4
Obama speaks for Net Neutrality

  1. ChrisTerp
    Lollipop Nov 12, 2014

    ChrisTerp , Nov 12, 2014 :
    Slow down my friend before implying things around here. The discussion was on business and regulatory aspects - you were the one who introduced capabilities are not there yet not me and I only offered a comment about it. There is more to operations in a venture, business and regulation and the C-suite looks at all of them to consider next business moves and investments.

    There's no competition here on who knows more about a subject.

    Best regards.
     

  2. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 12, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 12, 2014 :
    The discussion was on the impact of ending net neutrality. Passionately arguing a point without fully understanding what you are arguing for or against speaks to who you are.
     

  3. jimberkas
    KitKat Nov 12, 2014


    carlfrantz likes this.
  4. ChrisTerp
    Lollipop Nov 12, 2014

    ChrisTerp , Nov 12, 2014 :
    Chillax mate, no need to get and be rude. If you can't or don't wish to have discussions rationally then don't engage other folks.
     

  5. ChrisTerp
    Lollipop Nov 12, 2014

    ChrisTerp , Nov 12, 2014 :
    Thanks, Wall Street Journal for months has been providing a lot on him and the actions of the FCC. Take a look into yesterday's and today's edition for the recent items. Best regards.
     

  6. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 12, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 12, 2014 :
    I don't think I have been anything but rational. I just pointed out that net neutrality is about how traffic is managed at the core, and to argue that without knowing how the core works, based on what you know of business networks, is comparing apples and oranges. If you want to have a rational discussion, learn the subject.

    EDIT: Here I a good place to start
    http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_Bit_History_of_Internet/Chapter_4_:_Internet_Core
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2014

  7. jimberkas
    KitKat Nov 12, 2014

    jimberkas , Nov 12, 2014 :
    This comes as no surprise of course:
    Wheeler is the only person ever to be inducted into both the Wireless Hall of Fame and the Cable Television Hall of Fame for his tireless efforts on behalf of the industries. (Note that in the U.S., companies that provide Internet service and wireless tend to be the same companies.)

    http://www.computerworld.com/articl...eler-s-fcc-plan-will-wreck-your-internet.html

    I didn't know there was a Hall of Fame for protecting corporate assets, but I suppose I should have expected it.
    Anyway, since he is so independent, I'm sure none of his entire career history will influence his decision.
     

  8. Thijs
    Ice Cream Sandwich Nov 12, 2014

    Thijs , Nov 12, 2014 :
    The cable companies work together you do know that right? Time warner won't come where (its not verizon but another one but anyway) verizon already provides acces so they have no competition
     

  9. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 12, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 12, 2014 :
    That is more on how the industry is regulated than anything else. An area is allowed one Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) and a select number of Competitive LECs (CLECs). It all stems from the old ATT monopoly changes in the 70's. There are a lot of documents on the net that you can grab to get a better understanding of that though, if you are interested. Its pretty boring stuff though.
     

  10. Adapting
    Ice Cream Sandwich Nov 12, 2014


  11. nashrah
    Froyo Nov 12, 2014

  12. jimberkas
    KitKat Nov 12, 2014

    jimberkas , Nov 12, 2014 :
    the loss of net neutrality along with the proposed $45 billion merger of Comcast and Time Warner...what could possibly go wrong??
     

    carlfrantz likes this.
  13. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 24, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 24, 2014 :
    They will never merge. If Sprint and AT&T couldn't merge (or was it T-Mobile and AT&T?), they won't be able to. To be clear though, you want to hand over the Internet to the people that are spying on you.
     

  14. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 24, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 24, 2014 :
    There are over 3,000 small ISPs in the country
     

  15. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 24, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 24, 2014 :
    Personally, I'd rather not trust the government that collects all of our data to own the Internet
     

  16. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 24, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 24, 2014 :
    Are you sure that they have a monopoly? It's my understanding that there are over 3,000 small ISPs in the country and most people don't realize that they have options
     

  17. rwoods716
    KitKat Nov 24, 2014

    rwoods716 , Nov 24, 2014 :
    Right. It's putting it up for bid, I guess. That's sort of a poor analogy but let's go with it. With net neutrality, the government wins that bid. It's the same government that spies on us and it building a data center to collect all of the data they can get their hands on. Remember Edward Snowden? If there is anything we should have learned from him it's that the Internet should not be owned by the government and that's exactly what's happening.
     

  18. omiroks
    Jelly Bean Nov 24, 2014

  19. carlfrantz
    Jelly Bean Nov 24, 2014

    carlfrantz , Nov 24, 2014 :
    I think you are confused about the "ownership" of the internet. The US government doesnt own the internet, and no government does. Net neutrality just wants to keep the current system that has been working since its inception. The ending of it changes that.
    What you are saying is that we must choose between two evils, because at least you are OK with a provider spying on you. What you are failing to realize is the government monitoring of data on the internet or public airways isn't going to stop because of it, or change how they do it. It will continue, but along with it, it will also allow for more corporate and criminal monitoring as well, as those entities will either control or purchase that ability. Does the government own the telephone line? the electric grid? Do you honestly think that just because they don't, monitoring isn't happening?
    Government monitoring isn't going to change, whatever direction net neutrality goes. But if it ends, it will make monitoring more pervasive as more agencies and corporations will be able to buy their way to your data.
    If you don't want to be monitored, don't use public modes of communication. Its that simple.
     

  20. FinnDH
    Donut Nov 24, 2014