So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Tiller · December 2017

I was reading one opinion article in favor of this decision and the only defense he had was that he wanted what he called musty dusty video stores back, and what's wrong with going down to a music store and picking out a CD? LOL?

And that things like "online shoot-em-up games" should be throttled. Seriously? Yeah lets go back to the 60's while the rest of the world moves past us, that will surely make America great again.

I'm sure the millions of kids who text and stream free movies on their smart phones will learn to love it and vote for it. I'm 43 and I would never want to go back to those days of driving around trying to get to a video store to rent the last copy of the movie I want to watch. Sounds more like a third world country to me.

http://theweek.com/articles/743365/net-neutrality-dead-good-riddance

TheScavenger · December 2017

Also fun fact, my dad has the unlimited bandwidth plan...except...its unlimited only up to 1tb lol. He has the best and most expensive plan they have, and its supposed to be unlimited and for some reason its still limited lol

MadFrenchie · December 2017

TimEisen said:

Don't stop fighting or you might notice we're all losing! Power lies in the hands that divide.

Truf! Somehow, we surpassed the income inequality levels of ancient Rome and the Plebs hardly noticed..

Brunlin · December 2017

TheScavenger said:

honestly, going as a followup to my earlier post...

I don't care either way so neither decision effects me at all. Internet before 2015 was just as shitty as internet is today lol. I'm still limited to 1tb a month internet and they charge 50 dollars for every 50 gb over that.And before you say "WOW THAT IS A LOT"...no. WoW+ESO+GW2 install add up to a rather huge portion of the entire bandwidth limit (especially with 4 others in this house also using internet) due to patches and the actual game download and what not. Plus addons for WoW further take up bandwidth. Watching youtube and netflix takes up a lot of bandwidth...so 1tb gets used very easily.

Internet today/yesterday is still as shitty as it was in the past. Still limited by bandwidth lol.

Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices.

TheScavenger · December 2017

Brunlin said:

TheScavenger said:

Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices.

I think its to stop piraters, maybe. That or to save costs on bandwidth usage. But yeah, glad you agree

It is so easy to just use up 1tb so quickly downloading/installing a bunch of games.

However the annoying part really is they call it an unlimited bandwidth plan (or unlimited or whatever) and it really isn't. Which is stupid. They should call it the 1tb plan lol.

That or make a 1tb plan and make a more expensive REAL unlimited plan...that would be great too.

I'm moving in 3 months though, so we aren't really worrying about it that much. But hopefully where we end up they don't have that stupid 1tb limit crap (or worse). Or if they have a max bandwidth limit, at least don't call it unlimited lol.

But like let us PAY for more bandwidth usage. Not charge us an expensive fee of 50 dollars for every 50gb over 1tb...thats dumb. We'd actually pay for more bandwidth if we could lol.

Sal1 · December 2017

The Republicans in the U.S.A. enacted this and want this. If you want something different vote for a Democrat. End of story.

Jamar870 · December 2017

I did in the last election.

Albatroes · December 2017

So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?

TheScavenger · December 2017

Albatroes said:

So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?

Its going to the courts next. Some said Congress (on other sites), but it isn't a bill so congress/senate aren't involved. But it'll be fought out in the courts.

The chance of it being stopped in the courts is VERY high. So it'll probably not be repealed at all.

Renoaku · December 2017

Someone was telling me Net Neutrality gives control over to the government about what can be throttled and what cannot, and it was good not having it to begin with?

FlyByKnight · December 2017

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

TheScavenger · December 2017

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

TheScavenger · December 2017

Plus to add to the above though different subject I know...like I said...with my one crappy internet provider, I still get a 1tb limit despite being on "unlimited", but it really isn't unlimited but a 1tb plan...which is false advertising rofl. Its the best and most expensive plan my ISP has. Dunno how they get away with that, and that was way before this passed obviously. Like, installing a few MMOs adds up to a large portion of the bandwidth. I already almost have 200gb used in past 30 days cause of ESO+BDO+youtube/chrome...so lame.

There needs to be more competition with these providers. Right now, ISPs have almost no competition. They have a monopoly.

But as I said above, equally as bad as ISPs controlling things, is the government having control of the internet. As seen by Europe and Venezuela.

There needs to be a 3rd option. But to start with, definitely more competition and a lot more actual choices to choose from to pick for internet. Not 1-3 choices per area lol.

FlyByKnight · December 2017

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

TheScavenger · December 2017

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference.

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

Ridelynn · December 2017

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

FlyByKnight · December 2017

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference.

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind.

Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?

frostymug · December 2017

Ridelynn said:

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

This can't be said enough, but apparently it doesn't get through the tin foil hats.

Net Neutrality does not in any way mean the government controls the internet. It means that it is regulated by the government. Much in the same way that safety standards were introduced in the automobile industry, but the government still isn't in the business of making cars.

There is no free market for high speed ISPs in America. As of the last census, only 20% of residential areas had even 2 choices for 25mb down. First, that isn't really very high speed by current standards. Second, that choice ain't much of a choice at all. 50% had a single choice and 30% still had no choice at all. Having multiple providers across the country means jack if there is no competition locally.

The concept of a free market requires viable consumer options. There aren't any in 80% of residential areas.

TheScavenger · December 2017

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference.

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind.

Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?

let 4chan and Goon Squad/Swarm create it...rofl

no don't...

xD

JDis25 · December 2017

The internet is about the only thing in the world that is running fine... there is nothing to fix so it's clear this is going to make everything worse.

Jamar870 · December 2017

What people I heard from want from net neutrality is for ISPs to provide just the connection and not determined wether one site or another gets priority or becomes censored. Also some of the ISPs here are content providers ie..Comcast for one. They may in the future want to maybe throttle or charge more for you to stream from Netflix, Hulu, etc...... So I'm for the net neutrality to stay and not be repealed

Wizardry · December 2017

I have not delved into what this Net neutrality is all about,i have no idea but if government is involved,i am scared,there can be no good,only ways to grind more money out of the people.

Lobbyists partially run the government,their money is nothing more than bribes to achieve a rotten agenda to scam the tax payer.So you can bet,if some business"like the giant internet providers" wants to make more money,they are lobbying the government for changes.

FlyByKnight · December 2017

SedrynTyros said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Obviously, the government. Politicians do eventually cave if enough of their constituency assures them that they will not get their vote unless said action is taken. But if the only two ISPs in your area are Comcast and AT&T, and they're both fucking you with their fastlane bullshit or whatever other throttling scheme they come up with, what are your options? You basically have the option of having internet service while getting sodomized by one of those two or not having internet service. And there's nothing you can do about it ... except, of course, appeal to the only entity capable of stopping them ... and who could that be? Oh my, it's that evil government!

And then that's when the billion dollar ISPs do this:

Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100

TheScavenger · December 2017

I still think the courts can block it. There are heavy weights (Google, Netflix, Amazon and etc) that want to fight it, along with politicians. I think there is a VERY high chance that this won't be a thing at all. But guess we'll see.

Loke666 · December 2017

Ridelynn said:

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

Not in itself, no. It is more that people don't trust the corps to run something that important.

I am not sure where this will lead but I doubt it will be something good for us.

Howdy, Stranger!

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Comments