What? Can I make it any simpler. Those that own the internet infrastructure want you to pay. And pay for what you select. No more one price gets it all. We are hooked and will pay. May be awhile, but it will come.
As for the Alexa thing a ma jig. Google will be your new bank. You will be depositing your money with them. You will then purchase items through them because they have your money. Already starting with apps that prefer you preload them with funds to make purchases.
Sorry I stretch the topics. That's just me.

I haven't heard ANYONE say this is a good decision, except Asshat Pai.

I hope he gets hit by a bus.

I find it interesting that the conservatives on this board are against this bill. Got Hypocrisy?

Obama's Net Neutrality is anything but neutral. And it is socialism, overly bureaucratic, stifles innovation and isn't really about the common masses access but more about making sure that Google and Netflix have a greased skid for their own prosperity.

I'm not necessarily against NN, but conservatives who are for it, need to take a long look in the mirror and decide where their values are. Personally I think the truth is somewhere in the middle

Youtube and Netflix make up about 50% of all web traffic in North Amer and total media streaming takes up nearly 80%

Conservatives also love to empower monopolies in the communications industry (who's socialist again?). I thought conservatives loved freedom and independence, but in the case of the net neutrality debate they seem dead-set on handing over their freedom of access to information to giant telecommunications conglomerates.

Please give us a concrete example of how the current FCC net neutrality standards "stifle innovation"? That you've been convinced to fight for the monopolistic benefit of perhaps the worst two companies in the United States (Comcast and AT&T) says a lot.

Sorry, I struggled with the wording myself when I wrote that post. :) Here is AT&T saying it: [Link: att.com]

"Data Free TV details
If you’re an AT&T wireless customer and you have DIRECTV or U-verse TV, you can stream most movies and shows with the TV app anywhere, without it counting against your data amount. This includes live and recorded shows. "

In other words, they are favoring their own content distribution arm over others -- exactly what net neutrality proponents fear will happen with de-regulation.  If you are hulu, google, Netflix, CBS, apple, etc. you are disadvantaged here as are their customers.

This is why I said if we want to protest a wireless carrier, it should be AT&T, not Verizon.

 without it counting against your data amount. This includes live and recorded shows. "

Exactly. This is what NN should prevent.

Carrying this farther, the backbone companies could start offering web hosting and give preference to end users who visit the backbone hosted sites.

I'm not against charging large users and content providers relative to the amount of network traffic they generate or consume, but the "hosted here" detail is my objection. To some extent the above mentality is similar to the "roaming" charges levied on cellphone users.

Without NN I think that it is too easy to drop down into an "objectionable content" mentality where this or that group could pressure companies to limit content. We see large scale state sponsored content censorship in some countries. While I don't see large scale censorship happening soon in the US, I'm sure that there are factions that would love to somehow inhibit "fake news".

Another facet of NN is the recent push to allow large ISP's to log and mine every click. It's only a matter of time until government will get its hands on this data (for our own protection, of course) and come after people who need some thought adjustment.

Once someone is in control of the internet, it will be time to create a new one and that would be damned difficult.

Which is why I thought this was pretty interesting...


[Link: cepro.com]

Net Neutrality is an excellent example of socialist big government telling patriotic American business owners how/when/who/what they can do with their products and services.

If lots of people want to stream netflix then the cable company ought to be able to charge those people more money every month. No one NEEDS the internet. Its not in the constitution.

If the argument is that free access to all the content on the internet for $30-100 a month should be a right then why do i have to pay $500+ a month for health insurance?

Access to electricity or clean water is not in the Constitution either; do we need that? Perhaps we should just eliminate the millions of jobs and trillions in GDP generated solely by the existence of the Internet and people’s access to it. You seem to lack a basic understanding of what’s actually at stake in this debate.

What about healthcare and free college? Do we need that? Where does the liberal bleeding of our tax dollars end?



Yeah...or maybe I'm just trolling the "free market keep big gubmnt socialists away from my hard earned money" conservatives.

In twisted logic, I’ll bet that someone in government thinks that tossing NN will bring back coal jobs.

You should stop thinking that all Conservatives think alike- we don't. Not all of us want this because it's a great example of how a few people think things should be, without considering the consequences.

I wouldn't mind if fake news (not referring to CNN) ended- bad journalism steers people in directions they might not want to go if they knew how far off course they were.

What makes you think they (government) haven't been mining data, already?

A lot of people have reversed the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'- they say/believe they need something when that's far from reality.

Fee-based utilities like electric power, natural gas and water don't tell people how to use these and that's one difference- if someone like the PMRC (remember Tipper Gore's group that demanded labels for "objectionable content" in music?) is able to decide how people use the internet, it will be the end of its growth. Reasonable tiers for data use isn't the problem (for me), but intrusice control practices are IF they become common.

The ACA is misnamed on many levels- it's not affordable and it's not about guaranteeing health care- it's a way to make sure the insurance companies are paid for funding health care by forcing people to share the cost. The biggest problem with how insurance companies operate is due to their admin costs being higher than the payments they make. If we could all use something like an HSA (and if this practice had been used more in the past), I don't think the health insurance would have become the monster it is. Hospitals, clinics and doctors have discounted cash payments from people who were uninsured/high deductible patients for a long time, but it's easier for some to just hand over the insurance card and let someone else deal with the payment.

GO HIGHFIGH ! ! ! YES, YES, YES !