Net Nuetrality

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:45 pm

Pirate Life wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:We've already established that you have more than 2 options, as pretty much everyone does including satellite, dial up, or even cellular. That is where competition can grow. New lines are being run every single day by fiber companies as well (mostly Verizon and Google).


This is not true in parts of the country. My brother's option in his house is dial up. He's less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from one of the 13 root servers for the internet (the main one for .com addresses run by Verisign). There's no cable or fiber service in his town. Satellite doesn't work, doesn't have a clear line to the southern sky where the satellite is (Hughesnet will send folks out to people in his neighborhood but soon as they get there, they tell them it won't work because they can't point the dish at the satellite). No 3g/4g coverage in his town - maps for carriers show it but it doesn't work and is one of the first thing real estate folks will tell people when looking to move into the town. Even regular cell service is spotty to the point everyone there has a home phone - how many towns can say that these days? And no, DSL isn't an option either as they're too far from the closest hub/node.

Yes, it's a rural area out in Virginia's old money horse country (my brother has fox hunts that go through his yard), but no ISP wants to go out that way due to the small number of customers and the difficulties in getting service out there (almost all private land to lease/acquire to run the cables) even though the surrounding area is home to some of the richest families in the country.

You may feel like dial up is adequate and that no one needs the internet or high speed, but it is more of a utility than it is a service these days in that it is becoming required to function in society. Insurance claim? Fill out a form online (takes twenty minutes to get to the page on dial up, let alone filling out the form - if the page loads the first time and doesn't time out). Need to renew a prescription? Go to our webpage. Feeling sick and need to see the doctor? Let's set up a video visit to diagnose you before coming in - it's free and will save time! Can't do it on dial up, so drive 20 miles and wait 45-90 minutes to see someone. Renew your license? It's cheaper online, but the registration times out on the DMV website with dial up because it's too slow, so go enjoy the special hell that is the DMV office. Need customer service for your water company? Chat online, but page won't load with dial up to get to chat because of flash plug ins. All of this is crap my brother's dealt with in just the past few months, he doesn't even try at home anymore just does it all at our office. So much of what we do with companies is now internet-first and the pages aren't designed for dialup any longer because for the most part high speed internet is ubiquitous. And forget about trying to run just about any type of business without decent, stable internet these days. Do we really need to divide the urban/rural communities even more than we do now?

We've gone back and forth with the entitlement argument already. It seems you are all in with this position.

Sorry, Pirate, but I've provided my answer to your view and concerns multiple times. See my response to delt, no one is entitled to internet and they especially aren't entitled to fast internet.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Phantom Phenom » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:47 pm

We do not need the government (or corporations) deciding what we can and cannot see. That smacks of a dictatorship. :shock: :P
User avatar
Phantom Phenom
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby StillCSG » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:51 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Pirate Life wrote:
This is not true in parts of the country. My brother's option in his house is dial up. He's less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from one of the 13 root servers for the internet (the main one for .com addresses run by Verisign). There's no cable or fiber service in his town. Satellite doesn't work, doesn't have a clear line to the southern sky where the satellite is (Hughesnet will send folks out to people in his neighborhood but soon as they get there, they tell them it won't work because they can't point the dish at the satellite). No 3g/4g coverage in his town - maps for carriers show it but it doesn't work and is one of the first thing real estate folks will tell people when looking to move into the town. Even regular cell service is spotty to the point everyone there has a home phone - how many towns can say that these days? And no, DSL isn't an option either as they're too far from the closest hub/node.

Yes, it's a rural area out in Virginia's old money horse country (my brother has fox hunts that go through his yard), but no ISP wants to go out that way due to the small number of customers and the difficulties in getting service out there (almost all private land to lease/acquire to run the cables) even though the surrounding area is home to some of the richest families in the country.

You may feel like dial up is adequate and that no one needs the internet or high speed, but it is more of a utility than it is a service these days in that it is becoming required to function in society. Insurance claim? Fill out a form online (takes twenty minutes to get to the page on dial up, let alone filling out the form - if the page loads the first time and doesn't time out). Need to renew a prescription? Go to our webpage. Feeling sick and need to see the doctor? Let's set up a video visit to diagnose you before coming in - it's free and will save time! Can't do it on dial up, so drive 20 miles and wait 45-90 minutes to see someone. Renew your license? It's cheaper online, but the registration times out on the DMV website with dial up because it's too slow, so go enjoy the special hell that is the DMV office. Need customer service for your water company? Chat online, but page won't load with dial up to get to chat because of flash plug ins. All of this is crap my brother's dealt with in just the past few months, he doesn't even try at home anymore just does it all at our office. So much of what we do with companies is now internet-first and the pages aren't designed for dialup any longer because for the most part high speed internet is ubiquitous. And forget about trying to run just about any type of business without decent, stable internet these days. Do we really need to divide the urban/rural communities even more than we do now?

We've gone back and forth with the entitlement argument already. It seems you are all in with this position.

Sorry, Pirate, but I've provided my answer to your view and concerns multiple times. See my response to delt, no one is entitled to internet and they especially aren't entitled to fast internet.


Then shut yours off and go back to a 56k modem
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 4010
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 675 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Phantom Phenom » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:57 pm

I don’t trust any corporation to do anything but care about their own $$$$ and the comfort of their own money

Of course the cable companies will try to thwart anything that is not about helping themselves.
User avatar
Phantom Phenom
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:15 pm

Phantom Phenom wrote:I don’t trust any corporation to do anything but care about their own $$$$ and the comfort of their own money

.



Nor do I.

The business of business is business




People take their private property in the form of capital, knowledge and labor and put it to work for themselves.

Greatness isn’t it?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:32 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:We've gone back and forth with the entitlement argument already. It seems you are all in with this position.

Sorry, Pirate, but I've provided my answer to your view and concerns multiple times. See my response to delt, no one is entitled to internet and they especially aren't entitled to fast internet.

We aren't entitled to landline phones either, but they're covered under Title II.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Pirate Life » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:57 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Pirate Life wrote:
This is not true in parts of the country. My brother's option in his house is dial up. He's less than 50 miles from DC and less than 25 miles from one of the 13 root servers for the internet (the main one for .com addresses run by Verisign). There's no cable or fiber service in his town. Satellite doesn't work, doesn't have a clear line to the southern sky where the satellite is (Hughesnet will send folks out to people in his neighborhood but soon as they get there, they tell them it won't work because they can't point the dish at the satellite). No 3g/4g coverage in his town - maps for carriers show it but it doesn't work and is one of the first thing real estate folks will tell people when looking to move into the town. Even regular cell service is spotty to the point everyone there has a home phone - how many towns can say that these days? And no, DSL isn't an option either as they're too far from the closest hub/node.

Yes, it's a rural area out in Virginia's old money horse country (my brother has fox hunts that go through his yard), but no ISP wants to go out that way due to the small number of customers and the difficulties in getting service out there (almost all private land to lease/acquire to run the cables) even though the surrounding area is home to some of the richest families in the country.

You may feel like dial up is adequate and that no one needs the internet or high speed, but it is more of a utility than it is a service these days in that it is becoming required to function in society. Insurance claim? Fill out a form online (takes twenty minutes to get to the page on dial up, let alone filling out the form - if the page loads the first time and doesn't time out). Need to renew a prescription? Go to our webpage. Feeling sick and need to see the doctor? Let's set up a video visit to diagnose you before coming in - it's free and will save time! Can't do it on dial up, so drive 20 miles and wait 45-90 minutes to see someone. Renew your license? It's cheaper online, but the registration times out on the DMV website with dial up because it's too slow, so go enjoy the special hell that is the DMV office. Need customer service for your water company? Chat online, but page won't load with dial up to get to chat because of flash plug ins. All of this is crap my brother's dealt with in just the past few months, he doesn't even try at home anymore just does it all at our office. So much of what we do with companies is now internet-first and the pages aren't designed for dialup any longer because for the most part high speed internet is ubiquitous. And forget about trying to run just about any type of business without decent, stable internet these days. Do we really need to divide the urban/rural communities even more than we do now?

We've gone back and forth with the entitlement argument already. It seems you are all in with this position.

Sorry, Pirate, but I've provided my answer to your view and concerns multiple times. See my response to delt, no one is entitled to internet and they especially aren't entitled to fast internet.


This isn't an entitlement argument actually. It's a rebuttal to your claim that everyone has choice in internet access and that dial up is sufficient. At no point did I say everyone should have high speed access provided for them, at no point did I suggest the gov't should provide it or force businesses to offer it. I don't know the solution - though I am pretty damn certain ending net neutrality isn't going to solve it as that removes any business incentive to try to provide for folks in rural areas.
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:54 pm

Pirate Life wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:We've gone back and forth with the entitlement argument already. It seems you are all in with this position.

Sorry, Pirate, but I've provided my answer to your view and concerns multiple times. See my response to delt, no one is entitled to internet and they especially aren't entitled to fast internet.

I am pretty damn certain ending net neutrality isn't going to solve it as that removes any business incentive to try to provide for folks in rural areas.


Can you elaborate on this?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:33 am

Ajit Pai worked with Daily Caller to make a Youtube video to really drive home how seriously he's taking everybody's concerns about Net Neutrality.

Come for the "gramming food", stay for the Harlem Shake with a known Pizzagate conspiracy theorist.

User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:29 pm

****ing ***hole.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 10708
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 555 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:41 pm

nope
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 10708
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 555 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:48 pm

Well, it's a done deal. Let the ISP game of Monopoly commence!
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:02 pm

well, let's see what happens...
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:15 pm

You landed on http://www.dailycaller.com. If you'd like to view this content, you will need to subscribe to Comcast's great new "Moron" package for only $5 a month for the first 3 months.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:25 pm

bucfanclw wrote:You landed on http://www.dailycaller.com. If you'd like to view this content, you will need to subscribe to Comcast's great new "Moron" package for only $5 a month for the first 3 months.


lol
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Pirate Life » Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:36 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Pirate Life wrote:I am pretty damn certain ending net neutrality isn't going to solve it as that removes any business incentive to try to provide for folks in rural areas.


Can you elaborate on this?


Sorry, wrote this up during the Green Bay game, thought I hit submit but probably hit something else in disgust when Winston's fumble went for a TD. Been a bit crazy with work since then.

Bit moot at the moment with Net Neutrality repealed but..

Under Net Neutrality - specifically the provisions classifying the internet as essentially a utility/common carrier - companies could not charge higher fees for pole access in an attempt to price out competition. This allowed for smaller companies to service rural areas - their costs are lower than the large entities that owned the poles like ATT, Verizon, etc... By using the already existing utility poles to either run cable or place wireless/cellular broadcasting equipment, the smaller companies could service areas the larger companies would not due to costs compared to revenues. There are a ton of ISPs that are serving rural/less densely populated areas that rely upon this to be able to provide the services they do to their customers. Without the ability to do this (and ATT has shown a history of trying to prevent companies from doing this prior to the common carrier classification), the cost for building out the infrastructure to provide internet in rural areas is prohibitive.

Throw in some tax breaks provided to services classified as utilities in some states/areas, and net neutrality has been a bit of a boon to that segment of ISPs - contrary to what Pai has said.

Here's a few articles with relevent quotes, some from before Net Neutrality and Common Carrier ISPs went into effect, some from this summer:

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20080329/ar ... s-heats-up

“DAS [distributed antenna systems]are sometimes the only way that mobile voice, data and broadband can be provided in certain areas. Thus, they are crucial to the national policy goals of expanding access to these services,” the DAS Forum, a membership unit of wireless infrastructure group PCIA, told the FCC. “Currently, wireless carriers attempting to deploy DAS networks face unreasonable discrimination in rates and terms...


https://www.rcrwireless.com/20100525/ne ... eployments

“The plan found that the impact of utility pole attachment rates on broadband can be particularly acute in rural areas, where there often are more poles per mile than households.” The FCC ruled that communications providers have a statutory right to use the same space- and cost-saving techniques that pole owners (utility companies) do, and that “attachers” have a right to timely decisions. As wireless carriers and tower companies deploy DAS solutions to get better coverage, they often run into deployment delays because approving another piece of equipment on a pole is not a priority for utility companies.


https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net ... -reaction/

For Booth [Stephouse Networks President], classifying broadband as a utility under Title II means he can compete with established providers and his customers get better service as a result...Booth said all that net-neutrality regulations do to Stephouse is affect its interactions with local government. "What protections Title II provides us with is solidifying us and saying that we are a utility."


Pai said that net neutrality has harmed small ISPs like Stephouse and has "injected regulatory uncertainty into their business plans." That's been refuted as well. Rather than shrinking in size and coverage as the FCC purports, a number have done the exact opposite in rural areas...


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... otherwise/

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country—from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said.

On these calls, "one constant theme I heard was how Title II had slowed investment," Pai said.

But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service.
These expansions happened after the FCC imposed its Title II net neutrality rules. (Title II is the statute that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules and regulate common carriers.)


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... ity-rules/

"We have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet," the ISPs said in a letter to Pai that was organized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

The current rules are necessary "to address the anticompetitive practices of the largest players in the market," but "the FCC’s current course threatens the viability of competitive entry and competitive viability," the companies wrote.


The FCC's net neutrality order enforced the provisions of Title II's Section 224, which governs pole attachments. More generally, Title II also requires ISPs' rates and practices to be "just and reasonable" and allows consumers and competitors to file complaints about unjust or unreasonable rates and practices.

Google Fiber had trouble deploying service because incumbent ISPs stalled in providing access to utility poles, Falcon noted. (The Google Fiber deployment problems started before the 2015 Title II reclassification.)

"If a company the size of Google could be stifled without the law supporting them, what hope does a smaller ISP have in entering into a market where the incumbent broadband provider owns the poles that are a necessary component to deploying the network?" [EFF Legislative Counsel Ernesto] Falcon wrote.


Hope that helps.
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Phantom Phenom » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:56 pm

How much is this post costing me?
User avatar
Phantom Phenom
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:06 pm

It's up to the admin to save this site.


Admin, you know what you must do: Pay a monthly fee to every ISP to be put on their preferred viewing list.
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 6757
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 236 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Teitan » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:04 pm

Nano wrote:It's up to the admin to save this site.


Admin, you know what you must do: Pay a monthly fee to every ISP to be put on their preferred viewing list.



Who are you kidding? Time to cash in!
User avatar
Teitan
 
Posts: 3820
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 202 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby The Outsider » Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:39 am

Something something, Second Amendment folks.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Phantom Phenom » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:41 pm

Democrats force Senate vote on net neutrality

By Bloomberg News
The Senate will hold a vote on net neutrality -- albeit a symbolic one. Less than a month after the Federal Communications Commission reversed Obama-era rules that prohibited internet providers from blocking or slowing down certain websites, or accepting payment for faster service, Democratic senators have collected enough support to force a vote to block the changes from taking effect.

The Democrats, led by Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, are using a vehicle known as a Congressional Review Act, or CRA, which is essentially an official form of disapproval of the FCC's action. If passed, it would block the commission's new rules. If 30 senators call for a CRA, they can make the entire Senate vote on it. Claire McCaskill became the 30th senator to get behind Markey's move. None of them are Republicans.

To take effect, the CRA would need majority votes in both houses, in addition to sign-off from the president. Given that Republicans have almost unanimously supported the FCC's new rules, the prospects for the CRA are dim. But in this case having a vote is the entire point. Democrats are eager to make net neutrality a political issue, and they want Republicans on-record taking a stance they're convinced will be unpopular. The pro-net neutrality group Fight for the Future said last week it plans to rally opposition to any lawmaker who votes against the act.



