Azalin

Yes, I do have problems with some of those items, for reasons I've already explained.

Scientists name new species of flatworm after President Obama http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/09/09/scientists-name-new-species-blood-fluke-after-president-obama.html

The FCC has taken regulatory control of the internet. https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet Question: How can they enforce any of this if they have no regulatory control?

That would actually be extremely entertaining.

No offense meant - you can take my reply any way you want. It isn't even an argument from my perspective, it's just the truth. The argument for net neutrality goes back years, and its proponents have tried various approaches over time to win over sympathetic support, even going so far as to argue the unfairness of telecom companies offering customers a multi-tiered pricing/bandwidth option (oh, Joe Blow can afford to spend more, so that should entitle him to purchase better service?). When the FCC starts floating the notion that they're simply going to step in and assume regulatory control of an entire industry, the people within that industry sit up and take notice. I'm not tossing down a "I work in the business so blah blah blah" trump card. I'm offering you a perspective from an industry professional with two-plus decades of experience. Feel free to take it or leave it.

Because it's worked so well for all the others who've been confrontational with Trump.

I've been in the industry for 23 years. Thanks to all the politicizing of net neutrality, lots of people think like this. Nothing will screw up an issue like injecting politics into it. You're perfectly entitled to think whatever you want, but as has already been suggested, you could study up on the issue a bit more.

No, not the entire middle east - I'm pretty sure he was referring mainly to Iran, Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

No, it's " 'scuse me while I eat this fly....."

1) What's bad about Net Neutrality is that it puts regulatory control into the hands of the federal government, giving them the power to decide what companies may or may not (depending on who lobbies hardest) enter into new market areas, stifling competition and making it all but impossible for start-ups and smaller ISPs to either operate or even continue to exist. Remember that all of the existing infrastructure that utilizes copper as a transmission medium is already regulated by both the FCC and each of the 50 Public Utility Commissions, all of which operate under price structures for their services according to mandates from each regulatory entity. In other words, a large portion of the network is already under FCC control. They have wrested control of the extended network - which was brought about as much by competition between various telecom and cable companies as each company's desire to meet growing customer needs. And we've all seen how well the feds are at managing expense while providing excellent service. 2) You need to understand that not all markets are as pathetically empty of telecom as yours apparently is. Rural areas will get their blistering speed when, as I've already said, the last mile delivery becomes wireless instead of wireline. It's already happening - do you get 4GLTE on your mobile device? Granted, I live in an area that's arguably the most booming with regard to IT and tech, but look at how many markets Google is bringing their 1G Google Fiber service to. Remember, it's to the telecom company's benefit to increase their customer base - already in my local market AT&T has answered Google's 1G service with their own GigaPower. As far as caps on monthly data are concerned, nobody in my area even does that anymore except some wireless plans, and they all offer optional plans that do provide unlimited data. Those plans cost more, but that's because you're increasing the load on the network. Home internet is offered by varying degrees of bandwidth, not data caps. If you have a cap on your home internet service, it's likely either on a shared last-mile portion of the network (apartment buildings and complexes) or it's provided by a very small ISP. In the case of the latter, Net Neutrality will soon put them out of business. 3) I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but I can guarantee you that it costs a hell of a lot more than $3 to provide each customer service and to maintain the network, let alone all the upgrades to meet the demands of the market. That's just flat out wrong. Thank you. I really wish more people understood this.

I know, right?

I present exhibit B: Blazing Saddles. Can you just imagine.... And here's a good one from Cornell University: Candidate for Dean of Students in trouble for inclusiveness http://heatst.com/culture-wars/cornell-diversity-chief-candidate-in-hot-water-after-suggesting-all-students-matter/

If you live in nearly any major metro area, then you have competing broadband providers. If you live in a less populous area, then likely you don't. You will in a few years, though - it's all going to be wireless before you know it. Net Neutrality is about a hell of a lot more than settling a squabble between Netflix and Comcast. Do some research - do not politicize the issue, but instead do a little digging. The information is out there. Remember Senator Stevens referring to the web as "tubes"? Remember when Senator McCain suggested we combat free music downloads by coming up with a way to "blow up" the end-user's computer? How do I feel about data caps? If you mean, offering different pricing levels for different levels of ethernet bandwidth, then I'm all for it. It's no different than offering different pricing per pound on meat at the grocery store when purchasing a large quantity vs a smaller one.

