Why do you refuse to post links to all of your wall of text quotes? The best case scenario of your posts is people will be interested in the quote and want to read the entire article right? Then you can influence people down to what articles they are reading. It is tons easier than copypasta the text. Also a rule of this website. Under the FAQ there is one rule, post a link.
What's crazy to me is that yesterday on Fox News (I know, I know) the talking head that followed the headline about net neutrality was explaining how we have the fasted and best internet in the world and that this ruling would stifle broadband just like the government did in Europe. What the hell? People actually believe it. I think people just honestly believe (of a certain generation) that America is the best at everything and don't even bother to check statements like that. There may be some parts of Europe where the internet sucks, but in general, most industrialized nations have faster, more reliable broadband than Americans do.
I like doing quotes because I've often read the articles before and I guess I view it from the perspective of curation to what is relevant to the topic at hand. The particular article I quoted this time is a great one from GigaOM: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/24/marc-andreessen-says-more-net-neutrality-laws-are-not-the-answer/
The article on European broadband is from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/
people who are arguing against net neutrality because RAH government might. Glad to see you are following the debate more closely.
I'm not against you quoting an article. I am just saying you never ever post the links to those articles. It gives credit and views to the people you are quoting and it is literally the only rule of clutchfans under the FAQ.
Yeah what you really need to do is continue to post the snippets the way you do but then put the link somewhere in your post for people who want to go read the whole thing.
i try. sometimes I slip. oops. I look at my posts and I don't see it as often as you do perhaps. But if it's something you noted it's probably a trend. Glad you have the links now I have, quite honestly, never read the Clutchfans FAQ. Just being 100% honest here. I can work to provide more links (I usually make a huge effort to do that, so I'm a bit surprised at myself actually).
I'm pro Net Neutrality but I'm not pro FCC involvement. I know one without the other was impossible under this incarnation but I don't want FCC restricting content like they do on Radio/TV which they control. There are no content bans on the internet, I want it to stay that way.
Verizon responds... childish: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/verizon-issues-furious-response-to-fcc-in-morse-code-dated-1934/
How is this childish? Its amusing. That said, I believe wireless phone providers should be reconsidered. I do not see Title II affecting land based ISP's negatively, however I can see how it could with wireless providers. I would be upset if my Verizon Wireless data turns into what consists of Sprints network has become. Either way, it doesn't matter as the FCC will provide a different set of rules for wireless providers. Fortunately, the FCC is not like the typical consumer or blogger who has the mentality of "ZOMG! Give me a 1GB connection for 14.95"
Reminder of this classic from Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens: <iframe width="640" height="375" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f99PcP0aFNE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
let me guess: these economists you've seen happen to be regular rotation members of the right wing political industrial apparatus and can variously be traced back to the cash teat. Or were you just peer reviewing submissions to journals?
"Series of tubes" is a pretty good metaphor and can help people understand the net neutrality problem.
this a sickness called exceptionalism. you think you're #1 in everything but you have no idea how low down the pole you are. its because you have people who keep watching the same news every day and not traveling outside where they grew up or meeting new people from different places.
The consumer dollar vote can only go so far when you are dealing with a duopoly. I understand the "boo all government regulations" stance some people have, but it does have a place. Time Warner and Comcast are inclined to find ways to charge as much as they can and the government has a responsibility to protect the American consumer from corporate entities with too much influence on a sector such as Internet providers. Net neutrality is essential, as internet providers can overcharge and control the growth of select internet companies who are reliant on internet traffic on a whim to protect their own interests.
This is a dumb question...but I'd like an answer. If I am paying for, let's say 100mb/s speed right now, is that at all affected by this decision? I understand that net neutrality deals with bandwidth, which is like the amount of data (right?), and speed is ... speed...so again, what is changed here? Someone educate me like I am drunk 2 year old. Part of that might be accurate at the moment...
You're approaching it from the wrong angle. Your thought process mimics many of the proponents of Title II and NN. Title II simply states that the internet is now a utility and the FCC can regulate it. The biggest and most positive change at this very moment is that municipals can run their own ISP, despite previous state laws passed (this only pertains to two states that prohibits municipalities from operating their own ISP). Now what the FCC chooses to do from here is all speculation. Net neutrality is the hot topic at this time and guidelines will certainly come about soon. At this time, its hard to speculate what NN is going to be exactly. NN is a pretty broad debate when it comes to the particulars of networking. For example, there is fear mongering that ISP's will start charging for priority of service, for example, you will have to pay 4.99 more a month to get better speeds to video streaming sites like youtube, redtube and netflix or the ISP will slow down your speeds for those sites. You may still get your 100Mbps, but not to those sites. Another issue is that Verizon has been accused of degrading Netflix's traffic in one form or fashion. Another issue is that Tmobile gives priority access to their own music service on their network. So if the network is bogged down, Tmobile can make sure their music streaming service still runs smooth while the rest of the "normal" traffic gets pushed back. Think of it as the HOV lane that would continue to expand to ensure the traffic flows smoothly. At the end of the day, this can be pretty dangerous ruling. ISPs use traffic shaping to ensure their network runs smoothly. Very low latency applications like VOIP need priority of service. If we simply say all traffic needs to be equal, then services like VOIP (which uses very little bandwidth) could be degraded simply because they are now qued behind all the heavy traffic like P2P and video. I dont foresee NN placing a lot of restrictions on 3rd tier ISP's.
