Net Neutrality: 2018 No Lube Edition

[atomheartbevo 89452]

This is a great way to get things started off on the new forums.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/attverizon-lobbyists-to-aggressively-sue-states-that-enact-net-neutrality/

Quote

A lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, and other telcos plans to sue states and cities that try to enforce net neutrality rules.

USTelecom, the lobby group, made its intentions clear yesterday in a blog post titled, "All Americans Deserve Equal Rights Online."

"Broadband providers have worked hard over the past 20 years to deploy ever more sophisticated, faster and higher-capacity networks, and uphold net neutrality protections for all," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter wrote. "To continue this important work, there is no question we will aggressively challenge state or municipal attempts to fracture the federal regulatory structure that made all this progress possible."

The USTelecom board of directors includes AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink, Windstream, and other telcos. The group's membership "ranges from the nation's largest telecom companies to small rural cooperatives."

States’ rights don’t apply to net neutrality

Spalter's blog post reminisces about the founding of the United States of America, noting that the Articles of Confederation "ma[de] Congress the sole governing body of our new national government" and that the Constitution "grant[ed] the federal government jurisdiction over commerce that moves across state lines."

State regulations on net neutrality thus conflict with America's founding principles, Spalter wrote:

Quote

It is said that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Nowhere can we find a more perfect modern example for this sentiment than in the cacophony of disparate calls by state and local regulators across the country each seeking to impose their own brand of 'net neutrality' regulations on consumers' Internet experience.

 

Quote

Spalter complained that the net neutrality debate has gone on too long. "No one will get the years of time back that’s been spent on a 'net neutrality' debate long on circular, heated rhetoric and painfully short on honest, constructive dialogue," he wrote.

...

USTelecom hasn't been consistent on the question of whether federal policy should trump states' rights in telecom regulation. USTelecom opposed the FCC during the Obama administration when it preempted state laws that prevent the expansion of municipal broadband networks, which often compete against USTelecom member ISPs. When the FCC lost a court case over that preemption attempt, USTelecom called the ruling "a victory for the rule of law."

But while USTelecom believes states should have the right to prevent cities from building their own broadband networks, the group doesn't think states should have the right to impose their own net neutrality laws.

The telecoms like states' rights when it leans towards the telecoms, but they hate them when it goes the other way.

[bad_teammate 13132]

I hope Democrat 2020 comes out hard for net neutrality. We need municipal ISPs, as well.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Fuck anyone against Net Neutrality 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Fuck anyone against Net Neutrality 

Does it bother you at all that all of the big corporations are pushing NN - more government control? It's pretty obvious what is going on, they want to charge people more for streaming 100% of their television though the internet. If they don't, everyone's internet goes up to pay for the people who constantly stream everything.

[27-25 2040]

2 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Does it bother you at all that all of the big corporations are pushing NN - more government control? It's pretty obvious what is going on, they want to charge people more for streaming 100% of their television though the internet. If they don't, everyone's internet goes up to pay for the people who constantly stream everything.

Does it bother me that the government simply tells ISP's to treat all content equally?  No, that does not bother me in the slightest bit.

Does it bother you all of the big corporations that want to charge more for access to some content than other content?  Or even more egregious, to throttle or potentially block content altogether for strategic or monetary gain?

And NN doesn't allow an ISP to charge more for a person who "streams 100% of their TV through the Internet".  It does allow them to charge more for a person who streams more GB of data, regardless of where that comes from.

Without NN it would be well within say Comcast's right to throttle your DirecTV Now stream for "technical reasons" even if the amount of data is well below your contracted rate.  Would that bother you?

[hobbes2702 12847]

2 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Does it bother you at all that all of the big corporations are pushing NN - more government control? It's pretty obvious what is going on, they want to charge people more for streaming 100% of their television though the internet. If they don't, everyone's internet goes up to pay for the people who constantly stream everything.

Does it bother you that you have zero understanding of net neutrality 

[atomheartbevo 89452]

3 hours ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Does it bother you at all that all of the big corporations are pushing NN - more government control? It's pretty obvious what is going on, they want to charge people more for streaming 100% of their television though the internet. If they don't, everyone's internet goes up to pay for the people who constantly stream everything.

Does it bother you that you have no clue just how cheap bandwidth is?

Does it bother you that you don't have a basic understanding of how for-profit companies operate?  

Does it bother you that these companies have received billions in tax cuts and taxpayer-funded grants and initiatives, only to watch them piss it away?

Does it bother you that many of these companies have been granted monopolies by local or state governments?

Does it bother you that these companies do everything they can to prevent a free market?

[atomheartbevo 89452]

Just so you understand how this business works, SmokeyBear1861 these companies are not charities.

Infrastructure and bandwidth costs are far cheaper today than they were 5-10 years ago, and those costs keep dropping.  Somebody streaming 100% is not eating into their bottom line, it's things like the increase in employee pay (or executive bonuses) that impact that.

Time Warner/Spectrum, etc. tried to claim several years ago that consumers didn't want fast internet, that the ISPs couldn't offer faster or gigabit speeds.  Other companies began offering it, and Time Warner and their cohorts magically discovered that they too could offer better speeds.

I stream 100% and have for several years - I do not have cable/satellite TV.  If Grande (my internet provider) was losing money because I stream 100%, they don't eat the costs, because they aren't a charity.  They would raise my monthly bill from $65 to $85 or whatever.

Edited March 28, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

I understand where you are coming from, but "unlimited bandwidth" is the only thing that sells. Nobody wants a cap on their home internet. I guess its the butthurt cable company that is providing internet and o longer providing cable, instead streaming the replacement through their internet and wanting not to lose that $.

Either way, government fucks shit up, and I was concerned they would find a way to somehow over regulate or fuck up this NN as well. Since it has stopped the sky hasnt fallen as far as I can tell? Any internet company that wants to block certain stuff or throttle stuff would lose their customers immediatly, so I don't think they can now without the laws.

[hobbes2702 12847]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I understand where you are coming from, but "unlimited bandwidth" is the only thing that sells. Nobody wants a cap on their home internet. I guess its the butthurt cable company that is providing internet and o longer providing cable, instead streaming the replacement through their internet and wanting not to lose that $.

Either way, government fucks shit up, and I was concerned they would find a way to somehow over regulate or fuck up this NN as well. Since it has stopped the sky hasnt fallen as far as I can tell? Any internet company that wants to block certain stuff or throttle stuff would lose their customers immediatly, so I don't think they can now without the laws.

Internet companies have already blocked and throttled in the past. That’s the entire reason consumers need these protections. 

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

12 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Internet companies have already blocked and throttled in the past. That’s the entire reason consumers need these protections. 

I see, I just think competition is the solution to protect customers rather than government regulations. The big companies pushing it seems to me they have lobbied to get things in there that will stop them from having competition. 

To me it's fucked that there is only one provider where I live for fast internet. Do the satellite based 5G through the government and give it away for free, fuck the cable companies. 

[atomheartbevo 89452]

7 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I understand where you are coming from, but "unlimited bandwidth" is the only thing that sells. Nobody wants a cap on their home internet.

Just to put it into perspective - a 2-hour HD movie on Netflix runs about 6GB of bandwidth.  Bandwidth is well less than a penny a GB (and substantially cheaper if you're AT&T or Verizon or other large provider tied into the backbone). As an example, if you streamed in HD, 24 hours a day for 30 days a month (roughly 2TB a month in bandwidth), we are talking probably $5 a month or so.

