• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

AT&T Halts Fiber Innovation Due to Net Neutrality Debate

whysoserious said:
What competition? I don't understand how you think there is any competition in data. It's just not a competitive market.
Click to expand...

And why is that there is no competition? I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than I already have. Crony capitalism gets its perks while others in the industry struggle. But the rest of us in the process get to experience the consequences. Those on the government dole will be more than willing to roll over to keep those subsidies rolling in. Period. So if this government means we need net neutrality even if free speech should be hindered every time we log on because some elite group thinks it should be so, you bet your sweet bippy that these subsidized crony companies will be more than willing to accommodate such things. Because they need the government subsidies at all cost to stay ahead of the game.
 
vesper said:
And why is that there is no competition? I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than I already have. Crony capitalism gets its perks while others in the industry struggle. But the rest of us in the process get to experience the consequences. Those on the government dole will be more than willing to roll over to keep those subsidies rolling in. Period. So if this government means we need net neutrality even if free speech should be hindered every time we log on because some elite group thinks it should be so, you bet your sweet bippy that these subsidized crony companies will be more than willing to accommodate such things. Because they need the government subsidies at all cost to stay ahead of the game.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. First of all, no I disagree about why there is no competition. Imagine if you wanted to open a restaurant, but you had to rent the cooks, the ovens, the location, the tables, etc. That's what a CLEC is doing. They have no actual infrastructure - their only "tool" is customer service, and try to eek out some sort of competitive price.

Secondly, how would net neutrality hinder free speech? Net neutrality has nothing to do with free speech - it has to do with treating all packets of data equally.

Third, again, I'm not fighting for subsidies for the ILECs. That's a different discussion. But cutting subsidies is irrelevant, because it would only drive up the cost for a CLEC to rent the lines, making them even more expensive and useless.
 
whysoserious said:
I don't understand. First of all, no I disagree about why there is no competition. Imagine if you wanted to open a restaurant, but you had to rent the cooks, the ovens, the location, the tables, etc. That's what a CLEC is doing. They have no actual infrastructure - their only "tool" is customer service, and try to eek out some sort of competitive price.

Secondly, how would net neutrality hinder free speech? Net neutrality has nothing to do with free speech - it has to do with treating all packets of data equally.

Third, again, I'm not fighting for subsidies for the ILECs. That's a different discussion. But cutting subsidies is irrelevant, because it would only drive up the cost for a CLEC to rent the lines, making them even more expensive and useless.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality does indeed hinder free speech and if you haven't grasped that one then there is nothing I can say or do to change your mind. By cutting subsidies would indeed cause a price war that those receiving generous subsidies don't wish to happen
The industry of communications is far more regulated by federal government than restaurants. But thank you for the comparison as it shows the over reach of the federal government on other facets. I hope the citizenry wakes up soon realizing such.
 
vesper said:
Net neutrality does indeed hinder free speech and if you haven't grasped that one then there is nothing I can say or do to change your mind. By cutting subsidies would indeed cause a price ware that those receiving generous subsidies don't wish to happen
The industry of communications is far more regulated by federal government than restaurants. But thank you for the comparison as it shows the over reach of the federal government on another facets. I hope the citizenry wakes up soon realizing such.
Click to expand...

Please explain how Net Neutrality hinders free speech. And please explain why you don't use your local CLEC.
 
Gotta watch these politicians.
President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.
Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.
Click to expand...
The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass

So, you really think this is all about protecting the consumer from what appears to be a really thin argument about content delivery?

More likely this is yet another money grab by the out of touch DC politicians. Who've never met at tax they didn't like.

cb111514dAPC20141114034517.jpg
 
Honestly, have some of you lost your ****ing minds?

Is there really nothing, nothing at all you can't find that you have to be opposed to when you think it's more liberal or government has anything to do with.

Net Neutrality keeps the internet Free and Open and Competitive.

I thought that's what Conservatives support?

What am I missing here, what the **** is wrong with some of you?
 
whysoserious said:
It's not a new theory. It's the governing principal the internet has been operating on since the beginning.
Click to expand...

:lamo Point to me where there are Net Neutrality laws on the books. There are NONE! If there were, you would be able to cite the exact text of this governing principal that people keep mentioning. None of these problems have ever happened before because all of these problems arise with the onslaught of new technologies eating up the standard way bandwidth operates.

PIPA and SOPA were Net Neutrality laws. Yet they were shot down by the same voices backing Net Neutrality. It really is quite funny to watch. As most people on this forum seems to have forgotten about those. The reason, Net Neutrality is a big thing now, is because more and more people are watching their content online clogging up the bandwidth. People think the data and the internet are infinite. They are not it is extremely finite and it's getting more crowded as we move forward. Concepts like internet fast lanes are the only current solution to the problem but the problem isn't as widespread as people are making it out to be.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Honestly, have some of you lost your ****ing minds?

Is there really nothing, nothing at all you can't find that you have to be opposed to when you think it's more liberal or government has anything to do with.

Net Neutrality keeps the internet Free and Open and Competitive.

I thought that's what Conservatives support?

What am I missing here, what the **** is wrong with some of you?
Click to expand...

Despite your emotional outburst, why exactly can't I have a different viewpoint? While Government oversight is part of the reason I don't like Net Neutrality there are a whole host of other issues I have with the theory. That if you actually read my posts, you would clearly be able to understand. But in summary it comes down to this. Paranoid fears of Telecom conspiracy theories do not warrant the plans proposed by the government. I find this topic very similar to Rand Paul's filibuster of the topic of Government Drones potentially targeting US citizens on US soil. That does not warrant the regulation he was seeking either, because it never will and has never happened!

I prefer to wait and see, if such paranoid claims come to be before doing something about it.
 
ModerateGOP said:
:lamo Point to me where there are Net Neutrality laws on the books. There are NONE! If there were, you would be able to cite the exact text of this governing principal that people keep mentioning. None of these problems have ever happened before because all of these problems arise with the onslaught of new technologies eating up the standard way bandwidth operates.

PIPA and SOPA were Net Neutrality laws. Yet they were shot down by the same voices backing Net Neutrality. It really is quite funny to watch. As most people on this forum seems to have forgotten about those. The reason, Net Neutrality is a big thing now, is because more and more people are watching their content online clogging up the bandwidth. People think the data and the internet are infinite. They are not it is extremely finite and it's getting more crowded as we move forward. Concepts like internet fast lanes are the only current solution to the problem but the problem isn't as widespread as people are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. First of all, I said it was the governing principal - the idea behind how it was run. And that's correct - all packets of data, up until recently, were treated as equal. That is, until Comcast began strong arming Netflix.

Secondly, you can take your scare tactics about bandwidth elsewhere. If you want to talk about finite resources, we should move over the peak oil forum.

FYI, and no, the reason net neutrality is a big discussion now is because the courts just ruled against it after massive lobbying by the ILECs, and Senator Ted Cruz just made an absolute fool of himself comparing it to Obamacare. And clearly his constituents are following suit.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I'm sorry, but I work in the industry. I do not need comics to help me understand the tripe of net neutrality activists.
Click to expand...

Your posts suggest you don't. Or that you're against it in the hopes that your pay will go up as Telecoms throttle and charge more.

Japan has a good example of how net neutrality should work:

https://openmedia.ca/plan/international-comparisons/japan

We wouldn't need net neutrality if we actually had competition. But we don't.
 
Jetboogieman said:
What am I missing here, what the **** is wrong with some of you?
Click to expand...

Simple. He's most likely in an upper management position and has direct financial incentives to seeing telecoms jack up their prices and throttle people. Which means he's for selling all of us out for a few more dollars in his wallet. Notice his posts aren't in favor of more competition, just less regulation. Which is exactly what a monopoly with existing high barriers to entry wants as they can charge more and more and more, provide less and less and less and don't have to worry about competition as the costs to setup an alternative require huge amounts of capital.
 
whysoserious said:
1. That's ridiculous. First of all, I said it was the governing principal - the idea behind how it was run. And that's correct - all packets of data, up until recently, were treated as equal. That is, until Comcast began strong arming Netflix.

