(12-14-2017 06:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I see both sides of the issue.

Many people have 1 legitimate option for internet at their home. Half of Wilmington is this way. You can get jerked around very easily without recourse

However, I don't trust the federal government to police the internet

My only question is has there been anyone aside from the telecom companies that have had legit complaints about the way the internet has been working since the current rules were put into place?

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:14 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:15 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:13 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I already informed my ISP that if they attempt to try and charge me for different internet services, I will immediately drop their service.

About the only thing you can do I guess is drop ISP's who try and take advantage of the repeal.

The law has only been there since 2015. I don't see the big deal. The internet worked fine for me in 2014.

beat me to it. The internet was working just fine before net neutrality...

From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

Got to admit, I don't know which side of this issue to come down on.

There have been comments that the current regulatory approach stifles creativity and innovation. Having represented regulated utilities for 40 years, I do not believe that a public utility model is appropriate for the Internet. But I don't want some of the horror story allegations to come true, either.

I think where multiple providers are present, competition will provide ample protection. Perhaps some rules where there is a single provider and competition where there are multiple providers.

(12-14-2017 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There have been comments that the current regulatory approach stifles creativity and innovation. Having represented regulated utilities for 40 years, I do not believe that a public utility model is appropriate for the Internet. But I don't want some of the horror story allegations to come true, either.

I think where multiple providers are present, competition will provide ample protection. Perhaps some rules where there is a single provider and competition where there are multiple providers.

Yeah this is where the problem resides. In the places where there are multiple ISP's to choose from this could very well result in faster, cheaper, and better internet due to competition. The places you have one choice though could be problematic. Now I only say could, because if they start immediately and visibly jerking those people around and make all the doomsday scenarios come true immediately this won't last long and won't end well for them.

(12-14-2017 06:22 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:14 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:15 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:13 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I already informed my ISP that if they attempt to try and charge me for different internet services, I will immediately drop their service.

About the only thing you can do I guess is drop ISP's who try and take advantage of the repeal.

The law has only been there since 2015. I don't see the big deal. The internet worked fine for me in 2014.

beat me to it. The internet was working just fine before net neutrality...

From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

I'm sorry I breathe the same air you do, Mr. smugly superior cord-cutter.

(12-14-2017 02:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:15 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:13 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I already informed my ISP that if they attempt to try and charge me for different internet services, I will immediately drop their service.

About the only thing you can do I guess is drop ISP's who try and take advantage of the repeal.

The law has only been there since 2015. I don't see the big deal. The internet worked fine for me in 2014.

Been with my ISP since 09. Went for about 2 years without issue, but started experiencing major slowdowns with streaming services beginning in 2012. When Neutrality passed, the slowdowns stopped, but instead I was mysteriously given a data limit with my plan when I originally had umlimited Data. Every time I went over my limit, I was charged an extra 10 bucks a month without warning.

I'm tired of getting jerked around. I'll just spend more time at work and at public wifi hotspots if I have to. I am not accepting anymore new charges.

Same thing here. Now, i an effected by both slowdown and data limits. Our plan that we signed up for unlimited access which Sudden;ink broke the contract.

Pew finds that 94% of the comments the FCC received about this were fake.

(12-14-2017 06:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:22 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:14 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:15 PM)dfarr Wrote:  The law has only been there since 2015. I don't see the big deal. The internet worked fine for me in 2014.

beat me to it. The internet was working just fine before net neutrality...

From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

I'm sorry I breathe the same air you do, Mr. smugly superior cord-cutter.

Hope your asthma gets better. I choose to use Hulu primarily for the sports channels they offer, at $40/month and $60/month internet from TWC. To get the same channels from Spectrum/TWC I would need an internet/TV package that costs $170/month, for the first year. Now they have a legal tool to restrict what I choose to watch and try to force me back into their crappy cable packages. They are a monopoly where I live, just like the other 51% of Americans who only have 1 service provider in their area. I want freedom to choose how I want to use the internet, not to have a single monopolistic corporation dictate what I can and can't see, which websites I can visit, which apps I can use. Maybe everything is cherry pie, peaches and cream, hunky dory where you live. Well bully for you. Here it ain't. This blows.

(12-14-2017 02:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:19 PM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:15 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:13 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I already informed my ISP that if they attempt to try and charge me for different internet services, I will immediately drop their service.

About the only thing you can do I guess is drop ISP's who try and take advantage of the repeal.

The law has only been there since 2015. I don't see the big deal. The internet worked fine for me in 2014.

the law basically reinforced rules that had been in place since dial up. This wasn't some new fangled law that Obama put in place.

And besides, I still haven't heard any good reasons why it should be repealed. Anybody? Please?

It's quite simple. More power and more money to corporations. The only constituency the trump administration is really concerned with.

So you wanted the other corporations that supported NN, like Facebook and Google, to have more money and power?

Best commentary from today on the issue.

#ReadABookBro
#WeedHeadCheetoMunchers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1suZA4L39I&t=905s

FCC Commissioner: Ending Net-Neutrality To Usher In New Era Of Racism…

Do what?

lol

Claim racism- the age old crutch to stand on when you run out of excuses

(12-14-2017 09:08 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:22 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:14 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  beat me to it. The internet was working just fine before net neutrality...

From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

I'm sorry I breathe the same air you do, Mr. smugly superior cord-cutter.

Hope your asthma gets better. I choose to use Hulu primarily for the sports channels they offer, at $40/month and $60/month internet from TWC. To get the same channels from Spectrum/TWC I would need an internet/TV package that costs $170/month, for the first year. Now they have a legal tool to restrict what I choose to watch and try to force me back into their crappy cable packages. They are a monopoly where I live, just like the other 51% of Americans who only have 1 service provider in their area. I want freedom to choose how I want to use the internet, not to have a single monopolistic corporation dictate what I can and can't see, which websites I can visit, which apps I can use. Maybe everything is cherry pie, peaches and cream, hunky dory where you live. Well bully for you. Here it ain't. This blows.

So you have asthma too? Because.....forget it, you know what I meant and still had to take your potshots to soothe your smugly superior ego.

(12-15-2017 09:04 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  FCC Commissioner: Ending Net-Neutrality To Usher In New Era Of Racism…

Do what?

Communities of color do a good enough job marginalizing themselves without NN.

(12-14-2017 09:08 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:22 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:14 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  beat me to it. The internet was working just fine before net neutrality...

From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

I'm sorry I breathe the same air you do, Mr. smugly superior cord-cutter.

Hope your asthma gets better. I choose to use Hulu primarily for the sports channels they offer, at $40/month and $60/month internet from TWC. To get the same channels from Spectrum/TWC I would need an internet/TV package that costs $170/month, for the first year. Now they have a legal tool to restrict what I choose to watch and try to force me back into their crappy cable packages. They are a monopoly where I live, just like the other 51% of Americans who only have 1 service provider in their area. I want freedom to choose how I want to use the internet, not to have a single monopolistic corporation dictate what I can and can't see, which websites I can visit, which apps I can use. Maybe everything is cherry pie, peaches and cream, hunky dory where you live. Well bully for you. Here it ain't. This blows.

So you want the "freedom" to "choose" what a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats decide is best for you? And to force those same choices on everyone else?

(12-14-2017 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There have been comments that the current regulatory approach stifles creativity and innovation. Having represented regulated utilities for 40 years, I do not believe that a public utility model is appropriate for the Internet. But I don't want some of the horror story allegations to come true, either.

I think where multiple providers are present, competition will provide ample protection. Perhaps some rules where there is a single provider and competition where there are multiple providers.

that is where I'm coming down. But, it could end up being like the airline industry where one does something and the others just follow.

Several states are filing a lawsuit, so this is likely going to court. The NY AG last night explained their case. I guess the FCC has to show some type of reason for making this change and he's asserting there is no real reason for it.

Additionally part of the lawsuit is the FCC's refusal to address whether they filtered out the millions of fraudulent comments that were submitted during the public open comment period. There is countless evidence of people's identities stolen to submit comments as well as comments from dead people.

(12-15-2017 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 09:08 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:45 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 06:22 PM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 05:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  From 2012 on that had been changing, mostly in select areas as opposed to nation wide.

Now, expect it to be nation wide.

The difference is the huge growth of streaming channels and video. Netflix, Sling, Hulu Live TV, etc. are replacing traditional cable TV. My ISP is Spectrum/TWC. I do not have regular cable TV, I use Hulu and Netflix. Now Spectrum has the right to slow down or block video streaming. They can choose to offer their own online steaming service as a replacement, eliminating my choice. They can block access to websites or block apps (think ESPN, History Channel) from operating on "their" internet. This has already happened in Europe.

In case you're wondering why I wouldn't just switch to another service provider, as the linked article above states, "51 percent of Americans only have one ISP to choose from."

Goodbye internet freedom. Welcome Chinese Communist Internet 2017.

I'm sorry I breathe the same air you do, Mr. smugly superior cord-cutter.

Hope your asthma gets better. I choose to use Hulu primarily for the sports channels they offer, at $40/month and $60/month internet from TWC. To get the same channels from Spectrum/TWC I would need an internet/TV package that costs $170/month, for the first year. Now they have a legal tool to restrict what I choose to watch and try to force me back into their crappy cable packages. They are a monopoly where I live, just like the other 51% of Americans who only have 1 service provider in their area. I want freedom to choose how I want to use the internet, not to have a single monopolistic corporation dictate what I can and can't see, which websites I can visit, which apps I can use. Maybe everything is cherry pie, peaches and cream, hunky dory where you live. Well bully for you. Here it ain't. This blows.

So you want the "freedom" to "choose" what a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats decide is best for you? And to force those same choices on everyone else?

And you prefer a corporation to decide which websites are acceptable? Hand over the keys to decide what is and is not allowable? I prefer to not follow the European/Chinese/Iranian model. I enjoy the first amendment. In what universe is corporate or government censorship a good thing? I don't need government or some nanny corporation to digest my food for me and then spit it out and say eat.

Arrogantly call me smug if you like. If anyone enjoys being spoonfed and told what is acceptable to read, see or believe, then yesterday was your day. Enjoy the lentil stew.

(12-15-2017 11:41 AM)mikeinoki Wrote:  And you prefer a corporation to decide which websites are acceptable?

Over a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats, hell yes. Because any corporation that oversteps its bounds will open itself up to competition.

Quote:Hand over the keys to decide what is and is not allowable? I prefer to not follow the European/Chinese/Iranian model. I enjoy the first amendment. In what universe is corporate or government censorship a good thing? I don't need government or some nanny corporation to digest my food for me and then spit it out and say eat.

I'm much more worried about government censorship than corporate. If CNN censors the news they give me, I can go to PBS or Fox or BBC and get a different slant. If the government censors what I can watch, there's not much I can do about it legally.

Quote:Arrogantly call me smug if you like. If anyone enjoys being spoonfed and told what is acceptable to read, see or believe, then yesterday was your day. Enjoy the lentil stew.

And you think unaccountable government bureaucrats won't be spoon-feeding you and telling you what is acceptable to read, see, or believe? How naive are you?

Yes, I'm willing to put up with all the problems we had before net neutrality.