HossAg said:

---

You don't know what you're talking about

---

Persuasive.

Quote:

---

These companies aren't going to screw over the average user

---

No doubt - you rarely see mega corporations screw over the average consumer with fees. Nevermind those $100 U2 concert tickets with $64 in Ticketmaster fees tacked on.

Quote:

---

If these companies throttled speed to these mega companies (Google, Netflix, etc) customers would switch to a non-throttler.

---

Yeah -- because with monopolies there's always an alternative to switch to, right? I hate those $64 fees that Ticketmaster charges, I'll just buy those U2 tickets somewhere else... Oh wait...


Ignorance is bliss.

MrAbyss said:

---

Quote:

---

You're right, we should trust Trump to manage a highly complex, dynamic technology marketplace instead. Great plan dude.

---

I need to read up more on this i think, i think ive sorely misunderstood what it is lol. I thought net neutrality kept the govs hands off of the internet. Im of the thought group of " i dont want anyone touching the internet. Keep that ish as free as possible"

---

That was the genius of the PR campaign. It was made to look like "fairness for the little guy" but really it was big guys like Netflix looking for the FCC to step in using their authority from the old telco utility days to enforce rules to Netflix liking against ISPs.

It's a highly complex marketplace of internet traffic that happens way upstream of us end consumers. Just know this: one set of very large corporations lobbied for net neutrality, now another set of large corporations is lobbying for the government to step back out. It's not "big guy vs little guy" no matter what they want you to believe. It's one set of big guys enlisting the federal government to tip the scales in their favor against another set of big guys.

All things being equal, I'm with you... Get government out of where they don't belong.

The crazy thing is, the whole PR campaign was built on scare tactics. No one can point to a real harm that was done under the old system... It was all (both then and now) hypothetical. You've seen it on this thread. "They'll package up websites like cable packages if net neut goes away!!!!!" "We'll have to start paying for free texags!!!!!" Uhhhh, why wasn't it like that just a couple of years ago before net neut?

free_mhayden said:

---

Quote:

---

These companies aren't going to screw over the average user

---

No doubt - you rarely see mega corporations screw over the average consumer with fees. Nevermind those $100 U2 concert tickets with $64 in Ticketmaster fees tacked on.

Quote:

---

If these companies throttled speed to these mega companies (Google, Netflix, etc) customers would switch to a non-throttler.

---

Yeah -- because with monopolies there's always an alternative to switch to, right? I hate those $64 fees that Ticketmaster charges, I'll just buy those U2 tickets somewhere else... Oh wait...


Ignorance is bliss.

---

Asking the federal government to manage upstream internet traffic will lead to fewer players in the marketplace (those who can afford to successfully lobby), not more.

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOU IDIOTS.

Because net neutrality was a non solution to a nonexistent problem. A bunch of huge corporations rent seeking, with an administration looking for any reason to expand their regulatory reach.

Don't be a bunch of gullible fools.

---

Nothing will change? Is that why the TeleComs have lobbied to reverse it? Cuz it's meaningless? If you want to see gullible, look in the mirror.

---

And big companies lobbied to get the government involved in the first place (as well as getting gullible people like you to follow along with their PR campaign). Please. This was a play at rent seeking by one set of large web-based businesses against other large companies. The federal government (aka Donald frickin Trump) has no business applying public utilities regulations to a market that is far more complex and dynamic than they have the ability to manage.

There's a reason the limits of authority and intentions of the FCC are so opaque... They can't begin to anticipate who wins and loses once they stick their regulatory blunt instruments into this mess.

There were no good guys when net neutrality was lobbied into existence by large corporations, there are no good guys now. Trust me, this non problem they ginned up was not hindering small companies or individuals before net neut, and no one will be hurt by the government politely recognizing they have NO ROLE HERE and bowing out.

---

Cool story, bro. When you visit reality we should chat.

The initial internet grant from NSF established a free means of communication and file sharing among academics.

None of us here despite certain pseudo-religious political persuasions,

(Pro tip: real world public policy issues are multifaceted and have multiple solutions...are aren't two soft drinks, types of meat, ethnic dishes, types of flooring on a home, etc.)

