FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
All of this is good for users, bad for telco profits and against “net neutrality”
How is it good for users if against net neutrality? The two cannot coexist. If it is against net neutrality, it is against users. two ways of saying the same thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
There it is..
And really - you can choose to be on TMo (you are, aren't you?) just never use the codec.. and you have NN with TMo because all your traffic will be exactly the same.You are making wild excuses, grasping at straws. I pay for all the access whether I use it or not. THEY control which things I get at what cost. THEY control my impressions of the world.
They do that simply by charging you for bandwidth... so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
All bandwidth, the same. That's fine. That's EXACTLY what I want.
In no way do they choose which gets priority and which doesn't. I and I alone chose by what I chose to download.
So it doesn’t make it all the same. You pay for a bulk “binge on” plan for reduce video quality of certain services.
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples. In fact NN is built on ancient Title ii laws that also dot accurately address the issue.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
There it is..
And really - you can choose to be on TMo (you are, aren't you?) just never use the codec.. and you have NN with TMo because all your traffic will be exactly the same.You are making wild excuses, grasping at straws. I pay for all the access whether I use it or not. THEY control which things I get at what cost. THEY control my impressions of the world.
They do that simply by charging you for bandwidth... so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
All bandwidth, the same. That's fine. That's EXACTLY what I want.
In no way do they choose which gets priority and which doesn't. I and I alone chose by what I chose to download.
So it doesn’t make it all the same. You pay for a bulk “binge on” plan for reduce video quality of certain services.
Of CERTAIN SERVICES.
They choose which they provide and which they don't. That's the issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
There it is..
And really - you can choose to be on TMo (you are, aren't you?) just never use the codec.. and you have NN with TMo because all your traffic will be exactly the same.You are making wild excuses, grasping at straws. I pay for all the access whether I use it or not. THEY control which things I get at what cost. THEY control my impressions of the world.
They do that simply by charging you for bandwidth... so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
All bandwidth, the same. That's fine. That's EXACTLY what I want.
In no way do they choose which gets priority and which doesn't. I and I alone chose by what I chose to download.
So it doesn’t make it all the same. You pay for a bulk “binge on” plan for reduce video quality of certain services.
Of CERTAIN SERVICES.
They choose which they provide and which they don't. That's the issue.
Right! So you see NN was written in a way to prevent this from being legal.
So NN isn’t what people think.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
There it is..
And really - you can choose to be on TMo (you are, aren't you?) just never use the codec.. and you have NN with TMo because all your traffic will be exactly the same.You are making wild excuses, grasping at straws. I pay for all the access whether I use it or not. THEY control which things I get at what cost. THEY control my impressions of the world.
They do that simply by charging you for bandwidth... so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
All bandwidth, the same. That's fine. That's EXACTLY what I want.
In no way do they choose which gets priority and which doesn't. I and I alone chose by what I chose to download.
So it doesn’t make it all the same. You pay for a bulk “binge on” plan for reduce video quality of certain services.
Of CERTAIN SERVICES.
They choose which they provide and which they don't. That's the issue.
Right! So you see NN was written in a way to prevent this from being legal.
So NN isn’t what people think.
If NN was written to prevent that... that's why we wanted it and why it is SO important and any talk of anything else is misleading... this is the core issue.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
So we all want what “Net Neutrality” sounds like, but what’s in the actual law isn’t really that. I think that’s the short of it.
No, I want Net Neutrality, it sounds like everyone else wants exactly the opposite. Which is fine, but everyone needs to realize that a neutral Internet means you can never use marketing tricks to make unequal access sound appealing.
What you want too see from TMo instead of this 'free' space when you that codec, you want to see a lower bill, then you get to choose to spend that money buying bandwidth as you desire.. instead of seeing a higher bill ( but drastically less than the competition) that includes the "free" space... I think this is what you are saying.. and what you are calling a lack of NN.
What I want is neutrality. I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want an ISP to have the right to ever, ever, ever prioritize (in speed, bandwidth or antyhing else) where my money goes. I want to pay for access to the Internet, all of the Internet equally, and not have some private company deciding that some data gets to me faster or some data costs more than other data. I don't want a filtered Internet, I want a neutral Internet.
There it is..
And really - you can choose to be on TMo (you are, aren't you?) just never use the codec.. and you have NN with TMo because all your traffic will be exactly the same.You are making wild excuses, grasping at straws. I pay for all the access whether I use it or not. THEY control which things I get at what cost. THEY control my impressions of the world.
They do that simply by charging you for bandwidth... so I'm not sure where you are going with that.
All bandwidth, the same. That's fine. That's EXACTLY what I want.
In no way do they choose which gets priority and which doesn't. I and I alone chose by what I chose to download.
So it doesn’t make it all the same. You pay for a bulk “binge on” plan for reduce video quality of certain services.
Of CERTAIN SERVICES.
They choose which they provide and which they don't. That's the issue.
Right! So you see NN was written in a way to prevent this from being legal.
So NN isn’t what people think.
And it means NN is exactly what we thought... protection of our freedom.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
Very simple. The ISP wants and allows all content to take advantage. They don’t want to offer specific content.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
The electric company argument is not a apples to apples.
Then explain how it is different, because every example given so far is identical. Use what the ISP wants, you get it "cheaper" and the "full price" is adjusted accordingly, of course. In the end, the customer will always pay, and the one thing that can never be an acceptable answer is for the ISP to ever have any hand in deciding if any data gets faster speeds or higher usage than others.
Very simple. The ISP wants and allows all content to take advantage. They don’t want to offer specific content.
Um... no. How do you prove that? You can prove that if all ISPs universally fought NN and made sure that none of their competition had any ability to ever do something like TMobile did.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
Um... so... maybe you didn't notice but the WHOLE COUNTRY is up in arms about this. Not sure how you missed that. I've even had people in countries that don't even border the US ask me today how this was going to affect their freedom of information. No one that isn't corrupt and making money through corruption is okay with this. Of course the vendors are all on board, they are the ones we are afraid of!
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Which is exactly the scenario I thought of when they started taking about title ii for the internet in 2014. I thought it was insane.
Want to be at keyboard for more constructive dialogue and put some quotes from the bill on her for consideration...
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
Um... so... maybe you didn't notice but the WHOLE COUNTRY is up in arms about this. Not sure how you missed that. I've even had people in countries that don't even border the US ask me today how this was going to affect their freedom of information. No one that isn't corrupt and making money through corruption is okay with this. Of course the vendors are all on board, they are the ones we are afraid of!
I’ve definitelt noticed the whole country is up in arms, but have no confidence in the whole countries assessment of laws they’ve never read, that I’ve dealt with on a very regular basis.
But will get more granular tomorrow as I haven’t read anything yet to change my mind
Have also been a Pai fan for years and feel there is just a huge political bias behind everyone’s rage
-
I think a flaw here is that you are making it look like the law must be bad because Verizon wanted to leverage it for their own purposes. But TMobile was doing the opposite for their own purposes. So, we can prove that both sides had a vendor looking to take advantage of things. What does that tell us? That the presence of a vendor tells us nothing.
So move on and look at the actual issue, no need to bring up that Verizon was against it or that TMobile was for it. Vendors will use the law or corruption as they can get away with for their own benefit at any given time. That's a given, it doesn't provide insight here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
If you want to pay full price you can and not do binge on or stream saver.
And THIS is the problem. It's extortion... if you want the media we don't want you to see, you can pay our artificially inflated prices to see it. Want to see important information and promotion of a candidate we don't want you to vote for, pay extra. But if you want to see ads or media that supports political agendas we like, it's "free".
You'd exposed the problem. This is why this can never be anything but evil.
You aren’t describing it accurately still.
It’s opt in for user and provider, it saves users money, it doesn’t prevent access to content or provide any unfair advantage to any provider or content type
"Opt in" is never okay in this situation. Never. It doesn't save uses money, that's plainly untrue. The end users will pay and the ISPs are in control. That's the bottom line.
It’s ironic to see now that everyone is on the platform and everyone is happy except you and Verizon with this.
The difference is there is no content bias compared to your utility example.
What do you mean that there is no content bias? How do you prove that? There is the OPTION of bias, and that's the problem. How do you ensure that every content is equal here? And if it is all equal then NN didn't apply and this is moot.
The only thing we are discussing is bias.
While I’m on mobile and about to crash I think the issue is that’s NN doesn’t say what everyone thinks it says. This is an example where I feel everyone wanted the same thing except the competition. And Verizon was using this law to prevent something good for content providers and users.
Except Verizon wasn't using it to prevent something good, it was something bad - prioritization of chosen media. I hate Verizon, but they were the good guys there. Sure, only because it was in their interest, but it just happened to work out that way.
Not prioritization, not throttling, none of that. Just a configuration that benefits users and that no video provider appears to have issue with.
