whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Dec 14, 2017 14:20:58 GMT -5
So, that's done and over with.
Thoughts?
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,371
|
Post by gs11rmb on Dec 14, 2017 14:23:14 GMT -5
Disappointed but not surprised.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 13:23:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 14:33:35 GMT -5
There are still a few steps.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Dec 14, 2017 14:35:16 GMT -5
The majority of those polled were against repealing it and they found out that a lot of the comments that were for repealing it were fake. When they reviewed the unique comments they found that most were against repealing it. On the bright side lawsuits are coming which will hold it up but the downside is some of those involved should probably be going to jail and that will never happen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 13:23:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 14:48:57 GMT -5
I hope Netflix makes a HUGE stink about this.
Most people in my circle are totally oblivious to what this means. If there would have been more of a public service drive to fill people in I'm guessing there would be a lot more up in arms.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by souldoubt on Dec 14, 2017 15:00:24 GMT -5
I hope Netflix makes a HUGE stink about this. Most people in my circle are totally oblivious to what this means. If there would have been more of a public service drive to fill people in I'm guessing there would be a lot more up in arms. They had it open to the public for comments and the majority of comments were against repealing it. People in the IT field and others who know much more about net neutrality than me were adamant about not having it repealed. It seems pretty evident that the new head of the FCC was determined to get this done regardless of what the public thought or wanted.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Dec 14, 2017 15:02:47 GMT -5
I hope Netflix makes a HUGE stink about this. Most people in my circle are totally oblivious to what this means. If there would have been more of a public service drive to fill people in I'm guessing there would be a lot more up in arms. They had it open to the public for comments and the majority of comments were against repealing it. People in the IT field and others who know much more about net neutrality than me were adamant about not having it repealed. It seems pretty evident that the new head of the FCC was determined to get this done regardless of what the public thought or wanted. That much has been clear from the outset. His complete contempt and disregard for public opinion has been plain.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Dec 14, 2017 16:01:49 GMT -5
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Dec 14, 2017 16:04:08 GMT -5
I don't think the Average Person has much of a grasp of what this will really mean. The general feeling from the people around me seems to be "if it's a regulation it MUST be bad! get rid of it!!". People are stupid.
It's not so much the cost to me, that's annoying - it's that what I see via my devices will be less variable - I'll see what the Telcomm's think I should see. Ok, that's alittle dystopian but that basically will be what happens.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Dec 14, 2017 16:07:49 GMT -5
I don't think the Average Person has much of a grasp of what this will really mean. The general feeling from the people around me seems to be "if it's a regulation it MUST be bad! get rid of it!!". People are stupid. Yeah, I mean what good has ever come from government regulations! They'll find out soon enough. I trust the telecom companies are going to be smart enough not to make any bold strokes moves, and it will be more akin to slowly boiling the frog in a pot.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,598
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 14, 2017 16:22:14 GMT -5
In the Harlem shake section of the video is Martina Markota (to Pai's left and smoking a cigarette), a video producer for the Daily Caller and who also promoted the "Pizzagate" conspiracy.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 14, 2017 19:11:13 GMT -5
I think it is a bad move, and we can only hope that there will be some stand up companies who we can get services from and then drop those that want to play games.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,788
|
Post by thyme4change on Dec 15, 2017 12:44:13 GMT -5
I don't think the Average Person has much of a grasp of what this will really mean. The general feeling from the people around me seems to be "if it's a regulation it MUST be bad! get rid of it!!". People are stupid. Yeah, I mean what good has ever come from government regulations! They'll find out soon enough. I trust the telecom companies are going to be smart enough not to make any bold strokes moves, and it will be more akin to slowly boiling the frog in a pot. I agree. Nothing will change immediately, and then quietly over the years, things will evolve. Maybe this will reduce the (real) fake news sites, as they won't be able to pay for traffic. And then the public will only get information from major news sources.
|
|
pooks
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2017 16:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 637
Today's Mood: Angry
|
Post by pooks on Dec 15, 2017 13:00:35 GMT -5
I surprised so many of you think the public is uninformed. My Facebook feed was filled with info and outrage about this. The millennials are pissed. Even my DD came out of high school yesterday ranting about it and we hadn't brought it to her attention. I haven't seen anything get the attention of the young like this issue.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,249
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Dec 15, 2017 14:13:59 GMT -5
I think it is a bad move, and we can only hope that there will be some stand up companies who we can get services from and then drop those that want to play games. Maybe in Chicago, but out here in the country our choices are quite limited. I guess I will have to pin my hopes on internet balloons.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,113
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 15, 2017 14:16:51 GMT -5
I think it is a bad move, and we can only hope that there will be some stand up companies who we can get services from and then drop those that want to play games. We got Cox and Century Link for internet providers in Omaha/CB, that's about it. Twinkies will be labeled a super food before either one of those companies will "stand up".
|
|
spartyparty
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,605
|
Post by spartyparty on Dec 15, 2017 15:56:40 GMT -5
I suppose this means that free porn probably won't be free anymore. This is a sad day for Sparty.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 15, 2017 20:00:45 GMT -5
oh - so I had this thought today...
Principally, I was thinking about streaming services being interfered with because the compete with the providers cable offerings, but could a large corporation pay large fees to suppress negative information?
Such as mon panto?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,893
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Dec 15, 2017 23:44:09 GMT -5
oh - so I had this thought today... Principally, I was thinking about streaming services being interfered with because the compete with the providers cable offerings, but could a large corporation pay large fees to suppress negative information? Such as mon panto? Or sometime in the future could this be used by whoever has the money to start seriously impose censorship to the internet. Do we really trust the likes of, say, the Koch brothers, to keep their fingers of this? This may not happen tomorrow or next year but, unless something is done about this, it will happen.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 16, 2017 8:57:08 GMT -5
I don't think the Average Person has much of a grasp of what this will really mean. The general feeling from the people around me seems to be "if it's a regulation it MUST be bad! get rid of it!!". People are stupid.
It's not so much the cost to me, that's annoying - it's that what I see via my devices will be less variable - I'll see what the Telcomm's think I should see. Ok, that's alittle dystopian but that basically will be what happens. I am for it...because anything the government touches turns to shit. Net Neutrality was a backdoor for the government to start controlling the internet. That would end up being bad for all. A true dystopian scenario is when government is the one controlling what you should see on the internet...just look at the amount of censorship in every other media the government has a foothold in (radio, tv, etc).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,257
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 16, 2017 11:00:27 GMT -5
... Net Neutrality was a backdoor for the government to start controlling the internet. ... I am far from an expert on the topic but I read nothing to support this idea. I encourage people to do their own research on the issue.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Dec 16, 2017 12:15:24 GMT -5
I don't think the Average Person has much of a grasp of what this will really mean. The general feeling from the people around me seems to be "if it's a regulation it MUST be bad! get rid of it!!". People are stupid.
It's not so much the cost to me, that's annoying - it's that what I see via my devices will be less variable - I'll see what the Telcomm's think I should see. Ok, that's alittle dystopian but that basically will be what happens. I am for it...because anything the government touches turns to shit. Net Neutrality was a backdoor for the government to start controlling the internet. That would end up being bad for all. A true dystopian scenario is when government is the one controlling what you should see on the internet...just look at the amount of censorship in every other media the government has a foothold in (radio, tv, etc). Since the gov’t is increasingly being controlled by corporations, I can definitely see corporations controlling what you can andcannot access in the internet. I was in China last month. I could not access Facebook, Google and a n7mber if other sites. My access to news was limited to what the Chinese gov’t allowed. That is whete we are now headed here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 15, 2024 13:23:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 12:27:49 GMT -5
I think it is a bad move, and we can only hope that there will be some stand up companies who we can get services from and then drop those that want to play games. We got Cox and Century Link for internet providers in Omaha/CB, that's about it. Twinkies will be labeled a super food before either one of those companies will "stand up". We have ONE choice. One. Unless we go back to super expensive, highly unreliable satellite internet again.
|
|
Ava
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 30, 2011 12:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 4,269
|
Post by Ava on Dec 16, 2017 15:23:43 GMT -5
It is so sad and backwards that this passed. There will be lawsuits, big time, and I am confident the lawsuits will succeed. Worst case scenario, the next government will overturn this. I don't see something this unfair and unpopular surviving long-term. Greed at its worst.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,292
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 16, 2017 15:44:46 GMT -5
several states are launching lawsuits as we type.
Hopefully it will be righted, but at huge taxpayer expense, of course. Not that anyone cares about that, nowadays.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 18, 2017 14:29:24 GMT -5
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC: ... We may end up freezing the Internet in time, in that these big companies exist as big companies, and there will never be a competitor to Facebook or Google or Amazon.
ROBERT MCDOWELL, FORMER FCC COMMISSIONER: Right. So there's a lot of hype, it's very confusing and gets very legal very quickly. So what the FCC did in February 2015 was put a 1934 law, the Communications Act of 1934, part of it called Title II, onto broadband internet networks. But before that, that's when all those companies you just cited were actually started in dorm rooms and then became some of the world's largest corporations. And so they did that before this Title II thing.
So the term by the way, net neutrality, has no legal definition. So the question is, before February 2015, what worked? How did this ecosystem work to allow those entrepreneurs to do all that? And that was —
VELSHI: Right. But we didn't use as much bandwidth. Part of the issue was that everything we do now uses internet bandwidth. That's been coming over the years.
MCDOWELL: And before February 2015 as well. So you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance. You have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act. Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February 2015.
VELSHI: (if I try to compete against one of the internet behemoths) Some (business) people will say, "Why would you ever use my service as opposed to the existing one that paid for the fast lane?"
MCDOWELL: Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, in section 3 of Clayton Act. You just triggered all three of those sections. It would be an antitrust violation. The Federal Trade Commission could go after them also under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. it was against the law before February 2015, and it will be against the law as of today.
MCDOWELL: I know it's good clickbait to say the internet is being destroyed, but it's not.
|
|
engineerdoe
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2013 17:10:26 GMT -5
Posts: 498
|
Post by engineerdoe on Dec 18, 2017 16:48:06 GMT -5
www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/net-neutrality-is-gone-feel-the-freedom-coursing-through-your-veins/ar-BBGKVB6?ocid=stI really enjoyed this opinion piece. Especially this part: "It may not be technically illegal to bring a bear into a maternity ward, but we have, I think, started to live our lives with the expectation that nobody will do this. So if we put forth a rule saying, just so we’re clear, No Bears in the Maternity Ward, I would not expect anyone to complain that this was stifling innovation. In fact, if someone said “Hey, let’s get rid of that rule about not bringing bears into hospitals so we can restore the wonderful, competitive environment we had before,” I would wonder, “What exactly are you PLANNING that you need us to get rid of this relatively basic protection?”"
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 19, 2017 14:54:45 GMT -5
Disappointed, but hopefully it won't be as bad as the nightmare scenarios that could happen. I don't anticipate things changing much in the next year or so, but who knows. I don't think the telecom giants are stupid enough to get between people and their Netflix, but I'm sure they'll find other ways to screw us over.
It could have a negative impact on gaming, one of my hobbies. Downloading a modern game onto my computer can easily approach 50 gigabytes. And playing online games requires a good connection. It may not affect me as much, since I live alone, but I could easily see a family reaching data caps pretty quick if that becomes a thing.
|
|