They're Trying to Limit Net Access Again. FCC Vote Dec 14th

I have no idea why the national GOP is so against net neutrality, I know many conservatives around me that are for it.

 

Because Democrats are for it.

 

Same reason why they are pushing their tax bill without any regards for individuals concerns. Big donors. They said it themselves.

 

Here we go again with the fear tactics.

 

Yes, the internet haven't been working and there were no innovations since its inception, thus we must change the current model.

 

There was never a movement to do this. It was just some hypothetical scenario that would never happen. I hate when important legislation gets muddled down into idiotic rhetoric such as this. When people use the tier system as a defense to NN, it shows me they have no clue what they are talking about and therefore should stay out of the debate.

 

Why are you in favor of changing existing Internet policy? What do you see as the shortfalls in Internet regulation and the industry's innovation in the last 20 years? What are the issues inhibiting further innovation and how will proposed FCC changes address them?

 

I'm not totally and completely well-versed in this, but that has been my question: why do we need new legislation/regulation?

 

The only significant changes we've had was reclassifying internet/broadband as a title II/common carrier in 2015. What the OP doesnt understand is NN goes beyond terrestrial broadband. Cell carriers still zero rate services. With ATT gobbling up everything, this presents a big issue.

Im not sure what you mean by asking why I favor changing existing internet policy. Reversing NN brings us back to how things were before 2015.

I dont have a strong position either way. I would rather discuss actual policies than a catch all phrase like NN. My point to the OP is terrestrial carriers are not going to create tiered 'fast/slow' lane services on the consumer end.

 

We already have speed throttling. I can buy a 50mbps service, 100mbps service or 300mbps.

If you understood how the internet worked in the first place, you would understand 'throttling' certain sites is not practical. Purchasing a $5 a month VPN service would negate this whole nonsense. If the entertainment industry and the government couldn't beat piracy, what makes you think a single company can enforce throttling?

The whole Netflix ordeal was about carriers refusal to upgrade nodes to support Netflix traffic.

If you dont want to take the time to educate yourself, then stop passing the fear tactics.

 

Wow, you are ignorant as ****....lol.

Throttling the user is not the same as throttling a product. Having the ability to slow traffic down TOO a particular site, gives the company in control ridiculous leverage over the content creators.

A local VPN does nothing stop me, or me using a different IP via VPN, from shut out from a content provider that an ISP has throttled.

You need to stop talking about this issue, because you know nothing about it. This is nothing but a cash grab, that does nothing but hurt consumers.

 

If you bothered to read the quote I was responding to, then you would have understood the context. Maybe next time read thoroughly instead of furiously pounding on the keyboard to pontificate your superior knowledge. You TOO could learn something TO help everyone understand the topic better beyond the TWO of us.

Im not sure what you're trying to convey with your VPN comment. All I can gather is that you have no idea how VPN's work. If I have an encrypted tunnel from my PC to a server in Canada, how is a ISP suppose to throttle a specific website? If our European friends use VPN's to watch US Netflix content, how do you expect carriers will resolve this issue when a multi-billion dollar company like Netflix can't.

Additionally, I am not talking about NN as a whole. I have not commented in depth (in this thread at least) about NN. I am debunking the ignorant notion that terrestrial carriers will create a tiered content system that mimics a cable/TV carriers content system. It wont work. The internet is too decentralized. Even the centralized cable content network is failing, thus the whole cord cutting concept.

Perhaps you're the one who should educate yourself more on this topic instead of using the condescending attitude that can be found on your favorite comedy channel. I certainly wouldn't use that as my source of knowledge.

 

this ranks right up there with climate change as an issue rich white people care about, but as far as the typical voter? that dog will never hunt

 

giving all packets equal priority is stupid, and would only be dreamed up by those with no experience providing bandwidth efficiently to customers

a video stream or multiplayer gaming connection is more time critical than email

 

The shitty part of this is. . . . if it passes
The Democrats are too much of a spineless bunch to UNDO it later
just like they never did anything to prevent this from happening

Rocket River

 

Since your making this a Democrat/Republican black/white issue, explain to me why NN is so great and important?

 

The position of FCC commisioner Pai and FTC chairwoman Olhaussen is that all throttling issues that interfere with the market place can be handled on a case by case basis with anti-trust laws and consumer protection laws. This is how the internet has always been regulated (before title 2). Can a net neutrality supporter explain why this regulatory process which has served the internet just fine in the past will now not suffice? Instead all I ever hear from net neutrality supporters are these hypothetical horror stories that no side of the debate think should be permitted.

Here is Olhaussen's position on net neutrality (as it was when she worked for the FTC regulating the internet under Obama).

Why should anyone support this radical change in how the internet is regulated? Its been working well so far. And why in the world would you want to change it for Title 2 which was so shitty for the telecommunications marketplace?