Net Neutrality: Red vs. Blue

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I totally get why some corporations and telecoms are pissed.

 

But Cons (who would claim to support net neutrality) are pissed at Obama for supporting net neutrality because ... well ... because he's Obama?

 

Probably because some of their major contributors stand to benefit if their competitors are relegated to the slow lanes.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Vegas Halo Fan

[Count Orlok]

I'm against net neutrality because I want an internet that looks like this

 

 

Only problem is there's no porn tier.

[gotbeer]

I'm against net neutrality because I want an internet that looks like this

 

 

Only problem is there's no porn tier.

 

They can't charge for porn.  That's what the interwebs was made for.

[halobob]

Because there is little to no legal assurance that the data carriers will maintain the status quo when there is so much financial motivation for them to do otherwise.

 

This seems like a reasonable price to pay and I get to choose the sites I want to go faster on for a minimal charge?  What is not to like about this?  I think cox charges me $59.95/mo right now so it looks like I'll get internet cheaper and faster on the sites I use most.  

[gotbeer]

I'm against net neutrality because I want an internet that looks like this

 

 

Only problem is there's no porn tier.

 

 

My god.  I just looked at the fine print.  This would be just horrible.  So first, $29.95 to start.  which is about what most of us pay now.  

 

That $29.95 is just for the first 500 mb.  Now to put that in perspective.  Just on my phone, I downloaded 5.77 gb using my wifi connection last month.  So to just supply my phone, it would cost me what I think is 3 recharges at $5.  Now add in all the sites.  That's $45.  So for what I'm paying about $30 a month now, it would cost $89.95, and even then, if a site doesn't fit the criteria, or I go over, it will be knocked down to 128-256 KB a second.  That's Kila byte, which even with my slow DSL, is 10x slower.  For you cable folks, that would be 100x slower.  For fiber, 1000x slower.  

 

And the best part of the whole thing is, there is no where, where they guarantee you speeds of.  

 

After thinking about it more.  There is one blurb in that that concerns me.  Also mentioned is free transfers to Non Peering websites.  While I can understand p2p.  Does peering websites also include download sites like google play, or even sites like filehippo and such?  You notice no where in those sets of places is google play or the apple store mentioned.  And probably of the downloads on my phone, much of it was this type of download.  So if that isn't included, and you also have to pay extra for that.  

 

Sign me up, it's one way to kill the internet, sigh.

[Crampknees]

Chili made me lose my coffee on the screen.  I am all for Nut Neutrality. 

[NrM]

We should just have an official net neutrality thread. This shit never ends and news comes out everyday. 

Also, should net neutrality be discussed here or in technology?

 

 

Has any cable news programs been covering net neutrality at all? I don't believe they have. Probably makes sense because the average age of people who watch cable news is 60 years old.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Poozy

[gotbeer]

We should just have an official net neutrality thread. This shit never ends and news comes out everyday. 

Also, should net neutrality be discussed here or in technology?

 

 

Has any cable news programs been covering net neutrality at all? I don't believe they have. Probably makes sense because the average age of people who watch cable news is 60 years old.

 

Why would cable news cover something that they don't want?