This chaps my damn biscuits. FCC repeals 'Net Neutrality'

[Dinkus the Stinkus]

No, the FCC Isn’t 'Overturning Net Neutrality'

This is what's really going on regarding this issue. Lots of misinformation designed to scare us.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Where are you, that you have these options?

Suburbs on the east side of Rochester.

When you say "phone" do you mean a cell phone plan? How is that home internet? Those plans are limited, and have disproportionate costs associated with tethering (using your cell phone as an internet source for your home computer).

So choose a cell phone provider that has unlimited plans.

And it is argued that in today's job market, home Internet HAS become a necessity.

When smaller ISPs, like Greenlight, have to pay extra to use existing lines on the poles, they CANNOT compete with the incumbent ISPs who sucked up the .gov dollars to string those lines in the first place.

So, the government should step in because people have trouble finding jobs? .gov shouldn't be giving out dollars to begin with. Just because shitty decisions in the past have been made doesn't mean we should keep making shitty decisions now.

And the minute they say they don't want to send "traffic they don't like", they are now completely responsible for any and all traffic that is illegal that makes it through. No more common carrier status with regards to lawsuits.

That's not the way packet filtering works. Spectrum's routers and switches can't see that you downloaded a cat picture or a picture of a naked 12 year old. They can see that you're streaming video from Netflix. Unless they have a database to compare it to, they can't really tell what that video is (except for seeing the name). Once that traffic gets put on a VPN, they can't see what the traffic consists of.

Like I said previously, when the internet started and up until 2014/2015, ISPs were a conduit to the Internet. That's all they did. only once those ISPs started providing content did they start interfering with that conduit. Why is it a bad thing to require that ISPs continue to do what they were doing all along? That they stay OUT of the traffic?

Should we continue to have free speech zones? We've had them for years now. Should the SAFE Act stick around since it's been the law of the land for a few years now? Doing something for X amount of time isn't a good excuse to keep doing X when it infringes on the rights of others. And people who deliver content rights are being violated when they are told what they can and can't do by the government.

How long do you think NYGF will survive when they have to pony up cash to distant ISPs, or risk losing members and ad revenue?

Since when is it the government's role to ensure that private companies/businesses/websites/whatever survives? That's not a valid role of the government. If that happens, it would suck, but that won't change my views on whether the government should overstep their bounds. We'd start up petitions, switch our ISP if it was ours being stupid, etc.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Unlimited cell phone plans aren't truly unlimited and 4G service is inadequate for anything that requires a high speed connection.

I guess I'll have to boycott them until they become adequate.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Suburbs on the east side of Rochester.



So choose a cell phone provider that has unlimited plans.



So, the government should step in because people have trouble finding jobs? .gov shouldn't be giving out dollars to begin with. Just because shitty decisions in the past have been made doesn't mean we should keep making shitty decisions now.



That's not the way packet filtering works. Spectrum's routers and switches can't see that you downloaded a cat picture or a picture of a naked 12 year old. They can see that you're streaming video from Netflix. Unless they have a database to compare it to, they can't really tell what that video is (except for seeing the name). Once that traffic gets put on a VPN, they can't see what the traffic consists of.



Should we continue to have free speech zones? We've had them for years now. Should the SAFE Act stick around since it's been the law of the land for a few years now? Doing something for X amount of time isn't a good excuse to keep doing X when it infringes on the rights of others. And people who deliver content rights are being violated when they are told what they can and can't do by the government.



Since when is it the government's role to ensure that private companies/businesses/websites/whatever survives? That's not a valid role of the government. If that happens, it would suck, but that won't change my views on whether the government should overstep their bounds. We'd start up petitions, switch our ISP if it was ours being stupid, etc.

Lol to everything.

 

[Calculon]

No, the FCC Isn’t 'Overturning Net Neutrality'

This is what's really going on regarding this issue. Lots of misinformation designed to scare us.

Good article - thanks for posting.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Unlimited cell phone plans aren't truly unlimited and 4G service is inadequate for anything that requires a high speed connection.

I guess I'll have to boycott them until they become adequate.

Why not just cry to the government to step in and make those big mean cell companies implement 5G? That's basically what NN supporters are doing. They support the government stepping into a private business and telling them how to run it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Why not just cry to the government to step in and make those big mean cell companies implement 5G? That's basically what NN supporters are doing. They support the government stepping into a private business and telling them how to run it.

I'll give it a shot. Do you think they'll listen?

 

[NirvanaFan]

I'll give it a shot. Do you think they'll listen?

They do entertain all sorts of crazy ideas.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They do entertain all sorts of crazy ideas.

I just tried. Trump told me to shut up. Guess I'll have to move to the suburbs of Rochester. The land of milk and honey of Internet service.

 

[Jmac00]

That's a terrible analogy. How about you want a non stop flight, you pay for it. I can't afford to fly non stop, I take a flight with a layover and get there slower. I want fast internet, I pay for the top tier speed. I'm a business, I pay for the ultra top tier speeds for businesses. I can't afford top tier speed internet, I pay for dial-up speed. But I get to the same place.

What they are proposing is that you cannot get there unless you pay extra. What I'm saying is that you can still get there but slower unless you want to pay to get there faster. Just like it is today. No change.

I don't think the issue whether we want to pay for slower or faster internet, I think it's about who controls the price. Now the question becomes can market pressure keep the price at a reasonable rate.

 

[redtail]