Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-14-2017, 3:56 PM Reply   
To no-one's surprise Net Neutrality has been repealed.
How are the republicans in favor of this? Get ready to get screwed by Comcast and Time Warner.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-14-2017, 4:09 PM Reply   
ayyy about time we got a thread rolling!
Meh not so much republicans just certain people got bought out with a big chunk of money by comcast to push this through.

Last edited by wakeslash; 12-14-2017 at 4:13 PM.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-14-2017, 4:22 PM Reply   
179 members of congress sent the FCC a letter in favor of ending net neutrality

Here's a copy of the letter:
https://energycommerce.house.gov/wp-...Neutrality.pdf


Here's the list of congressmen and how much they received from the ISP industry (I think they are all republicans)

Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-14-2017, 4:26 PM Reply   
Only 39 congressmen sent a letter telling the FCC to keep net neutrality (all democrats) I'm assuming the rest of the congressmen were already purchased by the ISPs.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-14-2017, 4:41 PM Reply   
Lol, what more evidence do you need of a totally broken system
Old     (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       12-14-2017, 4:49 PM Reply   
This is ****ED!!!!
Old     (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       12-14-2017, 4:51 PM Reply   
Greg Walden sure got a chunk of change, he represents the "Alabama" part of Oregon and has been in the broadcasting industry for years, it's frustrating living in the hayseed low wage part of the progressive West. Sigh
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-14-2017, 4:57 PM Reply   
Oregon is pretty much all democratic but that 1.6 million dollar check just seemed to fat to pass up on imo i dont think these people care what laws/rules need to be passed as long as they have a fat wallet as a result from it.
Old     (95sn)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-14-2017, 5:49 PM Reply   
Guess those public responses weren't actually from the "public". No problem, were gonna do this anyway.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwb.../#5de465016c6a

Some of those^^^ are better prostitute$ than others

Last edited by 95sn; 12-14-2017 at 5:54 PM.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-14-2017, 6:52 PM Reply   
Without Net Neutrality, companies will be allowed to offer tiered services that will allow users to pay for faster or slower speeds. Most of the public's concerns are overblown. JMHO https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...-concerns.html
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-14-2017, 7:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Without Net Neutrality, companies will be allowed to offer tiered services that will allow users to pay for faster or slower speeds. Most of the public's concerns are overblown. JMHO https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...-concerns.html
Why would I want to change what I have and pay extra to not be throttled?
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-14-2017, 7:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Without Net Neutrality, companies will be allowed to offer tiered services that will allow users to pay for faster or slower speeds. Most of the public's concerns are overblown. JMHO https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...-concerns.html
Sure. If I pay what I'm paying now, I can expect dial-up type speed. If I pay $75 more a month, I can get the same speed I get for what I am currently paying. Maybe we'll have to watch an ad each time we open our browser.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-15-2017, 7:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Without Net Neutrality, companies will be allowed to offer tiered services that will allow users to pay for faster or slower speeds. Most of the public's concerns are overblown. JMHO https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/o...-concerns.html
This statement makes it look like he doesn't understand the problem...

Quote:
And there’s still competition: Some markets may have just one cable provider, but phone companies offer increasingly comparable internet access — so if the cable provider slowed down or blocked some sites, the phone company could soak up the affected customers simply by promising not to do so.
It's not an issue of your ISP provider speed. You are already paying for the speed you get. It's the price of streaming services that will be affected when they are throttled on the backbone until they pay more and charge their subscribers more to pay for it.

And his final logic is that if we just do what no internet subscriber wants then we'll see how bad it is.

"Yes sheep... your concerns are overblown. Nothing to see here so just STFU and tell your friends to STFU as well."
Old     (onlyinboards)      Join Date: Oct 2014       12-15-2017, 8:28 AM Reply   
Right, as an example... Wakeworld or my site OnlyInboards will be forced to pay more to the Comcast (for example) so that their customers get fast access to the site. If we do not pay then their customers access to the site will be slowed, making the site unusable. It is giving the ISPs the ability to filter content how they want.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-15-2017, 8:40 AM Reply   
The argument that if Comcast and TimeWarner does a really crappy job they will lose their customers is complete BS. They are always rated as the crappiest companies in america. I HATE Comcast but I have no alternative for fast Internet so I still send them my money every month. If there was an alternative, I would pay more just to not use COMCAST. Since they don't expand into each others area's its basically a two headed monopoly.

How long before they put in the code on all outgoing traffic: "Comcast" &"Sucks" = Block.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-15-2017, 8:41 AM Reply   
Hey Grant, how come your not saying anything?
Old     (wakejunky)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-15-2017, 11:05 AM Reply   
Just another case of the government wanting to control every aspect of our lives. You know Al Gore should be all over this, he did invent the internet.

If this does happen, appeals should postpone it, it'll only be a matter of time before it does happen, it's just they way the government works, if it doesn't pass this time, they'll do it at some other time, or slip it underneath some other legislation that nobody catches.
IF/When it happens:
I foresee a 2nd internet being established by somebody like Google whereby there is a 'backdoor" to the web. There is just too much information/advertising and commerce for this to get through without opposition from the big guys.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-15-2017, 12:15 PM Reply   
Bigger companies like amazon and netflix will probably be fine more or less but smaller sites like Ian said( wakeworld,onlyinboards etc) will be affected the most.
It might not be worth paying the price to keep the sites running normally.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-15-2017, 12:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakejunky View Post
Just another case of the government wanting to control every aspect of our lives. You know Al Gore should be all over this, he did invent the internet.
.
I do think that Al Gore gets way too much crap for the invent the internet thing. What he said was: I invented the "internet Superhighway" Which is true. He came up with the term "internet superhighway" when he was working on getting funding for expanding the internet. His father was a senator and his big achievement was getting the money for the superhighways that we have all over the country today. So his son Al used the term superhighway on his bill to get funding to expand the internet. When he said I invented the internet superhighway he was referring to the term "internet superhighway" and it has been interpreted wrong ever since.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-15-2017, 1:17 PM Reply   
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/14/ne...utrality-vote/

18 state attorney generals suing the FCC over this BS decision
Old     (95sn)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-15-2017, 1:23 PM Reply   
Want to do a google search? that will be .99 cents please, you can use Paypal.
Pai explains it just like its a republican middle class tax cut, and such a class act.
https://www.gq.com/story/fcc-pai-bad-video

Send your complaint.
https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
Old     (onlyinboards)      Join Date: Oct 2014       12-15-2017, 3:18 PM Reply   
Complaint sent.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-15-2017, 4:26 PM Reply   
Hate to burst your bubble people but when there is millions of dollars that are being payed to them to push this through no amount of signatures/call/emails is going to help. If you were offered a million dollars would you care if there is people protesting it naww you wouldn't, by leaving it as it is there not gaining anything but by getting it through there gonna come home to a fat check from comcast or another isp. It's unfortunately going through.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-15-2017, 4:32 PM Reply   
This is the a$$hat Trump put in charge, and he has the balls to go and make this video after the decision

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know...chairmans-anti
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-15-2017, 6:34 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeslash View Post
Hate to burst your bubble people but when there is millions of dollars that are being payed to them to push this through no amount of signatures/call/emails is going to help. If you were offered a million dollars would you care if there is people protesting it naww you wouldn't, by leaving it as it is there not gaining anything but by getting it through there gonna come home to a fat check from comcast or another isp. It's unfortunately going through.
Of course, but when dumbasses like you continue to vote for the GOP incumbent because they proclaim they will stop abortion (which isn't going to happen) or they are going to get the debt under control (which, looking at the GOP tax plan, isn't going to happen either) this is what occurs. Think about that next time you call someone a snowflake.

Trump-followers' logic. "He's draining the swamp!" And what "draining the swamp" consists of is Trump putting a tiny pin-prick in the swamp while his cronies have installed a giant hose that is overflowing the swamp.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-15-2017, 6:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Of course, but when dumbasses like you continue to vote for the GOP incumbent because they proclaim they will stop abortion (which isn't going to happen) or they are going to get the debt under control (which, looking at the GOP tax plan, isn't going to happen either) this is what occurs. Think about that next time you call someone a snowflake.

Trump-followers' logic. "He's draining the swamp!" And what "draining the swamp" consists of is Trump putting a tiny pin-prick in the swamp while his cronies have installed a giant hose that is overflowing the swamp.
Jeremy you're a snowflake. Economy is great right now dont see why your complaining you fool.
Old     (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       12-15-2017, 6:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeslash View Post
Jeremy you're a snowflake. Economy is great right now dont see why your complaining you fool.
Thanks Obama!
Old     (95sn)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-15-2017, 6:42 PM Reply   
Donnie Jr tweeted it was OBAMAS FCC chairman.....oops
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...iHc?li=BBnbfcL

Wakeslap, doesn't your bible have the Golden Rule?

Edit to LOL at the "Thanks Obama".
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-15-2017, 6:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeslash View Post
Jeremy you're a snowflake. Economy is great right now dont see why your complaining you fool.
Okay, what's your point? Who said anything about the "economy"? The economy was fine before your Trump. Now you want to bitch about net-neutrality (which was an Obama-era regulation) being repealed led by a Trump appointee and a GOP faction of the House that was bought and sold by Comcast, Cox, and other ISP's?

Look, I have the option of a company (EPB) in my area that has publicly stated it will continue to follow the rules of net-neutrality. I will also likely save money on my federal taxes under the proposed GOP plan. It doesn't mean I don't have the right to criticize what I feel are asinine decisions made by GOP lawmakers and Trump appointees.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       12-15-2017, 7:25 PM Reply   
What the actual..... your saving money so you "have the right to criticize" (said in a whiny sjw voice). Your just too brainwashed at this point so whatever he does you criticize even if it betters your life. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard from a human being dude are you good? its like winning the lottery and saying no i wont take it because i hate powerball and i didnt earn it by doing manual labor. Incredible absolutely incredible jeremy are you a real human or is there a bot behind the account please let there be a bot behind it humans cant stoop that low. Im sorry but thats not the way a human brain functions i dont get where you where taught that if it helps you in the long run you need to criticize it thats pure madness.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-16-2017, 4:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeslash View Post
What the actual..... your saving money so you "have the right to criticize" (said in a whiny sjw voice). Your just too brainwashed at this point so whatever he does you criticize even if it betters your life. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard from a human being dude are you good? its like winning the lottery and saying no i wont take it because i hate powerball and i didnt earn it by doing manual labor. Incredible absolutely incredible jeremy are you a real human or is there a bot behind the account please let there be a bot behind it humans cant stoop that low. Im sorry but thats not the way a human brain functions i dont get where you where taught that if it helps you in the long run you need to criticize it thats pure madness.
Dude, you should really give up on trying to give an analogy of everything someone says. You're awful at it. You have been discussing net-neutrality and the problems it is going to cause for many Americans. I recognize and agree it is a messed-up situation and I cannot sit back and be happy about it just because it likely won't affect me.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-16-2017, 10:22 AM Reply   
Back to the argument . . .{This statement makes it look like he doesn't understand the problem...} True, but much of what you're worried about already takes place. Companies pay money for fast "pop ups"" and to be first to appear on a search engine. However, taking away net neutrality may create an ""equalized"" billing procedure for the companies providing these services (the ones footing the bill for maintaining the infrastructure). This is the argument most miss: "But critics of net neutrality point out that consumers burn through data in different ways, which means heavy-data users pay proportionately less than low-data users. It's then a matter of perspective: Should someone who only uses the internet to check their email pay Comcast the same home internet bill as the person who plays games on Xbox Live?"" This quote originated here https://www.bustle.com/p/10-net-neut...ealize-7590395 People who use more should be charged more. Routers, cabling, employees are not free.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-16-2017, 10:31 AM Reply   
plhorn (plhorn) I'd like to see your source for that list.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-16-2017, 3:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
....but much of what you're worried about already takes place. Companies pay money for fast "pop ups"" and to be first to appear on a search engine.
At what point have I expressed concern for companies having to pay for advertising or priority on search engines. That's not the issue at all. So no, I haven't been worried about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Should someone who only uses the internet to check their email pay Comcast the same home internet bill as the person who plays games on Xbox Live?
How come it's not the people who just use the net for email that are making this complaint? Oh I know, because that's not what the issue is about. The issue is how backbone providers can decide how to piggyback extra charges for streaming services, or anything they decide for that matter, that ISP's are already selling you a high data rate to get.

You are trying to sell this as a fairness issue. But nobody except those who want more control feel treated unfairly. This isn't a "problem" that the consumer wants fixed. Why do you want to fix what isn't broke?
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-17-2017, 8:27 AM Reply   
You're right, the consumer is getting a "heck"of a deal. It's the network companies that are getting the shaft. Worst case scenario, a public network, like public TV, may arise . I don;t see this about control. It's more about fair pricing for the providers.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-17-2017, 8:34 AM Reply   
"At what point have I expressed concern for companies having to pay for advertising or priority on search engines. That's not the issue at all. So no, I haven't been worried about that."" You didn't but that is one it concern I hear about the issue. Even with net net neutrality, the ability to access information has been "throttled back" for various reasons.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-17-2017, 8:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
You're right, the consumer is getting a "heck"of a deal. It's the network companies that are getting the shaft. Worst case scenario, a public network, like public TV, may arise . I don;t see this about control. It's more about fair pricing for the providers.
You act as if Netflix gets all their data on the net with a $99 internet connection. Consumers pay for data speed in their choice of ISP provider options. Services like Netflix pay for access to the net as well. The point of net neutrality is to prevent the backbone providers from having the authority to make choices about who gets on at what rate according to their desires, It's a simple premise of protecting an open internet that can't be held hostage by big corporations. Why would you want to remove that simple protection? You keep referring to other people's arguments, but I'm curious to understand why you think that removing NN is going to benefit you or the rest of the public. I've yet to hear a single argument as to how the internet is going to be better for the public by removing NN.

Also I'm not following why Google getting paid to promote on their searches is even related to this issue. It's like arguing that power utilities should not be regulated because the toaster that you plug into the wall is not regulated. So why are you arguing that whatever people put on their web site is analogous to the shared data highway? Sounds like some weird strawman slippery slope claim. I'm having trouble of understanding why the right wants corporations to have more control over their lives without any understanding of how that is going to make their lives better.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-17-2017, 9:53 AM Reply   
Google has competition, I could use Bing at any moment someone could come up with something better and I could use that. I only have comcast as an option, that is why their is no free market rules and they need to be forced to do what is right.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-17-2017, 8:54 PM Reply   
Not trying to straw man on you, but lets go with the toaster analogy. Lets say your house is all electric with an average monthly bill of $300. Your neighbor's house has natural gas heat which causes his bill to be an average of $150 a month. With NN, the electric company is required to charge all customers $150 a month lessening their profit, but with greater profit margins, more infrastructure spending should occur making the grid more efficient. A big plus is for parents and schools because they may be better able to regulate access to some sites that are not appropriate. You might even see greater access in some cases as companies compete for your business, Amazing things can happen when the public has a choice.
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       12-17-2017, 11:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Not trying to straw man on you, but lets go with the toaster analogy. Lets say your house is all electric with an average monthly bill of $300. Your neighbor's house has natural gas heat which causes his bill to be an average of $150 a month. With NN, the electric company is required to charge all customers $150 a month lessening their profit, but with greater profit margins, more infrastructure spending should occur making the grid more efficient. A big plus is for parents and schools because they may be better able to regulate access to some sites that are not appropriate. You might even see greater access in some cases as companies compete for your business, Amazing things can happen when the public has a choice.
The ISP have been making TONS of money and yet we have crappy internet speeds at ridiculous prices when compared to europe and asia (china excluded).
Comcast and Time Warner have effectively split the country in two and are NOT competing and are running a du-opoly. What you are talking about is good in theory but we have seen that it is not working in this case.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-18-2017, 8:14 AM Reply   
Hate to burst your bubble Ron, but it was the power company version of NN that built the power grid. If it weren't for it, then power delivery would have been concentrated into high profits regions with the rest in the dark off the grid. If parents and schools need to better regulate access then I'd say that they should support commercial innovation in that market because I'm positive that parents and schools don't make any decisions about what net traffic is acceptable to backbone providers.

However backbone providers might want to regulate information flow according to what best suits their commercial interests. I'd say that likelihood has a lot more plausibility given where the MSM is at this point.

"Amazing things can happen when the public has a choice."

Lets keep it that what by maintaining neutrality.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-18-2017, 8:39 AM Reply   
I don't see how NN had anything to do with the building of the grid. To me NN has limited that building. I'm not sure what exactly has happened but the Internet now, as far as unlimited research, is 90% worse now than it was 15 years ago. Anyway, I found this article that may calm some of your fears. The rest is just wait and see. http://fortune.com/2017/12/13/fcc-net-neutrality-vote/
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-18-2017, 9:40 AM Reply   
Seriously, you know nothing of power company regulation? Nothing of how power companies were given monopolies and in return forced to provide service to the public outside of populated areas. This was started after the great depression.

Here's a quote from your article....

"An ISP might be frustrated that Netflix consumes 35% of its bandwidth at peak hours, but it cannot legally block it, with or without net neutrality. Even with no net neutrality, the most that an ISP could do would be to slow down access to Netflix, and charge people for higher speeds. In reality, this is not likely to happen"

Even though your ISP prices your service by data rate and sometimes data quantity, you also want to give them the option of blocking your data?

Or how about this quote...

"While net neutrality may be conceptually appealing, it is not equitable. Is it fair that a few super-users are allowed to clog up networks by downloading movies, playing data-hungry online games, and not paying more for it? Why shouldn’t ISPs be allowed to price data according to volume, type, or speed?"

ISP's do price your connection to the net by speed and sometimes volume. Now you want them to charge you based on "type"? You want backbone providers to choose your access to the "type" of information they deem suitable to them?

I like this one...

"Sixth, net neutrality, however intuitively appealing, is a form of government control. History has taught us that government control and intervention often inhibits progress and innovation."

I thought history taught us that whenever corps have too much control the public suffers. That's why we have monopoly laws.

LOL at this one....

"If ISPs are less regulated, one might imagine companies springing up that would provide better, faster, and cheaper service, thus promoting innovation."

Yes, that would be quite the imagination. Sorry, but the arguments for allowing backbone providers to control the content is too full of "shoulds" and "coulds". I prefer that the public maintain control over the net and keep it open for all innovation. Not just innovative ways to line shareholder profits at the public expense.
Old     (95sn)      Join Date: Sep 2005       12-18-2017, 5:01 PM Reply   
Interesting stuff.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...general-report
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-19-2017, 9:34 AM Reply   
Continuing with the electric company argument, that means, in NN theory, I will pay the same electric bill as Wal Mart for its usage. In addition, and if my history is correct, Nikola Tesla was working on an invention that may have eliminated the current infrastructure of how consumers receive electricity today. So, regarding your public utility history lesson, which was informative, if Tesla weren’t “strong armed” by the powers in charge at the time in to giving his trade secrets away, which he refused to do, we may not even be using fossil fuels today. It’s ironic that it took several searches to even find him because ads for the car kept “popping” up.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-19-2017, 9:42 AM Reply   
So you think Netflix pays $60 for their connection to the web? Because that's what I pay and that's what your walmart analogy suggests.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-19-2017, 11:38 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So you think Netflix pays $60 for their connection to the web? Because that's what I pay and that's what your walmart analogy suggests.
No, but that's what the supporters of Net Neutrality want everyone to believe. That everyone pays the same price and the "little guy" is getting hosed in the deal. Never realized that Comcast, Cox, etc. were considered the "little guy".
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-19-2017, 11:45 AM Reply   
"if Tesla weren’t “strong armed” by the powers in charge at the time in to giving his trade secrets away, which he refused to do, we may not even be using fossil fuels today."

