- 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 devil's advocate
Posted on 7/12/17 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 6:57 pm
Serious thoughts about this shite.
I don't know much about this topic. I've read some bits and pieces over the past few years.
Is it true that net neutrality wasn't regulated until 2015? If so, why weren't ISPs implementing content based subscription services prior to these regulations.
All I've read today honestly is what I interpret as serious over reaction. I choose my stance on each issue as I learn about it. I will never side with an issue because it's democrat or Republican. Just some examples, im anti abortion, im pro gay, im anti social programs, im anti recreational drug retulations. That said, on many issues I do find that I side with the right's point of view on more things.
With that said, Google, Amazon, Reddit, all these massively liberal organizations are "fighting" for net neutrality. Why is everyone on both sides so adamantly on board with them? Why isn't there even the slightest bit of skepticism?
Google has been censoring the internet for years whether you know it or not. They corned the search engine category and you get exposed to articles, products, news that they filter in for you. Isn't that what Google is supposedly fighting against?
Also are ISPs really pushing for the removal of net neutrality as hard as people say? It seems like with net neutrality gone, the "little guy" will have a much bigger impact in the market and some of these big piece of shite companies like Cox will actually have to improve their services.
Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic but I do know a little bit. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this. I've never seen a subject in my life time be so one sided in terms of presented opinions. Is it possible that one side is colluding to misrepresent facts and that the removal of net neutrality regulations is actually good for us?
I don't know much about this topic. I've read some bits and pieces over the past few years.
Is it true that net neutrality wasn't regulated until 2015? If so, why weren't ISPs implementing content based subscription services prior to these regulations.
All I've read today honestly is what I interpret as serious over reaction. I choose my stance on each issue as I learn about it. I will never side with an issue because it's democrat or Republican. Just some examples, im anti abortion, im pro gay, im anti social programs, im anti recreational drug retulations. That said, on many issues I do find that I side with the right's point of view on more things.
With that said, Google, Amazon, Reddit, all these massively liberal organizations are "fighting" for net neutrality. Why is everyone on both sides so adamantly on board with them? Why isn't there even the slightest bit of skepticism?
Google has been censoring the internet for years whether you know it or not. They corned the search engine category and you get exposed to articles, products, news that they filter in for you. Isn't that what Google is supposedly fighting against?
Also are ISPs really pushing for the removal of net neutrality as hard as people say? It seems like with net neutrality gone, the "little guy" will have a much bigger impact in the market and some of these big piece of shite companies like Cox will actually have to improve their services.
Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic but I do know a little bit. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this. I've never seen a subject in my life time be so one sided in terms of presented opinions. Is it possible that one side is colluding to misrepresent facts and that the removal of net neutrality regulations is actually good for us?
21
Posted on 7/12/17 at 6:59 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
so, why weren't ISPs implementing content based subscription services prior to these regulations.
That's a smoke screen. They don't want to implement content based subscription. They want to choose which content gets to you behind closed doors before you ever know about it.
And exactly that was happening and it was found out and it was a pretty big deal.
Unfortunately it's damn near impossible to have a relational logical discussion on net neutrality because you have irrational ignorance running rampant every time it is brought up.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:00 pm to DrSteveBrule
Because Reddit said it is evil.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:00 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
Google has been censoring the internet for years whether you know it or not.
If this were true then we all would have never discovered tigerdroppings in the first place.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:01 pm to WicKed WayZ
quote:
If this were true then we all would have never discovered tigerdroppings in the first place.
Google censors out a lot of nude pictures in image search. Even if you have the "adult" filters off.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:03 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
Net neutrality devil's advocate
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:05 pm to DrSteveBrule
I honestly don't give a shite.
I lived before the internet just fine. If the net gets too expensive or slow or some other bullshite, I will say bye and go back to flip phones
I lived before the internet just fine. If the net gets too expensive or slow or some other bullshite, I will say bye and go back to flip phones
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:06 pm to Lacour
I found a shitload of old CDs with mpeg porn. Should last me several years like it did in my teens.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:08 pm to DrSteveBrule
This isn't about liberal or conservative, it's about avoiding this:
Beyond limiting access to what you're allowed to see, it throttling websites to make them unusable. By forcing companies to pay money to be in a fast lane, it will hurt innovation by small start ups. Only the current big companies will be sure to afford the fees.
And I know a lot of conservatives who are anti MSM. What happens when NBC (Comcast) blocks Beirtbart or Infowars? CNN is owned by Time Warner. What happens if they start slowing down bandwidth to Fox News? What if someone wrote an anti Comcast blog post, and they straight up censor it and won't allow access?
If you're concerned about MSM and censorship, they're all same companies.
There's a reason 88% of the country is in favor of net neutrality.
Beyond limiting access to what you're allowed to see, it throttling websites to make them unusable. By forcing companies to pay money to be in a fast lane, it will hurt innovation by small start ups. Only the current big companies will be sure to afford the fees.
And I know a lot of conservatives who are anti MSM. What happens when NBC (Comcast) blocks Beirtbart or Infowars? CNN is owned by Time Warner. What happens if they start slowing down bandwidth to Fox News? What if someone wrote an anti Comcast blog post, and they straight up censor it and won't allow access?
If you're concerned about MSM and censorship, they're all same companies.
There's a reason 88% of the country is in favor of net neutrality.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:10 pm to Lacour
I use the internet all the time at work. It's the best resource I have to get info quick. The way this net neutrality bullshite is presented is that I'll only be able to access sites at work that my company pays for.
This (mis)representation of facts is presenting neutrality in a way that would affect my life in more ways than just my personal one. I'm ingrained in the internet in my work life as well, so I can't just stick my head in the sand and say well back to the old days. It doesn't work like that.
This (mis)representation of facts is presenting neutrality in a way that would affect my life in more ways than just my personal one. I'm ingrained in the internet in my work life as well, so I can't just stick my head in the sand and say well back to the old days. It doesn't work like that.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:10 pm to fightin tigers
Save our CEOs!!!
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:11 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
Also are ISPs really pushing for the removal of net neutrality as hard as people say? It seems like with net neutrality gone, the "little guy" will have a much bigger impact in the market and some of these big piece of shite companies like Cox will actually have to improve their services.
No. This couldn't be more wrong. Cox will be able to directly censor or throttle your internet, without any consequences. Verizon has been pushing this hard. Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer. The net neutrality law was put into effect because Verizon was slowing down website, including Netflix. This was not a premptive regulation. It was because what people currently fear, has already happened.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:11 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:Which side is PornHub on? I want whatever PornHub wants.
Google, Amazon, Reddit, all these massively liberal organizations are "fighting" for net neutrality.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:12 pm to Lacour
You're so stupid it hurts
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:12 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
will never side with an issue because it's democrat or Republican.
You should try it. It works pretty well and saves a lot of time and effort.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:13 pm to CCTider
quote:
What happens when NBC (Comcast) blocks Beirtbart or Infowars? CNN is owned by Time Warner. What happens if they start slowing down bandwidth to Fox News? What if someone wrote an anti Comcast blog post, and they straight up censor it and won't allow access?
I go to their competitor.
Fyi, that pricing picture, while fake, is cheaper than I pay for internet right now.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:14 pm to Lacour
The only problem with the mpeg format is how terrible it looks on a 50" tv.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:14 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
The way this net neutrality bullshite is presented is that I'll only be able to access sites at work that my company pays for.
It's not guaranteed. But they'll be allowed to do that. If a site doesn't pay, they could definitely be slowed down, or worse. Or if the site gives an opinion the ISP doesn't like, they may straight up block the website altogether. You may get some overly dramatic opinions about this, but by removing NN, these things are possible.
All net neutrality does, is Force ISPs to treat all internet traffic equally. Why is that such a bad thing? The internet is the greatest collection of knowledge the world had ever seen. Why allow private companies the ability to influence that?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:15 pm to CCTider
Hum... why don't we have TV neutrality? Why do I have to buy packages? Why can't I just tune to a specific channel and contract with that channel directly like I do with Netflix? Why does the cable company get to charge those channels for "fast lanes" (paired with the good packages)?
Page 1 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News