Reply With Quote
No we're just potentially making internet service like cable TV subscriptions that are so popular these days.
But you're right, it's not as important an issue as mouthy 19 year olds protesting at Berkeley.
It means disgruntled Liberals will have to pay another 99 cents for their ty streaming services
No we're just potentially making internet service like cable TV subscriptions that are so popular these days.
But you're right, it's not as important an issue as mouthy 19 year olds protesting at Berkeley.
^Mono and Reck
In summary, a wildly popular order signed in 2015 as a response to telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers has been defeated 3-2 in a closed door committee along party lines despite a wave of public opposition and no real reason to do so other than as a legislative favor for telecom companies who are hemorrhaging subscribers to Netflix, Hulu, etc., and the only thing some people can say about it is, "Y'all are seriously overreacting."
^"wildly popular"
"telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers" (how dare they be allowed to make business decisions in an open and free market!)
"no real reason"
What is it with all this fear mongering?
Content providers pay for specific bandwidths of communications just like users do. Can you imagine the legal battles if Comcast actually started to throttle Nextflix?
bandwidth is MB/sec, sold like this:
http://he.net/ip_transit.html?p=&t=&...hoCF_AQAvD_BwE
... without measuring data volume, my guess is now that backbone operators will start charging for data rate and data volume.
The two main points of killing net neutrality, why the ISPs have spent $100Ms buying legislators, is to make more money and with no regulation.
Consumers prices on all Internet access will go up ASAP. And your access to tor or comcastsucks.com, or any other sources BigISP doesn't like, will be heavily throttled or blocked.
FCC had to intervene to block BigISP from blocking Google Pay WITH le II. Now such blocking is legal, or at least effectively beyond the capability of understaffed, underfunded FTC.
BigISP now has every motivation NOT to invest in more bandwidth, to keep supply below demand, to push up bandwith/data prices.
You have it backwards. Net neutrality regulations will raise rates and make service poorer.
There are reasons the packet types are treated differently. It is by necessity to provide smooth services with minimal complaints. As our demand for more and more bandwidth increases, Tier 1 to Tier 3 providers will have glitchy services by nature on streaming, and real time necessities, or cost so much more money in aggressive installations of expensive equipment. Millions of miles more of fiber optic cables.
Forget those nice fancy online shoot'em up games when the ping times dramatically increase.
Unless both end users can buy the level of service they need and can afford, prices will go through the roof, or always be bad. Probably a little of both.
Why did they change the policy, Chris?^"wildly popular"
"telecom companies beginning to throttle and favor various online content providers" (how dare they be allowed to make business decisions in an open and free market!)
"no real reason"
unfair question, the response, if any, will be hilarious.
You don't know what the you're talking about, per par. It's all about ISPs and the last mile, you didn't hear a peep from Level 3, etc backbone providers about lack of capacity and truth is capacity has been larger AND substantially cheaper over the last few years (easy to look up, and if you work with those people you would already know this). Plenty of dark fiber still to tap.
ISPs pay for bandwidth, and so does the users, Netflix, Google, and everyone else. Why should the ISP be the gatekeeper in that arrangement? The only reason is that they're the only ones with a captive audience, and the ones that won't guarantee service performance to maximize profits.
The fact is, the only ones doing packet filtering and prioritization are the ISPs because they've neglected to upgrade their infrastructure, and you don't see any of them bleeding cash, they're ing rolling on it.
protip: if you wanna make a better anti-regulation argument, go for the 'why does most ISPs are government granted monopolies?' But that discussion isn't on the table, and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, tbh.
Why did the policy have to change, Chris?
Because you decided to run Hillary. Blame yourself.
*ding*
Holidays got you down?
Everything on this political forum boils down to a simple fact: You lost. You lost because you ran a loser. Your loser lost before. You ran her anyhow. You cheated your own best hope out of any shot at the office, now you have to live with what you've done yet you pretend you were cheated out of it.
But deflect away, CD. It's all you have left.
Is this what you're on about?
It sure does insulate you from any actual discussion. Your own safe space.
Is this what you're on about?
It sure does insulate you from any actual discussion. Your own safe space.
It's OK, man. Now we know you never will. Be safe.
I had to google Ben Shapiro, tbh... no idea who he was... makes sense now...
he's a white supremacist jew. lmao
You coming out of retirement tbh?
He's a fast talking little er.
Some of his points are good, but people make convenient points, not good points. Ben is one of the lesser evils on the right however. He's no where near as blindly partisan as the Rush Limbaugh types.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
