- 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 1:38 pm to NC_Tigah
NN did not stop frontier internet from screwing people.. Last i check lawsuits still going with frontier internet.. If it was too help the people it has not..
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:38 pm to JBeam
quote:
quote:can you site what case you are talking about please? You know for a fact that this isn't CptBengals MO.
I think he sees this on some other message board and then quickly reposts here without any consideration, skepticism or fact checking in between.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Indeed.
Hart v. Comcast Corp
The sad part is that your boy Ajit Pai thought it was OK for ComCast to do this:
quote:
Legal controversy ensued when Comcast terminated BitTorrent connections by sending forged RST packets represented as coming from the end users rather than from Comcast. This was through a partnership with Sandvine. This effectively blocks the user from making full use of BitTorrent. The controversy arises because Comcast is impersonating end users in terminating connections.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:40 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Hart v. Comcast Corp
If you read the details on that case you can see that the reason Comcast lost was because they were advertising unfettered access at a specified speed, but weren't providing that.
You can be relatively certain that since then all ISP's have their users agree to TOS that include wording about throttling etc and the ruling in Hart doesn't prevent throttling at all. Meaning no court has ever ruled that ISPs can't throttle speeds.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:42 pm to CptBengal
delete
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:42 pm to cwill
True. He starts thread after thread based off of catchy headlines and not one shred of substance. And flees with quickness when someone points out to him that he is wrong and would have known was wrong if only he had read the link he posted as his source. OP reminds me of that weird uncle we all try to ignore but pops up to ruin thanksgiving
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:42 pm to Fireman17
quote:
NN did not stop frontier internet from screwing people.. Last i check lawsuits still going with frontier internet.. If it was too help the people it has not..
Do the claims against Frontier fall under NN? Or are they just charging out taxes in violation of other laws and just generally providing shitty service?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:43 pm to CptBengal
And it can't be censorship (not really), because all the leftists tech giants were censoring THA frick out of Maga and conservatives (Milo, Shapiro, etc.) all the while NN was in effect.
So, what's really going on here? Much ado about nothing? Something more sinister?
They act like this is the end of the world when we're going back to rules governing the internet in 2015.
What am I missing?
So, what's really going on here? Much ado about nothing? Something more sinister?
They act like this is the end of the world when we're going back to rules governing the internet in 2015.
What am I missing?
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:43 pm to asurob1
fricking Filth liberal filth prog filth fraud filth filth filth.
fricking got ‘em
fricking got ‘em
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:45 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
If you read the details on that case you can see that the reason Comcast lost was because they were advertising unfettered access at a specified speed, but weren't providing that.
You can be relatively certain that since then all ISP's have their users agree to TOS that include wording about throttling etc and the ruling in Hart doesn't prevent throttling at all. Meaning no court has ever ruled that ISPs can't throttle speeds.
They didn't lose, they settled, meaning there was no law or precedent set...therefore your second paragraph is probably accurate.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:45 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Read further into it
You can be relatively certain that since then all ISP's have their users agree to TOS that include wording about throttling etc and the ruling in Hart doesn't prevent throttling at all. Meaning no court has ever ruled that ISPs can't throttle speeds.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:45 pm to CptBengal
This would all be different had private industry developed the internet to begin with. But, it didnt , Taxpayer dollars did.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:51 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
And it can't be censorship (not really), because all the leftists tech giants were censoring THA frick out of Maga and conservatives (Milo, Shapiro, etc.) all the while NN was in effect.
Google and such aren’t ISPs. They were never affected by NN.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:55 pm to SirWinston
We love Trump
Posted on 12/14/17 at 1:59 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
fricking Filth liberal filth prog filth fraud filth filth filth.
fricking got ‘em
look how melty.
and I do love this new game...I dont post for 10 minutes, and you filth melt down.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:00 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Google and such aren’t ISPs. They were never affected by NN.
Right - but google can function as a de facto gateway. They can censor by omission. The left can't be concerned about "censorship" because they're in favor the censorship that has been imposed.
I'm just thinking out loud of the "Why?" they're all upset. Upsetting more of the Obama agenda? Anything Trump is for, they're against? Is there something going on that I'm missing that makes it catastrophic to go back to the rules in place in 2015?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:00 pm to CptBengal
You have the originality of a dead horse that is being beaten into glue.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:01 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
You have the originality of a dead horse that is being beaten into glue.
look how angry you are. Like beat your wife angry.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:05 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Right - but google can function as a de facto gateway. They can censor by omission.
To be clear Google’s censorship is an order of magnitude easier to get around than ISPs.
quote:
The left can't be concerned about "censorship" because they're in favor the censorship that has been imposed.
I don’t like what Google is doing, but they are part of an actual free market we’re I can easily switch to any number of search engines. The same is not true for ISPs. Also Google receives very little protection and benefit from local and state governments unlike ISPs who benefit greatly from eminent domain and other competition killing regulations.
quote:
Is there something going on that I'm missing that makes it catastrophic to go back to the rules in place in 2015?
To be clear there was understanding in place prior to NN that the internet would remain free. It was only when it became clear that ISPs weren’t playing by those rules or by the rules of their own TOS that NN became a political topic.
Then prior to full NN there were other regulations in place that helped restrain ISPs from fully censoring.
Now none frustrated will be true.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News