Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
Like Tree7Likes
  1. Thread Author  Thread Author    #1  

    Thumbs down Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Figured this would already have been discussed on here since it was news earlier this week.

    Here is a clip from the article at .
    What just happened? Well, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found in 2008 that Comcast had violated the agency’s net neutrality policy statement by allegedly slowing BitTorrent traffic. The D.C. Circuit then found the FCC lacked statutory authority. The FCC responded with the 2010 Open Internet Order, which re-interpreted Section 706 of the Communications Act as a broad grant of authority. So Verizon sued. Two days ago, the court accepted that re-interpretation, which means the FCC can regulate net neutrality even though the court struck down the two key provisions of the Open Internet Order.

    Indeed, the court has very nearly given the FCC — and state utility commissions, to boot — carte blanche to regulate the entire internet. And that’s the real story here.

    The only real limit is that the FCC can’t overtly treat internet services like common carriers. But this limit may mean little. Indeed, the court’s ruling even lets regulators assert new powers to regulate internet services well beyond broadband… Still, putting that kind of broad power in the hands of government should trouble anyone worried about the abuses of the NSA or the prospect of the International Telecommunications Union taking over internet governance.

    I don't think I like where this is headed, personally. Every time there's money to be made by corporate America, it seems that individual rights and freedoms are a casualty. Considering that individuals don't have the money nor the intimate knowledge to head such things off, I can see the internet changing for the worse. It's just like the whole Citizens United and Patriot Act mess. I personally don't see this ending well.


    Here's Fox News' take on it. I can't help but laugh at their take, "The Obama regime's quest to crush teh interwebz took a hit today by one of our corporate neighbors, Verizon!!!"
  2. #2  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    I am hoping the response to this law suit is to bump the isp's to common carriers which carries with it a entirely new level of regulation and much more than the isp's want. It is a pretty good response to tell them that they should of been happy with what they had.
    It also means we would see board band prices drop as no longer will they get monopolies over small areas like right now.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  3. #3  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Before the FCC net neutrality ruling, there were ISP's threatening to block NetFlix IP's unless NetFlix paid the ISP a fee. That's about as close to extortion as you can get.

    If you pay $60 a month for 250GB of internet data, you should be able to legally use it however you want. Now with the reversal on the net neutrality ruling, you'll pay your $60 a month, but it you want NetFlix, that will be an extra $3.99 a month, or if you want to game online, that will be an extra $2.99 a month, or if you want to download a movie from Amazon, that will be an extra $1.99, or if you want to use Hulu, that will be an extra $2.99 or if you want to use video Skype...etc...



  4. Thread Author  Thread Author    #4  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Before the FCC net neutrality ruling, there were ISP's threatening to block NetFlix IP's unless NetFlix paid the ISP a fee. That's about as close to extortion as you can get.

    If you pay $60 a month for 250GB of internet data, you should be able to legally use it however you want. Now with the reversal on the net neutrality ruling, you'll pay your $60 a month, but it you want NetFlix, that will be an extra $3.99 a month, or if you want to game online, that will be an extra $2.99 a month, or if you want to download a movie from Amazon, that will be an extra $1.99, or if you want to use Hulu, that will be an extra $2.99 or if you want to use video Skype...etc...



    I can also see the government trying to tie the post office to email in an attempt to salvage it. Which while I wouldn't mind spammers having to pay a BIG premium to send their email garbage, I can't imagine paying something extra to send out an email.
    palandri likes this.
  5. #5  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    At first, I was for the net neutrality thing, but now I'm on the fence. I was listening to a talk radio host the other day that said this ruling was a good thing and had some compelling arguments. Not the only one, but one equated it to news stands. If you wrote an article, you can't force every magazine to publish it at your whim. That's about the same as net neutrality. (I may not be presenting this quite right as it's been several days) As he put it, this takes government OUT of the equation, letting market forces take over more. He brought up the point that even with this ruling, there is obviously enough demand for more open internet that new companies will sprout up offering unrestricted service if the current offerings falter.

