- 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 12/14/17 at 10:50 am to moneyg
quote:
moneyg
This man gets it. There was a proposal that did just that in 2014. It was shot down by Dems because their goal was Title 2.
It is doable. Both sides can be happy. Don't know why people don't realize this.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:52 am to HogX
quote:
Nobody would pay $300 for internet access when it's free all over the place and I can access it on my phone through 4G.
??? Free as in, the complementary wifi you access at Starbucks? Do you think that's free?
quote:
That's the beauty of capitalism. If prices started to encroach upon that territory, someone would come up with an alternative and drive prices back down.
Yes, I agree. It would be called "paying only for the sites you want to access"
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:52 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
What if they decided your favorite conservative or nationalist website just shouldn’t be seen period?
Basically liberals can't be trusted.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:53 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
This man gets it. There was a proposal that did just that in 2014. It was shot down by Dems because their goal was Title 2. It is doable. Both sides can be happy. Don't know why people don't realize this.
You act like republicans don't get funding from some ISPs, those same ISPs that don't want a free and open internet.
Hell the chair of the FCC was a lawyer for Verizon.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:53 am to digitalis
quote:So?
Because corporations are motivated by profit, and current regulations prevent them from charging more for fast lanes for content providers.
Those charges will be passed down to the consumer-- YOU.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:53 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Do you like the Google et al being able to make a website basically disappear?
What if they decided your favorite conservative or nationalist website just shouldn’t be seen period?
FIFY
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:53 am to Aristo
quote:
What if they decided your favorite conservative or nationalist website just shouldn’t be seen period?
quote:
Basically liberals can't be trusted.
his point went clear over your head
showing you have no idea wtf you are talking about.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:54 am to cokebottleag
quote:That's gonna lead to some very interesting conversations when the wife sees the little box checked next to pornhub.com
Yes, I agree. It would be called "paying only for the sites you want to access"
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:55 am to SLafourche07
quote:
Do you like the Google et al being able to make a website basically disappear? What if they decided your favorite conservative or nationalist website just shouldn’t be seen period? FIFY
my god another person who doesn't know the difference between content and the gateway to content.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:55 am to LSU Patrick
Thanks for the concise responses 
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:55 am to SLafourche07
You realize that Google can remove something for Google search results, but you can still access it directly, right?
Or use a minimal amount of effort to use one of countless other search engines. If an ISP simply blocks a website, it is orders of magnitude harder to get around
Or use a minimal amount of effort to use one of countless other search engines. If an ISP simply blocks a website, it is orders of magnitude harder to get around
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:56 am to StraightCashHomey21
Google wants a free internet because they don't censor...
Straightcuckhomey21
Straightcuckhomey21
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:56 am to Yak
quote:
That's gonna lead to some very interesting conversations when the wife sees the little box checked next to pornhub.com
Porn hub has already come out against the FCC getting rid of NN.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:56 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Now let's get a fix that doesn't require title 2 classification.
I could do it in one page.
1. All data shall be treated the same.
2. No user data shall be collected by any site nor ISP without expressed, actively-given permission by the user.
--2a. Said permission shall not be used in any sort of consideration for service nor service level.
--2b. Any data given shall not be given nor sold to any other entity without further expressed, actively-given permission by the user.
That's it. File that then call it a day.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:57 am to CptBengal
quote:
Google wants a free internet because they don't censor... Straightcuckhomey21
and just like that your argument is invalid
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:57 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You act like republicans don't get funding from some ISPs, those same ISPs that don't want a free and open internet.
Hell the chair of the FCC was a lawyer for Verizon.
I'm not acting like anything. There was a republican proposal that would have accomplished what all of you are wanting out of NN regulation, without title 2 classification. All the ISP's were in favor of it (minus I believe comcast but it wasn't for the main regulations. Can't remember their exact rebuttle). Hell, The ISPs were in favor of it in 2010 when the FCC tried it originally. My only point is that multiple times the ISPs have been fine with the regulation you are saying is their main objection. My point is that it is not. Their objection, and everyone's objection should be Title 2.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:57 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
If your ISP sucks, get another.
If only it were that simple.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:57 am to CptBengal
CptFilth wants his views repressed by ISPs.... they are pro nationalist for sure.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 10:58 am to Bard
quote:
I could do it in one page.
1. All data shall be treated the same.
2. No user data shall be collected by any site nor ISP without expressed, actively-given permission by the user.
--2a. Said permission shall not be used in any sort of consideration for service nor service level.
--2b. Any data given shall not be given nor sold to any other entity without further expressed, actively-given permission by the user.
That's it. File that then call it a day.
Yep. It was attempted in 2014. Congress gave the FCC the authority to regulate and enforce those basic laws. The supreme court would then be able to vote that the FCC did have legal authority (their dissent in the FCC's 2010 attempt).
Everyone wins.
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News