- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Federal Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules, Sides with Big Telecom
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:09 am
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:09 am
quote:LINK
This is bad news. The ruling basically opens the door for companies like Verizon and Time Warner to cut special deals with websites to serve up their content faster. It also opens up the possibility of paid access to specific sites. Imagine the worst case scenario, where you literally have to pay an extra fee to get access to the websites you like. It's possible! At least the latest federal court ruling on Verizon's appeal to the FCC states that telecom companies have to tell subscribers which sites they're favoring.
This latest development in the years' long battle to preserve net neutrality is going to piss off a lot of people. Of course, the idea of giving preferential treatment to websites willing to pay for it means that smaller websites stand to lose out, and the very idea of competition on the internet is being essentially undermined since companies can simply buy prime placement. That said, the appeals court ruling is being largely viewed as a failure on the FCC's part for not writing the rules under a more solid legal framework.
"We're disappointed that the court came to this conclusion," said Free Press president and CEO Craig Aaron. "Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies — and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers' communications at will.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:10 am to jeff5891
Net neutrality is atrocious
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:37 am to jeff5891
Doesn't Coca-Cola get preferential treatment on the store aisles that they pay for? What's the big deal here?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:41 am to jeff5891
I don't know what all this shite means. Will free porn be harder to find? Will tigerdroppings cost money?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:43 am to Broke
quote:
Doesn't Coca-Cola get preferential treatment on the store aisles that they pay for?
Seriously?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:43 am to jeff5891
Viacom and Disney stacked, TD fricked?
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:46 am to junkfunky
The coca cola brand are shelf bullies but I don't see how that relates to the article.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:47 am to biglego
quote:
I don't know what all this shite means.
ISPs can now control the content that their clients access. They can intentionally encumber connections to certain sites, or they can block certain sites entirely.
For example, if your ISP (most likely your cable company) wants to block your access to Netflix and Hulu so that you'll spend more time on their own streaming sites, they now have the legal authority to do so.
This post was edited on 1/14/14 at 10:50 am
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:48 am to Sl4m
quote:
The coca cola brand are shelf bullies but I don't see how that relates to the article.
It's been a while since I stocked shelves but I have never heard anything like that. Usually endcaps were stocked with high volume or overstocked items.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:51 am to jeff5891
The internet is about to become TV 2.0...
Posted on 1/14/14 at 10:54 am to biglego
quote:
I don't know what all this shite means
Basically, this is a choice between two terrible options.
1. Monopolies control what you can do on the internet.
2. The FCC controls what you can do on the internet.
Either way, the consumer is worse off. A real solution (since the monopolies are here to stay) would be for congress to pass some sensible net neutrality legislation that doesn't involve the FCC. But that's never going to happen. Instead we'll probably end up with a unimaginably bad combination of 1 and 2.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 11:04 am to biglego
I'm surprised this thread hasn't garnered more responses.
This is fairly substantial news. The internet as we've known it is effectively dead.
This is fairly substantial news. The internet as we've known it is effectively dead.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 11:13 am to junkfunky
The way its been explained to me is the if you want to stock cola cola then you have to stock a certain percentage of their shelf space with coke products.
I can't confirm if its legit but I have heard this from a couple different store owners.
I can't confirm if its legit but I have heard this from a couple different store owners.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 11:18 am to Cs
quote:
I'm surprised this thread hasn't garnered more responses.
I'm surprised. Disappointed, but sadly not surprised.
Regarding this ruling, now we have to rely on the Do Nothing Congress to save the internet.
I hope the slippery slope arguments don't come to fruition while we wait...
Posted on 1/14/14 at 11:19 am to junkfunky
quote:
Seriously?
Yes. That's why I asked the question. I don't know what this means.
Posted on 1/14/14 at 11:20 am to Sophandros
quote:
Disappointed, but sadly not surprised.
+1
quote:
Regarding this ruling, now we have to rely on the Do Nothing Congress to save the internet.
Yeah, not happening
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News