View Full Version : Join the battle for Net Neutrality! Don't let the FCC destroy the internet!
Next month, the FCC will vote to overturn the Net Neutrality policies that help keep speech on the internet free. If this is overturned, the ISPs will have free reign to carve up the internet and sell it to you in packages like television.
Go here, put in your number, and be connected with your representatives in DC and let them know you want the internet to remain open and free!
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Bailey Guns
11-22-2017, 07:16
Because screw the free market and capitalism, right? This is just another pet project of socialists and progressives. If you think "net neutrality" is a good thing, you're a fool.
Singlestack
11-22-2017, 07:48
+1. Couldn't agree more Bailey. Net neutrality is one of the pet projects of leftists to limit free speech.
Because screw the free market and capitalism, right? This is just another pet project of socialists and progressives. If you think "net neutrality" is a good thing, you're a fool.
Thank you!!
If anyone thinks that the gov't will provide better service at lower costs they should take a look at obamacare.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2017, 07:59
Exactly. Just like everything else socialist, net neutrality is designed to give everyone the same, crappy level of internet service and destroys incentives for providers to expand and improve infrastructure.
If you're a fan of net neutrality you believe the person who uses the internet to send a few emails and do a little online shopping should pay the same and have the same level of service as the person (or family) that frequently streams music and video and is constantly online. In both cases, one probably is paying for way more than what they need or use and the other doesn't have the option to pay for a higher level of service to meet their needs.
Socialism = making everyone miserable.
On the other hand, Ridge prompted me to email my rep's office to make sure he understands how I feel about this.
Exactly. Just like everything else socialist, net neutrality is designed to give everyone the same, crappy level of internet service and destroys incentives for providers to expand and improve infrastructure.
What country invented the 'net? The good ol' USA, where new ideas flourish if they meet the needs of the people. We have a HUGE national network built by companies meeting the desires of a consumer base (individuals and corporate) with money to spend on it.
Command economies like the USSR/China can't build anything like the 'net because there wasn't a reason to, no profit motive, there is no point to invent anything new because the potential consumers can't buy it anyway so the was no market for it. Inventions don't come out of coercive, restrictive societies unless we're talking about new ways to control people and destroy their hopes and aspirations.
clodhopper
11-22-2017, 09:07
What country invented the 'net? The good ol' USA, where new ideas flourish if they meet the needs of the people. We have a HUGE national network built by companies meeting the desires of a consumer base (individuals and corporate) with money to spend on it.
Command economies like the USSR/China can't build anything like the 'net because there wasn't a reason to, no profit motive, there is no point to invent anything new because the potential consumers can't buy it anyway so the was no market for it. Inventions don't come out of coercive, restrictive societies unless we're talking about new ways to control people and destroy their hopes and aspirations.
You do know the internet wasn't created to do all the Kardashian crap it does currently, right?
I've not found much useful info on either side apart from hyperbolic, swirling invective... but, what I can deduce is basically lack of NN = ability of service providers to effectively engage in throttling or even blocking based on content rather than actual cost of delivery; that the excuse is cost of delivery does not mean that its obvious end game is content irrespective of cost. Similar to what twitter is apparently going to do, where they can suspend or deactivate one's account based on off-platform use, association, and/or behavior.
Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism. You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes. We will begin enforcing this rule around affiliation with such organizations on December 18, 2017.
https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
I really don't see how one can hold to the rather new and novel idea about American ideals (read: Libertarians who are essentially historical revisionists as regards the Founding Fathers' intention) and at the same time oppose Net Neutrality, if NN not being imposed is really about content and not delivery cost.
The expressed fear of the Net Neutrality adherents is essentially that of content being restricted. What do the opponents of it say in order to meet that charge and show it as false?
On the contrary, https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021
You do know the internet wasn't created to do all the Kardashian crap it does currently, right?
Of course I know the origination but that doesn't mean the same entity should manage it now.
