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

Taz updated their profile
22 minutes ago
Shane replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"At least I'm acknowledging them instead of pointing to words on a printed page, provided without context, and demanding my interpretation be accepted without question, investigation, or independent thought. Who was Moses' father-in-law?"
24 minutes ago
Liam Strain replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"Anyone who thinks that subtleties of verbal tone, which are by no means cut and dry, especially in an informal telephone recording makes the case a slam dunk for your interpretation - needs to reconsider how their own bias might be at play. "
1 hour ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Polarization, "violent rhetoric" in the group The Great Debate
"Another overreach and rejection of it (overreach by the dude, rejection by the Dem. Party): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/caught-on-tape-dem-official-says-hes-glad-scalise-got-shot.html Some walked back, not sure if…"
1 hour ago
Shane replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"You forgot the emoji ":/". For someone so concerned with Trump's tone, you're sure ignoring it here. Anyone who thinks that was an endorsement deserves mocking, and nothing more."
2 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
""Yeah, I guess so - I wish the first time it was done better.""
2 hours ago
Shane replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"So you didn't listen to the interview. Got it."
2 hours ago
Jay D replied to John Muir's discussion Donald Trump Is A Greedy, Creepy, Ignorant Jerk in the group The Great Debate
"Stop making shit up. The link above provides the sound piece. Also what is about all the other lies he told? Are you fine with your president being a liar or do you just pretend none of it is a lie?"
2 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service