How will the repeal of net neutrality affect cam sites?

[xNetworx]

How will the repeal of net neutrality affect cam sites?

Will this be a huge problem?

[baddog]

What makes you think it will have any affect?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by baddog

What makes you think it will have any affect?

Please stick topics you have a clue about.. you know complaining about kids on your grass and bitching about liberals.. This one's obviously out of your grasp.

[Acepimp]

Originally Posted by crockett

Please stick to tics you have a clue about.. you k ow complaining about kids on your grass and itching about liberals.. This one's obviously out of your grasp.

^^ Condescending a-hole, and also clueless. Typical Demoncrat

NN is a scam designed to allow censorship. The big tech companies were exempt, because they helped write it. Crony capitalism. There was no problem before NN. Crockette is an idiot.

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by crockett

Please stick topics you have a clue about.. you know complaining about kids on your grass and bitching about liberals.. This one's obviously out of your grasp.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by xNetworx

How will the repeal of net neutrality affect cam sites?

Will this be a huge problem?

From Net neutrality repeal: What is it, and why will it make the internet much worse? | The Independent

What could change?

The end of net neutrality could also have a huge impact on innovation and competition.

For instance, ISPs that have their own video services could choose to slow down customers? connections when they try to use a competing service, such as Netflix.

Such a move would completely ruin the Netflix user experience, which could in turn lead to the company losing customers.

The end of net neutrality could completely cripple startups too, as large, established sites would be in a much better position than them to strike favourable deals with ISPs, in order to have their services prioritised over others.

There are also fears that ISPs could use their power to censor protesters and suffocate free speech, by controlling what people can and cannot put online.

What are ISPs saying?

Major ISPs including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc, have been urging the FCC to revoke the rules, argue that repealing them could lead to billions of dollars in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility that a future presidential administration could regulate internet pricing.

They claim that the rules prevent them from finding new ways to make money, and thus prevent them from spending more to improve their networks.

?The internet without Net Neutrality isn?t really the internet. Unlike the open internet that has paved the way for so much innovation and given a platform to people who have historically been shut out, it would become a closed-down network where cable and phone companies call the shots and decide which websites, content or applications succeed,? says Save the Internet.

?This would have an enormous impact. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to decide who is heard and who isn?t. They?d be able to block websites or content they don?t like or applications that compete with their own offerings.?

[starling]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

From Net neutrality repeal: What is it, and why will it make the internet much worse? | The Independent

What could change?

The end of net neutrality could also have a huge impact on innovation and competition.

For instance, ISPs that have their own video services could choose to slow down customers? connections when they try to use a competing service, such as Netflix.

Such a move would completely ruin the Netflix user experience, which could in turn lead to the company losing customers.

The end of net neutrality could completely cripple startups too, as large, established sites would be in a much better position than them to strike favourable deals with ISPs, in order to have their services prioritised over others.

There are also fears that ISPs could use their power to censor protesters and suffocate free speech, by controlling what people can and cannot put online.

What are ISPs saying?

Major ISPs including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc, have been urging the FCC to revoke the rules, argue that repealing them could lead to billions of dollars in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility that a future presidential administration could regulate internet pricing.

They claim that the rules prevent them from finding new ways to make money, and thus prevent them from spending more to improve their networks.

?The internet without Net Neutrality isn?t really the internet. Unlike the open internet that has paved the way for so much innovation and given a platform to people who have historically been shut out, it would become a closed-down network where cable and phone companies call the shots and decide which websites, content or applications succeed,? says Save the Internet.

?This would have an enormous impact. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to decide who is heard and who isn?t. They?d be able to block websites or content they don?t like or applications that compete with their own offerings.?

The UK ISPs block sites but you can get around that with a VPN or TOR. Would that be the same with American ISPs? Pushing VPNs may be a good idea if so.

[Robbie]

Uhmmm....the regulation that was repealed that everyone is calling "Net Neutrality" was only implemented in 2015.

So...the internet will be EXACTLY the way it was already from the very beginning up until 2 years ago.

I'm not sure why there is all this hysteria and panic?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Uhmmm....the regulation that was repealed that everyone is calling "Net Neutrality" was only implemented in 2015.

So...the internet will be EXACTLY the way it was already from the very beginning up until 2 years ago.

I'm not sure why there is all this hysteria and panic?

#thanksrobbie

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

#thanksrobbie

Is it something that people think would "protect" them from hypothetical "what if" scenarios?

