Please show us on this anatomically correct doll where Obama touched you.
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.
New York Attorney General Leads Filing of Multi-State Lawsuit to Block Rollback of Net Neutrality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please show us on this anatomically correct doll where Obama touched you.
So it sounds like what you’re saying is that the only way to get high speed internet into rural areas is to allow ISPs to charge those residents $200+/month for internet? Sounds reasonable...
So it sounds like you didn’t read, huh. Could’ve sworn I said I haven’t seen the data on this and I don’t know what actually happens.
Last edited:
But I guess it is in the extreme side of democratic that at some point, it will become a communism country? We call it “when reaching the extreme of one side, you are in the other side”. Just imagine you are walking in a coin and reached the very edge of one side.
I curious what many Americans would make of BT openreach?
Here in the uk our former state monopoly still has a monopoly network wise in many areas (such as mine) but they are forced to lease the lines to other companies allowing for competition where there would otherwise be none.
Its not perfect, but if we didnt have this system, I suspect my bill would be at least double with the same problems I hear about in America.
Here in the uk our former state monopoly still has a monopoly network wise in many areas (such as mine) but they are forced to lease the lines to other companies allowing for competition where there would otherwise be none.
Its not perfect, but if we didnt have this system, I suspect my bill would be at least double with the same problems I hear about in America.
Are stories like this enough data? http://time.com/2871498/fcc-investigates-netflix-verizon-comcast/
(PS: there are more ISP-throttling stories out there.)
If ISPs can do this with big companies, then they can easily do it with any website if they want to. Further, what if Netflix had not paid? You would have a pretty bad time watching your Netflix show.
And that exactly is why the competition-argument is nonsense. What if there is only one ISP in your area? What if Netflix refuses to pay it? Then you've been duped, and there's nothing you can do about it.
This ISP behavior is undermining the idea of the internet. ISPs have a monopoly, which is, by definition, exactly the opposite of competition.
Say, guy, you do know that Fox News is excluded from Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox's other properties, don't you?
Actually to be honest, I had forgot that, haha. However, we were taking about the size of the companies as well and Fox News, owned by 21st Century Fox is no small company. I can admit when I make a mistake.
I still do not understand how Fox News does not control its ability to distribute its content?
https://wccftech.com/net-neutrality-abuses-timeline/
2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.
2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)
2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.
2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.
2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.
2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.
2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.
2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.
2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.
2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.
2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.
2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”
2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
Yep, just fine indeed...
Unlike AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, Fox News is not an ISP. Absent NN, an ISP could legally bar you from Internet access to Fox News websites. AT&T would probably let you access CNN...I still do not understand how Fox News does not control its ability to distribute its content?
I have AT&T too, damn! I will not watch the Clinton News Network! Haha.
Edit: For the record I did know Fox News is not an ISP, however, I was talking with someone on earlier posts about Fox News and I think we were talking about something else.
Last edited:
"Net-neutrality" is a term used to disguise government control of internet bandwidth. Under Net-Neutrality, the FCC will determine how much bandwidth Facebook, Twitter, Netflix will enjoy rather than the "filter" of a competitive private sector. This will hurt private innovation but will enrich politicians and government.
Remember, the private sector is armed with money and lots of talent. The public sector however, is armed with money, little talent, and an arsenal of laws and weapons.
Be careful who you trust.
Remember, the private sector is armed with money and lots of talent. The public sector however, is armed with money, little talent, and an arsenal of laws and weapons.
Be careful who you trust.
Well, you do understand that government is not some alien entity ?
You wouldn't have a country to call your home without one .
Could you explain how rules making sure that ISPs treat all online content equally without blocking or slowing down specific websites on purpose or allowing them to pay for preferential treatment (i.e. the textbook definition of net neutrality) are detrimental to consumers?
Well... 'nut jobs' comment aside, we're fortunate that the Constitution has an app for that!
If enough of the House and Senate members vote yes for this it won't matter what the president does. He can sign, ignore or veto. If a veto, the House and Senate just re-vote and overrule him. Yeah for checks and balances. Unfortunately too many times the very people who are supposed to be in charge forget about this little feature.Nothing is going to happen with this repeal other than Leftist social media control won't be able to just shut down
This guy has the correct info. The "net neutrality" imposed by the Obama Administration was just a pre-planned strike to shut down opposing viewpoints on the internet. It was repealed, cuz Freedom and all.
Nothing else will change for you when it goes into effect. It was in effect 2015 and before, and nothing happened to you.
Stop spreading disinformation for nefarious plans. Stop believing fake news propaganda.
This guy has the correct info. The "net neutrality" imposed by the Obama Administration was just a pre-planned strike to shut down opposing viewpoints on the internet. It was repealed, cuz Freedom and all.
Nothing else will change for you when it goes into effect. It was in effect 2015 and before, and nothing happened to you.
Stop spreading disinformation for nefarious plans. Stop believing fake news propaganda.
It then becomes a question of how much choice do you want to hand to a central authority. The margin between freedom and tyranny is very thin.
What is the basis for this lawsuit? Net neutrality laws may or may not be a good thing. But you can’t just sue over every single issue in order to get the courts to make laws. As a country our courts have taken on far too much power. It is bad enough that people we elect have no real incentive to be beholden to us. But judges with lifetime appointments have no accountability.
If the best argument that someone can come up with to oppose net neutrality laws is "nothing is going to change except the law is removed", then what is the point of removing the law?
[doublepost=1516208212][/doublepost]
Part of the problem is that the FCC is not only attempting to remove the federal rule regarding net neutrality, but also try to prevent states from establishing their own net neutrality laws in it's place. Does the FCC really have the authority to prevent states filling the void that the federal government vacated? Probably not. Federal supremacy doesn't apply when you're eliminating a federal law. States do have the right to pass laws that aren't in conflict with a federal one.
[doublepost=1516208212][/doublepost]
Part of the problem is that the FCC is not only attempting to remove the federal rule regarding net neutrality, but also try to prevent states from establishing their own net neutrality laws in it's place. Does the FCC really have the authority to prevent states filling the void that the federal government vacated? Probably not. Federal supremacy doesn't apply when you're eliminating a federal law. States do have the right to pass laws that aren't in conflict with a federal one.
Actually, there would not be an internet if it weren't for government R&D. Also, the context has changed in those 25 years. In those 25 years we've gone from the internet being a curiosity (remember the Whole Earth Catalogue?) to being a necessity for modern living. Believing that the markets and competition will create the most efficient solution is one of the most naive beliefs that I think people have nowadays, for it is though they are totally blind to the corrupt practices that companies engage in to achieve low competition and screw the consumer.
From your one-case hypothetical response and accusations directly addressed in my comment, you’re the one who shouldn’t be engaged in this topic. You don’t understand how to thoroughly read or go back and forth in a beneficial debate on topics we don’t have enough information on. Let alone the fact I didn’t make an argument but presented a result that needs data to validate or dispute.
Next time, read. I hear it helps.
I’m reading and you’re not really saying much of anything of substance. Sorry, but your whole argument is as you said yourself, something which you are unsure actually happens. Don’t try to pretend an argument, which ‘needs data to validate,’ is some kind of evidence to refute what I’m saying.
“I have this theory which I admit is based on no evidence. This obviously means you’re wrong.”
Lol ok.
And posts like this are contributing to the fake news.
You should have a look back at the timeline written above in @MasterMac's post, plus look up the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
It isn't we that have the incorrect information, you do, and it has been proven so throughout the course of this thread.
Funny thing here is that you ask us to stop believing 'fake news propaganda' when in fact you're spreading it.
BL.
Perhaps you can try to explain the 'facts', so that people who have lived through them can refute them. As the forum rules here state, onus is on you to back up your claims.
So by all means, back them up.
BL.