Unfortunately, none of the ISPs will publicly discuss their costs, because there are NDAs in place with the major providers to prevent a discussion of bandwidth/data transit costs, but there are educated guesses (and my web hosting provider would charge me around $4 for 2TB of bandwidth a month).  Multiple ISP CEOs have went on record saying that the costs of bandwidth/data transit are decreasing far faster than usage is increasing, and a couple of industry studies showed that on average, bandwidth/infrastructure costs are dropping 15-20% every year, and sometimes up to %50 a year (when some new technology comes into play).  

 

[atomheartbevo 89452]

44 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

 I guess its the butthurt cable company that is providing internet and no longer providing cable, instead streaming the replacement through their internet and wanting not to lose that $.

 

Actually this is the problem.  The cable industry does not want to change, even though the customers are changing.  People want to watch stuff on their iPads or iPhones while they're on the shitter.  People who have been coming out of college for the last 5 years or so are not bothering with cable TV, because they get everything they want through their smart TVs and game consoles and online streaming services.

If I drop cable TV through my ISP, they lose revenue from that, while at the same time I'm getting my TV through SlingTV,  or YouTube TV, or Hulu, or just getting the channels I want.  

The thing is, I shouldn't have to subscribe to their shitty TV offerings.   They want to be treated like utilities, they want monopolies or near-monopolies, they want access to public and private right-of-way.  I should just be able to order my internet and be done with it.

Quote

44 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

Since it has stopped the sky hasnt fallen as far as I can tell? Any internet company that wants to block certain stuff or throttle stuff would lose their customers immediatly, so I don't think they can now without the laws.

As you mentioned, most people don't have any competition.

And it bugs the shit out of the cable companies that they can no longer lock us into paying $40 for a cable TV tier that we only use a fraction of just to get ESPN or AMC or whatever, when we can go online and get what we want for far cheaper.  And Time Warner is not allowed to enact data caps for several more years because of their merger, but they were the first pushing it here in Texas, they definitely want it.  They have publicly stated it.

Edited March 28, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[SKJ 1305]

30 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I see, I just think competition is the solution to protect customers rather than government regulations. The big companies pushing it seems to me they have lobbied to get things in there that will stop them from having competition. 

To me it's fucked that there is only one provider where I live for fast internet. Do the satellite based 5G through the government and give it away for free, fuck the cable companies. 

So, what you're saying is, you support the government stepping in to break up the monopoly in your area, but you are against the government stepping in to ensure all content is treated the same, and provider content cannot be monopolized.

 

Seems legit

[wildcat09 29262]

Why is anyone arguing with the lamest troll on this board?

[TwiceHorn 31291]

53 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I see, I just think competition is the solution to protect customers rather than government regulations. The big companies pushing it seems to me they have lobbied to get things in there that will stop them from having competition. 

To me it's fucked that there is only one provider where I live for fast internet. Do the satellite based 5G through the government and give it away for free, fuck the cable companies. 

I mean, you are aware that the only entities pushing against net neutrality are, in fact, big companies?  Big companies who stand to profit immensely from being able to prioritize traffic?

[Brian Fantana 6668]

53 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I see, I just think competition is the solution to protect customers rather than government regulations. The big companies pushing it seems to me they have lobbied to get things in there that will stop them from having competition. 

To me it's fucked that there is only one provider where I live for fast internet. Do the satellite based 5G through the government and give it away for free, fuck the cable companies.

Satellite based internet service is trash, stop advocating for it.

True, millimeter wave 5G wireless technology, which is going to start deploying soon (possibly even this year) is eventually going to change/eradicate coverage problems permanently.

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Satellite based internet service is trash, stop advocating for it.

Just stop. You're giving trash a bad name.

[atomheartbevo 89452]

Comcast really wants that most-hated ISP award from Time Warner Spectrum. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/comcast-wont-give-new-speed-boost-to-internet-users-who-dont-buy-tv-service/?comments=1

Quote

As streaming video continues to chip away at cable TV subscriber numbers, Comcast is making some of its Internet speed increases available only to customers that pay for both Internet and video service.

