[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.[/quote]
Nah man, the government will take care of us. [/quote]
Oh my God…
[quote]tedro wrote:
Why is this Comcast’s problem? Why must they supply equal access to a competitor? [/quote]
I never said it was their problem or that they have to allow competition access to their network.
However, isn’t that part of the issue? Isn’t that why there are talks of the FCC regulating the internet? Do we want ISPs to control both speed and content.
[quote]
The crux here is that Netflix does not have a viable business model.[/quote]
That’s fine. Netflix is the example that keeps coming up, but it’s just that, an example.
[quote]
The consumer has enjoyed cheap content and for fear of losing it is asking for government intervention. The only real value in Netflix is the content rights they have with major producers. They have nearly zero infrastructure and are entirely dependent on others to distribute their product. Instead of attacking the ISP’s, why don’t you attack Netflix and the producers for the exclusive rights deals?[/quote]
At some point my message was obviously misconstrued or buried in this heaping pile of BS… I don’t give a shit if Netflix goes out of business tomorrow. I don’t even have Netflix, lol.
[quote]
Netflix hit the market by storm with their DVD by mail business, but the TV by internet without your own network is not a sustainable business model.[/quote]
Cool
[quote]
Every digital cable and satellite company is fully capable of supplying the exact same content as Netflix if they had the agreements in place with producers and broadcasters. [/quote]
Cool
[quote]
In fact, if it wasn’t for government intervention in the first place, you’d probably have a much more competitive ISP/cable environment than we do now. If AT&T wasn’t forced to break up in the 80’s, they would almost certainly have stronger DSL and fiber networks now. [/quote]
And almost certainly a monopoly. Do you agree with anti-trust laws or not?
[quote]
If Dish and DirecTV were allowed to merge satellite would be a much larger threat in urban areas and the company would have the bandwidth to support more internet traffic.[/quote]
Having used both DirectTv and Dish (current Dish subscriber) I doubt the merger would of been for the better. DirectTV (which is the large or the two if I’m not mistaken) sucks. Their customer service is abysmal in my experience. So now, living where satellite is the only option, you’ve bumped my choice down to a whooping 1 company. Awesome.
[quote]
If AT&T had T-mobiles spectrum they could supply more wireless data. Finally it looks like at least the AT&T buyout of DirecTV will happen, but all that’s really going to do is get NFL Sunday Ticket into more households (why aren’t we raging against that monopoly?) [/quote]
We can if you’d like. I didn’t realize in every thread you had to rage against every issue that exists. I thought this was about Net Neutrality? Do you want to talk about abortion now?
[quote]
The lines between cable/internet/wireless are very blurred right now and quite possibly will be non-existent in 15 years. You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.[/quote]
Sure, that’s all well and good (except the mergers part, imo). I have no idea what that has to do with Net Neutrality though.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies![/quote]
It’s difficult because about 5 ISPs control the market from what I’ve read.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Do we want ISPs to control both speed and content. [/quote]
God fucking forbid. Much better to have the FCC do it. Bunch of unelected bureaucrats who don’t pay any significant price for being wrong telling us what we can and can’t see, even though we pay for it…
Yeah, god forbid the ISP, who is subject to feedback from the market actually have to listen to its customer base and provide services people are willing to pay for.
[quote]
Because more competition means people can tell Comcast to go fuck themselves if they throttle and ruin the neckbeard experience for them.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies![/quote]
It’s difficult because about 5 ISPs control the market from what I’ve read. [/quote]
No.
It has less to do with established companies than it does government and infrastructure, and more the latter than the former.
The fact Comcast is there doesn’t mean shit.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re missing the point.
Look at gun “control”. One law infringing on the second amendment didn’t stop shootings, so the passed another. Guess what, still didn’t stop it, so they passed another… So on and so forth, and people in CA, NY, NJ & CT have to suck of a local LEO in order to think about buying a fucking nerf gun. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. As it stands an ISP can charge a content provider anything they want to and if the content provider refuses they can transmit their product at any speed they want to. They can destroy any e-commerce business they want too.