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!Songs that made the Hit Parade. Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days! And you knew where you were then. Girls were girls and men were men. Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again. Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight. Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days! Personally, I think any reference to Archie Bunker in a thread based on PC and SJWs is extremely amusing.

I'm impressed. The only reason I ever knew exactly what they were singing was because it was a question in a test in the back of an early 80's Omni magazine.

Don't quote me on something I never said. Customer demands and expectations of data delivery is continually increasing, but that's not to say that they're (to quote YOU) "using too much data". You also ignored the point I made with regard to ISPs constantly increasing their delivery capability. It only makes sense for them to do that, and it's exactly what they're doing. What we're discussing here is a technology that is in a constant state of growth, and the last thing it needs is to have a board of bureaucrats dictating how that growth should happen, or how it should operate. The explosive growth of the internet and accompanying data services is a perfect example of how markets work, and most of those markets in the US have at least land line vs wireless competition, if not several competing entities in each technology. The transmission of mass amounts of data isn't an issue along the major transmission paths, but it becomes an issue as it breaks out into smaller ones. There are several markets in the US right now where you can get 1G delivered on a fiber optic connection right up to your house, and in each of those markets you have Google, Verizon, and/or AT&T competing with each other. If you live in an apartment complex or an apartment building, then the delivery becomes a shared bandwidth. It's in the areas of shared bandwidth that you see the greatest effect that streaming has on delivery - buffering. That will eventually go away, but in most cases it won't happen until delivery at the point of the end user becomes wireless. Until that time, buffering will be an issue. To prevent buffering from happening, some ISPs will attempt to throttle back on the amount of data that some service providers (such as Netflix) stream. Why? Who do you think will be blamed for the problem? The ISPs, of course. That's what you're doing.

Indeed, those were the days. That is by far the most oblique reference I've ever seen on this board.

You can speak for me - that's exactly how I feel about it, especially given the examples you cite. The only reason I don't bemoan media bias more frequently is because I'd just be saying the exact same thing others already are.

The major reason ISPs want to control (or as you put it, put up "a paywall" ) is to regulate the amount of traffic over it's network in order to provide consistent, reliable service. Media providers like Netflix put a massive strain on some elements of the network, parts of which are owned by smaller ISPs who do not necessarily have the delivery capacity of the large ones like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc. There are no dedicated paths for data transmission across the web, and there are never going to be. The ISPs are always upgrading network elements to meet increasing demands, but we're still at a point where the network can only move so much data at one time. The load from streaming effects the speed at which all other data moves, which can have a visible effect on all other types of data traffic. Another reason the FCC is getting into the business of internet regulation is because more and more web browsing is happening over wireless networks, which does not have the same regulatory environment that land lines have. It's simply another case of the feds claiming to regulate in the name of fairness while opening up another source of revenue at the customer's expense. As is always the case.

That's pretty much how I was originally going to word it.

I lived in Greensboro for 8 years back in the 80's. Unless it's changed a hell of a lot over there since then, that's going to do it for sure.

Don't get technical with us, mortal. Sincerely, Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.

I guarantee that there are those in the federal government that want to have content control as well as the power to extract more tax revenue. To what extent they exist I couldn't say, but that is definitely a part of the FCC decision in proclaiming themselves a regulating body for the internet.

Here's an interesting little tidbit regarding the Benghazi hearings - Emails suggest Clinton aide stage-managed Benghazi hearing questions http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/06/wired-it-emails-suggest-clinton-aide-stage-managed-benghazi-hearing-questions.html

Hey guys, sometimes sh#t just blows up on the launch pad. Sincerely, Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee.