|
Replies: 54
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Net Neutrality Lol
Nov 11, 2014, 4:34 PM
|
|
I don't know what it is, but I'm against it.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
basically means
Nov 11, 2014, 4:36 PM
|
|
if someone says something stupid on the internet that another has to say something the opposite and equally stupid
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Are they going to call it the franc rule?
Nov 11, 2014, 4:38 PM
|
|
If not, they should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
possibly***
Nov 11, 2014, 4:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111570]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73750
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
that explains The Oatmeal's cartoon***
Nov 11, 2014, 4:42 PM
[ in reply to basically means ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Serious Question Cam
Nov 11, 2014, 4:44 PM
|
|
Would you say that it is a corporations duty to make as much money as possible, through any legal channels available?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Serious Question Cam
Nov 11, 2014, 5:02 PM
|
|
It is, but I don't think there's a simple way of determining what the best way of doing that is. I certainly don't think that regulating to lock things into the way they supposedly were 20 years ago because we're afraid of something that's hardly ever happened in the US is obviously the right way to do things. Then again, maybe the problem is so serious that we should prefer "net neutrality" over potential innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
"potential innovation" over "known innovation"
Nov 11, 2014, 5:37 PM
|
|
as in net neutrality is a decision between keeping the ideas and ideals in place that have created innovation (locking in how things were 20 years ago and today) vs removing them because ISPs promise "future innovation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Well, yeah, that's what innovation is***
Nov 11, 2014, 5:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Or in other words
Nov 11, 2014, 5:47 PM
|
|
We've had a bunch of innovation under the current internet set up. Should we be willing to trade that for ISP's unknown innovation? We've come a long way with the current system, why does it need to change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
But that's not what we're talking about, right?
Nov 11, 2014, 6:07 PM
|
|
Aren't we talking about reclassification of the internet under Title II of the Communications Act so that it would become a public utility? The current regulatory regime already includes some net neutrality principles that are soft-pedaled by the FCC. Net neutrality advocates are protesting in front of the Commissioner of the FCC's house not because he would completely get rid of net neutrality in new rules that will be proposed in 2015, but because they don't believe those rules go far enough.
Net Neutrality wasn't even a rule until 2010, when the FCC proposed to make regulation of ISPs more like regulation of telephone service providers. As we all know, there has been LOTS of innovation among telephone service providers... So the issue is locking in a regulatory structure that doesn't fit the medium very well. Some Republicans would argue that the current regulatory system has encouraged innovation because of how loose it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
ISP's are attempting to change the way the internet works
Nov 11, 2014, 6:18 PM
|
|
They are attempting to decide what content you can receive, and what speed you can receive that content. Many were allowed to become monopolies on the backs of tax payers, and now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Many Republicans and Democrats would be right to argue that the current regulatory system has encouraged innovation. However, ISP's now want to change the game but still play under the same rules.
I have access to one internet provider. They are terrible, but as long as they don't decide to change the rules of the game and regulate my internet usage, I don't have a problem. My cable company is losing money to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc... it would be in their best interest to make those options less desirable, and their cable subscriptions more desirable. Since they have no local competition, they have no real incentive not to charge more for those services or throttle down speeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1599]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3020
Joined: 1/30/05
|
Re: ISP's are attempting to change the way the internet works
Nov 11, 2014, 8:32 PM
|
|
If they are losing money because they don't have the infrastructure then net neutrality doesn't fix that... sounds like the company will fail either way unless a bigger company comes in that can handle it, they strike a deal with Netflix, Hulu, etc., or they raise the service cost.
How does NN fix this issue? It sounds like it is an attempt to tie the hands of the ISP's so that they cannot deal with their own issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111570]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73750
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: ISP's are attempting to change the way the internet works
Nov 12, 2014, 12:33 PM
[ in reply to ISP's are attempting to change the way the internet works ] |
|
the bottom line is our tax money set up the infrastructure that comcast att, and time warner are raking in massive profits through. If they think they have the right to control content coming through said pipes, then pucker up and bend over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Wonder if xtiger will ever admit how incredibly wrong he is
Nov 11, 2014, 4:39 PM
|
|
once he does some research and understands it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
This statement falls in line with the Franc law
Nov 11, 2014, 4:40 PM
|
|
Admit how incredibly wrong he is...LOL, just Lol so F'ing hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
possibly***
Nov 11, 2014, 4:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
lets see, the FCC wants to treat it as a utility
Nov 11, 2014, 4:50 PM
[ in reply to Wonder if xtiger will ever admit how incredibly wrong he is ] |
|
and will in the future be able to put in intrusive regulations. Right now, as usual with the gov, it starts out harmless and for the greater good. See patriot act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
What is the number 1 duty of a corporation?
Nov 11, 2014, 4:51 PM
|
|
I'm a communist, so I have no idea. Please inform me.
Message was edited by: drewtigeralum03®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
is this aero?***
Nov 11, 2014, 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Fixed, now could you please help me out?***
Nov 11, 2014, 4:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
to make money. never said anything abut them
Nov 11, 2014, 4:57 PM
|
|
if they are doing something wrong, simply make a law outlawing it. If they are found breaking it, people can sue them. We dont need the gov to take control of the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
So are we talking a federal law or a state law?
Nov 11, 2014, 4:59 PM
|
|
What if the politicians in my state receive a bunch of money from ISP providers, and see nothing wrong with charging extra money for me to watch Netflix?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
make a federal law outlawing it if its that important.***
Nov 11, 2014, 5:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
i just find it amazing people are still willing to just give
Nov 11, 2014, 5:09 PM
|
|
the gov control over something so critical as the internet. We have history on our side and everyone always ignores it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26424
Joined: 12/6/98
|
dude, the gov't fixes everything***
Nov 11, 2014, 5:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [180991]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94632
Joined: 12/5/10
|
ISPs have the control and it's just fine!
Nov 11, 2014, 6:49 PM
|
|
Please explain how the Govt. taking control would make it better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Sigh
Nov 11, 2014, 7:27 PM
|
|
The ISP's have control, and now they are attempting to change the way they operate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [180991]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94632
Joined: 12/5/10
|
We need "open access", not neutrality.
Nov 11, 2014, 7:39 PM
|
|
The Government taking over would make it more of a monopoly than it already is. Sigh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
FCC tried that with it's "open internet" rule
Nov 11, 2014, 7:42 PM
|
|
Supreme Court said it was a no go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [180991]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 94632
Joined: 12/5/10
|
That shouldn't mean "the end"..
Nov 11, 2014, 7:45 PM
|
|
and just let the Govt take control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
The issue was jurisdiction
Nov 11, 2014, 7:51 PM
|
|
The FCC has no jurisdiction over the internet. Supreme Court doesn't know who has jurisdiction, but said that if the government reclassified it as a utility, they would have jurisdiction.
As of now, your ISP has control and in most cases has no competition.
I suppose they could attempt to pass a law, but that would require politicians and both sides of the isle to vote for something that many of their corporate sponsors (politicians should just start wearing logo's like NASCAR) don't want them to vote for. If you really feel like Pubs are going to vote for something that can be deemed as "government regulation" then you haven't been following the recent election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I don't think you're even paying attention to what the issue
Nov 11, 2014, 4:57 PM
[ in reply to lets see, the FCC wants to treat it as a utility ] |
|
is. You like beating the drum about the specter of "government intrusion" because you're such a dyed-in-wool conservative. Free markets are great. See if you can comprehend this sentence: "ISPs are NOT a free market."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Also enjoyed the Patriot Act starting out as a really
Nov 11, 2014, 4:59 PM
|
|
benevolent piece of legislation crafted by fellow philanthropists George W. Bush and #### Cheney, which was then bastardized and corrupted by that Marxist Obama.
No, that bill was and always has been a POS, and Obama didn't do it any favors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
Obumma never messes up anything, so no need to worry
Nov 11, 2014, 5:01 PM
|
|
about this, rite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
He messes a LOT of stuff up.
Nov 11, 2014, 5:02 PM
|
|
I'm not sure why you believe there's a billion people on his bandwagon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
thanks for proviing my point
Nov 11, 2014, 5:06 PM
[ in reply to Also enjoyed the Patriot Act starting out as a really ] |
|
call it a great name. Who isnt for the "Patriot" act with a name like that. Net Neutrality seems like a great name that no on should ever be against. That is until the gov starts saying blogs have to give equal time. Gee, thats never happened before in the US. There's already talk on taxing blogs like Drudge. Some European country has already done it. Its just opening a can of worms. If this was Bush pushing this, there would be so much out cry itd be insane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
If only we could have somehow linked to these posts in 2002.
Nov 11, 2014, 10:00 PM
|
|
"No, xtiger, look! Future-you even thinks it's a bad idea!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
again, if there is a problem, make a law
Nov 11, 2014, 5:00 PM
[ in reply to I don't think you're even paying attention to what the issue ] |
|
dont take over. I fully understand the issue. I have problems with Verizon. I can leave or go somewhere else as well. We also have satellite as well for internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I had an issue with Suddenlink
Nov 11, 2014, 5:02 PM
[ in reply to I don't think you're even paying attention to what the issue ] |
|
They installed my internet incorrectly. They basically used the same splitter they installed 10 years ago when they ran my new line and my internet kept going out. I called and they told me they would come out and fix it, no problem. They came out and fixed it, and charged me 75 bucks. I disputed the fee and they basically told me that if I didn't like it I could take my business elsewhere. I tried but it turns out that Suddenlink is the only ISP and Cable provider in College Station. They told me to shove it, and I had to shove it. Hurray for the free market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
You could just get satellite internet.
Nov 11, 2014, 5:05 PM
|
|
That's the same, per xtiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
i fail to see where the fastest speed internet is a given
Nov 11, 2014, 5:08 PM
|
|
right. I put up with Verizon b/c they have the best wireless service but I'd leave in a second if i didnt put that at the highest priority. But I still have free will to move if i want. When the gov starts regulating, you are stuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
So you moved to the cellular argument? They aren't even
Nov 11, 2014, 5:55 PM
|
|
related, and kind of funny to bring that up...it's Verizon, or it's AT&T...
Address the real issue here. There is an oligopoly from cable providers, and in many locations, there is not a competing ISP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: So you moved to the cellular argument? They aren't even
Nov 11, 2014, 6:31 PM
|
|
Although you are correct about the oligopoly issue, that is NOT what net neutrality is addressing. Net Neutrality seeks to ensure that access to all content/applications is equal regardless of the source. i.e. your ISP shouldn't be able to favor traffic from certain content providers they own while blocking their competitors (i.e. comcast blocking netflix).
Wouldn't it suck if connecting to tigernet was really freaking slow (or impossible) because your ISP chose to favor other services? I think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81897]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47116
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Huh? I'm well aware what NN is. xtiger is arguing that
Nov 11, 2014, 6:33 PM
|
|
it doesn't matter because competition already exists and you can just go to another ISP...but that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
In some areas it is. I have a choice of 4
Nov 11, 2014, 11:27 PM
|
|
WOW, Comcast, AT&T, and Direct TV.
But from a NN concern, that's not really the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34582]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41409
Joined: 4/20/01
|
As 19B stated, vote out the county/city leaders who
Nov 11, 2014, 5:09 PM
[ in reply to I had an issue with Suddenlink ] |
|
allowed your ISP provider to have a monopoly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
That happened awhile ago, but don't let that stand in the
Nov 11, 2014, 5:10 PM
|
|
way of a good argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: lets see, the FCC wants to treat it as a utility
Nov 11, 2014, 9:59 PM
[ in reply to lets see, the FCC wants to treat it as a utility ] |
|
I like this response from xtiger, because it simultaneously admits that in REALITY the proposed change would not be harmful, while also insisting that in SCARY PUB WORLD things will be terrible because you know, government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
first off, I always have said the intentions are good
Nov 12, 2014, 9:23 AM
|
|
never disputed that.
Second, people were called crazy when they said you wouldn't be able to keep your doctor, or people wouldn't lose their insurance, or they were lying about obamacare. Gee, that looks pretty uncrazy now.
People who said the Patriot Act would lead to abuses were called tin foil hat people.
The list of government abuses is a trillion miles long. So dont act like that's a crazy notion. You know better.
If you don't think when they take over the internet they will start regulating internet sites, you are the crazy one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1581]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2501
Joined: 4/16/09
|
best argument so far but...
Nov 12, 2014, 11:47 AM
|
|
I stop short of saying the government should do nothing. I believe government action in the form of a law prohibiting treating data differently is ok as long it does not provide for actual equality requirements. Actual equality requirements prop up the weak and hamper the strong. Market forces should be the only force playing in this area.
Now, if I live in an area with internet and an ISP decides to invest in a new line with the explicit intent on charging people to use it, I'm ok with that as long as I am not forced to use that line. In fact, I should not be directed to that line without intentionally requesting it. The problem is that all of the data is routed through the new lines, the old lines torn up and now there is only one option. Not good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 54
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