[quote]
You sure seem to think it will stop evil Comcast from hurting consumers by not being able to regulate its own traffic. [/quote]
Lol, yes I obviously think Comcast is evil. My perspective is different so I must think they’re evil… If you read the Level 3 link I provided you would see, according to them, Comcast has more than enough resources to hand all of the traffic Level 3 pushes.
Oh wait, Level 3 can’t be trust, but Comcast can, Lol.
[quote]
This further makes my point for me. FDA does things a bit more important than making sure you or I can watch a weekend marathon of Lord of the Rings in HD while sitting in our underwear. [/quote]
Oh didn’t know you got to decide what is and isn’t important.
For the 400th time, video streaming is one tiny aspect of what we’re talking about.
Smh…
[quote]
I’ve said as much like 400 times now, including where you just cut it out of my post. I see it with a certain client every day I work. I don’t need to read a blog. And again, for the 400th time: inviting Big Brother into the mix is only going to make it worse.
I’ll type it again.
Asking the government to jump into the game and “regulate” the internet will only make those 1-3 ISP’s you are so afraid of, more entrenched, and further insure they are the only options you have.
And again.
Government will create the monopoly. [/quote]
I always cut down posts. I haven’t figured out the multiple quote function.
I love how you came in here not really understanding Net Neutrality and now a few pages and days later you’re an expert with all the answers…
Again, since we like to point out how many times we type things, I am not saying government regulation is the answer. It’s just a potential solution. Heaven forbid we talk about it though.
The monopoly already exist. It’s in a link, you refuse to look at.
[quote]
Good. The point you are missing is that is GOOD for you, good for the consumer. You want Netflix and Google to pay for its usage. Because the only other option is YOU pay for it. Someone is fucking paying for it, and it won’t be the ISP. [/quote]
Yes, I want Netflix and Google to pay for their usage. I said so like 7 pages ago.
[quote]
lmao. Thank you again, for proving my point.
Government’s solution = fuck the end users and make sure the businesses pocket books are nice and fat.
Your blog is written by a moron then, who has no idea what is going on. [/quote]
Lol, fingers in ears, head in sand, all that jazz…
[quote]
But one you’re cool with as long as Weekend At BErnies doesn’t buffer for some neckbeard in rural Alabama? [/quote]
Total bull shit man. It has nothing to do with streaming video. Do you know how many times I’ve personally streamed a movie int he last month? A whooping ZERO times. It isn’t the issue or the point.
[quote]
Lol, yes, you are. And all at the same speed no less, irrelevant of how that fucks up a user’s experience. [/quote]
You are advocating the fucking of end user. I mean are you just fucking with me? Go back and read your Adobe example where that end user should just accept being fucked over because you’ve deemed his use of the internet, THAT HE PAID FOR, ins’t good enough for Comcast’s best efforts.
[quote]
So… Netflix takes up 70% of Comcast’s resources on a Saturday… You want to make sure Comcast can’t charge them more…[/quote]
lmfoa, for the 357th time, NO. They should have to pay based on volume. That should have nothing to do with speed of delivery.
[quote]
Sounds like you certainly want coercion, just not by the ISP’s, but the content providers. [/quote]
No. Should I explain my position yet again or are you just going to say something like , Nah bro the guberment will fix everything?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If speed tiers exist and are part of an agreement between ISPs and content providers then fine. I wasn’t aware of that.
[/quote]
I thought you were referring to tiers between the ISP and end user, but this is an interesting statement as that is exactly what you are arguing against when you push for net neutrality.
Sure you should, but the business owner also has the right to ensure his customers are given access as he sees fit. The membership doesn’t promise unlimited access to a limited resource in the gym, it gives you unlimited access to the front door. If one user is able to monopolize a resource like that, the gym owner would have no choice but to place a ‘cap’ on squat rack usage.
This is exactly what will happen if ISP’s are forced to provide the same service to Netflix as they do to other content providers that do not require near the resources. In the end, the customer is going to pay for it one way or another as the Netflix business model just doesn’t work on its own. We can let the ISP’s charge Netflix to prevent throttling and in turn watch subscription prices go up for Netflix users, or we can let the government step in and watch all internet rates go up as the ISP has to guarantee Netflix bandwidth and let all customers pay the added fees required for Netflix usage.
This will have the added benefit of keeping satellite internet out of the mainstream. They already struggle to be competitive and because of a lack of spectrum cannot provide the bandwidth of other providers. The best thing for some of these providers to do may be to block Netflix and gaming sites from their networks altogether, freeing up resources for users that don’t have Netflix subscriptions and quite possibly eliminating the need for the data caps that they all already use.
[quote]
Is Netflix in break of their contract with Comcast I suppose is the question? [/quote]
Not that I’m aware of currently, but the point is that Comcast and Netflix should be free to enter into a contract without government regulations that favor one business over the other.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies![/quote]
It’s difficult because about 5 ISPs control the market from what I’ve read. [/quote]
No.
It has less to do with established companies than it does government and infrastructure, and more the latter than the former.
The fact Comcast is there doesn’t mean shit. [/quote]
Dude that’s like saying Walmart isn’t a barrier of entry for a Ma & Pa clothing store.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
God fucking forbid. Much better to have the FCC do it. [/quote]
Lol… It’s like you are purposely ignoring what I write so you can rail on and on against the government.
[quote]
Bunch of unelected bureaucrats who don’t pay any significant price for being wrong telling us what we can and can’t see, even though we pay for it… [/quote]
That would not be ideal no.
[quote]
Yeah, god forbid the ISP, who is subject to feedback from the market actually have to listen to its customer base and provide services people are willing to pay for. [/quote]
There is little feedback when 1 or 2 ISPs control the entire market, which is what happens now. Suppose I could move across the country were 1 or 2 other ISPs control that market…
[quote]
Because more competition means people can tell Comcast to go fuck themselves if they throttle and ruin the neckbeard experience for them. [/quote]
Please show me where competition is diversify in the internet market? Comcast and TM (two of the largest ISPs) just merged didn’t they?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I never said it was their problem or that they have to allow competition access to their network.
However, isn’t that part of the issue? Isn’t that why there are talks of the FCC regulating the internet? Do we want ISPs to control both speed and content.
[/quote]
If that’s their prerogative, then sure. Much better than the FCC.
[quote][quote]
The crux here is that Netflix does not have a viable business model.[/quote]
That’s fine. Netflix is the example that keeps coming up, but it’s just that, an example.
[/quote]
The example fits well though. It all really comes down to major data hogs that want to force expenses onto ISP’s so that they don’t have to raise subscription (or lack thereof) costs.
[quote][quote]
In fact, if it wasn’t for government intervention in the first place, you’d probably have a much more competitive ISP/cable environment than we do now. If AT&T wasn’t forced to break up in the 80’s, they would almost certainly have stronger DSL and fiber networks now. [/quote]
And almost certainly a monopoly. Do you agree with anti-trust laws or not?
[/quote]
No.
There’s currently two providers of satellite internet, ViaSat and Echostar. Dish & DirecTV are both currently served by ViaSat so that competition would likely remain. I’m also willing to bet you can get reception via antennae pretty easily in rural MD. I don’t believe you have a God given right to cable TV. It’s not the only thing that costs more in rural areas.
[quote][quote]
The lines between cable/internet/wireless are very blurred right now and quite possibly will be non-existent in 15 years. You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.[/quote]
Sure, that’s all well and good (except the mergers part, imo). I have no idea what that has to do with Net Neutrality though.
[/quote]
Your entire premise seems to be that without Net Neutrality we will be fighting ISP monopolies over content. Keep the government out of it and the imagined problem won’t even be imaginable in the near future.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I thought you were referring to tiers between the ISP and end user, but this is an interesting statement as that is exactly what you are arguing against when you push for net neutrality. [/quote]
As I’ve said, I am against ISPs charging content providers an arbitrary fee to transmit their product at an agreed upon speed and throttling data transmission speeds if said content providers refuse to pay the fee. That to me is coercion.
Again, content provides should have to pay for volume/bandwidth as per the contract they agree to with the ISP or 3rd party (like Level 3) that links the ISP and provider.
And agian, like I said in my op, I am still trying to understand the entire argument for and against Net Neutrality.
[quote]
Sure you should, but the business owner also has the right to ensure his customers are given access as he sees fit. The membership doesn’t promise unlimited access to a limited resource in the gym, it gives you unlimited access to the front door. If one user is able to monopolize a resource like that, the gym owner would have no choice but to place a ‘cap’ on squat rack usage. [/quote]
Absolutely and as the end user that wants to curl in the squat rack I should be able to leave his gym and go to his competitors gym. The issue is the markets are differnt. There are more gyms within 10 miles of where I type this then ISPs in the state of MD. Competition is stagnant and it appears to be getting worse. If that’s not true I’d love someone to point it out.
And ya Beans, you’ve gotta client trying to break into the market. I saw it.
[quote]
This is exactly what will happen if ISP’s are forced to provide the same service to Netflix as they do to other content providers that do not require near the resources. In the end, the customer is going to pay for it one way or another as the Netflix business model just doesn’t work on its own. We can let the ISP’s charge Netflix to prevent throttling and in turn watch subscription prices go up for Netflix users, or we can let the government step in and watch all internet rates go up as the ISP has to guarantee Netflix bandwidth and let all customers pay the added fees required for Netflix usage.[/quote]
I understand. However, what I’ve read indicates, at least in the example I read, is that the ISPs have more than enough resources to provide content without prioritizing anything. Again, if this isn’t true I’d love to see it.
[quote]
This will have the added benefit of keeping satellite internet out of the mainstream. They already struggle to be competitive and because of a lack of spectrum cannot provide the bandwidth of other providers. The best thing for some of these providers to do may be to block Netflix and gaming sites from their networks altogether, freeing up resources for users that don’t have Netflix subscriptions and quite possibly eliminating the need for the data caps that they all already use. [/quote]
That’s fine. Internet is a luxury after all.
[quote]
Not that I’m aware of currently, but the point is that Comcast and Netflix should be free to enter into a contract without government regulations that favor one business over the other.[/quote]
I agree. However, I also think once that agreement is create Comcast shouldn’t be able to purposefully throttle Netflix data transmission because they want people to visit NBC.com and watch TV there.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I never said it was their problem or that they have to allow competition access to their network.
However, isn’t that part of the issue? Isn’t that why there are talks of the FCC regulating the internet? Do we want ISPs to control both speed and content.
[/quote]
If that’s their prerogative, then sure. Much better than the FCC.
[quote][quote]
The crux here is that Netflix does not have a viable business model.[/quote]
That’s fine. Netflix is the example that keeps coming up, but it’s just that, an example.
[/quote]
The example fits well though. It all really comes down to major data hogs that want to force expenses onto ISP’s so that they don’t have to raise subscription (or lack thereof) costs.
[quote][quote]
In fact, if it wasn’t for government intervention in the first place, you’d probably have a much more competitive ISP/cable environment than we do now. If AT&T wasn’t forced to break up in the 80’s, they would almost certainly have stronger DSL and fiber networks now. [/quote]
And almost certainly a monopoly. Do you agree with anti-trust laws or not?
[/quote]
No.
There’s currently two providers of satellite internet, ViaSat and Echostar. Dish & DirecTV are both currently served by ViaSat so that competition would likely remain. I’m also willing to bet you can get reception via antennae pretty easily in rural MD. I don’t believe you have a God given right to cable TV. It’s not the only thing that costs more in rural areas.
[quote][quote]
The lines between cable/internet/wireless are very blurred right now and quite possibly will be non-existent in 15 years. You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.[/quote]
Sure, that’s all well and good (except the mergers part, imo). I have no idea what that has to do with Net Neutrality though.
[/quote]
Your entire premise seems to be that without Net Neutrality we will be fighting ISP monopolies over content. Keep the government out of it and the imagined problem won’t even be imaginable in the near future.[/quote]
Your position makes more sense now. If that’s how you feel, more power to you. My personal opinion is that a Monopoly is just a bad as government run.
I like the middle ground. It serves more people.
And you’re right that most of these things are just luxury items.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Your entire premise seems to be that without Net Neutrality we will be fighting ISP monopolies over content. Keep the government out of it and the imagined problem won’t even be imaginable in the near future.[/quote]
For the record, my entire premise at it’s core, has been ISPs and providers should have to play fair and I’m not sure how we make that happen.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.[/quote]
Me pointing out that “common sense” regulations in other areas have completely turned into a gutting of natural rights isn’t relevant to the possibilities of “common sense” regulations might have on modern conveniences?
Okay, and as soon as they do so, a couple million subscribers will complain. The ISP has to answer to someone. They can tell the customer to contact Netflix, or whoever, and in the end, the consumer has an option.
When the FCC tells the ISP to fuck the end user, like your wiki link siad they already have, and the ISP tells those customers, “I had to, look at the FCC regulations”, what happens? Oh right, nothing.
[quote]
If you read the Level 3 link I provided you would see, according to them, Comcast has more than enough resources to hand all of the traffic Level 3 pushes.
Oh wait, Level 3 can’t be trust, but Comcast can, Lol. [/quote]
I never said trust Comcast. I’m going by the link that said they didn’t do it, written by a 3rd party. You’re link is written by an involved party.
BRB going to find a link where thingprogress.com says they aren’t communists.
[quote]
Oh didn’t know you got to decide what is and isn’t important. [/quote]
You compared the FDA to the regulation of the internet, not me.
But that and games and shit are the bulk of the the strain on the networks no?
[quote]
Smh…[/quote]
Please explain how the consumer has benefitted from anything the FCC has done. Also please show an example or two of the FCC creating a situation where more competition has arisen.
[quote]
I love how you came in here not really understanding Net Neutrality and now a few pages and days later you’re an expert with all the answers…[/quote]
Um, no. You’re not reading what I’m writing.
I don’t give a fuck about ISP’s or Comcast, except they give me what I pay for, which they have, over and over and over again. I care about the government getting involved (which I do know a lot of the answers for) because every time they do I end up fucked over, and over and over again.
What other solution have you proposed?
Top 20 as on 2011… Not even remotely close to monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cable_Internet_providers#United_States
here is 13 just in cable alone… Not including wireless, etc.
17 as of 2013, and this is just a ranking, so I assume there is more.
[quote]
Yes, I want Netflix and Google to pay for their usage. I said so like 7 pages ago. [/quote]
So… You’re okay with an ISP charging different content providers different amounts then?
Which would mean in order for Netflix to get the speed it needs, it would have to pay more than say, facebook.
[quote]
Lol, fingers in ears, head in sand, all that jazz…[/quote]
DId you not read what you copy pasted? The FCC told Comcast to limit the end user.
[quote]
[quote]
But one you’re cool with as long as Weekend At BErnies doesn’t buffer for some neckbeard in rural Alabama? [/quote]
Total bull shit man. It has nothing to do with streaming video. Do you know how many times I’ve personally streamed a movie int he last month? A whooping ZERO times. It isn’t the issue or the point. [/quote]
Yes, actually it is the point, and the issue. It’s part of the internet, you want a level playing field, therefore all parts of the internet need the same attention, same speed, and apparently the same priority.
[quote]
You are advocating the fucking of end user. I mean are you just fucking with me? Go back and read your Adobe example where that end user should just accept being fucked over because you’ve deemed his use of the internet, THAT HE PAID FOR, ins’t good enough for Comcast’s best efforts. [/quote]
You may want to re-read my post. It said no such thing…
When you actually reword my post correctly I’ll respond to it further.
Protip: anyone downloading adobe gets a slower speed, who can then switch to a movie and get it fast. Activities are limited not particular users.
[quote]
lmfoa, for the 357th time, NO. They should have to pay based on volume. That should have nothing to do with speed of delivery. [/quote]
So speed has nothing to do with the strain on the network then?
Oh right, we’ve established it does, so therefore in order to deliver their goods, which require speed, it takes more resources. But you aren’t cool with the speed part being treated differently for different content.
You want all content at the same speed, irrelevant of capabilities…
Look up what happened to Verizon’s LTE service. Once more and more people entered the network, the whole network slowed down. Everyone’s experience shit the bed. Is this what you want? Or should Verizon be able to slow down a text or fruit ninja download a hair so facebook and internet moves at a pace more satisfactory for the user?
Your position as I see it is:
Businesses might filter content, or otherwise control what the end user sees based on fees it charges content providers. This is no good.
I can point to some good regulations, therefore we might just need the government to be the one that filters content and otherwise controls what the end user sees based on the same way they regulate TV, Radio, rate movies, gun control and how much water can be in my toilet bowl after I flush a shit.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies![/quote]
It’s difficult because about 5 ISPs control the market from what I’ve read. [/quote]
No.
It has less to do with established companies than it does government and infrastructure, and more the latter than the former.
The fact Comcast is there doesn’t mean shit. [/quote]
Dude that’s like saying Walmart isn’t a barrier of entry for a Ma & Pa clothing store. [/quote]
sigh…
In that example infrastructure = inventory/storage & buying power.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And ya Beans, you’ve gotta client trying to break into the market. I saw it.
[/quote]
So you just keep asking for more government so it becomes impossible. That will work out wonderfully.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
As I’ve said, I am against ISPs charging content providers an arbitrary fee to transmit their product at an agreed upon speed and throttling data transmission speeds if said content providers refuse to pay the fee. That to me is coercion.
Again, content provides should have to pay for volume/bandwidth as per the contract they agree to with the ISP or 3rd party (like Level 3) that links the ISP and provider.
[/quote]
And if they exceed their bandwidth agreement at any given time, what do you propose the ISP do?
Actually I addressed this in my first post. I live in one of furthest suburbs in the KC metro and on the very edge of city limits. I have AT&T; Comcast; any satellite provider; Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T for 4G; and will likely have access to google fiber in 2015. Competition will get better and better as cable and internet can increasingly be transmitted over the same media and the wireless infrastructure continues to improve.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if it is true. It’s not the federal governments business. Why shouldn’t an ISP be allowed to prioritize the content of it’s subsidiaries or sister companies?
Why?
Dear Google,
Now that we have a republican POTUS, and he has appointed me, former head of Comcast to the chair of the FCC, we have determined that due to your obvious leftist leanings, your fiber no longer meets the requirements for environmental infrastructure concerns, you allow pornographic content that involves little people with donkeys and you haven’t given a fast enough speed to our top donors, therefore you ISP license has been revoked until you remedy these situations or donate to the reelection fund of the following list of senators and congressman:
Sincerely FCC
January 30th, 2028
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Again, this isn’t happening. Comcast doesn’t’ do this.
[/quote]
While that’s up for some debate, the courts essentially allowed them to be able to do just that with their recent ruling. If something isn’t done (Title II reclassification, rewritten law, etc.) they will be able to as they wish.
Likely the reason they aren’t doing it now (arguable) is because there are too many eyes on this right now. I have Comcast (I have no other choice) and I wouldn’t put it past them for a second to deprioritize certain traffic. [/quote]
And, as I’ve pointed out over and over and over again in this thread, that prioritization may very well work in the customer’s favor.
Whatever. I’m done arguing this. You’ll get you wishes, and .gov will step in. If it gets fucked up, I don’t want to hear any bitching.
And worst case, when the internet is nothing remotely close to free anymore, and it is cable tv on a computer, I’m going to point and laugh at all the people so worried about evil Comcast making Netflix pay for its usage, that they asked for the benevolent government to come and save them. [/quote]
You seem to be glossing over the fact that the internet has been “free” all along. The ISPs received, however, a green light in January to change that. That is the issue.
And ftr, I never said I wanted some kind of government takeover.
[/quote]
Tyler, would you please describe the details of the January decision in your own words? I’m not sure what you’re getting at but I think I have an idea, although I’d like to be sure
USMC,
You writing a book, or did you give up for the day?
Don’t tell me you gave up, I’ll actually have to be productive for the rest of the afternoon, rather than argue about the internet on the internet.