Okay. On the American political spectrum he is moderately right-wing.
To the rest of the world, he is as ultra right-wing as everybody else within the U.S. Government.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Votes in Favor of Net Neutrality Rules, Classifies Broadband Service as a Utility
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okay. On the American political spectrum he is moderately right-wing.
To the rest of the world, he is as ultra right-wing as everybody else within the U.S. Government.
Currently internet service is not taxed...
Well, until this afternoon. Because everyone knows it costs money to regulate and oversee something and that requires taxes taxes and more taxes.
"We win"?
Well, until this afternoon. Because everyone knows it costs money to regulate and oversee something and that requires taxes taxes and more taxes.
"We win"?
Exactly, same here. I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't pretending like I can pick a side on this.
Can I still look at boobies whilst on the toilet?
If so, then I'm in favor of this ruling.
#MyTaxDollarsAtWork
If so, then I'm in favor of this ruling.
#MyTaxDollarsAtWork
That and the fact that browsing MacRumors would not be using 80% of the carriers bandwidth. The point was for the Netflix's and Amazons who stream huge content taxing the carriers network were to pay more. Not the consumer who has a 30mb connection and is browsing MacRumors. Now certainly if Netflix has to pay more then they would most likely pass those costs on to THEIR customers but the folks who dont use Netflix (in this example) would not be effected. This new deal could quite possibly lead the ISP's to say, well we cant charge Netflix and Amazon for killing our network so to build more infrastructure to support that bandwidth we will just raise the cost to everyone!
You can pick a side quite easily. It's just knowing what will happen in the long term that's a big question.
News flash Conservative act like a bunch of crazy apes at a zoo and the guy who runs FCC is a Conservative dingo. Say hi to Bush for me his act of terrorism send America back 100 years while working with those Commie Chinese.
The fact is, Netflix had long since set up quite a few deals with Tier 1 providers that would've eased the congestion on Comcast and Co.'s networks. All they had to was, quite literally, plug into the router.
The problem was, Comcast and Co. didn't want to do that. They ignored it entirely, complained Netflix was eating their bandwidth, then turned around and demanded they pay for priority access.
That's what the core issue of all this was. It wasn't that Netflix wanted a free ride. They had spent millions already providing enough bandwidth to the ISPs to keep them from bogging down. It was that the ISPs trumped the whole situation up into a Poor Little Us scenario to get more money.
Would Netflix finally add more Anime and Horror to streaming after Net Neutrality passes or bunch of pointless Documentaries or would they burn down their DVD department and put everything to stream. I guessed this depends with Dingo from FCC and Conservatives.
What does the content Netflix decides to host have to do with the topic on hand?
Actually, this is one area that needs regulating. We need to stop cable companies from throttling Netflix and similar services that compete with their other services. And, yes that has been happening.
Everything or else Netflix would be busy worrying what to add to streaming but instead they are too worried paying off Comcast so their customers stop whining. How about just make Comcast customers pay more or tell them to find another isp.
Yes, I am connected via satellite. As can you be connected via satellite if Comcast is your only land based ISP in the area (which we know it isn't as almost every market has DSL).
Your rant discussed how the internet is made up of under ground ducts and telephone poles. That is inaccurate in terms of viable tier-3 (consumer ISP) network providers.
Like I said, you are willfully ignoring viable alternative options to attempt to make your point.
Thank you for your explanation. Some of the bozos have clearly been watching too much American cable news media if they think net neutrality is bad for the consumer. There's really no reason to be against it unless you're an executive for one of the ISPs or own stock in them.
This isn't a case of where "competiton" can take care of the market because in the case of most cities, you can either get internet through the one company that provides it or not have it at all. It's a bunch of regional monopolies. The ones crying let the free market handle this situation are like suggesting to let the free market handle itself when it comes to electricity. It's asanine.
Despite what the talking heads tell you, not all government regulation is bad guys. You would be surprised how miserable your life would be without much of the regulation we take for granted.
Except that never happened.
----------
This Net Neutrality will just lead to Internet Death Panels.
If I like my plan I can keep my plan. If I like my doctor I can keep my doctor. Oh wait..........that was a lie in almost every case.
Having true alternatives hinges on the fact that the local competitors are able to offer equal quality service. This is only true for a scant few cities in the US.
DSL isn't a true competitor to cable or fiber unless it can offer the same upload and download speeds. In most areas, DSL is usually only a quarter as fast for almost the exact same price. That's not competition.
No, the government cannot regulate content on the internet?
Like it doesn't on radio or television.
Remember, the progressive (like Obama) would like nothing more (and have tried) to bring back the 'fairness doctrine' which is the definition of regulation of free speech.
You must be crack-baby high to think that content regulations and additional taxes are not on their way. After all, that is what progressives do.
The Internet should remain as is and adding government regulation keeps it that way? When did adding regulation ever keep the status quo?
That is the definition of competition and consumer choice. The consumer looks at competing products as a set price and weights the options to which product presents them the best value proposition.
Actually, yeah it did. And there's proof of it. People have monitored the bandwidth Netflix consumed across Comcasts network. You can practically see the point when they decided to flip the switch.
The internet has never had this type of government regulation and since its inception companies have paid to move content across it.
Fairly laughable that people have been brainwashed to think they are rescuing something that never existed. Then again what else should i expect from the millennial generation.
----------
I don't think you understand the difference between tier-1, tier-2, and tier-3 networks. Sigh.
That's funny, usually the people talking about the crazy conspiracy theories are the ones smoking the crack.