I will totally admit that the whole thing is confusing to me. It's another of those things where it's hard to figure out the reality of it because there are so many differing viewpoints and not much factual information.

[bns666]

what could it change?

[C H R I S]

Lets mark this thread and come back and say #thanksrobbie when Verizon and comcast start shafting consumers and business alike.

[pimpmaster9000]

The great firewall of China raughs at you!

[Brad Mitchell]

What it means is that consumer and mobile providers like Comcast Cable, Cox, Verizon and ATT can congest or rate limit connections to global networks and content providers that don't themselves directly connect to consumers.. which none do. This will effectively challenge hosts, CDNs and global networks like Level3, Teliasonera, Cogent, GTT, NTT and the like to deliver high throughputs via their direct and indirect peerings or transit to the consumer ISPs. Currently, the global fiber networks connect to these ISPs directly and indirectly through combinations of free peering, paid peering and transit. It means that a company like Comcast can decide to rate limit access to specific content networks and will very likely result in higher charges to consumers that resemble upsells for faster access to specific networks. It also means that Comcast can turn to the content hosts, global transit networks, and CDNs and tell them that they need to buy access to their network instead of today where they are reasonably required to expand free peering to meet demand. This is an over-simplified explanation but should be at least a little bit helpful. It possibly means that the price of bandwidth could go up for consumers and businesses with consumer phone and ISPs being able to discriminate on both sides of their fiber to determine access prices and related throughput.

Brad

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by C H R I S

Lets mark this thread and come back and say #thanksrobbie when Verizon and comcast start shafting consumers and business alike.

How would they do that? And if they did...what's to stop customers and businesses from simply moving to a competitor.

And what's to stop competitors from offering MORE and charging less to take business away from people like Verizon and Comcast?

I moved away from Verizon after a dozen years for my cell service because T-Mobile had a much better price AND gave me a lot more for my money.

I switched from Cox Cable to Century Link last year because for slightly less money I can get 1 Gig up and down speed on Century Link's fiber optic...Cox couldn't compete with that.

I'm asking this very seriously. I don't really give a shit about anybody's political views.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Robbie

How would they do that? And if they did...what's to stop customers and businesses from simply moving to a competitor.

And what's to stop competitors from offering MORE and charging less to take business away from people like Verizon and Comcast?

I moved away from Verizon after a dozen years for my cell service because T-Mobile had a much better price AND gave me a lot more for my money.

I switched from Cox Cable to Century Link last year because for slightly less money I can get 1 Gig up and down speed on Century Link's fiber optic...Cox couldn't compete with that.

I'm asking this very seriously. I don't really give a shit about anybody's political views.

We all certainly hope that is the outcome. In a great many places in the US, especially rural, there is a genuine lack of competition.

Brad

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

And what's to stop competitors from offering MORE and charging less to take business away from people like Verizon and Comcast?

Not all of us can move to a new company.

In my case, I get my Internet for free through my HOA. They use a company that uses AT&T. I also use (abuse) Netflix (I am watching it right now). What if AT&T decides to charge Netflix because they suck up so much bandwidth, and Netflix refuses to pay. Then suddenly my Netlifx has problems because it's being throttled. In the event Netflix does pay more, I'll have to pay more for my Netflix.

That's just one example.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

I OneHungLo

^^^

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Not all of us can move to a new company.

In my case, I get my Internet for free through my HOA. They use a company that uses AT&T. I also use (abuse) Netflix (I am watching it right now). What if AT&T decides to charge Netflix because they suck up so much bandwidth, and Netflix refuses to pay. Then suddenly my Netlifx has problems because it's being throttled. In the event Netflix does pay more, I'll have to pay more for my Netflix.

That's just one example.

Same thing where I am. Cox is our only choice.

72% of America only has one provider.

Robbie shows his ignorance again

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by starling

The UK ISPs block sites but you can get around that with a VPN or TOR. Would that be the same with American ISPs? Pushing VPNs may be a good idea if so.

You do not understand the issue .

Read but abstain of posting

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

You do not understand the issue .

Read but abstain of posting

He's a fake nic. He doesn't give a shit about posting incorrect information because he has nothing invested in the nic. As long as he posts he's doing his job in his mind

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

What it means is that consumer and mobile providers like Comcast Cable, Cox, Verizon and ATT can congest or rate limit connections to global networks and content providers that don't themselves directly connect to consumers.. which none do. This will effectively challenge hosts, CDNs and global networks like Level3, Teliasonera, Cogent, GTT, NTT and the like to deliver high throughputs via their direct and indirect peerings or transit to the consumer ISPs. Currently, the global fiber networks connect to these ISPs directly and indirectly through combinations of free peering, paid peering and transit. It means that a company like Comcast can decide to rate limit access to specific content networks and will very likely result in higher charges to consumers that resemble upsells for faster access to specific networks. It also means that Comcast can turn to the content hosts, global transit networks, and CDNs and tell them that they need to buy access to their network instead of today where they are reasonably required to expand free peering to meet demand. This is an over-simplified explanation but should be at least a little bit helpful. It possibly means that the price of bandwidth could go up for consumers and businesses with consumer phone and ISPs being able to discriminate on both sides of their fiber to determine access prices and related throughput.

Brad

Thanks, you pretty clearly summed it up ...

This post merits to be read a few times, so you can comprehend what the issue is ....

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by Robbie

How would they do that? And if they did...what's to stop customers and businesses from simply moving to a competitor.

And what's to stop competitors from offering MORE and charging less to take business away from people like Verizon and Comcast?

I moved away from Verizon after a dozen years for my cell service because T-Mobile had a much better price AND gave me a lot more for my money.

I switched from Cox Cable to Century Link last year because for slightly less money I can get 1 Gig up and down speed on Century Link's fiber optic...Cox couldn't compete with that.

I'm asking this very seriously. I don't really give a shit about anybody's political views.

Your post explains a lot ....

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

What it means is that consumer and mobile providers like Comcast Cable, Cox, Verizon and ATT can congest or rate limit connections to global networks and content providers that don't themselves directly connect to consumers.. which none do. This will effectively challenge hosts, CDNs and global networks like Level3, Teliasonera, Cogent, GTT, NTT and the like to deliver high throughputs via their direct and indirect peerings or transit to the consumer ISPs. Currently, the global fiber networks connect to these ISPs directly and indirectly through combinations of free peering, paid peering and transit. It means that a company like Comcast can decide to rate limit access to specific content networks and will very likely result in higher charges to consumers that resemble upsells for faster access to specific networks. It also means that Comcast can turn to the content hosts, global transit networks, and CDNs and tell them that they need to buy access to their network instead of today where they are reasonably required to expand free peering to meet demand. This is an over-simplified explanation but should be at least a little bit helpful. It possibly means that the price of bandwidth could go up for consumers and businesses with consumer phone and ISPs being able to discriminate on both sides of their fiber to determine access prices and related throughput.

Brad

Worth repeating

[CamsEtc]

So please tell me where this is wrong Brad.

Ok it is known that half of the internet’s traffic comes from just 30 companies, including Google, Facebook, and Netflix.

Because these guys are moving so much of their own traffic, they’ve made special deals with ISPs to facilitate the delivery of their sites and apps. Basically, they’re bypassing the net backbone, plugging straight into the ISPs. Today, a typical webpage request can involve dozens of back-and-forth communications between the browser and the web server all of that chatter can noticeably slow things down. But by getting inside the ISPs, the big web companies can significantly cut back on the delay. They’ve essentially rewired the internet.

So obviously the net isn’t neutral now. What should be the focus is looking for ways to increase competition among ISPs; ways to prevent Comcast, Cox and TimeWarner from gaining so much power that they can completely control the market for bandwidth. Nobody wants ISPs blocking certain types of traffic. Nor do they want them delivering their own stuff at 10 giga and everyone else’s stuff at 1 giga.

Competition is the best way to stop these types of extreme behavior. If an ISP's last-mile was available to all competitors under the same terms that gave dial-up service providers access to all copper networks back in the 1990s, we would have more ISPs in more geographical areas. With ISPs are treated as “common carriers” by net neutrality that option disappeared.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by CamsEtc

So please tell me where this is wrong Brad.

Holy shit your reading comprehension sucks.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

What it means is that consumer and mobile providers like Comcast Cable, Cox, Verizon and ATT can congest or rate limit connections to global networks and content providers that don't themselves directly connect to consumers.. which none do. This will effectively challenge hosts, CDNs and global networks like Level3, Teliasonera, Cogent, GTT, NTT and the like to deliver high throughputs via their direct and indirect peerings or transit to the consumer ISPs. Currently, the global fiber networks connect to these ISPs directly and indirectly through combinations of free peering, paid peering and transit. It means that a company like Comcast can decide to rate limit access to specific content networks and will very likely result in higher charges to consumers that resemble upsells for faster access to specific networks. It also means that Comcast can turn to the content hosts, global transit networks, and CDNs and tell them that they need to buy access to their network instead of today where they are reasonably required to expand free peering to meet demand. This is an over-simplified explanation but should be at least a little bit helpful. It possibly means that the price of bandwidth could go up for consumers and businesses with consumer phone and ISPs being able to discriminate on both sides of their fiber to determine access prices and related throughput.

Brad

Brad, you probably know more about this than most.

My question would be (and has been): Why didn't the ISP's do all of that before 2015?
Was MojoHost being hurt before 2015 and then once the new govt. regulation came into play it made things better for you (and us as your customers)?

That's what puzzles me. The media seems to be "reporting" this like Trump took away a long held "Net Neutrality" that has always "protected" us.
And then it turns out it was something done in 2015...2 years ago.

Makes me suspect that this might be more political bias in the media?

Am I wrong on that? Was all that stuff you said happening before 2015 and the govt. saved all of us?
Or is it just hypothetical "what if" stuff that never happened before?

I could see having concern that something bad COULD happen. That's why I put my seatbelt on in the car...just in case.

But it seems like there is a lot of damn near hysteria out there in the media and among political comedians like John Oliver.
They make it sound like the entire history of the internet up until 2015 was total shit and there was no innovation or ability to make money on the web...Of course they don't mention that it was just TWO years ago that it was implemented.

What do you think? Is it overblown hysteria, or are we screwed?

[CamsEtc]

two words Bladewire - fuck off

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Brad, you probably know more about this than most.

My question would be (and has been): Why didn't the ISP's do all of that before 2015?
Was MojoHost being hurt before 2015 and then once the new govt. regulation came into play it made things better for you (and us as your customers)?

That's what puzzles me. The media seems to be "reporting" this like Trump took away a long held "Net Neutrality" that has always "protected" us.
And then it turns out it was something done in 2015...2 years ago.

Makes me suspect that this might be more political bias in the media?

Am I wrong on that? Was all that stuff you said happening before 2015 and the govt. saved all of us?
Or is it just hypothetical "what if" stuff that never happened before?

I could see having concern that something bad COULD happen. That's why I put my seatbelt on in the car...just in case.

But it seems like there is a lot of damn near hysteria out there in the media and among political comedians like John Oliver.
They make it sound like the entire history of the internet up until 2015 was total shit and there was no innovation or ability to make money on the web...Of course they don't mention that it was just TWO years ago that it was implemented.

What do you think? Is it overblown hysteria, or are we screwed?

The thing is, if nothing is going to change then why did the fight so hard to have it overturned? What difference would of it made? Why spend millions of dollars lobbying for it to be repealed?

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by starling

The UK ISPs block sites but you can get around that with a VPN or TOR. Would that be the same with American ISPs? Pushing VPNs may be a good idea if so.

Unrelated.

Originally Posted by Robbie

Uhmmm....the regulation that was repealed that everyone is calling "Net Neutrality" was only implemented in 2015.

So...the internet will be EXACTLY the way it was already from the very beginning up until 2 years ago.

I'm not sure why there is all this hysteria and panic?

Hi Robbie,

Back in 2005, an ISP here in Canada named Telus got into a dispute with their union, and decided that they would slow down or mess with the access to their union's sites on their network, making them the exact opposite of Neutral.

Also here, Canada's largest and fastest ISP is Bell. Bell owns all kinds of TV stations and has a service that competes with Netflix, called Crave. Net Neutrality is protected here in Canada but if it wasn't, Bell could legally slow-down access to Netflix to boost its own competing service.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by CamsEtc

two words Bladewire - fuck off

That's more than 2 words you 60 post alt right hate FAKE NIC registered this year!

You can't argue facts so you say fuck off what a fucking loser

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Brad, you probably know more about this than most.

My question would be (and has been): Why didn't the ISP's do all of that before 2015?
Was MojoHost being hurt before 2015 and then once the new govt. regulation came into play it made things better for you (and us as your customers)?

That's what puzzles me. The media seems to be "reporting" this like Trump took away a long held "Net Neutrality" that has always "protected" us.
And then it turns out it was something done in 2015...2 years ago.

Makes me suspect that this might be more political bias in the media?

Am I wrong on that? Was all that stuff you said happening before 2015 and the govt. saved all of us?
Or is it just hypothetical "what if" stuff that never happened before?

I could see having concern that something bad COULD happen. That's why I put my seatbelt on in the car...just in case.

But it seems like there is a lot of damn near hysteria out there in the media and among political comedians like John Oliver.
They make it sound like the entire history of the internet up until 2015 was total shit and there was no innovation or ability to make money on the web...Of course they don't mention that it was just TWO years ago that it was implemented.

What do you think? Is it overblown hysteria, or are we screwed?

This will be a gross over-simplification but here is what people are upset about:

Back in 2004, the FCC set forth principles that claimed the internet should maintain network freedom. It said users should be allowed to access any legal content on it, run any application, access it with any device, and have access to info on service plans. Over the years some companies have tested that. For example, Comcast was found to be blocking and/or delaying BitTorrent uploads. there were reports of ISPs throttling customers who shouldn't be getting throttled etc. So, fights between Comcast and the FCC started. Eventually, this led to the Obama administration passing laws to protect network freedom and it is that which was just overturned.

So, what does this mean for regular people? Could be nothing. The ISPs have said they won't do anything different, but they spent millions trying to get this overturned. Companies don't spend millions to change rules they intend to still keep following. Maybe it will turn out to be nothing. Maybe they will throttle and block access to some sites. What many people think may happen is eventually internet access will look like cable TV. You pay a flat fee for access then if you want access to sites likes Netflix and Hulu you have to pay more (just to get to those sites you will still need to pay the site's fee as well). If you want to play online games it is another free. Sports is another fee and so on.

As for competition stopping this, something like 40% of the country has two or fewer options when it comes to ISPs and around 50 million people only have one choice so there isn't a whole lot of competition.

It could end up being a whole lot of nothing, but many companies were caught already violating the net neutrality rules when they were still in place. I have no reason to think they won't ramp that up once there are no rules.

[Boozer]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You can't are you facts so you say fuck off what a fucking loser

No comprende. En ingles por favor

[Bladewire]

^^^^ Fake alt right hate nic loser

[ErectMedia]

Originally Posted by kane

This will be a gross over-simplification but here is what people are upset about:

Back in 2004, the FCC set forth principles that claimed the internet should maintain network freedom. It said users should be allowed to access any legal content on it, run any application, access it with any device, and have access to info on service plans. Over the years some companies have tested that. For example, Comcast was found to be blocking and/or delaying BitTorrent uploads. there were reports of ISPs throttling customers who shouldn't be getting throttled etc. So, fights between Comcast and the FCC started. Eventually, this led to the Obama administration passing laws to protect network freedom and it is that which was just overturned.

So, what does this mean for regular people? Could be nothing. The ISPs have said they won't do anything different, but they spent millions trying to get this overturned. Companies don't spend millions to change rules they intend to still keep following. Maybe it will turn out to be nothing. Maybe they will throttle and block access to some sites. What many people think may happen is eventually internet access will look like cable TV. You pay a flat fee for access then if you want access to sites likes Netflix and Hulu you have to pay more (just to get to those sites you will still need to pay the site's fee as well). If you want to play online games it is another free. Sports is another fee and so on.

As for competition stopping this, something like 40% of the country has two or fewer options when it comes to ISPs and around 50 million people only have one choice so there isn't a whole lot of competition.

It could end up being a whole lot of nothing, but many companies were caught already violating the net neutrality rules when they were still in place. I have no reason to think they won't ramp that up once there are no rules.

I wish you could pay per channel as I watch like...

HBO
A&E
History

Debated killing cable and just using Netflix and Buying HBO App For $14.99 but then internet price jumps up since not double play package so still some savings just not huge savings since I lose the bundle pricing. Random taxes already on my bill in Chicago...

Broadcast TV Fee
$7.00
Regional Sports Fee
$5.00
Franchise Fee
$6.20
FCC Fee
$0.08
PEG Access
$1.23
City Amusement Tax
$8.96

Along with Netflix charging .90 Chicago City Amusement Tax

Not a money issue, just principle of I pay lot of bullshit fees for barely watching any TV.

[kane]

Originally Posted by ErectMedia

I wish you could pay per channel as I watch like...

HBO
A&E
History

Debated killing cable and just using Netflix and Buying HBO App For $14.99 but then internet price jumps up since not double play package so still some savings just not huge savings since I lose the bundle pricing. I already pay crazy Chicago taxes on cable bill and a .90 cent Netflix tax.

Sling has something like a la carte. You pay $20 and get some base channels then you buy the channels you want for more. They do small package deals so it's something like $5 for a sports package or another $5 for kids channels etc.

In a perfect world, you could just pay a couple bucks per channel and get the handful you actually watch and nothing else. The reality is many of these cable channels wouldn't survive without the money they get from the cable companies for just being on the service.

[CamsEtc]

Bladewire I'm not like these others here that are all bark and no bite

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My question would be (and has been): Why didn't the ISP's do all of that before 2015?

Robbie, they were doing this before 2015.

Remember the ISIS payment system? AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile all owned shares in the ISIS payment system. They blocked Google Wallet because it was competition.

Verizon blocks Google Wallet - Dec. 6, 2011

Imagine one day you wake up and a tool you use every day is no longer working because one company decided it was competing with their product, so they blocked access. Don't think they didn't happen? At one point, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype calls.

Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions | Fortune

The software we use, the services we pay for like Netflix, and even websites we visit might be decided by your ISP. Imagine you wake up one day and the software you've been using for years is no longer available because your cable company has a competing product. Don't tell me it won't happen - it already has.

What happens when AT&T decides Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon Video uses too much of it's network's bandwidth and disallows them or charges them to allow their customers to use bandwidth? I can't change from AT&T; I don't get to choose who my upstream carrier is. Suddenly I can no longer use websites and services I use every day? It's already happened - and clearly the cost will be passed down to us..

comcast-netflix-deal | Time

Think about what this is going to do for innovation Robbie.... What happens when someone makes a new payment system or chat system that your ISP doesn't like? They just shut it down so it never sees the light of day.

Everyone is against this yet they did it anyhow.

How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for anyone except for big companies that will now get to pick and choose what software, services, and products we can use on the Internet?

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by kane

Sling has something like a la carte. You pay $20 and get some base channels then you buy the channels you want for more. They do small package deals so it's something like $5 for a sports package or another $5 for kids channels etc.

In a perfect world, you could just pay a couple bucks per channel and get the handful you actually watch and nothing else. The reality is many of these cable channels wouldn't survive without the money they get from the cable companies for just being on the service.

I had Sling for a few months but Direct TV Now came out a couple months ago and I never turned back. Twice as many channels as sling plus MSNBC & CNN & Fox news & HBO Showtime & Cinemax all for $60 total a month. No need for cable

[kane]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

I had Sling for a few months but Direct TV Now came out a couple months ago and I never turned back. Twice as many channels as sling plus MSNBC & CNN & Fox news & HBO Showtime & Cinemax all for $60 total a month. No need for cable

I have a friend who has Sling and likes it. I have a great deal with my cable company. I pay for internet and then for $10 more per month I get basic cable which is all I really need. When Game of Thrones is on I subscribe to HBO Now and I have Netflix and Amazon Prime which is more than I have time to watch so I'm good. No need paying $70 for a bunch of channels I will never watch.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by kane

I have a friend who has Sling and likes it. I have a great deal with my cable company. I pay for internet and then for $10 more per month I get basic cable which is all I really need. When Game of Thrones is on I subscribe to HBO Now and I have Netflix and Amazon Prime which is more than I have time to watch so I'm good. No need paying $70 for a bunch of channels I will never watch.

I have Sling here ( using VPN programmed router - DDWRT ) and like it sa lot. Quality is great .
Plus CBS on demand as well as quite a few free channel on Roku ( I have a US subscriction with Comshit in Florida ) .
All good as long as ... net neutrality remains .
Otherwise, throttling will take place .

[NewNick]

So peer to peer cam services would appear to be the way forward ?

The MFC / Chaturbate model is the one that appears to be threatened.

[tony286]

https://www.wired.com/story/the-bigg...ality-meeting/

Good read about the bullshit pushed.

[wehateporn]

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Informative read here,

Now what are the options to tackle this?

Need to wait for the first occurrence of censorship or when the ISP's try to curb competition?

[RedFred]

[crockett]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Your post explains a lot ....

It took that post... lol I figured it out 5 years ago..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

Informative read here,

Now what are the options to tackle this?

Need to wait for the first occurrence of censorship or when the ISP's try to curb competition?

The option was to not vote Republicans into securing power of Congress and the WH at the same time.. You know the very republicans who have been trying to kill off net neutrality, sell our national parks, end medicare, social security and steal as much tax dollars as they can..

You know, that's what had to be done to stop this...

[crockett]

Originally Posted by NewNick

So peer to peer cam services would appear to be the way forward ?

The MFC / Chaturbate model is the one that appears to be threatened.

Did you not read the part where Comcast was blocking or slowing down bittorrent?

Peer to peer is not a safe space, it's one of the 1st areas they went after previously before they were forced to stop by the FCC...

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

There seems to be a lot of this going on.... People are using fake information to sway opinion. God only knows who is behind this.