The timing of a vote is still up in the air. The FCC's rules first have to be published in the Federal Register, giving Markey 60 legislative days to call for a vote on the CRA. In the meantime, net neutrality supporters are also pursuing litigation and state laws.
User avatar
Phantom Phenom
 
Posts: 4190
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:39 am

The Trump Admin is considering nationalizing 5G internet in the name of cyber security against China. I'm not sure how this will be done as Verizon and AT&T are the two main owners of this technology in the US. Would they buy it? If so at what cost...or simply take it?

While this is just an idea and would have a long way to go before being substantiated, I obviously am completely against it, especially if it's not made public as 5G internet was a big innovation step keeping regular ISPs in check without net neutrality.

If it's made public than expect a huge government buyout for all the ISPs as they will all go under. Hopefully this falls through.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:40 am

Hadn't heard that.

It won't happen.

I'll be disappointed with any conservative that even considers it.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:50 am

uscbucsfan wrote:The Trump Admin is considering nationalizing 5G internet in the name of cyber security against China. I'm not sure how this will be done as Verizon and AT&T are the two main owners of this technology in the US. Would they buy it? If so at what cost...or simply take it?

While this is just an idea and would have a long way to go before being substantiated, I obviously am completely against it, especially if it's not made public as 5G internet was a big innovation step keeping regular ISPs in check without net neutrality.

If it's made public than expect a huge government buyout for all the ISPs as they will all go under. Hopefully this falls through.


1. You're assuming that the government doesn't already have the technology to do this which is almost guaranteed that they do.

2. It will never happen, but if it does prepare for our very own Great Firewall, censored content, total lack of privacy, etc.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:52 am

The Outsider wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:The Trump Admin is considering nationalizing 5G internet in the name of cyber security against China. I'm not sure how this will be done as Verizon and AT&T are the two main owners of this technology in the US. Would they buy it? If so at what cost...or simply take it?

While this is just an idea and would have a long way to go before being substantiated, I obviously am completely against it, especially if it's not made public as 5G internet was a big innovation step keeping regular ISPs in check without net neutrality.

If it's made public than expect a huge government buyout for all the ISPs as they will all go under. Hopefully this falls through.


1. You're assuming that the government doesn't already have the technology to do this which is almost guaranteed that they do.

2. It will never happen, but if it does prepare for our very own Great Firewall, censored content, total lack of privacy, etc.


According to the report they don't yet. The options were to develop their own, working with AT&T or Verizon, or "acquiring" the technology from them.

I haven't had time to read more into it. I will later in the day.
Last edited by uscbucsfan on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:52 am

The Outsider wrote:
2. It will never happen, but if it does prepare for our very own Great Firewall, censored content, total lack of privacy, etc.



Exactly....can you imagine what the internet would look like if Trump were in charge of access to it? Or a whacko leftist do gooder?
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:54 am

That seems completely out of character for this administration. Very odd.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 10708
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 555 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:06 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:That seems completely out of character for this administration. Very odd.

From a guy that wants to shut down any media outlet that disagrees with him? I'd say it's pretty much in character. He's not interested in conservative ideals, he just wants to piss off liberals - knowing his base will support him no matter what he does.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 143 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:30 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:That seems completely out of character for this administration. Very odd.



This administration has no political identity. Trump has never cared about ideology, his kids/Kush are basically Democrats, and the rest are Republicans. Nothing is out of character for this administration because they have no political beliefs, direction, or ability.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby The Outsider » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:32 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
1. You're assuming that the government doesn't already have the technology to do this which is almost guaranteed that they do.

2. It will never happen, but if it does prepare for our very own Great Firewall, censored content, total lack of privacy, etc.


According to the report they don't yet. The options were to develop their own, working with AT&T or Verizon, or "acquiring" the technology from them.

I haven't had time to read more into it. I will later in the day.



I would bet every penny I own that somewhere in the massive black budget funds were allocated to developing this technology. The person who wrote the report may not be aware of it, but they likely do.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 206 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests