Net Neutrality

Repeal of net neutrality takes the government OUT of it.

 

Just to be clear, I am totally AGAINST net neutrality.

 

BTW, what a description, nothing neutral about it.

Net neutrality is dead — at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

Today’s vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They, (internet providers), can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Net neutrality is dead — at least for now. In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission approved a measure to remove the tough net neutrality rules it put in place just two years ago. Those rules prevented internet providers from blocking and throttling traffic and offering paid fast lanes. They also classified internet providers as Title II common carriers in order to give the measure strong legal backing.

Today’s vote undoes all of that. It removes the Title II designation, preventing the FCC from putting tough net neutrality rules in place even if it wanted to. And, it turns out, the Republicans now in charge of the FCC really don’t want to. The new rules largely don’t prevent internet providers from doing anything. They, (internet providers), can block, throttle, and prioritize content if they wish to. The only real rule is that they have to publicly state that they’re going to do it.

Which is all stuff they could have done prior to 2 years ago that they evidently never got around to doing. If it wasn't an issue then I don't see it being much of an issue now.

Many streaming services are data hogs and should pay more for the fast lane.

Which is all stuff they could have done prior to 2 years ago that they evidently never got around to doing. If it wasn't an issue then I don't see it being much of an issue now.

That is not true. They COULDN'T do those things...the government's program, Net Neutrality, was intended to stop any company, or small group of companies from attempting to control what is available on the Internet.

Why do you think Comcast, Verizon, etc, have been screaming so loud to get rid of Net Neutrality....so they can give your more for free, or less? Dream on.

 

REMOVING the CURRENT Net Neutrality Rules (which was voted on 12/14/17 and won with a 3 - 2 vote by the FCC) will allow the government (FCC) to dictate what you watch/see/stream/ read/download, etc. on the internet.

Sorry, but, you are totally 100% wrong. Net neutrality gave government power to regulate the internet.

Now that net neutrality has been repealed, the free market will dictate what you watch/see/stream/ read/download, etc. on the internet. Just as it has for the past 35 years.

That is not true. They COULDN'T do those things...the government's program, Net Neutrality, was intended to stop any company, or small group of companies from attempting to control what is available on the Internet.

 

Why do you think Comcast, Verizon, etc, have been screaming so loud to get rid of Net Neutrality....so they can give your more for free, or less? Dream on.

So what you are saying is the government put into place regulations to keep someone from doing something they could not do and now that those regulations are gone they can now do those things?

Sorry, but, you are totally 100% wrong. Net neutrality gave government power to regulate the internet.

Now that net neutrality has been repealed, the free market will dictate what you watch/see/stream/ read/download, etc. on the internet. Just as it has for the past 35 years.

One thing that can't be debated is that whenever regulation is lifted, the so-called "free market" is able to do anything they want to make more money. When this happened in the past, everything that I used that was affected by deregulation became more expensive. I see no reason why this situation will be any different.

It is noteworthy that the only companies that lobbied for this change are the big internet service providers. Yes, those companies that you already have to pay to so you can access the internet - not the ones you can access for free. If they didn't see some benefit to their bottom lines, why would they have spent so many millions of $$$$ to lobby its defeat?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must companies that are expecting higher profits by buying the FCC and finally being able do whatever they want to do.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has no idea how the free market really works in the modern world.

Higher internet access bills, anyone?

So what you are saying is the government put into place regulations to keep someone from doing something they could not do and now that those regulations are gone they can now do those things?

That is pretty much it.

And people in suites pay more per square foot of cabin than lower level cabins. However, each additional square foot doesn't cost more for the cruise, until you figure in the perks Suites get.

 

Its not physics at all. It really has nothing to do with physics. Its business. Suggest you look at how the business of moving and housing people works. Suites usually subsidize lower level accomadations, not the reverse.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with physics. At least not the physics I minored in.

It is in that whenever you increase the space that one group has access to, you have to take it away from another group - two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. When I studied physics, it was called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle". Unless physics is no longer a part of science, that principal should still be valid. :D

It is in that whenever you increase the space that one group has access to, you have to take it away from another group - two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. When I studied physics, it was called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle". Unless physics is no longer a part of science, that principal should still be valid. :D

That assumes ships aren't getting bigger. We are know they are.

Odd you are complaining Suites are getting more space. On the HAL board, they are complaining there are fewer suites on their newest ship, (and the ship has approximately 20% more pax)which is expected to replicated in the next new ship due in 2018. And that the suites are smaller.

But everyone is happy they have added new eating venues... open to everyone.

That assumes ships aren't getting bigger. We are know they are.

 

Odd you are complaining Suites are getting more space. On the HAL board, they are complaining there are fewer suites on their newest ship, (and the ship has approximately 20% more pax)which is expected to replicated in the next new ship due in 2018. And that the suites are smaller.

 

But everyone is happy they have added new eating venues... open to everyone.

Not so on Celebrity's new Edge class ships. A bit smaller than the Solstice class, but with four times the space allocated to suites and suite guests, including exclusive pool and spa, lounge, bar and dining areas. A third of the upper deck areas will be off limits to the lower classes. On other Celebrity ships, everyone can enjoy all of the upper deck spaces equally, no matter what category stateroom you are in. But not on these. And, there will be no additional dining venues for the "peasants" on these ships.

Other cruise lines are moving in the same direction.

One thing that can't be debated is that whenever regulation is lifted, the so-called "free market" is able to do anything they want to make more money. When this happened in the past, everything that I used that was affected by deregulation became more expensive. I see no reason why this situation will be any different.

 

Well just for arguments sake, how has Obamacare worked. Government comes into the market, individual cost per family to go down by $2,500 per year, choose your plan, choose your doctor.

Love the government involved in private industry. I trust Trump and Congress to take over the internet, just like I trusted Obama and Obamacare.

It is in that whenever you increase the space that one group has access to, you have to take it away from another group - two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. When I studied physics, it was called the "Pauli Exclusion Principle". Unless physics is no longer a part of science, that principal should still be valid. :D

In any event, this does not prove that lower level cabins subsidize Suites. No evidence at all. Have traveled extensively for close to 40 years now, have never heard anyone say, or prove that lower level cabins/hotel rooms subsidize suites.

It is hard to imagine if you are paying $150 -200 per day, per person, for a lower level cabin, how much of that is above your cost to the cruise line, and is going to subsidize suites, who are paying $500-1000 per person per day.

In any event, this does not prove that lower level cabins subsidize Suites. No evidence at all. Have traveled extensively for close to 40 years now, have never heard anyone say, or prove that lower level cabins/hotel rooms subsidize suites.

 

It is hard to imagine if you are paying $150 -200 per day, per person, for a lower level cabin, how much of that is above your cost to the cruise line, and is going to subsidize suites, who are paying $500-1000 per person per day.

Who said that "lower level cabins subsidize suites"? Other than you, of course. I said that suite guests are having more and more space allocated to them and the expense of public space for the peasants. I did not say anything about the cost of cabins, suites or otherwise.

Implying that I claimed the cheaper cabins are subsidizing much more expensive cabins is totally twisting my words to satisfy your own agenda.

See the last sentence of Post #6. You get what you pay for.

See the last sentence of Post #6. You get what you pay for.

Wrong again. I was speaking about loss of public space, not subsidizing high cost suites. Not every "at the expense of" is about money.

Here's a question for the Americans on this thread. How competitive or noncompetitive is the internet provider industry in your country? Up here in Canada we basically have two choices for internet in most places, our monopoly cable provider or our monopoly land line phone provider. There are some light use/slow speed discount providers who piggyback of one of the cable or phone providers but they are a very niche market. Internet through cell providers is a very expensive joke. Do you guys have more choices for high speed internet?

Here's a question for the Americans on this thread. How competitive or noncompetitive is the internet provider industry in your country? Up here in Canada we basically have two choices for internet in most places, our monopoly cable provider or our monopoly land line phone provider. There are some light use/slow speed discount providers who piggyback of one of the cable or phone providers but they are a very niche market. Internet through cell providers is a very expensive joke. Do you guys have more choices for high speed internet?

I live in a large city, so my options may be more extensive than some areas.

Different areas of the city have different provider options. In my specific area, I have at six landline/cable options, two wireless options, and two satellite options. I pay a flat $50 per month for unlimited data with consistent 30+Mbps speeds.

Here's a question for the Americans on this thread. How competitive or noncompetitive is the internet provider industry in your country?

Too competitive in my area.

Every two years I sign a contract, then have to change to another provider to get cheaper and better service.

Here's a question for the Americans on this thread. How competitive or noncompetitive is the internet provider industry in your country? Up here in Canada we basically have two choices for internet in most places, our monopoly cable provider or our monopoly land line phone provider. There are some light use/slow speed discount providers who piggyback of one of the cable or phone providers but they are a very niche market. Internet through cell providers is a very expensive joke. Do you guys have more choices for high speed internet?

I have phone and cable options and the phone option is so slow it's not really an option. I've never really looked into satellite providers.

Well just for arguments sake, how has Obamacare worked. Government comes into the market, individual cost per family to go down by $2,500 per year, choose your plan, choose your doctor.

 

 

 

Love the government involved in private industry. I trust Trump and Congress to take over the internet, just like I trusted Obama and Obamacare.

Obamacare is state dependent. Your state messed it up. It’s doing ok in California.

With Net Neutrality gone I feel like a toad in a pot of cold water on the stove. It’ll take a while for me to feel the heat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Obamacare is state dependent. Your state messed it up. It’s doing ok in California.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

California, the state of fiscal responsibility.

NUFF said.

California, the state of fiscal responsibility.

 

 

 

NUFF said.

Wow, lots of anger there.

Some things CA does do right. Have to being one of the largest economies in the world and taking less Fed money then we give. Does PA do everything correctly?

California, the state of fiscal responsibility.

 

NUFF said.

Another "don't have a clue" comment. Not sure why people who don't even live in a state consider themselves experts on how that particular state operates. Could it be jealousy, ignorance, or just plain spite?

This is what the Sacramento Bee reported just last month: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article184886288.html

"The state budget is in good shape to weather a moderate recession, and lawmakers should be able to sock away more money in reserves next year, according to projections the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office issued Wednesday.

The LAO’s outlook shows the state would finish its 2018-19 budget year with more than $19 billion in reserves [bolding added for emphasis] - assuming lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown don’t make any more spending commitments. About $11 billion is obligated for the state’s rainy-day fund. Lawmakers could spend about $7.5 billion of the surplus, although analysts recommend that they save it to prepare for a recession."

Hint: it is probably better to not say anything about things you know nothing about lest you make yourself look foolish.

Wow, lots of anger there.

 

Some things CA does do right. Have to being one of the largest economies in the world and taking less Fed money then we give. Does PA do everything correctly?

Pennsylvania ranks #22 on the most dependent state list, while California ranks 46. That makes PA a taker while CA is a giver. Not surprising that a resident of a state that takes in more government welfare than it pays in federal taxes would be clueless as to how much better 28 other states are doing at being "fiscally responsible". Pretty comical how facts are difficult to comprehend for some people.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/