What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NET NEUTRALITY : EVERYONE please take 30 seconds to do this... (1 Viewer)

i am pretty sick of these help my kid win the best taco contest of whatever cripes guys just try to win it the honest way take that to the bank brohans 

 
I'd also recommend sending your Congressional reps and state Governor a letter/email. Congressional and State pressure may be the only thing can affect the outcome.

ETA I've been using a textbot to do this. It's not mine, I'm not running or have any invlovement but it makes it pretty easy to send daily emails/letters.

Text Resist to 50409. It will walk you through the process. When you're prompted to write your letter you can use this as a basis for yours.

I stand firmly against this proposal to end net neutrality. Preserving net neutrality is imperative to the free market. Allowing telecom companies to have it their way would have massive repercussions that would affect everyone, from competitors to consumers - sans, of course, telecom companies and anti-neutrality politicians. Without the Title II rules and regulations, telecom corporations are given unchecked power and control over their customers' Internet access; there would be nothing to stop Comcast, for example, from throttling competitors by placing additional charges on their services or blocking their sites entirely in order to extort money from their customers. The American consumer stands to gain absolutely nothing by supporting this proposal. It is anti-neutrality, anti-free market, and anti-consumer. It does not promote the rights of consumers, it gives telecom companies the ability to unfairly crush competition whilst shafting their customers in the process. As such, I strongly disapprove of this proposal, and urge Congress to intervene in hopes to have the FCC to reconsider its priorities in promoting corporate interests as opposed to those of its constituents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My libertarian friends tell me net neturality is not necessary and prevents innovation.  And why would the FCC vote in a way that would hurt consumers?

 
Hawks64 said:
I'd also recommend sending your Congressional reps and state Governor a letter/email. Congressional and State pressure may be the only thing can affect the outcome.

ETA I've been using a textbot to do this. It's not mine, I'm not running or have any invlovement but it makes it pretty easy to send daily emails/letters.

Text Resist to 50409. It will walk you through the process. When you're prompted to write your letter you can use this as a basis for yours.

I stand firmly against this proposal to end net neutrality. Preserving net neutrality is imperative to the free market. Allowing telecom companies to have it their way would have massive repercussions that would affect everyone, from competitors to consumers - sans, of course, telecom companies and anti-neutrality politicians. Without the Title II rules and regulations, telecom corporations are given unchecked power and control over their customers' Internet access; there would be nothing to stop Comcast, for example, from throttling competitors by placing additional charges on their services or blocking their sites entirely in order to extort money from their customers. The American consumer stands to gain absolutely nothing by supporting this proposal. It is anti-neutrality, anti-free market, and anti-consumer. It does not promote the rights of consumers, it gives telecom companies the ability to unfairly crush competition whilst shafting their customers in the process. As such, I strongly disapprove of this proposal, and urge Congress to intervene in hopes to have the FCC to reconsider its priorities in promoting corporate interests as opposed to those of its constituents.
Click to expand...
Thanks.  Was super easy and took about 3 minutes

 
culdeus said:
So many people use vpn for work stuff.  Would be a evil step to throttle those. 
Click to expand...
There is a difference between work and anonymizing VPNs. My guess would be there would be an option to include the anonymizing services in your ISP package.

 
culdeus said:
So many people use vpn for work stuff.  Would be a evil step to throttle those. 
Click to expand...
I wouldn't imagine those wouldn't generate nearly the amount of traffic that one would watching a movie on kodi.  If they did, my isp would have contacted a long time ago about exceeding their data cap.    

 
So assuming Net Neutrality goes away... what's stopping a new (or existing) ISP from NOT throttling/discriminating traffic and being very open about it and advertise as such.  They could pull in all the Net Neutrality supporters as customers.  What am I missing?  Is it at a level higher than the individual ISPs?

 
Keerock said:
So assuming Net Neutrality goes away... what's stopping a new (or existing) ISP from NOT throttling/discriminating traffic and being very open about it and advertise as such.  They could pull in all the Net Neutrality supporters as customers.  What am I missing?  Is it at a level higher than the individual ISPs?
Click to expand...
How many ISP's do you have where you live?  

 
Keerock said:
So assuming Net Neutrality goes away... what's stopping a new (or existing) ISP from NOT throttling/discriminating traffic and being very open about it and advertise as such.  They could pull in all the Net Neutrality supporters as customers.  What am I missing?  Is it at a level higher than the individual ISPs?
Click to expand...
It's a lot more complicated than this but basically ISPs are tiered 1, 2 3, etc. Generally all traffic will traverse a Tier 1 provider at some point and if they charge their peering partners (Tier 1, 2, 3, etc) more for certain types of access that cost may be passed on. If you are using a Tier 1 provider at home (at&t, Verizon, CenturyLink (whatever it's called now), etc) then  it's possible to get that charge direct as an option package or some such. If an ISP offers to not do that then they will absorb that additional cost. Also, not all ISPs can offer service nationally without peering agreements with all Tier 1 and last mile providers otherwise there will be gaps in access to the internet.

 
NutterButter said:
Keerock said:
So assuming Net Neutrality goes away... what's stopping a new (or existing) ISP from NOT throttling/discriminating traffic and being very open about it and advertise as such.  They could pull in all the Net Neutrality supporters as customers.  What am I missing?  Is it at a level higher than the individual ISPs?
Click to expand...
How many ISP's do you have where you live?  
Click to expand...
I can think of at least 5 available to me at home.

 
Hawks64 said:
It's a lot more complicated than this but basically ISPs are tiered 1, 2 3, etc. Generally all traffic will traverse a Tier 1 provider at some point and if they charge their peering partners (Tier 1, 2, 3, etc) more for certain types of access that cost may be passed on. If you are using a Tier 1 provider at home (at&t, Verizon, CenturyLink (whatever it's called now), etc) then  it's possible to get that charge direct as an option package or some such. If an ISP offers to not do that then they will absorb that additional cost. Also, not all ISPs can offer service nationally without peering agreements with all Tier 1 and last mile providers otherwise there will be gaps in access to the internet.
Click to expand...
Got it.  I guess it's not as simple as I laid it out.  But I would still think if one of the Tier 1 players did that, they could potentially increase their customer base by a whole lot.

 
Keerock said:
Got it.  I guess it's not as simple as I laid it out.  But I would still think if one of the Tier 1 players did that, they could potentially increase their customer base by a whole lot.
Click to expand...
It would have to be one that has the last mile piece too, like Verizon, at&t or CenturyLink (think those are the only LECs left) Comcast behaves like a Tier 1 but aren't classified as such that last I knew. In your example there is zero benefit for those folks to do that since their customer base is limited geographically and there is zero benefit for a non public facing Tier 1 to do so. Their customers are only other providers.

 
Hawks64 said:
It would have to be one that has the last mile piece too, like Verizon, at&t or CenturyLink (think those are the only LECs left) Comcast behaves like a Tier 1 but aren't classified as such that last I knew. In your example there is zero benefit for those folks to do that since their customer base is limited geographically and there is zero benefit for a non public facing Tier 1 to do so. Their customers are only other providers.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.  Thanks!

 
rockaction said:
We earned this when we entrusted the executive branch with this much power. So...notice and comment, but much is not likely to change.  

https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/rulemaking-writing-agency-regulations/notice-and-comment/
Click to expand...
The notice and comment process is a legislative creation (Administrative Procedure Act) that govern exercises of legislatively granted authority, although in this case that legislative grant is questionable.

In any event I'd say we earned it when we collectively chose an administration that exercises its power in this manner despite every warning that it would do so and every opportunity to elect administrations that would not.

 
Keerock said:
Spectrum, Xfinity, AT&T, WoW, WindStream... not to mention the satellite providers.
Click to expand...
So you have 3 options, Satellite, Teleco or Cable. Cable (Xfinity and WoW - I am unsure if WoW has it's own cable network or leases Comcast/Xfinity), Telecom (no matter the company has to lease a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) last mile to provide service so you're stuck with the old bells (at&t, Verizon, CenturyLink, etc) and Satellite. It seems like you have more choice than you really may have since some of the providers lease others network to provide you service.

 
Keerock said:
I can think of at least 5 available to me at home.
Click to expand...
Wow. I have 1. Xfinity. Verizon offers DSL, but I don't think that even qualifies as high speed anymore. 

And the problem is that laying fiber is both difficult and expensive thanks to having to deal with each municipality individually and limited space to lay lines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is my Senator’s response to my concerns

Dear Mr.:

Kansas communities, schools, and families depend upon internet access for news, commerce, communication and information. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2015 “Open Internet Order,” also known as the network neutrality order.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees FCC functions, I am particularly interested in ensuring a fair regulatory environment for all internet actors.  I believe the federal government must ensure a fair and open internet that is not blocked or slowed and I agree that individual websites or online services should not be discriminated against. 

However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet.  This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s.  Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next.  This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward.

I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate. If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov. Please let me know if I can be of service to you or your family in the future.

Very truly yours,

Jerry Moran 

 
Moe. said:
Here is my Senator’s response to my concerns

Dear Mr.:

Kansas communities, schools, and families depend upon internet access for news, commerce, communication and information. I appreciate knowing your thoughts about the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2015 “Open Internet Order,” also known as the network neutrality order.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees FCC functions, I am particularly interested in ensuring a fair regulatory environment for all internet actors.  I believe the federal government must ensure a fair and open internet that is not blocked or slowed and I agree that individual websites or online services should not be discriminated against. 

However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet.  This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s.  Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next.  This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward.

I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate. If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov. Please let me know if I can be of service to you or your family in the future.

Very truly yours,

Jerry Moran 
Click to expand...
Not being familiar with the "Open Internet Order" - so he is in support of net neutrality or not???

I hate these ####ers not answering a question straight up.  (Maybe he did ...but don't make me know as much about the ####in' order as you ...)

 
"I'm a real person, not a bot.  I'm a US citizen, not a Russian hacker.  And I support Title 2 oversight of ISPs. I also support net neutrality."

Also, searching for this filing with submission dates of 11/1 - 12/1 reveals 923,000 comments so far.

 
Moe. said:
Here is my Senator’s response to my concerns

However, I do not agree with the FCC’s 2015 “Open Internet Order,” which abruptly decided, on a partisan vote, to apply outdated, utility-style regulations to the internet.  This inappropriate regulatory framework was intended for monopolistic telephone companies in the 1930s.  Instead of leaving the internet vulnerable to the consistent threat of interpretation and change by a group of unelected FCC commissioners, Congress should craft bipartisan legislation that preserves a fair and open internet. If the FCC reclassifies internet service providers, legislation passed by Congress will make policies governing the internet transparent and consistent; rather than subject to change from one administration to the next.  This is an issue of great importance that requires a thoughtful, transparent debate on the best path forward.

Jerry Moran 
Click to expand...
I've seen similar statement put out by ISP social media accounts. It's BS.
What no legislator has been able to explain is: why are they trying to fix something that wasn't broken. If these politicians are representing their constituents, I want to see the letters/emails/petitions from consumers asking for net neutrality to be repealed. They don't exist. There's no way the FCC and congress is doing this on their own accord for the good of the people.
People are demanding the president be impeached... nothing. But F-ing with our internet... they're on top of it.
 

 
EYLive said:
I've seen similar statement put out by ISP social media accounts. It's BS.
What no legislator has been able to explain is: why are they trying to fix something that wasn't broken. If these politicians are representing their constituents, I want to see the letters/emails/petitions from consumers asking for net neutrality to be repealed. They don't exist. There's no way the FCC and congress is doing this on their own accord for the good of the people.
People are demanding the president be impeached... nothing. But F-ing with our internet... they're on top of it.
 
Click to expand...
Because it's something we can all agree on.  Unless we're soulless corporations.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FreeBaGeL
And on that day, Net Neutrality died
6 7 8
Replies
378
Views
11K
Johnny Rock
Johnny Rock
PeoplezPerspective
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: Week 5 (Post Your Comments)
Replies
1
Views
450
PeoplezPerspective
PeoplezPerspective
PeoplezPerspective
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda: Week 7
Replies
20
Views
996
McGarnicle
McGarnicle

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top