Jump to content

Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Paulus said:

When Palm Springs and beach cities of the OC are the middle of nowhere... Dude, come on now.

 

My mistake. You described your residence further up the page as being in the side of a mountain, so I naturally assumed a setting other than cities or beaches.

 

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

 

Oh, 5G is really going to rile a few people around here. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

How long is that corner, anyway?

 

I've been hearing about 5G for about 5+ years now.

 

 

These types of tech evolutions & rollouts take well over a decade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Correct, no one in their right mind is going to greenlight a wireline  buildout with 5G around the corner.

 

And the real reason for ending net neutrality comes forth: the government wants to accelerate the obsolescence of cable and fiber optic and promote 5G, which is easier to intercept, so they can increase the scope of the surveillance state.

 

215p4n.jpg

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

My mistake. You described your residence further up the page as being in the side of a mountain, so I naturally assumed a setting other than cities or beaches.

 

I know it really may seem like it isn't a problem for other folks when you have options but it is. Albeit a first world problem and hard to empathize with. 

 

It is really part of why I dislike the localities and their throttling of ISP options. Seriously, I remember when I lived in Palm Springs there was at least one company who had been trying to install wireless towers but had been denied for years. Their service was better than the Verizon DSL and at like 30/mo. The two options being Comcast (good, reliable, and a bit pricey) and Verizon DSL (complete crap, but priced at like $40/mo plus feeeeeees).

 

There are certainly issues with people given 2 options, with one being DSL and the other being cable. Do you really think Verizon or ATT is going to lay line (outside of business areas) when wireless is taking over at such a rate? 

 

Who knows? Maybe, removing NN will force people to put pressure on the crooks in their local government to allow new building. But, there certainly is are problems when DSL carriers claim they provide serviceable Internet access. Maybe for the AOL days, but not anymore, which is why I really am not sure if it should count as a "second option."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

I know it really may seem like it isn't a problem for other folks when you have options but it is. Albeit a first world problem and hard to empathize with. 

 

It is really part of why I dislike the localities and their throttling of ISP options. Seriously, I remember when I lived in Palm Springs there was at least one company who had been trying to install wireless towers but had been denied for years. Their service was better than the Verizon DSL and at like 30/mo. The two options being Comcast (good, reliable, and a bit pricey) and Verizon DSL (complete crap, but priced at like $40/mo plus feeeeeees).

 

There are certainly issues with people given 2 options, with one being DSL and the other being cable. Do you really think Verizon or ATT is going to lay line (outside of business areas) when wireless is taking over at such a rate? 

 

Who knows? Maybe, removing NN will force people to put pressure on the crooks in their local government to allow new building. But, there certainly is are problems when DSL carriers claim they provide serviceable Internet access. Maybe for the AOL days, but not anymore, which is why I really am not sure if it should count as a "second option."

 

I've had no issue with anything you've posted in this thread except the assertion that maintaining net neutrality will remedy any of the complaints you've made. What will solve your issues is improved technology and broader deployment, not government control of web content.

 

The biggest problem with the entire issue is that it's been politicized. Technology isn't a right vs left issue, but the freedom to have an independent internet is something both sides should want.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I've had no issue with anything you've posted in this thread except the assertion that maintaining net neutrality will remedy any of the complaints you've made. What will solve your issues is improved technology and broader deployment, not government control of web content.

 

The biggest problem with the entire issue is that it's been politicized. Technology isn't a right vs left issue, but the freedom to have an independent internet is something both sides should want.

 

 

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options). 

 

Edited by Paulus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options).  

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

There's reasons why the police and fire are government entities and not private ones just like there's reasons why your local bar or ice cream parlor is private and not public....

 

 

Apply those same logical reasons to the internet and you have your answer

Edited by westerndecline
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population.  That's incredibly dangerous.

 

Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position:  "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet."

 

This is totally backwards in a free society. 

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paulus said:

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

This is fallacious reasoning and a key example of lacking critical thinking skills

 

Is it more dangerous when the military or police are under govt control??

 

Again it depends on the topic or entity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I'm not so sure that is the argument. The government is still going to control the Internet (no illegal content like ISIS crap or kid porn for example). Anyways, I have seen multiple people claim that the Internet could be bundled, like cable. Where people have to pay for 100 channels they don't want. ISPs throttling speeds of individuals, in order to get them to pay more for the use of these new internet toll roads. 

 

What scares me most is the possibility that I'll be forced to let the ISPs control what information I get. Corporations could literally force propaganda on people by controlling this information. Imagine being forced to get your news strictly from FOX or MSNBC. As it is, I think cable news is 95% worthless crap.

 

So, tell me why that won't happen.

It is insane to think that the ISPs have greater control over the flow of information than the Internet companies.  

 

You are the prime example of falling for a false narrative, and guess which companies have been pushing  that narrative?

 

You probably never even knew what net neutrality was until you heard it from Google and Facebook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GG said:

It is insane to think that the ISPs have greater control over the flow of information than the Internet companies.  

 

You are the prime example of falling for a false narrative, and guess which companies have been pushing  that narrative?

 

You probably never even knew what net neutrality was until you heard it from Google and Facebook. 

I'm just repeating the arguments I have heard from both sides. If you care to refute them, then please do. 

36 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing. 

With that the people have redress. When I'm stuck with just Cox as an ISP, then I'm pretty much !@#$ed. 

 

 

And, how will this affect the dark webs/proxies?

Edited by Paulus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I don't think removing or keeping NN will. The article you referenced did conclude that the removal may force localities to allow more ISP options. 

 

I do agree that this shouldn't be a left v. right issue. Honestly, I think most folks opining about this have zero clue what the effects will really be. I mean, this is above my pay grade. But, I hadn't heard anything from the pro-removal folks that would convince me the removal would be a good thing (outside of the forcing localities to allow more ISP options). 

 

 

I don't believe I've referenced any articles.

 

What I'm beginning to see, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is frustration aimed at telecom & ISPs over availability (or lack thereof) of premium services in all areas. If that is indeed the case, then as I've already said, NN will do nothing to fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

I don't believe I've referenced any articles.

 

What I'm beginning to see, at least as far as this thread is concerned, is frustration aimed at telecom & ISPs over availability (or lack thereof) of premium services in all areas. If that is indeed the case, then as I've already said, NN will do nothing to fix that.

If anything, it made it worse because it removed the incentive to expand wireline network coverage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

With that the people have redress. When I'm stuck with just Cox as an ISP, then I'm pretty much !@#$ed. 

You're going to make the argument that a corporation is capable of greater harm than the government? Really?

 

Outline for me, please, what redress the people have when the government, legally sanctioned to regulate the information people are allowed to receive, regulate the information people are allowed to receive? 

 

How is that working out in China?

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You're going to make the argument that a corporation is capable of greater harm than the government? Really?

 

Outline for me, please, what redress the people have when the government, legally sanctioned to regulate the information people are allowed to receive, regulate the information people are allowed to receive? 

 

How is that working out in China?

Its called voting genius lol

 

 

In a corporation its a dictatorship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why can't it be both?

 

BTW, why do you think all you can eat data plans went the way of the do do bird?

I still have one. A 9 yr old Verizon plan I got for the blackberry curve with unlimited data. I buy my phone straight from the factory and cruise well with a free WiFi hotspot, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...