micromanaging the internet

[eddiew37]

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

WAAAAAY back Now tow,, the polish prince and a couple of Dems and I are all that's left

 

[eddiew37]

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

Yep billy ,,the good ol days when we were both younger and maybe smarter Maybe

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No Net Neutrality, no voice in politics.

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

Yep billy ,,the good ol days when we were both younger and maybe smarter Maybe

I dunno 'bout "smarter".

It's still fun playing Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.

 

[eddiew37]

Was there no voice in politics prior to NN?

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

Yep billy ,,the good ol days when we were both younger and maybe smarter Maybe

I dunno 'bout "smarter".

It's still fun playing Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.

Nite Billy,,,,, might not have the chance again but you have a happy and healthy new year Always a gentleman

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

Yep billy ,,the good ol days when we were both younger and maybe smarter Maybe

I dunno 'bout "smarter".

It's still fun playing Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.

Nite Billy,,,,, might not have the chance again but you have a happy and healthy new year Always a gentleman

You too ed, and to your family.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't understand why the rich should have it all and somehow need to be our masters? Shouldn't a political party serve the majority of the people?

I don't see how control every element of ones experience on the net is doing that.

 

[grainbely]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

When your favourite free sites start taking forever to load, if at all, and only the paid sites are quickly loaded, you’ll change your tune.

I had no experience of that sort prior to the Obama administration poking its excrement-encrusted fingers into private business practices. I see little reason to think that I shall experience that now with their rule abolished.

Besides, you don't seem to be an American, so your opinion means nothing.

There's a decent chance you were affected and didn't know it. There's at least a dozen known large scale blocks and throttles carried out by the ISP conglomerates prior to the net neutrality rules. No one knew they were doing it at first until people started doing speed checks and such.

 

[grainbely]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

We didn't have net neutrality 2 years ago.

What did we fix with that act again? I don't recall any of this being an issue. More like a solution looking for a problem.

People were paying for a service of connectivity but the ISPs experimented with selective throttling and blocking often without people even knowing. It's at least a breach in contract.

 

[sartre play]

Simple question.

Under the NN rules all content was treated the same and the ISPs could not slow or speed up certain things.

Under the new rules if the ISPs can block, throttle or give paid prioritization to any content they wish, but it has to be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them. So, each decision to block, throttle or give paid prioritization to content will be evaluated by the FTC and approved or disapproved by them.

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound more like micromanaging?

So, now without any name calling or debate of right or wrong, which of those two things sound there will be more involvement by the government?

In 2006 they tried the same thing for the same reasons & lost, with complacent net users and a divided nation they won this time. they will start slow & people will say see it did not hurt us. just wait the ax will fall. they will rule approval for there pay masters & we will lose. thanks for your post. good point

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why is the sky continually falling with you people? Something from your childhood?

 

[iceberg]

Very little.
As an example, posting to sites on the issues of H1-Bs, Off-Shoring and Illegals was virtually impossible to do when entire anti-Corporate Threads were being deleted left and right.
Trump would never have won without NN as ISPs would have selectively killed the ability to post.

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1998. Never had a bit of a problem.

And I bet you never posted anything to do with those topics.
I have been on numerous forums since 1998 and those topics were always deleted until a scant few years ago.

I have posted on an infinite variety of issues, including those. Nothing was deleted.

Name the forums so I have a basis upon which to judge the veracity of your claims.
I hate to say this but I don't believe you.
Dice was the only forum I found in the late 2000s to a few years ago that even had threads on those issues because
I used to search all the time
for those suffering from corporate government corruption.
Dice was eventually bought by an Indian firm and deleted any and all H1-B postings.

Please provide the names of those forums to give me some basis in your view of reality.

They are all defunct. That's why I'm here.

One was the old Yahoo "Presidential Election 2000" board. There are some former members here.

Whether you believe me or not is of no consequence.

and that is how you lay the smack down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's easy to figure out whether ending net neutrality will harm you or benefit you.

Look at the groups that want it ended; look at the groups who want to keep it. Then, figure out which of those two most closely represent your own interests.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's easy to figure out whether ending net neutrality will harm you or benefit you.

Look at the groups that want it ended; look at the groups who want to keep it. Then, figure out which of those two most closely represent your own interests.

It is sort of naive of people to think that the big three, ATT, Comcast and Verizon spent more than 500 million dollars fighting to get rid of a rule just so they could voluntarily follow the rule they spent 500 million to get rid of.

