So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

Tiller

I was reading one opinion article in favor of this decision and the only defense he had was that he wanted what he called musty dusty video stores back, and what's wrong with going down to a music store and picking out a CD? LOL?

 And that things like "online shoot-em-up games" should be throttled. Seriously? Yeah lets go back to the 60's while the rest of the world moves past us, that will surely make America great again. 

I'm sure the millions of kids who text and stream free movies on their smart phones will learn to love it and vote for it. I'm 43 and I would never want to go back to those days of driving around trying to get to a video store to rent the last copy of the movie I want to watch. Sounds more like a third world country to me.

http://theweek.com/articles/743365/net-neutrality-dead-good-riddance

TheScavenger

Also fun fact, my dad has the unlimited bandwidth plan...except...its unlimited only up to 1tb lol. He has the best and most expensive plan they have, and its supposed to be unlimited and for some reason its still limited lol

MadFrenchie

TimEisen said:

Don't stop fighting or you might notice we're all losing! Power lies in the hands that divide.

Truf!  Somehow, we surpassed the income inequality levels of ancient Rome and the Plebs hardly noticed..

Brunlin

TheScavenger said:

honestly, going as a followup to my earlier post...

I don't care either way so neither decision effects me at all. Internet before 2015 was just as shitty as internet is today lol. I'm still limited to 1tb a month internet and they charge 50 dollars for every 50 gb over that.And before you say "WOW THAT IS A LOT"...no. WoW+ESO+GW2 install add up to a rather huge portion of the entire bandwidth limit (especially with 4 others in this house also using internet) due to patches and the actual game download and what not. Plus addons for WoW further take up bandwidth. Watching youtube and netflix takes up a lot of bandwidth...so 1tb gets used very easily.

Internet today/yesterday is still as shitty as it was in the past. Still limited by bandwidth lol.


Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices. 

TheScavenger

Brunlin said:

TheScavenger said:

Actually, in regards to your data limit, no one here would ever say that is a lot. I can blow up a TB in a few mins when downloading games. I hate data limits and regard them as archaic practices. 

I think its to stop piraters, maybe. That or to save costs on bandwidth usage. But yeah, glad you agree It is so easy to just use up 1tb so quickly downloading/installing a bunch of games.

However the annoying part really is they call it an unlimited bandwidth plan (or unlimited or whatever) and it really isn't. Which is stupid. They should call it the 1tb plan lol.

That or make a 1tb plan and make a more expensive REAL unlimited plan...that would be great too.

I'm moving in 3 months though, so we aren't really worrying about it that much. But hopefully where we end up they don't have that stupid 1tb limit crap (or worse). Or if they have a max bandwidth limit, at least don't call it unlimited lol.

But like let us PAY for more bandwidth usage. Not charge us an expensive fee of 50 dollars for every 50gb over 1tb...thats dumb. We'd actually pay for more bandwidth if we could lol.

Sal1

The Republicans in the U.S.A. enacted this and want this. If you want something different vote for a Democrat. End of story.

Jamar870

I did in the last election.

Albatroes

So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?

TheScavenger

Albatroes said:

So didn't it get repealed today or something 3:2 vote?

Its going to the courts next. Some said Congress (on other sites), but it isn't a bill so congress/senate aren't involved. But it'll be fought out in the courts.

The chance of it being stopped in the courts is VERY high. So it'll probably not be repealed at all.

Renoaku

Someone was telling me Net Neutrality gives control over to the government about what can be throttled and what cannot, and it was good not having it to begin with?

FlyByKnight

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

TheScavenger

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

TheScavenger

Plus to add to the above though different subject I know...like I said...with my one crappy internet provider, I still get a 1tb limit despite being on "unlimited", but it really isn't unlimited but a 1tb plan...which is false advertising rofl. Its the best and most expensive plan my ISP has. Dunno how they get away with that, and that was way before this passed obviously. Like, installing a few MMOs adds up to a large portion of the bandwidth. I already almost have 200gb used in past 30 days cause of ESO+BDO+youtube/chrome...so lame.

There needs to be more competition with these providers. Right now, ISPs have almost no competition. They have a monopoly. 

But as I said above, equally as bad as ISPs controlling things, is the government having control of the internet. As seen by Europe and Venezuela.

There needs to be a 3rd option. But to start with, definitely more competition and a lot more actual choices to choose from to pick for internet. Not 1-3 choices per area lol.

FlyByKnight

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

TheScavenger

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

Ridelynn

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

FlyByKnight

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind. 

Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?

frostymug

Ridelynn said:

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

This can't be said enough, but apparently it doesn't get through the tin foil hats.

Net Neutrality does not in any way mean the government controls the internet. It means that it is regulated by the government. Much in the same way that safety standards were introduced in the automobile industry, but the government still isn't in the business of making cars. 

There is no free market for high speed ISPs in America. As of the last census, only 20% of residential areas had even 2 choices for 25mb down. First, that isn't really very high speed by current standards. Second, that choice ain't much of a choice at all. 50% had a single choice and 30% still had no choice at all. Having multiple providers across the country means jack if there is no competition locally.

The concept of a free market requires viable consumer options. There aren't any in 80% of residential areas. 

TheScavenger

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

TheScavenger said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Actually, neither.

If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all

If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.

I wonder how that 3rd option would work?

Perhaps a group of consumers get together, maybe think of some rules, perhaps enforce them? But how though? It's a brilliant idea, just don't think society is advanced enough. We'd have to name it too. Hmmmm... what would you call it when a social group comes together to govern rules and regulations that maintain balance and fairness? Ugh, it's too hard. Never mind. 

Maybe somebodies religious deity could create the Immaculate Infrastructure?

let 4chan and Goon Squad/Swarm create it...rofl

no don't...

xD

JDis25

The internet is about the only thing in the world that is running fine... there is nothing to fix so it's clear this is going to make everything worse.

Jamar870

What people I heard from want from net neutrality is for ISPs to provide just the connection and not determined wether one site or another gets priority or becomes censored.  Also some of the ISPs here are content providers ie..Comcast for one. They may in the future want to maybe throttle or charge more for you to stream from Netflix, Hulu, etc......  So I'm for the net neutrality to stay and not be repealed

Wizardry

I have not delved into what this Net neutrality is all about,i have no idea but if government is involved,i am scared,there can be no good,only ways to grind more money out of the people.

Lobbyists partially run the government,their money is nothing more than bribes to achieve a rotten agenda to scam the tax payer.So you can bet,if some business"like the giant internet providers" wants to make more money,they are lobbying the government for changes.

FlyByKnight

SedrynTyros said:

FlyByKnight said:

I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.

Obviously, the government.  Politicians do eventually cave if enough of their constituency assures them that they will not get their vote unless said action is taken.  But if the only two ISPs in your area are Comcast and AT&T, and they're both fucking you with their fastlane bullshit or whatever other throttling scheme they come up with, what are your options?  You basically have the option of having internet service while getting sodomized by one of those two or not having internet service.  And there's nothing you can do about it ... except, of course, appeal to the only entity capable of stopping them ... and who could that be?  Oh my, it's that evil government!

And then that's when the billion dollar ISPs do this:

1. Mo Brooks, Alabama, $26,000
2. Ron Estes, Kansas, $13,807
3. Thomas Massie, Kentucky, $25,000
4. Ralph Norman, South Carolina, $15,050
5. John Moolenaar, Michigan, $25,000
6. Neal Dunn, Florida, $18,500
7. Mike Bishop, Michigan, $68,250
8. Alex Mooney, West Virginia, $17,750
9. Glenn “GT” Thompson, Pennsylvania, $70,500
10. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri, $105,000
11. Paul Gosar, Arizona, $12,250
12. Richard W. Allen, Georgia, $24,250
13. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, $168,500
14. Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986
15. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee, $600,999
16. Billy Long, Missouri, $221,500
17. Gregg Harper, Mississippi, $245,200
18. Brett Guthrie, Kentucky, $398,500
19. Bill Johnson, Ohio, $196,666
20. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina, $41,830
21. Earl “Buddy” Carter, Georgia, $39,250
22. Susan Brooks, Indiana, $168,500
23. Gus Bilirakis, Florida, $234,400
24. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, $141,750
25. Mimi Walters, California, $161,500
26. Joe Barton, Texas, $1,262,757
27. Bill Flores, Texas, $127,500
28. Pete Olson, Texas, $220,500
29. Morgan Griffith, Virginia, $198,900
30. Tim Walberg, Michigan, $131,850
31. Fred Upton, Michigan, $1,590,125
32. Joe Wilson, South Carolina, $104,750
33. Martha McSally, Arizona, $84,936
34. Blake Farenthold, Texas, $64,250
35. Steve Womack, Arkansas, $104,750
36. Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, $130,700
37. Louie Gohmert, Texas, $85,055
38. Walter Jones, North Carolina, $72,800
39. Leonard Lance, New Jersey, $290,550
40. Steve Chabot, Ohio, $332,083
41. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, $815,099
42. Andy Biggs, Arizona, $19,500
43. Mark Walker, North Carolina, $35,750
44. Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, $21,200
45. Ken Buck, Colorado, $79,350
46. Larry Bucshon, Indiana, $71,750
47. Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee, $42,00
48. David Rouzer, North Carolina, $34,300
49. Paul Mitchell, Michigan, $18,000
50. Hal Rogers, Kentucky, $360,450
51. Doug Collins, Georgia, $103,600
52. Ralph Abraham, Louisiana, $27,300
53. Mark Meadows, North Carolina, $14,500
54. Michael McCaul, Texas, $216,500
55. Jeb Hensarling, Texas, $270,198
56. Mike Simpson, Idaho, $125,200
57. Tom Emmer, Minnesota, $28,500
58. Randy Weber, Texas, $13,750
59. Rob Woodall, Georgia, $60,250
60. Ted Budd, North Carolina, $15,500
61. Ken Calvert, California, $219,212
62. Diane Black, Tennessee, $104,750
63. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina, $115,700
64. Sam Johnson, Texas, $219,785
65. James Comer, Kentucky, $22,750
66. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, $83,250
67. Lamar Smith, Texas, $810,462
68. Steven A King, Iowa, $210,810
69. George Holding, North Carolina, $97,750
70. Rob Wittman, Virginia, $57,250
71. John Lee Ratcliffe, Texas, $53,950
72. Jason Lewis, Minnesota, $21,050
73. Jim Banks, Indiana, $16,303
74. Bill Huizenga, Michigan, $34,000
75. Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, $202,500
76. Steven Russell, Oklahoma, $23,500
77. Adrian Smith, Nebraska, $165,834
78. Jody B Hice, Georgia, $21,000
79. Richard Hudson, North Carolina, $136,750
80. Douglas L Lamborn, Colorado, $110,543
81. Chris Collins, New York, $151,060
82. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Washington, $673,530
83. Brad Wenstrup, Ohio, $33,750
84. Andy Barr, Kentucky, $51,100

TheScavenger

I still think the courts can block it. There are heavy weights (Google, Netflix, Amazon and etc) that want to fight it, along with politicians. I think there is a VERY high chance that this won't be a thing at all. But guess we'll see.

Loke666

Ridelynn said:

Net Neutality has nothing to do with censorship.

It didn't give control of the internet to the government, it just made sure the ISPs didn't have control either.

But, it's all history now.

Not in itself, no. It is more that people don't trust the corps to run something that important.

I am not sure where this will lead but I doubt it will be something good for us.