e60ral
Banned
You can't argue with someone who thinks giant companies are benevolent organizations
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Net neutrality
- Thread starter kolelt
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
My point is that the mobile providers in the states have driven all their prices down and offered more services or better services, all while partaking in these "bad" practices. There's no denying that we've seen unmatchable innovation and consumer choice in.mobile connectivity vs. hardlines in the past decade.
e60ral
Banned
Innovation like blocking skype/voip, or blocking streaming video, or charging extra for FaceTime, or blocking competing payment platforms etc...
Yeah, that's super good practice for innovation
A free internet that can't prioritize traffic is the best for innovation, period. Full stop.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Yeah, that's super good practice for innovation
A free internet that can't prioritize traffic is the best for innovation, period. Full stop.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
All of those things have been "competed" out of style. My provider doesn't do any of that. If yours does you should consider switching. I was around when VZ blocked Google wallet, and hot spots, and I rooted my phone and still used Google wallet and hotspots. I then left Verizon as soon as I could and haven't looked back.Innovation like blocking skype/voip, or blocking streaming video, or charging extra for FaceTime, or blocking competing payment platforms etc...
Yeah, that's super good practice for innovation
A free internet that can't prioritize traffic is the best for innovation, period. Full stop.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Just a handful of years ago, the government made it illegal to unlock your phone to switch networks. Yes, illegal, not just something the network providers did. The PEOPLE made that rule change through years of petition. And actually, the providers agreed to unlock before the new law became law. Of course I understand that it was because it was inevitable.
It's not a fully free market anywhere, but the people still have a lot of power. The more we start to believe we don't is the moment we concede everything to the government. I do not want that.
The bottom line is that we both want a free internet, we just see "free" from two different perspectives. You believe that free means the government is involved, I believe that free means the govt isn't involved. The reality is that we will likely land somewhere in between. Neither of us want a censored internet, I guarantee you that.
Cheers �� happy holidays to you and yours.
e60ral
Banned
No, they were literally doing all of those things until the FCC made them stop
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Source? I really don't recall the FCC ever ruling on Verizon or the others for anything. Complaints, yeah, but they never ruled against. People got dinged for misleading advertising of unlimited plans, but not for the throttling of data itself, because as you know, this practice is still openly happening.
e60ral
Banned
I'll post in the morning but are you not capable of searching for yourself? You have such a strong opinion about this and now I know why; you've bought into conservative talking points without spending even 5 seconds of independent research.
Way to be a sheep, this is what's wrong with this country today.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Way to be a sheep, this is what's wrong with this country today.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I asked for your source, because my sheepish self was unable to find one ruling related to wireless spectrum with the exception of misleading marketing of unlimited plans and blocking 3rd party tethering apps. The ruling on the tethering apps just meant that people could install it, but unless they were rooted still couldn't use it, so that was pretty much a non event. The Skype FaceTime stuff was lifted by ATT with no FCC ruling. And just after that, the FCC ruled that wireless would not fall under the network neutrality rules of 2010.
Verizon blocking of Google wallet was not ruled against because of the same 2010 rule, and it was actually determined that Google didn't provide the availability of Google wallet to VZ customers, and VZ wasn't blocking it. It surrounded a spat between VZ and Google and the secure element that was once required to be accessed for GW. Android now uses a token and has bypassed the need provide access to a secure element to Verizon.
The actual problem with society is that people can't have a debate without others throwing a hissy fit and name calling if someone doesn't agree with them. I even said a couple posts back that we both want the same thing but have a different idea of how it should happen, and that the reality of it is that it will land somewhere in between. I guess that means that I'm just so far off the charts that nothing will ever save me.
Don't bother wasting your time with a follow up. Merry Christmas.
BrianSD_42
New member
This comment / understanding of the truth is completely misleading and borderline a flat out lie. Edit: and I mean that in the kindest way possible.
What happened is for years the telecom industry and phone manufactures pressured the FCC to issue a regulation that would make it illegal for home users to unlock their phones like people (eg phone users) in Europe have. That is not "the people" speaking, it is lobbying by corporations and business interests whose most important priority is profit (both short and long term).
The federal government has issued regulations that restrict any public government (eg a small town in Montana) from creating a public WIMAX network. They did this at the behest of interests in the telecom industry who are obviously completely against the idea of a public utility internet .
Last edited:
You're either misunderstanding what I wrote, or trying to quote out of context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say my wording was unclear. The people CHANGED that law through petition. Not the people ASKED for that law through petition. In other words, the law got put on the books and through years of petition, it was taken off the books.
To your second point, that's exactly what I've been saying...If the government is so easily swayed by "evil" corporations, why do we want to potentially pay an additional tax for our regulators to then get bought out behind the scenes.
Ultimately, it was the people that held both the corps and regulators accountable and demanded a change.
BrianSD_42
New member
Sounds like we agree more than I thought lol.
The history of net neutrality is a bit convoluted but my understanding is the telecoms have long long campaigned against any government regulation that would treat them as a utility. Personally I believe they should be regulated, treated like a utility and prevented for any kind of packet manipulation, including content or speed.
The history of net neutrality is a bit convoluted but my understanding is the telecoms have long long campaigned against any government regulation that would treat them as a utility. Personally I believe they should be regulated, treated like a utility and prevented for any kind of packet manipulation, including content or speed.
Off-choader
New member
ahahahahahahahahaha nice bruh... hey net neutrality is ********** retarded .. BUT BUT BUT MUHHHHH legacccyyyyy
jordanrb81
New member
My fear/Concern
So the reason I am for net neutrality is sort of paranoia and sort of selfish, I am willing to own that. in the woods where I live I can watch for example Verizon Vios commercials, but it's not available, nothing is available except Comcast, that's my option for internet cable etc. I don't particularly care for cable and have only the most basic package ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS that's literally all I get, I have several friends who have completely "pulled the plug" meanwhile my mother's cable bill is over $300.00 a month but they get every channel... $3,600.00 is a pretty nice start towards a vacation. Point is what I find I watch more than cable, unless it's 6:00-7:00 and the news is on, is Amazon Prime Video, many use Hulu or Netflix etc. But Comcast owns NBC and today if you haven't notices they really really want you to watch the Olympics. So without net neutrality what if Comcast decides to slow the band width down on Amazon Prime so much that an HD video simply cannot play, they own the service and it's now without net neutrality their prerogative to do so. or what if they say fine, cancel cable and watch amazon, but instead of internet being $40.00 a month it's now $100.00 because of all the data you're using to stream our competition.
None of this has actually happened yet, and maybe (hopefully) it never will my fear is as the "cable cutters" reach a critical mass and Comcast's profits really truly begin to tumble, which they haven't yet, this will be one of the ways they preserve revenue. Basically they are capable of holding us hostage, and sure they haven't begun to take these steps and if they have a PR or Marketing department they won't till net neutrality isn't something we or anyone else is discussing. Additionally Companies like Comcast may use this as a last resort and not for another decade. But this is my very selfish very paranoid reason for wanting a rule in place to prevent such an activity. :spy:
So the reason I am for net neutrality is sort of paranoia and sort of selfish, I am willing to own that. in the woods where I live I can watch for example Verizon Vios commercials, but it's not available, nothing is available except Comcast, that's my option for internet cable etc. I don't particularly care for cable and have only the most basic package ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS that's literally all I get, I have several friends who have completely "pulled the plug" meanwhile my mother's cable bill is over $300.00 a month but they get every channel... $3,600.00 is a pretty nice start towards a vacation. Point is what I find I watch more than cable, unless it's 6:00-7:00 and the news is on, is Amazon Prime Video, many use Hulu or Netflix etc. But Comcast owns NBC and today if you haven't notices they really really want you to watch the Olympics. So without net neutrality what if Comcast decides to slow the band width down on Amazon Prime so much that an HD video simply cannot play, they own the service and it's now without net neutrality their prerogative to do so. or what if they say fine, cancel cable and watch amazon, but instead of internet being $40.00 a month it's now $100.00 because of all the data you're using to stream our competition.
None of this has actually happened yet, and maybe (hopefully) it never will my fear is as the "cable cutters" reach a critical mass and Comcast's profits really truly begin to tumble, which they haven't yet, this will be one of the ways they preserve revenue. Basically they are capable of holding us hostage, and sure they haven't begun to take these steps and if they have a PR or Marketing department they won't till net neutrality isn't something we or anyone else is discussing. Additionally Companies like Comcast may use this as a last resort and not for another decade. But this is my very selfish very paranoid reason for wanting a rule in place to prevent such an activity. :spy:
e60ral
Banned
won't someone please think of the porn!
https://jezebel.com/the-repeal-of-net-neutrality-could-kill-independent-por-1822764736
https://jezebel.com/the-repeal-of-net-neutrality-could-kill-independent-por-1822764736
Similar threads