Last week, Comcast announced speed increases for customers in Houston and the Oregon/SW Washington areas. The announcement headlines were "Comcast increases Internet speeds for some video customers."

Customers with 60Mbps Internet download speeds are being upped to 150Mbps; 150Mbps subscribers are going to 250Mbps; and 250Mbps subscribers are getting a raise to 400Mbps or 1Gbps.

Comcast says speed increases will kick in automatically without raising the customers' monthly bills—but only if they subscribe to certain bundles that include both Internet and TV service.

"Cord cutters are not invited to the [speed increase] party," the Houston Chronicle wrote. "Only those who bundle Internet with cable television and other services... will see their speeds go up at no extra charge."

Presumably, Internet-only customers can get the new speeds by paying more or by bundling their Internet subscriptions with video.

 

[Ted Lange 16053]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

Comcast really wants that most-hated ISP award from Time Warner Spectrum. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/comcast-wont-give-new-speed-boost-to-internet-users-who-dont-buy-tv-service/?comments=1

 

 

But that Russian Troll Spartacus on the old site said this would never happen!

Edited May 2, 2018 by Ted Lange

[Brisketexan 104635]

On 3/28/2018 at 1:30 PM, wildcat09 said:

Why is anyone arguing with the lamest troll on this board?

This.

When the premise of his "argument" is among the dumbest things ever posted, any response is wasting your time.

I'm all FOR "government control" when that means the government says "if you control the means of commerce, don't discriminate -- let freedom ring."  It's, ummm, kinda like the OPPOSITE of "control."

The electric utility doesn't get to charge me different prices for electricity if I use it to run appliances run by one of their "partners" versus a third party.

The telephone utility doesn't get to charge me different prices for calls to businesses that pay them a fee versus those that don't.  And they don't get to slow-play those calls, either.

The internet utility (and folks, it's a utility, the fact that we're having this argument still is nuts) should be the same.

[TornACL 7679]

Quote

But that Russian Troll Spartacus on the old site said this would never happen!

Question....I thought the real concern of net neutrality was NOT speed boosts / bandwidth on the user side, but actually speed boosts / bandwidth manipulation on certain sites?

For example, UVerse limits my speed unless I pay more for the higher internet tier. And if I pay less for a lower tier they drop my internet speed lower. That has been going on since the dawn of time. You pay more you get more. That's what the latest Comcast news looks like to me, no different than the fact that UVerse gives me faster internet for the same price if I bundle cable.

What I thought NN was about is AT&T/UVerse theoretically making a deal with YouTube, and then pushing YouTube content through their tubes faster, and/or subsequently slowing down or blocking access to YouTube competitors like Amazon Prime Videos. In other words, ISPs effectively funneling traffic where they want it to go by monkeying around with the speed at which you can access their competitor sites.

Net neutrality leaves the internet as an open playing field. Where if I get 60 Mbps speed, I get equal speed and bandwidth for any sites I decide I want to go to, whether it's unboxing videos on YouTube or Double Team vids on spankbang (site side bandwidth / connectivity issues aside, of course)

Do I have this all bass ackwards?

Edited May 2, 2018 by TornACL

[RPM 26230]

What it means is providers can do whatever the hell they want to increase profits/manipulate consumers and there is fuckall you can do about it.

[JBJ 3649]

It is useful to break net-neutrality into categories:

Blocking: NN doesn't allow ISPs to block legal activity.

Throttling: NN doesn't allow ISPs to throttle data based on classification or service.

Paid-prioritization: NN doesn't allow content providers to pay for better connectivity to their consumers

Data-rating: NN doesn't allow data to count towards fees and caps differently.  For example, allow unlimited music streaming, but count other services towards a data cap.

 

Most of the debate (in my mind) dwells on the last two items.

Edited May 2, 2018 by JBJ

[Incredulity 11555]

On 3/28/2018 at 11:38 AM, Brian Fantana said:

Satellite based internet service is trash, stop advocating for it.

