NPR: Feds Can't Enforce Net Neutrality: What This Means For You

I'm not going to agree or disagree with their decision on the legality of this, but this is really a shame. Internet in the United States is already garbage. Internet companies are already able to monopolize local markets. Now, they are going to push their content at you. The way I see this playing out: We are going to have to deal with throttled speeds for certain content or have to pay above and beyond their ridiculous prices to gain access to that content.

Views: 66

Replies to This Discussion

I'd say that by calling it a shame, you do disagree with something!

I don't know where you're coming from.  There are a variety of ISP's, not one per local market.  Striking down "net neutrality" doesn't change the status quo, but rather preserves it, so we can expect things to go as before.  "Net neutrality" was meant to change that.  And with status quo, prices are as they are (of course) and ISP's don't push content at you, unless you count inviting you to use their home page, which you can ignore.

On my tablet so bare with me, I'll post something more I'm depth later. Net neutrality has always been the status quo. Data has always been treated the same, no matter where it originated. Companies throttling data to certain sites or programs to milk customers and businesses for more money is bs. It is censorship for profit. Also yes I do disagree, just not necessarily the legality, but this is definitely unethical in my opinion.

IMHO, the real sticking point is that the court is apparently holding that since signal over wire technology is involved, the internet is nothing more than a very, very, fast telephone system.

It is however, giving the service providers the implicit right ro self regulate and monitor the content of internet carried communications transmitted via their individual systems.  Considering the furor that's erupted over the NSA collecting metadata and monitoring some communications content, it's interesting that the court has determined that private industry enjoys permissions and rights regarding electronic commnications than the individual communicator or the government.

Your internet speeds are already being throttled by pricing. Do you honestly believe that the low dollar speed is physically connected to a different hardware set than the high dollar speeds? If that were the case you would see consistent slow speed. Monitor you speed and CPU usage. You will find it pulsates. That is  because it is all ONE speed with a throttle switch in the SW. I don't really see your point on that score.

My understanding of net neutrality is that ISPs (for now) can not be closed organizations wherein partners buy in and you only receive access to and ads from those partners. If that changes it would function a lot like television where if you want to watch a specific program, you must tune in to that particular channel. The problem would be you would only have one channel, your ISP.  I can't really envision the consumer tolerating that sort of clap-trap but I am always amazed at the stupidity of my fellow Americans en mas. All it would take is one guy with the genius to provide an ISP alternative that does not operate that way and poof! The house of cards tumbles.

Capitalism

RSS

Latest Activity

Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Yeah, I have not been able to find that footage. But just like the "Counter Protestors" who brought sticks with them. Not all counter protestors brought sticks to start some shit.After covering a few protests/marches, you can kind of look…"
43 minutes ago
Sir replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"An aside, but I saw the video of "some good people." He specifically distinguished the some good people from white supremacists. I was concerned until I heard his actual words."
52 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"That kind of irks me a little too. All we are seeing of the footage the night before is from the Vice piece, which you have to admit is quite disturbing, but I'm quite sure that there had to be some people there who had no association with that…"
54 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Nope, they were all 100% racist, fascist, neo-confederates. Quit defending the Nazis."
58 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Who made you Minister of Art?"
1 hour ago
Shane replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"The people who want statues removed are not just a radicalized fringe. Do not marginalize them like that. Remember your words the next time you start believing the commentary about Trump defending White Nationalists by saying "some good people…"
1 hour ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"None of these statues are innovative or important pieces of art for the development of sculpture. They aren't quite historical as most, if not all, of them are long removed from the time of the Civil War. In fact, many went up during times of…"
2 hours ago
Dominic replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"Sir, it's not the same activity. Not all old objects need to be preserved nor displayed. And we already know a great deal about the statues being removed--from their manufacture to their historical context. These are discussions that happen in…"
2 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service