Cock....suckas. Really? The 200 year old robber-baron company town argument? Really?? "If you don't like your monopoly, you can move. ". Fuck these human tumors.
Utter morons. They probably don't even know what the fuck an ISP is, let alone how they can control data pathways.
Hooray. Old clueless men deciding the future of the internet. Grrrrreat! I mean, read this: So they think I can have one provider for Wordforge and another for Google? Guess I can... technically. I'll simply pay ten to fifteen providers each month and connect another modem for each site and I should be set for all major sites
This is going to wind up in the lap of SCOTUS, how they'll rule is anybody's guess, of course. There are solutions to this, no matter how SCOTUS rules. VPN's will help prevent ISPs from finding out what you're doing, and I have a feeling that MESH networks using things like Intel's Edison, SD cards that have built-in WiFi, Raspberry Pis, Arduinos, and Flutter will start cropping up, with people using them to tap into things like municipal wifi and free wifi offered by businesses. Companies like Google, which only make money if people use the internet a great deal will no doubt start opening up their network in some manner, so that the MESH folks can easily tap into it. Think I'm going to go put a bug into the ear of the engineer that I know who works for Google about all this.
It's a sad day for freedom. You know the first thing the cable company will do is block or throttle NetFlix and Hulu. Nope, they don't want that competition being viable. This is up there with Citizens United as being one of the worst court rulings in living memory.
You'd likely have to pay all three of the big players or some people would get blocked. I love how Fox was claiming "this won't effect anything on the internet". Really? Then why do they think ISPs have spent ~$1 billion over the last decade trying to get rid of net neutrality? Obviously they want hope to profit from it by charging every website toll charges ("Give me $X or I will block your website for all 50 million of my subscribers!") and, of course, they'll want to block or throttle their direct competition. There is no way Comcrap is going to leave the online video services alone.
This article makes the claim that the ruling isn't as bad as it first appears. More at the link, including a link to the 81 page ruling by the court.
You just know the Republicans in the house won't allow that. They've corruptly been trying to do away with net neutrality for years based upon the bribes the cable companies have been paying them. Even after SOPA was done away with they've tried twice to introduce similar bills and now they've corruptly tried to slip it into the backdoor by including it in the The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.
There was a significant number of Democrats who also supported the bill. This is about obscene amounts of money, and there are plenty of Congresscritters who jumped on the bandwagon.
The FCC can pretty easily fix this from what I read in another article (WSJ, paywalled). All they have to do is designate the ISPs as common carriers, and then they can re-establish net neutrality through regulatory measures.
This is one of those cases of false equivalency which Wordforge seems to love so much. When you have virtually EVERYONE on one side attacking net neutrality and a small percentage on the other side attacking net neutrality but most of them support net neutrality... Then the two sides aren't even remotely the same no matter how much you wish they were. Scale is where you false equivalency types always go wrong.
Everybody's favorite cryptocurrency is out to save the interwebs from bandwidth shaping and the NSA, it seems.
Except that Verison has no reason to deny it - it isn't illegal or anything, and it's also easily verified.
I can't speak to verifying it, but there are at least two reasons why someone who does it wouldn't want to admit it, even though it's legal. (1) The ruling left the door open for a way regulations could be changed to make net neutrality enforceable in the future, which would create more headaches for a company that had admitted throttling. (2) Legal or not, it would be a PR and customer service nightmare.
Yeah. I'm sure after reading the article and the comments from the Verizon rep that Verizon rep got his head handed to him.
Netflix say Comcast and Verizon suck ass. Asshats at Time Warner do not understand the net at all. But don't worry, TWC customers, you're about get some new overlords. All is not lost, however.
Ever since Comcast and Netflix worked out their deal, I've noticed that I've had problems streaming video via Amazon? Coincidence? I don't know, but I've never had that kind of problem before with videos from Amazon. It was so bad with one movie that I rented, Amazon gave me a refund (automatically, I might add).
I know AT&T strangles Netflix. I had AT&T up until a few weeks ago, and I could never get a quality level about 3 dots (there are 4 dots + HD), even though my speed was 12Mbps. I did dozens of tests, checking line noise, signal strength, CO location, and so on. Everything checked out, but I still couldn't get anything above 3 dots. Two weeks ago, I switched to a smaller, local provider, and I'm getting HD quality on a 5Mbps connection, every single time.
