Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83

Thread: Are sites like this one in danger of net nuetrality

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    609

    Are sites like this one in danger of net nuetrality


  2. #2
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,395
    Hopefully his wife 'Franken-chelle' will get a friend to do a billion dollar update of OCDO to prevent this.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    182

    Net Neutrality FCC Vote

    net neutrality FCC Vote

    http://www.fcc.gov/live

    The Trojan Horse for gubmnet internet control is happening right now

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    182
    Sad day for the net the gubment / FCC now regulates 3 to 2 vote hope this gets struck down in congress or the courts!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegadez View Post
    Sad day for the net the gubment / FCC now regulates 3 to 2 vote hope this gets struck down in congress or the courts!
    Elections matter. The 3 democrat appointees voted for increased government regulation of the internet. The 2 GOP appointees voted against it.

    Charles

  6. #6
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    643
    I can say, having worked for years at a data center/hosting company that was up for bid in utah ' s nsa data center, that trying to monitor the internet in the USA will be like trying to drink water through with a fork out of a coke bottle.

    The amount of money and resources this would take are crazy. Sounds like another example (like Obamacare, only more absurd) of the government signing a check that they don't have the slightest idea how difficult it will be to cash.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    847
    Net neutrality rules allow the FCC to prohibit Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege. The new rules treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- the same category as utility companies that provide gas, electricity, etc. -- in which all customers have equal access to service.

    Good article here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/26...referrer=&_r=1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    847
    New rules from the Federal Communications Commission adopted on a 3-2 vote will prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications (VZ) from discriminating against any web site or online service. That means sites like Netflix (NFLX) or Google’s (GOOGL) YouTube won’t have to pay extra fees or face sluggish connections with their users. And new sites and services will be able to reach everyone on the Internet on the same terms as the big players.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-ad...ail&soc_trk=ma

    Net neutrality rules allow the FCC to prohibit Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege. The new rules treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- the same category as utility companies that provide gas, electricity, etc. -- in which all customers have equal access to service.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-vot...et-neutrality/

    The only folks that fought it are the cable companies (who currently have a monopoly on high speed) and those politicians in their pockets.
    Last edited by beebobby; 02-26-2015 at 04:47 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    643
    Only those that are not familiar with the cost model of Internet connections would like this. Internet connections for big companies are not measured by the GB or TB, they are measured on a 95th percentile speed model. That means that you get what you pay for, basically. The COST of the physical lines is directly related to how much speed they are capable of. So many times, Netflix and Comcast users are experiencing slow times because they have not paid for the bigger router/internet line, etc. These items DO have a cost. More often though, the reason you are getting slow load times is because your 100mb line Is shared between you and your 30 neighbors. The bottleneck is you not paying for a dedicated line, not the isp somehow ripping off the provider of content.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    New rules from the Federal Communications Commission adopted on a 3-2 vote will prohibit Internet service providers like Comcast (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications (VZ) from discriminating against any web site or online service. That means sites like Netflix (NFLX) or Google’s (GOOGL) YouTube won’t have to pay extra fees or face sluggish connections with their users. And new sites and services will be able to reach everyone on the Internet on the same terms as the big players.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-ad...ail&soc_trk=ma

    Net neutrality rules allow the FCC to prohibit Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege. The new rules treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- the same category as utility companies that provide gas, electricity, etc. -- in which all customers have equal access to service.

    http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-vot...et-neutrality/

    The only folks that fought it are the cable companies (who currently have a monopoly on high speed) and those politicians in their pockets.
    Bull ******* ****. These "rules," like so many others, are completely misguided and misunderstood, from the name to the contents and everything else about them. "Net neutrality" isn't. This will not benefit the industry, or the consumers. If you think it will, you really need to take a step back and re-evaluate what's going on here. Edit: If you can't tell, "net neutrality," which isn't, makes me pretty upset.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 02-26-2015 at 05:47 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Net neutrality rules allow the FCC to prohibit Internet service providers from granting faster access to companies that pay for the privilege. The new rules treat broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act -- the same category as utility companies that provide gas, electricity, etc. -- in which all customers have equal access to service.

    Good article here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/26...referrer=&_r=1
    It seems to be working just fine now!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    756
    When it comes from this tyrant, its all about control. Enough said.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    It's at least a little bit ironic that the internet, including basically every medium available thereon, was used almost exclusively to try and promote 'net neutrality' by making doom and gloom, fear-mongering arguments to convince so many people that the internet was in some sort of danger should we not grant government regulatory powers.

    What a bunch of suckers. I'd expect more from rights advocates, especially.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    It's at least a little bit ironic that the internet, including basically every medium available thereon, was used almost exclusively to try and promote 'net neutrality' by making doom and gloom, fear-mongering arguments to convince so many people that the internet was in some sort of danger should we not grant government regulatory powers.

    What a bunch of suckers. I'd expect more from rights advocates, especially.
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    You have to admire our gov. It's really impressive. The power I mean.
    "This here, this is mine now. This belongs to me." It gives me shivers.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    650
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    When it comes from this tyrant, its all about control. Enough said.
    "This tyrant" is merely a placeholder. He is no different than the Tyrant before him or the one who comes next. The tyranny is handed from one President to the next, one congress to the next. It is evil and will not be satisfied until 100% complete domination/CONTROL is exerted on The People of this nation.

    The "Tyrant" you need to look at is the Federal Govt. as a whole. That is YOUR, MINE, OUR enemy.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    The "Tyrant" you need to look at is the Federal Govt. as a whole. That is YOUR, MINE, OUR enemy.
    I disagree.

    Net Neutrality is bad news.

    It doesn't mean the whole of the federal government, nor State nor local governments are the enemy.

    If you wish to declare yourself an enemy of the properly constituted government of these United States, have a ball. But you do not speak for me or mine.

    Charles

  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran DrMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,536
    I think we'll be fine at first, but when we notice the FCC redacting web content, it will be too late.

    For instance, right now we can discuss [Redacted-FCC] online, but the FCC will likely start to redact that in the future.

    If we get to the point where they are editing our content, and we can no longer post about [Redacted-FCC] or [Redacted-FCC], we'll truly be done.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,569
    The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from bothpromoting one religion over others and also restricting an individualís religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


    Learn more...
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...irst_amendment



    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


    Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.Ē Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  20. #20
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from bothpromoting one religion over others and also restricting an individualís religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


    Learn more...
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...irst_amendment



    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Practically meaningless anymore. We won't prohibit free speech, we will just say where, when and in what manner you can exercise it. I would say the 2nd has even stronger language (infringe) and we see how it is pissed all over.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  21. #21
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,613
    Doom and gloom? Comcast and other ISPs absolutely were throttling services like YouTube, Netflix, torrents, peer to peer and the like.

  22. #22
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Doom and gloom? Comcast and other ISPs absolutely were throttling services like YouTube, Netflix, torrents, peer to peer and the like.
    And? This is the nature of a free market. We should be making it more free not less.
    Quick anecdote. A few years back in a nearby town where my buddy lived the town and Walmart made a deal. The town increased the cost of everyone's water/sewage significantly in order to build the infrastructure to support a new Walmart in order for Walmart to agree to build there.
    This is the kind of thing we will be seeing regarding the internet. The internet is now State owned.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  23. #23
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    Yes, doom and gloom propaganda. If you don't like throttling then get a contact that says no throttling. Get an SLA. Companies should be made by the courts to keep their contractual obligations, not much more. 'The internet' is not something you have any right to access, much less at an arbitrarily defined service level. You do understand that these companies build these infrastructures, and own these lines and networking equipment, right? It's not like they just found this **** in the wild. It's theirs. If you think there isn't enough competition check out exclusivity agreements, that's a government problem there and you aren't going to fix that problem with more government.
    Advocate freedom please

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Waay back in the Eighties the expense of my IP was explained as my share of building the state's fiber network as I watched the T1 fiber crawl around the state. Even then I could access it only through my academic account. The people paid for the Internet infrastructure.
    What? Not sure what you mean by "expense of my IP" but I'm assuming you mean internet service of some sort. You could say the same for any business - the people pay for it. The question isn't where the money came from, the question is what agreement was made for the transfer. I pay my ISP, for their service. I could pay for their service for the rest of my life and I won't own any stake in their company, or any of their equipment or lines. Sorry if you feel like you've been duped, but you probably were if you ever believed that you'd own part of the networks that make up "the internet" just by paying for service. If the state had anything to do with it you probably should have known you were getting screwed. Again, sounds like a government problem there.
    Advocate freedom please

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,100
    Honestly, "free speech" is not my biggest concern here. It's economics. Many of the issues with ISPs we face today are essentially enabled by government involvement and coercion, and now we want the FCC to fix it? Get real, figure out the actual problem and figure out a solution (which probably means government out of the game). The problem is that regulations like these will stifle the industry.
    Advocate freedom please

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •