- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:09 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
you see? I told you you didn't know what the meaning of the word competition was. Thank you for detailing your lack of knowledge for us
My Verizon LTE is not competition for my Cable One 200 meg connection.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:09 pm to Volvagia
quote:
While I can get behind this, there is no push at ALL for it from the people who are removing Title 2 classification.
Most support NN in principle but not the overarching regulation
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I fear the internet being regulated as a utility faaaar more than I do losing so called net neutrality.
Why?
And considering the fact that the internet didn't crash and burn in the past 2-3 years, its humorous this statement is int he same post as this one:
quote:
The exaggerated fears here seem to be driving the issue.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:11 pm to Centinel
quote:
You didn't answer my question. Is there more than one utility that operates transmission lines to your house?
There isn’t more than one company operates high speed cable service to my house.
quote:
It's not the power, it's the access to the specific type of generated power. it's not the packets, it's the access to the packets from all over the globe. Listen, you obviously can't comprehend what I'm saying. Just admit it. It's ok.
It's not the internet, it's the access to the specific type of connected internet.
it's not the megawatts, it's the access to the megawatts from a certain source.
Listen, you obviously can't comprehend what I'm saying. Just admit it. It's ok.
quote:
Why? ISPs aren't natural monopolies.
Going with the feels over reals approach huh?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:11 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
They get shut down That's why these services change domains all the time. They cracked down on it big time. ISPs have people out there looking for these things so they can block them.
Are you ok with this?
All my content must be treated equally!!!!!1!1!1!1!1
Give me my illegal stream!!1!1!1!1
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Most support NN in principle but not the overarching regulation
Ding Ding. Here is the problem, similar to the whole climate change arguments, the naming is used to pit people against each other who really aren't.
You come out against "Net Neutrality" and you get labeled as against an open and free internet, when in actuality, you are against a stupid arse law that was very poorly written, and one that can be achieved through other means that would leave out the worst parts of the law as it is currently written.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:12 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
My Verizon LTE is not competition for my Cable One 200 meg connection
Is a Kia competition for a BMW? How about a motorcycle? How about a moped?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:13 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
There isn’t more than one company operates high speed cable service to my house.
What does this high speed cable service provide you access to? There are no other services that also provide you access to this same place?
quote:
Going with the feels over reals approach huh?
No. It's a simple fact ISPs aren't natural monopolies.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:13 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Give me a realistic alternative to NN that resolve the regional pseudo monopolies created through bought and paid for state and local regulators.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:13 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Most support NN in principle but not the overarching regulation
No.
Shills are saying that they like the idea to dampen public support against it.
But the reality is that the FCC commissioner is on record saying no adjusted rules are needed. That the long long list of ISPs pushing the line on net neutrality are all complete lies. There is NO push to strip Title 2 attachment to ISPs and replace it with something more appropriate. None.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:14 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
You come out against "Net Neutrality" and you get labeled as against an open and free internet, when in actuality, you are against a stupid arse law that was very poorly written, and one that can be achieved through other means that would leave out the worst parts of the law as it is currently written.
Well said. But they have their talking points from Reddit. FORWARD COMRADES!
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:14 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
My Verizon LTE is not competition for my Cable One 200 meg connection.
5G coming soon will be 40-50x the speed of 4G
Soon all internet will be wireless
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:14 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Give me a realistic alternative to NN that resolve the regional pseudo monopolies created through bought and paid for state and local regulators.
NN does nothing to address this subject for starters.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:14 pm to Volvagia
quote:
While I can get behind this, there is no push at ALL for it from the people who are removing Title 2 classification.
That's just not true. There was a bill proposed in 2014 to achieve just this. The FCC tried multiple times as well on their end. The ISPs were even on board with them. I'm not meaning this as a party issue, but the reason it did not pass in 2014 was because Dems wanted it to be title II. period.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:15 pm to Centinel
quote:
What does this high speed cable service provide you access to? There are no other services that also provide you access to this same place?
What does “the grid” provide you access to? There are no other options that also provide you access to this same thing?
quote:
No. It's a simple fact ISPs aren't natural monopolies.
Man you still fail to put up any actual reasoning to support your conclusion.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:16 pm to CorporateTiger
Answer my question.
Answer my question and you'll have your answer to this.
quote:
Man you still fail to put up any actual reasoning to support your conclusion.
Answer my question and you'll have your answer to this.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:16 pm to Centinel
It doesn’t directly resolve the issue, but it provide some measure of consumer protection against unfair and monopolistic action by cartel activity from ISPs.
If you want to unwind NN, you have to find something else that will do that.
If you want to unwind NN, you have to find something else that will do that.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:16 pm to Volvagia
quote:
No.
Shills are saying that they like the idea to dampen public support against it.
Oh well, we can just claim anything to support our argument, eh?
Craig James killed 5 hookers!!!
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:17 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Give me a realistic alternative to NN that resolve the regional pseudo monopolies created through bought and paid for state and local regulators.
Well, NN does nothing to address this either. While the issues are very much connected, I don't know if the same law would be able to fix both. The Republican bill in 2014 basically achieves the end goals of the current law, without re-classifying to Title II.
As to the state/local issues. I honestly don't know what the best way to remedy that problem, but that is a much bigger issue that the current NN law did a great job of deflecting attention away from.
Page 9 of 26
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News