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

Lucius Artorius Castus replied to Titus Techera's discussion Healthcare ideas in the group The Great Debate
"Why does it need to expand further into society? Why is it your responsibility to take care of me, and mine yo take care of you? How about we all take care of our own damn selves and leave everyone else alone so long as they are not hurting anyone…"
15 minutes ago
JD Plueger replied to Thomas James's discussion Paying off a large credit card debt vs. settlement? Are there pros? How bad are the cons?
"I too made some financial mistakes in my past... Without knowing the details (nor do I want them) of your finances it's hard to point you in a specific, calculated direction. I would start with just paying the basics first and…"
17 minutes ago
Andrew D, USA Ret replied to Andrew D, USA Ret's discussion Militias, politics, anti-2nd amendment hysteria and the Bundy issue in the group The Great Debate
"He's a simple, hard-working, poorly educated man who doesn't want to lose his ranch and way of life to a government he sees intent on doing just that, as proven by the disappearance of the once dozens of ranches around him in the not so…"
33 minutes ago
Carl Monster replied to John Muir's discussion Bulk Shopping For Staples
"I don't have a problem with occasional use, hey, carbon monoxide is bad for us too, but buying in bulk hints at frequent downing of the stuff. Yea, sugar I hear is better, just like margarine is actually worse for you than butter."
36 minutes ago
Jack Bauer replied to Titus Techera's discussion Healthcare ideas in the group The Great Debate
"I find it unconscionably arrogant to be so enamored with your own ideology to believe it should literally be imposed on everybody else, against their will, for their own good.    Garden-variety statism.  Luckily, we have a…"
39 minutes ago
Carl Monster replied to Andrew's discussion Interesting Article: 'Men Suck At Friendship'
"Tim, amen to that. A few years ago, after becoming aware that I was starving for male company, I sent an email to someone who was an acquaintance over a decade ago. He had asked me on a canoe trip together, and I have never forgot his kindness in…"
39 minutes ago
Augustin replied to Andrew's discussion Interesting Article: 'Men Suck At Friendship'
"Damn right. "
46 minutes ago
Andrew D, USA Ret replied to Titus Techera's discussion Healthcare ideas in the group The Great Debate
"A better explanation of socialism versus individual responsibility I've seldom ever heard.  On which was our nation founded?  "
47 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service