Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41
  1. #31
    1st Scoring Line
    Dr. Tran's Avatar
    Karma: 1607212
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,866
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    351 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.
    Let me just say I am a Pornhub guy.

    J/k, maybe?

  2. #32
    \_(ツ)_/
    Kaos's Avatar
    Karma: 9107929
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    408 Post(s)

    Default


  3. #33
    Win it again..for Tanner!
    nosoupforyou's Avatar
    Karma: 2147483647
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,897
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    461 Post(s)

    Default

    almost makes me want to eat a really bad burger. haha.

  4. #34
    \_(ツ)_/
    Kaos's Avatar
    Karma: 9107929
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    408 Post(s)

  5. #35
    1st Scoring Line
    Troyvsc's Avatar
    Karma: 1756125000
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,358
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    333 Post(s)

    Default

    That was a stupid article. Had nothing to do with net neutrality. Companies have been doing this for awhile. Itís not a fast lane it just an incentive for having a service.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #36
    Sausage King of Chicago
    santiclaws's Avatar
    Karma: 15902502
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    16,180
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3100 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troyvsc View Post
    That was a stupid article. Had nothing to do with net neutrality. Companies have been doing this for awhile. It’s not a fast lane it just an incentive for having a service.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If you think this has "nothing" to do with net neutrality, you do not understand what "net neutrality" means. Net neutrality is not just about connection speed. Net neutrality means treating all internet traffic the same way and not giving preferential treatment to certain services. Having an incentive to use one provider of content is, by definition, a disincentive to use another and not neutral. Having one service (theirs) not count against the cap while a competitor's does is a textbook example of discriminating between different providers of internet traffic, which is what the AT&T CEO said AT&T would NOT do two months ago. Data caps are the norm on mobile data plans, which is the primary (and often only) means of connecting to the internet for a large percentage of the population. If that's not enough, data caps are becoming more and more common for home internet providers, so having an incentive to use one service over another, whether due to connection speed or not counting against the data cap, is a means to create barriers to entering the market and stifling competition. So not only does this have something to do with net neutrality, it goes to the absolute heart of it.

  7. #37
    1st Scoring Line
    Troyvsc's Avatar
    Karma: 1756125000
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,358
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    333 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by santiclaws View Post
    If you think this has "nothing" to do with net neutrality, you do not understand what "net neutrality" means. Net neutrality is not just about connection speed. Net neutrality means treating all internet traffic the same way and not giving preferential treatment to certain services. Having an incentive to use one provider of content is, by definition, a disincentive to use another and not neutral. Having one service (theirs) not count against the cap while a competitor's does is a textbook example of discriminating between different providers of internet traffic, which is what the AT&T CEO said AT&T would NOT do two months ago. Data caps are the norm on mobile data plans, which is the primary (and often only) means of connecting to the internet for a large percentage of the population. If that's not enough, data caps are becoming more and more common for home internet providers, so having an incentive to use one service over another, whether due to connection speed or not counting against the data cap, is a means to create barriers to entering the market and stifling competition. So not only does this have something to do with net neutrality, it goes to the absolute heart of it.
    Correct me if I am wrong. Companies were doing this before this. I canít remember exactly but I am pretty sure one of the cell phone companies had a deal where Spotify/Pandora or some other music streaming service was not counted against ones data. This was long before the end of net neutrality. What is the difference between that and what AT&T is doing?

    This is just an incentive for getting more subscribers.

    For example those using Spectrum App will still get the same speed as the DirectvNow customer.

    I may be wrong as I admit to to not fully understanding this issue.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #38
    Sausage King of Chicago
    santiclaws's Avatar
    Karma: 15902502
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    16,180
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3100 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troyvsc View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong. Companies were doing this before this. I can’t remember exactly but I am pretty sure one of the cell phone companies had a deal where Spotify/Pandora or some other music streaming service was not counted against ones data. This was long before the end of net neutrality. What is the difference between that and what AT&T is doing?
    I think it was Tmobile, and they allowed all music to not count against the caps. Arguably, that didn't violate net neutrality because they included all major music services. Arguably. But it is more than possible that the FCC could have disagreed and simply didn't get around to doing something about it. But now they will be expressly stripped of the power to do anything about it even if they want to.

  9. #39
    \_(ツ)_/
    Kaos's Avatar
    Karma: 9107929
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    408 Post(s)

  10. #40
    \_(ツ)_/
    Kaos's Avatar
    Karma: 9107929
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,892
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    408 Post(s)

    Default


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
  •