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.



Latest Activity

Regular Joe replied to Regular Joe's discussion "Heritage Not Hate" - Who's Trolling Who? in the group The Great Debate
"On a somewhat-related note, what's the deal with the US allowing a state flag to have the symbol of its (the USA's) former oppressor?  (I know why the Union Jack is on the flag of Hawaii; I just don't understand why Hawaii was…"
5 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Joe W's discussion Fitness for Christian Men in the group Christian Men
""Having working in the mental health field for example, I know Christians often take a different stance on certain matters than those approaching comments from a secular mindset. For example, if you were to post about feeling God leading you in…"
5 minutes ago
Mongoose replied to Sir's discussion Things that can't convince in the group The Great Debate
"I'm projecting?!? ...I'm so embarrassed!"
8 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Sir's discussion Things that can't convince in the group The Great Debate
"It was a joke referring to how some types of Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christians. (I personally don't think Mormons are any more or any less Christian than any other Christian denomination.) "
10 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Sir's discussion Things that can't convince in the group The Great Debate
"First I'm projecting, then you're projecting. Everyone's projecting!  "
13 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Sir's discussion Is it manly to own a cat?
"Hyena's aren't canines. (Or felines.) They're their own thing. (Closest thing would be the badger family, but they're nonetheless distinct from badgers.)  "
17 minutes ago
Derek replied to Sir's discussion Is it manly to own a cat?
"This thought makes it even more manly."
17 minutes ago
ClubmanPinaud replied to Sir's discussion Is it manly to own a cat?
"Someone's also gotta take it off (when he's hungry) and put it on again to feed or drink at least a couple times a day. Canines are canines, if he can effectively dominate and become pack leader/alpha in the hyena's head it should…"
21 minutes ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service