• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Burger King Releases Pro-Net Neutrality Video

Are you kidding me? Netflix has peers, in fact netflix has gone full CDN so there are agreements between comcast and netflix. Netflix was never a net neutrality issue but of who was going to pay for more peers, the transit company or netflix for additional physical connection to comcasts equipment. so in effect they already do sign agreements to not get "preferential treatment" but a level of access they need to provide their service.


Read this:

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/

I guess this is what you could say my stance would be

Advocates, he says, "should not be talking about protecting net neutrality. They shouldn't even use that phrase. They should call it preventing cable company f***ery, because that is what it is."

The fact that a handful ISP's act as gatekeepers to the internet and trillions worth of business transactions bothers me.
 
And these SLA's are legal binding contracts?

Do you work in the telecom industry?



yes, SLA's are what we live and die by. I own an IT security and managed services company, we have over 100 employees and I myself have numerous certifications including CISCO routing and managment certs among numerous others.


My company (among other things):

Firewall specialists, security design and implementation
Penetration testing
IT Forensics
etc. etc.

certifications among others:
GSE GIAC Security Expert
GSE-Malware GIAC Security Expert in Malware
GSE-Compliance GIAC Security Expert in Compliance
GIAC
GISSP
CISM
COMPTIA Security +
CEH
NUMEROUS Vendor certifications from checkpoint, Juniper, Palo Alto, Cisco, and many others.

One of our core functions is bringing companies to ISO/IEC 27001 certification....


I've been in business since 96.



I may know a little about this issue if even it's not our main focus. ;)



edit to add, I cut and pasted that from another thread. We also are a managed services company who has numerous international clients and set up and maintain connections between these clients and various data centers, we deal with all sorts of ISP issues on a high level to provide needed connectivity and reliability with these connections from standard over the internet VPN's to connections over dark fiber.
 
Last edited:
I guess this is what you could say my stance would be



The fact that a handful ISP's act as gatekeepers to the internet and trillions worth of business transactions bothers me.




The problem is NN was a solution to a hypothetical problem that has never existed in the history of the Internets. Leave the internet alone unless there is a problem. NN as I have shown can cost poor people more (the att example).
 
The problem is NN was a solution to a hypothetical problem that has never existed in the history of the Internets. Leave the internet alone unless there is a problem. NN as I have shown can cost poor people more (the att example).

The issue with leaving it alone is that bringing legal actions against these ISP's in the case of monopolistic practices that harms consumers would take a long time and be very costly. Practically everyone uses the internet. Practically everyone connects through one of these large ISPs. While very large cities have more competition a lot of cities have one provider for broadband services.

All of that makes me very nervous as there's a long history of companies taking those situations and using that power for profit. As I mention it can take a very long time for any sort of legislation or legal action to punish the company or change the rules and over the time these companies could bilk consumers a lot of money.

You don't think there are some potential changes that could be made that would have as little impact on the industry now but would provide a quicker means of identifying and punishing unfair tactics by these ISPs? In my understanding, that is what the making ISPs a utility was attempting to do.
 
The issue with leaving it alone is that bringing legal actions against these ISP's in the case of monopolistic practices that harms consumers would take a long time and be very costly. Practically everyone uses the internet. Practically everyone connects through one of these large ISPs. While very large cities have more competition a lot of cities have one provider for broadband services.

All of that makes me very nervous as there's a long history of companies taking those situations and using that power for profit. As I mention it can take a very long time for any sort of legislation or legal action to punish the company or change the rules and over the time these companies could bilk consumers a lot of money.

You don't think there are some potential changes that could be made that would have as little impact on the industry now but would provide a quicker means of identifying and punishing unfair tactics by these ISPs? In my understanding, that is what the making ISPs a utility was attempting to do.



I truly believe, leave it alone unless there is a problem. if these ISP's start trying ala cart **** or some other shenanigans (which they wont for a plethora of reasons including not bringing the ire of the federalis) then address it.


in fact, the only examples of small isp's trying some stupid ****, the FCC shut them down almost immedietly and this was BEFORE any NN rules.

Here is an example:

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking. This was before Net Neutrality rules.




Watch this:



[/QUOTE]
 
yes, SLA's are what we live and die by. I own an IT security and managed services company, we have over 100 employees and I myself have numerous certifications including CISCO routing and managment certs among numerous others.


My company (among other things):

Firewall specialists, security design and implementation
Penetration testing
IT Forensics
etc. etc.

certifications among others:
GSE GIAC Security Expert
GSE-Malware GIAC Security Expert in Malware
GSE-Compliance GIAC Security Expert in Compliance
GIAC
GISSP
CISM
COMPTIA Security +
CEH
NUMEROUS Vendor certifications from checkpoint, Juniper, Palo Alto, Cisco, and many others.

One of our core functions is bringing companies to ISO/IEC 27001 certification....


I've been in business since 96.



I may know a little about this issue if even it's not our main focus. ;)



edit to add, I cut and pasted that from another thread. We also are a managed services company who has numerous international clients and set up and maintain connections between these clients and various data centers, we deal with all sorts of ISP issues on a high level to provide needed connectivity and reliability with these connections from standard over the internet VPN's to connections over dark fiber.

If all that is true, then you know more about the issue than the rest of us. I suppose we'll find out whether some sites get really slow, while others don't. That's the result I foresee for the ending of net neutrality. I hope I'm wrong. If I am then what do I care about net neutrality?
 
If all that is true, then you know more about the issue than the rest of us. I suppose we'll find out whether some sites get really slow, while others don't. That's the result I foresee for the ending of net neutrality. I hope I'm wrong. If I am then what do I care about net neutrality?


Sites wont get slow. What you don't understand there is no interest in slowing down a site to charge you more money. It's not a cost effective business model for them.
 
Sites wont get slow. What you don't understand there is no interest in slowing down a site to charge you more money. It's not a cost effective business model for them.

I respect your expertise on the subject and background info you've provided. But that doesn't give you any special insight with regards to the quote above. Thats a CEO level business strategy decision, and if its legal and will make them money, they will do it. You really have no better idea if it's a cost effective business model than the rest of us. I would imagine they crunched the numbers before dumping over half a Billion into lobbying against NN/nn.

You mostly seem to be saying "why make a rule against it until someone tries it?" If no ISPs would do this anyway, what harm is there keeping NN/nn? Why would they want to get rid of it so badly, all that money lobbying wasn't for nothing? This is what has us, the mostly-ignorant-on-the-subject consumers, worried that the laws are being changed so we can be squeezed harder.
 
I respect your expertise on the subject and background info you've provided. But that doesn't give you any special insight with regards to the quote above. Thats a CEO level business strategy decision, and if its legal and will make them money, they will do it. You really have no better idea if it's a cost effective business model than the rest of us. I would imagine they crunched the numbers before dumping over half a Billion into lobbying against NN/nn.

I actually do. Everytime it's been tried prior to NN rules the FCC hammered these companies. the backlash and pr nightmare would be too much. fact is most people have more than 1 ISP choice. For example fios and optimum here lambast each other over features the other charges more for. could you imagine if one decided to go ala cart as is the alarmist NN rules supporters claims?


You mostly seem to be saying "why make a rule against it until someone tries it?" If no ISPs would do this anyway, what harm is there keeping NN/nn? Why would they want to get rid of it so badly, all that money lobbying wasn't for nothing? This is what has us, the mostly-ignorant-on-the-subject consumers, worried that the laws are being changed so we can be squeezed harder.



You stifle innovation when people not in the industry make the rules about technologies they don't understand. In the burger king example, if they decided they wanted to charge less by removing cheese and pickles. under NN rules they would NOT be allowed to do this.
 
*CEO of BS Mountain Inc.



awww that's cute. Let me get your take and understanding on Net Neutrality, vs net neutrality, and give me some examples on how it works. We will quickly see who are the kings and queens of BS mountain pretty quick.
 
I actually do. Everytime it's been tried prior to NN rules the FCC hammered these companies. the backlash and pr nightmare would be too much. fact is most people have more than 1 ISP choice. For example fios and optimum here lambast each other over features the other charges more for. could you imagine if one decided to go ala cart as is the alarmist NN rules supporters claims?






You stifle innovation when people not in the industry make the rules about technologies they don't understand. In the burger king example, if they decided they wanted to charge less by removing cheese and pickles. under NN rules they would NOT be allowed to do this.

In that example where the fcc stepped in vonage was completely blocked and no option to pay more for it was given, that's different. Restructuring how they charge for Internet won't have the same pr backlash nor will the fcc step in if there's no nn.

But why would comcast, verizon, and at&t spend over half a billion dollars lobbying to end nn if they weren't going to be getting more than that out of their customers in the deal? I'm guessing they had a pr strategy decided on and a plan to keep the small isps from undercutting them too much before they started spending money lobbying.
 
In that example where the fcc stepped in vonage was completely blocked and no option to pay more for it was given, that's different. Restructuring how they charge for Internet won't have the same pr backlash nor will the fcc step in if there's no nn.

But why would comcast, verizon, and at&t spend over half a billion dollars lobbying to end nn if they weren't going to be getting more than that out of their customers in the deal? I'm guessing they had a pr strategy decided on and a plan to keep the small isps from undercutting them too much before they started spending money lobbying.


That's but one example. the ATT one below is another. What happened is they tried this but were shut down because apple face time is 720p and up. they complained. poor people now have their facetime back for 80 bucks more a month,. hooray NN!


You think NN helps small ISP's? :lol:


Example, ATT has an 100 dollar unlimited plan. They get this idea that if they restrict video to 240p which eats up most of the bandwith they can offer a 20 dollar unlimited plan. Under NN rules this would be disallowed which would make it so that poor people would have to pay 80 more for thier unlimited plan.


and you need to understand nn is not NN.
 
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!! I really want to get my technology propaganda from a hamburger joint. What next, I should go to orkin for financial advice!

That one went right over your head Reverend! :lol:
 
Over my head? Like I said Net Neutrality, net neutrality is the ocean, I am the shark and you and most people on this topic have no idea how to swim.

Shucks, not only are you the shark, you are my hero and my role model. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :lol:
 
Shucks, not only are you the shark, you are my hero and my role model. When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :lol:



If you managed that, you'd be fit, trim and rich. It's a wonderful goal to try to achieve, but it's not an easy road my friend. :pimpdaddy:
 
If you managed that, you'd be fit, trim and rich. It's a wonderful goal to try to achieve, but it's not an easy road my friend. :pimpdaddy:

I always choose the most ambitious goals!
 
Back
Top Bottom