Yes, absolutely the telecom companies are against net neutrality, because they want to be able to charge a premium for some sites, and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic.
Also, I just want to highlight that there are lot of brand-new accounts on this thread posting cable-company talking points.
Elaborate on this plan.
> and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic.
This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data.
You need to be a little more clear.
The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design.
* A bunch of new accounts arguing the opposite as well.
OK. Comcast offers their "On Demand" service over their IP network. I can consume it with their set-top box, or with an XFinity app on my XBox. The bandwidth that I use for this app does not count against any data cap that Comcast may impose, and they're also doing traffic shaping to give this on-demand content preference over what I would get with Amazon or Netflix apps sitting next to the Comcast app in my home menu. That is using their position as the last-mile provider to give their content preferential treatment.
>> and give preferential routing to some kinds of traffic. >This is generally how the internet works. When you say "kinds" you mean surgery in action data vs. netflix data. Or when you say "kinds" do you mean netflix data vs. ISP movie provider data. That is the same kind of data. You need to be a little more clear. The internet gives preferential routing to certain kinds of data by design.
See above. Comcast and others are already giving preferential treatment to their own video streaming services vs. other services that are streaming the same kind of content.
TitleII is doomed to fail in court > http://techfreedom.org/post/110086459629/wheeler-ensures-fcc...
Lots of people in this debate have come out specifically against net neutrality.
> The problem here is that the FCC is detonating a nuclear bomb to try to put out a house fire.
That's the argument that a lot of people who were publicly anti-neutrality until the last few months have suddenly swung around to, sure.
user: covzzire
created: 19 minutes agoIf someone values conserving worthless internet points over having a conversation, they deserve the downvotes they get.
> Are you suggesting it's some kind of conspiracy?
Given the number of brand new accounts spitting ISP talking points, yes.
This topic has certainly brought out the worst. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone of being an astroturfing shill.
It's a pretty simple calculus. Some fairly influential people hang out here, and monied interests have been screaming their heads off that they don't want this. With that in mind, it's a lot more likely that shilling and astroturfing is going on than it is not.
Whether that applies to you or not cannot be said (it's unfalsifiable anyways), but the facts stand.
4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous
Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'.
Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.
I'll give you that one person easily fits the bill. The rest I'm just not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can get anything out of 'time will tell'. Two where just arguing against the blanket labeling of green members as astroturfers. One of the parents wasn't even arguing against NN, but the way this decision acheives it. Other than that one person where is the astroturfing from the green members?
Do you consider me an anti-NN astroturfer even though I have yet to comment on the decision?
You're defending people who have commented on the decision. So, it seems pretty likely you're an anti-NN astroturfer, yes.
user: meragrin
created: 6 hours ago