- 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
Net Neutrality
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:45 am
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:45 am
I do not post much. If that somehow means I am not qualified to post or that I am retarded then feel
free to downvote and call me names.
I wanted to raise awareness of what this crap is.
Net Neutrality Wiki
I know you don't think this affects you.
If you read the link, it ensures we are free to see ALL of the internet.
Without it, an isp could block content, or even reduce your bandwidth (until you agree to pay just $5 more a month).
Why do the powers that be want it gone? So they can freely censor your content, omitting what they don't like
and (probably the real reason) more profit.
7
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:49 am to albanyla
quote:
downvote and call me names.
a-hole
done and done
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:53 am to Rover Range
Thank you sir! I am not disappointed.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:55 am to albanyla
quote:
Without it, an isp could block content, or even reduce your bandwidth (until you agree to pay just $5 more a month).
Snowflakes love when shite they don't agree with gets the axe.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:57 am to Wtodd
quote:
Snowflakes love when shite they don't agree with gets the axe.
you lost me. WTF does that mean?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 9:59 am to albanyla
Leftards (aka snowflakes) are for net neutrality unless there's something on the interweb that they don't agree with.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:00 am to Wtodd
quote:
Leftards (aka snowflakes) are for net neutrality unless there's something on the interweb that they don't agree with.
Then I am not a leftard.
If they don't want to see it then don't navigate there. /shrug
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 10:04 am
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:04 am to albanyla
I'm torn on the issue. Being for neutrality seems to support government involvement in a free market of private companies and what service they want to provide. If one company restricts access, or allows greater access to their preferred services, they should be free to do so and consumers free to move their business elsewhere. Don't we already have antitrust and similar laws to deal with monopolization of services and such?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:10 am to Jack Bauers HnK
Like the banks, monsters are evolving.
Also, two of the biggest (i forget the names) will not provide services in each other's area.
This could leave a situation where we are a merger/failing away form a geographical monopoly.
Also, two of the biggest (i forget the names) will not provide services in each other's area.
This could leave a situation where we are a merger/failing away form a geographical monopoly.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:13 am to albanyla
I guess it seems like a solution in search of a problem that hasn't actually manifested. Inviting government intervention into any private area, especially when no one has actually been affected by this theoretical problem, seems premature.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:13 am to albanyla
quote:And that couldn't be possible without the help of government intervention.
Like the banks, monsters are evolving.
We just love our fascism, don't we folks?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:14 am to albanyla
Here is another anit-innovation post.
So you want internet delivery to be regulated by the government similar to how they regulate other utilities.
Tell me how in the last 30+ years has delivery of water or electricity to your home improved? It hasn't. Also ponder this, if you live in a municipal area (pretty much any municipal area regardless of size) you aren't getting the best price that you could get for electricity because of government intervention.
That's what you get with the internet with net neutrality.....0 competition and 0 innovation. I'm trying to figure out when you people will understand that despite the narrative big telecom actually wants net neutrality. With it they stay fat and happy like they are now (without any expenditures on R&D to improve the technology) all the while continuing to squeeze the customer for 20 more dollars per month every year to keep internet access at piss poor speeds. Not to mention the fact that big telecom basically employees the FCC which would control Net Neutrality......so what we are told Net Neutrality is right now may not be what it is in 5 years. Those scare tactic flyers with the internet service levels could become a part of net neutrality....who knows? No part of me wants this in the governments hands.
With all that said the agreements at the local level between cities, subdivisions, etc and telecom companies have to go away.
So you want internet delivery to be regulated by the government similar to how they regulate other utilities.
Tell me how in the last 30+ years has delivery of water or electricity to your home improved? It hasn't. Also ponder this, if you live in a municipal area (pretty much any municipal area regardless of size) you aren't getting the best price that you could get for electricity because of government intervention.
That's what you get with the internet with net neutrality.....0 competition and 0 innovation. I'm trying to figure out when you people will understand that despite the narrative big telecom actually wants net neutrality. With it they stay fat and happy like they are now (without any expenditures on R&D to improve the technology) all the while continuing to squeeze the customer for 20 more dollars per month every year to keep internet access at piss poor speeds. Not to mention the fact that big telecom basically employees the FCC which would control Net Neutrality......so what we are told Net Neutrality is right now may not be what it is in 5 years. Those scare tactic flyers with the internet service levels could become a part of net neutrality....who knows? No part of me wants this in the governments hands.
With all that said the agreements at the local level between cities, subdivisions, etc and telecom companies have to go away.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:16 am to albanyla
quote:
Like the banks, monsters are evolving.
You do realize that Dodd - Frank was kind of like the Net Neutrality of the financial/banking world right???
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:17 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:
I guess it seems like a solution in search of a problem that hasn't actually manifested
Personally, I will not wait until I censored before I start fighting to stop it. I respect your opinion.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:22 am to albanyla
quote:
If they don't want to see it then don't navigate there. /shrug
You'd think it was that easy but it isn't.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:25 am to albanyla
Lolz.
Net neutrality as described by the Internet and net neutrally as laid out by FCC regs
ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
frick YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
Net neutrality as described by the Internet and net neutrally as laid out by FCC regs
ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
frick YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:27 am to Wtodd
quote:Such an insightful post. Let me guess. A Trump worshiper?
Snowflakes love when shite they don't agree with gets the axe.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:30 am to albanyla
Net neutrality is not right. The way to prevent "discrimination" in bandwidth is to remove barriers to entry into the ISP market, reduce regulations, and upgrade infrastructure to allow for faster networks.
More government regulation is bad and it opens the door to abuse and taxation from the government.
When the choice is between the government with the force of law and the private sector, I almost always choose the private sector. Companies may be greedy and looking out for themselves but at least they can't force you to buy their goods and services at gunpoint like the government does with its laws and regulations.
More government regulation is bad and it opens the door to abuse and taxation from the government.
When the choice is between the government with the force of law and the private sector, I almost always choose the private sector. Companies may be greedy and looking out for themselves but at least they can't force you to buy their goods and services at gunpoint like the government does with its laws and regulations.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:44 am to albanyla
Terrible idea
What you're calling for asks for more government through regulation and I would prefer more EOs and the president deligitimizing the other branches of government
What you're calling for asks for more government through regulation and I would prefer more EOs and the president deligitimizing the other branches of government
Posted on 2/13/17 at 10:47 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The way to prevent "discrimination" in bandwidth is to remove barriers to entry into the ISP
Such a broad statement that looks good in a fortune cookie. Care to elaborate?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News