Jump to content

Help Protect Net Nuetrality

Guest

By Guest,
in Off Topic

Recommended Posts

Shadowhawk827

Shadowhawk827

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, johntrine said:

i'm talking about net neutrality.... XD

it's the first stage...

FIRST STAGE I TELL YA!!

WAIT!! WHERE ARE YOU TAKING ME!!!

And I'm trying to keep the thread open.  :P  :)     Ashal made the LIMITED exception to the rule pretty clear.

 

That's why I'm leaving my commentary about how politicians on BOTH sides are corrupt and deeply flawed, AND delight in playing us off against each other out of this.  (LOL)

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

And I'm trying to keep the thread open.  :P  :)     Ashal made the LIMITED exception to the rule pretty clear.

 

That's why I'm leaving my commentary about how politicians on BOTH sides are corrupt and deeply flawed, AND delight in playing us off against each other out of this.  (LOL)

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

Hate to tell you but most analysts are all but guaranteeing that net neutrality will be struck down on the 16th when the vote is taken.  The FCC chair has a real bug up his rear on this one (which means he's getting big contributions from ISPs no doubt).

though i'm pretty sure as soon as that happen, it'll be taken to supreme court. through ISPs will abuse the time the get and the pushing the boulder back up the hill will be much harder

Link to comment
Veladarius

Veladarius

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, johntrine said:

though i'm pretty sure as soon as that happen, it'll be taken to supreme court. through ISPs will abuse the time the get and the pushing the boulder back up the hill will be much harder

I think the FCC and ISP's that start throttling sites should be sued, ISP's mainly for not providing the services we are paying for and the FCC for allowing them to do it. A nice national class action lawsuit would be good as well as suing to stop them from being able to extort money from companies that are not even their customers.

 

One thing I am happy about is that my ISP is local (phone company that ran fiber optic cable all over and started providing same services as cable and at higher speeds) and they have said that they plan on continuing to follow the rules of net neutrality. Spectrum can suck it seeing as my ISP can give a max speed of 1000mbps where Spectrum's max is 100 mbps.

Link to comment
Shadowhawk827

Shadowhawk827

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, johntrine said:

though i'm pretty sure as soon as that happen, it'll be taken to supreme court. through ISPs will abuse the time the get and the pushing the boulder back up the hill will be much harder

I really hope you're right.  Any doubts anybody had about this being about companies like Netflix paying for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use should be gone with the stories of Comcast already planning to gouge customers and all the similar stories.  Pretty good spin by big business though.  It had alot of people fooled at first.

 

Now we just have to hope we can stop them one way or another.

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Veladarius said:

max speed of 1000mbps

my high speed internet XD speed.thumb.PNG.dcf599f27732665a71fabbcd24fc4c00.PNG

15 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

I really hope you're right.  Any doubts anybody had about this being about companies like Netflix paying for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use should be gone with the stories of Comcast already planning to gouge customers and all the similar stories.  Pretty good spin by big business though.  It had alot of people fooled at first.

 

Now we just have to hope we can stop them one way or another.

it's not about hoping. if net neutrality is nulled by fcc then ajit pai is kinda fucking over his own party (if that's how it works in USA) for ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS! internet is NOT like television and as such laws similar to what television companies follow can't be applied. people compare net neutrality to water as similarity to being utility. i feel Internet is like freedom of speech. removing net neutrality is like telling anyone who follows religion besides Christianity in USA that he can only say certain things and to speak some more, he's gotta pay. that's called oppression and that shit''s illegal. the most people can do now is sue FCC after law passes and the law WILL pass.

Link to comment
pinky6225

pinky6225

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Veladarius said:

I think the FCC and ISP's that start throttling sites should be sued, ISP's mainly for not providing the services we are paying for and the FCC for allowing them to do it. A nice national class action lawsuit would be good as well as suing to stop them from being able to extort money from companies that are not even their customers.

 

One thing I am happy about is that my ISP is local (phone company that ran fiber optic cable all over and started providing same services as cable and at higher speeds) and they have said that they plan on continuing to follow the rules of net neutrality. Spectrum can suck it seeing as my ISP can give a max speed of 1000mbps where Spectrum's max is 100 mbps.

Do any servers actually spit out the data at that speed? I have a "up to" 80MB bandwidth connection although usually running around 50-60 when i do a speed test and while that is pretty quick i dont think steam ever actually sends me the data quick enough for me to make use of the majority of my bandwidth when i buy a game and download it

Link to comment
Shadowhawk827

Shadowhawk827

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, johntrine said:

my high speed internet XD speed.thumb.PNG.dcf599f27732665a71fabbcd24fc4c00.PNG

it's not about hoping. if net neutrality is nulled by fcc then ajit pai is kinda fucking over his own party (if that's how it works in USA) for ALL FUTURE ELECTIONS! internet is NOT like television and as such laws similar to what television companies follow can't be applied. people compare net neutrality to water as similarity to being utility. i feel Internet is like freedom of speech. removing net neutrality is like telling anyone who follows religion besides Christianity in USA that he can only say certain things and to speak some more, he's gotta pay. that's called oppression and that shit''s illegal. the most people can do now is sue FCC after law passes and the law WILL pass.

 

I remember when I had speeds that low....  Then I ditched Comcast and their overpriced, doesn't deliver 25mbps plan.

 

NOW I have Consolidated Fiber Optic:

 

413678260.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

 

I remember when I had speeds that low....  Then I ditched Comcast and their overpriced, doesn't deliver 25mbps plan.

 

NOW I have Consolidated Fiber Optic:

 

413678260.jpg

 

 

the net connection i got is from the ONLY ISP here. they got no competition. XD if net neutrality hit my country, i doubt'll get worse.

Link to comment
Shadowhawk827

Shadowhawk827

Posted
Posted

Yeah, monopolies always suck.

 

FWIW, the max speeds aren't all they're cracked up to be anyway.  Most places I DL from have their outgoing connections capped at about 5mbps.  The Nexus even just decided to go back to a one mbps cap for non premium members.  I was getting good DL speed from them before.  Steam is about the best and they still cap at 11 to 15 mbps depending on how busy they are connection wise.

 

Hopefully Consolidated values their customers more than Comcast if this goes through.

Link to comment
johntrine

johntrine

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Shadowhawk827 said:

Yeah, monopolies always suck.

 

FWIW, the max speeds aren't all they're cracked up to be anyway.  Most places I DL from have their outgoing connections capped at about 5mbps.  The Nexus even just decided to go back to a one mbps cap for non premium members.  I was getting good DL speed from them before.  Steam is about the best and they still cap at 11 to 15 mbps depending on how busy they are connection wise.

 

Hopefully Consolidated values their customers more than Comcast if this goes through.

loss of net neutrality will probably make it worse.

Link to comment
Veladarius

Veladarius

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pinky6225 said:

Do any servers actually spit out the data at that speed? I have a "up to" 80MB bandwidth connection although usually running around 50-60 when i do a speed test and while that is pretty quick i dont think steam ever actually sends me the data quick enough for me to make use of the majority of my bandwidth when i buy a game and download it

The fiber optic cable is run all the way to the house, is plugged into a module that converts it and they run a computer network cable from there to your gateway / modem. If you have cable and phone that is split there and goes back out to your house via standard coax cable. I just have 50 which is their lowest tier and it is pretty solid.

 

Spectrum here is offering 100mbps as their standard package (which is their max) but when it was TW 50 mbps was their max, when I had their service at 20 mbps it was pretty iffy as to whether or not I could get that. I don't see how they could up their speed so much when they never did any upgrades unless they didn't offer it because there was no competition. The phone companies high speed internet was far slower and the further you were from the last repeater box in your connection the worse your speed was. My mom was at the very end of theirs and her speed was barely up to dial up modem speeds. Our phone companies standard fiber optic internet package offers 300 mbps which is 3x Spectrum's max.

 

We did have some equipment issues initially but since they updated all of it we have had no issues. As it was with TW our speed was throttled from just before Thanksgiving until about the end of January every year and complaining did nothing.

Link to comment
Veladarius

Veladarius

Posted
Posted
On 11/22/2017 at 12:23 PM, Bazinga said:

From these examples it doesn't look like it was legal before Obama era net neutrality legislation came into effect either.

Or are they planning to deregulate this stuff even more than before that? Wouldn't surprise me of course, what they are doing with bank supervision and regulation atm is suicide too. We already had the big crash and they are still going back to a completely deregulated financial market like none of it happened. Makes me worry much much more than internet legislation because I can already see the shock wave ripples from the next US finance sector crash coming across the Atlantic Ocean.

There goes even more of my tax payer money, wasted to save fucking banks, yay! :(

The biggest issue really was banks giving loans to people they knew could never afford it via ARM loans. Most people looked at the initial payment and planned their budget around it and when the rate rose 2% - 4% they couldn't afford it. I bought my house with an ARM loan and took the increase into account. My credit wasn't great but when we refinanced to a fixed rate my wife and I were in the high 700's and in the low 800's when we bought our last car (a while ago).

