Target Sports

Thoughts on the Net Neutrality

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TURTLE

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages
    876
    Points
    16
    Location
    Tiger Point
    Yup. Lube up. Because you're going to be taking it hard and deep.

    It's also going to destroy e-commerce in the USA.

    But this is what you guys voted for, so enjoy!

    I'm very confused about this. Seems like all the Snoeflakes are for it so I naturally thought I should be against it. But it sounds too me like it's a good thing for all of us and not the Gov or giant ISP's.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    You didn't answer mine. Your stance seems to be the equivalent of we need a law to protect us from an imaginary boogie man. It sounds a lot like the claims of there will be blood in the streets about CCW laws.
    When did we start preemptive punishment for things that haven't happened.
    Should we start locking up women because they are equipped to be prostitutes and.men for being rape ready?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

    Lol, wut? Those blue things up there are links to articles that explain it to you. Plus Jeb21's posts summarize it for you. Half a page of text right there.

    These are the same massive telecommunication companies that destroyed cable television, rape thier customers in monopoly markets, not some innocent dudes walking down the street minding thier own business. If you read the articles above, you'd understand that thier traffic is moving to the web, and they want the same monopolistic power to monopolize and destroy that as well. If you read MAXman's article you'd know that the entire repeal process was unquestionably wrought with extremely widespread fraud, and is under investigation by several state attorneys general. But instead you're white knighting for big corporate telecommunications companies. You think they have our best interests at heart here? Or maximum profits with minimum service? You believe that 10,000 public comments coming in under one second is legitimate and should be used to change the law?

    I can't understand why your are so concerned about multibillion dollar communication companies not being able to extract every last dollar ftom thier customers. Theyre not going to go broke by being forced to play fair in thier dealings with thier customers.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    Have you read the open letters from the approximately 300 companies and thousands of individuals that wrote about this to the government? All the open letters from the dozens of state attorneys general? There's plenty of information out there, and it's easy to find and understand.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    What do you find unfair about "treat all traffic on the internet equally"?
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,185
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    run...

    we are all going to fall into the sun and be incinerated...

    and the skies will fall

    and pigs will fly..

    gloom despair and agony on me, deep dark depression, excessive misery...
     

    MAXman

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages
    2,559
    Points
    83
    Location
    Milton fl
    I'm very confused about this. Seems like all the Snoeflakes are for it so I naturally thought I should be against it. But it sounds too me like it's a good thing for all of us and not the Gov or giant ISP's.

    Honestly man, I think everyone has that initial reaction to things, "if x is for it, and I dislike x, I must be against it". It's not always easy too fight that temptation and look into things objectively, but I recommend you try it as much as possible. Especially when it's an issue that has potential to cost you money.
     

    fv22

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages
    1,061
    Points
    113
    Location
    GB
    I'm very confused about this. Seems like all the Snoeflakes are for it so I naturally thought I should be against it. But it sounds too me like it's a good thing for all of us and not the Gov or giant ISP's.

    Bet obamacare sounded good to lot's of people too. Don't trust ANYTHING the left promotes, THEY LIE! And they're really good at it. They can convince millions of people to vote against their own best interests. Anytime the government wants to regulate or control something other than national security, borders or the post office is bad for we the people. In fact their record on taking care of those things isn't too good either...
     

    Mozella

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2015
    Messages
    308
    Points
    0
    Location
    Eastern Shore Mobile Bay
    Here's all I need to know about Net Neutrality. Obama started it. It's supported by the same gang of thugs who support Obama Care, and who say that "man made global warming is settled science", Jefg Bezos (Washington Post), Amazon (Jeff Bezos), Cory Booker (avowed Commie), Nanci Pelosi (Left Coast Wacko), and other ultra left liberals of their ilk.

    Anything they say is absolutely required for my own good is bound to turn out to be bad for me. Obama saw the Internet thriving and doing quite well without government interference and he just couldn't stand it. Since he and his anti-American haters think government MUST control everything, they forced net neutrality down our throats.

    Now, my provider might promote a half price Net Flix for a year or some other competitive offer; something they couldn't do under net neutrality.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    The decision is likely to have major ramifications for consumers, online businesses and Internet service providers (ISPs). The existing regulations, put into place by Pai's predecessor Tom Wheeler in 2015, codified longstanding Internet practice by explicitly requiring ISPs to treat all Internet traffic equally. In contrast to a cable provider, which can decide exactly what networks or services customers get for their monthly fee, ISPs are forbidden from discriminating among their customers. When you pay your fee to get online, you get everything. But under the new regime, a handful of the most powerful telecommunication companies in the U.S. – Comcast, Verizon, AT&T – will have unlimited freedom to slice and dice the Internet ecology as they please.

    What does this mean for you, me and your favorite app? The most likely outcome, say net neutrality advocates, is that prices will go up, variety and diversity will go down and the largest, best-capitalized Internet companies will gain a significant advantage over upstart competitors. It's a punishing blow to believers in the founding dream of the Internet as a great equalizer, a network that grants everyone free rein to do anything.

    "There are going to be fast lanes and slow lanes," says Gigi Sohn, a longtime public-interest advocate and telecom analyst who served as counsel to Wheeler during the 2015 net-neutrality fight, during which a broad coalition of Internet companies and online advocacy groups convinced both the White House and Wheeler that net neutrality was crucial, not just to a free Internet, but also to a thriving Internet economy. "As a consumer, that means some of your favorite websites are going to load more slowly, and it also may mean some of your favorite content goes away because the provider just can't pay the fee."

    "You are no longer going to be the one in control," says Sohn. "Comcast, AT&T and Verizon will pick and choose the winners and losers, instead of you choosing winners and losers."

    Let's say you are a regular user of Amazon, eBay and Etsy. Right now, you've got all those apps on your phone or laptop, and they all work pretty well. Pages load fast, orders go through right away. But you get your service through Verizon, and now, with its net neutrality shackles broken, Verizon is free to say to all three online retailers: Hey, if you want to be in the fast lane of the Internet, you will have to pay for our premium package. Amazon and eBay can afford to do this, but Etsy can't. All of a sudden, Etsy is in the slow lane, and now when you try to search for a "FCK THE FCC: SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" T-shirt to wear to your next protest, the page takes forever to load.

    It was exactly this scenario that inspired Chad Dickerson, the former CEO of Etsy, to help lead the 2015 fight to enshrine net neutrality as government policy. He says studies have shown that fractions of a second can make all the difference.

    "Speed has an enormous influence on transaction volume," says Dickerson. If a website is slow, users will abandon it. Allowing those with the wherewithal to pay for faster access to the Internet gives big, incumbent companies a huge advantage over smaller startups. "Net neutrality allowed something like Etsy to hang out a shingle on the web and give it a try," says Dickerson.

    It gets worse. Because under the new rules (or really, lack of any rules whatsoever), ISPs won't just be free to charge more for better tiers of access, they will also be free to block access to whatever part of the Internet they feel serves their financial interests. AT&T could cut a deal making Microsoft Bing its default search engine, and block Google entirely. Comcast might decide that it makes no sense to allow Netflix to compete with its own streaming services, and strangle off access to the site. Verizon could decide that Fox News' reporting is more in line with its corporate interests than CNN or The New York Times.

    In a truly competitive marketplace, corporate moves such as these would be suicidal. But the brutal truth is that most consumers have few alternatives. According to the FCC, almost 50 million US homes (out of 118 million total) have access to only one, (or none at all), high speed broadband provider. Consumer choice is an illusion.

    Sohn calls Pai's push to abolish net neutrality a basic "abdication" of the FCC's responsibility to regulate the telecommunications industry, a startling declaration that the "FCC should have absolutely no role in overseeing access to the most important network in our lifetime." And she points out that once the issues at stake are explained to the average citizen, abolishing net neutrality turns out to be extraordinarily unpopular. Recent polling shows that more than 80 percent of Americans support net neutrality, a rare case of bipartisan unity. Sohn says that she's heard from legislative staffers that they are getting more calls on net neutrality than tax reform, a fact that might explain why a handful of Republican legislators started calling for a postponement of the FCC vote earlier this week.

    It's not hard to understand why. "When we were fighting our battle, we really felt like we were fighting for the people because they wanted free and open access," says Dickerson. "How many average citizens think their ISP have their interests at heart?"
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    It’s also worth noting that the first media businesses to feel the pain of paid prioritization schemes will likely be conservative sites. We live in an age of massive media mergers, and it’s going to be trivial for Comcast to prioritize MSNBC on its network, or extend that favor to Vox Media and BuzzFeed, companies in which it has taken significant investment.

    When the AT&T / Time Warner deal closes, it won’t take a second’s hesitation before CNN travels over AT&T’s network for free. Verizon owns The Huffington Post and TechCrunch and already operates a complicated accounting scheme that lets its Go90 video unit bypass data caps. It’ll be sites like The Daily Caller and Breitbart that suffer for their lack of corporate patronage.

    And 21st Century Fox just sold off its movie studios, leaving Fox News alone in a smaller company unattached to a wealthy network company, to send its data along for free.
     

    donr101395

    Master
    Super Moderator
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages
    2,984
    Points
    83
    Location
    Crestview
    Lol, wut? Those blue things up there are links to articles that explain it to you. .

    What I saw was a bunch of Wikipedia stuff. I don't need Wikipedia to explain it to me. I understand it quite well. I also understand that we don't punish for crimes not committed yet.
    Funny thing is that for every "expert" that says it's a great thing, there is an "expert" who says it's unnecessary.
    We'll just have to disagree on it necessity.



    ETA: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/01/the-50-craziest-lies-in-wikipedia-history

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited:

    pawpaw

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2016
    Messages
    77
    Points
    8
    Location
    okaloosa county
    With so many large, liberal corporations at play here, couldn't your only ISP block content and websites such as the one we're on now?
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    With so many large, liberal corporations at play here, couldn't your only ISP block content and websites such as the one we're on now?

    BINGO!

    Google already quietly disabled the "shopping" feature for guns a few years back.

    Here, try this link:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=ar-...j43YAhXIYiYKHVknAf8Q_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=938


    You get accessories, but no guns for sale, no manufactures web sites, no Buds, no CTD, no classified ads. Google clearly doesnt think you should be asking about buying guns.
     

    Droshki

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages
    3,864
    Points
    38
    Location
    Texas
    With so many large, liberal corporations at play here, couldn't your only ISP block content and websites such as the one we're on now?

    That's why it was so silly earlier when a poster replied with

    It seems like someone who doesn't understand the internet typed this up.....Forums? A drop in the bucket data wise.

    Its not about the bandwidth. I've been working with various networks for about 30 years: SIPR/NIPR/JWICS/LM Grey/GCCS/Link-16/MADL/network enabled weapons (SDB II, JDAM, HOG-J)..... I totally get how networks and bandwidth work.

    The point was that now ISPs can charge whatever they want for you to see certain sites regardless of the actual bandwidth required. It will be simply what they can extract from you for allowing you to see those sites you want, or maybe, they wont be allowing these sites at any price.

    Simply staggering to me that this is what some people want. Well, not the ISP owners, I certainly understand why they wanted it this way.
     

    Ross7

    Virtuoso
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages
    2,638
    Points
    113
    Location
    NW Florida
    Simply staggering to me that this is what some people want.

    Well look at it this way... even though there was no previous widespread abuse of an open and free Internet, back from the early days when Al Gore first invented it up to 2015's Net Neutrality, should the repealing of that regulatory overreach result in all the bad things predicted you will be able to come back here to this thread and justifiably rub in a "I told you so".
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    Should we start locking up women because they are equipped to be prostitutes and.men for being rape ready?

    Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

    To stay with your analogy, imagine if we eliminated laws against rape or against prostitution. How long would it take before certain powerful people took advantage of other less powerful people.

    That is what has just happened with the FCC. The internet providers are now able to pimp out the content providers and RAPE the consumers' wallets. Like it or not law and regulation protect us. Now we have one less regulation to protect us all in the name of profit
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    run...

    we are all going to fall into the sun and be incinerated...

    and the skies will fall

    and pigs will fly..

    gloom despair and agony on me, deep dark depression, excessive misery...

    Yep that about sums it up. This is a bad day for all unless congress gets off of it collective ass and passes a law that solves this problem
     

    Jeb21

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages
    2,098
    Points
    0
    Location
    Cantonment
    Top Bottom