2. FYI, and no, the reason net neutrality is a big discussion now is because the courts just ruled against it after massive lobbying by the ILECs, and Senator Ted Cruz just made an absolute fool of himself comparing it to Obamacare. And clearly his constituents are following suit.
Click to expand...

1. It's ridiculous that you can't find where this is stated or written down anywhere. Just because you think it works that way now. Doesn't mean that it should or will in the future. If Comcast strong armed Netflix as you say, then why didn't Netflix sue them on this basis? Instead they created the very thing that they were fighting against, with the company that they should have sued! :lamo Your lack of understanding the hypocrisy is quite telling.

2. The funny thing is, you think that I like Ted Cruz. I loathe the man, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and all his tea party ish libertarian ilk! Take a look at my posting history before you go accusing me of being his constituent. I don't blindly follow what any politician says. I am more inclined to listen to people like Mark Cuban and while Ted Cruz's comments are over the top, they do represent a PORTION of my beliefs. But that in no way, means I like the guy!
 
obvious Child said:
Simple. He's most likely in an upper management position and has direct financial incentives to seeing telecoms jack up their prices and throttle people. Which means he's for selling all of us out for a few more dollars in his wallet. Notice his posts aren't in favor of more competition, just less regulation. Which is exactly what a monopoly with existing high barriers to entry wants as they can charge more and more and more, provide less and less and less and don't have to worry about competition as the costs to setup an alternative require huge amounts of capital.
Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo:lamo This is the funniest thing I have ever read!
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. It's ridiculous that you can't find where this is stated or written down anywhere. Just because you think it works that way now. Doesn't mean that it should or will in the future. If Comcast strong armed Netflix as you say, then why didn't Netflix sue them on this basis? Instead they created the very thing that they were fighting against, with the company that they should have sued! :lamo Your lack of understanding the hypocrisy is quite telling.

2. The funny thing is, you think that I like Ted Cruz. I loathe the man, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and all his tea party ish libertarian ilk! Take a look at my posting history before you go accusing me of being his constituent. I don't blindly follow what any politician says. I am more inclined to listen to people like Mark Cuban and while Ted Cruz's comments are over the top, they do represent a PORTION of my beliefs. But that in no way, means I like the guy!
Click to expand...

Oh, we're doing a numbers system now? Ok.

1) I'm confused. Are you saying the Internet hasn't been working under the principals of Net Neutrality? I don't recall my ISP throttling my bandwidth on one site, while boosting it on another - do you? My packets of data have downloaded at the same bandwidth rate for my entire life.

Netflix didn't sue because it's never been written into law. Netflix will be at the forefront of this debate, I'm quite sure. Their business model depends on it, as does it for sites like this. I don't think DebatePolitics.com wants to pay to fast lane their data, and I sure as hell won't pay to come here - no offense to them.

2) I never mentioned you. But clearly the republican base has taken him at his word, and it just shows how god damn silly politics are. To hear republicans, many of whom clearly don't even understand the topic (someone on this thread told me Net Neutrality will limit free speech????) try to debate it, it's laughable at best.

If anything it emboldens me, because it really just shows how full of it most people are.

*Edit:

You know, I know, and anyone who understands the subject knows, this has as much, if not more, to do with Cable TV than it does data.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Despite your emotional outburst, why exactly can't I have a different viewpoint? While Government oversight is part of the reason I don't like Net Neutrality there are a whole host of other issues I have with the theory. That if you actually read my posts, you would clearly be able to understand. But in summary it comes down to this. Paranoid fears of Telecom conspiracy theories do not warrant the plans proposed by the government. I find this topic very similar to Rand Paul's filibuster of the topic of Government Drones potentially targeting US citizens on US soil. That does not warrant the regulation he was seeking either, because it never will and has never happened!

I prefer to wait and see, if such paranoid claims come to be before doing something about it.
Click to expand...

All of the fears come down to hypothetical bull**** that might occur that isn't net neutrality, rather than opposition to net neutrality itself.

Which makes about as much sense as saying "Well I don't want the government to decide what color my car has to be, so I oppose speed limits."

Why is government oversight inherently bad? The FAA requires me to undergo regular recurrent training as a pilot who carries paying passengers. Do you oppose that on the grounds that it's government oversight? Do you oppose that on the grounds that the FAA might theoretically instate some other regulation you don't agree with?
 
whysoserious said:
1. Oh, we're doing a numbers system now? Ok.

2. I'm confused. Are you saying the Internet hasn't been working under the principals of Net Neutrality? I don't recall my ISP throttling my bandwidth on one site, while boosting it on another - do you? My packets of data have downloaded at the same bandwidth rate for my entire life.

3. Netflix didn't sue because it's never been written into law. Netflix will be at the forefront of this debate, I'm quite sure. Their business model depends on it, as does it for sites like this. I don't think DebatePolitics.com wants to pay to fast lane their data, and I sure as hell won't pay to come here - no offense to them.

4. I never mentioned you. But clearly the republican base has taken him at his word, and it just shows how god damn silly politics are. To hear republicans, many of whom clearly don't even understand the topic (someone on this thread told me Net Neutrality will limit free speech????) try to debate it, it's laughable at best.

5. You know, I know, and anyone who understands the subject knows, this has as much, if not more, to do with Cable TV than it does data.
Click to expand...

1. Again, take a look at my past postings. I have always done numbers if I have a lot to say about a specific portion of whatever it was someone wrote. I break it down into numbers. Not really sure why that would bother you. But there's your explanation. For that.

2. No it hasn't and it never has! Net Neutrality is a new concept. You just admitted that there was never a law for it. There is no unwritten law, that states all data is the same. Otherwise why would the same companies that made Billions setting this up before, want to stop it now?

3. Netflix could have sued to have it written into law. You know that's what high profile cases do right? Instead they've become hypocrites. But I am glad you admitted that no net neutrality laws exist. Debatepolitics, and text based forums have nothing to worry about. They simply do not take up that much bandwidth.

4. Agree with you here, a lot of the general public do not know how to connect their home computers to wifi.

5. Definitely true. This wouldn't be a factor if it was just text and pictures like before. Netflix is the largest content delivery network outside YouTube.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Why is government oversight inherently bad? The FAA requires me to undergo regular recurrent training as a pilot who carries paying passengers. Do you oppose that on the grounds that it's government oversight? Do you oppose that on the grounds that the FAA might theoretically instate some other regulation you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

What were those regulations before 9/11? I bet they were extremely more laxxed. I am saying that only after a large scale incident like 9/11 happens should there be considerations of sweeping changes to how things operate. Policy should not be implemented based on fears, paranoia, or far fetched what-if scenarios. Lately that has happened at the TSA, but I won't get into that... If however, there is an international incident like Pilots sleeping on the job, then yes. That requires looking into. But to make policy changes based on unfounded claims of pilots sleeping on the job. Is no go in my book. As well as should be for any President!

In this case that large scale incident might be Comcast shutting down all of Netflix for 24 hour period and forcing people to pay $5 extra to turn it back on. That is the scenario people are fearing and that's not how it works, on the business or technical side of things!
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
2. No it hasn't and it never has! Net Neutrality is a new concept. You just admitted that there was never a law for it. There is no unwritten law, that states all data is the same. Otherwise why would the same companies that made Billions setting this up before, want to stop it now?
Click to expand...
It wasn't unwritten. It was written. It is not a new concept. Do some freaking research, man.
3. Netflix could have sued to have it written into law. You know that's what high profile cases do right? Instead they've become hypocrites. But I am glad you admitted that no net neutrality laws exist. Debatepolitics, and text based forums have nothing to worry about. They simply do not take up that much bandwidth.
Click to expand...
He is wrong. It was a regulation, not a law, if you want to nitpick details.

ModerateGOP said:
What were those regulations before 9/11? I bet they were extremely more laxxed. I am saying that only after a large scale incident like 9/11 happens should there be considerations of sweeping changes to how things operate. Policy should not be implemented based on fears, paranoia, or far fetched what-if scenarios. Lately that has happened at the TSA, but I won't get into that... If however, there is an international incident like Pilots sleeping on the job, then yes. That requires looking into. But to make policy changes based on unfounded claims of pilots sleeping on the job. Is no go in my book. As well as should be for any President!
Click to expand...
You are confusing airline security regulations with pilot training regulations. Recurrent training has not dramatically changed in that period. But you didn't answer the question. Do you oppose pilot recurrent training regulation on the grounds that it is government oversight?


In this case that large scale incident might be Comcast shutting down all of Netflix for 24 hour period and forcing people to pay $5 extra to turn it back on. That is the scenario people are fearing and that's not how it works, on the business or technical side of things!
Click to expand...

They literally did that. They throttled Netflix traffic to be unusuable, for no reason other than to coerce Netflix into paying more money. There was no network congestion problem. They sabotaged the experience of their own customers - who had paid for that bandwidth already, so that they could force Netflix into paying more. And who do you think that cost gets passed along to?

I already paid for my bandwidth. Why do you think I should be forced to pay for it twice just because the same amount of traffic comes from a website that Comcast doesn't approve of?
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. Regardless, this was a small localized incident that has since been resolved and is no longer happening.
2. No but Verizon does have the right to protect their network from any threats they detect right?
3. Yes, that is called a technical issue! Not the purposely blocking of services.
4. Google Wallet is now sad to say, dead. Due to public stupidity. No one will go out of their way to pay for cases or other cards just in order to make an App work. You clearly admit it was Google's fault for not investing in its own app. It has nothing to do with ISPs blocking Google Wallet.

You need to come up with better arguments than blocking is bad. Because its not clear to me that they were purposely blocking based on these examples.
Click to expand...
I've noticed something on this website that I've never seen on other websites. It's people advocating or not advocating things that can't possibly come from someone who's genuinely thinking about the issue. I've gotten more "this person has to be getting paid to say this" vibes from this forum than any other forum. Just thought I'd like to share.
 
reinoe said:
I've noticed something on this website that I've never seen on other websites. It's people advocating or not advocating things that can't possibly come from someone who's genuinely thinking about the issue. I've gotten more "this person has to be getting paid to say this" vibes from this forum than any other forum. Just thought I'd like to share.
Click to expand...

Really? I never have before... Funny. I've just been called practically everything else in the book from liberal to right-wing nut so that just shocked me.
 
Deuce said:
1. It wasn't unwritten. It was written. It is not a new concept. Do some freaking research, man.

2. You are confusing airline security regulations with pilot training regulations. Recurrent training has not dramatically changed in that period. But you didn't answer the question. Do you oppose pilot recurrent training regulation on the grounds that it is government oversight?

3. They literally did that. They throttled Netflix traffic to be unusuable, for no reason other than to coerce Netflix into paying more money. There was no network congestion problem.

4. I already paid for my bandwidth. Why do you think I should be forced to pay for it twice just because the same amount of traffic comes from a website that Comcast doesn't approve of?
Click to expand...

1. I have and there are no laws on the books!!!! I can't find any. Please help me, if you know where they are. I'd love to read it.

2. I'm not a pilot, so where does the Pilot sleeping incident fall under? Who gets to review that? airline security or pilot training? I'll take a guess and say...pilot training right? So if someone was going around saying that pilots were falling asleep but it wasn't true. Does that mean, you should have to get tested more often? I'm sure you wouldn't like that. So the answer to your question is: I support the current methods whatever they may be unless something major actually happens like pilots falling asleep. Pilots shouldn't be tested more if the computers in the plane are faulty.

3. Why didn't Netflix sue them? and stage a boycott of Comcast? Instead they paid them money and created the very thing they were fighting against. Good Job guys :doh

4. I nor the ISPs have ever said you should! When that happens let me know then I will rethink my stance. Think of it like this. You rent a server, then your site or files use up all that space. Now, you need to rent more space from the server. That is basically all that Netflix is doing. Not sure why people are so upset about it. Also not sure what your solution would be to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
1. Again, take a look at my past postings. I have always done numbers if I have a lot to say about a specific portion of whatever it was someone wrote. I break it down into numbers. Not really sure why that would bother you. But there's your explanation. For that.

2. No it hasn't and it never has! Net Neutrality is a new concept. You just admitted that there was never a law for it. There is no unwritten law, that states all data is the same. Otherwise why would the same companies that made Billions setting this up before, want to stop it now?

3. Netflix could have sued to have it written into law. You know that's what high profile cases do right? Instead they've become hypocrites. But I am glad you admitted that no net neutrality laws exist. Debatepolitics, and text based forums have nothing to worry about. They simply do not take up that much bandwidth.

4. Agree with you here, a lot of the general public do not know how to connect their home computers to wifi.

5. Definitely true. This wouldn't be a factor if it was just text and pictures like before. Netflix is the largest content delivery network outside YouTube.
Click to expand...

1) I was joking around. It's not always serious here.

2) It's not that new of a concept - I've heard about it for at least a few years now. Only after the courts made their decision recently did it spark back up. However, if you could, can you cite me any instance in the past of an ISP throttle users access to certain sites?

3) I agree - I think they'll be at the forefront of suing the hell out of the ISPs.

Obviously we agree about more than we disagree on. So my question to you is, since technology is doing a good job of keeping up with demand in big data, why pick this fight? What is the worst that could come from Net Neutrality vs not?
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. I have and there are no laws on the books!!!! I can't find any. Please help me, if you know where they are. I'd love to read it.
Click to expand...
Well, not anymore. Struck down by a judge last January. And, again, regulation if you want to be pedantic.

2. I'm not a pilot, so where does the Pilot sleeping incident fall under? Who gets to review that? airline security or pilot training? I'll take a guess and say...pilot training right? So if someone was going around saying that pilots were falling asleep but it wasn't true. Does that mean, you should have to get tested more often? I'm sure you wouldn't like that. So the answer to your question is: I support the current methods whatever they may be unless something major actually happens like pilots falling asleep. Pilots shouldn't be tested more if the computers in the plane are faulty.
Click to expand...
...why do you think pilot fatigue is something that would be addressed by recurrent training regulations? Help me out here. You're wandering off on all sorts of weird tangents.

3. Why didn't Netflix sue them? and stage a boycott of Comcast? Instead they paid them money and created the very thing they were fighting against. Good Job guys :doh
Click to expand...
...because Comcast started doing it pretty much the second Net Neutrality ended. If they had done it in 2013, Netflix could have filed suit because Comcast would have been breaking the law.

As for boycotting Comcast, that means none of Comcast's subscribers can access Netflix. They didn't "create the very thing they were fighting against." A panel of federal judges created this problem when they overturned net neutrality.

4. I nor the ISPs have ever said you should! When that happens let me know then I will rethink my stance. Think of it like this. You rent a server, then your site or files use up all that space. Now, you need to rent more space from the server. That is basically all that Netflix is doing. Not sure why people are so upset about it. Also not sure what your solution would be to fix the problem.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Listen. Bandwidth and storage space aren't the same thing. I'm honestly not sure where to start here. It's not about "more space on a server." All of Netflix's video files are stored on Netflix's servers. This isn't about storage space, it's about transfer. You clearly lack basic technical understanding of the situation here. I suggest you do some basic research and come back to this thread.

"When that happens?" It already happened.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Well that didn't take long: Less than a day after Obama declared that he would like to see the internet reclassified as a Title II utility. AT&T has decided to stop their Fiber rollout plans across the nation. Leaving millions of Americans without super-fast internet!

My questions for AT&T are:

What exactly are they hoping for in the new rules?
Under what circumstances, if any, will they re-implement their plans for fiber?
With the lame-duck session currently on-going in Congress, do they honestly expect the politicians to come to a decision before 2015?

This is really bad news for millions of Americans and will stymie internet growth forever! I hope Net Neutrality activists see the error of their ways before, things get even worse and other ISPs start doing the same thing. For years the internet has been the backbone of innovation and has been left alone.

AT&T to pause fiber spending on net neutrality uncertainty | Reuters
Click to expand...

Since ISPs necessarily have a limited monopoly, Net Neutrality is necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom