What exactly is wrong/broken with internet in the US? (Net Neutrality)

[NYcarbineer]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

.

Centralized control, control, control.

They're on a roll now and they'll push it as far as they can.

.

Oh look. Mac the Mature Adult doesn't know what net neutrality is about either. How precious.

http://www.highbrowmagazine.com/4577-why-americans-still-don-t-understand-net-neutrality

Earmuffs!

And how pray tell do you know?
Considering we're not allowed to see it what the bill contains....
I have to call into question the sanity of an individual when they believe the government is here to help,when they've showed time and again they're after power.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

If that's all it's about,why all the the secrecy?
Naive little fool...

 

[LoneLaugher]

What bill are you talking about?

 

[Roadrunner]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the fucking internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

People freely criticize Obama on the net.

It must be brought under control.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

If that's all it's about,why all the the secrecy?
Naive little fool...

If you can contest the numbers or my conclusion, go ahead.

 

[Freewill]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Seriously, why is there even a giant FCC ruling and political debate going on about the "freedom of the internet." There is nothing wrong with the fucking internet in the United States. Why on earth do we suddenly need a major government intervention where there is no problem?

The Internet in the US is bullshit. Overpriced, corporate, slow, and often unavailable at any decent speed or at all. Time to grow up, as usual, America.

And by the way, dick nose, the Internet here is just as fast or faster than most of the industrialized world.

Download Speed by Country Net Index from Ookla

Your numbers are worthless. On this we are number eight, and we invented the bloody thing: Where the internet zooms. - In Photos Countries With The Fastest Internet Speeds - Forbes

And #11 here: List of countries by Internet connection speeds - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Pathetic.

And on this, #13. Be proud: Where to Find the World s Fastest Internet Top 20 The Need for Speed - Bloomberg

And what is the government going to do to increase the speed?

What is in the proposed massive regs that will increase the speed?

Why is the speed so low? Is the comparison to speeds done on a population or area the size of the US?

Are you unhappy with your internet speed?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

 

[mudwhistle]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

If that's all it's about,why all the the secrecy?
Naive little fool...

If you can contest the numbers or my conclusion, go ahead.

The numbers really don't matter.

Who in their right mind wants to let Obama fuck up yet another part of our lives?

 

[Freewill]

The worse thing is that, in my opinion, this type of new regulation should be passed by Congress not a regulatory arm of the government, an un-elected arm of the government.

If there are practices that are illegal being done then there are laws already coving that situation. If it is just an infrastructure problem then that is not going to be fixed by regs.

PMH covers the BS the government will give you. What will happen is the exact opposite as always with what the liberals say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

If that's all it's about,why all the the secrecy?
Naive little fool...

If you can contest the numbers or my conclusion, go ahead.

The numbers really don't matter.

Who in their right mind wants to let Obama fuck up yet another part of our lives?

Your derangement is acting against your own best interests, as usual.

 

[Freewill]

Get cheaper faster Internet, dummy.

and again, how does that faster internet help them compared to our internet?

"TIME" is Money... this term fits.

I have the fastest internet you can buy in my region and you can't stream movies well, it takes forever for me to set up a listing for my shop and forever to upload the pictures for the items I am selling and forever for the customers to search and find items on the site my shop is on... when you have faster speeds then less time is wasted...

How do you know the slow-downs are on the pipes and not at the source/servers of the providers you are using?

I agree, it does not sound like it's an internet speed problem. You can have real time speeds of 1 billionMbps and still lag the fuck out if the server you go too is lazy as chit. She would have to have incredibly low speeds to have that problem, like, just past dialup.

Exactly, the fastest servers I have ever downloaded from, like a system upgrade from Apple, were 3Mbps, so I asked Optimum if they offered a 3 Mbps for less than the 20 Mbps they were charging me for. I pointed out that I am a senior and am the only person using the internet and don't need more than 3 Mbps. But they will only sell me 20 Mbps while only delivering less than 7 Mbps.

The ISPs are crooks, and if you weren't only interested in going against Obama, you would never defend being forced to pay for what you aren't getting.

I do agree with this idea but it doesn't take 300 pages of regs to fix this. Their selling of bandwidth speed sure seems to be a rip off. I am not sure what justifications they have for charging more. Does it take more equipment? Certainly for me one problem is that fiber optics will never come to my house. So my choices are DSL, which I am actually using now because of the cost of cable internet. My DSL works fine for posting and buying on line, not so much for gaming or video downloads although with time even that isn't bad except in comparision.

I am not sure of what are my internet options. What I do know is that for something that the left is trying to convince me is bad, everyone uses. I was at work the other day and on break everyone around me was on the internet looking at videos and such, with their phones. Amazing. I would do the same I think but I don't want to carry a phone that doesn't fit into my pocket.

 

[Freewill]

.

Centralized control, control, control.

They're on a roll now and they'll push it as far as they can.

.

Oh look. Mac the Mature Adult doesn't know what net neutrality is about either. How precious.

http://www.highbrowmagazine.com/4577-why-americans-still-don-t-understand-net-neutrality

Earmuffs!

From the article you provided:
To Cruz and his party, net neutrality restricts freedom, but what does it really do? Currently, the Internet is a free-for-all in which Internet service providers (ISPs) can enter into financial agreements with certain Websites – Comcast and Netflix, for example, have a financial agreement so that the video streaming Website can have better access to customers. If net neutrality isn’t enforced, those in favor of it fear that such deals will continue to be made and that larger companies will overpower their smaller, start-up counterparts and crush innovation altogether. Specifically, net neutrality advocates suspect ISPs will pay for prioritized access to consumers and have an unfair advantage, or even worse that certain Internet users will possess the ability to pay for faster service, creating a wealth-based space in a once equally accessible plane.

In the face of such fear, Obama asked the FCC to reclassify the Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, meaning that the Internet would be treated like a public utility. Under the new classification, ISPs would no longer be able to give certain websites an advantage over others by slowing down or speeding up a user’s access. If the FCC were to follow Obama’s recommendation, consumers would pay a single fee to ISPs and receive equal access to the entire Internet without interference from providers, meaning that nonprofits and schools (or any otherwise financially handicapped institution) would have as much access to the Internet as a Wal-Mart tycoon.

300 pages of regs to solve this "problem?" 300 pages? That is what the left does, find a problem, which may or may not actually be a problem for the majority of people, and then wrap it up in agenda. If what the article provided, other then paragraph after paragraph of partisan attack, then it would seem easily fixed. And since the article you provided only list this as the problem what are in so many pages of regs? I am guessing taxes and fees.

 

[Freewill]

You anti-government types are cutting your own throats on this one.

Net neutrality is the status quo. Here's who opposes the government protecting the status quo:

Notice any general pattern?

Notice how many of the opponents are those that SELL you your internet? Now ask yourself, do you think they want to get rid of net neutrality so they can make your life better at the expense of their profits,

or do you think that just maybe they see getting rid of net neutrality as a way of making even more money off you and me?

Seriously. Follow the money.

If that's all it's about,why all the the secrecy?
Naive little fool...

If you can contest the numbers or my conclusion, go ahead.

What is the idea with your numbers? That those most effected and the biggest are the ones against it the most? Isn't that logical? Logic would dictate we discuss the content of the regs not some graph that really has no bearing on the regs.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

There is no bill, dummy.

Learn of what you speak.

 

[Freewill]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

There is no bill, dummy.

Learn of what you speak.

Do you agree that such a takeover, whether warrented or not, should be a bill?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What bill are you talking about?

Call it what you will. How about ..
"The great censorship and taxation of the internet idea brought to you by obozo....rule."
Only a moron thinks good things are ahead when they hide the contents of a bill,law,proposition,idea,contract, or any other damn thing under the sun.
What a fucken Dolt...

There is no bill, dummy.

Learn of what you speak.

Again..what a fucken Dolt.
Would you sign a contract without reading it?
A more apt name would be the fleecing of America.
Open wide dumbass...

 

[edthecynic]

In more and more places you have choices between cable and DSL. Isn't that competition? Also remember that most of the cost savings overseas where the speeds are higher is due to their ability to offer wifi broadband in concentrated urban areas, something that can work in only a few large cities in the US.

Hell no. I tried DSL.

Where I live the phone lines are controlled by Verizon and they offer 3 Mbps DSL in my area. So I tried to get it, but I don't want or have a land line. I used to have one 20 years ago, so all the wiring is in place, but Verizon refuses to sell DSL as a "dry loop." You have to pay for a land line from Verizon before they will sell you DSL. The price of a land line plus the DSL was considerable more than cable.

So I looked for another party to sell me a dry loop DSL line and I found one. But they have to go through Verizon because Verizon controls the phone lines.

So what did Verizon do? They throttled the connection from the 3 Mbps they would have sold me with a phone to 500 Kbps because, they claimed, the line suddenly was too unstable to run at 3 Mbps. Mind you they were willing to sell me 3 Mbps and my next door neighbor has 3 Mbps DSL as well as another neighbor a few houses up the street and my broadband test software showd the connection bandwidth to be 5+ Mbps. The 500 Kbps Verizon throttled me down to would not allow me to talk on my OOMA VOIP phone and even check email at the same time.

All these ISPs are crooks!

 

[edthecynic]

People it doesn't take 300+ pages of regulations to manage internet bandwidth, and that's just for starters. And why is this 300+ page monstrosity not been released for public review?

And how do you know it is 300+ pages if it hasn't been released yet? Because the same GOP hate radio shock jocks told you it is 300+ pages? The same ones who told you the 906 page PPACA bill was 2700 pages!

 

[Freewill]

In more and more places you have choices between cable and DSL. Isn't that competition? Also remember that most of the cost savings overseas where the speeds are higher is due to their ability to offer wifi broadband in concentrated urban areas, something that can work in only a few large cities in the US.

Hell no. I tried DSL.

Where I live the phone lines are controlled by Verizon and they offer 3 Mbps DSL in my area. So I tried to get it, but I don't want or have a land line. I used to have one 20 years ago, so all the wiring is in place, but Verizon refuses to sell DSL as a "dry loop." You have to pay for a land line from Verizon before they will sell you DSL. The price of a land line plus the DSL was considerable more than cable.

So I looked for another party to sell me a dry loop DSL line and I found one. But they have to go through Verizon because Verizon controls the phone lines.

So what did Verizon do? They throttled the connection from the 3 Mbps they would have sold me with a phone to 500 Kbps because, they claimed, the line suddenly was too unstable to run at 3 Mbps. Mind you they were willing to sell me 3 Mbps and my next door neighbor has 3 Mbps DSL as well as another neighbor a few houses up the street and my broadband test software showd the connection bandwidth to be 5+ Mbps. The 500 Kbps Verizon throttled me down to would not allow me to talk on my OOMA VOIP phone and even check email at the same time.

All these ISPs are crooks!

Well I do admit you are probably going to pay the same regardless of what you do. Don't buy the bundle and as you say it actually costs more. I was happy with Verizon when the came in. Comcast had told me, and my wife actually listened and remembered, that our phone line was bad out to the pole. But they sold us there "high speed" internet any way. After the bill for the bundle went to 200 dollars I decided to go with Verizon and direct TV. They came in and said the phone line was bad and they actually replaced the line to the pole, underground and didn't charge me anything and we love direct TV. Now the DSL actually works as fast as Comcast did before the line was repaired. Seems to me Verizon is the way to go. Direct fiber optics into your house with Verizon not like Comcast that has fiber optics to nodes that then send the internet to your house via the phone line.