4 ms·

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the conten

by syshum 9y ago

>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook is not a news organization but anyway) or some other source I however do not have a CHOICE in broadband internet providers, I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me. I have CHOOSEN not to use Facebook instead I use other services to communicate with friends and family, I can not CHOOSE the use another ISP as none are available See the difference... But continue to educate me on how uninformed I am on this issue despite my near 20 years working professionally in the field

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. I'm done here. Good luck!
- SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
  You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity. However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet. Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    >already has substantial power over end-users As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees. >you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them. OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes >I'm done here. Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver
theseatoms 9y ago
You're right about not being able to choose ISP. What I don't understand is, why don't ISPs just offer data-tiered plans?

by syshum 9y ago

anotherbrownguy 9y ago

>I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me That is unfortunate... not the fact that you don't have an option... but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. I'm done here. Good luck!

SherlockeHolmes 9y ago
You missed his point. He is pointing out that Comcast (and other ISPs) already has substantial power over end-users, since in most cases they are the only ones that can provide internet connectivity. However, one can easily choose to never use Facebook and not lose quintillionth of the information available on the internet. Facebook or any other such service is one of a quintillion of end-nodes that you can reach on the internet. Comcast is the choke through which your internet connectivity comes through, and you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >already has substantial power over end-users As I have mentioned earlier, the only power they have is they can block access to specific site. They can't actually know or filter out what the user sees. >you are proposing to allow increased manipulative power to them. OK tell me a realistic case how they could use the "manipulative powers" thus gained to harm the end users.
syshum 9y ago
>>but the fact that you are on the side of the argument which denies you that option. How will Regulating ISP's under title I give me more providers? Title II regulation could if the FCC would do it force the Comcast to resell their service wholesale like in the 1990's but nothing under Title I provides the FCC the ability to do that So explain to me exactly how Rural America that barely gets 1 provider will magically have multiple providers wanting to run separate infrastructure to their 5 homes >I'm done here. Yes you are... you have lost the argument, your are done here because you know this. Go tell your comcast overlords you did you best and collect your silver

theseatoms 9y ago

You're right about not being able to choose ISP. What I don't understand is, why don't ISPs just offer data-tiered plans?