You didn't express any opposing views related to the topic.

There isn't a road in the United States that doesn't have a speed limit. And nearly every car on sale has a speed limiter built in.

there is nothing wrong with having an opposing viewpoint. But like reviews on amazon I want information, not just this product sucks. I started this tread to allow people who want to oppose new FCC rules to have a voice, not start a debate. If you are OK with the FCC new rules, OK. Just move onto the next thread that interest you.

Thank you

I think you are the one letting your emotions get in the way.....

Its completely relevant as anything government touches or regulates eventually if not immediately costs the consumer more.

Engine control systems have a rev limiter, to save the engine from damage caused by runaway RPM. It's not for controlling the speed of the car and no rev limiter will reduce a car's speed to the speed limit (some would be double the speed limit, or more).

For years now implies more than 2.5 which is how long its been in effect. Whats wrong with service is the speed and reliability thats delivered. Theres no competition and no reason for an ISP to offer better reliability or speed. Theres not more options, theres less or the same which means stagnant growth. The free market always prevails and wins.

I encourage you to site one government controlled industry that promotes free market values and competition.

If your number is right, the rules have been in place for 2.5 years. But the rules were put in place to keep things the way they were instead of allowing ISPs, for instance, to do what they started to do a few years ago: slow traffic from competitors' sites.

So the "new" rules were not for a new situation, they were to maintain what had been happening but was doomed due to ISPs' willingness to screw their customers in order to control whose content they watched.

Another approach would solve the problem -- make it illegal for ISPs or the companies that own them from creating content. That's worse than a non-starter in this modified free market economy that we mostly have.


I've been wondering for at least ten years what would happen to the internet when everybody was streaming video all over the place. I thought maybe a second internet might be born, just to separate streaming uses from non-streaming uses.


This is a very important point, with the exception that internet is available in my area via DSL and cable and even satellite, so there are distinct tiers of service available based on the capability of the technology and its associated cost. Right now cable is the way for me to go.

But can you imagine any company being willing to run their set of cable TV cables alongside another company's, so that two cable company services are available in an area? I have to believe that the cost of infrastructure is so huge that a cable company would insist on a monopoly in an area that they wire, to ensure payback of the infrastructure cost.


No, it doesn't. Where's the free market when I don't want to buy my water from the city? There's no free market there. And I'm guessing there are laws as to water quality, Detroit notwithstanding.

Certain things must be monopolies and certain industries won't participate without guaranteed success. This is not the free market. It's the water, gas, power, telephone (to the home)... and internet.


Right.

*

The first thing that will happen is ALL Kodi type plugin sites will be blocked.

"We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content." -Comcast
THE most important word in their statement... lawful.

Why isn't Netflix defending neutrality? Cause while they or we may end up paying the ISP more for traffic, they win more with the illegal video's being blocked.

And then onto bit torrents, etc.

exactly

don't forget about porn! If porn streaming becomes a target, there are going to be a lot of unhappy women in this universe. (They might have to start putting out again)