Autonomous vehicles and medical devices are excepted from the, "equality of packets" under NN.
This is a win for the ISPs; not us.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Banned
Autonomous vehicles and medical devices are excepted from the, "equality of packets" under NN.
This is a win for the ISPs; not us.
Senior Member
So should the ISPs not be allowed to win? Or rather, are you saying the ISPs never had an equal share to us. They took our works and now they profit from them? Because the other side of that is the ISPs were the ones that did all the work to get us this far and now we want to take it away. Also isn't the plan that the FTC protect us?Originally Posted by Outlander Systems
IOW, if I build a business I don't want the public and .gov taking it away from me when I got there playing by their rules. So which is the most accurate view? I'm honestly asking... I don't know.
But answers like... 'because it's true, we loose, it's crazy not to want NN' those don't seem to come with a lot of factual support when you look deeper at the subject. As a matter of fact, under NN, I got my first Use Cap notice ever and my prices went up. One was AT&T(altered my unlimited plan) the other Comcast.
Senior Member
Wasn't Obama for Net Neutrality? Pretty much says all I need to know.
Senior Member
This.
Why people want the internet regulated is crazy.
ISPs dont have political interest. They just want money.
People (Google) ALREADY sell your info and have been doing so.
People forget it was Obama who said he wanted an "Off Button" for the internet.
If you post wrongthink on Anything part of Gulag they were censoring it even with Net Neutrality.
People think "Oh no, Oh No teh corporations! Teh Corporations!"
And I'm thinking "Finally some more corporatism to bypass all this government"
lol why the trail of tears for essentially the end of Internet AWB?
What you call Net Neutrality, I call Net DMZ
Banned
I'll leave this here one last time:
105. No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from
blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
Site Sponsor
From reading your posts you know much more about it than I do. However, I see some issues with the quoted statement.
From what I understand of the issue there were essentially no government rules until the Obama Administration enacted NN, which essentially codified the Generally Accepted Internet Procedures/Principles that everyone had been operating under.
As I understand it, the issue NN addressed was that some companies were violating the GAIP, which the industry as a whole had robustly grown under. So if we look at it from that respect, nothing was taken away, the rules were codified because a couple of companies violated the spirit of the generally accepted industry rules.
As a consumer I understand the need for some degree of government regulation to ensure my interests are protected from predatory profiteering.
Look at it this way, how would you feel if you bought a brand new Ford only to find that it slowed automatically whenever you drove past a business that Ford had an interest in or paid relationship with? You probably wouldn't by another Ford would you? What if every manufacturer did this? What is your recourse? Would you like the government to step into the the fray in a limited fashion?
I may be a simpleton, but that is the way I look at it.
Site Sponsor
Pretty sure Obama was also for eating and breathing. Go ahead and apply that litmus test to those.
Senior Member
Interesting that people think that we need to keep the ISPs under the govt thumb until wireless can kill them....
That’s the major issue with govt regulating technology, it is solving yesterdays problems, with new problems while tomorrow is already here.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
If you want to hear some scary stuff. Re: the bitcoin thread. Go to Youtube and listen to speeches and interviews with Anotopolous. Keep in mind that he is not necessarily speaking about money and a get rich investment.
There is a huge incentive for the .gov to control all it can.
I don't want to have to type a paragraph about a link. Go to youtube and look up Antonopoulos -- a suggested search might be... Disrupt Conference - What is Bitcoin? or perhaps Interview at London Real" - Andreas Antonopoulos
So a question actually comes to mind. If all hell did break loose, would you rather have to battle what is referenced here as a single entity(monopoly) OR, would you rather have to wonder how some many entities got control of your life through a technology that you basically didn't even know existed.(google, .gov, Facebook, and whatever collection/control device they build. Facebook... I think it's facebbok is planning to build a data center here where I live.
Go talk to someone of average means that lives in SanFran and ask them how safe their home is? They are being priced out of their apartments and guess who is moving in? Rich techies that can drop millions in cash. IOW, people that have been living the tech life and have risen to a far higher standard of living.
I have had a SanFran musician tell me that story. He actually doesn't know where he will go. His home is also his studio due to technology so basically his livelihood is being taken. I had it verified just a couple weeks ago buy someone from SanFran that has moved here and her husband is a SAP guy, so she knows the tech world.
@26Inf wrote:
Well I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I honestly am asking "what about this" questions. It's like being handed a puzzle with no picture to go by adn being told, just sit there and assemble it, it's going to look great when you are done. Well it might take me years to assemble and realize what it is and it might end up being a really nice portrait of Obama.From reading your posts you know much more about it than I do.
..and as to Obama... The Obama, Google, FCC, Facebook, etc does raise an eyebrow for me. But I know Obama was an opportunistic guy so I could see his action being no more than AlGore saying he is father of the Internet.... but... that still leaves Google, Facebook, et al.. and they want to control BigData because it is BigMoney. Which I can't blame them for but it still doesn't make their competition or someone that decided to be in a different but necessarily connected business to be the bad guy. We don't know what motives are for the so called good guys. All we know is they need full access to the Internet to get to what we have.... which is basically our daily lives and freedom.
Senior Member
It’s not really that, it’s once wireless becomes viable then your free market argument would hold some water.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks