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: 57

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

Will replied to Augustin's discussion The Mask You Live In - Don't tell boy to man up! (Says video)
"I certainly get the distinction.  But I do know that as boys, we could not admit to several things without losing face:  feeling weakness; being scared; wearing shorts, T-shirts, or sweaters; liking girls; playing the piano.  Sure,…"
17 minutes ago
Vytautas replied to Augustin's discussion The Mask You Live In - Don't tell boy to man up! (Says video)
"If there was a singular way in which men "see the world and process things.""
34 minutes ago
Liam S. replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"Maybe they shouldn't, but they decided in the 30s that they didn't want the expense and bother of managing that land. To that end, their decision was to turn it over to the Federal government. Surely States rights should include the…"
41 minutes ago
Vytautas replied to Augustin's discussion The Mask You Live In - Don't tell boy to man up! (Says video)
"I tend to agree that setting up clearly false gender dichotomies with loaded phrases like "be a man" is not a positive thing for youngsters."
41 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Jack Bauer's discussion Nevada Ranch War ... in the group The Great Debate
"To continue on the state's rights line of thought: States shouldn't cede land to the federal government. Just makes things messier if secession were to occur."
1 hour ago
Art replied to Ben Raulerson's discussion hey guys
"Welcome, Ben. Great bunch of guys on here. Good to have you on AoM Where from in GA formerly?"
1 hour ago
Conor Cooley replied to Conor Cooley's discussion Hello from Ireland
"What part did you visit?"
1 hour ago
J. D. replied to Augustin's discussion The Mask You Live In - Don't tell boy to man up! (Says video)
"It's just that given the general contempt Hollywood and the media have for men and manhood in general, my expectations are not high at all until I see or hear something to the contrary."
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service