|
Dahn posted:There has to be a catch, Government doing something right hasn't happened since they sued Microsoft. Regardless of the intent or the actual outcome of yesterday's specific action, you can count on, with 100% certainty, that we are, in fact, on a slope to a regulated-content internet. There are too many people/groups/corporations who want this for either philosophical or business reasons to turn out any other way. Notice that even EFF is getting cold feet on this now, they're smart enough to know what's going to happen.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
Why do you think that ISPs arent going to gently caress consumers now? What has changed for the positive for consumers? I have some bad news for you polyanna types. Just today it was pointed out on an industry messageboard I frequent that the new rules apply to 4mb and above, classifying that as broadband. What do you think that will mean? edit: I mean honestly guys, every time Obama takes a poo poo, you fall all over yourselves explaining how it's a transcendent poo poo that will change everything forever
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
LGD posted:Gosh, I was pretty sure that meant telcos could no longer collect subsidies for deploying "broadband" that would have been shameful a decade ago. But you've truly opened my eyes to the impending threat of the telcos throttling everything back to <4mbps so they can put the screws to all the people lining up to watch Netflix on their poo poo connections. Can you point at the subsidies that telcos are receiving for deploying broadband?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:They are still going to gently caress consumers. They are just going to have to be a little more creative about it. But that means less profit. Which is the only reason ISPs are against net neutrality because it certainly has gently caress-all to do with anything they claim it does. Telco isn't exactly a sane person's definition of under-regulated, you realize that, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:First post this page. poo poo indeed. I see a lot of stuff from the Clinton and Bush administrations, but nothing recent. My question was simple - please show me subsidies that telcos (I dont know anything about cable) are receiving today to roll out broadband. By today, I mean, if telcoX spends $10 on February 27th 2015, will they get a subsidy for it. And if so, by whom?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:
Good post. The notion here, if I can goonsay, is that adding a Federal Department of the Internet will make your internet experience better. Thats what some actual posters ITT seem to think.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Anything that puts the screws to Comcast is OK in my book. That company is a massive pile of poo poo that grasps for monopolies in areas. Your choices where Comcast exists are often "Comcast" or "gently caress you." The connections are sometimes downright inconsistent and if you want a non-lovely one you're paying extra. Sometimes they just go down randomly for hours and Comcast gives no fucks at all. Yeah they aren't throttling stuff yet but I guarantee you that Comcast would happily make you pay extra for accessing "premium" (i.e., popular) websites. What in yesterday's announcement do you think will make Comcast quit being such a gigantic poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Net Neutrality is good, force all conservatives back onto telegraphs if they don't stop bitching. No, the better thing is the Department of the Internet encroaching on content until we have GB style control prohibitions of porn. Boy oh boy will we see the sides flip on this issue immediately! Wait, I can't get my cartoon horse loving porn any more? Goddamned bluenoses! That's it, I'm tearing the Obama sticker off my Prius!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Not much. I think at this point the only thing the FCC is doing is warning Comcast to not become an even bigger gigantic poo poo. So you're comfortable with the Feds placing themselves firmly into the Internet business to maybe one day potentially warn comcast not to become a bigger poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:You can bet your rear end that as soon as the government comes for Internet porn is when the revolution will come Nah, it'll be used as a bludgeon against the Right when the Left is in charge and visa versa. The right will love being able to use and expand federal control over the internet to go after pornographers, but by then this is going to be so set in stone that no amount of internet outrage will make any difference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Comcast will not stop being a little poo poo. However, approximately a handful of ways they were planning to be a little poo poo have now been preempted by the horrifying decision that the internet should stay more or less as it is. That's all! Hardly earthshaking, except that a few months ago we were all convinced that Comcast would be permitted to continue being a little poo poo in those specific ways. It's not like the Internet wasn't being regulated by the FCC earlier, either. This rule is just a replacement for some older rules that Verizon had thrown out by a court, rewritten to comply with the court's ruling. How do you know any of this? The FCC refuses to release any of the new rules for review. Obama and the FCC have you just where they want you - all the retards cheering 'victory' without having any actual idea what the new rules are. Don't any of you cheerleaders have a problem with this notion of passing rules and/or laws without allowing any public review? I live in the tariff world, we can't do ANYTHING without significant advanced notice, and significant time for public comment. How on earth should the Federal government, the grantor of all your rights, have such a lower standard?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:The FCC claims they left out the burdensome regulatory stuff, though. Are you saying they're lying about that? I'm genuinely asking because I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the law to fact check them but I assume they couldn't get away with a bald-faced lie. Who knows, they wont release what they agreed on. Your guess is as good as anyone else's.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Yeah, just like how every phone call from an Obama campaign office was blocked while Bush was in office I'm thinking more like the FCC gets used as a blunt instrument for culture wars on both sides. It's a very lovely possibility, but whatever, I already use VPN to get an IP address from elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
