Welcome to Thunderdome

GORDON wrote: Are you suggesting that youtube and netflix aren't paying for their bandwidth and data?

Because what I think is that the telcoms want to get paid for it twice.

I am not suggesting that. But, fuck Netflix, I don't use it

youtube and netflix may use half the internet, but i bet a dollar they're paying for it, already. They want US to pay for it, too.

I'm still of the mind that technology is advancing fast enough to address any issues exponentially faster than we can dislodge a damaging government regulation once implemented.

How is that "news" and not opinion, since the guy is a member of this organization?

I still think people are over-blowing it. OR whatever.

BUT WHATABOUT TWITTER BANNING WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND HATE SPEECH???

I legit cannot stand Ajit Pai and his bullshit reasoning. Dude is going to make the world a better place for Verizon and Comcast, and then slink back to them to be set up for life. Doesn't even seem to get the difference between a content provider and an ISP, either.

Troy wrote: BUT WHATABOUT TWITTER BANNING WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND HATE SPEECH???

Did they? That's fucked up. But what about it?

I hate everyone.

Troy wrote: I legit cannot stand Ajit Pai and his bullshit reasoning.

I'm not a fan either.

TheCatt wrote: How is that "news" and not opinion, since the guy is a member of this organization?

That's what many people are pointing out and why I posted that article.

GORDON wrote: youtube and netflix may use half the internet, but i bet a dollar they're paying for it, already. They want US to pay for it, too.

Google and Netflix are using half the Internet, but they aren't paying more to ISP providers the way normal users do. Your streaming video does not come from Netflix's corporate office. Netflix pays big money to have server farms directly on the tier 2 providers. So the stream for your area is probably coming from the Chicago area tier 2 provider. So while one of the major telecoms is getting money for that, it's an entirely different business and entity than the one people use as their ISP. Doing this, Netfilx, Google and FB would get very litte benefit from paying to have their traffic fast tracked. They've already cut half the hop count or greater by having a farm on the tier 2 in that area.

Now the group that DOES get a big benefit from having their traffic fast tracked would be the new start up company that can't afford a server farm connecting directly to every tier 2 facility, but could afford a prioritized connection to these tier 2 facilities. Here you can see why it's in the big Internet content providers best interest to keep competition with smaller wallets in a position where they can't really compete. That's why Google and Netflix, etc are pushing so hard for this. You can see it throughout the last 100 years or so. Especially since government regulation ballooned up so large. Big corporations are fine with government regulations. They have the deep pockets to comply. They'd rather pay to comply and keep competition at a minimum than be innovative and compete.

Right, government regulations are just barriers to entry. If you are already established,.they are good for you

TheCatt wrote: Right, government regulations are just barriers to entry. If you are already established,.they are good for you

Well, at least less bad for you than a smaller startup. I've always seen this as proof that the big businesses are in bed with the government. When you're more afraid of competition from other businesses than you are from government regulation, there's a pretty good bet you're paying a lot of money to get to help help craft that regulation in your favor over the competition.

It's dead, Jim.

JUST IN: FCC votes to repeal net neutrality
The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections. The vote, which was 3-2 along party lines, ends rules designed to keep the internet open and fair.

Leisher wrote: Millions of dead folks argued for and against Net Neutrality.

This, I wish people would investigate.

Interesting statement from Netflix, considering this statement from them a little while back

“Although there are other companies for whom this is a bigger business issue today, we continue to support net neutrality protections so that the next Netflix has a fair shot at going the distance,” Netflix said in its statement.

"We support NN, but we're not going to do anything about it"

And there's nothing in that statement that says "part of a larger legal battle that Netflix will be a part of"