Yeah, and 50 years ago some guy found a way to make cars run on water but the big oil companies silenced him and no one else has been able to figure out how to make cars run on water since.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-19-2017, 2:53 PM Reply   
What does Wal-Mart pay? I don't know and yes the public does seem to be "hosed" by Wal Mart not paying more. That's the part I am trying to understand, cost distribution. Again, continuing with the electric analogy, in theory, that means hospitals and nursing homes should not be brought online first when a blackout has occurred if all electricity is delivered equally? Running cars on hydrogen, I'm guessing that is what you are referring to since no specific name or research is mentioned, is possible now, just not affordable to manufacture or safe for public consumption.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-20-2017, 8:57 AM Reply   
I'm pretty sure Walmart pays a lot for their electricity and the public AFAIK doesn't seem to be the least bit concerned that they are getting "hosed". The electric analogy says that hospitals get turned on first because it serves the public need. All of your analogies so far ironically support my point. You should really stop posting them because a) it makes you look ignorant, and b) it's annoying as crap to discuss something with someone that thinks everything means the opposite.

And the evidence you provided to prove that we are dependent on fossil fuel because a NN like govt program suppressed Tesla's discovery seemed to be par with my water fueled car claim. That should give you a clue about why I posted it.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-20-2017, 11:29 AM Reply   
I was thinking the same thing. All I'm saying is people should be charged for what they use. You do that with electricity so why not the Internet? I'm still studying this issue so I may sound ignorant but is there no truth to this article? https://www.forbes.com/sites/quicker.../#343c88fe36e6
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-20-2017, 11:39 AM Reply   
The electricity analogy is completely useless.

A better one (still just an analogy, folks) are roads and highways, because at least those have a variety of vehicles and services traversing them. So what Ron appears to be saying is that since people LOVE to buy stuff from Amazon, that Amazon (or ups/fedex/etc depending on how you want to frame it exactly) should be paying more taxes or tolls than everyone else because they are driving on our roads more than anyone else. But *why* are they? Because they are popular and being driven by consumer demand. So basically it sounds like you're saying punish companies that do well.

These companies already pay for the bandwidth they are using to their ISPs. And the customers driving the actual bandwidth usage are also paying for the bandwidth they are using to *their* ISPs.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-20-2017, 7:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
I was thinking the same thing. All I'm saying is people should be charged for what they use. You do that with electricity so why not the Internet? I'm still studying this issue so I may sound ignorant but is there no truth to this article? https://www.forbes.com/sites/quicker.../#343c88fe36e6
There is no information in that article. You can't put the amount of data that netflix puts on the web without paying for the access. You can't pull 100mbps of data off the internet if you are paying for a 10mbps connection. Some access to the internet is metered. None of this has anything to do with NN. The argument isn't over the amount of data. Look at this quote....

Quote:
Or, let’s suppose you’re staying in a hotel (or you’re on a plane) where everyone pays the same for Internet access, except there’s one guy in room 805 who’s hogging up 50% of the bandwidth watching God knows what. With net neutrality, he would have the right to the same bandwidth as you do and would pay the same. Except he’s abusing his right. And you’re suffering with slower speeds and less productivity.
If someone has the ability to consume 50% of the bandwidth it's because they are paying for that amount of access. If you are selling high bandwidth but need to limit the amount of data then you sell metered connections. NN just means you can't decide to treat the access you sell differently based on the content of the data. That example is just a superficial analogy that makes the flawed argument that every one on the net can consume all the bandwidth with a $60 connection.

Managing bandwidth and capacity can be done pricing access to the net based on those factors. So if everyone watching Netflix is a problem then ISPs can move away from unlimited data plans without violating NN. Netflix has to pay for putting the data on the net. NN doesn't mean you get unlimited bandwidth for next to nothing.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 6:34 AM Reply   
OK, one of has this all wrong and I may be the sheep in this case. Here's the way I see it. Let’s say I built a road WITH MY MONEY and EVERYONE has found my road quit useful. However, because of its popularity the road has now become congested, needs constant repair and could use a few extra lanes added to it because of so many large trucks now using the road FOR THEIR PROFIT. Now, people are protesting outside of my house because I want to charge the trucks more because they are causing at least 60% of the damage.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       12-21-2017, 6:51 AM Reply   
You can charge more for the trucks based on weight and frequency. You just can't charge more because they are hauling beets instead of potatoes, and you have other operations in the beet hauling dept that you'd like to give it the competitive advantage.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 7:46 AM Reply   
quit {quite}
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 7:47 AM Reply   
One of {us} Ok I tired and ready for a vacation!
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 8:06 AM Reply   
OK, I may have it now. The below article helped. I try to find neutral sources. Basically, it's a choice of "puppet masters" (ISP and content providers) kinda like a choice between poisons. I'd like to back to the old days (90's) before the Internet was used for entertainment and advertisements but that's not happening anytime soon. I now somewhat understand the public's concerns, but I'm sure someone will figure out how to profit from that and provide alternative choices. Maybe a highway without ads could be built. These things do have a way of working out. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ean/100930220/
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 9:38 AM Reply   
Part of the problem with the NN rule, which I hate to admit may actually be a good idea, is it may not have been properly enforced (see below) so I don’t see where it has made much difference anyway. IMHO the bigger problem is too many large companies pay for priority "pop ups" on searches and probably speed, which may not have anything to do with NN, but aggravates me because most "grass root" sites that provide actual objective information get "run off the road." As a result, companies that pay Google, for example, for priority listings are the only ones seen. Reading comments made by people who write on Yahoo and sites like this one, for example, where free speech is largely uncensored, are, in most case, much more educational. I hope that never goes away, Some good things about this is if this plays out the way protesters think, they can always cancel their service and Pai can be replaced. In the meantime, I'm going to the library. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...igation-found/
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       12-21-2017, 9:39 AM Reply   
{cases}
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       01-09-2018, 6:02 PM Reply   
Symbolic but hopefully keeps the debate alive:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1f2ee018a52a
Old     (plhorn)      Join Date: Dec 2005       01-16-2018, 3:42 PM Reply   
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1F52JO



How did Net Neutrality become a democrat issue?!? Who the hell isn't in favor of net neutrality that doesn't own stock in comcast?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-17-2018, 7:12 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by plhorn View Post
Who the hell isn't in favor of net neutrality that doesn't own stock in comcast?
People who are gullible. One way to identify them is by their frequent use of terms such as "fake news" and "snowflake", which they've been programmed to mindlessly repeat.
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       01-17-2018, 2:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
People who are gullible. One way to identify them is by their frequent use of terms such as "fake news" and "snowflake", which they've been programmed to mindlessly repeat.
Haha fly what a character.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-17-2018, 6:28 PM Reply   
It's really "six one way or a half a dozen another."Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. It's all about money and trust. "This argument is simple: the costs of regulation are clear, and the benefits are not. This argument, favored by some economists, posits that in the absence of clear harm, regulators should take on hands-off approach. Who knows what people will come up with? Those like Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution say that they don’t trust the FCC to fairly administer rules under Title II, and would prefer to entrust net neutrality protections to the market and the FTC: “I would rather take my chances with the market, even with some monopoly power at the cable end” (qtd, https://qz.com/1140466/all-the-best-...d-by-ajit-pai/)
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-18-2018, 10:46 AM Reply   
It's not a choice of trusting the market or the FTC. It's a matter of trusting the courts. With rules in place the courts provide a means to address complaints. While you presented a "simple argument", you didn't provide any justification for it, which is why it's simple. Like for instance... what's the cost of regulating net neutrality? And what were the benefits that don't add up to that cost?
Old     (wakeslash)      Join Date: Sep 2017       01-18-2018, 11:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
It's not a choice of trusting the market or the FTC. It's a matter of trusting the courts. With rules in place the courts provide a means to address complaints. While you presented a "simple argument", you didn't provide any justification for it, which is why it's simple. Like for instance... what's the cost of regulating net neutrality? And what were the benefits that don't add up to that cost?
Man fly listen no point in beating a dead horse its over and done with if you feel like you need to do a couple protests (ie go downtown walk around smashing windows and burning stuff then go ahead) you need to move on like everyone else, topics over and done with. If you want to talk some sense on here figure out a way to tighten border security a lot more important subject at the moment. Thread closed (other then the occasional people that check WW every 2 years and then comment on a thread when half the people who originally posted in it already left the site)
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-19-2018, 10:13 AM Reply   
The issue. IMHO, goes back to a Regan quote, " The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" What concerns me about NN is what Scott Cleland, of the organization Net Competition, argues, "creating a regulatory framework for the Internet would be tantamount to handing over control of the Internet to the government. They raise the specter of an intrusive government with easy access to citizens' personal transactions. . . that net neutrality legislation would mean less privacy for all Americans, as Net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic." However, even with NN going away, I'm afraid the Wild West days of the Internet is coming to an end for people seeking "real" research and not advertisements or one-sided opinions.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-19-2018, 11:38 AM Reply   
"that net neutrality legislation would mean less privacy for all Americans, as Net neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic"

Who told you that? If a content producer is being strong armed by a back bone provider the issue will be raised by them. You keep injecting nebulous fears without making an actual link to the issue. When someone is being legally wronged they use the courts to effect a resolution, or alert the FCC and see if a resolution can be made outside the courts.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-19-2018, 2:59 PM Reply   
My link to the argument is not everybody has the same trust in the "system" and are afraid (refer back to Regan's quote). However, I have been involved with our legal system, and even though it is the best in the world, it is far from perfect or fair sometimes. The argument comes from an article you may be able to access through you local university or library. "Net Neutrality: Should Congress pass legislation mandating net neutrality?" Issues & Controversies, November 1, 2010. Accessed January 19, 2018. http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=1873.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-19-2018, 3:02 PM Reply   
Surprisingly, even though it's a subscription service, the link works.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-19-2018, 7:25 PM Reply   
Link requires login for me. So the article is saying that the FCC would need to monitor the content of the traffic? Considering that most traffic is encrypted, what did the article say they are looking for? Did it explain why the FCC would need to know the content for NN to be effective?
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-22-2018, 1:06 PM Reply   
Unfortunately, the article was written during before NN was implemented (I should have checked the publication date before I posted) so there is no mention of what the FCC needs to know, so it could be considered speculative. However, have you considered this, “Scott Cleland of the organization Net Competition, an anti–net neutrality lobbying group, argues that 'any legislation requiring net neutrality would be special-interest legislation dressed up to sound less self-serving. Did you know Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are lobbying for Net neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low, government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else, consumers, businesses, and government, will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth."' In addition, Mr. Pai said the '"current rules had been adopted to stop only theoretical harm.' He said 'the rules limit consumer choice because telecom companies cannot offer different tiers of service, for example. As a result, he said, internet service companies cannot experiment with new business models that could help them compete with online businesses like Netflix, Google and Facebook '" (qtd. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/t...eutrality.html). Now, without NN will companies actually show favoritism? Maybe, but hasn't some favoritism already shown?

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:20 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us