This net neutrality move seems a good thing.

originally posted by: intrptr
Free roaming of the whole internet will be reorganized to tiered packages of access, the more you want to surf and participate, the more it will cost. The bottom tier, (Basic service package) will limit the user to channel surfing only, commercial ads, comments disabled, censorship to g or pg rated videos and content, just like on cable tv. You can change channels, scroll, mute the commercials and pay for a whole bunch of channels you will never watch.

Good thing huh?

Censorship, a 'good' thing...

Post something to back this up.

Because with net-neutrality we already had packages. 10 mbps down for the person who only checks email and does online shopping, all the way up to 2gbps for the power user.

a reply to: luthier

Oh definitely.

Not a fan of Obama presidency but the overturning of laws simply because he passed them, without debate or reason is a ludicrous.

Seriously... This is NOT what the founders intended when they created the country.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
As IT professional working for small ISP in central Europe I can assure you net neutrality is principal of free internet.

We have no trouble to deliver 1Gbps connection without any limit for $15/month ... if you are lucky and you are living in suburbs build after 60' (there are collectors so it is easy to bring optic lines to every house). Year ago started massively funded initiative to build community broadband connection to every village. In 2 - 3 years will be half of households connected to 1Gps infrastructure while the base lines will be able to serve needs for another 20 years ...

I see US debate over net neutrality as typical campaign of US corporations trying to squeeze last drops of juice of customers while offering subpar services.

And on the flip side, the government has so much more control.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Oh definitely.

Not a fan of Obama presidency but the overturning of laws simply because he passed them, without debate or reason is a ludicrous.

Seriously... This is NOT what the founders intended when they created the country.

Undoing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
As a lay person, almost a computer moron, I have little knowledge of these 'ins and outs'.

I've read many posts on the subject in today's thread pushing how this will 'do in' the Republicans...or Trump, perhaps both. How the biggies will control everything from what we see, how much we pay, if and when.

I don't like big corporations, I really don't like international corporations and I'm a Trumpster...go figure...

Later on, i saw more balanced opinions on this move, they struck as more rational, although I could be wrong and I'm sure some will point out where and how that is the case.

Bottom line is the original Obama effort gave control, at least potentially, to the UN. The right to control virtually everything. TO THE FREAKING UN. ( And , as usual, the cowards in the Republican Party did little to nothing about it.)

So is that true? Or is it a lie? Perhaps the usual ambiguously worded text that 'could' allow it to be interpretated as such. Perhaps even unwritten agreements? So it looks to me that this is a huge blow to the one-world crowd. A major setback.

Yes? No?

Ok, now the other side of the coin. The big greedy corporations. That they surely are. Yet, to this day, I can find alternatives to AT&T, Verizon and the rest of those bastards. Cheaper options to TV connections, internet service. Where the big boys seem never be able to shut down innovative thinking, ways to do it as well for cheaper. My examples are correct? Yes? No?

Worst case scenario is they find an way, meeting in Sun Valley, Idaho. to divvy up the territories, who to buy and at what price...all the worst results. Isn't it more possible that they can be controlled than the UN??

Yes, there's the lobbyists, the crony Capitalism to contend with, but things are changing in DC. More exposure of corruption-that was business as usual- than ever before.

There is a chance, a slim chance perhaps that we can correct/fix that a bit down the road? Certainly a better one than the NWO crowd that Obama was driving the US towards.

So not a perfect solution, for now, but better than it was under Obama's rules. Yes or No.

Educate me please, I'm all ears.

Net neutrality has been a topic of conversation for more than 3 years. How is anyone still clueless?

Everyone that is pro net-neutrality, do you enjoy the idea of Trump's government controlling the internet?

a reply to: eriktheawful

"Well, most of my children were born and raised prior to the internet being in wide use, so I don't have to worry about them."

No children born now enjoy such luxury through, the world spins mate, such is life.

"It's just so sad to see how addicted to it and being completely dependent upon it people have become, to the point where they are basically slaves to it."

Just like our dependency on oil, petroleum, and electricity really. But where would we be without such?

I agree that we are now dependent on internet communication, but as far as i can establish our world is a far better place with our interwebs than it was before just down to the increase in communication alone.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Oh definitely.

Not a fan of Obama presidency but the overturning of laws simply because he passed them, without debate or reason is a ludicrous.

Seriously... This is NOT what the founders intended when they created the country.

Undoing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional?

Unconstitutional laws? Which unconstitutional law? I don't recall the SCOTUS ruling the NN was unconstitutional. Do you? Please provide evidence of this claim.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Do you enjoy your provider being able to block information say an opposing political view from your access or slow you down when you make comments?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

This is what is wrong with conservatives these days. Just declare all regulation bad without actually looking into why the regulation exists and how effective it is. Conservatives back in the day weren't 100% against regulation you know?

Repeal child labor laws and take away women's right to vote I say.

I don't know a Conservative that is against every regulation. They're conservative, not Libertarians or anarchists.

Libertarians are conservatives. just fyi

Do you think your provider should be able to stall your Internet for having an opposing political view.

Should your provider be able to slow down all conservative news or out right block it?


They already do stall my internet for having an opposing political view. Fact. Silicon valley fully supports the left.

So if it's being done no matter what supposed net neutrality is in place, might as well unfetter the whole damn thing and start over.
How about if you make comments that are conservative stall your access all together?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Do you enjoy your provider being able to block information say an opposing political view from your access or slow you down when you make comments?

Can you prove that it will?

a reply to: bender151

Better subjects that entertain more...

a reply to: nwtrucker

I already looked over that thread. Do you know how many times the United Nations are referred to on that page? None. There are a number of instances in the page, where the letter U precedes the letter N, but only as part of words which have an ou sound in them, like found, sound, ground and so on.

So once again, I ask you to plainly, and without using that link, which for the record is evidence of nothing so far as any reasonable examination of it can discern, explain, in detail, what it is that leads you to believe that the UN are anything to do with the matter. This is not an unreasonable request, since you bought it up, and have roundly failed twice at least, to provide any explanation at all, instead posting unrelated material.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Sure. Check out the media...

Now prove how that would be protected.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Just in case memory brain cells fail, this was in the OP.

Bottom line is the original Obama effort gave control, at least potentially, to the UN. The right to control virtually everything. TO THE FREAKING UN. ( And , as usual, the cowards in the Republican Party did little to nothing about it.)

So is that true? Or is it a lie? Perhaps the usual ambiguously worded text that 'could' allow it to be interpretated as such. Perhaps even unwritten agreements? So it looks to me that this is a huge blow to the one-world crowd. A major setback.

Yes? No?

I'm no expert. I asked.

If this sounds patronizing, it is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Oh definitely.

Not a fan of Obama presidency but the overturning of laws simply because he passed them, without debate or reason is a ludicrous.

Seriously... This is NOT what the founders intended when they created the country.

Undoing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional?

Unconstitutional laws? Which unconstitutional law? I don't recall the SCOTUS ruling the NN was unconstitutional. Do you? Please provide evidence of this claim.

What claim?

You responded to

Not a fan of Obama presidency but the overturning of laws simply because he passed them, without debate or reason is a ludicrous.

So I generalized.

But seeing as the President appoints a chairman of the FCC I can't imagine repealing nn being unconstitutional either.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Sure. Check out the media...

Now prove how that would be protected.

So you're saying this happens despite NN?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Again would it be OK with you to stall your Internet because of an opposing idea and say block certain cites all together? Is that freedom.

How abut if you can only visit msnbc?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes absolutely. Just like Alex Jones says (and he's always right). It's right under that part that establishes the 'death panels'.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh yes, the three or four lines in your post, which were not backed up by any external information at all.

Well sorry, that means precisely nothing. You could be anyone in the world, with any agenda. Showing your damned work therefore, is necessary.