This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

You asked for cases of abuse by internet providers before 2015. I gave you one.

www.dailydot.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

You asked for cases of abuse by internet providers.

www.dailydot.com...

All to do with infrastructure, which net-neutrality did not force ISPs to upgrade. And under net-neutrality ISPs were still able to throttle specific categories for “reasonable traffic management measures”. The same goes for the EU's version of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No matter the argument or the complaint, the idea that government regulation is the answer is fundamentally absurd. Net Neutrality is a euphemism for government regulated internet.

How? How do you immediately sum up what I was attempting to convey with two sentences. I'm awestruck and my hat is off to you.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

All to do with infrastructure

No.

2. Verizon blocks pro-choice text messages

3. Verizon blocks tethering apps

4. AT&T blocks Apple’s FaceTime

6. Comcast’s Xbox data-cap exemption

a reply to: JinMI

Is that what you were trying to say? Because it's wrong. Net neutrality is the opposite of government regulated internet.

It is however, government regulation of internet providers. Regulation which limits the ability for internet providers to regulate the internet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

All to do with infrastructure

No.

2. Verizon blocks pro-choice text messages

3. Verizon blocks tethering apps

4. AT&T blocks Apple’s FaceTime

6. Comcast’s Xbox data-cap exemption

Yes. All but number 2. To say otherwise is..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Is that what you were trying to say? Because it's wrong. Net neutrality is the opposite of government regulated internet.

It is however, government regulation of internet providers. Regulation which limits the ability for internet providers to regulate the internet.

Who regulates the regulators?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

3)

The company’s effort to block third-party tethering apps apparently arose from fears that such apps could allow users to tether without paying the fee. Google was exempted from any sort of regulatory action from the FCC because the company existed outside of the agency’s jurisdiction to oversee ISPs.

Infrastructure? No. Fees.

4)

AT&T was initially defiant, claiming it was doing nothing wrong. But the company eventually backed off and began allowing FaceTime, as well as all other video chat apps, to operate on its network by the conclusion of the following year.

Infrastructure or fees?

a reply to: Phage

No, it's not.

Swapping around what the regulate is still regulation. If you wish to claim that there should be a basic internet service that is completely neutral and essentially free based on past subsidies of taxpayers, I would agree. If you wish for a wide open and free internet using an infrastructure that was not payed for by tax payers, then you're essentially allowing the government to seize property.

I realize mine is not the popular opinion. Fine. Where was what is clearly the majorities representation?

This is largely a free market problem.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Is that what you were trying to say? Because it's wrong. Net neutrality is the opposite of government regulated internet.

It is however, government regulation of internet providers. Regulation which limits the ability for internet providers to regulate the internet.

Who regulates the regulators?

Do you agree with military regulations?
Do agree with police regulations?
These regulations have to do with forming a military and police to regulate citizens and enemies.

a reply to: JinMI

Do you think your telephone company should be able to determine who you can talk to? Because Title II says they can't do that.

Why is an ISP different?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Net neutrality is the opposite of government regulated internet.

It is however, government regulation of internet providers. Regulation which limits the ability for internet providers to regulate the internet.

Exactly.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

3)

The company’s effort to block third-party tethering apps apparently arose from fears that such apps could allow users to tether without paying the fee. Google was exempted from any sort of regulatory action from the FCC because the company existed outside of the agency’s jurisdiction to oversee ISPs.

Not infrastructure.

4)

AT&T was initially defiant, claiming it was doing nothing wrong. But the company eventually backed off and began allowing FaceTime, as well as all other video chat apps, to operate on its network by the conclusion of the following year.

Infrastructure?

3) Yes fees. Fees to maintain the infrastructure.

4)

AT&T’s explanation was that usage of the app on its network was eating up so much bandwidth that the network couldn’t keep up with demand, and restricting the app’s use to people who signed up for that more expensive plan would reduce the strain on its network infrastructure.

So yes.

I think you know more about global warming than you do about how bandwidth and infrastructure works.

a reply to: Phage

No, and I would switch telephone companies, or not use the telephone should that be the case.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

Is that what you were trying to say? Because it's wrong. Net neutrality is the opposite of government regulated internet.

It is however, government regulation of internet providers. Regulation which limits the ability for internet providers to regulate the internet.

Who regulates the regulators?

Do you agree with military regulations?
Do agree with police regulations?
These regulations have to do with forming a military and police to regulate citizens and enemies.

Apples and oranges.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Yes fees. Fees to maintain the infrastructure.

How did this increase their maintenance costs?

So yes.

So why did they accede?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Phage

No, and I would switch telephone companies, or not use the telephone should that be the case.

The thing is, if an ISP does this, you can change your DNS, or get a VPn for a couple bucks a month. That's what people in China have to do because of how regulated the internet is

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Phage

No, and I would switch telephone companies, or not use the telephone should that be the case.

What if it was the internet instead of a phone provider?

What if you only had one option for a service provider based upon where you live?

a reply to: JinMI

Not everyone has that option. I don't. Which means, without Title II, my phone company can do anything it wants to do.

a reply to: Phage

I see 5 options from your area (assuming I know). Is that correct?

Even if the others are far inferior to what you choose, do you think it will remain that way forever? No new companies or new technology?