- 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
0
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:04 am to TK421
quote:
Paranoia is inherently irrational. There is nothing irrational about assuming the government will frick up something else.
nah he thinks uncle sam is going to limit what he can look at on the internet or what he can say
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:06 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
That flat out false.
Its based on how far behind American infrastructure is.
We're really not that far behind anymore. Better than the UK even. We made great strides in the past year, as soon as the ISP's starting feeling the heat. I think we could still be a lot better off, especially if the ISP's kept their promises.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:06 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
nah he thinks uncle sam is going to limit what he can look at on the internet or what he can say
Has the FCC ever regulated political speech?
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:06 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
he thinks uncle sam is going to limit ... what he can say
They already are.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:07 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
We're really not that far behind anymore. Better than the UK even. We made great strides in the past year, as soon as the ISP's starting feeling the heat. I think we could still be a lot better off, especially if the ISP's kept their promises.
78% of the UK can get fiber
Fiber trumps Cable every time for multiple reasons.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:07 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
he thinks uncle sam is going to limit ... what he can say
They already are.
It's almost like he has never even heard of the FCC.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:08 am to TK421
quote:
Has the FCC ever regulated political speech?
Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:09 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
78% of the UK can get fiber
Fiber trumps Cable every time for multiple reasons.
Yes, but average speed is still slower.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:10 am to colorchangintiger
I'm aware of the fairness doctrine. I was hoping he would respond since he has claimed that fearing the FCC would regulate political speech on the internet is irrational.
My bigger question is why the FCC? If throttling and fastlanes are a concern, why can't a law be passed by the legislature to address that specific concern?
My bigger question is why the FCC? If throttling and fastlanes are a concern, why can't a law be passed by the legislature to address that specific concern?
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:11 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
Yes, but average speed is still slower.
That could be b/c people don't get the faster speeds if that is based off speed test
When you factor in throttled speeds and sharing bandwidth.
On cable you might be told you are getting 50 down, but in reality at 7pm you are getting 30 something. 50 down on fiber means 50 down.
That and faster speeds are offered here at a better price. Most people don't go for the all out shite like i do. How many american ISP's offer 100 meg down fiber?
20 down here is basically 10 pounds a month
This post was edited on 2/25/15 at 10:18 am
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:14 am to TK421
quote:
My bigger question is why the FCC? If throttling and fastlanes are a concern, why can't a law be passed by the legislature to address that specific concern?
Because they want to regulate CONTENT
Posted on 2/25/15 at 10:34 am to CptBengal
The fact of the matter is content will never be able to be regulated on the internet. They are fools for thinking they can. How successful have they been at stopping copyright infringement or dark net markets? They shut one down and 10 more appear. Regulating content on the internet is nothing of concern.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 11:00 am to colorchangintiger
quote:hmmm....
Only tests taken within 300 miles of the server are eligible for inclusion in the index
This post was edited on 2/25/15 at 11:17 am
Posted on 2/25/15 at 11:22 am to TK421
They tried. Verizon sued. Won because internet cannot be regulated under Title I. Ergo, Title II.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 11:45 am to jeff5891
quote:
hmmm....
the base infrastructure here is much better.
its up to the isp how fast they want to go
Posted on 2/25/15 at 8:30 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Net neutrality is supposed to help improve speeds.
Posted on 2/25/15 at 9:55 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Im using my life and work experiences of how things work.
Funny, I'm using my experience with the government saying, "We have to pass it to see what is in it" to know how this is going to work.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 2:21 am to CptBengal
quote:
Because they want to regulate CONTENT
Can you explain to me, in technical terms, any possible plan in which this can be accomplished?
Really, the simple thought of it is downright fricking absurd.
Now, if you said they were gonna up the ante on surveillance, I would totally agree with you. And I am very skeptical about this proposal because of the way surveillance has been ramped up over the last decade.
But seriously, try take a step back in your paranoia and think critically here.
Posted on 2/26/15 at 6:07 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
Net Neutrality is more or less what we've had since the beginning of the internet. I wouldn't say it's helped improve speeds, but it's not the reason they are hindered either. They're hindered because ISP's haven't reinvested in their networks enough, even while promising to do just that if they received tax credits/breaks/incentives which they've been getting.
That said, whatever the FCC is voting on I can guarantee is not net neutrality in the strictest of terms. If it were, then the public would be able to see the proposed rules before the vote.
Instead of the 330+ pages of new rules, we get this 4 page fact sheet.
This! If net neutrality was a 1 page bill, then great! But this seems like Obama Care...you have to pass it to see what's inside it. Who knows what crap they put in here.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News