-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttslinger
ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.
His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.
As I understand it this rule will just make it difficult and slow to get on google or gmail if your Provider has an interest with Microsoft, say. When they hook up cable to your house, it comes wide open. It costs them (
you) money to block the good channels so you will pay them more. This is more of that.
I have most of my utilities automatically paid because they are so regulated, no way would they cheat me. But not Verizon, they will rob you blind if you don't keep an eye on them.
And yet when the 2020 elections come around somehow everything he has done will be the Democrats fault and all of the ones that he has hurt will vote from him again, I find it funny as to how 'Christians" actually believe that Republicans are going to stop abortions. That will never happen simply because it is the major talking point that they have for that entire voting block. What are they going to do once that is gone. Tell the "Christians" that God wants them to make to rich richer??
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. - A. Fayser
It is not going to come back. The only way is forward and it is not democracy...
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrFanti
It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...
But we know where free market control ends up. More money in the pockets of business and less money in the pocket of the working class
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luvzbig1s
But we know where free market control ends up. More money in the pockets of business and less money in the pocket of the working class
Depends....look at what happened to deregulation of the US Airlines......It opened up more business opportunities and jobs. You sank or floated depending upon how business savvy you were...
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttslinger
ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money from the middle and lower class to the rich donors. Trust that law like Newton trusted Gravity.
His white trash supporters will be among those hurt worst.
This isn’t a personal attack, but...
Don’t kid yourself. Poverty and inequality expanded under Obama. I say that as a Stein supporter not a Trumper
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02...ls-are-higher/
Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight
Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flabbybody
can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest
very true..indeed
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
instead of net neutrality ..they should give out some extra benefit plans :party:
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
The problem in my view with this issue is it gets thrown together with overall political beliefs for many people. Some people are praising Trump saying by pushing for this he is a man of his word others are pointing out they believe completely the opposite; but really rather than backing one political side overall just look at the issue on its own and anyone with a logical mind can see Steven's explanation of how things work makes the most sense.
As Steven much more eloquently put here in the UK we have some competition (it is actually hampered somewhat by one company being in control of most of the infrastructure repairs but we have a selection of providers to choose from in most areas regardless); currently European laws enforce neutrality and we also have access to varied and competitive pricing, speeds and data allowances. In the USA certain companies hold a monopoly over infrastructure and supply in major areas and the customer has no real choice between competing offerings of price, speed or data allowances but instead in many cases has to settle for what they can get with no real options to change supplier or negotiate on price. Currently quite clearly one of these is good and one is bad.
Ended neutrality in the USA under these conditions doesn't enable a more competitive market for the consumer it creates a more monopolised market for the supplier and in that circumstance all customers (regardless of in what way, for exactly what service or which websites you like to visit) will pay more. Don't be fooled into thinking ending neutrality is a progressive step towards a fairer market or access or whatever it isn't.
In simpler terms.. Image a world where everyone really likes muffins in fact they are addicted to them. Some people think that everyone should be allowed to bake muffins but some others think that if one person just happens to own all the ovens in their city then of course they should be the only person allowed to bake muffins; so we should change the law and let them charge whatever they want for muffins right? And if one person likes muffins more than another well they can make that person pay more for their muffins of course.. doesn't sound so bad really does it, it's progressive sort of and fair (I know just put up with my bad analogy)? Of course no one person is going to own all the ovens in a city anyhow, in fact I bet loads of people will invest in ovens because that's how free markets work.
OH... apparently not.. actually 2 people own all the ovens and have divided up where the ovens are really neatly so they don't get in each others' way and now muffins... well they cost a fucking fortune. And you know how some people can only eat stuff that is gluten free or sugar free or are allergic to other ingredients well you'll never believe this but because they want something extra or different their muffins cost even more. Didn't see that coming..
(for anyone who wants to point out "everyone owns an oven"; use your imagination - in muffin law world they don't they can't afford one as someone else bought them all. Much like in net-neutrality abolished world not everyone will be able to afford to get online either at all or fully. But hey in a country where some people think free at the point of service but tax payer funded state-provided health-care for seriously ill people is wrong nothing surprises me).
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torris
Quote:
Originally Posted by
buttslinger
ANYTHING done during this administration's term will be done to redistribute money....[/CENTER]
Don’t kid yourself. Poverty and inequality expanded under Obama.
Yeah, in states with Republican Governors.
Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
I was really shocked when I first heard that Republicans didn't like being talked down to.
It's a debate!! Don't take it personally that Bush wrecked the economy of the entire world!!
Hannity does nothing but trash liberals. Like a child would.
Look at any Trump Rally.
How can you think anything but "white trash?"
Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight
Hillary lost in part because Conservative Media has targeted her ENEMY NUMBER ONE for twenty years.
Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
I disagree. It was the racists.
I hear where you're coming from, all my Mom's family live down South, and if I grew up and lived there I would probably agree 100% to everything you say. PRIDE can be a tough sin to swallow.
I confess I have no idea how net neutrality will affect my world or THE world. I'm pretty stupid. In fact I have a disability that limits the bloodflow to my brain.
But I do know that Trump is trying to undo everything Obama did not for Joe Sixpack, he's doing it for Daddy Warbucks.
Why don't you guys come down to the politics section?
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Re: Trump voters.
I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?
Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quite a few Sanders supporters voted Trump instead of Hillary.
Democrats need to figure how to get those folks back too....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torris
Re: Trump voters.
I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?
Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torris
Re: Trump voters.
I think the goal for the Democrats in 2020 is this. How do you get the people - like my Mom and Sister - who voted for Obama in 2008 but unrepentantly voted for Trump to go back to the Democrats?
Calling those voters stupid and racist is not the way forward.
Presumably in the same way that Democrats who voted for Reagan switched back when they voted for Bill Clinton. The Democrats need candidates that inspire, that give hope, that have coherent policy alternatives.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flabbybody
can't this just be about fair priceing for internet service....
shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
Yes, in a perfect world there should be more competition for consumers, but that ain't happening anytime soon since building a start-from-scratch wifi platform would take about $500 million dollars minimum. Elon Musk wants to go to the moon, not invest in the next Spectrum
Let's agree that net neutrality helps no one. put it to rest
There are a number of conflicting issues here.
The basic principle behind net neutrality, as I understand it, is that a consumer should be able to access web content equally regardless of the number of times a site is visited and the bandwidth needed to access it. For example, under net neutrality it makes no difference to the cost of the service provided by the ISP if Dave in Spokane reads the main newspapers every day but only reads his friend John Doe's blog once a month.
Here are some of the arguments:
1) Increased revenue after the end of net neutrality will be used to invest in the service.
What the ISPs opposed to net neutrality want is to charge more for popular websites that eat up bandwidth adding to the cost of the service, if that is actually the case. In this way, the commercial gain from the increased revenue will pay for the ongoing investment in the service, a standard argument across industry but not one that is always realised in fact. Increased profits may just go to the senior execs in bonus payments or the shareholders/stockholders. What would investment look like? Capital expenditure on the basic infrastructure is so high it is hard to see Comcast or Verizon spending a Billion $ to open new lines to consumers in rural areas of Washington and Oregon.
2) Ending Net Neutrality will improve competition between rival ISPs
As has been pointed out in posts above, ending net neutrality does not increase competition if that is defined as the consumer having more ISPs to choose from, as the reality for most Americans is that such competition does not exist, the market being dominated by only a few companies with consumers unable to switch if they don't like the service from one, because the alternative ISP has no feed in that area.
3) Ending Net Neutrality is about monetizing clicks not offering a better service
The aim behind the end of net neutrality is to make more money from the internet, it is as simple as that. As flabbybody puts it -shouldn't a 24/7 gamer and Netflix hog pay a premium for signal speed versus the occasional websurffer checking their emails?
It is a clever question, but it assumes that there is a coherent and fair way of grading internet content and that the system's consumption of speed/bandwidth and related issues should be the measures used to determine price.
This may be a valid technological point, but is it morally a fair one?
