independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 23rd Oct 2018 4:33pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Good news: There may be a way around Net Neutrality rules.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 01/08/18 12:00pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Good news: There may be a way around Net Neutrality rules.

Thanks Jimmy:

But, are Dems bought?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 01/09/18 12:41pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

That could work. A state says you have to meet these standards to have a contract with us... but it could get blocked as it is something that falls under federal regulation. And this could be seen as an attempt to bypass said regulation.

I am opposed to many regulations such as Net Neutrality

I do not believe the hype that some are pushing... some do it is all okay.


I do not like the idea of a city doing it but I want a 1Gb Speed! I have like 100Mb now.

But if it is like that (where we all share) then soon the innovations will slow to a craw as there is not much to gain. I think we get advances faster if there is true competition.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 01/10/18 6:30am

JorisE73

OnlyNDaUsa said:


I am opposed to many regulations such as Net Neutrality


Just for your information:

net neutrality
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
  1. the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 01/10/18 6:43am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

JorisE73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:


I am opposed to many regulations such as Net Neutrality


Just for your information:

net neutrality
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
  1. the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

okay? weird? Oh, are you suggesting that in general terms "Net Neutrality" is not (well was not) (at least in context of this subject) a set of regulations or rules or standards (which are all regulatory in nature)?


Now, I may not agree with the likes of 2freaky or others as to what it means, in terms of impact, but I do know what it is. Net Neutrality IS a Regulation.

I am opposed to the fed putting its nose into how companies run their stuff. On a small side note: it is sick how some (like obama) blame a company (like a health insurance provider) for its problems and use that as part of an argument as to why we need single payer when the problems were caused by being over-regulated. (Obama said something like if these companies can not handle the competition from a public option provider then they should not be in the business to begin with. But that is bogus as 1) he was also putting massive regulations on those companies and 2) the public providers would have effectively unlimited resources.


In other words, sometimes regulations do more to harm a given industry than to help it.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 01/11/18 1:27am

JorisE73

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JorisE73 said:


Just for your information:

net neutrality
noun
noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality
  1. the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.

okay? weird? Oh, are you suggesting that in general terms "Net Neutrality" is not (well was not) (at least in context of this subject) a set of regulations or rules or standards (which are all regulatory in nature)?


Now, I may not agree with the likes of 2freaky or others as to what it means, in terms of impact, but I do know what it is. Net Neutrality IS a Regulation.

I am opposed to the fed putting its nose into how companies run their stuff. On a small side note: it is sick how some (like obama) blame a company (like a health insurance provider) for its problems and use that as part of an argument as to why we need single payer when the problems were caused by being over-regulated. (Obama said something like if these companies can not handle the competition from a public option provider then they should not be in the business to begin with. But that is bogus as 1) he was also putting massive regulations on those companies and 2) the public providers would have effectively unlimited resources.


In other words, sometimes regulations do more to harm a given industry than to help it.


Understand that these Net Neutrality rules were here to protect the consumers and give them unregulated access to the internet, now the internet in the US is becoming a government regulated medium.

For example: Obama wanted to block access to InfoWars/Alex Jones and thankfully (not that I support Alex Jones or something but he has a right to an audience like anyone else) the Net Neutrality rules prevented that.
In other words the Net Neutrality rules akins more to a set of rules that protect freedom on the internet.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 01/11/18 4:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

JorisE73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

okay? weird? Oh, are you suggesting that in general terms "Net Neutrality" is not (well was not) (at least in context of this subject) a set of regulations or rules or standards (which are all regulatory in nature)?


Now, I may not agree with the likes of 2freaky or others as to what it means, in terms of impact, but I do know what it is. Net Neutrality IS a Regulation.

I am opposed to the fed putting its nose into how companies run their stuff. On a small side note: it is sick how some (like obama) blame a company (like a health insurance provider) for its problems and use that as part of an argument as to why we need single payer when the problems were caused by being over-regulated. (Obama said something like if these companies can not handle the competition from a public option provider then they should not be in the business to begin with. But that is bogus as 1) he was also putting massive regulations on those companies and 2) the public providers would have effectively unlimited resources.


In other words, sometimes regulations do more to harm a given industry than to help it.


Understand that these Net Neutrality rules were here to protect the consumers and give them unregulated access to the internet, now the internet in the US is becoming a government regulated medium.

For example: Obama wanted to block access to InfoWars/Alex Jones and thankfully (not that I support Alex Jones or something but he has a right to an audience like anyone else) the Net Neutrality rules prevented that.
In other words the Net Neutrality rules akins more to a set of rules that protect freedom on the internet.

the first amendment would stop barack from blocking Infowars. (I had not heard that I know he hated FOX and conservative talk radio.)

So now who is running the show has changed... but I think providers should be able to regulate their bandwidth. But I doubt any one of us will even notice.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 01/11/18 6:00am

JorisE73

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JorisE73 said:


Understand that these Net Neutrality rules were here to protect the consumers and give them unregulated access to the internet, now the internet in the US is becoming a government regulated medium.

For example: Obama wanted to block access to InfoWars/Alex Jones and thankfully (not that I support Alex Jones or something but he has a right to an audience like anyone else) the Net Neutrality rules prevented that.
In other words the Net Neutrality rules akins more to a set of rules that protect freedom on the internet.

the first amendment would stop barack from blocking Infowars. (I had not heard that I know he hated FOX and conservative talk radio.)

So now who is running the show has changed... but I think providers should be able to regulate their bandwidth. But I doubt any one of us will even notice.


I don't see why a provider would need to regulate bandwidth and why they should be able to decide which traffic gets throttled.
Providers have more than enough bandwidth for them to ever need to regulate it on the consumer level, that's why they are providers.
So again this just makes it possible for big corps to throw money at providers to buy bandwidth to cancel out the smaller competition. Net Neutrality prevented that.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 01/11/18 9:37am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

JorisE73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the first amendment would stop barack from blocking Infowars. (I had not heard that I know he hated FOX and conservative talk radio.)

So now who is running the show has changed... but I think providers should be able to regulate their bandwidth. But I doubt any one of us will even notice.


1) I don't see why a provider would need to regulate bandwidth and why they should be able to decide which traffic gets throttled.


2) Providers have more than enough bandwidth for them to ever need to regulate it on the consumer level, that's why they are providers.



3) So again this just makes it possible for big corps to throw money at providers to buy bandwidth to cancel out the smaller competition. Net Neutrality prevented that.

1) I do not see why one would need to do so either... the rest is just you not liking that this regulation is retracted. But I get your issue... I just do not believe it will be anything at all like what some say it will be.


2) and how is that even relevant? if consumers do not like it they can go elsewhere or do without. That is like saying a vegan restaurant has to sell chicken fried steak.


3) yeah and? maybe it will lead to faster improvements?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 01/11/18 10:57am

JorisE73

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JorisE73 said:


1) I don't see why a provider would need to regulate bandwidth and why they should be able to decide which traffic gets throttled.


2) Providers have more than enough bandwidth for them to ever need to regulate it on the consumer level, that's why they are providers.



3) So again this just makes it possible for big corps to throw money at providers to buy bandwidth to cancel out the smaller competition. Net Neutrality prevented that.

1) I do not see why one would need to do so either... the rest is just you not liking that this regulation is retracted. But I get your issue... I just do not believe it will be anything at all like what some say it will be.


2) and how is that even relevant? if consumers do not like it they can go elsewhere or do without. That is like saying a vegan restaurant has to sell chicken fried steak.


3) yeah and? maybe it will lead to faster improvements?

1) let me rephrase that: I don;t see why a provider would need the power to regulate bandwidth.

the rest is me just thinking that the US citizens have a right to freedom on the internet without the government or big corps interfering.
You 'believe' that nothing will happen but in the previous topic I provided historical facts of what happened when Net Neutrality was neglected and the aftermath it caused, but you seem to ignore that and keep 'believing' the opposite without the full data.

2) It's relevant because not every consumer has the choice for another provider. So for them it's either crap or crap.

3) sorry but that's just naive. my experience as server admin has seen the exact opposite too many times. If some little guy has better tech but not the funds behind him then the big rich companies either try to buy it from him to sell for extraordinary high prices or kill him with there wallets and keep pushing their shitty tech for too much money.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 01/11/18 11:05am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

JorisE73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) I do not see why one would need to do so either... the rest is just you not liking that this regulation is retracted. But I get your issue... I just do not believe it will be anything at all like what some say it will be.


2) and how is that even relevant? if consumers do not like it they can go elsewhere or do without. That is like saying a vegan restaurant has to sell chicken fried steak.


3) yeah and? maybe it will lead to faster improvements?

1) let me rephrase that: I don;t see why a provider would need the power to regulate bandwidth.

the rest is me just thinking that the US citizens have a right to freedom on the internet without the government or big corps interfering.
You 'believe' that nothing will happen but in the previous topic I provided historical facts of what happened when Net Neutrality was neglected and the aftermath it caused, but you seem to ignore that and keep 'believing' the opposite without the full data.

2) It's relevant because not every consumer has the choice for another provider. So for them it's either crap or crap.

3) sorry but that's just naive. my experience as server admin has seen the exact opposite too many times. If some little guy has better tech but not the funds behind him then the big rich companies either try to buy it from him to sell for extraordinary high prices or kill him with there wallets and keep pushing their shitty tech for too much money.

1) I would say a company has the same right to run its company the way it wants to run it...


2) well sorry. it is like if you want a big mac but there is only a Wendy's in town... you are out of luck.

3) okay I am naive

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/11/18 11:07am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Companies are not God.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/11/18 11:11am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Companies are not God.

nor is the government


Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/11/18 11:11pm

JorisE73

OnlyNDaUsa said:

JorisE73 said:

1) let me rephrase that: I don;t see why a provider would need the power to regulate bandwidth.

the rest is me just thinking that the US citizens have a right to freedom on the internet without the government or big corps interfering.
You 'believe' that nothing will happen but in the previous topic I provided historical facts of what happened when Net Neutrality was neglected and the aftermath it caused, but you seem to ignore that and keep 'believing' the opposite without the full data.

2) It's relevant because not every consumer has the choice for another provider. So for them it's either crap or crap.

3) sorry but that's just naive. my experience as server admin has seen the exact opposite too many times. If some little guy has better tech but not the funds behind him then the big rich companies either try to buy it from him to sell for extraordinary high prices or kill him with there wallets and keep pushing their shitty tech for too much money.

1) I would say a company has the same right to run its company the way it wants to run it...


2) well sorry. it is like if you want a big mac but there is only a Wendy's in town... you are out of luck.

3) okay I am naive


1) a company does have and need a set of rules to abide to though for protection of there customers. So no, they do not have the right to run their company the way they want to.


2) Well, other providers won't be able to set up shop because of money that is being pumped into the current provider that plays to the hand of the government/companies that give them the most money. That's not right.

3) I didn't mean to sound like an asshole, but I think it's imporatant to have all the facts to form a opinion on this matter. You have your opinion and I have mine, it's all cool.

We'll see what happens, I truly hope you're right taht nothing significant will happen and teh US people will not get some form of China's access to the Internet. You deserve as much freedom on there as the rest of the free world.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/12/18 4:33am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

JorisE73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) I would say a company has the same right to run its company the way it wants to run it...


2) well sorry. it is like if you want a big mac but there is only a Wendy's in town... you are out of luck.

3) okay I am naive


1) a company does have and need a set of rules to abide to though for protection of there customers. So no, they do not have the right to run their company the way they want to.


2) Well, other providers won't be able to set up shop because of money that is being pumped into the current provider that plays to the hand of the government/companies that give them the most money. That's not right.

3) I didn't mean to sound like an asshole, but I think it's imporatant to have all the facts to form a opinion on this matter. You have your opinion and I have mine, it's all cool.

We'll see what happens, I truly hope you're right taht nothing significant will happen and teh US people will not get some form of China's access to the Internet. You deserve as much freedom on there as the rest of the free world.

1) oh I agree that there ought to be some... if it seemed I wanted NONE I apologize.

2) there is stiff competition in many industries

3) you did not.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/12/18 7:24am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I will admit, so far the internets are the right speed. lol

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Good news: There may be a way around Net Neutrality rules.