WaGuns.org

Whoops, I made a mistake. Interconnection started in 1913 with long distance, with the Kingsbury Agreement, although I'm not sure when local exchanges were interconnected and under what conditions.

Either way, Telco neutrality is pretty bitchin'.

Call me skeptical.

Hell call me in a year or two when the web that seems to work for me now just fine is so much better.....

I like how the guy posting researched facts (though with minimal source linkage) is getting slammed in this thread.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Captain90s wrote:I like how the guy posting researched facts (though with minimal source linkage) is getting slammed in this thread.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

And you, like him, have failed to acknowledge and address the fact that there was no transparency, no accountability to Congress or the American people, and no way to know that this will stop at just providing "net neutrality" as a consumer protection. Now that the FCC has acted, net neutrality is no longer just a concept; it has policy and regulations to go with it, and yet none of you net neutrality fan boys have been able to tell us what exactly the effects of those will be. We get what net neutrality is, and we get that it should be desirable. Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that there are serious questions that remain to be answered about how the reality will match the theory?

Captain90s wrote:I like how the guy posting researched facts (though with minimal source linkage) is getting slammed in this thread.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Tell me EXACTLY how. Five ways.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Go!

Pablo wrote:

Captain90s wrote:I like how the guy posting researched facts (though with minimal source linkage) is getting slammed in this thread.

Net Neutrality is a good thing.

Tell me EXACTLY how. Five ways.

1. It maintains the status quo... you like it the way it is now? Or did you want netflix to buy out all fast lanes and leave you with scraps

2. You get treated like everybody else, but sucks if you have money and expect that money will buy you priority. ..

3. They can't deny you access to the Internet because they don't want to maintain service in your area...

4.

5.

Go!

Here's 3

XDM9cWA wrote:
Here's 3

I'm not exactly sure any of those things were coming to fruition in any way that threatened my net usage both as a consumer and a web vendor. More like scare tactics vs. benefits.

BadKarma wrote:

Wacarry wrote:Can someone explain what this means to us in layman's terms?

Jaime purchases a Honda Accord for $6000. It can go 70mph.(Email, not time critical data transfer, gun forums)
Dan purchases a Tahoe for lets say $20K. It can go up to 80mph.(Streaming Audio)
Steve purchases a Lambo for $250K. it can go 210mph.(Streaming video speeds)
No matter what you paid for(streaming video/audio, pretty kitty pictures or just to check email) you can not go faster than 60mph. there is no carpool lane. There is no expressway. There is NOTHING as you all can go no faster than 60mph.

Bingo... so unless you like millionaires running on our roads at 200mph by paying a privilege tax while we are kept at 30mph so we dont get in their way

DocNugent wrote:

AR15L wrote:I just went to speedtest.net and came up with: 59.36 Mbps

I remember only paying for 20 Mbps through Comcrap. . . .

What do you get through http://www.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/?ftag=CAD9f89b0c&bhid=25458119715702576238050286002387?

I'm only getting 11.09 to 14.72 currently (xfinity). No wonder some of you guys can respond to a post while I'm still composing mine!

Got 99.5.

XDM9cWA wrote:1. It maintains the status quo... you like it the way it is now? Or did you want netflix to buy out all fast lanes and leave you with scraps

2. You get treated like everybody else, but sucks if you have money and expect that money will buy you priority. ..

3. They can't deny you access to the Internet because they don't want to maintain service in your area...

Can you guarantee that? Can you point us to where in the regulations it says that? Can you guarantee there is nothing that could go terribly wrong with the FCC's plan? Did the FCC share a copy with you but not with the rest of us?

And you know what "it maintains the status quo" sounds like, don't you? "If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your Healthcare plan. If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor."

I see a lot of blind trust and catch-phrase regurgitation, and not a lot of critical thinking here. Anytime a federal agency refuses to divulge full details about sweeping new regulations, and the head of that agency refuses to testify before Congress about said regulations, we all should be immediately skeptical.

XDM9cWA wrote: Anytime a federal agency refuses to divulge full details about sweeping new regulations, and the head of that agency refuses to testify before Congress about said regulations, we all should be immediately skeptical.

[/quote]


Now thats a big no-shit.

Lois Learner is an anomality.....we need to trust these people.

Control the flow today.....tomorrow Control the information.

It would supriase me greatly that in a few years the FCC doesnt in some way move to control the Nets content.

Governmental overreach should be expected.

This seems about average

Guns4Liberty wrote:

XDM9cWA wrote:1. It maintains the status quo... you like it the way it is now? Or did you want netflix to buy out all fast lanes and leave you with scraps

2. You get treated like everybody else, but sucks if you have money and expect that money will buy you priority. ..

3. They can't deny you access to the Internet because they don't want to maintain service in your area...

Can you guarantee that? Can you point us to where in the regulations it says that? Can you guarantee there is nothing that could go terribly wrong with the FCC's plan? Did the FCC share a copy with you but not with the rest of us?

And you know what "it maintains the status quo" sounds like, don't you? "If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your Healthcare plan. If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor."

I see a lot of blind trust and catch-phrase regurgitation, and not a lot of critical thinking here. Anytime a federal agency refuses to divulge full details about sweeping new regulations, and the head of that agency refuses to testify before Congress about said regulations, we all should be immediately skeptical.

We should definitely assume all will be just as advertised (if we knew what it is). Tech advice from a government that could not make a properly operating website to save their soles. For all of you that have dealt with faa.gov or healthcare.gov (to name a couple) you know exactly what I mean.

So if net neutrality is so much like Obamacare, then where is my subsidy check? Lol