...have any idea what will happen. There will be temptation for large multimedia corps to go silo...

Right now, the FCC oversees the internet as it does telephone cos. They don't determine rates now. Thus the internet is seen as a public airway, with said rights and privileges.

Ironically, AT&T sought to overturn net neutrality, the company POTUS seeks to stop merging with Time Warner. There's a lot of JCD'ing from the left actually supporting a huge corporate merger and vice versa.


I suspect that Big Comm is out to reclaim the cord cutters. Let's be honest. Cell phone and cable cos are notoriously horrible at service and overpriced for the quality of content and service. Cell phone service in Europe is crystal clear, while in the US the sound quality rivals soup can phones on a string...and customer service? How's that 9000 mile call to Mumbai working out for ya? They'd love to hold our cujones in their vise grip again. Can you blame anyone for cord cutting?

I'm skeptical that 1st amendment rights will actually be impeded, but I'm damn tired of being jacked around by Suddenlink and Verizon...and strongly suspect this will get worse.

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOU IDIOTS.

Because net neutrality was a non solution to a nonexistent problem. A bunch of huge corporations rent seeking, with an administration looking for any reason to expand their regulatory reach.

Don't be a bunch of gullible fools.

---

Nothing will change? Is that why the TeleComs have lobbied to reverse it? Cuz it's meaningless? If you want to see gullible, look in the mirror.

---

And big companies lobbied to get the government involved in the first place (as well as getting gullible people like you to follow along with their PR campaign). Please. This was a play at rent seeking by one set of large web-based businesses against other large companies. The federal government (aka Donald frickin Trump) has no business applying public utilities regulations to a market that is far more complex and dynamic than they have the ability to manage.

There's a reason the limits of authority and intentions of the FCC are so opaque... They can't begin to anticipate who wins and loses once they stick their regulatory blunt instruments into this mess.

There were no good guys when net neutrality was lobbied into existence by large corporations, there are no good guys now. Trust me, this non problem they ginned up was not hindering small companies or individuals before net neut, and no one will be hurt by the government politely recognizing they have NO ROLE HERE and bowing out.

---

Cool story, bro. When you visit reality we should chat.

---

So I see you can't point to one tangible harm that existed just a couple of years ago, before net neutrality, so all you have is "cool story bro".

Who lobbied for net neutrality?

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOU IDIOTS.

Because net neutrality was a non solution to a nonexistent problem. A bunch of huge corporations rent seeking, with an administration looking for any reason to expand their regulatory reach.

Don't be a bunch of gullible fools.

---

Nothing will change? Is that why the TeleComs have lobbied to reverse it? Cuz it's meaningless? If you want to see gullible, look in the mirror.

---

And big companies lobbied to get the government involved in the first place (as well as getting gullible people like you to follow along with their PR campaign). Please. This was a play at rent seeking by one set of large web-based businesses against other large companies. The federal government (aka Donald frickin Trump) has no business applying public utilities regulations to a market that is far more complex and dynamic than they have the ability to manage.

There's a reason the limits of authority and intentions of the FCC are so opaque... They can't begin to anticipate who wins and loses once they stick their regulatory blunt instruments into this mess.

There were no good guys when net neutrality was lobbied into existence by large corporations, there are no good guys now. Trust me, this non problem they ginned up was not hindering small companies or individuals before net neut, and no one will be hurt by the government politely recognizing they have NO ROLE HERE and bowing out.

---

Cool story, bro. When you visit reality we should chat.

---

So I see you can't point to one tangible harm that existed just a couple of years ago, before net neutrality, so all you have is "cool story bro".

Who lobbied for net neutrality?

---

If you don't understand how the world works, I don't have time to explain it to you.

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

quiz said:

---

Jack Cheese said:

---

NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOU IDIOTS.

Because net neutrality was a non solution to a nonexistent problem. A bunch of huge corporations rent seeking, with an administration looking for any reason to expand their regulatory reach.

Don't be a bunch of gullible fools.

---

Nothing will change? Is that why the TeleComs have lobbied to reverse it? Cuz it's meaningless? If you want to see gullible, look in the mirror.

---

And big companies lobbied to get the government involved in the first place (as well as getting gullible people like you to follow along with their PR campaign). Please. This was a play at rent seeking by one set of large web-based businesses against other large companies. The federal government (aka Donald frickin Trump) has no business applying public utilities regulations to a market that is far more complex and dynamic than they have the ability to manage.

There's a reason the limits of authority and intentions of the FCC are so opaque... They can't begin to anticipate who wins and loses once they stick their regulatory blunt instruments into this mess.

There were no good guys when net neutrality was lobbied into existence by large corporations, there are no good guys now. Trust me, this non problem they ginned up was not hindering small companies or individuals before net neut, and no one will be hurt by the government politely recognizing they have NO ROLE HERE and bowing out.

---

Cool story, bro. When you visit reality we should chat.

---

So I see you can't point to one tangible harm that existed just a couple of years ago, before net neutrality, so all you have is "cool story bro".

Who lobbied for net neutrality?

---

If you don't understand how the world works, I don't have time to explain it to you.

---

Okay, just kindly explain who lobbied in favor of net neutrality. I understand it is a daunting task to explain how the world works, so maybe you can actually engage in conversation on that one topic instead of just say "cool story bro". Otherwise, it looks like you don't really have an argument at all, just emotional reactions.

Jack Cheese said:

---

free_mhayden said:

---

Quote:

---

These companies aren't going to screw over the average user

---

No doubt - you rarely see mega corporations screw over the average consumer with fees. Nevermind those $100 U2 concert tickets with $64 in Ticketmaster fees tacked on.

Quote:

---

If these companies throttled speed to these mega companies (Google, Netflix, etc) customers would switch to a non-throttler.

---

Yeah -- because with monopolies there's always an alternative to switch to, right? I hate those $64 fees that Ticketmaster charges, I'll just buy those U2 tickets somewhere else... Oh wait...


Ignorance is bliss.

---

Asking the federal government to manage upstream internet traffic will lead to fewer players in the marketplace (those who can afford to successfully lobby), not more.

---

lol at the thought of a competitive ISP
marketplace. Internet is a utility at this point and should be regulated as such. When massive corporations can lobby competitive advantages within a market, regulation is necessary to prevent price gouging (and other nefarious stuff, like suppression of speech in this case). The fact that Comcast ran identity-stealing bots in attempts to represent random citizens in favor of repealing net-neutrality should be proof enough that these telecoms are nefarious.

Ag4coal said:

---

Swill94 said:

---

Texas300Mag said:

---

NPH and Goose.

This isn't football so not sure why we're debating here but You are missing the point. If you built cable facilities for the use of individuals to share at same price and one of you morons was constantly streaming movies or hosting gaming services the telcos and cable companies would have to build more facilities so casual users like me would stop complaining about slow speeds.

Eliminating Net Neutrality solves this. These companies aren't going to screw over the average user; they will protect us poors from abusers.

---

Yeah yours right on the broadband speeds but I don't think you see the big picture. Elimating net neutrality gives the broadband provides the power to slow down competitor's websites and encourage us to use there's ( if you have Verizon say goodbye to google, bc they want to have you use yahoo who they just bought out). It also lets this company's add in subscription packages on certain areas of the internet you can acccess. So now you pay $30 for internet plus $8 or more for each package you wanted like social, streaming video, streaming music, and email and ect .

If you're pissed about your broadband speed then I was just pay for a better provider if you can who can accommodate for those jerks. With net neutrality we put the burden on the suppliers, these companies have to be innovated and offer resonable prices in order to attract costumers. Besides its not like they're all going bankrupt these companies have huge profit margins.

---

This is the narrative created to scare. What do you think Verizon people would do if google really was neutered by their provider? You think they would just take it? Hell no. It doesn't work that way. Not when you can just switch to att or T-Mobile.

And that packaging system could become reality, but you think it would really work? It would take every provider doing it at he same time or they would lose every customer they have.

Regulation does not force competition and innovation, it suppresses it.

