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: 65

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

Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"You speak of political humor and you don't even mention Hillary's alt right speech? Pepe is inside her mind now, taking root."
2 hours ago
Native Son replied to Pale Horse's discussion General Election 2016 in the group The Great Debate
"This has been a week for political humor. First, we have Republican legislators screaming about the FBI "not investigating" some 14,500 emails from the Hillary servers.  Uh, who do they think found, reconstructed, and delivered those…"
4 hours ago
Native Son replied to Steve Dallas's discussion Corporate Stupidity
"Agree wholly with the concept, differ on the detail (Not a gin drinker)."
4 hours ago
Northumbrian replied to James's discussion When can a kid pick his own damn hairstyle?!
"If I had a kid, I'd let them pick their own hairstyle, just as long as it isn't the mullet, the Afro, or a huge beehive hairstyle"
12 hours ago
Ricky replied to Stephen Larsen's discussion My Experience with PIT Training in the group New Warriors
"My Dear Brother, I just watched the video - like you I turned to Church Social Services, sound like the outcomes were different for us but keep in mind that I did it 1980 - yet I understand - how you felt on your mission - every…"
13 hours ago
Sir replied to James's discussion When can a kid pick his own damn hairstyle?!
"IDK how to resolve the disagreement in the marriage, but yes, I'd totally let the boy pick his hairstyle."
13 hours ago
Johann S. replied to Hesse's discussion First date: success not optional but mandatory
"Listen Hesse, You need to let go of all your expectations.  You should only being thinking about how to have fun on the date with the other person.  If you don't have fun, start looking for another person.  That is IT. I went on…"
14 hours ago
Native Son replied to James's discussion When can a kid pick his own damn hairstyle?!
"I was stuck with "Flat top, no grease" until I was a high school freshman.  "
14 hours ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service