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: 58

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

Regular Joe replied to Chu Kim's discussion Ruled by Women
""Consider the people you know that are married; or that are living with a partner w/o marriage.  How long have the relationships lasted?" I know unmarried couples who have been together for decades. My uncle is in his 70s and has…"
6 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Chu Kim's discussion Ruled by Women
""And such a couple is usually married.  A couple specifically avoiding marriage is an indicator of lack of commitment ... and thus lack of stability." I suspect this varies from region to region and culture to culture. Where…"
14 minutes ago
Rick Shelton replied to Chu Kim's discussion Ruled by Women
"This is true."
16 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"BUT, ages 5-9 are the ages where kids find guns but don't yet know of their danger or how to handle them safely - that's a pretty big age window"
16 minutes ago
StaggerLee commented on thehuhman's group Men Over 50
"Just joined the group. Hope I'm not intruding. I'm a mere babe of 49 years. Standing in the door!  "
19 minutes ago
StaggerLee joined thehuhman's group
Thumbnail

Men Over 50

For the slightly older guys. (those who've already received the letter from AARP!) Let's just see how many of us are proud to have made it this far!See More
22 minutes ago
Will replied to Chu Kim's discussion Ruled by Women
"Consider the people you know that are married; or that are living with a partner w/o marriage.  How long have the relationships lasted?  Marriage is for life half the time, for decades much of the rest, and then there's the serial…"
22 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"Yeah, I wish there were definitions. Homicide, as you know, is just a human killing a human. When a prisoner is executed, or a policeman or citizen kills a criminal assailant, that's a homicide... Unintentional firearm could include dad…"
22 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service