Community Chat

[dooBdoo]

On 2/26/2015 adelle38 said:

On 2/26/2015 blahblahvampemerblah said:

On 2/26/2015 hckynut said: Regulation by whom? Am I to presume this means by beaurocrats?

Yes. Europe essentially has this, and it has cost them dearly. R&D dropped, and costs went up. George Soros is a big backer of this, and he's the one that said the only thing standing between him and the one-world gov he wants is America. NN is a solution to a problem we don't have. There are also movements on the dem side to start reigning in 1A rights, and this is the first step.

That's simply not true. People in the UK pay an annual TV license fee for about $150 per year. The average cost for internet is half of what we pay in this country. Millions of American citizens wrote to the FCC to express support for continuing net neutrality.

Most of what she wrote is inaccurate, and it's just more of the internet astroturfing attempt to make this into a partisan issue.

[terrier3]

On 2/26/2015 SnowPink said:

Quick three step quiz for anyone supporting Net Neutrality:

1. Does it take 332 pages to say that ISP's can't slow your access to a website?

2. If "no" - what else is contained in those 332 pages?

3. If "I don't know" - how can you possibly be supporting it?

Yes it does take a lot of legalese to pass a regulation.

I worked for large cable companies for over 20 years and I know that this was important to them...they spend hundreds of millions lobbying for the right to change the speeds with which we view websites. It was going to be a HUGE moneymaker for them.

Comcast tried this years ago and was stopped...they revived this again...it was the whole reason they want to merge with Time Warner - not for the cable subscribers - but for the internet subscribers.

They lost a LOT of those cable subscribers who cut the cord and turned to other means to access entertainment in their homes. This was cable's way to get the money back that they lost when people discovered that Netflix, Hulu, streaming sports etc. were viable cable alternatives - They want to get their lost revenue back by forcing internet content providers to pay them big bucks - or see their speeds slowed or get banned entirely.

I have seen many threads here from people who saved money by getting rid of cable and viewing content through the internet. If big telecom had their way - that would have been made at least as expensive as cable - probably more expensive so they could crush the competition.

[SnowPink]

For those who agree with this decision...

Are you saying that the ONLY thing that this is going to do is not allow ISPs to slow your access to websites? Nothing else is involved at all?

[terrier3]

On 2/26/2015 SnowPink said:

For those who agree with this decision...

Are you saying that the ONLY thing that this is going to do is not allow ISPs to slow your access to websites? Nothing else is involved at all?

They also would have been able to REMOVE websites too if they were competitors.

Like Foxnews.com.

Why would Comcast want you to be able to continue to access their competitor? If they were unregulated, they could easily pull Fox and make you see MSNBC.com.

Same with Time Warner (their parent company owns CNN).

Netflix competes with HBO. I'm sure Time Warner would LOVE to get Netflix removed from the homes where they provide internet access.

The ISPs would also be allowed to charge companies to be available to their subscribers...so rates for Netflix would go up and smaller websites might disappear entirely.

In the city where I live - we only have one major ISP - Time Warner. FIOS is only available in the suburbs. If they have a monopoly in your service area, without being regulated as a utility, they could easily start cutting access to sites.

[Mominohio]

On 2/26/2015 SnowPink said:

For those who agree with this decision...

Are you saying that the ONLY thing that this is going to do is not allow ISPs to slow your access to websites? Nothing else is involved at all?

That is either what they believe, or all they want to see......at this point.

[MaggieToo]

Read my siggy.

[SeaGal]

On 2/26/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 2/26/2015 RainCityGirl said:

On 2/26/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 2/26/2015 RainCityGirl said:

On 2/26/2015 adelle38 said:

"Popular victories like today's are so unusual that three Congressional committees are investigating how this happened," said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a group that supports net neutrality. He added in a statement, "If the net neutrality effort had followed the usual playbook, if Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T had defeated the American people, nobody would be wondering why."

Great s cr ew the people over once again by making their taxes pay for 3 congressional committees who don't like that the people scored a victory. That is exactly why nothing gets done in congress for the better of the citizens. The high rollers met with defeat. We just can't have that....that's what the lobbyists pay them for.

Great posts. All the time wasted "investigating" things that passed, simply to assuage bruised egos or to satisfy their coveted lobbyists, is enormous money down the drain and time gone that could've been used to help the country. It reminds me of frivolous lawsuits, and I wish the pols who do it could be heavily fined when their "investigations" find no wrong doing.

When no wrong doing is found, the jerks just launch an investigation of the investigation. I guess they think it they keep it up, eventually they will get the outcome they already have preconceived.

I agree. I wish voters would pay more attention to this. Actually, I wish more people would take the time to make themselves better informed by a myriad of sources, and more of the informed people would vote.

So doobdoo, are you saying because some dont agree with you (OR this discission) we are uninformed? Seriously?

[NoelSeven]

On 2/26/2015 dooBdoo said:

This is good news for consumers, but I wish the media (such as the article linked in the original post -- no offense intended, JJM, it appears most of the articles are doing the same thing) wouldn't make this a partisan issue. It isn't partisan. It's something we, as consumers, need to know about and need to monitor for our own benefit.

(Edited to correct the OP's nic.)

No, it isn't a partisan issue, but some people see everything in life as a partisan issue.

[NoelSeven]

On 2/26/2015 SnowPink said:

For those who agree with this decision...

Are you saying that the ONLY thing that this is going to do is not allow ISPs to slow your access to websites? Nothing else is involved at all?

No. Most of us know it will also protect small business, while at the same time not allowing your provider to charge you more for using Netflix.

[NoelSeven]

On 2/26/2015 mominohio said:

On 2/26/2015 SnowPink said:

For those who agree with this decision...

Are you saying that the ONLY thing that this is going to do is not allow ISPs to slow your access to websites? Nothing else is involved at all?

That is either what they believe, or all they want to see......at this point.

No it's not.