lol that's why I just assumed you may have meant mbps , 10 mb of data would be rough, then again 10 gb is pretty bad too.  150 is probably hard depending on how many people you have.  Before I left ATT they had a 100gb cap and I would go over, well they would say I wen't over, but I didn't trust their data meter at all, plus they always did shady [BAD WORD REMOVED] with the bills to begin with.  Awful company, it's terrible companies like ATT that make me almost want to trust the FCC. 

 

It's a good point, your damned if you do damned if you don't with the companies and the FCC. The biggest thing with the data caps is streaming, with 10 GB we just couldn't stream ANYTHING, I mean to many youtube videos would push me up and over the limit. At least with 150 I can stream moderately, alas maybe one day Google's blimp internet thing will afford us rural people unlimited internet access lol.

---

It's a good point, your damned if you do damned if you don't with the companies and the FCC. The biggest thing with the data caps is streaming, with 10 GB we just couldn't stream ANYTHING, I mean to many youtube videos would push me up and over the limit. At least with 150 I can stream moderately, alas maybe one day Google's blimp internet thing will afford us rural people unlimited internet access lol.

 

Yeah netflix was killer, especially since I don't remember them having a quality controller when I had ATT and the data caps, now you can at least somewhat control the quality so it'll eat up less data, plus I'm sure they've improved their algorithm to lighten the data load. 

---

Comrades for Net Neutrality


<div>The powers behind the FCC’s muscling of the Internet Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/41...-john-fund
</div>

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Comrades for Net Neutrality




The powers behind the FCC’s muscling of the Internet Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.


Read more at: <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund'>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414483/comrades-net-neutrality-john-fund</a>

Oh boohoo. Like the other side didn't spend millions and used political pressure as well?

---

Republicans are taking a hard stance against allowing the internet to be free, open and equal.  I think it just goes to show how out of touch politicians are anymore.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Oh boohoo. Like the other side didn't spend millions and used political pressure as well?

 

 

Well excuse me for being a little leary of ANYTHING being backed by George Soros

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Well excuse me for being a little leary of ANYTHING being backed by George Soros

There's no excuse.


You should be a LOT leary.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There's no excuse.

You should be a LOT leary.

As opposed to the Kohc brother? Hilarious.


What about all the tech companies that are for this? Or are they the bad guy commie facist firms. I can't keep track.

---

Sure thing, Verizon.


It's absolutely a win for freedom. Censorship is what would happen if we didn't pass net neutrality.  Lack of net neutrality is what would kill investment, because it'd kill start up companies who'd have to pay outrageous fees just to have equal access to already established companies like Netflix and Facebook.

Did you read the 300 pages of new regulations, Mrs. Pelosi?


You might want to before you start dancing in celebration.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

As opposed to the Kohc brother? Hilarious.

What about all the tech companies that are for this? Or are they the bad guy commie facist firms. I can't keep track.

Ah yes. The Koch brothers. Lefties are like Pavlov's dogs salivating when a bell rings. When you can't come up with anything better, drag out that straw man.


Tech companies like Tumblr supported this without having a clue what they were backing. The CEO went on CNBC and looked like a lost deer caught in the headlights of a speeding semi when they asked him about specifics.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/26/tumblr-ceo-karp-struggles-to-defend-net-neutrality-on-cnbc-squawk-box/'>http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/26/tumblr-ceo-karp-struggles-to-defend-net-neutrality-on-cnbc-squawk-box/</a>


He had no idea what he was talking about because, like most, he was kept in the dark. He was fed talking points by the administration and like a good little drone he did as he was told.


Google demanded last minute changes once they did get details, and because of the clout they carry, the FCC obliged.


Everyone wants to talk about Verizon and Netflix. They fail to mention that the two companies reached an agreement that both were happy with before the government got involved. That example was used repeatedly by the administration to gain support for this, ignoring the fact that this does indeed open the door to new taxes and other regulations.


I get a kick out of how easily some folks just buy into whatever the government tells them. You can keep your doctor. Your premiums will go down. We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it. Your internet will be faster and cheaper. Some sheep are easily led to slaughter. This administration doesn't even need to try very hard. They could tell you the sky is green and the sun rises in the west and you drones would just nod approvingly without any question.


You talk about tech companies supporting this. Google Mark Cuban's comments on net neutrality. He's a tech billionaire, and he sure sees it for what it is.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Ah yes. The Koch brothers. Lefties are like Pavlov's dogs salivating when a bell rings. When you can't come up with anything better, drag out that straw man.


Tech companies like Tumblr supported this without having a clue what they were backing. The CEO went on CNBC and looked like a lost deer caught in the headlights of a speeding semi when they asked him about specifics.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/26/tumblr-ceo-karp-struggles-to-defend-net-neutrality-on-cnbc-squawk-box/'>http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/26/tumblr-ceo-karp-struggles-to-defend-net-neutrality-on-cnbc-squawk-box/</a>


He had no idea what he was talking aout because, like most, he was kept in the dark. He was fed talking points by the administration and like a good little drone he did as he was told.b


Google demanded last minute changes once they did get details, and because of the clout they carry, the FCC obliged.


Everyone wants to talk about Verizon and Netflix. They fail to mention that the two companies reached an agreement that both were happy with before the government got involved. That example was used repeatedly by the administration to gain support for this, ignoring the fact that this does indeed open the door to new taxes and other regulations.


I get a kick out of how easily some folks just buy into whatever the government tells them. You can keep your doctor. Your premiums will go down. We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it. Your internet will be faster and cheaper. Some sheep are easily led to slaughter. This administration doesn't even need to try very hard. They could tell you the sky is green and the sun rises in the west and you drones would just nod approvingly without any question.


You talk about tech companies supporting this. Google Mark Cuban's comments on net neutrality. He's a tech billionaire, and he sure sees it for what it is.

I brought up the Kohc's in response to Soros. I have been one of the few people here advocating for campaign finance. I take issue with both of them and both sides slinging of money. I am very consistent on this. Righties are so angry about the world leaving them behind they must stir up fake outrage over anything and everything. Are we done generalizing with nonsense that validates our allegiances now?

 

Mark Cuban is one of the few dissenting voices in the tech community. I fail to see the point other than a straggling voice agrees with your obvious expert opinion on the issue. The majority of non-isp's are for this action as are advocacy groups. what problems do you actually have with it, other than it's a policy not brought forth by your party?

---

Liberals Mugged by Obamanet

 

Buyer’s remorse is already setting in for Google and other ‘net neutrality’ proponents.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovi...1425252804

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

300 pages of regulations!


300! That's almost 500! Can you imagine? I can't even count that high! Oh my geez I'm a so a scarred right now, thanks Obama

---

Liberals Mugged by Obamanet

 

Buyer’s remorse is already setting in for Google and other ‘net neutrality’ proponents.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gordon-crovi...1425252804

Did you post this because of the Buzzfeed like headline or do you have a WSJ subscription? It's behind their paywall unless I am missing something. 

---

Did you post this because of the Buzzfeed like headline or do you have a WSJ subscription? It's behind their paywall unless I am missing something. 

 

 

I PM'd you the article

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I PM'd you the article

Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

On first glance there seems to be a lot of grasping here. Claims like future start ups wont be able to compete due to regulation? And the example it uses for this is that the FCC will look into the deal made for free music and video streaming on data plans. It makes a lot of grasping correlations. Not allowing preferential treatment of the data to and from the internet is exactly what net neutrality is about. 

 

 

Examples such as:

Yellow Pages publishers could have invoked “harm” and “unjust and unreasonable” competition from online telephone directories. This could have strangled Alta Vista and Excite, the early leaders in search, and relegated Google to a Stanford student project. Newspapers could have lobbied against Craigslist for depriving them of classified advertising. Encyclopedia Britannica could have lobbied against Wikipedia.



 

Have nothing to due with the the idea that Net Neutrality is supposed to ban online discrimination. In fact it provides zero evidence at all the current proposal does not do exactly that. 

 

This is one of those pieces written to stir up outrage while providing nothing more than pure conjecture as what you should be outraged about. 

 

In fact the only actual on point thing in here is this:

The Progressive Policy Institute said: “There is nothing progressive about the FCC backsliding to common carrier rules dating back to the 1930s.” The Internet Society, a net-neutrality advocate, said: “We are concerned with the FCC’s decision to base new rules for the modern Internet on decades-old telephone regulations designed for a very different technological era.” 



 

There is nothing progressive (more than likely) about these proposals, they are literally the bare minimum to keep ISP's from trying to change the openness of internet and not for innovation but purely for profit. To claim the changes they want to make or the ones they claim the FCC would stop them from doing actually leads to innovation is very disingenuous. It is true Congress could do much more than the FCC. They won't though. 

 

To see how innovation was stifled due to preferential treatment of data there is a couple of good example in this article:

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/2/8133205...neutrality

---

The full text from the FCC was released today.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/12/811623...r-released

 

 

From the article

"The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization"

---

Wonder if anyone's found anything to object to yet.

 

According to Time Magazine Republicans oppose Net Neutrality, but when it's explained to them (without the words net neutrality) they support it fairly overwhelmingly.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Wonder if anyone's found anything to object to yet.

 

According to Time Magazine Republicans oppose Net Neutrality, but when it's explained to them (without the words net neutrality) they support it fairly overwhelmingly.

It's partisan opposition plan and simple. This should be a bipartisan effort as it effects all americans the same way. 

---

It's partisan opposition plan and simple. This should be a bipartisan effort as it effects all americans the same way. 

Well, not all Americans maybe.  It doesn't effect say... joe the plumber the same way it effects Verizon the telecommunications giant.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.