 

99% of the banks that the government gave money to repaid those loan plus extra. While the loan itself was 0% interest the government was given temporary shares in the banks and forbid them from paying dividends to stockholders other than the government. Also, many banks that took money were forced to by the government even though their balance sheets were still healthy as they didn't do much of the sub prime loans. All of the companies that were doing the majority of the sub prime loans died and other banks were forced to buy them (pennies on the dollar but they had to absorb their losses). Even if you had the money to give back to the government they had to approve you to repay it. The bank I worked for was ready to repay it (about 5 billion is what they forced on us) and it was a year before they let us repay it at which point we could go back to paying dividends and such to our regular shareholders. Overall, the government made money from their (forced in some cases) loans to the banks.

 

The biggest loser given money was GM which split into two divisions, one that owed the money and one that didn't but retained all of the assets and such of the company. GM never paid that off and let it go into bankruptcy. Chrysler needed propping up but Fiat stepped up and bought them for a steal.

Link to comment
Benmc20

Benmc20

Posted
Posted
On 01/12/2017 at 11:19 PM, johntrine said:

guy! GUY! in my country, government has come ahead and said that net neutrality WILL stay! ps i'm NOT from USA

I'm curious...

 

As for speed, in my fixed access (ADSL 2+), 18 MBPs,. In 4G+, this can go up to 80 MBPs 103 MBPs (but less stable).

 

You'll hate me...

Screenshot_20171204-225650.thumb.png.dd62cfe3f94a50b29afb62d726da73d5.png

Link to comment
Shadowhawk827

Shadowhawk827

Posted
Posted
On 12/1/2017 at 1:59 PM, Veladarius said:

The biggest issue really was banks giving loans to people they knew could never afford it via ARM loans. Most people looked at the initial payment and planned their budget around it and when the rate rose 2% - 4% they couldn't afford it. I bought my house with an ARM loan and took the increase into account. My credit wasn't great but when we refinanced to a fixed rate my wife and I were in the high 700's and in the low 800's when we bought our last car (a while ago).

 

99% of the banks that the government gave money to repaid those loan plus extra. While the loan itself was 0% interest the government was given temporary shares in the banks and forbid them from paying dividends to stockholders other than the government. Also, many banks that took money were forced to by the government even though their balance sheets were still healthy as they didn't do much of the sub prime loans. All of the companies that were doing the majority of the sub prime loans died and other banks were forced to buy them (pennies on the dollar but they had to absorb their losses). Even if you had the money to give back to the government they had to approve you to repay it. The bank I worked for was ready to repay it (about 5 billion is what they forced on us) and it was a year before they let us repay it at which point we could go back to paying dividends and such to our regular shareholders. Overall, the government made money from their (forced in some cases) loans to the banks.

 

The biggest loser given money was GM which split into two divisions, one that owed the money and one that didn't but retained all of the assets and such of the company. GM never paid that off and let it go into bankruptcy. Chrysler needed propping up but Fiat stepped up and bought them for a steal.

 

I've got some insight here also having been in Real Estate...

 

The mainstream media spin on the whole meltdown was borderline criminal it was so bad.  First and foremost, this all started with a contest between the two parties on who could do more to put Americans in homes.  Go to YouTube, you can find plenty of videos of DC politicians saying "It's the RIGHT of every American to own a home."  Coincidentally, Jefferson had "The Right to Life, Liberty and Property", changed to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to avoid codifying slavery at the Federal level.

 

To get back on track however, at the height of this mess, the government was outright threatening the banks with prosecution for redlining (lending discrimination) if they were not making loans to people that couldn't afford it.  The banks bitched about how it'd put them under and the government said don't worry about it we'll cover any losses.  Once the banks knew they had nothing to lose they threw the floodgates wide open.  It was a perverse mixing of socialism and crony capitalism.

 

Now as far as the banks that did all the bad lending being the only ones to fail...  That's crap.  Chase was one of the worst offenders and it's thriving.  The "Too Big To Fail" got bailed out by the Feds.  Then when the Feds also gave them loan money to get the economy going again, the banks held the money and bought out smaller banks, increasing their own market share.

 

Oh and Dodd-Frank is NOT the godsend of consumer protection that Bazinga thinks it is.  That also was manipulated into a business weapon by giant monster mega-bank lobbyists.  What that bill did was increase the cost of compliance with Federal law to such a degree that it put many smaller banks out of business.  Only the Chases, Wells Fargos and Bank of Americas of the world could afford to eat those costs.  THAT is why you see virtually no community banks anymore, and the mega-banks have started jacking their fees up into the stratosphere.  They can get away with it because there's no competition to speak of.  It's a virtual shared monopoly anymore.

 

As a last note, before I get labeled a god knows what by some here...  First, I believe that the more people that own homes, the better it is for a community.  HOWEVER, I believe programs should be set up to help people help themselves and improve opportunity.   Secondly, I believe in SOME degree of government regulation too.  That regulation should be structured in a way that doesn't penalize the little guy however.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use