PackFanWithTwins
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
    beast (51m) : He's a review guy
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Jordy Nelson is still in the NFL.
    Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Ok, will do.
    wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin, donate it to a local food pantry or whatever she wants to do with it. Thanks
    wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin,
    Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Wayne, got your girl scout order.
    dfosterf (11-Nov) : I believe Zero was being sarcastic
    dfosterf (11-Nov) : Due to that rookie kicker Jake Bates that Zero said "he didn't want anyway". 58 yarder to tie the game, 52 yarder to win it. In fairness,
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Lions escape with a win
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Goff looking better
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff with ANOTHER INT
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Stroud throwing INTs
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff having an ATROCIOUS game
    wpr (11-Nov) : Happy birthday Corps. Ever faithful. Thanks dfosterf.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : stiff armed by Baker Mayfield for about 5-7 yards and still managed to get a pass off
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : Nick Bosa
    wpr (8-Nov) : Jets are Packers (L)East
    Zero2Cool (8-Nov) : Jets released K Riley Patterson and signed K Anders Carlson to the practice squad.
    wpr (8-Nov) : Thanks guys
    Mucky Tundra (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday wpr!
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
    dfosterf (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday!😊😊😊
    wpr (7-Nov) : Thanks Kevin.
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! 🎉🎂🥳
    beast (7-Nov) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
    Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
    beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website 😋 jk
    beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
    beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
    Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
    hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
    beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    1h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    11-Nov / Around The NFL / beast

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    9-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / joepacker

    8-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.