They wanted the rule gone for a reason and that reason has to involve making more money back than they spent getting rid of the rule.

 

[jillian]

I don't know, to be honest both options sound like they suck.

But given that the protesters of the law look like this:

I take my bet on the new law being at least better. The leftists will be made to look like fools when none of the disasters will come to pass, which is always a nice bonus.

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

So the response is take the rest from working people and hand everything to the people who then put MORE money in savings?

That isn't very smart

 

[Norman]

why would it suck to have the speed of information be the same regardless of content?

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

So the response is take the rest from working people and hand everything to the people who then put MORE money in savings?

That isn't very smart

No one is arguing for that response. Where did you get that?

No one is saying that the working people should be taxed to give fuck all to the rich. If you were competent in statistics you would know that the case is exactly opposite by a huge margin. The rich pay vast amount of taxes and in fact get harmful effects for it by funding groups that want to destroy them.

And regarding that, I want make a small addition, some very very hard leftists care also about destroying those who have more than they have, even if there is no benefit, in order to aid their reproductive chances. This is called politics of envy.

 

[jillian]

Just invest in those corps you think will make money and everything will be fine.
Presuming you have enough money to invest.

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

So the response is take the rest from working people and hand everything to the people who then put MORE money in savings?

That isn't very smart

No one is arguing for that response. Where did you get that?

No one is saying that the working people should be taxed to give fuck all to the rich. If you were competent in statistics you would know that the case is exactly opposite by a huge margin. The rich pay vast amount of taxes and in fact get harmful effects for it by funding groups that want to destroy them.

And I might make a small addition, some very very hard leftists care also about destroying those who have more than they have, even if there is no benefit, in order to aid their reproductive chances. This is called politics of envy.

Really? That's silly. It's exactly what this new tax "plan" does.

 

[Norman]

If you don't, tough. That is the way of the world.

right... screw everyone except kleptocrats

Yes, because for the average guy, it's beyond possible to save some money on one of the richest nations on this world.

Yet he seems to have enough money to get very fat...

So the response is take the rest from working people and hand everything to the people who then put MORE money in savings?

That isn't very smart

No one is arguing for that response. Where did you get that?

No one is saying that the working people should be taxed to give fuck all to the rich. If you were competent in statistics you would know that the case is exactly opposite by a huge margin. The rich pay vast amount of taxes and in fact get harmful effects for it by funding groups that want to destroy them.

And I might make a small addition, some very very hard leftists care also about destroying those who have more than they have, even if there is no benefit, in order to aid their reproductive chances. This is called politics of envy.

Really? That's silly. It's exactly what this new tax "plan" does.

Completely wrong. The plan cuts taxes for almost everyone. The rich will still pay the overwhelming amount of taxes, and the poor get the overwhelming benefits.

Anyway, I have no problem with increasing taxes on the bottom 50% who pay nothing. How is it that they get to make decisions for other people and vote benefits for themselves while having no skin of their own in the game? Full benefits with no responsibility works nowhere.

 

[eddiew37]

I've been posting to political forums such as this since 1997. Never had even an inkling of a problem.

We go 'way back, eh ed?

Yep billy ,,the good ol days when we were both younger and maybe smarter Maybe

I dunno 'bout "smarter".

It's still fun playing Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots.

Nite Billy,,,,, might not have the chance again but you have a happy and healthy new year Always a gentleman

You too ed, and to your family.

don't know if you remember poster dennis but he asked how come the people here don't drop in? I told him I'd ask

 

[Dragonlady]

Buy a decent comp and contract for decent DL speeds, and so shall they all.

I do expect that we will start to see tiers of service like cable TV packages once the Telecoms figure out what the FTC will allow and what it will not.

We already have different levels of DL speed here.

We have different levels of speed here too. Rural internet is so bad you can’t live stream sports. That’s why I HAVE internet. To watch live competitions in their entirety, top to bottom, and unedited.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Buy a decent comp and contract for decent DL speeds, and so shall they all.

I do expect that we will start to see tiers of service like cable TV packages once the Telecoms figure out what the FTC will allow and what it will not.

We already have different levels of DL speed here.

We have different levels of speed here too. Rural internet is so bad you can’t live stream sports. That’s why I HAVE internet. To watch live competitions in their entirety, top to bottom, and unedited.

Do you have to pay extra for certain sites or types of data?