PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago

You got it ass backwards but I expect nothing less from a person with blinders on.
Small businesses and startups will be hurt by this republican nonsense but that goes hand in hand
with the LIE of a tax break for the middle class.
What we have going on now is the beginning of a two class system, the rich and poor.
You should really should face the facts, the republicans don't represent you (unless you are a millionaire or a billionaire), they are out to destroy your financial well being.

Originally Posted by: yooperfan 



Sorry but you are wrong. And if you think Democrats represent you, you have bigger problems than just being wrong.

This debate is not about throttling, or fast and slow lanes or blocking content. That is simply the political and media lies used to get support. The fact of the matter is that the entire Net Neutrality issue is about money and who is going to be paying it.

ISPs are going to get theirs one way or another. Since we all think Internet prices are to high already, ISP's know that and they don't want to have to keep raising prices to cover the cost of the infrastructure upgrades they need to keep making to keep up with usage. So they want to charge the big content providers more so they don't have to bump our rates. Well those big powerful content providers want to look like the good guys with low subscription costs so they don't want to have to pay more to ISPs which would result in them having to increase their subscription costs.

Neflix,Amazon want to be able to dump as much volume of traffic as they can without having to worry about cost, and us consumers want to be able to access as much data as we want without having to worry either. Problem is, there I a cost and it has to be paid. Personally I would rather keep our individual internet bills down and pay for the subscriptions I choose to use, rather than paying more whether I use the services that are creating the traffic driving the costs up.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
+1
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago

If there was premium content, maybe!

You really don't have too much to fear from what I've read about it. Net neutrality was established in 2015. The net was pretty good before that and will continue to be good moving forward. We might see something like Comcast block BitTorrent again or something like that, but is that really a bad thing?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



I see it more like this imaginary corollary: Men don’t rape women; suddenly they learn they can and do. A law is passed; raping stops. Then law against rape is removed. If I'm a women, I'm fearing.

The REMOVAL of a law that was in place expressly announces and encourages behavior that once violated the law to go hog wild.

Remember mass connection to the internet is a relatively new thing.

In 2007 AT&T blocked Vedder of Pearl Jams’ rant against Bush. ATT said, oops, sorry, it was a mistake, because they knew it might bring down regulation them or the industry. Calls for net neutrality went unheaded. These companies refrained from doing millions of predatory things they can do, because they didn’t want regulation to come down on them.

In 2013, they dipped their toe in the water to feel the temp; Comcast blocked Netflix. The result was the regulation called Net Neutrality.

Today, net neutrality is gone and you think nothing will change? I'm not so sure; but your position is supported by history. The Big 6 net providers were just injected with Adam Smith's invisible hand on steroids, angel dust and PCP. We will have 6 companies who are monopolies in most regions acting to crazily MAXIMIZE profit.

The FCC chief was a Verizon exec [One of the Big 6], he’s not going to be a greeter in Walmart when he leaves; he’s just punched his ticket to any BOD spot of the Big 6. This assumes he lives [I’ve read he and his family are under real threat; some have made contact with is kids].
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago

Net Neutrality, a solution to a problem that never existed. Another perfect example of government overreach. It is a good day for the internet.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



LOL Government Regulation and Free Internet in the same thought. Now that is funny.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



In America, when a new industry appears, by definition it operates 100% free of regulation. Like Robber-baron industries popping up and maxing profit by, EG, dumping their waste into rivers. Regulation is IMPOSED because their profit-motivating behavior harms the public welfare.

I think your naïve thinking the industry will behave; but have to admit based on the way the industry has behaved to date [cant condemn all for a few shady moves by some] you can support your “naivety” better than I can support my gloom prediction.

That aside, tell me what is wrong with having a regulation that says, “equal access to all.” It seems 100% harmless to me, if everyone is going to act right.

If there is a reason to charge Amazon or Netflix more, or cut off access to an ISIS recruiting site; you can apply to FCC for an exception.

The industry spent gamillions paying off all Republican to vote for and less to Democrats to buy their silence on repealing net neutrality. They spent this money in anticipation of making bazillions off their invested gamillions. Buying a congressmen is a better investment than Big Coin!

Note: Comcast has a statement on their website about the repeal that says they will not “block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content.” This statement a month ago also read that they “wouldn't implement paid prioritization.” There’s yer sign!
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
7 years ago
Oh and let's not forget: PUTIN WANTED REPEAL OF NET NEUTRALITY.

A half million comments on the FCC comment line that support repeal came from Russian IPAs.
And the investigation is nowhere near complete.

More collusion?
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago
I love when I see people talk about Net Neutrality by using Comcast and Netflix because it shows they only parrot what the media tells them and haven't looked in the facts. Actually I don't love it, because it is sad.

Well here are the facts. It was a lie and this lie that Obama's administration used to stick government's foot further through the door. How many realize that during this time, Netflix was in negotiations with ISPs looking to add more bandwidth, ISPs including Comcast. They talk about how the streaming speeds dropped on Comcast. What they don't tell you is that their streaming speeds dropped across the board for every ISP. Why would that happen? For the exact reason they were looking to add bandwidth, because they were reaching the maximum of their existing connections. Netflix and Comcast came to an agreement for a direct connection and magically, streaming speeds across the board increased. But that didn't stop Government from taking advantage.

It is just another example of government lying to people as they grab more power for the sole purpose of having more power.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
+1
Smokey
7 years ago
As I trust that none here are Multi-mega-billionaires that have any influence at all over internet policies. So just what do you think that any of us can do concerning this huge business.

The facts have been presented, and people have posted their opinions. That said, can we please now move on past this most interesting subject.

Have you heard that it is the holiday season.

 Santa 5.jpg You have insufficient rights to see the content.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
7 years ago
I wonder...how many of these "facts" are really facts?
Getting rid of the internet would make people actually have to react with real people. Would that be so bad???
UserPostedImage
Porforis
7 years ago

Neflix,Amazon want to be able to dump as much volume of traffic as they can without having to worry about cost, and us consumers want to be able to access as much data as we want without having to worry either. Problem is, there I a cost and it has to be paid. Personally I would rather keep our individual internet bills down and pay for the subscriptions I choose to use, rather than paying more whether I use the services that are creating the traffic driving the costs up.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



In theory I want to agree with you. However, take a nice look at what the future of streaming looks like when it actually happens? People have been asking for decades for an a la carte approach to cable, and since streaming took off, to take that concept beyond to streaming.

So, you want to ditch cable TV and just stream the 6 channels you watch. Clearly you should be SAVING money versus paying for 300 cable channels, right?

Well, now your internet bill goes up since you're not bundling it with cable. Using TWC/Spectrum as an example, that's $20 a month more you'll be paying for internet.
CBS All Access is $5.99/month and CBS is a basic channel. HBO go is $14.99 a month, being a premium channel. Netflix is about the same. So, add Netflix, HBO Go, and 3 basic channels to the mix and you're talking another $48 a month for a grand total of $68/month to 'cut the cord'. And still needing paying $40-$70 a month depending on your bandwidth needs on top of that for internet. And now you lost your sports as well.

Capitalism works great in theory, in practice companies (especially those in a great position of power such as ISPs) will suck you as dry as they can which is great for the companies but not so great for people. Including the employees that work at these companies. And if it's just a matter of "They need the money to pay for the increased infrastructure"... Well, then why the hell SHOULDN'T we all pay increased internet subscription rates?
Zero2Cool
7 years ago

In theory I want to agree with you. However, take a nice look at what the future of streaming looks like when it actually happens? People have been asking for decades for an a la carte approach to cable, and since streaming took off, to take that concept beyond to streaming.

So, you want to ditch cable TV and just stream the 6 channels you watch. Clearly you should be SAVING money versus paying for 300 cable channels, right?

Well, now your internet bill goes up since you're not bundling it with cable. Using TWC/Spectrum as an example, that's $20 a month more you'll be paying for internet.
CBS All Access is $5.99/month and CBS is a basic channel. HBO go is $14.99 a month, being a premium channel. Netflix is about the same. So, add Netflix, HBO Go, and 3 basic channels to the mix and you're talking another $48 a month for a grand total of $68/month to 'cut the cord'. And still needing paying $40-$70 a month depending on your bandwidth needs on top of that for internet. And now you lost your sports as well.

Capitalism works great in theory, in practice companies (especially those in a great position of power such as ISPs) will suck you as dry as they can which is great for the companies but not so great for people. Including the employees that work at these companies. And if it's just a matter of "They need the money to pay for the increased infrastructure"... Well, then why the hell SHOULDN'T we all pay increased internet subscription rates?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



I haven't had cable or a dish in many years and only had it when I was in Colorado to get Packers games. I'm already saving money.

Businesses will find ways to make money. Look at Disney, they removed their videos off Netflix and are planning to develop their own streaming service.
UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
7 years ago

In theory I want to agree with you. However, take a nice look at what the future of streaming looks like when it actually happens? People have been asking for decades for an a la carte approach to cable, and since streaming took off, to take that concept beyond to streaming.

So, you want to ditch cable TV and just stream the 6 channels you watch. Clearly you should be SAVING money versus paying for 300 cable channels, right?

Well, now your internet bill goes up since you're not bundling it with cable. Using TWC/Spectrum as an example, that's $20 a month more you'll be paying for internet.
CBS All Access is $5.99/month and CBS is a basic channel. HBO go is $14.99 a month, being a premium channel. Netflix is about the same. So, add Netflix, HBO Go, and 3 basic channels to the mix and you're talking another $48 a month for a grand total of $68/month to 'cut the cord'. And still needing paying $40-$70 a month depending on your bandwidth needs on top of that for internet. And now you lost your sports as well.

Capitalism works great in theory, in practice companies (especially those in a great position of power such as ISPs) will suck you as dry as they can which is great for the companies but not so great for people. Including the employees that work at these companies. And if it's just a matter of "They need the money to pay for the increased infrastructure"... Well, then why the hell SHOULDN'T we all pay increased internet subscription rates?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



We should all pay for what we use, not for what don't. The current way is that ISP's have to charge us each a higher rate because we "might" stream a large amount of data. If we don't we are just paying more to make up for somebody else who is using more than they are paying for. It is much the same reason we are paying higher and higher for health insurance, because more services that we all don't use are mandated covered and that is being split across people who do and don't use it alike.

In a perfect world, Internet would be "FREE" for everybody and we all would just pay for the services we choose, whether Netflix, or Hulu, or Sling or Amazon or what ever. And all the cost would go to the content providers that are generating the traffic. That will never happen but I would like to see our ISP cost limited to equipment rental and support fees. And getting rid of Obama's version of Net Neutrality makes that more possible. Another thing it does is give those content providers more incentive to innovate their technology. Take Netfix and Amazon streaming, as higher and higher definition streams become more popular, if they are getting higher and higher cost because of the higher amount of data they are generating they will be more inclined to look at or for technology that can compress and make the transfer and traffic more efficient. the idea of Net Neutrality while sure it sounds nice has a lot of negatives that I don't want.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
+1
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : Golden with two TDs in red zone drills today
    Mucky Tundra (27-Jul) : @JacobMorley Shoutout to Quinn Ewers for allowing Matthew Golden to be available when Green Bay picked.
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Can't find the toggle, lol
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : *Friday*
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
    Zero2Cool (27-Jul) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
    packerfanoutwest (27-Jul) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
    beast (27-Jul) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
    beast (27-Jul) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
    beast (27-Jul) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
    beast (27-Jul) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
    dfosterf (27-Jul) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
    beast (27-Jul) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
    Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
    Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
    dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
    Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    44m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.