I don't use up bandwidth to play internet games, but I may check the BBC website and online newspapers every hour when I am awake and the original point I was making was that if the ISP uses/develops the software to monitor web browsing to estimate the commercial gain, and notes how many times a day I visit HungAngels, the end of net neutrality could, in theory (if I lived in the USA), lead them to ask me to pay more to visit this site rather than others even though I am already paying more for internet access in the USA than I do in the UK.
In the end it would not in fact be about the speeds or bandwidth but the choices consumers make. And people asked to pay for every site they visit may choose not to, either because they resent being asked to pay for something that used to be free, or because they can only afford a limited number of websites. This in turn may hurt the smaller independent owners of sites rather than the TV streaming or music-streaming sites. With no constant revenue coming in to help fund the content, independent performers of the kind we know on HungAngels would shut down.
One final point -some consumers may be complaining about slow speeds when it is their ageing computer that is at fault not the ISP; but my conclusion is that in the absence of real competition among ISPs in the USA, net neutrality protects the consumer, and ending it does not guarantee a better service for them, merely higher profits for corporations.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torris
Keep calling his voters white trash. That’s how Hillary lost in 2016. Name calling the Deplorables only strengthens their resolve - as “victims” to smug Liberal elitists on either coast.
Off-topic, but since many of those same “deplorables” are defending pedophiles such as Roy Moore and accused rapists such as trump himself, what SHOULD we call them?
Quote:
Trump’s success in pointing out how rich Liberals are screwing over Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat doesn’t even need to be true or accurate to be effective for the have nots looking for someone to blame for their plight.
Oh and the rich conservatives are actually gonna help Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat with that “tax cut” and taking away their health insurance? How are those coal jobs coming? Who’s paying for that wall? Certainly not Mexico.
Quote:
Condescension is the Liberal’s reaction and that’s how he wins. And one more thing. It wasn’t white trash who elected Trump it was married white women and people making over 100k a year.
White trash DID help elect trump. So did voter suppression.
Oh...and using liberal as an insult? My thesaurus suggest these synonyms: tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, easy-going, laissez-faire.
Ok, I must be a liberal. At least I didn’t vote for a narcissistic, xenophobic, Nazi-supporting, pedophile-defending liar who whines when he doesn’t get his way. Never thought I’d see an orange snowflake.
And back on topic: that extra money the ISPs will be making from the increased costs passed on to the customer will NOT go into improving the existing infrastructure; it’ll most likely go straight into their pockets or an off-shore account. Free-market, baby.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.
Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.
Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.
Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrFanti
It all boils down to if you want federal government control or free market control over businesses...
Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Capitalism always needs rules of the road.
Otherwise it cannibalizes itself.
How many layers should the rules be? Look all the rules in North Korea, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union....
Britain wasn't too happy with the EU either....And the USA wasn't too happy with Britain in about 1776 or so....
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.
Attachment 1040736
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben in LA
it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
delhiguy
it could be different..whats the point
these are politiians
The point is that killing net neutrality will insure what he was scared Obama would do could happen: silence one viewpoint so that the other can reach more individuals. Kinda like what Sinclair Broadcasting wants to do (look it up).
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben in LA
Can someone please explain to me what trump is talking about
in this tweet? it sure appears to be different than what he’s saying nowadays.
There is a simple explanation Ben, -he never understood what Net Neutrality means, as is also argued here-
The tweet suggested that, as of November 2014, Trump did not know what “net neutrality” meant. The Fairness Doctrine, eliminated in 1987, was an FCC regulation that required television broadcasters to air multiple perspectives on controversial topics. The now-defunct doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality, which requires internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally, and does not regulate a website’s content, conservative or otherwise.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald...net-neutrality
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.
and what made you think that they will not block certain sites ?
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed. That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.
The point for the people in the states is that there is no competitive free market it is as simple as that. Once you remove any regulation from a market that is almost 100% monopolised to start with those companies are just given an even firmer grip on what they have control of; they will be able to increase costs and use all sorts of justifications for it (including collaboration to keep prices static once they have increased costs to make sure in the places where supplier switching is an option it just doesn't happen). Meanwhile the new competitors that could have rivalled them are so far behind in terms of infrastructure investment that it will be an age before they can catch up.
Take the current UK household energy supply market as a comparison. Currently there are a "big 6" soon to be 5 it seems that dominate the market; regulation is relatively weak (shockingly 4 of these companies are owned by European firms and SSE may soon merge with one of those) prices fluctuate a little but the general trend is that consumers in the UK pay a hell of a lot more for their energy than consumers in the USA for example. For years there have been rumblings and discussions that price-fixing and collusion exist between these companies and they have all been also been strongly opposed to the changes introduced (easier supplier switching for example) and the possibility of increased government legislation that could set a price caps or at least protect the consumer from unjustified price rises. I don't know anyone here who is strongly behind the idea of removing laws that would make these companies stronger that would simply be insane.
Yes as you have said "less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation" but sometimes we need that bureaucracy (correctly focused of course) to stop huge corporations ripping us off. The little bit of tax we all might pay could actually save us a hell of a lot more in the long run particularily when you include products that have become almost 100% necessary for people to earn a living or survive. Much like electricity which most normal businesses need in order to operate competitively priced internet access has become a must have for many businesses over the last few years; they simply wouldn't be able to trade were they priced out it by glaringly crazy costs from market dominating providers. I've read some of your posts where you compare people's views to communist if they oppose the end of neutrality; I'm sorry but you are clearly misguided on the issue and are overstating peoples' desire for fair and healthy competition as communist. It's not a perfect comparison but in USA where reduced legislation would mean 1 or 2 companies could dominate and control the supply of something a consumer needed that sounds a hell of a lot more like a totalitarian (parallels with communism) existence than a free market to me.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Seems like these threads always get down to US v. THEM, maybe if the Spanish Catholics had landed on Plymouth Rock everything would be different, our nature is our nature.
My 8th grade teacher explained pure capitalism as:
"If I give everyone in class a gas station in September, by next June one kid will own all the gas stations"
Before Henry Fonda started the Unions, nobody owned a house, because there was no such thing as job security.
It does all come down to where you draw the line, and I think Gerrymandering is criminal.
I also blame Conservative Media for all this shit. I saw Judge Janine blasting Democrats for sexual misconduct the other night, Fox News is the definition of sexual misconduct, fuckin Roger Ailes.
It really doesn't matter what Net Neutrality says, if it's even vaguely legal, some businessman is going to middleman himself in-between you and your internet and become a billionaire.
Same with the new tax code.......Tax break for the middle class?...gimme a break.
It's all up to Mueller and his team of Untouchables now-
TRUTH TO POWER!!!
Or, as Jimi Hendrix said
"the power of love trumps the love of power"
Generally I think if you can talk someone into something you can talk them out of it, but I swear, Conservative Media has brainwashed so many minds over so long a period via pure propaganda, as was said a few posts back, these people will continue to vote against their own interests time after time.
Eisenhower had to march the German Civilians through the Concentration Camps after WWII because he believed they would say it never happened if he didn't.
How can anyone on HUNG ANGELS champion the Conservative Media???
FUCK TRUMP!!!!!
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
Why do most of you guys even think that scrapping a useless law is bad? Less bureaucracy, less officials, should mean less taxation. And what on earth even makes you believe that scrapping the law is going to make ISPs block certain sites? It is every ISPs job to provide you access to data in general, at a certain speed.
The purpose of the 'useless law' (actually, a regulation) is to ensure what you're saying there. Without that rule in place, there's nothing requiring the ISPs to do that. The reason people think they will start slowing or even blocking sites is the same reason that the rule was put in place to begin with; it was because the ISPs *did* do things like block sites in order to shake them down for money, and the rule was instated to make sure they did not, so that everyone's data would be treated equally.
http://adage.com/article/media/comca...-meter/302395/
Now that the rule is being removed, they'll probably be back to doing it. I think they are also more likely to shake down companies selling services over the internet than their customers, because it's less visible and they can shift the blame for their poor service over to those companies.
So, no, from a consumer perspective, the law is not 'useless' by any stretch. It also doesn't really require any additional government 'bureaucracy' or 'red tape' to maintain. If they are found to be in violation, the affected parties are likely to report it.
On the other hand, the companies would be likely require additional corporate bureaucracy in order to manage their efforts at providing customers a worse service so that they can earn more money. In other words: Someone would get jobs to make things worse for everyone but the ISPs.
Quote:
That speed depends on the ISPs infrastructure and infrastructure of hosting companies the sites you want to visit use, and any infrastructure in between. It does not matter to the ISPs which sites you visit. It is also not possible for them to speed up your connection to a site hosted on a shitty server in someone's basement. It is completely not in an ISPs interest to block or slow down your connection, especially in a competitive free market.
But we aren't even talking about a competitive free market. We're talking about the United States, which does not have a competitive free market in ISP services, and is unlikely to get that in any near future. They are acting like they do because they are engaging in rent-seeking feudal behavior, not in free market capitalist competition. The U.S. needs to do what the EU has done to create more competition.
The present net neutrality framework hasn't stifled competition, innovation or investment. It was put in place a couple of years ago because of the way the ISPs were using their local monopolies. The market was just as shitty before that, and the rule was designed to prevent the ISPs from abusing their market dominance.
As for why there isn't competition and it isn't a free market, imagine the following example: A 'town' with four households and two ISPs. Each ISP has two customers. Each ISP has wires going to two houses. If they want to try to take the other ISP's customers, they must first put in place new cables to each house. That's expensive. And if one of them start doing it, the other one can do so too. The end result will either be (1) that one drives the other out of business, becoming a monopoly; or, more likely (2) that customers cross over, but both end up with two, and all they've achieved is spending a lot on putting in place new cables and probably lowering their prices, causing a double loss.
Now imagine that the whole of the U.S. is that town of four, dominated by two giant ISPs. They have no interest in competing too hard with each other. And it's a huge market which is far too expensive for any outside entity to compete in, apart from possibly on a local scale.
In general, the purpose of net neutrality is to protect consumers and to maintain the internet as being open to people in general. Net neutrality is the opposite of what they're doing in China and other repressive regimes where the internet is being heavily censored. The removal of net neutrality as will take place in the U.S. will actually enable corporations to censor or manipulate the internet. First and foremost to make more money, not for political ends, though it would theoretically be possible for them to do so and they might even do it if it makes them more money. ('Nope, the only news site you can get to with this ISP is Breitbart/Huffington Post.')
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben in LA
I believe Trump has dementia. Not to excuse his behavior. Supposedly he spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling that they won’t accept him as legit
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JerzeyBtm
Internet Service Providers are more concerned with "data transfer" since that is their primary overhead. I'm sure if they were going to slow anyone's internet down it would be of those who consume large downloads of videos and software. I can't see them slowing down someone who looks at HA since it's of no threat to their expense.
Could this lead to non-profit ISP’s?
If Verizon and Comcast engage in throttling would that open up opportunities for an ISP that offers a Pre-2018 era net experience?
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Torris
... he [Trump] spends his days in his pajamas watching cable news and howling ...
The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.
————
Back on thread. Remember the internet is far from neutral already, and neither it is a single homogenous network. The original ARPA net design (which I remember ...) would simply not handle the traffic today, and thus the emergence of ‘border gateways’ and internet exchange points that wormhole between parts of the internet. These are concentrated around the major cities. In EU it is London, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Dublin to a lesser extent. similarly the US.
It is these IXP or wormholes, and the routes they advertise that underpin the fast ‘super highway’ that we have today,and why the tube sites actually work fast enough. Although these exchanges have to be neutral, they are NOT neutral in what infrastructure they connect. Rather like building a three lane motorway to one shopping centre (Facebook, google, AWS, Azure etc) or distribution park (e.g. Akamai) and leaving a dirt track to another: the road itself is neutral, but the road builders are not. Which is why facebook and google etc are building their own infrastructure. This is how telcos can offer ‘free Netflix’ or other ‘go binge’ type deals.
Question is if anyone has deep enough pockets to make a real difference?
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
giovanni_hotel
Memo to the idiotic, Hillary WON the popular vote by 3 million. There are no more voters for the Dems to get, and they sure as hell don't need to spend an ounce of time trying to convince Trumpers why they should vote Democratic.
Hillary lost 3 key battleground states by less than a total of 80,000 votes, which is due more to GOP voter suppression and voter nullification, not some ideological shift in America.
Anyone who seriously voted for Trump without investigating who the candidate was only did so because they thought the presidential election was an episode of one of his reality TV shows.
Oh, and they were sick of seeing a Black guy as president of the United States.
Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
luvzbig1s
Actually you are wrong Hillary got a little over 26% of the total voting public while Trump got slightly less in other words only about 52% of those people who are voting age and can vote did while 48% didn't As for the rest of your post you are quite correct indeed
Hillary won the popular vote AMONG THOSE WHO DECIDED TO VOTE by 3 million.
Is that specific enough for you??
Everyone knows in the USA a major percentage of eligible voters simply choose not to vote.
If 90+% of all Americans voted in general elections, no Republican would ever get elected POTUS.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
[QUOTE=skirtrustler;1804284]The evidence for that I would love to see, I will file it next to the (alleged) kompromat of him pissing on a bed in a Russian hotel suite.
/QUOTE]
The allegation is that it was the Prostitutes in the hotel room who pissed on the bed Obama had slept in.
Rest of your post an interesting angle to the debate.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
The fact that it is in their interest to provide you with the best "internet experience" which includes access to any site you want to see. Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.
There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1804340]
Unless, of course you have silly laws made by communist politicians who do not want you to see certain stuff and know generally everything better than you or any ISP director.
--Where do you stand on child pornography, or websites dedicated to using violence to overthrow a government and giving zealots instructions/guidance on the best way to kill lots of people?
There is no need to regulate the market. It works best without regulation, on the basis of contracts between consumers and providers.
--What happens when the market fails, or when providers so monopolise the market consumers have no choice and no protection from any malpractice by those providers?
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites with content of that type just like content to any other website. If you are a paedophile or an eager firebrand then you may indeed be in favour of keeping net neutrality in power.
There is nothing wrong with a monopoly that delivers satisfactory services. As soon as there appears a group of people who require something else, emerge new companies who meet that group's needs. Free market does not fail consumers - ever. In fascist or other communist states it is regulations that are in the way of those new companies and it is regulations that prevent them from appearing. Regulation halts competition and lack of competition is a direct reason for lack of development.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
I suppose it's all a matter of balance between personal freedom and protecting the innocent. Have to hope the people enforcing it have the same ideology and don't abuse it.
-
Re: Could the end of Net Neutrality end your access to Hung Angels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ts RedVeX
If "net neutrality" makes ISPs treat all traffic equally then they must treat traffic to websites ... just like content to any other website.
This is indeed true, the ISP may be neutral but if they Connect to IXP that are connected better to content provider X than content provider Y then the result is that users will get a better experience of X than Y.
This also provides the opportunity for the ISP to offer traffic to X at a discount to Y. This is how it works today. It is just that some traffic is better ‘connected’: thus users are getting some services either free or with higher performance.
Issue is that the IXP are expensive to set up and run, and under current rules have little flexibility in how they recover their costs for the bulk (streaming video) traffic. The interconnection of IXP is also a mess. One aspect of the net neutrality discussion is to enable these IXP to recover their costs and structure their interconnect proportional to the traffic that is driving their capacity: I.e. free streaming video will suffer, while bulk traffic paying an interconnect exchange fee will get priority.
What this is likely to mean is that paid for video content will get priority over ‘free content’, and thus we can expect the advertising driven free porn site xhamster / pornhub model to be challenged or have to forego 4K video quality, while ‘free Netflix 4K bandwidth’ type models to rise. I doubt that any of us will notice anything other than more free video bundles.
