What does it mean to folks using this forum?

It means Comcast can't throttle my Netflix.

It means libtards trying to control net content....nothing else..anyone who thinks different is an idiot

Fixed it, Eh.

Kevin Gibson GunGeek is an expert on the subject, hopefully he will be along soon so we all may understand.

Obamacare for the internet?

I know very little about it. Can you explain, or point to documentation, about how anyone will control content? I keep hearing that, but no one has been able to show how it will happen.

I along hear the flip side, that it's to prevent companies from limiting net usage by charging more for better speeds. But no one has been able to show documentation for that either really.

I'd like to make an informed opinion, but the verifiable documentation doesn't seem to be out there. Or I'm missing it. Seems like for now, I have to pick a camp of belief on the matter. I don't like doing that

Net-neutrality means we have to quit dogging the .270 Win and afford it the same respect given to the 30.06 Sprg.......

Net neutrality means nothing.




If you like your ISP, you can keep your ISP.

It really means nothing, it is another issue made up for no other reason that to further divide the people and drive a wedge between two sides to insure that there is no progress, in a mad rush to bankrupt the country and steamroll our way into socialism.

Beyond that, some entities will lose money, and some will gain. Politicians will line their pockets from lobbyist, and Joe average gets sold down the river.

What difference, at this point, does it make?

The very fact that they are keeping the details secret, tells you all that you need to know. Shades of Obamacare. The details will not stand the light of day. miles

Since no one has posted anything stating what it is or isn't, I tried to read up on it. So far, I don't understand what's bad about it. But I'm still reading.

Seems to me, it means preventing ISPs from controlling what you see, or the quality with which you see it (streaming speeds for example ).

I'm now going to search for just negative stuff on it.

Either way, I'm still left with not many verifiable facts. Unless someone has a more credible source. So far, a search turns up websites that are obviously biased for or against it

U.S. News

Regulation of speech

"Once under Title II regulation, anything and everything online will become subject to the approval of federal regulators. If the FCC’s measure is upheld by the courts, expect to see a return of the Orwellian Fairness Doctrine, which “balanced” speech by compulsion."

net-neutrality means how many liberals i could remove from the face of the earth given the opportunity.

Net neutrality is a fancy term for Liberals shutting down Conservative speech. Since the Liberals seem to own the news channels, Fox being the only holdout, they want to own the internet as well.

It means there should be a conservative tv channel for every channel like cnn, abc, cbs and nbc, but libs want to use it to cut conservative radio talkshows like Rush and Hannity and others because liberal talk radio shows are so full of crap even libs wont listen to them and its not fair libs cant spread as much BS as conservatives can spread the truth on radio.

Pira, let me give you some comments from a Telecom professional:

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/observations-internet-middleman/

A port that is on average utilized at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers. Six of those 12 have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer) in the process of making upgrades – this is business as usual and happens occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change providers.

That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content.

Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers.



Bottom line is, this is not about content. This is about Comcast and Verizon selling their customers a 30mb per second connection, then shutting down access to those streams. IMO these companies especially Verizon and Comcast, are committing fraud against their customers, and their CEO's should be in jail for it.

http://universalfreepress.com/the-u...ning-up-sovereignty-is-so-20th-century/#

Operationally, at this point, the term means nothing. Ideologically, it means that liberals/progressives and others that cannot stand to hear/read - let alone consider - ideas and critiques with which they do not agree, or which run counter to their agendas, are looking for ways to control content. Nothing new - just a different venue.

It's like reforming the IRS. Guess who loses and guess who wins? It doesn't matter what topic you want to plug into the same tired old formula, the outcome is always the same. Liberals and elitists win, conservatives and average Joe's lose.

I asked a friend of mine that's an IT coordinator at Tulane what net neutrality was about and their answer very much mirrored what Antelope Sniper reffered to. It's not at all about content, ( liberal- conservative, etc.) but rather about the dissemination of the bandwiths and speeds that huge providers such as Comcast would like to monopolize. From my understanding net neutrality would more or less prevent them from being able to do this. The down side my friend perceives from it is that it can be a "foot-in-the-door" moment for the govt. that could possibly lead to more control of the internet. People for net neutrality say it will prevent entities like Comcast from forcing those who aren't in a position to pay more from having to deal with markedly 2nd class internet access.
John

Starting to understand what it's all about. Unfortunately, both sides are arguing different points about it and nothing has really happened yet. So still not sure how to feel about it. Except government regulations have rarely helped.

If Obama pushes a ' pira114 Freedom Forever Act' you can count on it meaning the opposite.

New taxes.

What they SAY it is has nothing to do with what it REALLY is. If the liberals want it, it's nothing more than an internet version of the fairness doctrine, designed to restrict our free speech. They don't want the web spreading the truth about what they're up to.

Rock Chuck,

you are implying that the liberals understand net-neutrality, and that they understand the long term implications (social, economic, political) of the legislation.

I find it hard to imagine politicians of either party or denomination have that understanding.

Sycamore