ot: net neutrality

[gasman]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Good post, and I agree 100%. . In fact competition will increase if this goes through.

Interesting, I haven't heard that competition will increase. My computer geek son and his computer geek friends say just the opposite. I don't really know.

[rnhood]

Yea, and we all heard people say the market would crash if Trump became President. And now we all know how accurate that prediction was.

[Rada]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

And who knows how many billions spent by PACs. It goes both ways.

If I had spent billions on developing an infrastructure I'd protect it, too. That is not endorsing abuse of said infrastructure.

Said infrastructure paid by who? If you think it was the cable companies guess again.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce...b_6306360.html

[Rada]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Good post, and I agree 100%. Mostly it's much to do about nothing, and no one is going to lose their internet connection. In fact competition will increase if this goes through.

If it is a fact competition will increase why are small ISP providers asking the FCC not to drop net neutrality?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/0...ork-neutrality

[Chris]

So is porn still going to stream as fast or not?

[Drmojo]

but
won’t block chain operating systems solve many problems we have with centralized monopolies?
in finance, social media, content control, etc,etc
would send links but not tech savvy

[regularguy412]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

There's a big difference between allowing classes of traffic at different speeds, and censoring or blocking content. Internet traffic has been prioritized since the beginning. It's no threat to anyone. There's plenty of competition in the long haul space so there's no imminent threat of a monopoly.

However, if there is collusion amongst companies to block content, for whatever reason, that's not good. That said, social media platforms are doing this today, and I don't see 20 million people writing their congressperson about that.

The other thing to consider is that the Internet is worldwide. We can make all the laws we want, but the rest of the world can ignore them.

I remember hearing somewhere, and not too long ago, that 'corporations are people' and that 'money is speech'. Hmmmmm. the combination of this and the possible loss of net neutrality is profoundly disturbing. Especially when one considers that MANY people get their 'news' primarily FROM an internet source.

Mike in AR

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by regularguy412

I remember hearing somewhere, and not too long ago, that 'corporations are people' and that 'money is speech'. Hmmmmm. the combination of this and the possible loss of net neutrality is profoundly disturbing. Especially when one considers that MANY people get their 'news' primarily FROM an internet source.

Mike in AR

But, but,but...that kind of bias is happening today. That is, unless you agree with it.

[regularguy412]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

But, but,but...that kind of bias is happening today. That is, unless you agree with it.

<sigh> You are right. There is no 'middle' anymore. Just extremes.

Mike in AR

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

But, but,but...that kind of bias is happening today. That is, unless you agree with it.

Taking your logic of "both sides are equally awful" (which I find painfully dishonest) as truth - are we to be OK with something that makes the problem even worse because we can't eradicate it totally?

[gasman]

So I think we've had enough coverage of the subject of net neutrality without going off the rails. If someone wants to start another thread feel free to do so.

Hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving . I know I need a good long ride tomorrow.