Welcome to your NEW Internet

[AppState1]

I am sure cline is happy with his geriatric-discount painfully slow 1.5 mbps dsl. Others want more. Enjoy. And quit complaining about buffering on app streams.

[NewApp]

I am sure cline is happy with his geriatric-discount painfully slow 1.5 mbps dsl. Others want more. Enjoy. And quit complaining about buffering on app streams.

1. Mine is 3 mbps.
2, Never had a problem with buffering except on my iPhone. You got the wrong "somebody."
3. I get no discount. I got the plan for life when Windstream bought out Concord Telephone Co a few years ago. Everybody that wanted it got it. Too boot, I get free unlimited long distance to anywhere in the continental US.
4. My main problem with the proposed law is it is over 400 pages.

[AppState1]

New laws are verbose for a reason. The actuals regulations are about 7 pages worth.
The problem I have is with people who have no technological knowledge pontificating about what should and shouldn't be without even a rudimentary understanding of the issue.

[NewApp]

New laws are verbose for a reason. The actuals regulations are about 7 pages worth.
The problem I have is with people who have no technological knowledge pontificating about what should and shouldn't be without even a rudimentary understanding of the issue.

Who has been pontificating? Certainly not me. I just happen to mostly agree with asu66. He probably has as much tech knowledge as you.

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I am sure cline is happy with his geriatric-discount painfully slow 1.5 mbps dsl. Others want more. Enjoy. And quit complaining about buffering on app streams.

1. Mine is 3 mbps.
2, Never had a problem with buffering except on my iPhone. You got the wrong "somebody."
3. I get no discount. I got the plan for life when Windstream bought out Concord Telephone Co a few years ago. Everybody that wanted it got it. Too boot, I get free unlimited long distance to anywhere in the continental US.
4. My main problem with the proposed law is it is over 400 pages.

3mbps. Wow my DSL option in the McLeansville area is 1.5. I have one option - Time Warner. I am not sure programs I need for teaching would honestly do much at 1.5.

[AppinVA]

Maybe Clarksville VA doesn't have a franchise agreement that limits competition.

It does, but you cannot encourage competition by increasing regulation. You just can't.

RichmondApp, you made my day in that we agree on something for like the second time in over a decade. Happy St. Patrick's Day.

It's the corned beef and cabbage talking, I'm sure.

[NewApp]

I am sure cline is happy with his geriatric-discount painfully slow 1.5 mbps dsl. Others want more. Enjoy. And quit complaining about buffering on app streams.

1. Mine is 3 mbps.
2, Never had a problem with buffering except on my iPhone. You got the wrong "somebody."
3. I get no discount. I got the plan for life when Windstream bought out Concord Telephone Co a few years ago. Everybody that wanted it got it. Too boot, I get free unlimited long distance to anywhere in the continental US.
4. My main problem with the proposed law is it is over 400 pages.

3mbps. Wow my DSL option in the McLeansville area is 1.5. I have one option - Time Warner. I am not sure programs I need for teaching would honestly do much at 1.5.

I think you meant to reply to AppState. He's the one talking about 1.5. I get 3mbps. I could get 5 at no additional charge if I just lived another 1/2 mile closer to the Windstream center here in my town. I just don't need it anyway.

[clayton]

Back in November, I saw that Ted Cruz called net neutrality 'Obamacare for the internet.'

Before that, I had no idea it was a partisan issue. But, apparently it is. That FCC ruling was split on party lines. Everybody who is against seems to be repeating Cruz's "Obamacare" line and complaining about government regulation.

I don't think that FCC ruling is perfect. But, I do like the overall idea of Net Neutrality. Also, I think that Google's Eric Schmidt has a decent compromise idea. He doesn't think you should discriminate against one person's video in favor of another, but he's fine with discriminating against content types. In other words, he's fine with prioritizing voice over video.

The Netflix example has been mentioned already on the thread. That's a prime example of why people want net neutrality and why ISPs (internet service providers) do not want it. The biggest ISPs are cable providers and nothing has threatened the cable industry more than Netflix. People are starting to drop cable ('cord cutting') and its easier to do thanks to services like Netflix.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable are merging. That company will control most of the cable market and about 40 percent of the broadband internet market.

The biggest problem there is that Comcast isn't just a cable/internet provider. They create content (Time Warner Cable is no longer affiliated with the Time Warner that owns HBO, CNN, etc).

Comcast owns NBCUniversal. It is in their self-interest to get you to watch their channels using their cable. Moving beyond the net neutrality concerns, that should bother you if you're a fan of ESPN, Fox News, Comedy Central, etc, etc, etc.

[TheMoody1]

I saw a guy on TV today who said the best way to handle this is to treat the internet as a delivery system and charge everyone by the byte.Just turn it all over to Duke Energy.

[97grad]

Back in November, I saw that Ted Cruz called net neutrality 'Obamacare for the internet.'

Before that, I had no idea it was a partisan issue. But, apparently it is. That FCC ruling was split on party lines. Everybody who is against seems to be repeating Cruz's "Obamacare" line and complaining about government regulation.

I don't think that FCC ruling is perfect. But, I do like the overall idea of Net Neutrality. Also, I think that Google's Eric Schmidt has a decent compromise idea. He doesn't think you should discriminate against one person's video in favor of another, but he's fine with discriminating against content types. In other words, he's fine with prioritizing voice over video.

The Netflix example has been mentioned already on the thread. That's a prime example of why people want net neutrality and why ISPs (internet service providers) do not want it. The biggest ISPs are cable providers and nothing has threatened the cable industry more than Netflix. People are starting to drop cable ('cord cutting') and its easier to do thanks to services like Netflix.

Comcast and Time Warner Cable are merging. That company will control most of the cable market and about 40 percent of the broadband internet market.

The biggest problem there is that Comcast isn't just a cable/internet provider. They create content (Time Warner Cable is no longer affiliated with the Time Warner that owns HBO, CNN, etc).

Comcast owns NBCUniversal. It is in their self-interest to get you to watch their channels using their cable. Moving beyond the net neutrality concerns, that should bother you if you're a fan of ESPN, Fox News, Comedy Central, etc, etc, etc.

Spot on. It's worth pointing out that prioritizing traffic by type (video > voice > web > email) is a standard practice nowadays and not one that anyone is talking about changing. Prioritizing TWC video over say Netflix's video however is a different story.