Commander of Awesome;1708591 wrote:If you like your pr0n, you can keep it.

But you WILL pay more.

These arguments make no sense. Why would the cost of Internet go up if the cable companies are now blocked from doing something that they mostly weren't doing anyways, but just WANTED to do?

Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically.

You regulate away new sources of revenue, they are going to increase it in their existing lines of business.

It's not political, it's basic business. And there's nothing wrong with it.

Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote: Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically.

Right, Mark Cuban, self made billionaire and probly liberal, is against it for politics. Or he knows how the system works 100 times better than anyone on here or in our government. He is probably even against the big cable companies, but realized how stupid this is.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1708613 wrote:Right, Mark Cuban, self made billionaire and probly liberal, is against it for politics. Or he knows how the system works 100 times better than anyone on here or in our government. He is probably even against the big cable companies, but realized how stupid this is.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! That's racist.

Anywho, I can't see anything good coming from this.

I'm surprised so many people support this. When I clicked on the thread I was expecting to read completely different comments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

queencitybuckeye;1708611 wrote:You regulate away new sources of revenue, they are going to increase it in their existing lines of business.

It's not political, it's basic business. And there's nothing wrong with it.

So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor? Isn't it funny that Verizon blocked Google Wallet from being install on phones running on their network when Verizon had a stake in Softcard (formally ISIS). AT&T did the same thing with Google Hangouts and FaceTime. Hey, its just business.

Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote:These arguments make no sense. Why would the cost of Internet go up if the cable companies are now blocked from doing something that they mostly weren't doing anyways, but just WANTED to do?

Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically.

Welcome to political discussions on the OC!

Jawbreaker;1708617 wrote:So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor? Isn't it funny that Verizon blocked Google Wallet from being install on phones running on their network when Verizon had a stake in Softcard (formally ISIS). AT&T did the same thing with Google Hangouts and FaceTime. Hey, its just business.

Where did I indicate that I was for or against the decision? I simply pointed out that this was not the no-brainer its supporters suggest. With legislation or regulation, if we get really lucky, the upside slightly outweighs the downside. At best this is no exception.

Jawbreaker;1708617 wrote:So you are OK with letting an ISP block content because they have a similar service and don't want you to use a competitor?

Do you have any proof of this, or just spewing talking points?

Blocking apps IS and HAS BEEN an anti-trust issue dealt with in the past. OH MY GOD - the current system is actually already set-up to handle abuses and REAL issues of anti-competition. Mind blownt.

Mooney44Cards;1708587 wrote:I did read it, and it's funny because she pretty much admits that she knows she'll be called a shill for the cable companies in the very last paragraph. This is because she explains the issues exactly the way the cable companies do.

LMFAO....Or it's because she knows exactly what she's talking about and knows the idiots are going to default to their normal response for stuff they don't understand or don't like.

So, it's not that you didn't understand it, it's that you didn't WANT to understand it. No surprise here.

Mooney44Cards;1708610 wrote: Sounds like people are just spitting out political BS and not even thinking about this logically.

Sounds like you need to read a few books on economics and business...and, likely, logic.

Mooney44Cards;1708589 wrote: why should ISPs be allowed to restrict whatever data they want? Why should they be allowed to restrict what the consumer sees, when they see it, and how long it takes to see it?

They shouldn't. And when there's evidence of them actually doing this (not merely suspicion, or "knowing" because you just don't like reality or understand how the world works) THEN we take action.

Jawbreaker;1708594 wrote:Yes I understand them and I understand that you think that Netflix should pay for their bandwidth a couple times over depending on the the network their customers are on. It must be nice to have content providers pay of access and also have customers paying to see the content from said providers. It also must be nice to block applications on your network since it directly competes with one of your own services.

Yawn....There's a bucket of costs, and a choice of how to charge those costs to people using your network, up and down. This is about the pricing model and who should pay and how much to charge them and nothing about net neutrality. It's the simple. Do you even know how much Netflix paid Comcast, or how much that amounts to in PENNIES per GB?

Either it's not simple enough for simpletons, or people just refuse to acknowledge they're ignorance is being exploited like so many other political issues.

Obamanet for the Internet .. Fuck up what is not broken, and screw it up, along with a shit load of other related issue in the future that will require more government legislation. Next operating system will be Vasoline

http://kauffj.liberty.me/2015/02/04/the-case-against-net-neutrality/
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/

justincredible;1708761 wrote:http://kauffj.liberty.me/2015/02/04/the-case-against-net-neutrality/
http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-triumph-of-the-ruling-class/

Wow those Ppl wear aluminum hats.

Damn it, I don't know what to think.

FCC Votes to Regulate the Internet and Chill Manufacturing Innovation. Despite opposition from manufacturers from all industry segments, President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favor of new rules that will regulate the Internet using 1930s-era telecommunications laws. This was not a surprise, as FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated earlier this month that this was his intent. The NAM opposed the move then and opposes the move now. Applying decades-old laws to a technology that manufacturers are increasingly using throughout their entire shop floor and integrating throughout their products will only lead to a decreased level of investment in our nation’s Internet backbone. The NAM will continue to advocate a legislative solution to this now very uncertain regulatory environment. We encourage you to learn more through our coverage of this manufacturing issue in this month’s edition of Member Focus and get involved.

http://www.nam.org/Issues/Technology/Broadband-Open-Internet/Multi-Industry-Letter-to-Senate-in-support-of-an-Open-Internet.pdf

Commander of Awesome;1708767 wrote:Wow those Ppl wear aluminum hats.

So do I, I guess.

justincredible;1708859 wrote:So do I, I guess.

The Tinfoil hat comments are a powerful tactic aren't they?


Person 1: Makes argument
Person 2: Counter argument
Person 1: Says person 2 is wearing tinfoil hat, does NOT counter argument or address anything person 2 said.
Readers: Think Person 2 is crazy
History Books: Normally side with person 2.

gut;1708678 wrote:They shouldn't. And when there's evidence of them actually doing this (not merely suspicion, or "knowing" because you just don't like reality or understand how the world works) THEN we take action.

there is evidence

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

recent links

FCC HIDES DETAILS OF NEW INTERNET RULES...

Commissioner: 'When you see this document, worse than you imagine'...

derek bomar;1708873 wrote:there is evidence

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

Another person who can't even read and understand what they themselves are posting. And, FYI, that shows a bottleneck and isn't proof of Comcast doing anything nefarious. But to spell it out for you, over the time period in question Comcast is middle of the pack in net change over the time period.

AT&T and Verizon also saw similar dips (for multiple forms of service)....as did - wait for it - Google Fiber although it did not continue such a severe downward trend. This was all a result of Netflix overtaxing the Cogent capability, which was very nicely spelled out in the article I linked. The downward trends reversed when Netflix secured direct access links, and I'm guessing with Cabevision and Cox that went off without a hitch before Cogent became overwhelmed. Your nice little chart shows Cogent was the bottleneck and isn't proof of anything more.

Estimates are Netflix pays ONE PENNY per streamed movie. And this whole direct connect thing is a fraction of that but net neutrality and the future of the internet are at risk? LMFAO, are you frickin' kidding me?!?

QuakerOats;1708926 wrote:recent links

FCC HIDES DETAILS OF NEW INTERNET RULES...

Commissioner: 'When you see this document, worse than you imagine'...

Remember the day Netflix torched the internet as we know it solely to help THEIR bottom line. People can be such wonderfully useful idiots.