If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   The GOP warns that FCC net neutrality laws will "derail the internet" and "stifle innovation". Thanks Obama   (foxnews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Federal Communications Commission, GOP, house republican leaders, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, streaming media  
•       •       •

955 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:31 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 11:50:59 AM  

gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?


With net neutrality, ISPs won't have the freedom to innovate new ways to f*ck their customers with expensive, sub-par service.
=Smidge=
 
2014-05-15 11:53:00 AM  
tvcolumnist.files.wordpress.com

Stifle....stifle.
 
2014-05-15 11:55:55 AM  
Because if they can throttle the internet, they can throttle ideas.
Ideas like Obummacare.
Man they would have throttled the shait out of any site for it.
And their own FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; FW; sites?
Those will get the fast lane.
They want to lay the foundation of censorship controlled by fundamentalists. accent on the "mental"
The only proper response is for each and every American citizen to kick any and all members of the republican party in the nards as hard as possible and as often as possible.
It is your civic duty as an American to do it.
Do it often, too.
See that dude with the flag pin gladhanding over there? Walk right up. Extend your hand, and kick him. Hard.
Tell him that's for being a farking asshole.
Tell him you stand for free speech, civil rights for everyone, and the constimotherfarkingtution and if he knows what's good for him, he's going to STFU and whimper and not be an asshole anymore.
The problem with lib is they are all a bunch of sensitive ponytail wearing yoga mat carrying bleeding hearts and don't have the gumption to stand up and kick an asshole in the nuts once in a while.
Now when I say kick them in the nuts, do I mean literally? or is it a metaphor?
I don't know. Could be a bit of both. But you aren't going to fix things by allowing this kind of herp derp to go unchallenged and unchallenged forcefully. Maybe you need a bull horn and just stop what you are doing, look at them, raise it up and yell, BULLSHAIT! You LIE! Knock it OFF, ASSHOLE!
Really. Try it. Maybe more people will stand up to these morans.
 
2014-05-15 12:05:31 PM  

qorkfiend: udhq: CPennypacker: udhq: I have a really hard time figuring out how opposing net neutrality can benefit the service providers in the long run.  It is my understanding that guidelines would PERMIT providers differentiate traffic streams, but would not REQUIRE them to do so.

So how would an ISP providing a throttled or capped service be able to compete with a non throttled/capped provider?  I know there's not enough competition, but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider.  If anything, it would just seem like Comcast/Charter/etc. choosing to throttle traffic would simply hasten the emergence of services like Google Fiber.

lol compete. cute.

Well, it's not like cable is the only, or even the best means to access the internet anymore.

The only realistic, superior option to cable is fiber, but if (like me) no one's bothered to run fiber lines to your residence, it's not really an option, eh?


the subcontractors are working along the curb this am,
installing the goony google breakfast fiber
funny thing is though none of them speak english

/  300.00 one time construction fee/ no monthly = basic internet, 2 year period - googles?
// 120.00 a month high speed + tv  - googles (2 year contract required)?
/// 110.00 a month tv+phone+medium pace -  time warner (no contract)?

I just want a girl with a short skirt and a long jacket
 
m00
2014-05-15 12:10:28 PM  

t3knomanser: The problem is if Comcast purposefully delivers some traffic slower than it is capable of. The very idea of saying "well, there's a fast lane" means that Comcast is capable of delivering traffic very quickly. Netflix doesn't buy bandwidth from Comcast, I do. So why is Comcast inserting itself into my business relationship?


Comcast lobbies government to sell them I-95 for cheap, and then covers it with tolls. Then they start manufacturing cars. Want to drive on I-95? Better use a Comcast Car which costs you $500,000, gets 5MPG, and constantly breaks down. Don't like it? Find another way to get from DC to New York. What, there are other ways to get from DC to New York? Then Comcast merges with Time-Warner and owns ALL the roads. Then they go to Ford, Toyota, Honda, GM... pay us a lot of money or we won't allow people driving your cars to get from DC to New York PERIOD. Startup car company? NOPE!
 
2014-05-15 12:10:29 PM  

CJHardin: JUST FARKING GREAT!

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-appro ve s-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet/?wpsrc=AG0003336


Woo!  I win!

And everybody loses!
 
2014-05-15 12:12:45 PM  

jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]


Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

img.fark.net

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:22 PM  
The gop once again proves to be masters of Quantum Wrongness. Batting 1000.
 
2014-05-15 12:15:44 PM  

Garet Garrett: Hey FCC, you know what would be really "neutral"?  Not regulating the internet.

/Radical idea:  stop creating monopolies and then telling us you need to regulate them because they're monopolies.


Oh that's funny you think if their are no rules things will just magically work their way out.

And you proof is that it's something you really want to believe, so you believe it? - That's called faith and a religion.
 
2014-05-15 12:20:09 PM  

bdub77: jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]

Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

[img.fark.net image 288x240]

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.


LOL, yup!  There is a reason that you have been highlighted in green for quite some time.
 
2014-05-15 12:27:48 PM  

sprawl15: mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?

no


Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2014-05-15 12:28:14 PM  

ArkAngel: Read carefully. The Republicans are opposing the shiatty new rules the industry shill is trying to put in. They don't want companies to be able to discriminate based on content


No they want NO rules in place.

The Democrats want the rules in place for net neutrality with one sucky piece that lets them sometimes negotiate a "fast lane".

Republicans want 100% shiat - Where ISP can make ANY deals they want. Including blocking totally.

Democrats want 10% shiat. - Where in limited situations they  can offer faster services.

It's a big difference
 
2014-05-15 12:34:44 PM  

mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?

no

Thanks for clearing that up.


you're welcome
 
2014-05-15 01:28:46 PM  

bdub77: jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]

Oh yeah? Well here's what I think of your chart

[img.fark.net image 288x240]

I think we can clearly see how painful it will be.


Well done.
 
2014-05-15 08:15:49 PM  

dr_blasto: That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.


No, you're actually completely wrong.
 
2014-05-15 08:26:12 PM  

Lsherm: dr_blasto: That's not true. They want the providers to be able to slow or block traffic altogether. The FCC rules simply aren't terrible enough for their tastes.

No, you're actually completely wrong.


Feel free to explain.
 
2014-05-16 01:57:42 AM  

skozlaw: udhq: but it seems like there are enough options out there where you're not really at the mercy of any 1 provider

Except there aren't. Cable, fiber and DSL are not equivalent and that's the "option" the relatively few people who have any option at all have. I can choose DSL instead of cable, but it's not much of a choice. It's like saying I can choose McDonald's over a five star meal. Sure, they're both technically food, but they're not really like things when it comes right down to it.


It's actually worse than that.
In this scenario, cable isn't even really one of the options.  Cable owns their own "last mile" infrastructure -- between the cable provider's equipment office and your house.  But after that?  They lease space in the phone company central offices and send your data along the phone company's fiber network just like everyone else.  Not to mention, the DSL and Fiber are likely being offered by the same company -- you're going to have access to U-Verse or FiOS, but probably not both, so those aren't separate choices either.

The other problem is that NOBODY owns the entire infrastructure between your ISP's gateway and whatever server you're trying to access.  Your traffic is passing through AT&T's, Verizon's, and whoever else's fiber networks to get where it needs to go.  In principle, without any network neutrality rules any of those providers could toll, or even block, your traffic that passes through their networks if they felt it was in their best interests, or consistent with any policies they enacted to promote their own services (as opposed to the ones you're trying to access).

After all, what motivation would Verizon have to sell Netflix a "fast lane" if they were trying to promote their own video on demand service?  They'd give their own service all the bandwidth it needs, though.  And switching ISPs wouldn't do squat since whatever ISP you pick is going to make use of Verizon's network anyway.
 
Displayed 17 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report