- 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
re: What is net neutrality?
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:38 pm to SCLSUMuddogs
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:38 pm to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
here is no comfort in this announcement from the FTC," said Chris Lewis, vice president of the consumer group Public Knowledge. "Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public. This gives free reign to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it.
So they have to tell us before they screw us over? I'm good with that.
The market is a powerful thing. Even with the current limited competition environment, no ISP has ever made it policy to limit or throttle for commercial purposes. There have been a very few cases of anti-competitive behavior - and they were caught and treated harshly for it.
Also, that first quote makes it clear that "deceptive" is only one of the illegal activities they'll police. "Unfair or unlawful" is quite broad in the statutes. I'm pretty sure Chris Lewis is a NN stooge, so his opinion is meaningless.
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 4:39 pm
2
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:41 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
holdem Tiger
Your ignorance is the problem with American politics. You vote party and not issue.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:43 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
. There have been a very few cases of anti-competitive behavior - and they were caught and treated harshly for it.
And what about the 2014 ruling for AT&T about the FTC's jurisdiction over common carriers providing non-common carrier services?
Hint: it deals with the section 5 "unfair" practices you keep talking about
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:45 pm to holdem Tiger
Picking which sites to throttle seems like a dick move. That said, the freeloaders who want to be able to stream movies and TV 24/7 on 20 devices and not pay more than some granny who is on the internet for Facebook and Amazon don't make sense to me.
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:47 pm to Peazey
quote:
quote:
If you can look at the list of people on each side of the issue and truly believe NN increases freedom, then your world view is very different than mine.
Yes, you believe firstly in partisanship and choosing opinions based off of if your team supports it or not, and I believe in developing opinions based off of analysis and then seeing which side agrees with it on a case by case basis. That's why you can develop opinions just by looking at who supports it. Gotta toe that party line.
You've been duped by rich men whose interest is only making themselves richer into supporting destructive, corrupt, and anti competitive policy.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:47 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
That said, the freeloaders who want to be able to stream movies and TV 24/7 on 20 devices and not pay more than some granny who is on the internet for Facebook and Amazon don't make sense to me.
You don't pay for MB/s?
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:50 pm to Peazey
quote:
Yes, you believe firstly in partisanship and choosing opinions based off of if your team supports it or not,
I understand the issues involved with NN pretty well. I could have told you generally who was on each side without looking it up. It's no shocker that I agree with the same side that I usually do. We small-govt types tend to agree on these issues most of the time.
If you're a big-govt guy, I get it. You're on the right side, too. If not, consider the possibility that you are the one who has been duped.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:54 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
I understand the issues involved with NN pretty well.
You clearly don't
quote:
And what about the 2014 ruling for AT&T about the FTC's jurisdiction over common carriers providing non-common carrier services?
The FTCs jurisdiction is still in question right now, which is why this came about in the first place. Seems like we should wait for that to be resolved first, don't you think?
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:56 pm to bountyhunter
quote:
Where does net neutrality fit in with the Comcast “data plan” robbery scheme?
They are specifically targeting areas that do not have competition for internet services.
Oh.. you noticed? I have data caps in my no-competition area.. but in areas where actual competition exists the data caps are having a delayed rollout due to technical difficulties or some shite
Posted on 12/13/17 at 4:58 pm to bmy
Did you know that Comcast has been caught injecting their own code into web pages despite it using more data?
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:00 pm to 25 Point Lead
quote:
And what about the 2014 ruling for AT&T about the FTC's jurisdiction over common carriers providing non-common carrier services
Interesting case. Thanks for mentioning... I wasn't familiar with it.
Looks like a terrible decision by a 3 judge panel in the 9th Circuit. It's being re-heard right now and both the FTC and FCC are arguing it should be reversed. Since it's so stupid, I suspect it will be. It will be fixed legislatively very quickly if not. The FTC will definitely have full jurisdiction, so.. not a problem.
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:01 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
I understand the issues involved with NN pretty well. I could have told you generally who was on each side without looking it up. It's no shocker that I agree with the same side that I usually do. We small-govt types tend to agree on these issues most of the time. If you're a big-govt guy, I get it. You're on the right side, too. If not, consider the possibility that you are the one who has been duped.
What exactly is "small government" about an ISPs lawyer being appointed to the FCC chairman to repeal a rule his former company has spent millions in donations to politicians on?
I don't care about the utility classification.. just about internet traffic. Just like 99.9% of net neutrality supporters. I find it strange that republicans are so anti-scalia on this position...
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:04 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
Interesting case. Thanks for mentioning... I wasn't familiar with it.
You weren't familiar with arguably one of the most important pieces of this entire topic and a large reason title 2 classification was put in place?
quote:
I understand the issues involved with NN pretty well.
Gonna have to question that.
At worst that pending case is a reason to delay this vote
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:06 pm to LSU316
quote:
Are you saying I'm wrong
Yes.
Awesome, thanks for your evidence. It's probably because you don't have any.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:11 pm to tlsu15
quote:
Those guys will literally line up to repeal ANYTHING Obama did. They don't give a shite if it's good for the American people or not.
Especially if it's also going to put money in their pockets. LINK
Here's a link showing all of the people who voted to allow ISPs to sell our data to whomever they want and how much money those same people received from ISPs during the last election cycle. Notice anything in common under "Party"?
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:16 pm to bmy
quote:
I find it strange that republicans are so anti-scalia on this position...
Love Scalia, but he never opined on these issues, contrary to your implication.
Posted on 12/13/17 at 5:23 pm to MLCLyons
Clay Higgins 300, he needs to raise his standards. 
Posted on 12/13/17 at 6:02 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
Love Scalia, but he never opined on these issues, contrary to your implication.
His comments in his dissent ("call up a pizzeria")
"If, for example, I call up a pizzeria and ask whether they offer delivery, both common sense and common usage,
ante, at 18, would prevent them from answering: No, we do not offer delivery but if you order a pizza from us,we'll bake it for you and then bring it to your house. The logical response to this would be something on the order of, so, you do offer delivery. But our pizza-man may continue to deny the obvious and explain, paraphrasing the FCC and the Court: No, even though we bring the pizza to your house, we are not actually offering you delivery, because the delivery that we provide to our end users is part and parcel of our pizzeria-pizza-at-home service and is integral to its other capabilities. Any reasonable customer would conclude at that point that his interlocutor was either crazy or following some too-clever-byhalf legal advice.
...
After all is said and done, after all the regulatory cant has been translated, and the smoke of agency expertise blown away, it remains perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is offering telecommunications."
This post was edited on 12/13/17 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 12/13/17 at 6:59 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:There is no freedom. Merely regulation and protection by the government or self-serving structures put in place by big business. The government solutions allow the opportunity for small businesses to succeed. No solution is perfect. If I have to choose in a vacuum I will take the government approach that protects the individual and small businesses every time.
I'll make it easier for you.
Freedom or big govt regulatory monster to solve a non-existent problem
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News