---

Yeah but switching isn't that easy, you still have to pay the termination fees. Meanwhile you could run into several similar situations with the other guys. If you don't believe me that this will happen... it literally already has. T-Mobile blocked google wallet a couple of years ago in favor of their service ( the name was hilarious) and I'm sure there are plenty of others.

I'm sure the package thing would become a thing. I'm not sure how it would start but it didn't take long in Portugal for it to become a thing and it makes sense for the providers to say " we raise rates on this package Because these systems use more data."

Regulation isn't a terrible thing when handled right and is neccesary in points of our life (anti-trust laws for example are regulations that maintain or can create competition), this coming from a guy who studied economics here. Like I said net netraility makes these guys give us a open internet and not suppress banwith speeds of certain sites. This regulation FORCES THEM to use some profits they make into advancing or internet infrastructure to produce higher speeds, or compressing data to lower cost or ect. Besides some of the lawyers for these bandwidth companies even said this doesn't effect them very much when these regulations passed. And it's not like these companies are hurting they are HUGE mega corporations.

Jfswyb daavb seethe vewyh httyjk

Where will people leave too? Each market has one or maybe 2 ISPs. It's a monopoly and removing net neutrality will remove regulation of the monopoly.

The reason net neutrality regulations were implemented is because ISPs were starting to surcharge certain services more money for access, creating a system whereby companies like Netflix and other web based streaming platforms would have to pay extra fees to have their connection go full speed instead of being throttled.

There isn't a free market with major ISPs. They have the country divided up and almost never expand into each other's territories. I only have one provider in my area that offers true broadband.

And I don't think an ISP will directly segment the internet in packages to consumers. It is going to manifest itself in things like AT&T charging Dish more money to run Sling (a competitor to DirectTV) at full speed on their networks, resulting in higher costs to consumers who use Sling. It is going to result in generally higher prices for streaming services.

GetThoseKeysMilo said:

---

The reason net neutrality regulations were implemented is because ISPs were starting to surcharge certain services more money for access, creating a system whereby companies like Netflix and other web based streaming platforms would have to pay extra fees to have their connection go full speed instead of being throttled.

There isn't a free market with major ISPs. They have the country divided up and almost never expand into each other's territories. I only have one provider in my area that offers true broadband.

And I don't think an ISP will directly segment the internet in packages to consumers. It is going to manifest itself in things like AT&T charging Dish more money to run Sling (a competitor to DirectTV) at full speed on their networks, resulting in higher costs to consumers who use Sling. It is going to result in generally higher prices for streaming services.

---

And here we finall have (part) of the truth from the "against" side. The packaging of internet sites idea has always been stupid. It's not going to happen. Just a scare tactic.

And the will make the BIGGER guys pay more for their access (not crushing little competitors out of the market. That was always stupid too. No one gains anything by charging users more to access websites they barely know about or charging small companies more to be online when they can't pay it). However, I doubt they will arbitrarily charge more to specific sites based on ownership. If they do, they know they will get screwed in return by other providers. They would be SHRINKING their clientele, not growing it by trying to divert them to a sling competitor as in your example. No one would be having that crap. Sure, some areas may have only one broadband provider, but with the unlimited plans out for cell phones, I know a number of people that use it as their primary internet source. Just hotspot the whole house. There's your competition that keeps people honest.

They will be charging certain sites more based on usage. Why shouldn't they? It costs an assload of money to keep an 18 wheeler on the road each year. Our cars are like $74. Why is that? Because one takes way more room, causes way more road damage and generally puts many more miles on the road. Use it more, pay more. We see this all over our society, and it works just fine. This will too. And I say that as a consumer who realizes his streaming services may get marginally higher now.

.

It's just not neutrality if I have to pay for it

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

If you don't want the internet to turn into what television has become I suggest you all do your part. Oh and this...

https://texags.com/forums/18

MrAbyss said:

---

isnt that what everyone says before the sky falls lol?

I hope it doesnt happen, and i would like to think it cant but companies do love new ways to make more beautiful munnies.

---

Yeah, like not piss off their customer base... unless they are run by leftists.