Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    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 HeadInjury View Post
    And as a former President once said, elections have consequences.
    Which means exactly zero in this case. But your quote sure sounds "neat".
    So who is the "bad guy" here? Obama? Trump?
    FCC Chairman. Ajit Pai is the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He was designated Chairman by President Donald J. Trump in January 2017. He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012.
    Meanwhile back to the facts.......

  2. #22
    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
    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.
    I have read up on it. I presented facts. And I do not think Pai is the "devil". I just happen to think things we would never expect can possibly happen.

  3. #23
    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
    I have read up on it. I presented facts. And I do not think Pai is the "devil". I just happen to think things we would never expect can possibly happen.
    You stated you heard an interview from a guy. Perhaps that guy is leaning toward or representing a side.
    I don’t know who that guy is. To me it sounds like he is preaching to the slippery slope choir.

    I didn’t see any facts. Maybe I missed them.
    Please elaborate about Your facts and how they pertain to the FTC AND THE FCC and regulatory action over the past decade regarding the internet.


    If you think “ things we would never expect can possibly happen” then perhaps you would like to see the government take over completely and run the interwebz like a regulated utility?

    Keep in mind the FCC is an independent entity.
    Partisan feelings are for suckers.

    Tell me, You don’t think there are bigger more powerful corporations than the lowly ISP’s that need the internet running free?

  4. #24
    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

    The guy was reporter who did research on the ISP before and after NN went in in 2015. And the facts I stated is what he reported about how some ISP were floating ideas that might affect websites and Net users.

    And no I don't want the government rule the web, I was simply saying that in this day in age even the most unexpected things can happen. You might think no changes may take place now that NN is repealed but we cannot foretell the future. As I mentioned before is all it takes is one ISP CEO d-bag to screw things up, and this world is filled with d-bags.

    And partisan? That ain't me. The reporter may have a slant but as I mentioned the AG of Kentucky also mentioned some of the things the reporter said. Kentucky is a red state and the AG is Republican. I also heard an interview from a one of the Board of Directors from the Mozilla Foundation who also expressed concerns about the possible unforeseen consequences of NN going away, she also mentioned some of the things the reporter did. Then late this afternoon I heard an interview from a professor of computer science form Columbia University, what he brought up was sort of what you brought out , that there are bigger more powerful corporations than ISP's. He pointed out that without NN those powerful corporations can have a profound effect on them, perhaps even forcing them to do their will. Then a an interview with a CEO, from some website I have never heard of but they have over a million users, she was worried that sites like YouTube, which they use, and others like them might get hit with heavier fees because they play tons videos and the like, as well as other sites.

    Now all these people are from different walks of life and at least one was one the opposite side of the "partisan" spectrum. And they were all concerned. Now nobody said it was going to happen, it was would could possibly happen.

    And I will be honest, as I mentioned several times, you may be right. And most likely you will be. But I have seen, with my own eyes, things can go horribly wrong, unexpectedly, to the surprise of everyone. I am simply talking about what could happen.

    Do I think the sky is falling? No. Is the internet about to die? No. Am I worried? Hell no! I am pretty mellow about this. (C'mon Moog we gotta kill time time here right!}

    This is just a chat man!

  5. #25
    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
    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.
    I’m not sure what the talking points were. That most people favor not changing the system? Or that some of those who did favor the changes were dead people. I’m also not sure why you’re so sure nothing will change because of this decision. The FCC makes a ruling that the ISP’s asked for but somehow the ISP’s aren’t going to take advantage of that ruling? Out of what, the goodness of their hearts? If they choose to offer different tiers of service or block content that they don’t like, there’s nothing stopping them. All it takes is one & the rest will follow suit. Plus you’ve got places where an ISP has a monopoly on service. What’s going to stop them from making these changes?

    Yes right now nothing’s changed but that’s because it’s going to be tied up in the courts for the next few years. You are right that Congress is the one that needs to fix this. But this Congress has their heads up their @$$es. I’m more hopeful about 2018. And if by government control you mean putting regulations in place that don’t rip off consumers, then yes I’m for that.

  6. #26
    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

    So let me first state: I am NOT a PornHub guy, nor am I worried that even if "free porn" gets impacted. Not my thing.

    Net neutrality's impact on free porn could be significant, experts say

    “Without [net neutrality], the cable and wireless companies that control internet access will have unfair power to pick winners and losers in the market,” Corey Price, vice president of Pornhub, told Motherboard.
    The point is if this happens it will happen to other, normal, websites and internet companies. And I know that Corey Price is not the only one worried about this.

  7. #27
    I have the best words
    mervaldez's Avatar
    Karma: 2000070000
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,075
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    363 Post(s)

    Default

    Cool, I can get a lot more **** done now.

  8. #28
    3rd Line Role Player
    robm's Avatar
    Karma: 1088000
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    32 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Tran View Post
    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.
    Thanks for making the point that there has been NN before 2015. It just wasn't codified into law. NN was unwritten rules that everyone followed on the Internet that basically said that all traffic was created equal and should be treated equally.

    Today, according to some reports, netflix uses 37% of all network bandwidth, mostly at night. There is a good argument that since Netflix makes so much money they should pay the ISPs for this bandwidth. If that happens, then you have just created a barrier to entry of a competitor into the streaming market.

    Think of NN this way. NN is akin to have freeways and not having NN is akin to have toll roads. Remember, toll roads can charge $0. Both models have good and bad. As a technologist who has used and developed significant products for the Internet since the mid-1980s, I lean towards having NN.

  9. #29
    I grew a Fatmanchu.
    Kingsfan626's Avatar
    Karma: 7013000
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,876
    Images
    1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    216 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kings Provisional View Post
    So let me first state: I am NOT a PornHub guy, nor am I worried that even if "free porn" gets impacted. Not my thing.

    Net neutrality's impact on free porn could be significant, experts say



    The point is if this happens it will happen to other, normal, websites and internet companies. And I know that Corey Price is not the only one worried about this.
    Pornhub was created in 2007 well before NN. How were they successful if they could have been shut down before Obama was POTUS?
    If anything we should be asking the FCC to open access to poles for other ISPs to compete.

  10. #30
    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 Kingsfan626 View Post
    Pornhub was created in 2007 well before NN. How were they successful if they could have been shut down before Obama was POTUS?
    If anything we should be asking the FCC to open access to poles for other ISPs to compete.
    As Dr. Tran pointed out NN was sorta already around back then, just not codified into law like it was in 2015. And as I mentioned in a previous post before that happened some ISP were starting to come up with ideas, that went public, that could have made it more expensive for some sites and internet users and possibly harder for some to operate.

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
  •