As someone who streams every game online I don't like it - ESPNs streaming service is much better than Fox's. Hopefully with Fox investing so much in sports content, they'll also invest in better streaming.
Also say what you want about ESPN buy the produce games better than anybody else in the business.
Those new corners from the 2017 had better be ready to play right away. With Lattimore and Conley leaving early, Norwood and Burns transferring, and Davis moving to safety there are only 2 CBs on the eitre team who are back from last years roster (Ward and Arnette).
The problem doesn't exist now specifically BECAUSE the government oversight has always been in place.
The idea that the free market will work it out and consumers can just decide what ISPs they want to purchase from is not true in the case of broadband internet. This is because in most market there is very little competition and options for broadband providers. A few companies own almost all internet access and they have go out of their way through mergers and lobbying to ensure that they get as little competition as possible (buying up smaller firms, suing local goverments to stop them from setting up their own internet service, etc).
Depending where you live there may be only one broadband provider to chose from and in most case no more than a few. Considering that internet access is necessary for most people in 2017 they're stuck paying for the service provider thats in their area whether they like it or not. Your choices are pay the big company in your area or have no internet access. There is no fair competition in many markets.
No. They were always subjected to this regulations. The only reason things changed in 2015 is that Verizon won a lawsuit that threatened the FCC's ability to enforce those regulations. This forced the FCC to reclassify broadband providers to keep the same rules in place. The reason people are writing now is that the new FCC chair (who of course used to work for Verizon) is trying to undo that change so that the government can no longer enforce the regulations that have ALWAYS been in place.
Agreed 100%. This is only a political issue with the kind of people who will reject something they don't even understand just because Obama supported it. This is a consumer issue. Anyone who uses the internet for any reason should care about keeping it free and open.
That's the whole point of this issue. If you pay for internet access you should get access to the whole internet - not just the sites and services that your provider chooses.
Internet Service Providers have ALWAYS been subjugated to the Communications Act of 1934. They were just reclassified under Title II of that act rather than Title I as they had been before.
As I explained above, that isn't true. There has always been a neutral internet. What happened in 2014/2015 if that Verizon and other providers tried to stop Net Neutrality with a lawsuit and the FCC was forced to reclassify them under existing law to keep enforcing the regulations we have always had.
None of that is true.
Net Neutrality does NOT "bring government regulation to an area that was previously not under the government's thumb". The government has regulated the telecommunications for generations, before the internet even existed. Their authority to do so is based on the Communications Act of 1934. There has Always been government regulation of internet service providers - this is not a new thing.
Also Net Neutrality was not implemented in 2015. There have always been net neutrality rules and they are a key part of what has allowed the internet to thrive. What happened in 2015 was not new regulations - it was a reclassification of internet providers under that same 1934 act in order to keep enforcing the rules we already had. This was because Verizon sued the FCC and the judge ruled that the government couldn't enforce the regulations that had long been in place for broadband providers. This forced the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as common carriers (just like phone providers) under Title II of the Communications Act. They didn't create Net Neutrality rules in 2015 - they just made the rules we have always had more enforceable.
Net Neutrality rules are what allow small independent websites like ElevenWarriors to compete on an even playing field against sites owned by large powerful media companies. Most of the competing Buckeye sites on the web are run by networks owned by large corporations like CBS, Disney, News Corp, and Yahoo - those companies all have far more money and influence with internet providers than 11W could ever have but the even playing field of a neutral internet has allowed 11W to compete with and best most of those sites.
Killing Net Neutrality laws would destroy that even playing field and much of what makes the internet great. It would allow rich and powerful companies to pay for preferred access and let them crush any competition before it ever got started. Your internet provider would be able to pick and chose what content you receive - they will pick winners and losers based not on who has a better product but based on who pays them money.
Do you work for the telecommunications lobby? I don't see his how any rational individual who buses the internet could possibly be against net neutrality
Why so many extra games? Why not just 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, and so on for the first round ? Adding all these extra rounds means a low seeded team would have to win FIVE playoffs games to win the championship.
I laughed out loud when I read this part.
"If anything has become clear in the two years since Harbaugh returned to Michigan, it’s that he owns college football. Anyone foolish enough to try and test that is bound to lose.
Tell that to Urban Meyer...
I actually HAVE to use a VPN to read ElevenWarriors.com as this site doesn't work in China
I'm using VPN.ac which works well for a good price. Express VPN is also excellent but costs more
I don't see what's so terrible about the Browns draft. As a neutral observer I though they actually made some smart decisions and took a step forward in rebuilding a broken roster. Are you really going to bail on your team just because they drafted someone from Michigan and Notre Dame??
How do you pronounce his name? Is it like the number 7?
Wow, I thought I was up on all the 2018 targets but I've never even heard of this guy. Was he on anyone's radar in regards to Ohio State? Clearly he was on Meyer and the Buckeyes radar as they leave no stone unturned in recruiting!
I kind of wish I knew some UGA fans to laugh at. The state of Georgia has an awesome group of recruits this year, with 4 5 Stars and 26 4 Stars. And yet not a single one of those players is committed to Georgia!
Thanks for the link. Nice article. You can tell that the author actually talked to the coaches himself and he has something new to say, rater than just reusing the same press conference quotes you see in every article.
Those are still worse odds than guessing what Tim Beck was going to run next...
This would require SEC teams to travel north and play in cold weather, which they refuse to do
As I understand it there's an app where fans select one of a small group of plays, and whichever one gets the most votes is what the team runs. I'd assume that the voting results would only be visible to the team managers and coaches.
What 5 star recruit has actually ever chosen Xavier or Dayton over Ohio State?
Next thing you know we're going claiming that climate change is a hoax and that vaccines are a bad idea. Oh wait...
What off field concerns? He's never been in trouble at OSU and was considered a leader last year even after getting hurt.