Serious answers only on Net Neutrality decision

[SW48]

I guess they made a decision about Net Neutrality today.

Does anyone exactly know what this means for sites like PoliticalJack.com?

Serious answers only.

Thanks,
SW48

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Not sure, but I don’t think it means anything for sites like this.

It’s a horrible decision though. Repealing the rule allows ISPs to favor or disfavor certain sites. As I understand stand it, the repeal will have greatest impact upon sites that use lots of bandwidth (like streaming sites). I hope Congress reverses this latest Team Trump outrage.

Trump’s appointee to head the FCC led the charge...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-vote/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/net-neutrality-latest/index.html

 

[SW48]

Not sure, but I don’t think it means anything for sites like this.

It’s a horrible decision though. Repealing the rule allows ISPs to favor or disfavor certain sites. As I understand stand it, the repeal will have greatest impact upon sites that use lots of bandwidth (like streaming sites). I hope Congress reverses this latest Team Trump outrage.

Trump’s appointee to head the FCC led the charge...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-vote/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/net-neutrality-latest/index.html

Thanks but do you think Trump is intelligent enough to understand the issue and do you think it was actually his idea to do this?

Looks like the FCC did it.

 

[Hmmmm]

I guess they made a decision about Net Neutrality today.

Does anyone exactly know what this means for sites like PoliticalJack.com?

Serious answers only.

Thanks,
SW48

Highly likely that it is zero impact.

But, if a provider such as Comcast decided to open their own forums with heavy advertising, they could slow all sites like this down to make them cumbersome or even unusable or charge for un-throttled speeds. Or, charge you a fee for allowing you on their pipes at all.

 

[Hmmmm]

Thanks but do you think Trump is intelligent enough to understand the issue and do you think it was actually his idea to do this?

Looks like the FCC did it.

Trump isn't a detail man. He is a concept man (in his own mind). FCC did it because some big companies want them to get rid of it.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Thanks but do you think Trump is intelligent enough to understand the issue and do you think it was actually his idea to do this?

Looks like the FCC did it.

Trump’s appointed toady on the FCC pushed it through. See my link.

Does Trump fully understand the issue? Doubtful. I don’t think he fully understands anything, or cares about policy implications.

But there are two factors at play. One, his donors want it. Two, net neutrality was an Obama era rule, and Trump seems to think that anything Obama supported must be reversed. Period.

 

[Hmmmm]

Trump’s appointed toady on the FCC pushed it through. See my link.

Does Trump fully understand the issue? Doubtful. I don’t think he fully understands anything, or cares about policy implications.

But there are two factors at play. One, his donors want it. Two, net neutrality was an Obama era rule, and Trump seems to think that anything Obama supported must be reversed. Period.

Si.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I guess they made a decision about Net Neutrality today.

Does anyone exactly know what this means for sites like PoliticalJack.com?

Serious answers only.

Thanks,
SW48

My understanding it gives freedom back to the communication corporations. They can allow or not allow content. Kind of like PJ we post what we post and the admins and mods can allow it or remove the content.
Unlike businesses that ban firearms or doing business with a gay couple who wants a cake and the owner doesn't want to make that cake.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

My understanding it gives freedom back to the communication corporations. They can allow or not allow content. Kind of like PJ we post what we post and the admins and mods can allow it or remove the content.
Unlike businesses that ban firearms or doing business with a gay couple who wants a cake and the owner doesn't want to make that cake.

You favor giving ISPs the right to censor web content?

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

You favor giving ISPs the right to censor web content?

Should you be forced to do something you don't want to do?
Do you favor a business banning firearms on its premises? Or a bakery refusing to do a business of a gay couple?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Should you be forced to do something you don't want to do?
Do you favor a business banning firearms on its premises? Or a bakery refusing to do a business of a gay couple?

Let me know if you can answer my question instead of dodging it and asking different questions.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Honestly, I have no idea. However, when big government hacks talk about "fairness" and "neutrality", the exact opposite happens. For some reason, I haven't cared enough to look into the details of this.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Let me know if you can answer my question instead of dodging it and asking different questions.

I was sure you would have understood my answer by the way I asked those questions.
An owner of a product has to right to restrict anything they so choose.

Now I take it you oppose this
Should you be forced to do something you don't want to do?
Do you favor a business banning firearms on its premises? Or a bakery refusing to do a business of a gay couple?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

OK, so I did a quick Wiki recon on this. On the surface, it makes sense. No slowing down content you don't like for whatever reason if you're a service provider. Treat all content equally.

My question is this: is there an actual problem that needs to be addressed? I saw a couple examples of service providers slowing content. The FCC stepped in and stopped them. Therefore, do we really need to do anything else.

As for PJ, I suspect this would only affect really big web sites with a LOT of traffic.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I was sure you would have understood my answer by the way I asked those questions.
An owner of a product has to right to restrict anything they so choose.

Now I take it you oppose this
Should you be forced to do something you don't want to do?
Do you favor a business banning firearms on its premises? Or a bakery refusing to do a business of a gay couple?

I must enforce my rule - he who dodgeth my question gets no answer to his own.

;-)

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

OK, so I did a quick Wiki recon on this. On the surface, it makes sense. No slowing down content you don't like for whatever reason if you're a service provider. Treat all content equally.

My question is this: is there an actual problem that needs to be addressed? I saw a couple examples of service providers slowing content. The FCC stepped in and stopped them. Therefore, do we really need to do anything else.

As for PJ, I suspect this would only affect really big web sites with a LOT of traffic.

With the repeal of the net neutrality rule, service providers can once again slow content from certain content providers as they wish. So, what needs to be done is that the FCC’s repeal must be reversed.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I must enforce my rule - he who dodgeth my question gets no answer to his own.

;-)

ok captain dodge you only think things should be banned that you don't like.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

With the repeal of the net neutrality rule, service providers can once again slow content from certain content providers as they wish. So, what needs to be done is that the FCC’s repeal must reversed.

From what I have read, I have to agree. This would be like the water company putting valve slowing the water to my house and charging me extra to remove it. Not cool.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

ok captain dodge you only think things should be banned that you don't like.

Shush. You’re a lame dodger.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Shush. You’re a lame dodger.

You you're a better dodger?