LOL..

I am on the same side of the aisle with you regarding net neutrality, and I am ignorant?

The new generation of wireless ISP systems use tiny little transmitters that can be mounted in trees or anywhere, without big towers or having to dig fiber trenches, and it will be many times faster than the existing wired internet infrastructure. This will allow absolute competition which the current system does not. Anytime a company starts overcharging or limiting service, there will be another to choose from. Lets not allow the government to take control of yet another thing, especially the internet! Net neutrality was never a fairness play, it was always a government control play.




:2 cents:


.

5 degrees of blame the liberals.. Red Hats can always do it in 1, just blame the nearest lefty!! Everything is a liberals fault Trump and Republicans din do nuffins wrong! Ever!

Why dont you look into how your free market utopia is working out with the cable and telcom industries.. oh shit there is no competitors.....

Really? So then why is cable losing out to the ISPs, and services like Roku, etc... with the growing number of people who have "cut the cable"?

As for Telcom industries.... Really? No competition? What country do you live in? Here in Florida, there are 21 telcom providers, just in this state....


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


.

I am well aware of the new wireless Internet technologies. What the effect on human tissue viability will be with all of the RF background 'noise' will be I can't speculate other than to hope for none or some control factors made to mitigate it.

However, that does not change the outdated role of the dim-wits appointed to the FTC by even more ignorant political ass-hats. They are setting an agenda, with as little public interest as possible, with regard to the Internet -- the Internet that they cannot control and fear. I will go ahead and predict an Internet Police Agency at some future point in the USA -- the powers that be are really scared shitless.

Their databases get hacked regularly and extortion is not uncommon with these new 'cyber criminals'. Rouge states are sponsoring these acts now it is believed (or we are led to believe). So, if you are aware and watching ...

And just how is having Internet Access defined as a Telecommunications service under Title II stop the system from having competition.

I am seeing the argument thrown around by proponents of repeal but not seeing any actual arguments showing that title ii is having any such effect.

The fact of the matter is that Internet Access IS a telecommunications service, it is NOT an information service as defined under title i.

Most providers nowadays offer both internet access (connection) and information services (email, portals, etc) so the lines can appear to be blurred somewhat but if you look closely the lines are actually quite clear.


Title II regulation did not stop Google from jumping into the broadband market. The fear of regulations did not stop competition and I know for a fact that here in Kansas City Google's entry into the broadband market spurred other providers to improve their broadband offerings. Title II did nothing to interfere in any way and as a result I now have Time Warner's fastest offering at the same price that I was getting what is now their slowest offering before Google gave them a reason to change. So, where is the competition being stifled ? It is not being stifled by the fact that it is regulated under Title II.

Removing Title II regulations from Internet Access will only give a way for the ISPs to screw the consumer over and will do nothing to increase investment or competition.

.

Cox Cable, my provider, just gave notice that in 2 months they'll be charging me as much for my internet only package as we used to pay for the top tier cable/TV/internet bundle! And... the internet only package will now be metered, not unlimited internet, so they'll make even more gross profits.

Cable is NOT losing out with net neutrality being destroyed they are making bank!

The cable companies, for television, are regulated at the state or local level, they are NOT regulated by the FCC. When they offer internet access, that part is a title ii service.

So comparing what is going on with the cable companies television offerings going up against streaming services with what we are talking about with Net Neutrality is basically apples to oranges.

The telecommunications companies, as common carriers, are subject to title ii regulations. Your argument that there are 21 telcom providers in your state just prove my arguument that title ii regulations do nothing to stifle competition.

.

I depend on the internet for income the same as many depend on public roads to get to their place of work.

I don't see the relationship of the automobile and the public subsidized road being any different than that of the computing device and the Internet :2 cents: Both are for work as a necessity and entertainment/recreation as an option.

Instead of feeding the weapons industry with government taxpayer funds we need to build out an utra high speed Internet network -- no different that the interstate road system that was built in the 1950's. Doing this would create good construction and technology jobs and keep the USA competitive for the future. Fuck coal miners! Coal miners could maybe be retrained as the linemen of the future instead of preserving an uneeded legacy occupation that has seen its day.

The world has changed and these government numb-nuts that use the public road right of way to get to their office suite are oblivious to the general public situation. They are the incumbent about to be unseated and are too dim-witted to realize it -- apparently.

I demand an Internet for work tax credit -- not a deduction! :angrysoap

Fiddy FCC Fuckers Fucking With The Fucking Internet.

.

Because this is not an industry board anymore.

Its has been over run by Trump trolls who have no fucking interest in adult internet. The only reason they are here is to push the alt-right, all white racist neo-nazi agenda.

This isn't a democrat or republican issue. It's basically us against all of them who are for this. Dem or Rep.

you claim the opposite from what is written there - so you either didn't read it or you twist the facts on purpose. which one is it?

Comcast has been doing that shit to us for the past year. We are allocated 1024GB a month and if we go over it it's $10 more for each 50GB on top of the $80 a month for $150mps download speed. If you watch 4k on netflix you can eat up that data fast.

Explain? What was the opposite?

FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free
27 Minute Podcast: FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I admit, I am unclear about Net Neutrality. I've picked up only dribs and drabs about it. But I say more competition in the market is a good thing. It sucks to live in an area where you have only one broadband provider. I'd much prefer to have 2-5-10 different provider options (I think most would agree). So if this legislation leads to more competition and more choices, I'm all for it.

T-Mobile and Sprint are forcing Verizon and At&T to reevaluate their plans all the time. That's a good thing. :2 cents:

T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T phone services, as common carriers, are all regulated under title ii, the same as ISPs are currently. Title II regulation does not seem to have stifled competition among the phone carriers so why would anyone assume that it would stifle competition among ISPs. It has not (as I illustrated earlier).

The only ones saying that Title II stifles competition are the ones trying to repeal the Net Neutrality protections offerd by Title II by trying to reclassify ISPs as Title I. They offer up no reasons as to why it would stifle competition. They offer up no examples of it stifling competition.

The fact of the matter is that title II regulations do NOT stifle competition, they do however, protect consumers.

The same people yelling about how we have to remove the regulations in order to get competition are also the same ones that try to sell you a trickle down economy, an idea that has never worked in all the times it has been introduced.

.

sarettah, you may be right. I honestly don't know.

But fair warning...

Just like everything else in politics, there are too many firebreathers on both sides of this issue. One side makes fiery end-of-the-world claims -- and then the other side makes completely different end-of-the-world claims.

You never know who to believe. NPR? Fox News? Maddow? Hannity? Or god forbid... Alex Jones? Every damn one of them has some kind of nutty spin on reality. Every one of them has their own brand of firebreathing and half-truths. And all it does is work people into a frenzy.

The actual, factual truth gets lost in the frenzy of it all.

Here's what I know...

1. In a major Portland suburb, my inlaws have the choice of exactly ONE broadband cable provider. And they suck ass. Literally everyone in that town KNOWS they suck ass. Awful service. Sky high prices. Mediocre speed. If it were possible for some other company to be competing in that town, they would be. But I assume there's no other competitors because of some kind of Gov't regs -- but TBH, I don't know for sure.
2. If there WERE a competitor in that market, then both companies would have to work hard to offer a better user experience (and price) than the other. That competition would be a good thing for the consumer.
3. It's like the new, ongoing competition between YouTube TV, Playstation VUE, DirectTV NOW, HuluLive. Those companies are competing fiercely to earn new members. And the consumer wins. Because he's not locked into one. He's free to come and go as he pleases. He gets everything the cable companies were providing without a 2 year contract and at a much lower price. That's a very good thing. And it's a good example of how the industry is regulating itself. If YouTube TV suddenly introduced a 2 year contract, everyone would fuck off to PSVue or HuluLive. Plain and simple. I think this is a real-world picture of what could happen with ISPs if the regs were less stringent.
4. I lived in a town where there was only one (shitty) broadband provider. They started imposing really low monthly data limits, overage charges, and throttling. It was so bad that the Municipality voted on BUILDING THEIR OWN ISP -- to be funded and operated by the city. I don't follow what happened because we moved away, but the point is... people want their porn. They want their Netflix. So they'll get it one way or another. I'm sure of it.
5. As much as we all hate the idiot in the White House, I don't think anyone in his admin or anyone heading the Rep. party wants to have "I Destroyed the Internet" permanently attached to his/her legacy. They're stupid, but not that stupid.
6. IMPORTANT: Republicans watch just as much porn and Netflix and YouTube as everyone else. So if someone (anyone) fucks that up, they're going to be just as pissed as the rest of us. And they will demand a fix.
7. My gut on this is that Trump & co. really do want to foster more competition into the market. Cox, Comcast, xFinity, CenturyLink, etc, etc... they've had regional monopolies for a verrry long time. And I think Trump & co. would like to see those regional monopolies disappear. Whether or not repeal accomplishes that... I have no idea. But I can't imagine that they're interested in permanently harming the Internet -- it would be political suicide for an administration that already seems to be teetering on its last legs.

