Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

Net Neutrality
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=109627
Page 2 of 2

Author:  IkeSouth [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

it wont matter unless they ban use of VPN's

I dont see how they can do that, because businesses large and small rely on VPN connections... but I would have to imagine that is the end game.

As long as VPN's are legal, you can circumvent whatever deregulation happens. What sucks though, is this 'deregulation' is actually removing non-regulation in a sense. The law says right now, the internet must be universal and equal to everyone... the 'freedom' law is actually meant to allow companies to dictate what you get for what price they want.

Author:  Chus [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Ted Cruz said that net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.

Author:  Terry's Peeps [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Chus wrote:
Ted Cruz said that net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.


Sounds like he has a firm grasp of the situation.

Author:  pittmike [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Chus wrote:
Ted Cruz said that net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet.


Then the left will love it!

Author:  Darkside [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Please don't quote infowars.

Author:  IkeSouth [ Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

when will people realize the federal republicans are nothing more than shills for big corporations?

i know some dems are too, but we are talking like 80% of republicans and maybe 20% of dems. the difference is yuge.

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
This may be the worst anti-consumer government maneuver in decades. I can't believe they are getting away with this. The internet is one of the great innovations of our time and our government, mostly Republicans, are willing to let corporations bastardize the whole thing with hilarious promises like it will result in more innovation and investment in infrastructure. I would hope that it is partially because our politicians are old and out of touch on technology to the point where it is more ignorance than it is actually working against the good of 99% of the country. Internet should be treated like a utility and public good and these type of rules that allow our internet service to be segmented and sold should be gone.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Image

Author:  Darkside [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

A series of tubes?

Author:  Don Tiny [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Darkside wrote:
A series of tubes?

:lol:
That's from a long time ago .... it's hilarious.

That phrase even has it's on Wikipedia page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Author:  Chus [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

I didn't quote infowars, I quoted Ted Cruz.

Image

Author:  KDdidit [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Chus wrote:
I didn't quote infowars, I quoted Ted Cruz.

Image


I assume he's talking about Panther

Author:  Darkside [ Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Chus wrote:
I didn't quote infowars, I quoted Ted Cruz.

Image

I was talking to panther. But really, if you were ever tempted to quote info wars yourself, please don't.

Author:  Panther pislA [ Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:
Pro–Net Neutrality Graphic Makes Argument Against Net Neutrality

Image

Do net neutrality advocates fear consumer choice?
Ed Krayewski|Nov. 22, 2017 3:31 pm

When I realized it was supposed to be from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a prominent advocate of net neutrality, I thought maybe it was a clever hoax. But no, he tweeted that gem out yesterday.

In the upper portion of the graphic, bundled internet appears for $54.99. In the lower, post–net neutrality world, internet service is divided into specific uses one can opt in or out of. The total price is $54.96. Khanna's graphic even appears to depict an option where that price could be even lower, if you use only one streaming service or social media network.

That this is shared as an argument for net neutrality boggles the mind. Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media. They could see serious savings if internet access were sold piecemeal like this.

Regardless, the entire graphic is a fantasy. The kinds of additional consumer choices a net neutrality–free market might offer are thwarted by other government regulations and government-enforced monopolies

But we don't have to imagine what a world without "net neutrality" regulations look like. You just have to remember what 2014 was like.

The concept of net neutrality is often poorly understood. The "open internet order" promulgated by then-President Barack Obama was not based on the same principles laid out by law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term network neutrality. For Wu, it was obvious that "a total ban on network discrimination...would be counterproductive," but that's what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did in 2015, as Andrea O'Sullivan pointed out in Reason. It's impossible to say exactly what kind of innovations such rules are thwarting, because they're being thwarted.

"Under my proposal," commission chair Ajit Pai noted yesterday, "the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate." Sounds like a good start.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-n ... es-argumen

Author:  sinicalypse [ Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

net neutrality > net ownitallity

Author:  Crystal Lake Hoffy [ Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Net Neutrality

So I don't know any more than Brick on this one, but a few things to add here. Don, my best guess for the reason that you aren't hearing much out of the likes of Google and Amazon is this. AT&T has already partnered with Amazon, specifically their cloud provider service Amazon Web Services. AWS has grown massively. They are far and away the biggest cloud provider and all kinds of fortune 500 companies have moved their websites to run on it's infrastructure either partially or in full. As recent as the end of last year, AT&T partnered with AWS (http://fortune.com/2016/10/06/att-amazon-cloud/). I wonder if we eventually will hit a point where the providers like AT&T will use these partnerships with Amazon and Microsoft to enforce the type of packaging and restrictions being discussed as the negatives in the Net Neutrality argument. AT&T could go so far as to say, "if you don't run on AWS infrastructure, you won't be considered verified / secured and we won't serve your content." Will this happen? Who knows. I could be totally wrong, but if I'm Amazon, that approach would assure I can destroy the remaining competition in the cloud space. In turn, AT&T has a much easier and less costly way to implement packaging and restrictions. AWS could be the one that implements these features rather than AT&T. AT&T just defines the rules.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/