True, millimeter wave 5G wireless technology, which is going to start deploying soon (possibly even this year) is eventually going to change/eradicate coverage problems permanently.

Are you referring to T-mobile and Sprint on 5G?

Legere was on Squawk spouting off that ATT and others aren’t capable of nationwide 5G and that there combined company was due to infrastructure they would posses together.  I have no idea on the validity of that and Legere isn’t exactly Mr. Humble.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31291]

I believe he's referring to satellite wireless 5G, which is supposed to be a vast improvement upon existing technologies.

So many interesting developments here.  State NN laws.  Pai delaying actual implementation of NN repeal pending OMB analysis (which he didn't have to do). Speculation is that it was to permit a congressional solution.

The TMobile-Sprint merger and all the lies and bullshit they're spewing about competition.  TMobile about to roll out a media service.

Comcast won't sell you high-speed internet unless you subscribe to high-tier cable services.  Seeing how that unfolds as an antitrust suit will give you an idea why FTC/antitrust regulation of the internet is a suboptimal solution.

Edited May 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brian Fantana 6668]

No, I am talking about true 5th generation, millimeter wave band wireless which will be some time coming. The "5G" networks being deployed this year and the next are based on mid-band technology (2-6GHz). True 5G is built to deliver at 10-20gbps and the limitations that are being hit are range limitations.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

Fair enough.  "Millimeter wave" is a frequently used satellite communication technology.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Are you referring to T-mobile and Sprint on 5G?

Legere was on Squawk spouting off that ATT and others aren’t capable of nationwide 5G and that there combined company was due to infrastructure they would posses together.  I have no idea on the validity of that and Legere isn’t exactly Mr. Humble.

 

 

What they are trying to do is use this idea, of making 5G more practicable, to provide a business justification for an otherwise anti-competitve merger.  Last time it got far enough, DOJ nixed it because of the reduction in wireless carriers from 4 to 3.  Somewhat surprisingly, experts are predicting that Trump's antitrust division may nix it because of the anticipated loss of jobs (30K) and effect on prices.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

On 3/27/2018 at 9:24 PM, atomheartbevo said:

This is a great way to get things started off on the new forums.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/attverizon-lobbyists-to-aggressively-sue-states-that-enact-net-neutrality/

The telecoms like states' rights when it leans towards the telecoms, but they hate them when it goes the other way.

I loathe the federal government most of the time, but I think having most of the power over telecom (including radio and tv) vested in a federal agency to be one of the necessary evils.  The states wouldn't want to begin to try to regulate telecom in the first place, and 50 telecom policies would be a disaster.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair enough.  "Millimeter wave" is a frequently used satellite communication technology.

Yeah I know where you're coming from, I'm just not referring to satellite based systems.

[TwiceHorn 31291]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah I know where you're coming from, I'm just not referring to satellite based systems.

Makes perfect sense that it would be adapted to terrestrial stuff, I just hadn't heard it.

[Incredulity 11555]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Makes perfect sense that it would be adapted to terrestrial stuff, I just hadn't heard it.

What Legere said was only the combo of Sprint and T-mobile have the infrastructure and spectrum to provide a true nationwide 5G and that the competition would have to spend a over a trillion dollars.(no idea of the validity of that)

LEGERE: DAVID, YOU KNOW – THIS IS – I'M SO HAPPY THAT YOU READ THE QUESTION THAT I E-MAILED YOU. I'M JUST KIDDING. LISTEN, HERE IS THE DEAL, YA READY? I'M ONLY GOING TO GIVE YOU ONE STATIOD. SO WHAT THEY'RE GOING IS THEY'RE BUILDING MILLIMETER WAVE. VERY HIGH BAND SPECTRUM IN SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO DO FIXED BROADBAND REPLACEMENT. OKAY, READY, GET YOUR PENCILS OUT. IF YOU USE MILLIMETER WAVE STRATEGY TO BUILD NATIONWIDE NETWORK, YOU NEED 1 SITE PER THOUSAND SQUARE YARDS WHICH MEAN YOU NEED 6 MILLION SITES AT 250,000 PER SITE, 1.5 TRILLION. AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. OKAY? THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS SPECTRUM BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT, THEY WOULD NEED TO KICK THEIR CUSTOMERS OFF OF LTE, REFARM, AND GO TO 5G. IF IT WASN'T TV AND I WOULD SAY A WORD THEY ARE. AND THEY ARE EFFED. THEY'RE HOSED. THEY'VE GOT TO DO AN ABOVE FACE. THEY HAVE TO STOP LYING. THEY CAN'T DO SMALL MILLIMETER WAVE BROADBAND REPLACEMENT. AND THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO LEARN THAT IS WATCH SOMEBODY ELSE HELP THE UNITED STATES GAIN LEADERSHIP POSITION. AND THEN COME BACK AND IN AND SPEND THE MONEY THEY'RE WITHERING AWAY SOMEWHERE ELSE

 

[atomheartbevo 89452]

Senate came back and got enough Rs to keep NN in place. Bitch McConnel was a little bitch about it of course. 

[elfenix 34172]

On 5/2/2018 at 9:52 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Makes perfect sense that it would be adapted to terrestrial stuff, I just hadn't heard it.

directv's satellite spectrum was one of the two reasons at&t bought it, the other being that it needs the subscriber base to get lower prices from content creators for tv offerings.  need that Ka band for terrestrial 5G/IMT-2020. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by elfenix

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Senate came back and got enough Rs to keep NN in place. Bitch McConnel was a little bitch about it of course. 

Too bad that bitch Ryan is gonna be a bitch and it won’t even be brought to a vote in the House

[JohnnyRage 1617]

Packet equality was one of the founding qualities of network traffic, or am I taking crazy pills?

[TwiceHorn 31291]

On 5/3/2018 at 5:08 AM, Incredulity said:

What Legere said was only the combo of Sprint and T-mobile have the infrastructure and spectrum to provide a true nationwide 5G and that the competition would have to spend a over a trillion dollars.(no idea of the validity of that)

LEGERE: DAVID, YOU KNOW – THIS IS – I'M SO HAPPY THAT YOU READ THE QUESTION THAT I E-MAILED YOU. I'M JUST KIDDING. LISTEN, HERE IS THE DEAL, YA READY? I'M ONLY GOING TO GIVE YOU ONE STATIOD. SO WHAT THEY'RE GOING IS THEY'RE BUILDING MILLIMETER WAVE. VERY HIGH BAND SPECTRUM IN SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO DO FIXED BROADBAND REPLACEMENT. OKAY, READY, GET YOUR PENCILS OUT. IF YOU USE MILLIMETER WAVE STRATEGY TO BUILD NATIONWIDE NETWORK, YOU NEED 1 SITE PER THOUSAND SQUARE YARDS WHICH MEAN YOU NEED 6 MILLION SITES AT 250,000 PER SITE, 1.5 TRILLION. AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. OKAY? THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS SPECTRUM BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT, THEY WOULD NEED TO KICK THEIR CUSTOMERS OFF OF LTE, REFARM, AND GO TO 5G. IF IT WASN'T TV AND I WOULD SAY A WORD THEY ARE. AND THEY ARE EFFED. THEY'RE HOSED. THEY'VE GOT TO DO AN ABOVE FACE. THEY HAVE TO STOP LYING. THEY CAN'T DO SMALL MILLIMETER WAVE BROADBAND REPLACEMENT. AND THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO LEARN THAT IS WATCH SOMEBODY ELSE HELP THE UNITED STATES GAIN LEADERSHIP POSITION. AND THEN COME BACK AND IN AND SPEND THE MONEY THEY'RE WITHERING AWAY SOMEWHERE ELSE

 

He's full of shit.  It's a speculative notion that tries to give a business justification for an anti-competitive merger that reduces competition from 4 to 3 in an already oligopolistic market.

 

Bullshit of the purest ray serene.

[elfenix 34172]

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12420]

On 3/28/2018 at 1:34 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, you are aware that the only entities pushing against net neutrality are, in fact, big companies?  Big companies who stand to profit immensely from being able to prioritize traffic?

 

Are you sure that the big companies aren't lobbying against net neutrality out of the altruistic goodness of their hearts?

[burntorangebongos 10681]

I have a fantasy that the 4 and 8 chan incels start releasing dirt on Ryan so that he would bring it to a vote. You'd think they'd fight hard for their porn since that is their only way to see vagina. 

[Tom 2959]

12 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Too bad that bitch Ryan is gonna be a bitch and it won’t even be brought to a vote in the House

 

And even if he did, it wouldn't matter win or lose.  That bitch Trump will veto it.

"Hey Ivanka, what is the net neutrality?  Wait...don't tell me.  Was Obama for it or against it?  Oh, those rules were created under him?  Okay.  Veto it is."

 

The following week at a rally:

"You know a lot of people were telling me, Donald....you gotta get rid of the net neutrality.  It's such a bad deal.  Believe me, it's a bad deal, folks.  It's such a...such a....you know, my uncle was an expert on cyber stuff and he warned me....yeah, we're shutting that deal down.  Net neutrality -- you're fired!"

 

[Biff Tannen 45500]

God dammit.  So the Senate actually does something right and the rest of the idiots are going to fuck it up.

[kevwun 15658]

It wouldn't pass the House if it did.  It squeaked through the Senate because it only took 3 Republican votes to do so.  The Republican majority in the House is a lot bigger and a lot dumber.

Edited May 17, 2018 by kevwun

[JBJ 3649]

18 hours ago, elfenix said:

 

Funny video, but terrible analogy.  Customers can pay for faster or slower internet under net neutrality.

[elfenix 34172]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Funny video, but terrible analogy.  Customers can pay for faster or slower internet under net neutrality.

you can pay for more or less bandwidth under net neutrality.  just like you can pay for more or less whoppers.  but you can't delay packets under neutrality rules. or whoppers.

Edited May 17, 2018 by elfenix

[JBJ 3649]

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you can pay for more or less bandwidth under net neutrality.  just like you can pay for more or less whoppers.  but you can't delay packets under neutrality rules. or whoppers.

A better analogy would be the cashiers charging the cooks to serve their Whoppers first. With cooks getting paid per burger served.

With the caveat that the major cooks already pay the servers to quickly hand out their burgers.  Whopper neutrality only applies to the cashiers.

Edited May 17, 2018 by JBJ

[Evenkeel 47]

Every time I hear someone talk about how the free market is the solution (in the case of net neutrality, healthcare, etc.) I die a little inside. It truly pains me to listen to people earnestly talk about ethical (lol) capitalism and how people have the power to decide shit in these uber-consolidated sectors. These companies spread their message and goals vicariously through easily fooled, low information dullards-- the same dullards who carry Exxon and Shell and BP's water far and wide across the internet and in coffee shops where they hand you some elementary level pamphlet they mocked up in MS Paint. 

Line up every telecom and insurance exec against the wall IMO

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

52 minutes ago, elfenix said:

you can pay for more or less bandwidth under net neutrality.  just like you can pay for more or less whoppers.  but you can't delay packets under neutrality rules. or whoppers.

It’s like the fuckers who refuse to deliver pizza east of 35 in Austin. You can refuse to deliver because it’s undesirable, or you can throttle the timeframe for delivery. Whatever.  The end result is an unequal provision of options and the ability to charge more for access to the same content. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

That was kind of a stupid comment on my part.   Bottom line is net neutrality was a positive, but because Obama liked it, trump not only ditched it but took bribes indirectly.