It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Service providers are treading very lightly to avoid backlash on this. That will be enough to delay fine print contract changes for a long while.bartoni33 said:Great Googly Moogly people like @holdenfive make me embarrassed to be a (currently lapsed) Republican. Between 4Chan, Breitbart and Alex Jones I swear people are being paid to act this stupid.
Yes the Alt-Left is just as bad I know. Trust me.
On-topic: At this point I don't know how big this will really be in the long term. Seems we will have a few years to see any outcome.
Glad you have that luxury of choice. 2/3 of the country only has one provider for internet service via land line.Quizzical said:That's not at all what the whole debate is about. I don't know about you, but my electricity, water, and gas are metered. For electricity, I pay a fixed fee per month just to be connected, plus an additional charge per kWh of electricity actually used. With water and gas, it's similar. I don't get to choose my electric utility, and have to pay for electricity even if I don't want it and didn't use it.cameltosis said:
Being a common carrier means everyone has to be treated equally. No tiered pricing / services. You cannot pay more to get electricity before your neighbours, my water is not better because I pay more than you. Now, with net neutrality, you cannot pay more to get priority access to the internet. All electricity is treated equally. All water and gas is treated equally. Now, all internet traffic is treated equally.
For Internet access, even under Title II regulations, I pay a fixed amount per month. I don't pay a fee per GB of data used. Furthermore, I can pay more or less to get higher or lower bandwidth caps. If I don't like my ISP, I can switch to a different one. I could disconnect from the Internet entirely if I so chose.
You sure he ever left that job?Albatroes said:What's funny about all of this is that an ex-verizon lawyer pretty much did all of this. This dude is set when he decides to go back to that job.
They heavily censor everything, yet for a while had topless news programs... Still do. Europe is a wild place in parts.TheScavenger said: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.FlyByKnight said:TheScavenger said:Actually, neither.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.
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 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.