    So for now, I'm taking a wait and see approach to this, because I don't think this necessarily means all the doom and gloom predictions will come true.
  6. #6  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    At first, I was for the net neutrality thing, but now I'm on the fence. I was listening to a talk radio host the other day that said this ruling was a good thing and had some compelling arguments. Not the only one, but one equated it to news stands. If you wrote an article, you can't force every magazine to publish it at your whim. That's about the same as net neutrality. (I may not be presenting this quite right as it's been several days) As he put it, this takes government OUT of the equation, letting market forces take over more. He brought up the point that even with this ruling, there is obviously enough demand for more open internet that new companies will sprout up offering unrestricted service if the current offerings falter.

    So for now, I'm taking a wait and see approach to this, because I don't think this necessarily means all the doom and gloom predictions will come true.

    I would agree with that if and only if there was real competition for broadband.

    Most people only have 1 choice for board band in an given area and if they are REALLY and I mean REALLY lucky they get 2.
    In the areas that have 2 or more service is better and prices are lower. Right now most places are chop up so only one carrier in there.

    Bump the ISP to common carrier status and then you could have smaller 3rd party ones come in and that changes the rules and I would agree with it but right now nope you only have one.
    Where I live if I want broad band I get one choice Crapcast or well crapcast.
    Parents get 2 choices (AT&T or crapcast) Kicker is both services off higher speed for a lower price and they tend to be up more often than mine.

    What I for see if they will do death by 1000 paper cuts and do minor things so they get people on board and not notice it. Make them common carriers and that changes the rules.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
    palandri likes this.
  7. #7  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,680 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,719 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    IMO, my ISP should barely know what services my connection utilizes and they should never communicate to me or the services about that connection UNLESS it's to troubleshoot poor service. I don't want Netflix to pay my ISP $0.01 for the right to not be maliciously throttled by my ISP.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

    Thanked by 2:
    palandri, msndrstood and TXGTOU like this.
  8. #8  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    We need to do what Australia did and publicly fund a new fiber network across the whole country, but take the money out if some other wasteful government spending program to do is. Then, once we have a commons, make it strictly common carrier.

    We've got the billions already kicking around in the system for this; there is no reason to tax us further. Moreover, this would once and for all solve the bs patchwork network system we have and enable anyone to have decent Internet.
  9. #9  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Oh, and hey... quick question: why doesn't this site frequently share articles from EFF.org and other such places? There is a lot going on that people here need to be aware of.
  10. #10  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    At first, I was for the net neutrality thing, but now I'm on the fence. I was listening to a talk radio host the other day that said this ruling was a good thing and had some compelling arguments. Not the only one, but one equated it to news stands. If you wrote an article, you can't force every magazine to publish it at your whim. That's about the same as net neutrality. (I may not be presenting this quite right as it's been several days) As he put it, this takes government OUT of the equation, letting market forces take over more. He brought up the point that even with this ruling, there is obviously enough demand for more open internet that new companies will sprout up offering unrestricted service if the current offerings falter.

    So for now, I'm taking a wait and see approach to this, because I don't think this necessarily means all the doom and gloom predictions will come true.
    Those new companies would forced to build out their own infrastructure. Guess how much that would cost? I agree with what Palandri said, this is the first step towards tiered pricing for particular service providers. Heck, AT&T is already starting down that path with it's new sponsored data stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tall Mike 2145 View Post
    Oh, and hey... quick question: why doesn't this site frequently share articles from EFF.org and other such places? There is a lot going on that people here need to be aware of.
    Probably for the same reason they try to stay away from the lawsuit stuff.
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
    palandri likes this.
  11. #11  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Tall Mike 2145 View Post
    We need to do what Australia did and publicly fund a new fiber network across the whole country, but take the money out if some other wasteful government spending program to do is. Then, once we have a commons, make it strictly common carrier.

    We've got the billions already kicking around in the system for this; there is no reason to tax us further. Moreover, this would once and for all solve the bs patchwork network system we have and enable anyone to have decent Internet.
    If you start talking about a publicly made and owned fiber network, rather than a privately made and owned fiber network, you'll get labelled a socialist.
    Thanked by:
  12. #12  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin O'Quinn View Post
    Those new companies would forced to build out their own infrastructure. Guess how much that would cost?
    I'm sure it'd cost a lot, but so did starting all the smaller, regional cellular companies around the country.
  13. #13  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    I'm sure it'd cost a lot, but so did starting all the smaller, regional cellular companies around the country.
    But we're talking about regular service, not wireless. Good luck forcing the current infrastructure owners to share the poles.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
  14. #14  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin O'Quinn View Post
    But we're talking about regular service, not wireless. Good luck forcing the current infrastructure owners to share the poles.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    In many cases, they already share the lines. I've seen independent DSL companies that serve homes through copper owned and installed for AT&T and such. I'm sure something similar could happen with cable, and this kind of thing almost has to happen from a pure logistical standpoint. Heck, different network operators already take up extra traffic to ease congestion from other networks on the net as it is, so this idea isn't far fetched.

    There is also wireless solutions already, with many cities doing city wide Wi-Fi, cellular data, and satellite. Sure, they will be more pricey, the simple unrestrictive service itself will be worth a premium without throwing in additional overhead. Don't mistake this for standing up for the new ruling. As I said before, I don't think it's all doom and gloom and I'm just looking at what options could be out there.
  15. #15  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    ....There is also wireless solutions already, with many cities doing city wide Wi-Fi, cellular data, and satellite. Sure, they will be more pricey, the simple unrestrictive service itself will be worth a premium without throwing in additional overhead. Don't mistake this for standing up for the new ruling. As I said before, I don't think it's all doom and gloom and I'm just looking at what options could be out there.
    That's interesting, do you know the names of the cities that have installed city wide WiFi? I know New Orleans was going to do it themselves and the ISP's threw a fit, so they stopped that project. I am guessing the cities that are offering city wide WiFi are buying the data from the ISP's.
  16. #16  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    In many cases, they already share the lines. I've seen independent DSL companies that serve homes through copper owned and installed for AT&T and such. I'm sure something similar could happen with cable, and this kind of thing almost has to happen from a pure logistical standpoint. Heck, different network operators already take up extra traffic to ease congestion from other networks on the net as it is, so this idea isn't far fetched.

    There is also wireless solutions already, with many cities doing city wide Wi-Fi, cellular data, and satellite. Sure, they will be more pricey, the simple unrestrictive service itself will be worth a premium without throwing in additional overhead. Don't mistake this for standing up for the new ruling. As I said before, I don't think it's all doom and gloom and I'm just looking at what options could be out there.
    That's because phone lines fall under common carrier classification. Cable lines do not. Bet you've never seen a small upstart cable provider piggy backing on Comcast lines.

    Municipal Wi-Fi thus far is mostly a pipe dream. Have you not seen big telecom lobby against municipally owned network operators?

    Satellite suffers from terrible ping, which makes it useless for gamers (and cost as you mentioned, which is the whole point of wanting reclassification).

    You're trying to make it sound like there's all this competition or that it'll suddenly spring up. It hasn't happened yet, and if things continue the way they are we never will, because the companies that currently own the infrastructure will have even more control. No one will force them to be "fair" and share their lines. Cable companies already don't have to. The competition will never materialize.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
  17. #17  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,029 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Net neutrality is not yet dead. The judge gave a clear path forward. The FCC just has to follow it. The only real hold up is i believe that it could take an act of congress, which is never a likely event. I am not sure what all is involved with reclassifying ISP's.

    I support net neutrality, but one thing that many forget is the slippery slope is on both sides of the fence. It would be just as easy for the government to over regulate as it would for ISP's to take advantage. Keeping the internet the way it is now or better is a tightrope walk. We can very easily fall off either direction. To give the FCC ultimate power is an extremely ignorant and stupid thing to suggest. IF we get net neutrality passed, The FCC will need to be kept on a short leash from then on out.
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  18. #18  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin O'Quinn View Post
    That's because phone lines fall under common carrier classification. Cable lines do not. Bet you've never seen a small upstart cable provider piggy backing on Comcast lines.
    I've not dealt with cable providers before, so I will concede that point.

    Municipal Wi-Fi thus far is mostly a pipe dream. Have you not seen big telecom lobby against municipally owned network operators?
    I said city wide, not municipally owned. There's a difference.

    Satellite suffers from terrible ping, which makes it useless for gamers (and cost as you mentioned, which is the whole point of wanting reclassification).
    Not everyone games and service in general is much better than it used to be. I wouldn't want it for different reasons, but it is still an option and is the only way to get service in some places if you're really that desperate.

    You're trying to make it sound like there's all this competition or that it'll suddenly spring up. It hasn't happened yet, and if things continue the way they are we never will, because the companies that currently own the infrastructure will have even more control. No one will force them to be "fair" and share their lines. Cable companies already don't have to. The competition will never materialize.
    It hasn't sprung up because the ruling just freaking took effect. You're being very short sighted with that statement. Now, am I saying my guesses will all come to fruition? Heck no. Again, I'm tossing ideas out there, so perhaps we can see the possibility of a different internet future than "omg, all the ISP's have blocked half the internet and all my streaming services unless I hand over my first born!"

    Ok, I'm being facetious (plus I hope all these 10-15 year old "gamers" don't have any first born to hand over yet :what: ), but look at how slow any big change affects things. First, let's say hypothetically, all the major ISP's start blocking/throttling traffic to sites they don't like since that seems to be the current line of thinking. Has that happened yet on a notable scale? Not that I've seen. Who knows, that may not even happen. It'll depend largely on customer demands. ONLY if that happens will other options start popping up. It's not a build it and they will come environment. It's a build it if there's enough demand environment. Many of the current smaller ISP's will probably offer unrestricted plans on their existing networks as way to try gaining market share. If the demand is great enough and the big players are losing customer base, then I'm sure they will start offering those plans too just to compete.
  19. #19  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    I've not dealt with cable providers before, so I will concede that point.



    I said city wide, not municipally owned. There's a difference.



    Not everyone games and service in general is much better than it used to be. I wouldn't want it for different reasons, but it is still an option and is the only way to get service in some places if you're really that desperate.


    It hasn't sprung up because the ruling just freaking took effect. You're being very short sighted with that statement. Now, am I saying my guesses will all come to fruition? Heck no. Again, I'm tossing ideas out there, so perhaps we can see the possibility of a different internet future than "omg, all the ISP's have blocked half the internet and all my streaming services unless I hand over my first born!"

    Ok, I'm being facetious (plus I hope all these 10-15 year old "gamers" don't have any first born to hand over yet :what: ), but look at how slow any big change affects things. First, let's say hypothetically, all the major ISP's start blocking/throttling traffic to sites they don't like since that seems to be the current line of thinking. Has that happened yet on a notable scale? Not that I've seen. Who knows, that may not even happen. It'll depend largely on customer demands. ONLY if that happens will other options start popping up. It's not a build it and they will come environment. It's a build it if there's enough demand environment. Many of the current smaller ISP's will probably offer unrestricted plans on their existing networks as way to try gaining market share. If the demand is great enough and the big players are losing customer base, then I'm sure they will start offering those plans too just to compete.
    The Wi-Fi has to have a backbone connection somewhere.

    I will concede that satellite service has it's place.

    I'm not being short sighted at all. Remember SOPA/PIPA/CISPA? There's a version of that still floating around. It's another step against Net Neutrality.

    @NoYankees I agree. We need a balance.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
  20. #20  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Also remember that this ruling happened because of a lawsuit from 2008. This isn't a new issue.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
  21. #21  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Sorry for so many posts. The history of the ruling (briefly) is that Comcast was caught prioritizing traffic and the FCC didn't like that. They told them to stop. Comcast challenged the FCC authority to regulate them. Comcast won. Here we are.

    Of course there's more to it, but that's the basic story.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
    palandri likes this.
  22. #22  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Not everyone games and service in general is much better than it used to be. I wouldn't want it for different reasons, but it is still an option and is the only way to get service in some places if you're really that desperate.
    The ping times of satellite will make almost any service painful and nearly unusable for most things. Anything that requires 2 way communications it would be painful. there is no getting around that issue. Plus the entire cost issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    It hasn't sprung up because the ruling just freaking took effect. You're being very short sighted with that statement. Now, am I saying my guesses will all come to fruition? Heck no. Again, I'm tossing ideas out there, so perhaps we can see the possibility of a different internet future than "omg, all the ISP's have blocked half the internet and all my streaming services unless I hand over my first born!"

    Ok, I'm being facetious (plus I hope all these 10-15 year old "gamers" don't have any first born to hand over yet :what: ), but look at how slow any big change affects things. First, let's say hypothetically, all the major ISP's start blocking/throttling traffic to sites they don't like since that seems to be the current line of thinking. Has that happened yet on a notable scale? Not that I've seen. Who knows, that may not even happen. It'll depend largely on customer demands. ONLY if that happens will other options start popping up. It's not a build it and they will come environment. It's a build it if there's enough demand environment. Many of the current smaller ISP's will probably offer unrestricted plans on their existing networks as way to try gaining market share. If the demand is great enough and the big players are losing customer base, then I'm sure they will start offering those plans too just to compete.
    Ruling would have no effect on companies popping up. They would pop up if the ISP were force to common carrier. AKA the cable lines laid in the ground become common carrier.
    Most of those lines laid for things like cable companies guess what were publicly funded. They were laid during the monopoly days when they were regulated. That cost entry barrier has what kept anyone new from coming in. Kind of hard to compete if you do not have lines in place.

    Since deregulation's cost have gone up as they chop up everything and have little monopolies every where. As I said before you are lucky if you have more than 1 broadband choice in your area. It is unheard of to have 3. I like almost all my co workers have one choice. Crapcast or crapcast for internet. My parents have Crapcast and AT&T choices. Guess what even crapcast is better there because they have to deal with AT&T and they know people have and will switch. They bled a lot of customers before they shaped up.

    The only way I would say this ruling is any good is if they move the ISP to common carrier status. All those fiberoptics, cable lines are now common carrier and anyone can use them. We would quickly see a lot more companies pop up.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
    Thanked by:
  23. Thread Author  Thread Author    #23  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    That's interesting, do you know the names of the cities that have installed city wide WiFi? I know New Orleans was going to do it themselves and the ISP's threw a fit, so they stopped that project. I am guessing the cities that are offering city wide WiFi are buying the data from the ISP's.
    There's a suburb in the Dallas/Fort Worth area that did it, and I heard that Google is trying to get something going with Austin and possibly some areas in California.
  24. #24  

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    Ruling would have no effect on companies popping up.
    Go back to what I said in the post you quoted. The ruling plays a big role in it. Since I seem to need to simplify it...

    This ruling allows companies to throttle and block parts of the net.

    If isp's start doing that in large scale or they charge a lot extra for special access, then a large demand could develop for unrestricted internet.

    If that large demand happens, business and investors will take notice and seek to fill that demand with new services in some way, shape, or, form.

    Had this ruling not happened, the potential for that demand would never be realized because all the companies are already filling it.
  25. #25  
    Kevin O'Quinn's Avatar
    AC Team Emeritus

    Posts
    8,720 Posts
    Global Posts
    8,897 Global Posts
    ROM
    Stock

    Default Re: Net Neutrality our Corporate Masters, and big "Gub-ment"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Go back to what I said in the post you quoted. The ruling plays a big role in it. Since I seem to need to simplify it...

    This ruling allows companies to throttle and block parts of the net.

    If isp's start doing that in large scale or they charge a lot extra for special access, then a large demand could develop for unrestricted internet.

    If that large demand happens, business and investors will take notice and seek to fill that demand with new services in some way, shape, or, form.

    Had this ruling not happened, the potential for that demand would never be realized because all the companies are already filling it.
    I wonder what the threshold is to cross the point of "enough" to warrant what could be billions of dollars of investment into infrastructure. Or, at a more local level, millions of dollars of investment.

    You have yet to address the fact that most people just want them reclassified as common carriers so the FCC can use their already given authority to guarantee equal access to the lines. It's a simple solution to a complicated problem assuming it could make it through the process. As was stated above the judge basically told them to do that.

    Sent from my TegraNote-P1640 using Tapatalk
    Kevin F.I.M.T.K. O'Quinn Esq.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A question on Note 10.1 2014, and GPS
    By den1959 in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-26-2014, 12:17 PM
  2. Looking at data usage and gave a?
    By cmcfarland in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 11:52 AM
  3. YouTube audio/video out of sync and there's no full screen for videos?
    By Kevin Tao in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 04:11 AM
  4. Note 2 not showing up on My Computer and Note 3 not recognized by kies or PC
    By Ahmed Hesham in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 03:38 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

B