Stop making sense.... There's no place for that here. We are a communist country now. It's all Barry's fault
----------
My thoughts exactly....
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
Stop making sense.... There's no place for that here. We are a communist country now. It's all Barry's fault
----------
My thoughts exactly....
No. You're lost because you're not reading the goddamn paper that explains in big bold letters exactly how you're wrong. You're assuming things without any evidence, or basis in reality.
The internet will continue to work the exact same way it always has. Net Neutrality doesn't require everyone have equal bandwidth. You still gotta buy that. It only states that once that data is on the network, it can't be touched for personal business reasons. If it's slowing down the network. It can be touched. If it's problematic. It can be touched. If it's otherwise working as intended, it can't be touched. This is no different than things are now.
Yeah, I know. Bright-Line! Bright-Line! If that were the only part of the Title II paper, you'd have a point. But guess what? There are 4 and a half other pages that explain exactly when and how Bright-Line can be ignored. So you have no point. Everything you claim is going to happen won't happen because it hasn't happened in 30 odd years. This law doesn't effect how the internet as a whole works. Only what the last mile ISPs can do to the data you request.
I'm a computer scientist my friend. I choose placing regulations on the companies that move to change the foundatios that the Internet was built on. It will ultimately cause massive problems when you try to set priorities on content moving through your network. It will only drive up costs for everyone; ISPs, consumers, and companies. It will hurt consumers and small companies. Not only that but it screws with the algorithms that make networks so efficient. The reason the Internet sucks is because the companies are more concerned about dividends and not the service they provide.
I vote for companies not being able to change the foundation of how the Internet networks are built. This will only create intranets that are controlled by the ISPs. Yes they are fueled by money which is a good thing for business... But you need to see that they don't have the heart of what made the Internet is in mind. I say this because they ARE making a MASSSIVE amount of money in terms of margins yet they have to ask for more?
I vote for not letting companies harm the great algorithms (technology) that has made the Internet such a success because they don't want to handle demand because ISPs are more worried about their stocks and dividends. Oh wait, the FCC screwed us anyways because they didn't unbundle the ISPs anyway. That's what the ISPs are afraid of anyways. They don't want competition.
I'm not afraid of the government regulating it because we as a population can get around it. Just because the close a door doesn't mean there isn't another.
Just because it does happen in China doesn't mean people let it happen everywhere. Look at Syria, they tried and failed. In China, actually a lot of them know how to get around the blocks the government puts in place. Have you followed the struggles of the students in Hong Kong? Do you think the Chinese Communist Party wants that to be leaked?
I'm not for letting companies tell me how to build an efficient network. Look at Google, they are making money off of being an ISP. Their hope was to break even, yet they are pulling a profit off of Google fiber. Oh... Wait, they don't have to prioritize content on their network? They don't have to charge Netflix more money because they are utilizing the service they paid for? Just because I utilize the resources I paid for doesn't give the companies the right to prioritize me or the content I consume.
Government regulates pretty much everything but they won't be able to tell you that you can't watch your porn, movies, news or anything. Freedom of speech triumphs anything that the government may try to regulate on the Internet.
I hate comments like this, made by people who obviously weren't adversely affected by the ACA...
You are wrong. This law does affect how the internet works as a whole because you can no longer use a local ISP to buy dedicated bandwidth between two ISPs in the same city, state, country within the USA. You will have to buy leased line services if you want dedicated managed services. So say goddamn all you want. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Currently you can purchase SLA services and pay for extended SLM services if you wanted to. Those options are gone between ISPs and IXPs.
And still with your gaff about bright line and everything else... I never said all consumers get equal throughput internet connections to their ISP. They get what they pay for. The ISP/IXP links are the only links regulated by the FCC after this ruling. I stated that in previous responses to you and for some reason you still have no understanding how the internet actually works. If the link is full all users whether a content consumer or provider get equal access to a full link. SLA/SLM is no longer available... it is only available through leased line service. And that is in the rest of pages after bright line.
Give me the ability to have multiple cable providers vying for my business and offering 100 Mbps up and down for $50-$75/month and I will be satisfied. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like this move by the FCC does anything to increase meaningful competition.
And AT&T Uverse is anything but meaningful competition for the cable companies. 6 Mbps down is pathetic in 2015 and that's the fastest "high speed" service AT&T offers at my home, which is 40 minutes from downtown Atlanta. Oh, but it's only $19.95/month for the first 12 months (and then it goes up to $52.00/month).
I have no idea how people can possibly say that the FCC's actions have not had an immediate impact on allowing more competition. They specifically struck down state laws that were telling cities they could not produce competing (and better) fiber internet. Those laws were transparently designed to protected current internet companies from competition.
I'm lucky that I can at least choose between Verizon and Comcast in my locality, but most people have no real choice for any type of reasonable speeds; the internet companies will say "you don't have to use cable! You can use this crappy 768KBs DSL!" as if it's a reasonable choice. The FCC's actions have made it much harder for that schtick to keep going.
The internet has become something essential to our modern society like every other utility we take for granted—power, sewer, water, heat. It's time it was treated like one.
Okay. I'm ignorant. So why don't you fix that for me right fast. Tell me exactly how the internet worked before net neutrality was foisted upon us. Spell it out in big block letters for me. Talk to me like I'm 4. Explain exactly how things have changed. Because as far as I know, everyone has always had equal access to a link in normal situations. No one is throttled unless there's reason to throttle. No one is denied unless there's reason to deny.
Also, I should add I'm not the one going on about bright-line. You are. You've been the one using it as an example of how these new rules break the internet. Not me.
No it isn't. This is an argument specifically against net neutrality. There's nothing in the Forbes piece supporting the "slippery slope" theory that was put forth.
I already did in the previous posts. That bright line entry from your own link is burning you up inside, right now... Because it shows how ignorant you are in this topic. You posted a link that directly refuted what you were arguing, and it just so happened to be on the second page of the link you sent.
I never said it broke the internet. You keep using some kind of hyper-extravaganza mentality here. I never said it was the end of the internet. Just said that we all get equal access to junk.
And to split the middle... not everyone had equal access to the internet. This was in the post to which you just responded. SLA/SLM is not allowed between ISPs anymore.
Unfortunately, this is a common style of right-wing rant. The arguments against what actually happened are weak, so the ranter has to resort to straw men: "this is going to happen", this "would have happened", "get ready for this to happen." But very rarely "what actually happened".
Too bad we can't keep score and check out what percentage of these predictions have come true.
This is a big loss for the consumers.
But most of you are too stupid to remove the blinders.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/02/24...get-to-see-about-the-net-neutrality-proposal/
Mr. Pai says the longer document is more explicit about the possibility of new broadband taxes and the likelihood of more expansive rate regulations in the future. Transparency is particularly important here because the plan in front of us right now is so drastically different than the proposal the FCC adopted and put out for public comment in May, the two commissioners said in a joint statement on Monday.
But most of you are too stupid to remove the blinders.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/02/24...get-to-see-about-the-net-neutrality-proposal/
Mr. Pai says the longer document is more explicit about the possibility of new broadband taxes and the likelihood of more expansive rate regulations in the future. Transparency is particularly important here because the plan in front of us right now is so drastically different than the proposal the FCC adopted and put out for public comment in May, the two commissioners said in a joint statement on Monday.
No. I've never argued against Bright-Line. It's the very reason for the ruling. You stated that..
tunerX said:
And I said they were, provided they have good reason to do so. Per the paper...
...which shows that yeah, they can throttle traffic and do regular maintanence, same as always. They just can't throttle or deny traffic arbitrarily. Something that's never been done previously. Not without good cause.
You choose to ignore this and harp on about Bright-Line as if it's the ONLY thing in the entire paper. There are exceptions that have been addressed.
No. You've always gotten what you paid for. It does nothing to change service level agreements among peering groups or end users on the internet. If someone pays for so much bandwidth, the provider doesn't have to give that person more to fit their suddenly increased needs because it's "fair and neutral". They'll have to buy more to get more, same as always. They just can't have their provider reneg or not provide the intended service without due cause.
Last edited:
And George W. Bush was.........???????
American Communism.....omg
How many guns do you own may I ask??????
See I did read it: No throttling on the basis of content,applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
I don't see the part where they can't throttle if they need to manage their network.
Attachments
His take on things don't make a damned bit of sense and are totally misguided. Its like somebody who didn't come close to understanding it explained net neutrality to him and then he made up his own ideas and arguments against it based on that.
I hope you don't even believe half of what Mark Cuban has to say about net neutrality ESPECIALLY as it relates to television.
There ARE a few legitimate arguments against net neutrality, NONE of them have been raised by that fool.
And still you argue from your lower position. Every response from my original post has refuted everything you said. If you keep adjusting course for waters you think are more favorable, eventually we will not be talking about the OP.
You keep adjusting your responses, and keep backing yourself into a corner. The final blow had you cussing. Sorry buddy, dude, bro, chief, brah, champ... You have no more ground to stand on.
Keep going for the hyper-extravagant. We both read the same FCC ruling and your responses did not amount to a hill of ant doo-doo.
You keep calling me dumb, saying I'm over exaggerating, and claiming victory, but so far all you've done is repeat the same tired line in a slightly different way over and over and over and over and over again.
So tell me, how does net neutrality affect service level agreements? You've never said how, other than posting a picture of the Bright-Lines clause as if that's proof in and of itself.
By the way, I stealth edited that post on you. You need to quote the extra bit at the bottom.
I already did, in all of the previous posts. I went into greater detail with every response.
This no more regulates the internet than the first amendment regulates free speech.
That was included in the following pages. The three parts of bright line are geared towards consumers. And they have no need to throttle because management bandwidth is not part of consumer bandwidth.