:2 cents:

XSAXS - I read what you wrote very quickly and I am too tired at the moment to give it the proper attention. I will try to remember to return to it later.

I will address one thing though, and I do not know that this is the actual situation that your inlaws encountered or you in the town with the one broadband provider.

In most cities, cable providers were given monopolies for a certain amount of time on providing cable TV services. Remember, cable TV is not regulated under FCC for the most part. Most regulations on cable TV providers are state or local. Localities gave them the monopoly for a period because they were going to be investing the capital to build out the cable system.

Most broadband Internet is provided by the cable TV providers, because they have (or had) a monopoly on the cable TV service they are logically the only ones that can offer the broadband access and you end up with situations like you describe.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality or FCC oversight. That is the unfortunate result of the evolution of broadband and it being attached to the cable TV providers.

.

The Devil's Advocate argument is: Why compete in a market that is not profitable?

Internet bandwidth costs have fallen dramatically in the past 5 years so there is no supply side reason for a rate increase or caps.

New last mile technologies should lower costs.

If I could get fiber 1gbs service in my location I would probably pay a reasonable price for it -- as it is now I would have to move 5 miles south to get it. I understand that most on my street would not pay the price but the AT&T DSLAM with a fiber connection is 780 m away ...

Bladelier always plays the Trump Supporters card. Newsflash asshole, This was tried under Obama also. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/node/323681

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017...-investigation

They're trying to railroad this through with as little input from the public (or anyone else) as possible. The FCC is supposed to be working for the people, not the telecom giants -- who will most definitely fuck all of us is they have no regulations keeping them from doing it.

I wish Republicans could first see what a US without regulations would look like before they go around stripping away all of them. Once they see that most certainly they would be affected just as much as liberals then they might think differently.

Life Lesson #1: Whenever a giant corporation wants to reduce or eliminate regulations it benefits THE CORPORATION, not consumers.

Consumers will pay more, that's always the #1 Goal of any company (yours and mine included). So when I see any sector lobbying for deregulation (Wall Street, banking, oil, telecommunications, etc) my asshole clenches because I know I am about to be fucked (without lube).

Deregulation does two things the Powerful love: it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Exactly. Regulations exist to keep your butthole from getting reamed by people trying to make money. If a chemical plant didn't have to adhere to regulations, do you think they'd abstain from dumping dangerous chemicals into a drinking water supply? No they wouldn't.

^^ Exactly. Net neutrality was nothing but another way for Democrats to censor political free speech.

FLASHBACK: SOCIALISTS DEVELOPED NET NEUTRALITY TO CENSOR INTERNET

Sure are a lot of socialist commies here who support censorship.

Killing net neutrality is the right move, and guess what snowflakes? Trump gives zero fucks about your opinions. :2 cents:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PandR/comme...wants_to_roll/

https://s18.postimg.org/srflnljeh/co...neutrality.jpg

Since you raise the topic of ethics, how about Hillary Clinton signing off on the deal for Uranium One and taking kickbacks at the expense of national security?

Debunked ya dumb fuck.


Fox News viewers outraged after Shepard Smith debunks Hillary Clinton uranium ?scandal?

The Final Irony of people who support the Rich at the expense of the Middle Class (even tho they themselves are Middle Class or worse) and get fucked in the ass by the Rich once Elected is not a big enough irony to justify people's ignorance and stupidity.

We get the Government we deserve remember.

True. When the most prolific poster on a porn board is named WeHatePorn and he posts alt right hate via 5 nics, you know AVN Media Networks is just letting GFY die a slow painful death, for whatever reason. Sad

Uummm... Having 3 big companies provide services for the whole country is "competition" in your eyes? They lobby and get laws passed to make huge barriers to entries for cellular competition.

Restaurants aren't monopolized like our telecom & cable providers you know how I know? Search for a local restaurant online, hundreds of providers with individual owners, no monopoly.

I was addressing a post that listed just those 3 carriers so those are the only 3 I addressed in my reply.

Those are the big 3, yes. BUT there are other carriers you can go with, some who are using the big 3 infrastructure and some that are not.

