Can any of our forum GOP supporters state their view on net neutrality?

Astro wrote:WTH are you taking about? I have a pretty good idea and an understanding of how it will impact me and many other people.

You can call it a personal attack if you like. I call it a simple observation after reading his BS for years.

But, you have a good night space dog.


How will it impact you and many other people?

VectorMan wrote:

Astro wrote:WTH are you taking about? I have a pretty good idea and an understanding of how it will impact me and many other people.

You can call it a personal attack if you like. I call it a simple observation after reading his BS for years.

But, you have a good night space dog.


How will it impact you and many other people?

It is about money and control. See my previous post. If you don't get it, I can't help you beyond that.

But, please do explain YOUR understanding. I get the feeling that you also think you know what is best for everyone too. Enlighten us space dog.

Th Dude wrote:We've already had a thread on this that developed some of the dialogue. I'm not going to repeat myself each time.

QueenOfHearts wrote:I have read about net neutrality; however, I don't really understand it.  Probably because I don't really understand how the internet works.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you provide an explanation that would be easily understood?  Unless you don't really care about our opinion and actually just started this thread to call people stupid.

VectorMan wrote:From what I've read over the years, you can't really have a discussion with boards. He works with circular logic and is full of himself. No matter the subject/title of the thread. I think he'd make better use of his time posting images of the ribs that he cooked.

BTW. What is YOUR view boards? What does a progressive think is the best thing for ALL people that use the internet? Don't be shy little guy.

My view? Another grab for money and control by the libs/progressives so you'll only see/read/hear what they want you to. Remember...they think they know what is best for everyone. Regardless of what you think. They're better than you. And they don't want you to ever forget it.

boards of FL wrote:

Th Dude wrote:We've already had a thread on this that developed some of the dialogue. I'm not going to repeat myself each time.

Yes. You exhibited a faint grasp of what net neutrality is and then stopped replying once it was clarified.

Not that any more than that is ever expected of you around here.

Th Dude wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Th Dude wrote:We've already had a thread on this that developed some of the dialogue. I'm not going to repeat myself each time.

Yes.  You exhibited a faint grasp of what net neutrality is and then stopped replying once it was clarified.

Not that any more than that is ever expected of you around here.

Is access to the internet a product in your mind... or are we talking another basic human right?

Usually if you want more of something or a better service you pay extra for it in the real world.

Th Dude wrote:Should a 5lb bag cost the same as a 10lb bag?

Th Dude wrote:Streaming video, music, games or even some web applications require more bandwidth and dedicated connect than email.

boards of FL wrote:

It is nothing short of amazing that someone can be convinced to fight against their own interests.  

2seaoat wrote:Bottom line is video downloading causes huge capacity in a network.  This cost is passed to all users.   To reduce the cost they must differentiate pricing by use, or design a dynamic network use meter with variable pricing.  This would allow a user to download at any time, but the pricing would be variable based on current network capacity which a user would be given a warning before downloading what premium would be passed on to the network user, or you transfer the real costs to all users which means folks who are only using email are paying the network capacity premium caused by those downloading.  I believe in net neutrality, but I believe in variable pricing based on dynamic capacity.

boards of FL wrote:

QueenOfHearts wrote:I have read about net neutrality; however, I don't really understand it.  Probably because I don't really understand how the internet works.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you provide an explanation that would be easily understood?  Unless you don't really care about our opinion and actually just started this thread to call people stupid.

Today, when we pay an ISP for internet access, data is data.  If I'm reading ESPN or if I'm reading CNN, the underlying data that is being transferred is all the same in the eyes of the ISP.  When I pay AT&T for my internet subscription, I get access to the entire internet with no middle man overseeing what it is that I'm looking at and influencing any bias on me whatsoever.  This is net neutrality.

ISPs would like to see an end to net neutrality - most likely because consumers are beginning to drop cable and get all of their content form the internet.  In a world absent of net neutrality, an ISP doesn't grant me access to the entire internet with my monthly subscription.  Data is no longer just data.  An ISP could completely block access to all news content except their preferred news provider.  I could be made to buy a "sports package" if I want to read ESPN.  I could be made to buy a "movie package" if I want to watch Netflix.   If I'm a content provider, an ISP could extort me and make me pay them if I want my website to be available to the ISP's customers.  ISP's could restrict bandwidth and slow down access to certain sights that refuse to be extorted while boosting speeds for sites that are willing to pay up.

Think of all of the ways that our cable/satellite options completely suck, and then apply that to the internet.  That is essentially what the end of net neutrality would be like.