171–180 of 343 posts
FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a ISP's customer wants to spend 100% of their bandwidth talking to netflix (or anybody else), that's their business. Netflix is sending that data only because the ISP's customer's asked for it . > autobahn An ISP isn't a shared commons. It's offering a service to transit data to/from other hosts on the internet, usually metered at either a fixed rate per unit time, or by the total carriage "weight" (bandwidth). Co…
Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pissing off customers has many failure points. Without video many people could just stick with their cellphone bandwidth and drop their cable plan entirely. Congratulations, you have just made anti Net Neutrality argument.
Could you expand on this a bit? I haven't heard this argument, and I just listened to a pretty long conversation with FCC Chairman Pai (on the Fifth Column podcast, if you're interested). His argument was that it will reduce the burden on small ISPs, which would then pop up everywhere, creating a pro-consumer competitive market. (Which is either magical thinking or just disingenuous, but that was his argument, such a…
"Pissing off customers has failure points" is the core of the anti-NN arguments. There's no need to regulate what ISPs can do with the traffic - if they slow down access to some websites, or stop providing access to some of them or increase prices on the access of the "entire internet", then the customers would go to competitors who do not impose such restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get money out of politics. No more superPACs. No more third party bullshit. My proposal: only contributions from individuals to official campaign organizations. Each person can donate a total of $100, split any way they want. I’m tired of so many decisions being made at the behest of some campaign funder whispering in a politician’s ear. Our democracy is being corroded by all this money.
Your solution has a clear result: only the wealthiest would be able to run for office.
Lets try to fix that: put a limit on the expenses a candidate can incur in his candidacy.
FCC has explicitly said that they have ignored any opinion comments. They have only considered comments which bring new facts or a legal opinion. So the fact that many comments were faked is irrelevant anyway.
I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get money out of politics. No more superPACs. No more third party bullshit. My proposal: only contributions from individuals to official campaign organizations. Each person can donate a total of $100, split any way they want. I’m tired of so many decisions being made at the behest of some campaign funder whispering in a politician’s ear. Our democracy is being corroded by all this money.
Read up on Citizens United. Limitations on spending on election campaigns were declared unconstitutional, because money buying speech is protected by free speech. Basically, the only way to save democracy in the USA from the clutches of oligarchy is constitional reform, which is unlikely given the required vote size and the opposition, which includes all the large financial interests as well as constitution worshiper…
Hmm no, not any more than constitutional reform was needed to reverse Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if the customer's contract says that their packets need to all be treated with equal priority. But the whole point in repealing net-neutrality is to allow for contracts which don't need to treat all packets with equal priority. In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too.
> In that case the ISP isn't violating the contract and the customer wanting to spend %100 of their bandwidth talking to netflix for instance is the ISP's business too That's garbage. I don't need my ISP shaking down the content business to be able to put their own content up front while requiring payment from others for equal level treatment. Taxpayers built this infrastructure and there are still regional broadband…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.
Netflix doesn’t hog the network. You do, by downloading Netflix data, but then again you are also paying for that data.
Every social media website is dominated by people supporting net neutrality. I don't even remember seeing an opposing opinion, except from Trump's government. Maybe I'm living in some weird bubble, but it seems to me the argument is really not an argument, but an artificially created nonsense.
I'm up for net neutrality, but what do you about one or two pigs hogging the network? This quotes netflix as having 37% of traffic in N.A. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-... It's like you build an autobahn for everyone, and then one monster haulage company moves in and dominates the road, and the road isn't really as useful as envisaged.