This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

a reply to: nwtrucker

That's a lot to chew on, LOL.

They ISP have done a bang up job in complicating and mis informing the public what net neutrality is and its effects.

If it makes you feel better, I'm not a democrat and I extremely thankful that Hillary didn't win and think Obama was full of bs as well. So this isn't coming from any political bias. My education is in computer engineering and have worked and been involved in all areas of computer related sciences for over 20 years with numerous gov't agencies and private corporations.

What you will notice is that most people with a technical background are for net neutrality principles. The ones that aren't are typically associated some way or another with the ISP or have no knowledge of how or what net neutrality is like , or the importance of it. For example the MSM talking heads or my non technical family members and friends who are republican loyalist, that don't even claim to understand what it is but they are certain its bad.

The fact that MSM and GOP tried to smear net neutrality by re-branding it to obama net neutrality should make your something fishy flags go off.

Net neutrality existed since the inception of the Internet and was what allowed the Internet to become what it is. Why is it now a bad thing? It has always existed accept for a short period back in 2015 and verizon extorted their customers and the content providers almost immediately. Then the FCC reclassification happened as the lesser of the two evils like Trump was the lesser of the two evils.

now think about how the MSM news sources and media painted Hillary in a positive manner and how they were attacking trump including the GOP and even foxnews during the election.

The only place you saw negative information about HIllary was online for the most part in forums such as ATS. Now during the next elections they will be able to purposely slow down traffic to sites that are negative towards their chosen candidate.

i don't think trump understand what Net neutrality is and was bamboozled by the neo con so called conservatives. This will become trumps obamcare and will come back to bite the republicans.

originally posted by: nwtruckerYet, to this day, I can find alternatives to AT&T, Verizon and the rest of those bastards. Cheaper options to TV connections, internet service.

Well pin a rose on your nose, I'm glad that you can find alternatives to your tv/internet needs. Many people live in areas where there truly is only one option. Let's take where I live for example. We technically have three options for internet: one satellite, and two land-line options. Anyone who's used satellite knows that it's not an option, it's just not stable, nor fast enough. So, that means we have two options. Well, really, I only have one. I'll explain.

The apartment complex I live in is on the very edge of city limits. The internet provider I use can get out here no problem. Unfortunately, they're already expensive for internet alone, $65/month. If I bought a package with tv and landline I could get a better deal.......for one year. Then it would be even more costly. Now, the other option in town is another company that actually offers internet with very close speeds for $30/month. Sounds great!!! Oh, one problem. They can't reach out to my apartment complex. Well, that's not 100% true, they can get internet out to me, but every agent of theirs I spoke with says it's not even close to being worth it. Why?? Because they can only get me 1mbs D/L speed. Yep, that's all they can offer in my area, which is in city limits. I live in a small town, not a huge city. I don't understand why they can't get faster speeds out here, but they can't, or won't. So, long story short, I'm stuck with just one option.

So we'll see what "competition" comes forth thanks to this bull# change. I highly doubt any, in all honesty. Internet providers know what they're doing, and as long as there's at least one other company around with terrible speeds, they can claim there's no monopoly in the area. It's a crock of #. Even when I lived further north in a big college city, they may have had other options for internet, but there was only one "good" option. So, unless you wanted to "fill your bathtub with a leaky faucet", so to speak, then you went to the big company.

We'll see how long it takes before data caps return.

a reply to: interupt42

Same boat as you though not in IT, I use the Internet in several business I am part of. I was early in on smart home stuff as well though I don't don't anymore. Pretty aware of some technical aspects.

Mix this with a possible war on not just recreational but medical Marijuana if sessions gets a green light and we will see a large majority of Democrats get elected.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I take more of your threads as sarcasm if I'm right? If not so, gonna have to lump this sentiment into what I'd refer to with others. Enjoy your packages(ATS might be on the way out RIP) and throttled gigs ie less video streaming until you pay more for it.

So you would take UN control of the U.S.'s portion of the net, our information, our political issues which rarely align with the rest of the world, our very education/indoctrination to outsiders with agendas rather than pay more for yur services?

Seems like personal profit/savings/gain trumps overview and freedom. I will pay as I can or want...or not.

Our independence is worth something to me. A few bucks? Sneer.

a reply to: nwtrucker

What will probably happen will be that the lower price plans will be very basic and slow. You'll be able to look at facebook or do email.

If you want speeds that allow you to to shop an Amazon.com (without your computer taking forever to load a page), you might need to pay for the next level of service.

If you want to stream YouTube or Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime, you might need a "Premium" internet speed package to be able to do so without freezing and buffering, which (most likely) will cost more than the average service that most braodbad customers are paying for now.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I take more of your threads as sarcasm if I'm right? If not so, gonna have to lump this sentiment into what I'd refer to with others. Enjoy your packages(ATS might be on the way out RIP) and throttled gigs ie less video streaming until you pay more for it.

So you would take UN control of the U.S.'s portion of the net, our information, our political issues which rarely align with the rest of the world, our very education/indoctrination to outsiders with agendas rather than pay more for yur services?

Seems like personal profit/savings/gain trumps overview and freedom. I will pay as I can or want...or not.

Our independence is worth something to me. A few bucks? Sneer.

That isn't how it works.

You will pay for it in all the products you buy or services you use.

Like say my mobile fleet vehicle inspection service.

It's a bad move if your a conservative. 85 percent of the public is against this and will vote to expel those who support this.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The very companies you cite, Netflix, Amazon, google, all benefit from this move. Yes? All support the left. Yes?

No they would significantly lose and be at the mercy of the gatekeepers (ISP).

For example comcast has been trying to replicate and get into the streaming business, eMarkets, and search business for decades and have failed miserably because their product sucked.

However, now since the ISP control your access they will be able to purposely slow down your traffic to Netflix, Amazon, google to a crawl. Enough so that people will just stop going to their sites. But wait look comcast much suckier netflix,amazon, and google product clones continue to suck ,but atleast you can access them.
Now they have the ability to put those companies out of business and extort money from them.

That was why netflix,amazon, and google and the likes last go around out spent the ISP, to reclasify the internet. They would have gone out of business overnight and their business would have been at the mercy of the ISP.

The problem now is that netflix,amazon, and google didn't really put that much effort this time around nor did they spend as much.

This leads me to concluded that the big boys of the Online companies such as netflix,amazon, and google reached some back room deals with the ISP.

The ISP knew they had to work with them because they also have deep pockets with political connections and for years had failed to kill it. So most likely an arrangement off the books was reached where the ISP will get their way but they will not impact the EXISTING online Oligarch . However, everyone else is fair game like ATS and any new upcoming competitors to the existing Online Oligarch.

So its a win for EXISTING online Oligarch because it will guarantee any NEW innovation will be stopped or will have to play ball with them before it evolves. Its also a win for the ISP because now they are in control of the biggest global Pay to Play market. The only ones the lose are the consumers and innovation.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I take more of your threads as sarcasm if I'm right? If not so, gonna have to lump this sentiment into what I'd refer to with others. Enjoy your packages(ATS might be on the way out RIP) and throttled gigs ie less video streaming until you pay more for it.

So you would take UN control of the U.S.'s portion of the net, our information, our political issues which rarely align with the rest of the world, our very education/indoctrination to outsiders with agendas rather than pay more for yur services?

Seems like personal profit/savings/gain trumps overview and freedom. I will pay as I can or want...or not.

Our independence is worth something to me. A few bucks? Sneer.

Holy cripes we've found the one guy who's against Net Neutrality! Lord have mercy. You are woefully ignorant of just how much the cost will go up, woefully ignorant of just how much the Telecoms operate as monopolies, and woefully ignorant of the 'control' as you put it that the UN had over the state of the internet in the US. You're saying you will enrich the fantastically wealthy (Telecom execs) any amount you possibly can just to 'stick it to the UN'? If i told you I was a Republican I bet I could get you to donate your paycheck to me under the specter of liberal Boogemen with little more than a grunt and a chuckle.

Also I have a bridge to sell you (actually 5 bridges, its a buy 1, get 5 free deal, you can't beat that, it'll be YUUUUGE!!!).

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I take more of your threads as sarcasm if I'm right? If not so, gonna have to lump this sentiment into what I'd refer to with others. Enjoy your packages(ATS might be on the way out RIP) and throttled gigs ie less video streaming until you pay more for it.

So you would take UN control of the U.S.'s portion of the net, our information, our political issues which rarely align with the rest of the world, our very education/indoctrination to outsiders with agendas rather than pay more for yur services?

Forgive my ignorance, but could you clearly explain this "UN controlling our internet" thing? And then could you explain how repealing net neutrality prevents that (whatever "that" is)?

Maybe I'm slow and dense, but I don't know what you mean. I know of no such way that the UN is being given any control of the internet in the U.S.

Be specific, please.

a reply to: interupt42

Once republicans heard the dog whistles Obama, regulations, net neutrality in the same sentence, the veil came over their reasoning. You can’t penetrate that.

a reply to: nwtrucker

What I seem to get, in general, is the idea of zero control, complete freedom and zero to little cost. That somehow I should have the right to the fastest car, say a Corvette ZR-1 and it shouldn't be any more expensive than a Honda Accord. Is that an accurate analogy?

No that is not the right analogy.
The right analogy is that you PAID and continue to pay for a corvette ZR-1 with a chip in it that when the dealer wants more money from the Chevy manufacturer, they purposely slow down and convert your ZR-1 to a yugo.

You pay for example 80 bucks a month for 60mb downloads speeds from your ISP. Why should the ISP be able to PURPOSELY go out of their way to NOT provide you with what you are paying for and PURPOSELY slow down your speeds to 1mb. All the while they continue to charge you the full price for the 60mb speeds, but only giving you 1mb download speeds?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I take more of your threads as sarcasm if I'm right? If not so, gonna have to lump this sentiment into what I'd refer to with others. Enjoy your packages(ATS might be on the way out RIP) and throttled gigs ie less video streaming until you pay more for it.

So you would take UN control of the U.S.'s portion of the net, our information, our political issues which rarely align with the rest of the world, our very education/indoctrination to outsiders with agendas rather than pay more for yur services?

Seems like personal profit/savings/gain trumps overview and freedom. I will pay as I can or want...or not.

Our independence is worth something to me. A few bucks? Sneer.

Holy cripes we've found the one guy who's against Net Neutrality! Lord have mercy. You are woefully ignorant of just how much the cost will go up, woefully ignorant of just how much the Telecoms operate as monopolies, and woefully ignorant of the 'control' as you put it that the UN had over the state of the internet in the US. You're saying you will enrich the fantastically wealthy (Telecom execs) any amount you possibly can just to 'stick it to the UN'? If i told you I was a Republican I bet I could get you to donate your paycheck to me under the specter of liberal Boogemen with little more than a grunt and a chuckle.

Also I have a bridge to sell you (actually 5 bridges, its a buy 1, get 5 free deal, you can't beat that, it'll be YUUUUGE!!!).

Sneer. Nope, I'm saying this is 'potentially' the first step. Remove a player and keep it American. Then as the bastards get greedy we have the power to then restrict or correct- as we always have- the methods that they move.

As so many have posted, the scenarios are already known. Forewarned is forearmed. You gloom and doomers have exaggerated almost without exception.

It's how this nation started, grew and flourished. Give us the same freedoms as our forefathers had and don't not be surprised that we again flourish.

Meh, maybe I'm wrong....won't be the first time...LOL.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: interupt42

Once republicans heard the dog whistles Obama, regulations, net neutrality in the same sentence, the veil came over their reasoning. You can’t penetrate that.

Yep, but that happens on both sides and the left isn't immune to it and it works pretty darn effectively with both sides.

This just shows how much corporations have influence over our political system. This in no way benefits the people of this country! Again the American people will be at the mercy of big business. Corporate greed is gouging consumers out of their hard-earned money with every chance they get. All while our elected-representatives will put their stamp of approval on it.

Lets face it, our system of government is no longer "for or by the people."

a reply to: nwtrucker

Our interwebs are really the last vestige of freedom we have at our disposal!

Meddling with or subverting such to be in line with a dying age, may contribute to changing the new information age in which we live in rather a nefarious manner and quite frankly be extremely detrimental to the progress of our species in ways we cannot yet imagine.

Stuff net neutrality because it's simply another tool in "There" arsenal designed to control and retard the free movement of information.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: nwtrucker

What I seem to get, in general, is the idea of zero control, complete freedom and zero to little cost. That somehow I should have the right to the fastest car, say a Corvette ZR-1 and it shouldn't be any more expensive than a Honda Accord. Is that an accurate analogy?

No that is not the right analogy.
The right analogy is that you PAID and continue to pay for a corvette ZR-1 with a chip in it that when the dealer wants more money from the Chevy manufacturer, they purposely slow down and convert your ZR-1 to a yugo.

You pay for example 80 bucks a month for 60mb downloads speeds from your ISP. Why should the ISP be able to PURPOSELY go out of their way to NOT provide you with what you are paying for and PURPOSELY slow down your speeds to 1mb. All the while they continue to charge you the full price for the 60mb speeds, but only giving you 1mb download speeds?

Hmm, so your saying I don't already know what I'm buying? That the actual Yugo isn't known? You know it, I know it. So we aren't buying a ZR-1 are we? We leasing the Yugo, not buying it.

If I really want the Vette and can afford it, I will buy/lease it. otherwise, I will settle for the Yugo....over the UN....for now...

In the earlier days of the internet when ISP's were just ISP's there was no real need for net neutrality regulations. The FCC Chair's comments that the 'internet was just fine before net neutrality' is a misleading pile of horsecrap. It only became an issue when ISP's branched into the business of offering content in addition to being ISP's. Especially as streaming became a major part of internet consumption. That's when some ISPs began to throttle content that competed with their own --- remember the dust-up around Netflix being intentionally slowed? That's why net neutrality was enacted --- to prevent ISP's from intentionally disadvantaging competing products. I happen to be a FIOS customer and I use Google as my search engine. If net neutrality is dumped, Microsoft could approach Verizon and say, 'we'll give you $1m a year to block Google' thereby forcing me to use Bing as my search engine. Or they could slow or block Netflix so I'm forced to use their on-demand offerings.

This administration believes corporations will just play fair on their own. Kinda like the banks did just before the crash.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: nwtrucker

What I seem to get, in general, is the idea of zero control, complete freedom and zero to little cost. That somehow I should have the right to the fastest car, say a Corvette ZR-1 and it shouldn't be any more expensive than a Honda Accord. Is that an accurate analogy?

No that is not the right analogy.
The right analogy is that you PAID and continue to pay for a corvette ZR-1 with a chip in it that when the dealer wants more money from the Chevy manufacturer, they purposely slow down and convert your ZR-1 to a yugo.

You pay for example 80 bucks a month for 60mb downloads speeds from your ISP. Why should the ISP be able to PURPOSELY go out of their way to NOT provide you with what you are paying for and PURPOSELY slow down your speeds to 1mb. All the while they continue to charge you the full price for the 60mb speeds, but only giving you 1mb download speeds?

Hmm, so your saying I don't already know what I'm buying? That the actual Yugo isn't known? You know it, I know it. So we aren't buying a ZR-1 are we? We leasing the Yugo, not buying it.

If I really want the Vette and can afford it, I will buy/lease it. otherwise, I will settle for the Yugo....over the UN....for now...

Again, Net neutrality as nothing to do with the UN.

a reply to: intrptr

Nail on head.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
This just shows how much corporations have influence over our political system. This in no way benefits the people of this country! Again the American people will be at the mercy of big business. Corporate greed is gouging consumers out of their hard-earned money with every chance they get. All while our elected-representatives will put their stamp of approval on it.

Lets face it, our system of government is no longer "for or by the people."

Yep , you have to be willfully naive and a political cheerleader to not see that .

its even been confirmed

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.


It is why its so crucial that BOTH the individual republicans and individual democrats accept the fact that neither the GOP or the DNC are on their sides. BOTH the DNC and the GOP are tools of the lobbyist to distract the people and keep them fighting with each other.

We really need to temporarily come together in order to get back control of our gov't . Sadly people ego and party are more important then actually making this country better for their children and will never happen.