Started By
Message
net neutrality
Posted on 11/11/14 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 11/11/14 at 10:47 pm
Does the White House want to take over ISP transport?
Using a lot bandwidth = $$
an odd agenda item right now.
Using a lot bandwidth = $$
an odd agenda item right now.
3
Posted on 11/11/14 at 10:55 pm to AUX3
Is it Political Week already, KS?
Posted on 11/11/14 at 11:11 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I guess, if that's what y'all want. The rotation got fricked up a while ago.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 11:12 pm to KSGamecock
Sorry, didn't know there was a schedule.
Posted on 11/11/14 at 11:13 pm to Kentucker
Nah, you good. It's a free for all.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 4:42 am to Kentucker
quote:
think the President is weighing in because there are too many corporations wanting to regulate speeds on the Internet. They want unfair advantages that will prevent competition.
That sounds good in theory, but forgive me for being skeptical about the FCC having more control over the Internet.
People who preach about net neutrality need to understand the possible consequences of government involvement. IT'S A BIG frickING DEAL.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 4:50 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
IT'S A BIG frickING DEAL.
I'M AWAKE!!??!
What'd I miss?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 4:59 am to TbirdSpur2010
Well Kenfricker and TeflonAss compared black civil rights violations of the 1950s to a fat lesbian couple not being able to have their fat lesbian wedding on a farm in New York.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 5:44 am to Vols&Shaft83
I saw that, and chose not to go there
Posted on 11/12/14 at 5:45 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
TeflonAss
Who is this?
Posted on 11/12/14 at 5:57 am to Cheese Grits
TeLeFaWx
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:13 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
That sounds good in theory, but forgive me for being skeptical about the FCC having more control over the Internet.
People who preach about net neutrality need to understand the possible consequences of government involvement. IT'S A BIG frickING DEAL.
Large corporations vs. the government... pick your poison.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:27 am to DownSouthJukin
quote:
Large corporations vs. the government... pick your poison.
Since when do we get one without the other.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:44 am to Vols&Shaft83
That's not the choice.
It's monopoly vs increased government regulation.
Fiberoptic cables aren't very practical to lay for every company that wants to enter the market and well such large barriers to entry are going to keep everyone else out. It basically operates like a utility at this point. All the inefficiency of a government regulated utility with a profit motive.
The devil lives in the details of any regulation. The current ISP model needs to change though. I argue sensible regulation would make this less of a problem. The problem with that is expecting sensible regulation from people who don't understand computers like our law makers.
It's monopoly vs increased government regulation.
Fiberoptic cables aren't very practical to lay for every company that wants to enter the market and well such large barriers to entry are going to keep everyone else out. It basically operates like a utility at this point. All the inefficiency of a government regulated utility with a profit motive.
The devil lives in the details of any regulation. The current ISP model needs to change though. I argue sensible regulation would make this less of a problem. The problem with that is expecting sensible regulation from people who don't understand computers like our law makers.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:48 am to Duke
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:49 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
People who preach about net neutrality need to understand the possible consequences of government involvement. IT'S A BIG frickING DEAL.
Net neutrality already exists. It's a fair regulation that prevents ISPs from regulating content. ISPs are mad that conteent providers are making money and want to exploit them for money like Comcast did to Netflix. I don't think you're understanding what "government involvement" entails here. The status quo is net neutrality.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:51 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Well Kenfricker and TeflonAss compared black civil rights violations of the 1950s to a fat lesbian couple not being able to have their fat lesbian wedding on a farm in New York.
I compared discrimination to discrimination. I am sorry you have a problem with that.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 7:51 am to TeLeFaWx
It was the status quo if memory serves but a court struck it down early this year but left the door open for a different approach to the same regulation.
Posted on 11/12/14 at 8:00 am to Duke
quote:
It was the status quo if memory serves but a court struck it down early this year but left the door open for a different approach to the same regulation.
Someone just needs to link the Jon Oliver thing. He's a liberal so I don't like agreeing with him, but this is an example of a common sense regulation that has promoted growth and innovation in the information era. And it's one line. "All data should be treated equally". That's libertarian as frick.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News