The Goat Pen

Will I still be able to play Minesweeper?

hedge wrote:Will I still be able to play Minesweeper?

yes but not Minesweeper Anal Adventures 27

So no more free porn? That's unAmerican...

free is relevant.

it isn't free now in the eyes of the ISP - you're paying them for internet access.

but removing NN means that they can require you to pay them more for unfettered access to porn - just like they do as a cable company now, AND they can charge Pornhub for using up bandwidth they provide.

What has these cable companies pissed is that google, facebook, netflix - they are worth so much more than these cable giants who until the advent of streaming had a monopoly on providing content to users and were counting on each home in America spending $70 on average with them. ( just pulled that $70 out of my ass. I have no idea what the average combined cable/internet bill is)

That's going away quickly and their only hope is to control the internet bandwidth so they can then be the bottle neck to what you receive in your home.

The real kicker is we've been paying via add on taxes for years for them to increase bandwidth capacity and they have for the most part pocketed the money and trying to build on old technology. Now they are saying companies like Netflix are killing the bandwidth and its not fair.

its all bullshit on their part. They are dying business model and they want to be a monopoly to stay in business.

How does something like what we have in our little local municipality (Green Light) fit into this whole scheme? It's not really any cheaper than Time Warner (or whatever), but supposedly it's much faster and more bandwidth...

its really up to them. I don't really know anything about them but if NN is removed, lets for example say they object to pornhub on moral or christian values, they can block it from you and there is nothing you can do about it unless you have competition that provides alternative internet access. Or maybe you want to open your own internet business and think GoDaddy is the best option for you, but they charge a premium for you to use GoDaddy or for a few dollars less a month you can use their web hosting services. Maybe they are so small they are cash strapped so they monitor your surfing habits and create a data conumption profile of you they sell on the open market. Suddenly you start getting emails from companies advertising herpes salves and phillipino escort services.

They want you believe this is about government regulations stifling innovation but these ISP have proven time and time again they aren't interested innovation.

AT&T blocked Skype and Facetalk because it was going to hurt their fledgling video conferencing software, Verizon blocked a 3rd party tethering app because they required an upcharge to tether verizon phones - all this sort of bullshit and the reality that there such few choices in internet is the reason NN came about. All of them want to block bit torrent and to some extent any kind of VPN service.

" Suddenly you start getting emails from companies advertising herpes salves and phillipino escort services."

So you're saying they have my best interests in mind?

until a grand jury subpoena's them

It's a double edged sword...

eCat wrote:.,, the only hope is that congress gets so much hate mail the refuse to enforce the ruling.

.

In other words, net neutrality might go the way of the Schiano era at Tennessee, or maybe the Mike Price era at Bama.

“Net neutrality was never a law in the USA”

So, which side of net neutrality gives government more control?

clearly keeping Net Neutrality gives the government more control - and that isn't something to be taken lightly but at least in this case the government understands what the public demands from internet access.

Net Neutrality came into being because companies that were generally monopolies at the delivery level were also companies that led year after year in customer complaints.

I mean Monsanto is a company the poisons the planet and has killed hundreds of people indirectly over the years and Comcast still rates higher in customer dissatisfaction.

This really is the equivalent of the Rockefeller oil days when he'd open a gas station and operate at a loss until the the competition went bankrupt so he could charge what he wanted - this is that level of corruption and monopoly. Think of all the people that have improved their lives by an unfettered internet - access to youtube content full of how to videos, people that became millionaires making stupid fucking annoying videos or selling tube socks on ebay.

Ending net nuetrality jeopardizes that part of the internet - hell it potentially jeopardizes this website. Think of this website as a cable channel. They mighty throw in it for free in the base package or it might be so obscure that they know a dedicated audience would be willing to pay a few dollars more a month to use it.

The difference in the cable package setup is that ESPN for example, charges cable companies to provide it so in that business model it makes sense that comcast charges you to access ESPN instead of just a standard cable bill where everything is included.

What they want to do now is - in a world where content and access is free, they now want to apply the ESPN model to websites, except its worse because since they have a monopoly on your access to the internet, they want to not only charge you for access to ESPN (in this analogy) but also charge ESPN for creating content that consumes bandwidth that you want to see.

And that might be OK if they hadn't spend millions in squashing any competition that provided access to internet. You think if everyone had google fiber right now this would be an issue? Probably not because google and comcast would be fighting over a customer base. They would be forced to provide the fastest internet with the unfettered access to content at the best price possible - Net Neutrality stepped in and focused on only one piece of that - unfettered access to content. They still even with NN have no incentive to provide better internet speed or invest in infrastructure because there is so virtually no competition in the home computer/internet of things domain.

Re: Comcast. Make no mistake, they know what their customer service and satisfaction scores are and couldn't care less. And that apathy will still be the business model when Net Neutrality ends. The stakes will be much higher, though.

yea I didn't mean to imply that their customer service would improve with or without net neutrality

Its just they are one of those companies that gets up everyday thinking about how they can squeeze another dime from customers and ethics, morals, customer value, whatever has little concern on their part because they are focused more on the monopoly they run.

Exactly.

btw, Sexton might just be a legend after that game against Minnesota.

I don't agree that you know where the government will stand in the future. Right now, they're ok and pretty much hands off on content, but there were members on the board trying to restrict content. Replacements on the board could see restriction on certain speech which, to me, is the primary concern.

I'm divided on this issue. Eliminating net neutrality wouldn't be an issue if we enforced our anti-trust laws. But AMazon, Google, and Apple are allowed to continue.

When you have Chris Christie telling Tesla they can't open a showroom to sell cars directly to resident in New Jersey because the Chevy and Ford dealerships own him, that pretty much sums up why Time Warner is my only high speed internet option at my home. Eventually Christie caved to pressure and did some face saving move requiring Tesla to have dealerships and a service center, but you get the idea.

Yes, I'm certain at some point the government will turn its eyes to porn or bit torrent or DMCA protection or drugs or guns sales. But that's a different animal. Title II only deals with the viewpoint of whether the internet is essentially a conduit for bandwidth versus a content carrier. If Title II is rolled back , which is the heart of net neutrality, then it opens the doors for content providers to make those determinations. The FCC would have to redefine its viewpoint of Title II which I believe the courts would strike down if it were to start making decisions on what the "dumb tube" can and cannot provide access to with consumers.

And that's where the benefit of a conservative judicial branch inherently against government regulation should be on our side. Of course they'd be against porn or whatever they felt stood in the way of big business but they'd be a cross roads. Do they want to give the government the power to make this determination? Most likely not.

Hey, AA.

What's up?

eCat wrote:btw, Sexton might just be a legend after that game against Minnesota.

It was pretty spectacular. Best loss I have ever seen Bama basketball have. Sexton is special.