Net Neutrality

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Net Neutrality

    I know this isn't relevant to football, but this is much more urgent than the cereal discussion I started as a response to how far off topic my original Tim Tebow board went.

    The United States Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of Comcast regarding Net Neutrality, and while I don't blame Comcast for not wanting to waste bandwidth on BitTorrent this also opens the door for Internet providers to favor certain content providers while also charging customers more for preferential treatment.

    Fight to keep this forum loading just as fast as any other site!  Support net neutrality!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    I recently moved to Germany, and American TV shows are pretty limited.  I figured I could just use Hulu to catch shows I couldn't get.  When I went to the site there was a message saying this site is not available outside the USA.  Anyone with Time Warner Cable knows that ESPN 360 is off limits.  Companies are already limiting access to a degree.  Now all I did was use bit torrent to get my shows commercial free so it seems Hulu's decision to forbid their service outside the U.S. only hurts themselves. 

         I have to say I'm a little worried about giving the Supreme Court this decision instead of the FCC.  Honestly, I would question whether at their age the justices know anything about the internet.  That may seem bias but realistically very few older people can use the internet let alone have a good understanding of it.

         I can support the premise that Internet service providers have a right to control their content but the problem is this is not a free market.  It is not unusual for a company to have a monopoly over a location and for those who want internet there is no choice.  In that sense it is not a free market, so controlling the web content amounts to expanding their monopoly.  The FCC needs to get some control and ensure that providers cannot monopolize areas and ensure exclusive contracts will not limit peoples access to information.  I'm sure many figure internet is not a right but in a sense it is because information is protected by the first ammendment.  It is not difficult to see how a provider could get an exclusive contract with FOX news or someone else and limit peoples access to other news sources.  The best answer is to ensure competition so that companies must weigh limiting access with the potential loss of customers.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pats7393. Show Pats7393's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    I recently moved to Germany, and American TV shows are pretty limited.  I figured I could just use Hulu to catch shows I couldn't get.  When I went to the site there was a message saying this site is not available outside the USA.  Anyone with Time Warner Cable knows that ESPN 360 is off limits.  Companies are already limiting access to a degree.  Now all I did was use bit torrent to get my shows commercial free so it seems Hulu's decision to forbid their service outside the U.S. only hurts themselves.       I have to say I'm a little worried about giving the Supreme Court this decision instead of the FCC.  Honestly, I would question whether at their age the justices know anything about the internet.  That may seem bias but realistically very few older people can use the internet let alone have a good understanding of it.      I can support the premise that Internet service providers have a right to control their content but the problem is this is not a free market.  It is not unusual for a company to have a monopoly over a location and for those who want internet there is no choice.  In that sense it is not a free market, so controlling the web content amounts to expanding their monopoly.  The FCC needs to get some control and ensure that providers cannot monopolize areas and ensure exclusive contracts will not limit peoples access to information.  I'm sure many figure internet is not a right but in a sense it is because information is protected by the first ammendment.  It is not difficult to see how a provider could get an exclusive contract with FOX news or someone else and limit peoples access to other news sources.  The best answer is to ensure competition so that companies must weigh limiting access with the potential loss of customers.
    Posted by shenanigan


    Hey bud how have you been, I was down in AL this weekend visiting the bro.  How's Germany, started flying yet?  What unit were you assinged to?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from R3S1N20. Show R3S1N20's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    This is just the way things go, the government these days seems to want to get there hand in on everything, LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE, i have had enough of the government interfering with every apect of our lives, If this happens The government will control the arguement, you want to talk about internet providers blocking certain cites, the government will control and regulate the information that we read. This will happen if this net nutrality  happens. If you think a Big supporter of this net nuetrality has good intentions, then you fooling yourself. A marxist trying to support freedom of speech by taking it away(thats a real oxymoron), read the quote by Robert McChesney The Marxist founder of the free press that i am refering too.




    Robert McChesney, the Marxist founder of Free Press, one of the leading groups begging for these regulations, explained:

    "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Nick, This is actually a good thing. The New York Times doesn't report anything that would make the current administration look bad. This is also about the FCC trying to grab some more power and control but this time over the internet. They do things covertly and slowly over a long period of time so that nobody notices. Trust me, we're much better off without the FCC gaining control over who can do what on the internet. They will make it look like they are helping us innocent citizens fight big corporations but they will weasel in and get control over content eventually using that same guise and they will be the ones to decide what is good and bad. Don't worry though this current administration never quits on anything and it wouldn't surprise me to see Obama hand down an executive order handing this right over to the FCC.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GREATESTFANOFALTIME. Show GREATESTFANOFALTIME's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    zeitgeistmovie.com
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Net Neutrality : Hey bud how have you been, I was down in AL this weekend visiting the bro.  How's Germany, started flying yet?  What unit were you assinged to?
    Posted by Pats7393[/QUOTE]
    I'm in Landstuhl in a medevac unit.  Haven't started flying yet, doing inprocessing stuff and there are some differences in flight regulations I have to learn.  I like it so far, it's different but that's why I came.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Jeez, alot of people don't trust our government.  It's good to be skeptical of the government, and I wouldn't generally support more power for them but the fact is the Supreme court's decision ended net neutrality already.  The only question is whether the Internet providers will control and limit your access to web content or if the FCC will restrict the providers from controlling web content.  Believe it or not the FCC is necessary as a service to the public.  For example, It would be very inconvenient if someone started giving aircraft clearances to fly traffic patterns into each other because they had a more powerful radio than air traffic control.  As far as the government spying on what you're looking at on the internet, that's already happenned and has nothing to do with net neutrality.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FenwayChuck. Show FenwayChuck's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Net Neutrality also means over the rights to control POLITICAL SPeech so that we all have to listen to one side or the other CLAIM they are the correct speakers....

    Oh wouldn't Gerbel (Nazi Propaganda minister) Be thrilled about his ability to ensure ONLY the party line was spoken in the media....  The way it was he attempted to beem into England how great it was that the Luffwaffe was leveling their towns as only a limited number of them would die and it would mean a quicker ending of the war, and therefore they could have all the entitlements that might be due to them from the third Reich.

    HMMM? SOunds an awful lot like what we have going on today- in a weird sort of way.

    I AM AGAINST Neutrality simply because it has the ability to prevent you from all speaking your piece if the other side does not want it published..... NO Neutrality.

    For those of you mad at COmcast..... Well you truly have the SAME thing in every utility.. IF you use 2,000,000 gallons of water you get billed for it- IF you use more bandwidth you get billed for it.  IF you want to use a different natural gas provider- they still must use the Monopolized piping of your local gas provider so you pay them a fee also for the transport of the gas you bought from a eco-friendly company.  For the COST that the utilities spend in infrastructure they needed to have some modecum of guarantee that they would be able to recoup their investment.... therefore MOST cable companies have Monopolies.... IF you do not like COmcast's rules about Bandwidth- go to ATT- DSL (SLower) or DIAL UP through AOL ( do they still exist?).   There are other choices- YOU just have to be able to determine you are NOT ENTITLED to easy street, and go use on of the inferior choices.

    LIFE, LIBERTY , and tthe PURSUIT of happiness does not include your being able to tell everyone what they owe you and get it.
    50% of all Americans pay ZERO income tax each year.... yet they get to ride on the ssame roads, go to the same schools, and have the same Police/Fire assistance.  NO ONE should pay ZERO....  Everyone should have ownership in what they are allowed to use.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    "IF you do not like COmcast's rules about Bandwidth- go to ATT- DSL (SLower) or DIAL UP through AOL ( do they still exist?).   There are other choices- YOU just have to be able to determine you are NOT ENTITLED to easy street, and go use on of the inferior choices.
    LIFE, LIBERTY , and tthe PURSUIT of happiness does not include your being able to tell everyone what they owe you and get it.
    50% of all Americans pay ZERO income tax each year.... yet they get to ride on the ssame roads, go to the same schools, and have the same Police/Fire assistance.  NO ONE should pay ZERO....  Everyone should have ownership in what they are allowed to use
    ."
     
    Sheez, I gotta come clean on this one here- I freakin' DESPISE this post: 
         SEE, It's Well-Thought Out, Enlightened, Liberal, AND Says that We can & should HAVE these Freedoms... 
         And that IF We Want The GREATER amount of these Freedoms, We need to Make Sacrifices in Having a more MODEST quality of these Freedoms;  But that IF We Want The VERY BEST of these lesser freedoms, We need to Take Responsibility in Having a more MODEST number of these Freedoms...

    ~Jesus, man...I wanna live on easy street AND get paid...I DON'T want to have take any greater responsibility OR get anything other than the top-notch quality things in this life...   
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]Jeez, alot of people don't trust our government.  It's good to be skeptical of the government, and I wouldn't generally support more power for them but the fact is the Supreme court's decision ended net neutrality already.  The only question is whether the Internet providers will control and limit your access to web content or if the FCC will restrict the providers from controlling web content.  Believe it or not the FCC is necessary as a service to the public.  For example, It would be very inconvenient if someone started giving aircraft clearances to fly traffic patterns into each other because they had a more powerful radio than air traffic control.  As far as the government spying on what you're looking at on the internet, that's already happenned and has nothing to do with net neutrality.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    With very good reason. And as far as the FCC, they can have all the control over all the airline frequencies but I don't want them having control over what Content is deemed fair or appropriate on the Internet. Also, It is not over. That wasn't a supreme court decision that was an appeals court decision which can be appealed again not too mention other sneaky tricks that can be used such as a comunication czar that Obama Appointed. Google the fairness doctrine(Dem Idea to control Radio content) and see what they are trying to do to conservative talk radio. It's not about spying it's about the government trying to control of what you see. If we have a democrat in government they can put the boots to conservative blogs because they don't "deem it appropriate" and Vice versa for the Republicans.Check into it...This stuff is happening. Less Government is better government.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]I know this isn't relevant to football, but this is much more urgent than the cereal discussion I started as a response to how far off topic my original Tim Tebow board went. The United States Court of Appeals just ruled in favor of Comcast regarding Net Neutrality, and while I don't blame Comcast for not wanting to waste bandwidth on BitTorrent this also opens the door for Internet providers to favor certain content providers while also charging customers more for preferential treatment. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?hp ) Fight to keep this forum loading just as fast as any other site!  Support net neutrality!
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I am not too concerned. Obama wants to increase HSI in the US and, if he gets Congress' backing, the regulation isn't too far behind. The article did note that there are some Republicans who feel an ISP should be able to manage their product, but what they need to be reminded of is that the Internet is not Comcast's product. Comcast is only the gateway.

    Until then, for those who have an issue with Comcast's vision, I would advise to get another provider. I pay less for FiOS with no bandwidth cap. I appreciate their model better as well. FiOS will charge more to increase speed, but they are the ones providing it. A bandwidth cap is just ridiculous.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Net Neutrality : I am not too concerned. Obama wants to increase HSI in the US and, if he gets Congress' backing, the regulation isn't too far behind. The article did note that there are some Republicans who feel an ISP should be able to manage their product, but what they need to be reminded of is that the Internet is not Comcast's product. Comcast is only the gateway. Until then, for those who have an issue with Comcast's vision, I would advise to get another provider. I pay less for FiOS with no bandwidth cap. I appreciate their model better as well. FiOS will charge more to increase speed, but they are the ones providing it. A bandwidth cap is just ridiculous.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    I wish I had Fios where I live..I tried the Satellite and it suckkkk'd. Right now comcast is my only decent choice.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Net Neutrality : I wish I had Fios where I live..I tried the Sattelite and it suckkkk'd. Right now comcast is my only decent choice.
    Posted by underdogggg[/QUOTE]

    I really hate Comcast. I am not the biggest fan of Verizon, either, but given the choice for HSI, Comcast made it very easy to switch. Sorry you guys don't have another provider. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    It's not a good thing and it is not about grabbing power. It's about service providers preventing access to bandwidth and picking and choosing which sites you can see. Sites that use large bandwidth can be limited down or cut off completely. 

    The telephone companies follow similar rules so it is not anything new. Would you want your service provider censuring you internet access? Basically that is what can happen now. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    Mark Lloyd, "Fairness and Diversity" Czar of the FCC..Proponent of the Fairness doctrine or anything else he can do to silence Conservative talk radio or internet Blogs. If Comcast does something you can use a different provider. Eventually it will cost them cash and they will reconsider when that happens. I'll take my chances with Comcast over the Feds any day.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

        In the case the FCC or "the big bad American goverment" was on the side of more freedom.
     The companies  who own the internet servers where on the side of less freedom.

     Personaly I think going to an all you can eat  buffet doesn't mean you can really eat it all.

     However thanks to some bad decissions by the previous presidents FCC chairman. 

      The people who you pay to connect you to the internet can legally control what you can do while your surfing.

     we can only hope congress will fix this asap.

     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Macrawn. Show Macrawn's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    The telephone companies have network neutrality as well. Basically if they didn't they would have the right to charge you more for calling high traffic areas, or charging you more if you lived in a high traffic area. 

    Now your cable company can charge you more if you are in higher traffic areas and simply pull the switch on sites that stream a lot of information like hulu, youtube or anything else they so desire to limit. 

    Now there are abusers to the net neutrality like bit torrents but sometimes you have to live with some of the abusers if you want total and complete access to the sites you want. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:
        In the case the FCC or "the big bad American goverment" was on the side of more freedom.  The companies  who own the internet servers where on the side of less freedom.  Personaly I think going to an all you can eat  buffet doesn't mean you can really eat it all.  However thanks to some bad decissions by the previous presidents FCC chairman.    The people who you pay to connect you to the internet can legally control what you can do while your surfing.  we can only hope congress will fix this asap.  
    Posted by Mungomunro


    So you don't mind the Federal government sticking their nose in everywhere. But you would mind if George Bush were president. How'd you feel about the Patriot act George Bush signed in???????  Really, Didn't like it did you?  But Obama just resigned it into law again renewing the bill a couple of weeks ago. Probably doesn't bother now because your guy did it.This isn't Republicans VS Democrats because they are Both Sticking it to us. This is about keeping the Federal government from overstepping their boundries once again. "Big Bad Government" Used Tax payer Money to buy General Motors and then gave 51% of the company to the United Auto workers which just by coincidence is one of their biggest campaign contributers. Yet I'm sure  your still complaining about Bush and "Big Oil".  That doesn't Bother you?? This isn't football this is the future of the country but as long as they keep your porn movies streaming your fine with it. That's good..If Comcast does something that you don't like go to another ISP..If Comcast loses enough money because of it they will change their standpoint and reconsider. That's capitalism.The Federal Government running companies is called something different.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    I would pick a different cable provider IF THERE WERE OTHER CABLE PROVIDERS!!!

    In most places the cable company is the ONLY cable company.  Despite making profits each year, cable companies refuse to expand into each others' territories, which is a discussion unto itself.  There is little selection for changing services within a type of telecom, only between different types of telecom
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2. Show Tcal2's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogggg. Show underdogggg's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:

    Posted by Tcal2







    Good Point. Not to mention Fios if you have it or Verizon DSL(Slower but still Decent Bandwidth) if you have a phone line going to your house. There are many options. Any of which are preferable to more Government regulation. My cable bill with internet has dropped 35% over the last year because of competition from Satellite and Fios. They have to offer special bundles to keep people on. The same thing will happen with this if they jack up prices for bandwidth or limit the availability of web sites.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

      The FCC said the internet is a free public place and internet providers don't have the right to control what people do while on the web.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mungomunro. Show Mungomunro's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    In Response to Re: Net Neutrality:

    Posted by Tcal2


     Just because I can buy gas at a Shell station instead of a Exxon station doesn't give either one of them the right to charge me for 20 gallons of gasoline but only let me pump 10 gallons into my cars fuel tank
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from 81pats12. Show 81pats12's posts

    Re: Net Neutrality

    its a young man's world... the powers that be are too old, senial, and out of touch... how about they focus on slowing down child, animal, scat and all other disgusting forms of  pornography??
     

Share