|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> ? for Oldtimer....... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1513276421 Message started by raydawg on 12/14/17 at 10:33:41 |
|
Title: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/14/17 at 10:33:41 I hope this won't irk anyone off ( maybe I should rephrase that ???? ) OT, you seem very up to date re: computers, internet, etc... And that is what prompts my question. This net neutrality, could you please explain to me the nuances of it, why its even a current issue, and how it effects me, please? Thank you! |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/14/17 at 11:48:08 I get what you mean, but I thought this avenue was the best place to find you ;D I appreciate your answer, and I respect it, enough so I will adopt it as my understanding now, thanks! Maybe just lock the thread, to enlighten, without debating, for I feel I am not the only one confused by this issue, looking for a simplification of it, WITHOUT getting into the political posturing aspects of it. Again, thanks! |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by MMRanch on 12/14/17 at 22:54:23 I think Giving somebody the same thing that I have to Pay for is Cheating Reminds me of a bumper sticker on my truck : " A Liberal is Someone who will give-away every thing that isn't theirs ." I guess the World Just isn't Fair . I pay ... others get free ??? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Oldfeller on 12/15/17 at 03:39:04 A topic like Net Neutrality is bound to result in controversy, so please take it to the Tall Table, that's why the place was created. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by verslagen1 on 12/15/17 at 07:15:47 4E5C4E5C51424D404B030 wrote:
If you wanted fair you should been King. ;D |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 08:55:56 I don't see how this can be a good thing for anyone other than internet providers... ...and maybe Amazon... Just a new way to gouge people... :-? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 09:17:48 2A3C2B362E3B362D590 wrote:
I'm not perfectly comfortable with what this will do to costs, but I'm expecting a jump first and then competition that brings it back down. The idea that we are not being throttled now is ludicrous. Our speed changes all the time. We are on fiber optic cable, so it should be stable, but it's not. The provider is set up to control the rate of flow so as to not lose money. We have a T.V.package. We have packages available for less money and some for more money. It's a simple Market thing. I buy what I can afford. Like the grocery store, not everyone gets filet mignon, some get round steak, some get hamburger, is that fair? Yeah, it's fair. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 09:41:17 ...but what if your market starts putting out large amounts of filet mignon and limiting availability of hamburger?... this because the mignon suppliers pay them to?... We suddenly find ourselves limiting our meat consumption to once per week... ...(That would actually be healthier, which reduces the validity of my analogy, but you get the point)... Internet is more than just an entertainment source. We get information, social interaction, pay our bills, do our taxes, shop, sell, communicate, etc... It even serves in emergency crisis... Access in more critical than optional and it's necessity increases daily... |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 09:50:31 If you're trying to sell a product, would you do that? The cable company sells packages for different prices. Car manufacturers don't just build Cadillacs, And internet providers won't just offer the Cadillac connection speed. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 10:13:43 Here is my problem on the issue...... Net Neutrality is only 2 years old in its implementation..... We are told of all sorts of threats if its removed. The INTERNET thrived, grew, and prospered very well before that, why, if it was without this need? Now those in favor of removing it talk about goverment interference, stymied technology, etc..... Yet I can't tell a dang thing different between the before, or after, on my end..... All I hear is folk forecasting FEAR and DOOM, if "their" policies are not enforced. Not sure why, but it sure seems to tack along the same dividing lines as political party beliefs.... Well, we saw Trump get elected under Net Neutrality policy, and he sure was NOT favored by the media, and political establishment, from controlling of the INTERNET domain(s). And we saw Obama used it handily, before its implementation, to win his elections twice, so we can ascertain access was not restricted by charging consumers unjust fees..... Got to be a REAL TRUTH, between the two extremes, it would seem..... |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 10:29:51 I've been wondering why Disney is acquiring whoever, Fox, heck,I don't remember, but the need to acquire something, by Disney, has left me wondering. So, now I'm hearing a prognosticator saying Streaming is the future... And explaining about Zero Rating And AT&T and their deal to not charge for data IF you're a customer with a phone who wants to use Their streaming service, they don't charge for the data. Well, ESPN can't be streamed by anybody who Isn't a cable subscriber. But you can watch all kindsa stuff on Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services. Just wait, let this shake out. The Consumer will be ahead. Clothing manufacturers don't just produce Gucci, The market is well covered. The Consumer has a wide variety of products to choose from. Net Neutrality has been a hindrance to the creation of options. I actually applauded Obama for signing it. I think I was wrong.. And we will see in a coupla years, maybe less. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 10:40:11 If your seatbelt causes no problems or inconvenience, why not wear it?... If a consumer protection is seeming to not be any problem,.. why get rid of it?... Can any good come from that?... |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by verslagen1 on 12/15/17 at 10:43:14 At some point you'll be watching netflix and it'll get throttled. So you'll go looking for a netflix partner isp... networxs. I get cable, there's no over the air reception, and limited cell phone reception. I can get dsl and there's mention of fiber. Satellite seems to be someones wet dream. yeah, even in the big sh!ty I'm still looking for options. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 10:44:56 Other than if you buy a product on line, in the same state you reside, no tax is collected.... Even no VAT, if bought in a country that has that tax structure. I hope INTERNET commerce stays that way, for it keeps the cost down, and it really gives the consumer the best choices, as well as an opportunity to distribute "wealth" worldwide without goverment interference (for the most part). To me that seems the best avenue for folks all over this planet to better their circumstance, by a truly free global market/economy...... |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 10:47:44 I'm trying to show you where WE are not being as well served as an open and unobstructed market would allow. I really thought I had addressed the points you, well, point, you made, concerning All The Providers offering nothing but the most expensive and least value product by showing so many Other markets, food, clothing and transportation, none regulated by the government to force them to offer affordable options. I guess I failed. So now, the only option is We wait. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 11:13:29 :-? Why?.... https://www.fastcompany.com/40508500/a-lot-of-dead-people-apparently-supported-ending-net-neutrality?partner=feedburner&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+fastcompany%252Fheadlines+(Fast+Company) New York Attorney General’s Office says that as many as 2 million identities were stolen–including those of deceased individuals–so comments could be left under their names supporting the repeal of net neutrality. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 11:43:02 Why is a claim immediately credible when it's what you want to believe? How many dead people voted for Hillary? That's ludicrous But not the dead people for repeal of NN? Sure is a lot of panic over something that A, can be reversed if it sucks And B, based on the logic that has been offered Most likely won't suck. I was told what a short sighted, racist douche I was when Obama care was something I opposed. Well, I was right. I USED TO support NN, but after time to think and listen to others, I'm willing to risk it. Bamicare didn't bother me personally, my wife is insured through the hospital and I have Medicare, so, no biggie to me. Others have suffered though. I'm not seeing simple, logical arguments against the repeal of NN. It's looking like fear of the free market. As if service providers Don't Want every household connected. In ten years that cable subscription will be ancient history. That's who hates this. Watch how things shake out. I'll probably be one of the minority who suffers, but the city dwellers will win bigly. Streaming video over the internet will destroy cable. Where multiple service providers are available the options for consumers will allow them to pick and choose, forcing providers to create options. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 12:06:34 647B7D7A6760516151697B773C0E0 wrote:
This ain't from Alex Jones,.. it's from New York Attorney General’s Office... I give that a little more credence... |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 12:34:21 as many as 2 million identities were stolen–including those of deceased individuals If you want to say something online, why do you need a name of a real person? https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments IF in fact there were all these people's names used to post under, WHOSE VOTE was changed Because of it? And how many people were dead? Who did it? And IF it's true, why can't computer pros find the sources? Looks like a crime to me. I'd expect some NN supporters to jump at the chance to help track down the identity thieves. Someone needs to be in trouble. Even If fraudulent support can be proven, that doesn't make it any less reasonable to support it. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 12:53:57 7A6C7B667E6B667D090 wrote:
This ain't from Alex Jones,.. it's from New York Attorney General’s Office... I give that a little more credence...[/quote] I didn't read the link, but let me ask you Bot the question, are you suggesting these 2 million stolen names have swayed, or influenced folks opine on the NN issue? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 13:01:36 A lot of trouble to go to for no purpose... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 13:12:28 7660776A72676A71050 wrote:
Is that a yes, you believe it has the capacity to alter the outcome on this issue? Sorry, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly, assumptions I think were part of the problem that led to some of the conflict on this board, I feel. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 13:58:46 I asked Who voted differently because of it? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by verslagen1 on 12/15/17 at 14:33:07 So I typed in my 1st name and scanned about 300 entries... most were entered today most looked as if they copied and pasted "I strongly support net neutrality backed by Title..." 1 said vote no about 10% hand typed something in support of NN Based on that, if 2 million said no, 600 million said YES! |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by Serowbot on 12/15/17 at 15:38:27 Some explanation from a knowledgeable friend... "on the net neutrality argument, the key to understanding it is that there are 3 main categories of parties involved, not just 2. It's not just you buying speed from your ISP, it's also all the content providers (websites and web services, from Netflix to suzukisavage.com to joejimbob.com) So it's not just consumers and ISPs, it's consumers, ISPs and content. And the conflict arrises when an ISP, like Comcast, buys a content provider, like NBC, or when Verizon (ISP) wants to offer NFL games so they cut a deal with the NFL, but you only have AT&T available in your area. So now, if you have Comcast, you get all NBC content fast and quick, but if you want CBS content... Comcast is within their right to ask CBS to pay more to get their content to the End USER (YOU). So the Title 2 protection that took place under Obama was a step towards regulating the internet as a utility, giving the end user an equal result. Now the debate is, well, water is regulated, but the lowest common denominator of water is well, usually tap water, so do you want the internet to go through that kind of regulation where it equalizes out to the lowest common denominator, (which would be a HUGE improvement for some people). The argument that, this is the free market sorting things out, isn't exactly true. Because it's not the End User (you) being allowed to set prices via supply and demand. Your demand is being messed with via content providers being able or unable to subsidize their product to run on ISPs that they don't own or have a partnership with. So now your access to the internet is limited by those partnerships between multi-million dollar companies and other multi-million dollar companies. But that allows them to take profits, maybe more than with a "free internet" and the idea is that these companies will take those profits and expand and improve their services so that they are better than tap water. The simple solution is to deny ISPs the ability to own content, period. This still allows ISPs to throttle content based on their pipeline needs, like, I stream a ton of video, often all at once, it's fair for them to say, hey, you aren't really paying for the ability to do all that, so this is going to be slower now. and this still allows content providers to charge the end user for their content without having to up-charge them to pay the ISPs extortion fees. Also the competition in the USA is pitiful. I'm all for rule and regulations to encourage competition... . but there are the big 4 ISPs that sink billions into stopping that, and the Telecomm industry in the USA is still in a fairly monopolistic state, ever since Ma Bell. " |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 15:44:24 What does this have to do with Debating, between ourselves, whether or not ending NN is good? Our conversation and what we, as individuals, believe is the better approach, won't affect their votes. I've explained to the best of my ability Why I no longer support NN. I don't see a cogent argument against what I have said and I Think I've offered reasonable responses to the arguments made to keep NN. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by T And T Garage on 12/15/17 at 15:48:55 60736B76736575120 wrote:
Well, technically, the internet was only classified as a Title II communication service in 2015. That classification didn't change anything, it actually protected it from what just happened. My litmus test is simple - if a handful of corporations love it, then it probably isn't great for the consumer. By repealing NN, the large ISPs will be able to throttle speeds at their whim. One example as to how this may have a direct effect on people on this forum - Verizon owns Huffington Post, AOL and Yahoo to name a few. You think they'll give the same bandwidth to everyone? I don't. All's not lost though. There are already states coming out with lawsuits and Congressmen trying to block it CRA resolutions. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 16:05:01 Corporations offer Food Clothing Transportation All without government telling them they must provide products that everyone can afford. No, not everyone has a car, not everyone Has or Wants a job, but the broad spectrum of products that are available makes me Now Believe, after having applauded NN two years ago,and having considered the coming approach to accessing video content, I have to hope this is gonna be good for all of us. Unlike the opponents, I'm not certain of the outcome. Twenty years ago who saw houses and families with no land lines? This will be the end of the cable guy. And that monthly payment. Watch. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 16:06:10 6E7177706D6A5B6B5B63717D36040 wrote:
Yeah, I agree, you were asked a question straight up, can't you extend the courtesy to answer it, or just decline, in your own words? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 16:52:53 Did I miss a question? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by raydawg on 12/15/17 at 17:02:03 485751564B4C7D4D7D45575B10220 wrote:
I dunno..... I asked Bot to explain his reply: Serowbot wrote on Today at 12:06:34: justin_o_guy2 wrote on Today at 11:43:02: Why is a claim immediately credible when it's what you want to believe? This ain't from Alex Jones,.. it's from New York Attorney General’s Office... I give that a little more credence... I didn't read the link, but let me ask you Bot the question, are you suggesting these 2 million stolen names have swayed, or influenced folks opine on the NN issue? |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 17:14:53 And I asked whose vote was affected. And how did That affect the outcome? But the only question we can even address is Is repealing NN a good idea? And then No matter what we decide, It's not gonna change the vote. I'm going on record as a former NN supporter, ready to let the market run. Since I live in the boonies, I don't expect to see a bunch of competition to hold prices down and services up, but the suburbs should see real benefit. |
|
Title: Re: ? for Oldtimer....... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/17 at 18:20:25 I guess we've ended the debate period. http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/msnbc-anchor-loses-net-neutrality-debate-with-former-fcc-chairman-video/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social Reference to laws protecting against the things Bot was considering. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |