• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are sites like this one in danger of net nuetrality

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Hopefully his wife 'Franken-chelle' will get a friend to do a billion dollar update of OCDO to prevent this.
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
Sad day for the net the gubment / FCC now regulates 3 to 2 vote hope this gets struck down in congress or the courts!
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
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.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
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/2015/02/2...rlie-net-neutrality-rules.html?referrer=&_r=1
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
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-a...nation-163703235.html?soc_src=mail&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-votes-yes-net-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:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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-a...nation-163703235.html?soc_src=mail&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-votes-yes-net-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:

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
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/2015/02/2...rlie-net-neutrality-rules.html?referrer=&_r=1
It seems to be working just fine now!!
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
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.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
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.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,558
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s 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/constitution/first_amendment



[h=2]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.
[/h]
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s 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/constitution/first_amendment



[h=2]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.
[/h]
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.
 
Top