Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Defend Net Neutrality
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Defend Net Neutrality
Tweet Topic Started: May 5 2014, 07:59 AM (509 Views)
brumdog44 Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM Post #61
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 18 2016, 09:51 PM Post #62
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
In fact, there are only 6 major internet companies (not including Google I don't believe) in the entire country. Every other provider rents line from them at some point in the process.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM Post #63
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 18 2016, 10:30 PM Post #64
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
I will cede that point.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM Post #65
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 19 2016, 06:48 AM Post #66
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 18 2016, 01:22 PM
I now agree with the goals of Net Neutrality. However, I'm concerned it will end up focusing on making things "more fair" for those who agree with supporting and enlarging the government, e.g. see the "Fairness Doctrine."
Net neutrality is incredibly popular with both democrat and republican voters. The exception is among those who don't know what it is and simply agree with what they know of a politician's stance on it. Explained simply as 'Are you in favor or opposed to internet service providers to charge extra to some website or video streaming services for extra speed', it's almost a unanimous opinion. In fact, in a 2014 University of Delaware poll, it was actually a MORE popular opinion for republicans than democrats -- 85% of republicans were opposed to the statement, 81% of democrats were.

It is a topic that a good percentage of people don't understand and people like -- who are anti-net neutrality -- Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush tried tried to frame it as a pro-Obama position to be for it since he was for net neutrality -- but when Obama's name is removed from it among those who simply do not know what it means -- they overwhelmingly support neutrality.
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Tell me
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 06:53 AM Post #67
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 06:48 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 03:30 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
I'm against it.
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Tell me
The same major companies that provide wired internet. It only becomes wireless when a location hooks up a wireless router to their wired internet.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 19 2016, 07:38 AM Post #68
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:53 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 06:48 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 06:48 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
Hmmm. That's not what you said before.

You said you would be against it if ISPs paid for all the infrastructure without tax dollars and we determined that the majority of the infrastructure runs through the phone system which was built with tax dollars. Sooooo, you're for it, right?
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Tell me
The same major companies that provide wired internet. It only becomes wireless when a location hooks up a wireless router to their wired internet.
Link
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 08:32 AM Post #69
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 07:38 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:53 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 06:48 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Tell me
The same major companies that provide wired internet. It only becomes wireless when a location hooks up a wireless router to their wired internet.
Link
All wireless internet is connected to a server at some point. Even satellite internet. Without the cable to cable servers, wireless internet wouldn't exist. And if you think about it, that makes sense because of course wireless internet hasn't always existed. Companies use wireless transmitters on one side and receivers on the other to build the wireless network, but those things are still connected via cable. Here's a video with a decent and short explanation.

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz1fzEiv0fk[/utube]

Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 09:01 AM Post #70
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 07:38 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:53 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 19 2016, 06:48 AM
dreachon
Jun 19 2016, 06:44 AM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 10:20 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 09:48 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 08:23 PM
brumdog44
Jun 18 2016, 08:09 PM
Mr Gray
Jun 18 2016, 07:57 PM
dreachon
Jun 18 2016, 07:31 PM

Quoting limited to 10 levels deep
It depends on the stipulations and original agreements. Not all ISPs use taxpayer funded infrastructure do they? What about all the fiber being laid?
Are there any ISPs that have only used fiber?
I'm sure there are some.
I'm unable to find information on it. There are so many conglomerates that I would think that there are very, very few ISPs that are fully fiber. The use of fiber optics internet certainly isn't cheap.

You have to remember that 2% of the U.S. has not option for internet, 28% has no choice of providers as there is only one, and 37% has two providers. With such monopolies in place, it's hard for normal free market rules to apply.

http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/
Wireless internet is available most places as an alternative.
Wait. Where do you think wireless internet comes from?
Tell me
The same major companies that provide wired internet. It only becomes wireless when a location hooks up a wireless router to their wired internet.
Link
By the way, this discussion has also made me realize how impossible your closed internet analogy is.

Let's say you're a farmer and you bury cables in your neighborhood to create a local internet network. Great right? Except that if your servers aren't connected to an outside server in any way, your internet will be strictly limited to whoever creates things on your specific server.

Essentially, you wouldn't have internet in the way you know it. There would be no Google. No ESPN. No Hotmail or AOL or Gmail. If Google wanted you to be able to use Google, they would need to create a Google site separate from the one you know and specifically for your local internet. And your Google searches would be limited whatever information is on your local internet.

As soon as you connect your local internet to a single server that has access to the worldwide internet, you are now using all that infrastructure we've been discussing.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 19 2016, 10:15 AM Post #71
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
I listened to Todd Herman talk about this on my drive home last week. I tend to agree with his positions and analysis on most issues. Unfortunately this link doesn't provide most of his analysis.
http://mynorthwest.com/318630/net-neutrality-is-the-government-ever-neutral-with-anything/

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 10:40 AM Post #72
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 19 2016, 10:15 AM
I listened to Todd Herman talk about this on my drive home last week. I tend to agree with his positions and analysis on most issues. Unfortunately this link doesn't provide most of his analysis.
http://mynorthwest.com/318630/net-neutrality-is-the-government-ever-neutral-with-anything/

Quote:
 
They call this level playing field net neutrality. But who decides what neutral means? And is the government innately neutral?

It’s not a conspiracy theory to point out that the Obama administration has floated the idea, since day one, that certain content is more valuable than other content. This FCC is the same one that floated the idea of putting FCC observers in newsrooms! The same FCC that says they are going to make the net neutral.

Neutrality by government is determined through who is in control. It’s fair for whoever is in charge.


This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what net neutrality is. Net neutrality does not refer to the government or content providers being neutral. The neutrality in the statement is specifically referring to data. It means if I pay for 20mb/s internet and I watch a video on Youtube, that video loads at 20mb/s. If I watch a video on Vimeo, it loads at 20mb/s. If I watch it on Facebook or my local vegetable store's website, it loads at 20mb/s. A company cannot treat the data from Youtube as being more important than the data from Facebook and subsequently send Youtube videos at 20mb/s and Facebook videos at 10mb/s. It's the data that's being treated neutrally, not by government, but by the internet servers assigned to transmit that data.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 19 2016, 11:14 AM Post #73
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 19 2016, 10:15 AM
I listened to Todd Herman talk about this on my drive home last week. I tend to agree with his positions and analysis on most issues. Unfortunately this link doesn't provide most of his analysis.
http://mynorthwest.com/318630/net-neutrality-is-the-government-ever-neutral-with-anything/

Hermann tries to pull something that I was talking about previously -- gain points by attaching that Obama is for net neutrality with the insinuation that conservatives therefore should be against it.

He also says that internet doesn't look like a utility......I don't see it being much different than telephones, which is regulated as a utility.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 19 2016, 11:21 AM Post #74
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 19 2016, 11:14 AM

He also says that internet doesn't look like a utility......I don't see it being much different than telephones, which is regulated as a utility.
Evidence of this is the fact that when the internet started, it was exclusively through telephone lines. Remember having to dial in to the internet? That was your computer literally dialing a phone number that would then connect it to a server at your ISP so you could access the internet. Your computer was making a phone call to the internet. The technology has gotten better, but at it's heart it's still always been a utility.

[utube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSRG0TqxLWc[/utube]
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 23 2016, 01:26 PM Post #75
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
So we're good here now, right? Yay net neutrality!
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy