Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,879
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1869 Post(s)

    Default

    The internet will go back to how it was before NN in 2015.

    Nobody had any major issues with the interwebz back then.

    Much ado about nothing.

  2. #12
    3rd Line Role Player
    pumpernicholl's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    The internet will go back to how it was before NN in 2015.
    Nice!


  3. #13
    Bar room hero
    Kings Provisional's Avatar
    Karma: 15752846
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    8,081
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    858 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    The internet will go back to how it was before NN in 2015.

    Nobody had any major issues with the interwebz back then.

    Much ado about nothing.
    You may be right, but then again we cannot assume it will go back to the good ol' days.

    There is a reason that several State Attorney Generals, from both sides of the political spectrum, are lining up to sue the FCC over this. And more are joining almost everyday. I heard the AG from Kentucky interviewed about this today. He was asked "won't it just be like it was in 2015?", he laughed and said "don't fool yourself these are different times". He stated he was suing to prevent would "could happen" and the unintended consequences that might occur if these ISP CEO's have the power to do whatever they want.
    Last edited by Kings Provisional; December 18th, 2017 at 01:40 PM.

  4. #14
    Gross Impressions
    job's Avatar
    Karma: 1010000
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,974
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    216 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kings Provisional View Post
    You cannot assume it will go back to the good ol' days.

    There is a reason that several State Attorney Generals, from both sides of the political spectrum, are lining up to sue the FCC over this. And more are joining almost everyday. I heard the AG from Kentucky interviewed about this today. He was asked "won't it just be like it was in 2015?", he laughed and said "don't fool yourself these are different times". He stated he was suing to prevent would "could happen" and the unintended consequences that might occur if these ISP CEO's have the power to do whatever they want.

    Yes, very different times than the good 'ol days way back in '15!

  5. #15
    Bar room hero
    Kings Provisional's Avatar
    Karma: 15752846
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    8,081
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    858 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by job View Post
    Yes, very different times than the good 'ol days way back in '15!
    I know what you are trying to say here, but remember in today's world things can go downhill very quickly. As I mentioned a State AG said that it was different today than it was in 2015 regarding this issue.
    Last edited by Kings Provisional; December 18th, 2017 at 05:29 PM.

  6. #16
    1st Scoring Line
    Dr. Tran's Avatar
    Karma: 1558212
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    339 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    The internet will go back to how it was before NN in 2015.

    Nobody had any major issues with the interwebz back then.

    Much ado about nothing.
    There was net neutrality before 2015. Weíve actually had NN this whole time. The only thing that happened in Ď15 was that the FCC under Obama put in rules to keep NN. And this current FCC changed the rules for no reason other than the current FCC commissioner was a Verizon lawyer. So if I canít bring politics into this then how about greed? Also the commenting process was a sham. Most people of all political persuasions favored NN. But of the ones who didnít, a lot of them were from stolen identities. The AG of NY tried to get the FCC to stop the process until they could investigate but the FCC ignored him. Thatís another reason why heís suing to overturn this.

  7. #17
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,879
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1869 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Tran View Post
    There was net neutrality before 2015. We’ve actually had NN this whole time. The only thing that happened in ‘15 was that the FCC under Obama put in rules to keep NN. And this current FCC changed the rules for no reason other than the current FCC commissioner was a Verizon lawyer. So if I can’t bring politics into this then how about greed? Also the commenting process was a sham. Most people of all political persuasions favored NN. But of the ones who didn’t, a lot of them were from stolen identities. The AG of NY tried to get the FCC to stop the process until they could investigate but the FCC ignored him. That’s another reason why he’s suing to overturn this.
    Glossed over talking points you are selling here.

    You are ignoring the inherent dangers to innovation that could result to the internet ecosystem with the open-ended public utility powers the FCC granted itself in 2015. It's not as neutral as you think.

    You realize that this is the 6th reversal of "internet regulation" policy by the FCC in a decade. Hence why once again it is much ad about nothing. FCC chairmen change all the time, and they will / have the powers to change policy over and over again.....as they have done.

    NOTHING has changed. NOTHING will change. It's in the hands of the ever changing FCC and the Federal Trade Commission as well. It's like a ping-pong game.

    If it really bothers you so much, then you should be screaming at Congress, not the FCC. You should be demanding that Congress pass specific net neutrality rules, and that Congress should finally settle the question of how enforcement should be split and/or not split between the FCC and the FTC.

    ...but then again be careful what you wish for......government controlled public utility internet. That should send a chill down your spine.

  8. #18
    Bar room hero
    Kings Provisional's Avatar
    Karma: 15752846
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    8,081
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    858 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    Glossed over talking points you are selling here.

    You are ignoring the inherent dangers to innovation that could result to the internet ecosystem with the open-ended public utility powers the FCC granted itself in 2015. It's not as neutral as you think.

    You realize that this is the 6th reversal of "internet regulation" policy by the FCC in a decade. Hence why once again it is much ad about nothing. FCC chairmen change all the time, and they will / have the powers to change policy over and over again.....as they have done.

