speed test

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:20:50 +0000 (UTC), lew
wrote:

On 2015-03-12, G Morgan wrote:
Paul wrote:

The problem with speedtest sites, is some ISPs fart around
with the URL. For example some ISPs "cap or degrade" the
user experience, mess up your Netflix. Then, as soon
as they see "speedtest.net" in the URL, it's "full speed
ahead", and your test case passes with flying colors. And
yet... your Netflix performance is bad. You get
15Mbit/sec to speedtest.net, and 2Mbit/sec to netflix.
I want speed testing cases, that "look like" ordinary usage,
so the ISP isn't playing tricks.

That's what the Net Neutrality issue is about. The SCOTUS ruled there is not
to be a "fast lane" for some sites over others. IOW, its not legal for your
ISP (in the US) to throttle your speed based on content, protocol, or domains.

I don't think the SCOTUS has weighed in on this topic. So far, the FCC has
acted unilaterally. Hopefully, their ruling will hold up.

If SCOTUS says "no fast lane", then the torrent sites should also be
given the same speed results as from Netflix; or even the lowly users
should have the same speed applied for their home servers as Netflix
WITHOUT extra payment over what they paid now.

The prices for every user must be the same no matter whether it
is for commercial purposes for a truly "net neutral" concept; if not,
then it is still different pricing. "Net neutrality" is a fake
term to get to sucker people in believing that it applies to everyone.

You have a different concept of net neutrality.

On 03/12/2015 08:15 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
T wrote:

Still pretty nice not to have to fart around with Flash or Java.


Except it gives different results! I personally don't trust it. Speedtest.net
gives equal results that my ISP's own speed tester gives.




True. I even get different results from the same test
site on repeated tests

On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:



You have a different concept of net neutrality.

That was my reaction.

It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
& didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the news
item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
stops using an undercover awning).

e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to rename
something that already exists.

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.

Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
neutrality or something like that.

On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:



You have a different concept of net neutrality.

That was my reaction.

It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
& didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the news
item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
stops using an undercover awning).

e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to rename
something that already exists.

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.

Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
neutrality or something like that.


Hi Lew,

My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
stayed within the law.

-T

-T

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:59:00 +0000 (UTC), lew
wrote:

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

You don't really have to guess at these things. There's a lot of information
available, if you're interested.

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:35:53 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:



You have a different concept of net neutrality.

That was my reaction.

It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the mountain
& didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that some
people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the
news
item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
stops using an undercover awning).

e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to some
degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even superman
had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to
rename
something that already exists.

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.

Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
neutrality or something like that.


Hi Lew,

My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
stayed within the law.


Not that I am in favor of most FCC or government regs in general, I am
curious
why you think it was done "outside the constitution"?

I'm not the one you asked, but I'll chime in on this. I'll bet that
there are a lot of laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if they
were ever challenged. The problem is that they are not challenged.
When the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were made, the
"government" became a stockholder in a company. I don't believe there
is any Constitutional provision that allows the federal government to do
this. But they did and no challenge was brought before the Supreme
Court to rule on.

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control. That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:35:53 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/12/2015 06:59 PM, lew wrote:
On 2015-03-12, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:58:50 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:



You have a different concept of net neutrality.

That was my reaction.

It's the English language & the "liberals" who invent or reassign
words to mean something to fit what they want instead of the
original meaning. e.g. big news was that a "quad" climbed up
El Capitan. Think about it; that person was carried up the
mountain
& didn't do the actual climbing. Another bit of news was that
some
people "climbed" up the mountain "without any aid" (even tho the
news
item had them wear a safety cable during the climb & they had rest
stops using an undercover awning).

e.g. "mentally challenged"; with this one I think we all are to
some
degree. "physically challenged", same as above since even
superman
had a problem. Even Gore's claim of inventing the internet to
rename
something that already exists.

The "net neutral" has been voiced as "no one" will pay for extra
speed & "no one" will have their internet speed throttled; I guess
that the statements should not be accepted as being true for
every person using the internet, it only applies to a commercial
vendor.

It is just nit-picking here; the same nits also happens on the
newsgroups when someone wants to take another's statements
literally; happens quite often, I see & includes "top posting" as
incorrect way of posting or even a person's spelling.

Instead of "net" neutral, I think it should be "money makers"
neutrality or something like that.


Hi Lew,

My big complaint was that it was done outside the constitution.
I can't wait to see the look on the Libs faces when the
other side gets in and issues an executive order outlawing abortion.
Maybe even one to balance the budget! They will have wished they
stayed within the law.


Not that I am in favor of most FCC or government regs in general, I
am
curious
why you think it was done "outside the constitution"?

I'm not the one you asked, but I'll chime in on this. I'll bet that
there are a lot of laws that wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if
they
were ever challenged. The problem is that they are not challenged.
When the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were made, the
"government" became a stockholder in a company. I don't believe there
is any Constitutional provision that allows the federal government to
do
this. But they did and no challenge was brought before the Supreme
Court to rule on.

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control. That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.


Actually, in the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications
Act of
1996, Congress granted the FCC the authority to regulate electronic
communications (paraphrased) in the USA.

I don't see how this is unconstitutional unless one argues that what
are being
called regulations are tantamount to actually being laws and that all
Federal
laws must be voted upon by Congress and that Congress does not have
the
authority to appoint a proxy with regard to making regulations.

There has been more than one SCOTUS ruling upholding the authority of
Congressionally created bureaucracies to formulate and enforce
regulations. Most
notably the EPA has created numerous law-like regulations and shoved
them down
the throats of all Americans and their authority to do so has been
upheld by
Scotus on several occasions.

Sometimes I think we have more to fear from how regulators rule over our
lives moreso than the Congress and President do.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves. Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy, but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result, their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory document
they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations. That
tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me of
"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.

From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep the
status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open and
available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate which
companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open system,
the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work well will
have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory document
they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations. That
tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me of
"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

I think I know what you're referring to, and it got us a heck of a lot
farther than we were before. It's not perfect and it should continue to be
made more perfect, but it's oh so much better than not having it.

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.
The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory
document
they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations.
That
tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me
of
"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

I completely agree with your sentiments RE the Federal government.
The FCC did
release the regulations a few days ago, a Google search will produce
the
document if you are interested.

What did Reagan say?

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from
the
government and I'm here to help."

I remember very well him making that statement and no truer statement
did he ever make.

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.

From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep
the
status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
and
available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
which
companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
system,
the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
well will
have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
internet like a utility. The growth of the internet has been quite
remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince me
that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better than
it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
costs.

The FCC chairman refused to disclose what was in the regulatory
document
they were approving prior to their approving the new regulations.
That
tells me there is something he doesn't want us to know. IT remind me
of
"we have to pass it to see what's in it". Look where that one got us.

I think I know what you're referring to, and it got us a heck of a lot
farther than we were before. It's not perfect and it should continue
to be
made more perfect, but it's oh so much better than not having it.

I disagree. We've seen costs rise and many lose their coverage because
of the new law. Many that managed to keep their coverage have higher
deductibles and worse coverage. Someone had the bright idea that
because 15 million people had no health insurance that the rules for
everyone else who had it had to be changed. It is far from perfect and
will never be made more perfect. Some of the new regulations have hit
close to home for me - two of my doctors are hanging it up, the
regulations drove them to retire. And many forewarned about that
consequence.

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone, while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into this.

From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to keep
the
status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
and
available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
which
companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
system,
the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
well will
have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far right
claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
internet like a utility.

No one has said anything about regulating the Internet like a utility. Like
I said, current information indicates that the FCC ruling maintains the
status quo, i.e., the open Internet, not an Internet where Comcast and
Verizon get to dictate what works and what doesn't. I see that as a very
good thing.

The growth of the internet has been quite
remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince me
that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better than
it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
costs.

There was never a stated goal of making it better than it was before.
Instead, the goal was to prevent it from getting worse than it was before,
which the big providers were talking about doing. You probably don't realize
it, but unless you stood to make personal gain by controlling the Internet,
what the FCC did is probably good for you.

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:43 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Char Jackson" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:51:33 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

With this nonsense "net neutrality" we have a bunch of unelected
regulators now making the decision to bring the internet under
government control.

I don't agree. What the FCC ruling did was to take control away
from
the big
network providers like Comcast and Verizon because of what they
were
hinting
at doing. Ideally, the government is looking out for everyone,
while
the
network providers are clearly looking out for themselves.
Unfortunately,
that statement is too simplified and thus loses some of its
accuracy,
but
hopefully you get my point.

The network providers are for-profit businesses, and as a result,
their
first priority is to do what's best for them. I get that, but do
we
really
want Comcast to decide which streaming video service we can use or
which
websites will have snappy response times and which will have high
latency
and timeout issues? No. No, we don't, so someone else has to take
that
control, and the Federal government is probably the only
institution
in a
position to do it. Otherwise, it'd be up to each state which would
lead to a
confusing mess of conflicting rules.

That's all this net neutrality is - it's a power
grab by the federal government. I think one could make the case
that
turning such power over to unelected regulators is not
Constitutional
because Congress has not given the FCC the authority to claim the
authority they think they have to regulate the internet.

That's an interesting viewpoint with which I completely disagree.


Call me jaded but I grow more and more distrustful of the federal
government. I don't for one minute think that there can be any
improvement once the federal government sticks their hands into
this.

From everything that I've read, and completely discounting the
misinformation from the far right, they (the FCC) mostly want to
keep
the
status quo. That is, they (say they) want to keep the Internet open
and
available to everyone, and not allow the big providers to dictate
which
companies and services will work well and which won't. Under an open
system,
the ones that work well will flourish and the ones that don't work
well will
have to adapt or close. It's the free market system that the far
right
claims they want, but we see that they don't really want it.

It's no longer a free market system when the government regulates the
internet like a utility.

No one has said anything about regulating the Internet like a utility.
Like
I said, current information indicates that the FCC ruling maintains
the
status quo, i.e., the open Internet, not an Internet where Comcast and
Verizon get to dictate what works and what doesn't. I see that as a
very
good thing.

The growth of the internet has been quite
remarkable, IMO, over time. It would be a difficult taks to convince
me
that once the government gets involved, growth will be even better
than
it was before. They stifle growth and the result will be increased
costs.

There was never a stated goal of making it better than it was before.
Instead, the goal was to prevent it from getting worse than it was
before,
which the big providers were talking about doing. You probably don't
realize
it, but unless you stood to make personal gain by controlling the
Internet,
what the FCC did is probably good for you.

When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline, and
when the rates go up, you may think differently.

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:39:50 -0400, "PAS" wrote:

When we begin to be taxed on it, when the service begins to decline, and
when the rates go up, you may think differently.

I totally agree. Since the FCC ruling is supposed to prevent those things, I
hope we're in good shape for now. Who knows, the next administration could
reverse everything and we'd be right back where we were.