net Neutrality gives the FCC the power to regulate new products and services on the internet. This means that starting anything new will be prohibitively expensive, and the Big Tech Crony Oligarch will have regulatory capture of the FCC.

No it doesnt, you couldnt find one thing to support the bolded unless you link to someones musings on what could happen

Clearly, understanding the way regulatory bureaucracies function to protect big players from competition eludes you as much as the proper use of an apostrophe.

All you had to say was "You're right"

Sorry, bub. I'm not going to lie to you just to spare your poor fragile ego.

You dont have to just you not providing the link says it all. I knew you made it up

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually it kind of does. It's a decent comparison.

If you want your mail faster, you pay more.

if you want your mail in the same tote as everyone else, you dont.

If you want your internet faster you pay more.

if you don't you dont.

 

[boedicca]

He's spot on accurate. Net Neutrality gives the FCC the power to regulate new products and services on the internet. This means that starting anything new will be prohibitively expensive, and the Big Tech Crony Oligarch will have regulatory capture of the FCC.

No it doesnt, you couldnt find one thing to support the bolded unless you link to someones musings on what could happen

Clearly, understanding the way regulatory bureaucracies function to protect big players from competition eludes you as much as the proper use of an apostrophe.

All you had to say was "You're right"

Sorry, bub. I'm not going to lie to you just to spare your poor fragile ego.

You dont have to just you not providing the link says it all. I knew you made it up

Oh the humanity! The Apostrophe Abuse is really beyond the pale.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All you had to say was "You're right"

And all you had to do, was actually be right...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually it kind of does. It's a decent comparison.

If you want your mail faster, you pay more.

if you want your mail in the same tote as everyone else, you dont.

If you want your internet faster you pay more.

if you don't you dont.

Can the Post Office slow down someone elses package? No...No comparison there.

 

[ClosedCaption]

All you had to say was "You're right"

And all you had to do, was actually be right...

Wheres those 10 ISP's bro?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Actually it kind of does. It's a decent comparison.

If you want your mail faster, you pay more.

if you want your mail in the same tote as everyone else, you dont.

If you want your internet faster you pay more.

if you don't you dont.

Can the Post Office slow down someone elses package? No...No comparison there.

They most certainly can. Are you saying mail doesn't get put in the wrong place and takes longer to hit the mailbox.

Can you elaborate how a backbone or an ISP can slow the connection from one individual in order to give it to someone else. Can you elaborate on that for me?

Thanks

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wheres those 10 ISP's bro?

5 is 5 times more than you claimed...

 

[Mustang]

Again you reveal you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about concerning this issue. As much as would you like to think that this issue is political I can assure it is not. This fear mongering is at least comical.

It's threads like these that give me a much clearer understanding of how and why women were burned at the stake for witchcraft.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's threads like these that give me a much clearer understanding of how and why women were burned at the stake for witchcraft.

Absolutely, why if the FCC isn't regulating the internet, then women are being burned at the stake.

The flawless logic of you Bolsheviks is a wonder to behold.

 

[Eric Cartman]

If Obama or the FCC did anything like in your scenario then it would not be net neutrality. I wouldn't put it past corporate cronies in the FCC to due something bad under the title of "net neutrality" taking advantage of the public's confusion about the subject.

It's exactly what FDR and the FCC did with the telephone system, granting AT&T an absolute monopoly "for the good of the people." Western Union was prohibited from sending voice over their lines. This was done under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications act.

Oh, did you know what "net neutrality" actually does? It places the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications act.

Did your rulers fail to tell you that, or were you just too stupid to grasp what it means? In fact they DID tell you:

{
On Monday, President Obama announced his support for the strongest possible rules to implement Net Neutrality--aggressive regulation of internet service providers through Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.

The president’s appeal to the FCC mentioned principles like “openness, fairness, and freedom” in his argument for greater government control to ensure equal Internet access for everyone. Abandoning these principles of Net Neutrality, he said, “would threaten to end the Internet as we know it.” }

Obama couldn t be more wrong on Title II TheHill

Obama asked for this:

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

He also said that they should not implement all of the title II regulations so as to keep incentives for infrastructure investment. Obama can only make suggestions to the FCC because they are an independent agency.

So which of his suggestions do you have a problem with?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually it kind of does. It's a decent comparison.

If you want your mail faster, you pay more.

if you want your mail in the same tote as everyone else, you dont.

If you want your internet faster you pay more.

if you don't you dont.

Can the Post Office slow down someone elses package? No...No comparison there.

They most certainly can. Are you saying mail doesn't get put in the wrong place and takes longer to hit the mailbox.

You think I'm referring to mistakenly slowing down...no I mean going to court to sue to allow you to slow down someone elses package but you know that

Can you elaborate how a backbone or an ISP can slow the connection from one individual in order to give it to someone else. Can you elaborate on that for me?

Thanks

Not individuals idiot...I'll post it again so...sigh...you can ignore it again and talk about the ability to buy fast cars or something

Verizon sued to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order, forcing the FCC to try again. The commission tentatively approved rules in May that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading traffic from third-party Web services while allowing "fast lane" deals in which companies could pay for faster access to consumers.

Now that you know its done purposefully here is where you say both mistakenly and on purpose is totally cool.

I get the feeling that you would say "I dont stink" then when I post a link from Verizon saying you do you'd change your mind on that too

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Yes, they do it. Thats why they sued. Did you read it this time?

 

[Ravi]

Can you explain to me how an ISP slows down the internet for one party in order to boost it for another?

Bandwith throttling.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You can not explain. I got it.

Later, dude.

I dont care if they sued or not. That doesn't mean "they are doing it."

Now, if you want to explain just how an ISP slows one connection to boost another, i'm all ears.

 

[Ravi]

You can not explain. I got it.

Later, dude.

I dont care if they sued or not. That doesn't mean "they are doing it."

Now, if you want to explain just how an ISP slows one connection to boost another, i'm all ears.

Bandwith throttling. Run away, run away!

 

[ClosedCaption]

If I can explain it or not doesnt change that its happening

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can not explain. I got it.

Later, dude.

I dont care if they sued or not. That doesn't mean "they are doing it."

Now, if you want to explain just how an ISP slows one connection to boost another, i'm all ears.

Bandwith throttling. Run away, run away!

Then he'll ask me to explain Bandwidth Throttling and claim it never happens because I dont have a C++ cert