I typed cell phone carriers into google and this is one of the first links, so not something I endorse, just using as a list of some of the carriers available:

https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Carriers

http://www.madspiders.com/images/cell_carriers.jpg

You forget 3rd option. He's the fake nick of the same idiot who is constantly shitting up the forum.

Is that the argument from your side for everything brought up about a corrupt president? What about Hilary Clinton?

Hilary Clinton isn't president, and all of that shit has been totally debunked.

But what about Hilary Clinton? Waaaaaaa

^^^ Truth Wehateporn aka Onwebcam aka Matt 26z aka Mineistaken aka Acepimp

Just a bump to keep this on top.

Fucking ASSHOLES!

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network.

This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.

But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization.

Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month. With no FCC rules against paid fast lanes, it would be up to Comcast to decide whether any specific prioritization deal is "anti-competitive."

We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. We will continue to make sure that our policies are clear and transparent for consumers, and we will not change our commitment to these principles. pic.twitter.com/19PFCPJ3TY

? Comcast (@comcast) November 22, 2017
?Comcast has never offered paid prioritization?

Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following:

To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners.
Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." Comcast said that it agreed with then-President Obama's stance that there should be "no paid prioritization."

The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal.

But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises.

Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order.

"[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization.

The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principles?no blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency."

As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic.

The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization.

Comcast?s future fast lanes

The remaining question is how Comcast's paid fast lanes would be implemented.

We contacted Comcast today to ask how it defines "anti-competitive paid prioritization." A spokesperson did not answer that question but referred us back to previous Comcast statements on the topic.

Comcast's promise not to "discriminate" suggests that its paid prioritization would be available to anyone who wants it and can afford it. Offering paid fast lanes to anyone at similar rates could help prevent the Federal Trade Commission from stepping in to block unfair trade practices.

Comcast's July 2017 filing with the FCC offers some hints on how the ISP will implement paid prioritization:

[T]he Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public. For example, a telepresence service tailored for the hearing impaired requires high-definition video that is of sufficiently reliable quality to permit users "to perceive subtle hand and finger motions" in real time. And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Commercial arrangements that entail prioritizing such traffic could ensure the low latency levels needed to achieve the high level of data quality necessary for such services to thrive.
Comcast stood by its 2014 statement in support of a rebuttable presumption against "exclusive [paid prioritization] arrangements and arrangements that prioritize a broadband provider's own affiliated content vis-à-vis unaffiliated content."

First, why would a cable co want the net neutrality rules removed if they were going to voluntarily comply with them anyway. ...Hmmmm...

With all due respect to everyone here, @Bladewire post is the only post here that goes to the heart of the matter. Many here have been reading or repeating bad info on the subject and I suggest you really learn about this because for most of you, it is going to have profound effects and implications down the road.
This is not about right now, it is about the future. That is how they are buffaloing you.
ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY MORE TO STREAM TO YOUR CUSTOMERS IN A WAY THEY CAN ACTUALLY WATCH THE NEXT VIDEO FORMAT ?
It is not a move to increase your rates. It is a move to have control of the internet.
So while some say they do not want the government to have control, you will be giving that same control to someone else. I guess it is a matter of who you trust.
The cable co's have never shown any reason for that trust.

Cable TV is loosing customers because of the near monopoly and the fact we must 'SUBSIDIZE' channels we do not want (and make additional profits for cable).
Where are those on the right who do not like subsidies standing up on this issue ?
They like to scream about this stuff and I have never herd one cry about subsidies for cable. They even used a defense of Disney channel that nobody would buy if we did not include it in a package. It's not like the tech has not been in place to serve you just the channels you want for the last 6 years in the US.

So they loose their biz to the only competitors they have like NetFlix Hulu and Prime.
Because the cable co's bought all of the movie houses up and own all of the content. or were you all paying attention to all of those mergers and acquisitions the last 10 years ?
Sometimes you can price yourself out of the market. I'm not willing to give them any free pass because of their previous terrible behavior.

They have little to no competition on internet delivery. Most areas in the US would be lucky if they have more than 2 choices. Being 1 telco and one cable.
When and if I have 4 or more providers that can get me 50mbs, my opinion would be a bit different. But if we had that, there would be more merger or acquisition till there was 1 or two.

So remember it is about control of the internet. While I do not trust the government all that much, I trust the alternative much less.