Just so long as I'm fully clothed in them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Net Neutrality, good bye internet.
- Thread starter Enoch07
- Start date
-
- Tags
- internet go boom
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I think it has been swinging in favor of large corporations and the wealthy for too long, and it has not swung the other direction nearly far enough.
That might sound all well and good but the cable companies have been abundantly clear on what they plan to do. This isn't so much a "worst case scenario" as more so one step away from what they have explicitly said they plan to do and why they have pushed for the legislation.
Also the FCC guy worked for one of the big ISPs before he got this position, and still has conflicts of interest with them. He's purely doing it because he's corrupt and will get something out of it. The majority of Americans support net neutrality and actual companies who's business are online are against it as they know the cable companies are pushing for it to make the internet more like cable tv with packages and throttled speeds outside of those packages.
If you are for free speech why would you get rid of rules that prevent censorship? All net neutrality does is say they can't throttle your connection based on what sites you are going to and can't block sites (at least that are otherwise legal).
How getting rid of that rule is good for anyone but the cable companies I have no idea. But it's been clear since they started introducing datacaps and excluding their own streaming from it that they are trying to price gouge. Hell, their profit margins are already at record highs. And that ain't enough. It's corruption and anti consumerism.
The internet is a free and open market right now. Net Neutrality was put in place to keep it that way when ISPs started to threaten that status. It's about one of the few places you can have free speech and anyone can make their own website or start a business online. The removal of net neutrality will ruin all that. They've made very clear their intentions in removing it for years, the ISPs anyway. The FCC chairman has been more coded and lying about it however as it's gained public attention.
America is pretty clear on what it wants and is in bipartisan agreement:
Current: 83%
Net Neutrality Poll Results
July: 76%
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality
November: 81%
New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality
So who the **** does the FCC represent? Greedy cable companies it would seem.
Current: 83%
Net Neutrality Poll Results
July: 76%
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality
November: 81%
New poll: Republicans and Democrats both overwhelmingly support net neutrality
So who the **** does the FCC represent? Greedy cable companies it would seem.
Too bad it's decided by the FCC and not Trump then. The Irony is it was the FCC who put the net neutrality rules in place originally. The old FCC did a lot right right when it was becoming a problem.
I just don't think the sky will fall.
I don't see market based price & speed as censorship.
If things do eventually turn out poorly, there's always the opportunity to change things.
Trump won't be in office forever.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What benefits do you foresee ?
With the ability to charge based upon resource, it can be allocated more efficiently.
Those willing & able to pay more will see better service, which will also spur improvement.
Just as some will drive....
....others on a budget will drive....
Koldo
Outstanding Member
With the ability to charge based upon resource, it can be allocated more efficiently.
Those willing & able to pay more will see better service, which will also spur improvement.
Just as some will drive....
....others on a budget will drive....
I don't understand. Can't you already pay more for a better service ( better internet speed, for example ) ?
What would be the difference ?
For a given level of service, some will hog bandwidth, eg, movies.
This slows down things for others.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Companies don't care what you think or how you feel. If people really want to make an impact, stop paying money for their ****.
Realistically people will adjust and life will continue on after all the rage dies down. That's how corporatism works and they know it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Ok, but how does this relate to your previous post ?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people should pay according to how much bandwidth they use ? If people get to pay for a bigger share of the bandwidth, wouldn't that still cause slow down for others ? I still don't understand what benefit you see.
I answered your question.
Bandwidth is a limited resource. When demand is high, we see
slowdowns. Charging based upon usage can better optimize things.
I remember when one could whistle into a modem, & spell words on the screen.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Sure. I agree with that. But as far as I understand the term, Net Neutrality it is ''the concept that providers of internet services must treat all traffic equally''. So, you haven't touched the issue I am asking. What's the benefit in internet providers treating traffic in an unequal manner ? For example, what would be the benefit of allowing them to give a higher connection speed to Vimeo over Youtube ?
I don't know that this would happen.
But it's also possible that one of them might pay for preferred access.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent it from happening either way ?
And how would this be a benefit ?
No. Regulation always has costs.
If the benefits don't exceed the costs, then it's a net loss.
If the provider has another income stream, this could lower consumer costs.
This is why broadcast TV is cheaper in Americastan than Not So Great
Britain....ours is paid for by advertisers.