    NOTHING has changed. NOTHING will change. It's in the hands of the ever changing FCC and the Federal Trade Commission as well. It's like a ping-pong game.

    If it really bothers you so much, then you should be screaming at Congress, not the FCC. You should be demanding that Congress pass specific net neutrality rules, and that Congress should finally settle the question of how enforcement should be split and/or not split between the FCC and the FTC.

    ...but then again be careful what you wish for......government controlled public utility internet. That should send a chill down your spine.
    Gotta be honest, this sorta sounds like the glossed over talking points that Ajit Pai was selling in an interview I heard a couple of days ago. And don't get me wrong, like I said before, you may be right. But to be so certain that nothing will ever change is a bit pollyanna IMO.

    I had heard another interview with someone who had studied this issue, their name escapes me, and they had said that the reason NN got introduced in 2015 in the first place was because some of the ISP where basically thinking out loud and the possible changes there were bandying about were not good for certain consumers, blogs or websites ect ect.

    The possible results were basically paying more for faster internet speed, if not, your internet is slow, websites having to pay more to be more accessible, lesser known sites disappearing altogether ,certain blogs being blocked if an ISP did not like them and evidently an ISP had the idea of "bundling" websites like the cable companies do with channels, so if for example you wanted access to LGK it could be bundled with other hockey and sports sites and you have to pay $19.99 more a month to access it.

    Now would this all have happened? Who knows? Even the guy interviewed said some of the things might have never happened, but they could., because the ISPs were talking about it.

    Like I said, you may in fact be right but the cynic in me has me wondering.

  9. #19
    1st Scoring Line
    Moog's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,879
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1869 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kings Provisional View Post
    Gotta be honest, this sorta sounds like the glossed over talking points that Ajit Pai was selling in an interview I heard a couple of days ago. And don't get me wrong, like I said before, you may be right. But to be so certain that nothing will ever change is a bit pollyanna IMO.

    I had heard another interview with someone who had studied this issue, their name escapes me, and they had said that the reason NN got introduced in 2015 in the first place was because some of the ISP where basically thinking out loud and the possible changes there were bandying about were not good for certain consumers, blogs or websites ect ect.

    The possible results were basically paying more for faster internet speed, if not, your internet is slow, websites having to pay more to be more accessible, lesser known sites disappearing altogether ,certain blogs being blocked if an ISP did not like them and evidently an ISP had the idea of "bundling" websites like the cable companies do with channels, so if for example you wanted access to LGK it could be bundled with other hockey and sports sites and you have to pay $19.99 more a month to access it.

    Now would this all have happened? Who knows? Even the guy interviewed said some of the things might have never happened, but they could., because the ISPs were talking about it.

    Like I said, you may in fact be right but the cynic in me has me wondering.
    Go read up on it. Facts are facts.
    You are coming from the angle of Ajit Pai being the "devil", but what you need to understand is that the "devil" made changes 6 times in a decade, and by devil I mean different devilS. The FCC and FTC have been left to do as they please....and they have done so. Over and over again.

    The internet has been around for decades. The FCC has tweeked regulation regarding the internet multiple times....each leading to well......not much.
    Every time they change "internet regulation" the side against it drums up all sorts of "end of days" nonsense that the uninformed gobble up.
    Each and every time it has been proven to be everything short of the end of days for the free internet.

    The latest is the "end of days" screaming about you would have to pay additional coin to access parts of the internet that are bandwidth eaters. That's not going to happen. It's the worst of the "slippery slope" argument.
    ....but it does get people all excited.

    When you understand how it all has been working for decades now with the FCC and FTC, you will understand that it's all more of the same.

    If it REALLY mattered to commerce, the economy, and the free flow of information, CONGRESS would move to create legislation to pass SPECIFIC rules regarding net neutrality. They would settle the HOW and WHY of the enforcement of said policies in terms of responsibilities to the FCC and FTC.
    ....but as you can see, it's not happening. It's not the end of the free internet. The consumer is not going to be screwed. The ISP's are NOT the gatekeepers you think they are. There are bigger fish than the ISP's that RELY on the free flow of the internet for their $$$$. They would crush the ISP's if it came down to it.
    They can lobby MUCH harder than Comcast, Verizon, et al.

    There really are more important things to be concerned about.

  10. #20
    2 Late to Change My Name
    HeadInjury's Avatar
    Karma: 1810862
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,020
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    353 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moog View Post
    Glossed over talking points you are selling here.

    You are ignoring the inherent dangers to innovation that could result to the internet ecosystem with the open-ended public utility powers the FCC granted itself in 2015. It's not as neutral as you think.

    You realize that this is the 6th reversal of "internet regulation" policy by the FCC in a decade. Hence why once again it is much ad about nothing. FCC chairmen change all the time, and they will / have the powers to change policy over and over again.....as they have done..
    And as a former President once said, elections have consequences.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •