Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:43:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 6:50:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2009 6:51:53 AM EST by AJ_Dual]
It's a mixed bag.

It's "good" for Internet users, because their traffic can't be blocked, or prioritized to prevent certain kinds of downloading or other services from working properly.

If you're on Time Warner, and using one of the VOIP phone 0services like Vonage, and since TW has a competing service, they can't block or slow down Vonage packets in favor of their own.

However, it's hard to say that someone who's invested in their own network infrastructure shouldn't be able to run it as they see fit. Also, why should my Internet connection run slower because I've got some teenager who's downloading bit-torrent pirated movies like crazy on my network segment?

All in all, I approve of net neutrality as a user, but I'm also free-market/libertarian enough to not feel completely good about it, but I don't have a better answer either.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 6:54:09 AM EST
If net neutrality doesn't pass and they close this mother down


Its time to go loud, seriously
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:07:18 AM EST
Good thing. Free market should have NOTHING to do with it. If you built the network you should have done it with the fact in mind that you would be providing information to the customer. It should be unbiased in its content. In other words what the market will bare. The customer drives what the content is. Look at conservative talk radio. It makes money because thats what people want and believe. Then look at newspapers. Most are on the verge of bankrupcty, with very few exceptipns. People look other places to get their news. Look at network news media. There not the moneymakes on TV. Other programs all them to put out their biased bullshit.

Do you want or think its part of the free speech this country was based on to have an individual or company to provide the content they deend fit. I'm not talking about an individuals rights like this website. I'm talking about someone who has agreed to provide it. He doesnt like what you print so he puts the brakes on. Site becomes unusable because its slow. People stop going. We already have that problem.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:15:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By ARMALITE-FAN:
Good thing. Free market should have NOTHING to do with it. If you built the network you should have done it with the fact in mind that you would be providing information to the customer. It should be unbiased in its content. In other words what the market will bare. The customer drives what the content is. Look at conservative talk radio. It makes money because thats what people want and believe. Then look at newspapers. Most are on the verge of bankrupcty, with very few exceptipns. People look other places to get their news. Look at network news media. There not the moneymakes on TV. Other programs all them to put out their biased bullshit.

Do you want or think its part of the free speech this country was based on to have an individual or company to provide the content they deend fit. I'm not talking about an individuals rights like this website. I'm talking about someone who has agreed to provide it. He doesnt like what you print so he puts the brakes on. Site becomes unusable because its slow. People stop going. We already have that problem.


Yes but Obama supports the idea;it's a TARP!
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:43:02 AM EST
The plan, which is a top priority of Internet advocates who aggressively supported President Barack Obama in his run for the White House, would put into law the FCC's principles for a nondiscriminatory Internet.

What does that mean?......................Other than a reason to sue people.....
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:46:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By foxherb53:
The plan, which is a top priority of Internet advocates who aggressively supported President Barack Obama in his run for the White House, would put into law the FCC's principles for a nondiscriminatory Internet.

What does that mean?......................Other than a reason to sue people.....


I thought this was part of the kill conservative talk radio fairness crap.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:50:55 AM EST
right now the telecoms want so much control over the internet you will basically have channels like your television.

personal or business websites would become the thing of the past.

and most likely this website too.

I dont care if the dems support this because its for more important than republican or democrat. its over the control of the flow of free information on the internet. I dont think anyone here wants companies to push agendas over the finite number of "channels" that would be available.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 7:53:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By JohnMikerson:
right now the telecoms want so much control over the internet you will basically have channels like your television.

personal or business websites would become the thing of the past.

and most likely this website too.

I dont care if the dems support this because its for more important than republican or democrat. its over the control of the flow of free information on the internet. I dont think anyone here wants companies to push agendas over the finite number of "channels" that would be available.


So Obama is actively supporting the right of this site and Fox news to exist?
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:04:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2009 8:09:19 AM EST by dawgm]
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help! is never what you want to hear. If the providers limits or prioritizes content, switch providers!!! That is your free market solution. I am 100% against involving the government in a gripe between customers and businesses. It is not there place, and it gives the government a foothold on regulating the internet.

ETA: who wants the claws of the FCC in the internet? they don't even like Family Guy, much less the shit we post on here.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:07:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By NIGHTSTALKER_O6:
Originally Posted By JohnMikerson:
right now the telecoms want so much control over the internet you will basically have channels like your television.

personal or business websites would become the thing of the past.

and most likely this website too.

I dont care if the dems support this because its for more important than republican or democrat. its over the control of the flow of free information on the internet. I dont think anyone here wants companies to push agendas over the finite number of "channels" that would be available.


So Obama is actively supporting the right of this site and Fox news to exist?


what a load of malarky!!! AOL at one time was the majority internet provider by a huge margin. They were real big on their "channels" or special content sites. They have gone down in the flames of competition. If a provider reduced the internet to "channels" they would go out of business in a matter of days.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:07:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By dawgm:
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help! is never what you want to hear. If the providers limits or prioritizes content, switch providers!!! That is your free market solution. I am 100% against involving the government in a gripe between customers and businesses. It is not there place, and it gives the government a foothold on regulating the internet.


Bait and switch.
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:10:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By NIGHTSTALKER_O6:
Originally Posted By dawgm:
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help! is never what you want to hear. If the providers limits or prioritizes content, switch providers!!! That is your free market solution. I am 100% against involving the government in a gripe between customers and businesses. It is not there place, and it gives the government a foothold on regulating the internet.


Bait and switch.


Thanks for reducing my thought to 3 words
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:12:42 AM EST
bad.

this is a struggle for control.

AT&T, as much as they suck, invested in their business model and services. People signed on knowing what they were getting. You don't pay someone to use their house and then demand that they remodel it to fit your needs.

It's not a dem or rep issue. It's a property rights issue (for me).
Link Posted: 9/21/2009 8:20:17 AM EST
But you are missing the point, the telcos were pushing the FCC to make this law, so another provider cannot just start up and offer "free" Internet access it would be against federal law. So yes in effect Obama is fighting for fox, drudge, ar15 to exist online
Top Top