04-20-15 12:12 AM
235 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. PantherBlitz's Avatar
    These arguments could be put to bed by just following the model put in place several decades ago - separate the content providers from the distributors and criminalize payola.

    Back in the day, movie studios owned their own theaters and spoiler alert: they only showed their own content. Did forcing them to separate hurt the movie industry? Not in the least. Hollywood grew tremendously both creatively and technologically and made crazy money in the process. Fast forward 25 years and the feds outlawed the practice of paying for preferred access (payola). Did that hurt the music industry?

    Net Neutrality is a good concept but the ISP's are already coming up with ways around it. Until content and distribution are separated financially we will be dealing bandages like Net Neutrality.
    rthonpm, DrBoomBotz, raino and 2 others like this.
    03-26-15 11:29 AM
  2. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    If everything is neutral, by definition there are no tiers of service. You cannot get to first, second, or third gears, etc if you're stuck in neutral. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 11:31 AM
  3. thurask's Avatar
    Lol. That's the thing about Gov intrusion. It just grows. It never diminishes. And the ride is forced upon you whether you like it or not. Good thing you can get off this thread "ride" by your own choice.

    Posted via CB10
    So how is living in Somalia?
    03-26-15 12:29 PM
  4. redlightblinking's Avatar
    If everything is neutral, by definition there are no tiers of service. You cannot get to first, second, or third gears, etc if you're stuck in neutral. LoL

    Posted via CB10
    Makes no sense. Tiers of service to customers (which are not changing) and being neutral to the data your are providing your customers, have nothing to do with each other.

    The first (tier-ing) is simply offering more speed for whatever data that customers decide to consume, the second is simply allowing those customers to have equal access to all data available (regardless of their "tier") instead of prioritizing what those customers can get based on who bribed the ISP with payola schemes.

    You have no idea what you're talking about or what net neutrality is, nor do you seem willing to quickly Google it to figure it out.

    .
    playbook_swiper1 and rthonpm like this.
    03-26-15 12:33 PM
  5. LordCrankypants's Avatar
    You can believe what you want and justify it in any way shape or form. That is your right. But that doesn't mean that bridge should be purchased by everyone walking by. In truth this has nothing to do with pricing to the end user except for increases. It's subversive and is a play for control. It's a money grab for an untouched industry. Just like everything else in the past...

    Why should all things be equal? This is the problem I've tried to highlight, but the welfare mindstate cannot get away from it. Life is not fair! We pay for services that we can afford as individuals. We pay for high speed services as a convenience not a necessity. That is not a "right" for everyone to have and to be distributed "fairly". And a company should not be forced by Gov to provide those very same services to those that cannot afford to pay for them. Period.

    During the BBOS days, I remember thread after thread of people who had BlackBerry devices without data plans. They constantly complained about certain things they could not do. The general consensus was that if you can't afford a BlackBerry with a data plan, you should not buy one just to come here and complain. Individuals need to live within their means instead of forcing others to give them what they don't deserve or cannot pay for.

    Fairness means that people have opportunities to create their own way in life. If you want something you strive to achieve it. It is a race to the top and your piers have no right to a head start provided by the Gov. You want high speed, you earn enough to pay for it. You don't say everyone should get it because you think it's too expensive. The market should dictate what the costs are and if the market states it should be $1k monthly, you either pay or make a decision that you can't afford it.

    I don't tell car manufacturers that because a Rolls Royce is too expensive for my blood that the Gov should regulate them to provide them for everyone.

    I don't tell Apple and Android to have Gov force them to provide apps for my platform because they are doing well and BlackBerry is not doing as well in that area.

    I don't expect that fancy restaurant to have Gov lower their prices because there are hungry people in the world. That is what personal charity is for...

    This is a mindstate of those that can't figure out how to compete and want assistance from Gov to get them where they wish they could be.

    If throttling is in your package, who's fault is it for entering that contract? If prices are too high in some individual's opinion, why sign up for the service? What about the guy that has worked hard for his family, but cannot get ISP services because he doesn't want to be taxed again for something he already pays taxes on. I guarantee content will cease, correct? So it's not like content will not be touched.

    As stated... You have your right to your opinion, but so do I. I truly cannot think of any area that Gov tried to take over and things became better.


    Posted via CB10
    1. I wasn't saying that people should be able to get the internet for free, and neither is the FCC. The whole idea of net neutrality is to classify the internet as a utility in line with hydro, water, etc. Are those considered luxuries? The internet is not a luxury anymore. Higher tier packages certainly can be, but straight access should not be. Whatever is available to help people who have a hard time affording hydro and water should also be available for the internet. We're a connected world, and you can make the whole "you create your own opportunities" line, but the fact is that it's almost impossible to make any opportunity for yourself in this world without the internet.

    2. All of your examples and comparisons are like comparing apples to dumptrucks. In every single one of those examples, there are options for people to get access to things that get the job done who have a hard time affording it. There are cheaper options (eg. McDonald's vs. The Keg) made available because there is enough competition out there. The big ISPs go out of their way to stifle competition, and they are essentially the only option, and thus, the only real option is the expensive car or the fancy dinner.

    3. The problem with throttling is that it's not written in the contract most of the time. ISPs just do it and don't tell the customer. Don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting, and if I'm paying a higher price for a better speed and unlimited usage, that's what I expect to get.

    JB

    Posted internationally thanks to my Passport
    03-26-15 12:37 PM
  6. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    So how is living in Somalia?
    How would I know? I live in the USA.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:10 PM
  7. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    Help. I need the Gov to rule. Not! Lol

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:13 PM
  8. Smitty13's Avatar
    I can understand people's trepidation moving forward, but they seem to have blinders on as to how the industry progressed to this point requiring FCC net neutrality rules.

    The whole idea of the "free market" in the US broadband industry has been nothing short of a joke. What with secretive agreements between ISPs to a.) not compete in one another's 'territory' and b.) to keep pricing essentially all the same across the board and to increase in unison, it is no wonder the FCC reached the decision it did.

    Additionally, ISPs can thank efforts by Verizon for these new rules. Verizon and AT&T both had a large hand in crafting the old, flimsy first set of net neutrality rules by the FCC. Those 'rules' were largely a joke. Verizon became greedy and wanted even those flimsy rules thrown out. They inadvertently forced the court's hand in saying that FCC did indeed have, albeit small, regulatory powers in regards to ISPs. Fast forward, and here we are today. (Source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/B...ty-Mess-130720).

    When you have ISPs triple dipping (E.g. Verizon in taking not only 1.) Tax breaks from the federal and state governments; 2.) Taking a customers ISP subscription price plus overages and 3.) Forcing companies like Netflix to pay for direct peering agreements), that is a red flag that this corpratist scheme needs to be reigned in.

    How much further would people have allowed ISPs to go with essentially no rules on pricing and access? My oh my how the freemarket would have ensured customer satisfaction with 'fast lanes'! I know I would absolutely love to pay my base $39.95 subscription fee to my ISP, then pay for add-on packs akin to TV packages for access to the latest and greatest sites like Facebook, YouTube, etc. Add those packages up, heck, we are at a bargain price of $120+ for basic Internet access! What's that, you want to stream Netflix too? Oh man, that is part of your ISP's 'Bandwidth Hog' package; that is an additional $79.99!

    Heck, I've even found a "promo" poster of what these ISPs would have been shifting toward if they were allowed. Check it out: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg

    ...see where this was going? I am glad we are not going to get there anytime soon.

    With the decline of cable TV subscribers becoming an ever increasing reality, ISPs are worried they will not be able to find similar revenue streams to appease the instant gratification demands of share holders. The "fast lanes" proposed by some ISPs and their astroturfing associates would amount to nothing more than the asinine bundled TV channel packages we see now. When you have collusion occurring between ISPs with impunity I wonder how people believe at least some form of regulation isn't required.

    ISPs have received over $200 billion (yes, with a B) in tax subsidies over the past decade in return for delivering nationwide 25mb connections. How has that worked out so far?

    These companies see yearly profits (no, not gross revenues, but pure profit) in the billions, yet we see infrastructure that could be described as deplorable and a downright joke. Hilariously enough, companies such as Verizon claim Title II status when it works in their favour, but somehow develops amnesia when it comes to holding up their end of the Title II bargain (Source: https://secure.dslreports.com/showne...x-Perks-129130)

    Additionally, can someone explain to me how these rules, which essentially increase municipalities' freedom to deploy their own ISPs, will hurt the consumer?

    Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina have been excellent blueprints for what can be accomplished when cities, who are held hostage by 3rd party ISPs refusing to upgrade/expand their area, lobby state governments for the freedom to provide it's citizen their own ISP connection.

    This aspect of these new rules opens up freedom at the municipal level to implement Internet connections as they see fit. In fact, free market believers should be cheering about this part of the ruling. A city's economic destiny is now held in their own hands; if they provide a premium service at a reasonable price, it will succeed. Additionally, this will force incumbent ISPs to...you know...actually compete! Competition is a core pillar of a free market economy.

    Don't think this is a widespread problem? Well, ISP lobbyist efforts have been the reason for 20 state laws being passed to eliminate local communities' right to make these decisions for themselves.

    When something such as municipal broadband enters the scene, great things can happen. Cities will now hold their destiny in their own hands and will not be at the mercy of 3rd parties who have no interest in offering a reliable and cost effective service; rather, they are only interested in bilking subscribers for more money and accepting more tax breaks for it.

    If municipal broadband becomes costly or must decide whether to expand or not, that choice is now left up to taxpayers of that city, not a board of faceless trustees who live thousands of miles away. Some people may be against freedom, but I am not. This change will allow people to pursue their own destiny and exercise their own freedom rather than be dependent upon shoddy services they are indirectly paying for already in the form of tax subsidies as well as directly by subscriber fees.

    Sure, you could argue this part of the law may become perverted down the line, but at current face value, this is a big win for municipal freedom and inevitably the consumer too.

    Again, I can understand people's mistrust of government regulating things. Heck, I myself have had gripes about government control on certain things. I however believe that the broadband and wireless landscape has become so barren and non-competitive due to collusion, something must be done to remedy this. For the past decade (and more) private industry has been given chances time and time again to rise to the occasion, but instead has squandered those chances (and billions in tax breaks).

    Posted via CB10
    DrBoomBotz, Shuswap, raino and 3 others like this.
    03-26-15 01:20 PM
  9. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    Whoa. Some of these novels are just out of the Gov playbook. Lol. No wonder Gov rules are loved so much. Chen couldn't have said it better!

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:26 PM
  10. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    You realize why this is right? If not it's because the Gov gave monopolies to the cable providers putting only 1 in most areas of the country. Cable providers have fiber lines which is the fastest tech. Phone companies use copper which is slow. In 85 % of the country there is only the phone company (slow speeds DSL) and the Monopoly cable company. Again you are wrong why our internet is slow. Without competition rules need to be put in place.
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 01:30 PM
  11. nvsfg's Avatar
    I don't "believe" anything. Law exists. The law of contract, the right to sue and be sued, the rules surrounding commercial transactions, stock markets, etc., are all creations of governments. Thus, the so-called market was created. Corporations are fictitious legal persons. Groups of people (investors) can work together in certain ways without certain obligations (limited liability), because government has given them the right to do so. So, if government gives them extraordinary rights, it can also subject them to extraordinary obligations.

    You may choose not to "believe" that governments created anything, but that is just a wilful denial of history. Groups of very self-interested people created laws that offered them considerable advantages when they held control of government. Then they whine when other groups of self-interested people gain control of government and subject them to reasonable (or excessive and unreasonable) controls. It's a back and forth exchange. C'est la vie.

    I agree with you completely that people work very hard within the rules to achieve great things.
    So good it deserves to be quoted. Right on the money.

    Q10/10.2.1.2156 Waiting for my Passport
    03-26-15 01:36 PM
  12. redlightblinking's Avatar
    How would I know? I live in the USA.

    Posted via CB10
    Which is why you enjoy a life much better than those in Somalia, even though everything you propose is exactly what they have in Somalia. In other words, you're a complete hypocrite.

    Help. I need the Gov to rule. Not! Lol
    You betcha! (wink).

    So, you'd rather have a lawless band of guys in the back of Toyota's rule you instead. There are plenty of options for you.


    Whoa. Some of these novels are just out of the Gov playbook. Lol.
    Which loosely translates to....

    Whoa, I can't handle facts or logic and can't defend anything I say. So, I'll just rely on my crutch of saying that "it's out of the government playbook" without even really knowing what that means. I'll add some Mitt Romney nervous laughter at the end as if to exude confidence".

    No wonder Gov rules are loved so much.
    Maybe because they help you have such a great life compared to your friends in those countries free of any government rules.

    Chen couldn't have said it better!
    Now you're just desperate. Makes no sense at all.
    03-26-15 01:41 PM
  13. redlightblinking's Avatar
    03-26-15 01:47 PM
  14. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    Has anyone playing expert for this neutrality thing ever read the bill?

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:47 PM
  15. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Whoa. Some of these novels are just out of the Gov playbook. Lol. No wonder Gov rules are loved so much. Chen couldn't have said it better!

    Posted via CB10
    Does this remind anyone else of a "tranqed" rhinoceros?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070605/
    Last edited by DrBoomBotz; 03-26-15 at 01:49 PM. Reason: add link to the movie
    03-26-15 01:47 PM
  16. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    The USA may not be perfect, but I sure do like it here. LoL. Let's not mess everything up those who work hard for what they have.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 01:49 PM
  17. redlightblinking's Avatar
    Has anyone playing expert for this neutrality thing ever read the bill?

    Posted via CB10
    Let's start with you......the OP and presumed expert.
    03-26-15 01:50 PM
  18. redlightblinking's Avatar
    The USA may not be perfect, but I sure do like it here. LoL. Let's not mess everything up those who work hard for what they have.

    Posted via CB10
    You sure do like it here despite all of those oppressive laws that the government passed to keep you happy?

    Soooo.....allowing private companies (ISPs) to take bribes and subsequently limit your access to equal data access is the only way to make sure that you keep what you have?
    03-26-15 01:53 PM
  19. passport1's Avatar
    I support FCC on this issue.

    Posted via CB10
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 01:58 PM
  20. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    Let's start with you......the OP and presumed expert.
    No. Let's start with you! Since YOU have repeatedly stated I don't know how net neutrality works. So being that you know, please, after you.

    All I can say is going by the history of the US Government, nothing good will come of it. But when I ask you where or how you benefit other than this "level playing field" there are big posts with no answers.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 02:02 PM
  21. MTBBguy's Avatar
    Well, this is an interesting thread.

    My two cents-

    OP, you and I both know we do need some regulation, we just have to. The key is the word "some". When it comes to the internet I'm not exactly sure we need it. It has been going great for this whole time and now all of a sudden we need regulation? Why? How about preventing these problems by stopping monopolies from forming in the first place? I'm for that. A take over of the internet? No, and it will lead to that. Just like Obamacare will lead to more regulation/takeover of HC.

    Don't be naive, just look at how great the VA, USPS, and Social Security are taken care of. Some of his concerns are valid folks. Also, I have one choice for broadband in my area and they suck but guess what? I choose to live here and I believe there are solutions other than forcing you to pay higher taxes to support me. (see )
    03-26-15 02:03 PM
  22. Smitty13's Avatar
    No. Let's start with you! Since YOU have repeatedly stated I don't know how net neutrality works. So being that you know, please, after you.

    All I can say is going by the history of the US Government, nothing good will come of it. But when I ask you where or how you benefit other than this "level playing field" there are big posts with no answers.

    Posted via CB10
    OP, I am not the person you were addressing this post to, but I wanted to chime in with an answer to one of your questions.

    In regards to how this would benefit me or others, refer to my previous post on this thread (#83; Can't seem to find a way to copy the direct link on mobile, sorry).

    In it I outlined how these new rules will allow for easier implementation of municipal broadband, which has been shown to be very successful in a whole host of ways. This essentially puts the freedom of the people back on their own hands.

    Please have a read if you haven't done so.

    Posted via CB10
    MarsupilamiX likes this.
    03-26-15 02:08 PM
  23. redlightblinking's Avatar
    No. Let's start with you! Since YOU have repeatedly stated I don't know how net neutrality works. So being that you know, please, after you.
    Being that I know........what? What does this have to do with some bill you were asking about? What was the point of you asking others about reading some Bill if you won't even take a claim to having read some bill?

    All I can say is going by the history of the US Government, nothing good will come of it.
    Sure. Because the US is such a horrible place to live. Got it.

    I don't ever expect you to have a single example to illustrate your wild and vague claims, but it sure is fun to poke fun at them.



    But when I ask you where or how you benefit other than this "level playing field" there are big posts with no answers.

    Posted via CB10
    If specifically listed many things in multiple posts. You choose to ignore them and talk about John Chen or What's App, or novels, etc. etc.
    03-26-15 02:10 PM
  24. MADBRADNYC's Avatar
    You sure do like it here despite all of those oppressive laws that the government passed to keep you happy?

    Soooo.....allowing private companies (ISPs) to take bribes and subsequently limit your access to equal data access is the only way to make sure that you keep what you have?
    Yes. I like it here and served this great country with distinction. That does not mean I like the Gov and what they're trying to do. That's why we have the freedom to speak out against such things. And a vote would be nice. Not passage of a bill without scrutiny. You have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill after, right?. Lol.

    And you just keep traveling with all of these things I have nothing to do with or mentioned. That's your narrative, not mine.

    Posted via CB10
    03-26-15 02:12 PM
  25. redlightblinking's Avatar
    Well, this is an interesting thread.
    It has been going great for this whole time and now all of a sudden we need regulation? Why?
    Because everyone was behaving themselves up until now. Playa's gonna play. Now we need some extra rules.

    How about preventing these problems by stopping monopolies from forming in the first place? I'm for that.

    You're for stopping a company from existing? Why?

    Don't be naive, just look at how great the VA, USPS, and Social Security are taken care of. Some of his concerns are valid folks.
    Which ones and how?

    Also, I have one choice for broadband in my area and they suck but guess what? I choose to live here and I believe there are solutions other than forcing you to pay higher taxes to support me. )
    What does higher taxes for me to support you have to do with net neutrality?
    playbook_swiper1 likes this.
    03-26-15 02:16 PM
235 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Pasting is a joke in BB10
    By trevorcroft in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-16-15, 11:53 PM
  2. Why isn't my Playbook is charging?
    By Veida Jane Mendoza in forum BlackBerry PlayBook
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-15, 12:32 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 05:37 PM
  4. Where is the voicemail indicator on my BlackBerry Classic?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Motion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 12:06 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-25-15, 10:32 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD