Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-14-2017, 01:22 PM   #1
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default Net Neutrality

Excuse my ignorance....but why was it so important to kill this? As always I google first but all I am finding is left leaning doom and gloom. What is the other side to the story?
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 01:26 PM   #2
bobc
Ten Point
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belton
Hunt In: Bell County, New Mexico
Default

Internet providers can favor certain websites and throttle data speeds to others. That’s my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 01:34 PM   #3
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobc View Post
Internet providers can favor certain websites and throttle data speeds to others. That’s my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes understood on the reasoning of why it was established. But why kill this? Was it government over-reach?
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 02:15 PM   #4
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
Yes understood on the reasoning of why it was established. But why kill this? Was it government over-reach?
Obama admin did it
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 02:49 PM   #5
bobc
Ten Point
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belton
Hunt In: Bell County, New Mexico
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
Yes understood on the reasoning of why it was established. But why kill this? Was it government over-reach?
Because the lawmakers are getting their hands on this:

"The reports represent at least 18 telecommunications companies, trade organizations and conservative advocacy groups who lobbied the FCC in opposition of net neutrality. Collectively, the organizations have spent $110 million in federal lobbying this year."
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 03:16 PM   #6
tbeak
Ten Point
 
tbeak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Hunt In: Anywhere i can
Default

So it got revoked? Now what does that mean
tbeak is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 03:39 PM   #7
bobc
Ten Point
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Belton
Hunt In: Bell County, New Mexico
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeak View Post
So it got revoked? Now what does that mean
Basically two tiers of internet service. Fast and slow. Those that pay to play get the fast. The others...not so much.

Will cost the consumers extra money to cover recoupment costs of those that pay to play. Take for example, Netflix. They use a ton of bandwidth. They will can/will be charged accordingly for their large use. These extra charges they incur will be passed on to the consumer in higher membership fees.

If they were to choose not to pay the telecoms for the higher speed services, any time you wanted to stream a video, it would always be buffering.

I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of it all.
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 03:46 PM   #8
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Just go to youtube and watch a handful of vids on the subject. There are many to choose from
https://youtu.be/PX0Ituesovg
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 03:50 PM   #9
jerp
Pope & Young
 
jerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aledo
Hunt In: Shackleford Co.
Default

Pretty good explanation from The Weekly Standard

"Net neutrality” deals with the the companies that own the broadband pipe. When you sit down at your computer to check Facebook, you’re on a broadband network provided by a company—Verizon, Comcast, Cox, etc.—that owns the pipe going to your house. Currently, they can charge you for the speed of your service, but they can’t charge you for how much data you consume coming out of their pipe.

Now sitting on the other end of that pipe is the internet that you use. So Facebook is coming through the pipe to you. And so is Amazon. And so is WeeklyStandard.com. All of these businesses use that pipe to get to their customers. And the guys who own the pipe—the Verizons and Comcasts and Coxes of the world—aren’t allowed to charge them anything.

The problem is that while most websites don’t use much of that pipe, some internet companies use a lot. Like Netflix. Something like 35 percent of data going through the pipes in North America is coming from Netflix. YouTube uses about 17 percent of the pipe. Amazon’s streaming video service is close to 4 percent. Those numbers bounce around from quarter to quarter as the businesses expand and contract and compression protocols change but the exact numbers aren’t important. What’s important is that some huge percentage of all the data being streamed to consumers through the pipes owned by the broadband providers comes from a handful of companies. And these companies pay precisely nothing for this carriage. Because of net neutrality.
This looks like a classic free market problem, right? If you own the pipes and some other company is using a third your bandwidth all by themselves, you’d like to charge them for it. Because it’s expensive to run a broadband operation and it’s really expensive constantly having to expand and speed up your network.

So that’s the argument for killing net neutrality: All you’re really doing is giving broadband providers the ability to charge the entities that use the lion’s share of their pipe and impose all sorts of expenses on them.


(The article goes on to explain what some of the negative unintended consequences might be. It's complicated for sure)
jerp is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 03:50 PM   #10
DesertDug
Ten Point
 
DesertDug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Deer Park
Hunt In: far out west texas & SHNF & Lovelady
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZST_bowhunter View Post
Obama admin did it
thats the problem with the current administration.
DesertDug is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:15 PM   #11
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZST_bowhunter View Post
Obama admin did it
This is exactly the reason why it was killed. Like it or not, Net Neutrality was one of the good things to come out of that administration. To kill it only further empowers the Internet Service Providers and will strain businesses like SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu and other online-only streaming content providers. This was a big win for big business and establishment cable providers. If you were ever looking to cut the chord on cable, this just made it that much harder.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:16 PM   #12
Mike D
Pope & Young
 
Mike D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Texas
Hunt In: Haskell County, TX
Default Net Neutrality

It lets companies charge as the see proper for the service they are providing.

That whole free market thing that Obama hated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Mike D is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:22 PM   #13
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike D View Post
It lets companies charge as the see proper for the service they are providing.

That whole free market thing that Obama hated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
A service built on the back of taxpayers who funded the ISPs to the tune of nearly half-a-trillion dollars to build out their infrastructure. This is nothing more than ISPs (being the gatekeepers of the internet) now being able to choose whose content they will allow you to view. If they feel like selling streaming services you can bet they won't give top tier speeds to their competitors.

And it's only free market when you get real choice. In many areas your choice is a single ISP or no internet at all.

Last edited by JonBoy; 12-14-2017 at 04:25 PM.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:32 PM   #14
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
This is exactly the reason why it was killed. Like it or not, Net Neutrality was one of the good things to come out of that administration. To kill it only further empowers the Internet Service Providers and will strain businesses like SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu and other online-only streaming content providers. This was a big win for big business and establishment cable providers. If you were ever looking to cut the chord on cable, this just made it that much harder.
Negative
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:34 PM   #15
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flywise View Post
Negative
to each his own. care to elaborate?
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 04:45 PM   #16
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Plenty of evidence of when the gov. starts medaling in something it is much worse off.
Hundreds of smart people will tell you that this Net Neutrality hurts not only the internet as you know it, but the consumer in the end.
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 06:17 PM   #17
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24691...ts-ben-shapiro
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 07:48 PM   #18
banzai
Eight Point
 
banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flywise View Post
Plenty of evidence of when the gov. starts medaling in something it is much worse off.
Hundreds of smart people will tell you that this Net Neutrality hurts not only the internet as you know it, but the consumer in the end.
Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.


Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.
banzai is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 08:15 PM   #19
Playa
Pope & Young
 
Playa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lubbock
Hunt In: Coleman
Default

My issue with Net neuter is that as content become more and more streaming, the internet pipe providers are largely cable companies (Verizon, cox, Comcast etc). This means they can control their operating cost while strangling their competition
Playa is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 08:39 PM   #20
thegrouse
Ten Point
 
thegrouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: San Antonio
Hunt In: Wilson and San Saba County
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Playa View Post
My issue with Net neuter is that as content become more and more streaming, the internet pipe providers are largely cable companies (Verizon, cox, Comcast etc). This means they can control their operating cost while strangling their competition
Which is where an innovative company comes in with satellite or the equivalent and makes billions making the traditional broadband a thing of the past.
thegrouse is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 09:02 PM   #21
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banzai View Post
Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.


Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.
^^^^^^^^

It's like liberal professors and the media perpetuating the myth that Trump is a racist wanting the return of the MOM
Most folks take their word as gospel and run with it.
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 09:59 PM   #22
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by banzai View Post
Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).



Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.



If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.




Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.

That is not an accurate assessment. In fact, it’s close to being 180 degrees from reality.

Net Neutrality has always been opposed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the NCTA, which is the trade group representing incumbent broadband service providers. They have spent millions lobbying against it, and today they are celebrating its reversal.

Also, that Mark Cuban video is a terrible reference.

Last edited by Vermin93; 12-14-2017 at 10:38 PM.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-14-2017, 10:04 PM   #23
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
This is exactly the reason why it was killed. Like it or not, Net Neutrality was one of the good things to come out of that administration. To kill it only further empowers the Internet Service Providers and will strain businesses like SlingTV, Netflix, Hulu and other online-only streaming content providers. This was a big win for big business and establishment cable providers. If you were ever looking to cut the chord on cable, this just made it that much harder.


Glad to see someone here understands the issue.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 12:38 AM   #24
banzai
Eight Point
 
banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
That is not an accurate assessment. In fact, it’s close to being 180 degrees from reality.

Net Neutrality has always been opposed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the NCTA, which is the trade group representing incumbent broadband service providers. They have spent millions lobbying against it, and today they are celebrating its reversal.

Also, that Mark Cuban video is a terrible reference.
The Mark Cuban video is not my reference. The big corporation statements that wish NN was still alive are a lie.

The public statements of Comcast and others in support of NN are focused on current offering and current pricing conditions so they appear to be oriented 180 degrees from my statements. They do not address my statements regarding their position to resist totally new and now unknown technologies.

This is a smoke screen to confuse the non-technical readers who do not look past their own current data plan bills and who going to raise today's bills on whom. They don't know that just a few years ago, a few guys that understood computing could revolutionize daily life with a new technology,and hopefully they would not get sucked in by the long arms of the US Government. The ones big companies want consumers focused on today's issues to confuse them. Look beyond today, this year, and next year.

Current support vs not support discussions from the large corporations only refers to current technology and potential pricing actions in the today context. All current consumer technology is old and obsolete. It does not matter. That is why it is for sale to the mass consumers. That is not the main issue driving the departure from NN. Jai knows the invention killing power of NN and he is stopping it. I hope he survives.

None of the large corporation talking points will refer to existing, but now not widely known new technologies that will potentially make everything we now know, be obsolete. Those new inventions are the big threat to to current hierarchy. Those are the real reasons why big corporations resist the change from the NN that they purchased from Obama.

There is Black Swan tech ready to be released to industry that will return tech advances to their previous advancement rate like the 1990's pace, but it has been held back because they would not sell to a big corp and/or they could not get enough cash to fulfill all the NN requirements. Big corps that been buying them out (and hiding them) and fed regulations that discourage investement have been preventing release to the market. Watch and see over the next few years.

Either way, send me a PM and meet me in Austin and I'll buy you a good steak and some good drinks. I like spending time people who discuss current events.
banzai is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 06:21 AM   #25
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Glad to see someone here understands the issue.
What was wrong with the internet before NN?
As you understand it, why did Obama slid this in before he left?
flywise is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 06:36 AM   #26
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banzai View Post
The Mark Cuban video is not my reference. The big corporation statements that wish NN was still alive are a lie.



The public statements of Comcast and others in support of NN are focused on current offering and current pricing conditions so they appear to be oriented 180 degrees from my statements. They do not address my statements regarding their position to resist totally new and now unknown technologies.



This is a smoke screen to confuse the non-technical readers who do not look past their own current data plan bills and who going to raise today's bills on whom. They don't know that just a few years ago, a few guys that understood computing could revolutionize daily life with a new technology,and hopefully they would not get sucked in by the long arms of the US Government. The ones big companies want consumers focused on today's issues to confuse them. Look beyond today, this year, and next year.



Current support vs not support discussions from the large corporations only refers to current technology and potential pricing actions in the today context. All current consumer technology is old and obsolete. It does not matter. That is why it is for sale to the mass consumers. That is not the main issue driving the departure from NN. Jai knows the invention killing power of NN and he is stopping it. I hope he survives.



None of the large corporation talking points will refer to existing, but now not widely known new technologies that will potentially make everything we now know, be obsolete. Those new inventions are the big threat to to current hierarchy. Those are the real reasons why big corporations resist the change from the NN that they purchased from Obama.



There is Black Swan tech ready to be released to industry that will return tech advances to their previous advancement rate like the 1990's pace, but it has been held back because they would not sell to a big corp and/or they could not get enough cash to fulfill all the NN requirements. Big corps that been buying them out (and hiding them) and fed regulations that discourage investement have been preventing release to the market. Watch and see over the next few years.



Either way, send me a PM and meet me in Austin and I'll buy you a good steak and some good drinks. I like spending time people who discuss current events.

Again...the primary incumbent broadband service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, etc) have not supported the Obama admins’s NN. In fact, Comcast has probably been the biggest corporate opponent to that rendition of NN. They’ve spent millions lobbying for Pai’s FCC decision, and they made that clear again this week with their public statement on the decision. You have half the actors wrong in your review.

“We commend Chairman Pai for his leadership and FCC Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr for their support in adopting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, returning to a regulatory environment that allowed the Internet to thrive for decades by eliminating burdensome Title II regulations and opening the door for increased investment and digital innovation. Today’s action does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers.”
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 07:56 AM   #27
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flywise View Post
What was wrong with the internet before NN?
As you understand it, why did Obama slid this in before he left?
Before NN, ISPs were figuring out that they could affect the online market by speeding up/slowing down or choking off access altogether to sites & content that negatively impacted their business model. Many ISPs (namely Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) have a vested interest in keeping companies such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, from competing with both their cable TV business and online streaming businesses and prior to NN could intentionally slow down access to those sites & content. It is the ISPs hope that the user, frustrated with slow access, constant buffering and lag from those sites would abandon those services and "come back home to cable".

If ISPs didn't control the actual internet infrastructure and were competing solely based on content alone I would have no problem with letting the market work itself out. But that's not the case here. Instead, what we have are a select few gigantic companies who hold the keys to your ability to log online. Without some set of rules in place that tells the ISPs that once they unlock the doors, where you go online is your business, then they can shape your internet experience however they see fit...and worse yet you will probably be unaware that it's even happening.

The NN rules were set in place in February of 2015...a full year and a half before the election and 2 years before he left office (exactly halfway through his second term) so I wouldn't quite couch this as sliding it in as he left

Last edited by JonBoy; 12-15-2017 at 08:19 AM.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 07:58 AM   #28
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermin93 View Post
Again...the primary incumbent broadband service providers (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, etc) have not supported the Obama admins’s NN. In fact, Comcast has probably been the biggest corporate opponent to that rendition of NN. They’ve spent millions lobbying for Pai’s FCC decision, and they made that clear again this week with their public statement on the decision. You have half the actors wrong in your review.

“We commend Chairman Pai for his leadership and FCC Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr for their support in adopting the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, returning to a regulatory environment that allowed the Internet to thrive for decades by eliminating burdensome Title II regulations and opening the door for increased investment and digital innovation. Today’s action does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers.”
To be fair, Comcast has been talking out of both sides of their mouth for quite sometime. They have publicly declared support FOR NN while in the background lobbying with millions of dollars AGAINST NN. It was clear what their real intentions were when they started throwing their money around.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 08:52 AM   #29
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banzai View Post
Net Neutrality treated the internet like a traditionally regulated utility like the old phone company, Ma Bell. It forced all participants to adhere to federal regulations that are tailored to a 2013 level of technology. These rules do not apply to new technologies that are trying to break into the market, and so it will discourage investment and development of new technologies by adding extra cost for no return. That is why Net Neutrality was good for the federal government (taxes, control) and current 800 pound gorillas (AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc).

Net Neutrality was designed by lobbyists, Tech CEO's , and legislators, to prevent new game-changing technology from appearing and making current tech obsolete. What if two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned? The new company would be the new favorite and the old giants would be struggling to catch up. With Net Neutrality rules in place, small companies must follow the federal rules (spend huge money) in order to be in business even though those rules don't apply to the new tech. New start-up companies cannot afford these added costs, so new tech is killed before it can change the world. Investors don't want to spend the millions required by fed regulations just to release one new tech widget hoping it that will sell. If it only takes a few thousand dollars to test release a technology, investors will pay for many more to be produced and it will be a wild west of invention and investment.

If one invention hits big and changes the tech world dynamic (like untraceable international satellite streaming with terabyte data for pennies) all the old companies are running for their lives, the consumer wins and the 800 pound gorillas lose. Net Neutrality is designed to prevent this.


Think about the world changing tech that was brought to the market from the start of the internet around 1994 through 2012. There were many new names and small companies hitting home runs, creating stuff that was not imagined even a few years earlier. After 2013, isn't everything new coming from a giant tech company? Wonder why.
I would really like to know what source you're citing for this because in 2015 the only thing the FCC did was reclassify broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act. This was in response to a 2014 court decision that said the FCC had no authority to enforce (already existing) NN rules as long as ISPs were not identified as common carriers. However the court agreed that the FCC could reclassify broadband as a common carrier and at that point could regulate it.

To your point about NN stifling tech invention let me pose a hypothetical. Say two people in a garage invented something that made fiber optic internet transmission of data that is currently the hot set-up, look slow and old-fashioned. In comes Comcast and sees this as a threat to their market. They do some back-of-the-napkin calculations and decide that it's cheaper to sick their legal team on the two guys the minute those guys try to hook into their infrastructure than it would be to buy them out and modify their own infrastructure to accept the new tech, or better yet, tie the two guys up in court for decades holding up those two guys' attempt at trying to build out their own network. If you think it hasn't happened before, think again: https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/85...ternet-gigabit. Thankfully in this article, under (then) NN rules, Comcast lost and was forced to modify their service offerings to stay competitive thus giving consumers more choice.

The truth is, giant telecoms will not allow the small guy to even dip a toe into their market. They have enough money, power and now backing of the FCC to pretty much do whatever they want.

Last edited by JonBoy; 12-15-2017 at 09:05 AM.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 09:11 AM   #30
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Ok I did a lot of searching and reviewing on this yesterday after my initial post. My opinion is that this was a good decision for the free market economy (to kill NN). The government did not need to step in and force company's who own the ISP's to provide equality despite use. Now that this has been removed it will allow the ISP's to charge per usage and allow competition once again and the drive for new company's to innovate and find cheaper ways to provide using updated technology instead of the technology currently used buy these ISP's. My .02cents

Last edited by Man; 12-15-2017 at 09:13 AM.
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 09:30 AM   #31
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
Ok I did a lot of searching and reviewing on this yesterday after my initial post. My opinion is that this was a good decision for the free market economy (to kill NN). The government did not need to step in and force company's who own the ISP's to provide equality despite use. Now that this has been removed it will allow the ISP's to charge per usage and allow competition once again and the drive for new company's to innovate and find cheaper ways to provide using updated technology instead of the technology currently used buy these ISP's. My .02cents
I would agree with you if this were only a content-based scenario but it's not. The situation we now have would be akin to a company like Walmart, who provides shopping access to consumers, deciding that in addition to giving consumers access to name brand goods that they were going to create and give access to their own brand of groceries (Great Value). Sometime down the line they find it more profitable to either jack up the price for name brand goods (driving consumers to lower priced Great Value options) or pull those name brand products off the shelf altogether. Wait...nevermind...they already do that Where's the competition in that? My 0.02 cents

Here's a recent example of a not-so-small company trying to break into a market with an innovative technology that's meeting quite a bit of legal resistance from the large business establishment: http://www.businessinsider.com/targe...-plans-2017-10
Just one example of many and I can guarantee it happens with web content too.

Last edited by JonBoy; 12-15-2017 at 09:38 AM.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 09:34 AM   #32
Vermin93
Ten Point
 
Vermin93's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Addison, TX
Hunt In: North TX, OK, TN
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
To be fair, Comcast has been talking out of both sides of their mouth for quite sometime. They have publicly declared support FOR NN while in the background lobbying with millions of dollars AGAINST NN. It was clear what their real intentions were when they started throwing their money around.

Comcast saying they support “net neutrality”, while opposing and lobbying against the Title II regulations that were implemented to enforce it, was probably not a bad PR strategy.

Equally disturbing is the lobbying the telco/cable duopoly has done to stifle the development of broadband competition by municipalities, particularly in rural America.
Vermin93 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:34 AM   #33
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
I would agree with you if this were only a content-based scenario but it's not. The situation we now have would be akin to a company like Walmart, who provides shopping access to consumers, deciding that in addition to giving consumers access to name brand goods that they were going to create and give access to their own brand of groceries (Great Value). Sometime down the line they find it more profitable to either jack up the price for name brand goods (driving consumers to lower priced Great Value options) or pull those name brand products off the shelf altogether. Wait...nevermind...they already do that Where's the competition in that? My 0.02 cents
The very thing you are describing is competition! It is the free market! Walmart was purchasing and selling Bills Frying Pan and making 30% margin on it. Then Walmart invests in a sourcing department and creates a frying pan that it brings in and makes 60% margin on because it does not have to invest in marketing dollars, commercials so forth like Bills Frying Pans does.
Now it is up to Bill Frying Pans to re-innovate and find cost savings in order to compete with Walmart and other retailers private label frying pans. Who knows maybe Bills becomes obsolete in the frying pan business and moves on to other ventures where they become competitive again. This is competition.
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:34 AM   #34
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Hey I got an Idea.... Let just let the FBI investigate this to see if it is above board and legit... we can trust them, right???
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:37 AM   #35
Jason
Eight Point
 
Jason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Katy, TX
Hunt In: Nacogdoches/Rusk County
Default

So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.
Jason is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:40 AM   #36
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
The very thing you are describing is competition! It is the free market! Walmart was purchasing and selling Bills Frying Pan and making 30% margin on it. Then Walmart invests in a sourcing department and creates a frying pan that it brings in and makes 60% margin on because it does not have to invest in marketing dollars, commercials so forth like Bills Frying Pans does.
Now it is up to Bill Frying Pans to re-innovate and find cost savings in order to compete with Walmart and other retailers private label frying pans. Who knows maybe Bills becomes obsolete in the frying pan business and moves on to other ventures where they become competitive again. This is competition.
Actually, it's up to Bill Frying Pans to generate the large sums of capital, lobby to re-zone, and grease the contractors to build out a network of stores and distribution chain so that they can have a store to even put their products in. What I was eluding to is when you control the store, its very easy to decide what goes in and out of it. Problem is, the telecoms "own" the infrastructure (even though we the tax payers paid huge chunks of money to build it) and now they want to decide who you the consumer get to access on that network.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:46 AM   #37
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.
Just remember, free market works until a monopoly is formed. The true endgame of unfettered capitalism is not that much different than the true endgame of unfettered socialism...it's just a matter of who controls the money...big business or big government.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:51 AM   #38
kilroy230
Six Point
 
kilroy230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North texas
Hunt In: cooke or anywhere i get to!
Default

To get the government out of the regulating every thing business and let the free market determine the path, always works much better for us.
kilroy230 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:55 AM   #39
banzai
Eight Point
 
banzai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Austin
Hunt In: San Saba
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
So what's the difference in the principal behind net neutrality vs. the Affordable Healthcare Act? To me it boils down to the fact that I am either for free markets or I am not.
This is what the entire debate is about: free markets vs regulation. I am for free markets.

The big corps will pillage and try to maximize their profits, but they will also fight among themselves while smaller companies try every angle to take some profits, too.

Meanwhile, if not restricted by regulations, tech can change in the blink of an eye and old infrastructure can be obsolete and worthless in a day.

Follow the kids. If all us old fogies did, facebook would be broke today, then who would be the next big thing? The kids will find and support the next revolutionary technology and and support it until it dominates if it is good enough. If not, they are always looking and open to new ideas and concepts.

In contrast, we old adults cling to 1931-style telephone utility regulations in hope that we can all have access to affordable fiber broadband from the Big Three that is already obsolete in comparison with what is sitting in labs waiting to be unleashed into a fair and free market.
banzai is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 10:57 AM   #40
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
Actually, it's up to Bill Frying Pans to generate the large sums of capital, lobby to re-zone, and grease the contractors to build out a network of stores and distribution chain so that they can have a store to even put their products in. What I was eluding to is when you control the store, its very easy to decide what goes in and out of it. Problem is, the telecoms "own" the infrastructure (even though we the tax payers paid huge chunks of money to build it) and now they want to decide who you the consumer get to access on that network.
This is what will drive new company's to create and develop technology that will compete with or make obsolete these telecoms current infrastructure.
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:00 AM   #41
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kilroy230 View Post
To get the government out of the regulating every thing business and let the free market determine the path, always works much better for us.
Not trying to be argumentative but remember that regulations such as Fair Labor Standards Act got us things like an 8 hour workday and the weekend. Without those kinds of regulations we'd still be working in horrid conditions, dealing with child labor issues and probably wouldn't have half the time luxuries we do today.

Although my participation in this thread seems contrary, I actually tend to lean towards less regulation and less government intrusion. BUT I do recognize the fact that SOME regulations are a necessary evil because frankly, when push comes to shove, businesses can't be trusted to always "do the right thing".
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:01 AM   #42
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
This is what will drive new company's to create and develop technology that will compete with or make obsolete these telecoms current infrastructure.
I don't disagree but they have to be allowed to get it to market first. If they're cut off from the get go then all the innovation in the world won't matter.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:11 AM   #43
kilroy230
Six Point
 
kilroy230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North texas
Hunt In: cooke or anywhere i get to!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post
Hey I got an Idea.... Let just let the FBI investigate this to see if it is above board and legit... we can trust them, right???
Of course we can trust them it's not like they have become a political arm of the left to cover up their crimes and destroy their opposition. 😉
kilroy230 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:16 AM   #44
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
I don't disagree but they have to be allowed to get it to market first. If they're cut off from the get go then all the innovation in the world won't matter.
Thats what I am not understanding...where are they being cut off at now that we will killed NN? Obama did not take away ownership he just forced equality?
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:31 AM   #45
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
Thats what I am not understanding...where are they being cut off at now that we will killed NN? Obama did not take away ownership he just forced equality?
NN forced the hands of ISPs to treat content online equally...meaning no throttling, no content filtering, no premium charging for content was allowed. Now that those rules have been rescinded, ISPs can do any and all of that including blocking access to online content from competitors or charging their customers extra for access to content they deem "premium"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 11:36 AM   #46
Neck
Ten Point
 
Neck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Danbury, TX
Hunt In: DeWitt County
Default

Do you believe the internet is a right that you are entitled to?
Neck is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 12:01 PM   #47
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neck View Post
Do you believe the internet is a right that you are entitled to?
No. But neither is electricity or clean water and we regulate the access, quality and distribution of those.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Last edited by JonBoy; 12-15-2017 at 12:04 PM.
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 12:10 PM   #48
Part Timer
Six Point
 
Part Timer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Huffman, TX
Hunt In: Cleveland, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
NN forced the hands of ISPs to treat content online equally...meaning no throttling, no content filtering, no premium charging for content was allowed. Now that those rules have been rescinded, ISPs can do any and all of that including blocking access to online content from competitors or charging their customers extra for access to content they deem "premium"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
This is where i dont get it. This is not any different than what cable companies are doing right now. No one complains about that. Its the exact same. Select channels, select packages, one channel here, HBO there. so on and so on. It creates competition between companies to provide certain things their customers want. Free Market. Its only a problem now, because they set it up wrong in the first place, and now see they can make more money doing it this way. Again, free market. Dont like it? dont buy it? People stop buying it, prices change, drop, more websites get added, and the list goes on. Its customer driven. Free market. There is not ONLY one ISP. there is a lot, and could be a lot more out of this.

You dont have a right to unlimited internet. its not a necessity. I argued with a guy for an hour about that yesterday. You will not die without internet. It makes life easier, sure, but thats it.
Part Timer is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 12:12 PM   #49
Part Timer
Six Point
 
Part Timer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Huffman, TX
Hunt In: Cleveland, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonBoy View Post
No. But neither is electricity or clean water and we regulate the access, quality and distribution of those.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
You CAN die without clean water and electricity........You CANT die without internet. Its just not possible.
Part Timer is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 12-15-2017, 12:13 PM   #50
JonBoy
Ten Point
 
JonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Hunt In: Mason, TX; Doss, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Part Timer View Post
You CAN die without clean water and electricity........You CANT die without internet. Its just not possible.
I completely agree but you also CAN die without proper healthcare but plenty on here will tell you that's not a right.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
JonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com