I am a FIRM believer in free markets and capitalism. HOWEVER, in certain instances, like Public Utilities (Electricity, Cable TV, and yes even Internet access), companies have been granted monopolies or duopolies in most areas to provide those services. When consumers of electricity for instance are not given a choice on who to buy their power from, some form of regulation is necessary to level out the playing field. This is the case with Internet providers. My only REAL choice for high speed internet access is Comcast. They have a virtual monopoly on the bandwidth I require, and I do not want them determining what content I receive, nor do I want them to have the ability to offer the content they own (NBC, etc) at preferred cost or data rates. Capitalism works on a level playing field, but in this case, there is NOT a level playing field.
I've not found much useful info on either side apart from hyperbolic, swirling invective... but, what I can deduce is basically lack of NN = ability of service providers to effectively engage in throttling or even blocking based on content rather than actual cost of delivery; that the excuse is cost of delivery does not mean that its obvious end game is content irrespective of cost. Similar to what twitter is apparently going to do, where they can suspend or deactivate one's account based on off-platform use, association, and/or behavior.
And who drives the idea of controlling contect? Do you think corporate America cares about content if they stand alone or does corporate America care about content because the government thinks they should and will offer tax and other incentives if corprate America controls content?
When I say "the government" I mean the goddamn commies that infest the government at every level.
Delfuego
11-22-2017, 09:32
Because screw the free market and capitalism, right? This is just another pet project of socialists and progressives. If you think "net neutrality" is a good thing, you're a fool.You don't even understand what it is or what it does. You were informed of your opinion. You are the fool.
And who drives the idea of controlling contect? Do you think corporate America cares about content if they stand alone or does corporate America care about content because the government thinks they should and will offer tax and other incentives if corprate America controls content?
When I say "the government" I mean the goddamn commies that infest the government at every level.
When goddamn commies like Micheal Bloomberg start buying up ISPs to restrict your access to firearm content on the internet (like this site), where will you stand on Net Neutrality? With corporations like the ones owned by Bloomberg?
Zundfolge
11-22-2017, 09:41
We had Internet without Net Neutrality for close to two decades and no censorship ... then Obama puts in place policies he called "Net Neutrality" (which weren't exactly what we all think of as NN but fine, whatever). Then he took control of the internet away from the evil, colonial, oppressive, white, capitalist, patriarchy and handed the internet over to an "international body" and all of the sudden we have massive censorship online (and people in Europe being arrested for wrong-think online).
With or without Net Neutrality there WILL be throttling, ghettoization and censorship on the internet, so the government policies are pretty much irrelevant ... Our only saviors will be block chain and VPNs.
When goddamn commies like Micheal Bloomberg start buying up ISPs to restrict your access to firearm content on the internet (like this site), where will you stand on Net Neutrality? With corporations like the ones owned by Bloomberg?
Even with Net Neutrality there's no way to prevent that from happening ... thing is the less government regulation, the more ISPs there will be so you just shop around to get one that embraces "A Free and Open Internet", which there will be a huge market for.
I expect eventually we'll all need to invest in VPNs to keep access to the free and open internet we all love.
When goddamn commies like Micheal Bloomberg start buying up ISPs to restrict your access to firearm content on the internet (like this site), where will you stand on Net Neutrality? With corporations like the ones owned by Bloomberg?
I'll stick with corporations for now but I can see your point.
Do you think the government is going to treat firearm content differently than a GDC like Bloomberg?
BushMasterBoy
11-22-2017, 10:20
And once again the 1% wealth owners will decide for the other 99%. If you don't have a billion dollars in assets by now, you are an idiot! I get it!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Arpanet_logical_map%2C_march_1977.png
Grant H.
11-22-2017, 10:44
Does anyone here actually think that throttling and selective content approval isn't happening?
If so, get out of under your rock and do some research.
It's already happening, and will only continue to get worse.
In other parts of the world, the "Internet" is divided up into groups of services like cable TV services. You want access to social media, that has a price. You want to stream content like movies, that has a price. You want access to everything the web has to offer, that has a big price. I prefer to have a pipe that I'm paying for to get access to whatever I want or need. How big the pipe is determines how much I pay.
We've been enjoying the benefit of 'net neutrality' with the light touch oversight of the FCC. If everyone had access to every ISP, competition would be a good thing. Like electric utilities, there's not an over-abundance of competitive infrastructure into our neighborhoods. Options are even worse if you're rural.
68Charger
11-22-2017, 13:22
Does anyone here actually think that throttling and selective content approval isn't happening?
If so, get out of under your rock and do some research.
It's already happening, and will only continue to get worse.
With zero throttling, you would wind up with 1% of internet users hogging 90+% of the bandwidth. Throttling is how you manage an oversubscribed network... want to not have an oversubscribed network? open your wallet, because it's going to cost you dearly.
There are technologies coming that will give more ISP options- even rural... but that doesn't mean companies providing that service plan on competing on price.... OTOH- if you limit their profit potential by forcing them to comply with gov't regulations, it's possible they'll decide it's not worth the investment to provide the other option at all.
This isn't a simple issue.
https://gabfiles.blob.core.windows.net/image/5a15eff471781.jpeg
And who drives the idea of controlling contect? Do you think corporate America cares about content if they stand alone or does corporate America care about content because the government thinks they should and will offer tax and other incentives if corprate America controls content?
When I say "the government" I mean the goddamn commies that infest the government at every level.
Corporate America can say "Hey, this category of website gets a lot of traffic. Let's slow down access to those sites and offer "higher speeds" for an extra cost."
They can make you pay more to get to sites like Brownell's, AimSurplus, etc because they see that you go there a lot. THAT is the supply and demand future of the internet without Net Neutrality.
hurley842002
11-22-2017, 16:55
You don't even understand what it is or what it does. You were informed of your opinion. You are the fool.Here comes Delfuego, rarely posts except when he has the opportunity to start name calling.
Zundfolge
11-22-2017, 17:23
Here comes Delfuego, rarely posts except when he has the opportunity to start name calling.
I'd never have to read his posts if y'all would quit quoting him :p
hurley842002
11-22-2017, 17:33
I'd never have to read his posts if y'all would quit quoting him :pShit, my bad!
hurley842002
11-22-2017, 17:34
It's getting ugly, IBTLIt doesn't have to be, if people (okay person) could debate sans nonsense.
You all are funny. The internet as a wild west of connectivity and free info exchange has been over for quite some time. Now the fight over watching our activity is being fought over. Some say .gov wins, some say corporate/ capitalist. Do we really think it matters. As someone who recently left the internet game, I know none of it matters. If you really want to get excited about people creating an underground internet of the people, Wired magazine did a great story about the Cuban internet. Lots of bootleg content, and radio based data transport. All done by guerrilla style IT people. It is a great story of people getting it done. And a much more pure version of the internet. Late 90's to mid 2000's was the sweet spot of the internet.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2017, 18:31
You don't even understand what it is or what it does. You were informed of your opinion. You are the fool.
Oh, gee. You're right. I can't read and comprehend the immense amount of information regarding the subject that's available online and in print form (ie: newspapers). Maybe if I drink heavily tonight I'll kill enough brain cells to be as smart as you so I can understand it.
BushMasterBoy
11-22-2017, 18:42
I thought the intent of releasing the DARPANET to the public was so we know where the space aliens have landed on our planet. But even that has been censored. DYODD 214! Mabbe I is wrong
buffalobo
11-22-2017, 19:08
This can be an interesting discussion until you folks decide to start insulting each other.
Knock it off is only warning.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
Honey Badger282.8
11-22-2017, 22:59
I am a FIRM believer in free markets and capitalism. HOWEVER, in certain instances, like Public Utilities (Electricity, Cable TV, and yes even Internet access), companies have been granted monopolies or duopolies in most areas to provide those services. When consumers of electricity for instance are not given a choice on who to buy their power from, some form of regulation is necessary to level out the playing field. This is the case with Internet providers. My only REAL choice for high speed internet access is Comcast. They have a virtual monopoly on the bandwidth I require, and I do not want them determining what content I receive, nor do I want them to have the ability to offer the content they own (NBC, etc) at preferred cost or data rates. Capitalism works on a level playing field, but in this case, there is NOT a level playing field.
Well said.
buffalobo
11-22-2017, 23:01
buffalobo isn't neutral, he'll pick someone and punch em in the stomach. Be wary!
Kick em inda dick.
CNET: Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-means-your-internet-may-never-be-the-same/ar-BBFv0w6)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants the US government to stop "micromanaging the internet."
On Tuesday he introduced a proposal to repeal the controversial 2015 net neutrality rules that prevented broadband companies from blocking or slowing down access to websites or services.
While many people agree with the basic principles of net neutrality, these specific rules have been a lightning rod for controversy. That's because in order to get the rules to hold up in court, the FCC reclassified broadband networks so that they fell under the same strict regulations that govern telephone networks.
Pai has called the Obama-era rules "heavy-handed" and "a mistake," and he argues that they've deterred innovation and depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks. To set things right, he says, he's taking the FCC back a "light touch" approach to regulation.
A draft copy of Pai's repeal proposal (PDF) was released to the public on Wednesday. Don't feel like you have to plow through all the bureaucratic and technical complexities to get a handle on the situation. We've assembled this FAQ to put everything in plain English.
If they can keep this under 'light touch' regulation as it was in the past, I'm cool with it.
Delfuego
11-23-2017, 07:54
Oh, gee. You're right. I can't read and comprehend the immense amount of information regarding the subject that's available online and in print form (ie: newspapers). Maybe if I drink heavily tonight I'll kill enough brain cells to be as smart as you so I can understand it.Please inform us all of your vast knowledge of routing and protocols...
68Charger
11-23-2017, 07:56
CNET has B.S. title meant for FUD... "your" internet will likely change anyway, technology is always evolving.
And I think Ridge (and others) have their tinfoil aimed at Corporations instead of gov't....
Multiple corporate bureaucracies are better than a single Gov't one... for example: can a corporation arrest you?
Gov't can create laws regarding how you use the 'net, then arrest those that don't comply.
Sure, I'm being dramatic... but it explains why I think putting any alphabet gang in charge via 'net neutrality' (we also know how the left LOVES to redefine terms or outright lie to get what they want.) Is far worse than allowing free market forces to work.
Great-Kazoo
11-23-2017, 09:30
CNET has B.S. title meant for FUD... "your" internet will likely change anyway, technology is always evolving.
And I think Ridge (and others) have their tinfoil aimed at Corporations instead of gov't....
Multiple corporate bureaucracies are better than a single Gov't one... for example: can a corporation arrest you?
Gov't can create laws regarding how you use the 'net, then arrest those that don't comply.
Sure, I'm being dramatic... but it explains why I think putting any alphabet gang in charge via 'net neutrality' (we also know how the left LOVES to redefine terms or outright lie to get what they want.) Is far worse than allowing free market forces to work.
Like the IRS in charge of your health ins?
Delfuego
11-23-2017, 09:43
Like the IRS in charge of your health ins?More like regulation of water and electricity.
What country invented the 'net? The good ol' USA, where new ideas flourish if they meet the needs of the people. We have a HUGE national network built by companies meeting the desires of a consumer base (individuals and corporate) with money to spend on it.
Command economies like the USSR/China can't build anything like the 'net because there wasn't a reason to, no profit motive, there is no point to invent anything new because the potential consumers can't buy it anyway so the was no market for it. Inventions don't come out of coercive, restrictive societies unless we're talking about new ways to control people and destroy their hopes and aspirations.
What country pays the most for the slowest speeds in the developed world? The good ol' USA.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KzHEfV8iuqEbFN0Em9__gD_LFck=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8640691/akamai_mobile_average_connectivity_q1_2017_copy_01 .png
68Charger
11-23-2017, 10:21
What country pays the most for the slowest speeds in the developed world? The good ol' USA.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KzHEfV8iuqEbFN0Em9__gD_LFck=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8640691/akamai_mobile_average_connectivity_q1_2017_copy_01 .png
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics...
Comparing a country like the UK, with a population density approaching 400 per sq km to the US, where there are 11 states larger then the UK, some VERY remote areas (like Alaska) to skew statistics, and a overall population density around 95 per sq mile (which is 2.59x larger than a sq km)... just absurd, unless you're pushingan agenda... why would a content provider/aggregator like Akamai want to push any agenda, hmmm?
You are free to choose where you live, so you can move to a city with fiber service... if you want free internet, feel free to move to a socialist country.
So I'm not buying what you're selling
ETA: besides, technology that increases speed comes in cycles... and requires capital investment to upgrade infrastructure. If you want faster, cheaper internet and think all the existing ones are ripping people off, then start building your own network... I'm sure you'll have lots of customers if you're faster, cheaper, and service level is good.
Grant H.
11-23-2017, 10:34
With zero throttling, you would wind up with 1% of internet users hogging 90+% of the bandwidth. Throttling is how you manage an oversubscribed network... want to not have an oversubscribed network? open your wallet, because it's going to cost you dearly.
There are technologies coming that will give more ISP options- even rural... but that doesn't mean companies providing that service plan on competing on price.... OTOH- if you limit their profit potential by forcing them to comply with gov't regulations, it's possible they'll decide it's not worth the investment to provide the other option at all.
This isn't a simple issue.
Simple bandwidth throttling is fine, and I agree, it's how you deal with an oversubscribed network. Being involved in a WISP means I am probably more aware of bandwidth throttling than most.
Throttling based on content of traffic is a problem, and it is happening.
The solution to "net neutrality" is a very simple sentence: "ISP's cannot limit traffic based on content".
Anything beyond that is the usual .gov over reach.
68Charger
11-23-2017, 10:40
More like regulation of water and electricity.
Yeah, because the equipment to deliver power and water becomes obsolete every 5 years or so.... so they're exactly alike. [Roll1]
Most of Texas has deregulated electricity... allowing you to choose your electricity provider- which results in lower prices (if you shop around, there are lots of choices) and many of us have our own water sources... I haven't paid a bill to a water utility in over 20 years... and there are also private, deregulated water companies in some areas.
Go to a community where they regulate your internet, but stop messing with mine!
68Charger
11-23-2017, 10:44
Simple bandwidth throttling is fine, and I agree, it's how you deal with an oversubscribed network. Being involved in a WISP means I am probably more aware of bandwidth throttling than most.
Throttling based on content of traffic is a problem, and it is happening.
The solution to "net neutrality" is a very simple sentence: "ISP's cannot limit traffic based on content".
Anything beyond that is the usual .gov over reach.
A statement that simple could make it illegal to defend against a DDOS attack...
And where does the .gov NOT over-reach when they are given some control?
Grant H.
11-23-2017, 11:06
What country pays the most for the slowest speeds in the developed world? The good ol' USA.
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KzHEfV8iuqEbFN0Em9__gD_LFck=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8640691/akamai_mobile_average_connectivity_q1_2017_copy_01 .png
68Charger is absolutely correct in pointing out that population density plays a tremendous role in speed provided.
This chart isn't what we are discussing in the first place though, this is all about Mobile connectivity speeds... IE your cell phone. Wireless connectivity is even more suspect to population density than broadband access. Cell towers require backbone infrastructure, wireless or hard line, and their range is limited by the simple fact that radio signals, especially broadband ones, can't carry long distance in a PTMP configuration with a poor excuse for an antenna on one end (cell phone).
Yeah, because the equipment to deliver power and water becomes obsolete every 5 years or so.... so they're exactly alike. [Roll1]
In the 1990s and early 2010s, the ISPs got tens of billions of tax dollars in government grants with the requirement it be used to improve their infrastructure. And they didn't. They owe the people improvement.
Most of Texas has deregulated electricity... allowing you to choose your electricity provider- which results in lower prices (if you shop around, there are lots of choices) and many of us have our own water sources... I haven't paid a bill to a water utility in over 20 years... and there are also private, deregulated water companies in some areas.
Cool, how many internet providers can you choose from? And of those, how much of their competitive prices are only for the first 6 months to a year, and then the rates jump?
Go to a community where they regulate your internet, but stop messing with mine!
You DO realize that the ISPs WILL be messing with yours, right? It's already proven that they throttle Netflix users. Netflix had to pay Comcast to stop them from doing it. And they won't eat that cost, so it goes to all the customers, who now pay more for the same service.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
When your entire country can fit in the Los Angeles Basin, it's a lot easier to provide fast Internet connectivity.
When your entire country can fit in the Los Angeles Basin, it's a lot easier to provide fast Internet connectivity.
My grandmother lives in the LA basin and her AT&T U-Verse is absolute shit. 6kb/s down, half that up. I spent a week there and tethered to my phone almost exclusively.
68Charger
11-23-2017, 14:17
In the 1990s and early 2010s, the ISPs got tens of billions of tax dollars in government grants with the requirement it be used to improve their infrastructure. And they didn't. They owe the people improvement.
And they did improve- we could argue about how far it went, and how you aren't satisfied with that... unless they're improving faster than other countries, apparently.
Cool, how many internet providers can you choose from? And of those, how much of their competitive prices are only for the first 6 months to a year, and then the rates jump?
Maybe 3... I chose one that doesn't play pricing games, they're expensive- but when they talked about the latency of their network, I knew they at least know something about what they're doing- most ISPs don't give a lick about it.
You DO realize that the ISPs WILL be messing with yours, right? It's already proven that they throttle Netflix users. Netflix had to pay Comcast to stop them from doing it. And they won't eat that cost, so it goes to all the customers, who now pay more for the same service.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/
There are ways to combat that (VPN for example) I pay well for my internet service, so I have been guaranteed no throttling, no caps, no question... It's practically business class service- but I work out of my house... so easy to justify the cost compared to commuting 40 miles each way (to Dallas Metro, yuck). If it becomes a problem, I'l address it- but right now I've had 4 streams of Neflix at once with no issues.
Netflix doesn't play very well with ISPs, either... they pissed a lot of them off- they hide what their traffic is, they make demands, threaten lawsuits... I knew small ISPs that told them if they're served for a lawsuit, they'll have to shut their doors... didn't help much, he had to sell his business.
and here is the BOTTOM LINE:
Getting the Gov't involved with it more will only make it worse in the long run.... it's not a free market now, they're already messing with it. If the Gov't tells ISPs they HAVE to do something, do you think they're going to expand their network in an area where they know they have these legal issues to deal with? Internet is not an entitlement, IMO- and competition can eventually help... but people are impatient.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2017, 17:17
and here is the BOTTOM LINE:
Getting the Gov't involved with it more will only make it worse in the long run.... it's not a free market now, they're already messing with it. If the Gov't tells ISPs they HAVE to do something, do you think they're going to expand their network in an area where they know they have these legal issues to deal with? Internet is not an entitlement, IMO- and competition can eventually help... but people are impatient.
Exactly. That is the bottom line. Get the gov't to protect you from the evil ISP corporations (or anything else) at your own peril.
I don't have to be a technical expert to understand that getting the gov't involved any more than necessary is not a good thing. And gov't NEVER stops when they've done enough.
OtterbatHellcat
11-23-2017, 20:00
They never stop when they don't do anything at all either.
If they mess all this up worse than it is already, ..........just throw all this shit in the trash, save some money and read a book, visit a friend, etc. You know....like we used to do.
Remember...none of this was an issue of public prominence until Comcast bought NBC et al and promptly announced their plans to de-prioritize all non-NBC related content
BushMasterBoy
11-23-2017, 20:51
Maybe Wall Street will push for more fiber optic connections. I can see the day when data transmission will be photons and not electrons. Computers made with optical switching instead of semiconductor PN junctions.
jhood001
11-23-2017, 21:47
Throttling based on content of traffic is a problem, and it is happening.
The solution to "net neutrality" is a very simple sentence: "ISP's cannot limit traffic based on content".
Anything beyond that is the usual .gov over reach.
That is the nuts and bolts of it in my opinion. I seem to notice the 'keep government out of everything' crowd also subscribes to belief that 'media is heavily biased to the left'. I won't say the former is a horrible thing and I won't necessarily disagree with the latter.
However, if you believe media is biased, why on earth would you want those people controlling what you see and do online and how much you pay for it? It is much more complicated than that, but taking a firm stance against net neutrality at this phase in the game shocks me.
A statement that simple could make it illegal to defend against a DDOS attack...
That statement, sure. But I imagine actual law would be a bit more robust in language. Those that work within this field for a living know how easily attacks can be identified from other traffic... at least as things are today.
And where does the .gov NOT over-reach when they are given some control?
About as frequently as industry. I believe that we can be intelligent in limiting both from totally screwing us.
jhood001
11-23-2017, 21:48
But if the gov't controls it and they take an action you disagree with? The gov't is immune, and a civil rights suit would probably fail. There is nothing that motivates the gov't. What are you going to do, not pay taxes?
Aaaaand that is good point, too.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2017, 22:02
The ISP we have is run by the Nez Perce Tribe, believe it or not. It's one of those hi-speed radio types. The highest level of service is 9mbps. Costs $60 month. But if you pay a year in advance you get two months free. So that's what we do. And speeds are pretty consistently close to the advertised.
They don't have any bandwidth or data limits. They come out and install the equipment, turn it on, test it and leave you alone. They have no policies at all on pretty much anything as long as you pay your bill. I stream stuff on Amazon and Netflix on a daily basis. Even when the two of us are streaming it's not that bad.
Honestly, it's pretty good service considering our location and I think we had one brief outage in two years. We're just about to renew the service for our third year and I don't really have any complaints. Of course, I don't any options, either. Except satellite...and that really isn't an option. If you have a problem you reach the tech support after hours on the personal cell phones of the employees.
Just from what I know about the company it's probably a model for how an ISP should work.
OtterbatHellcat
11-23-2017, 22:14
I believe that we can be intelligent in limiting both from totally screwing us.
Now...THAT...is a positive outlook. Your glass is half full, Sir.
Personally I do not trust Sam with anything, unless the topic is Effing stuff up more than it already was. Those collective elected and appointed creeps aren't directly affected by the decisions that they arbitrate upon our society. In this democratic system we have, they are effectively dictating from a distance.
Zundfolge
11-27-2017, 11:25
Justin sent me the following link that covers the issue rationally.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7fq8uw/supreme_red_pill_comprehensive_breakdown_of_the/.compact
68Charger
11-27-2017, 12:06
I always like to ask not what the benefits are, but the potential for abuse. This issue is very complex and of course cannot be reduced into simple one liners, but here I've done it anyway. Everyone already spouts off the worst corporate abuse that they can think of... throttling! But what about the gov't side as you open the door to permit future regulation?
Whats the potential for abuse when you start to give internet control to the gov't. Thing long term...
What a tempting fruit for certain people over time.
"Hate speech regulation" "Terrorist website regulation" "Promotion of violence" "Sexual assault regulation" blah blah blah I could suger coat any one of these and get 75% of society to agree that regulating these classifications of expression online are a good thing.
I'm always amazed when people think federal regulation helps anything.... especially when there isn't a single person alive that has a handle on even 25% of F.C.R. Who needs to read whats there, lets pass more! --- Modern government.
If the 2nd amendment was intended for muskets, not ASSault weapons, then the 1st amendment was intended for manual printing presses, not global instant communications directly with billions of people (and porn).
so all it takes is the wrong group gaining power, and it will be abused.
asystejs
11-27-2017, 12:20
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/11/27/dear-aunt-sadie-please-step-back-from-the-ledge-on-net-neutrality (https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/11/27/dear-aunt-sadie-please-step-back-from-the-ledge-on-net-neutrality/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix&yptr=yahoo&ref=yfp#4fe684367d6c)
Great-Kazoo
11-27-2017, 12:26
Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508
Can or will? Based on past experience with federal & state regulators, their word (in writing) is as useless as my 2 yr old grandniece telling me she will not make a mess in her room ever again.
BushMasterBoy
11-27-2017, 13:05
FCC =F Cape Canaveral
Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.508
Can or will? Based on past experience with federal & state regulators, their word (in writing) is as useless as my 2 yr old grandniece telling me she will not make a mess in her room ever again.
Comcast just backed off of that promise and are considering pay to play.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/
Aloha_Shooter
11-27-2017, 17:54
I was kind of hoping this thread was started as a tongue-in-cheek spoof but then I saw who started it.
"Net neutrality" is social justice bull puckey to justify USG interference in the marketplace and also to subsidize millennials who somehow have to stream video everywhere they go. The whole concept started because service providers were throttling high bandwidth users -- primarily people who used video or audio streaming -- in order to preserve bandwidth at reasonable costs for everyone else. NO, you DON'T have a Constitutional right to high bandwidth at low cost everywhere you go.
I was kind of hoping that this thread wouldn't devolve into a bunch of adult men acting like little kids based on who started the thread and there'd actually be useful information from people in the know. Alas, I was immediately, and unsurprisingly, disappointed. The thread seemed to get back on track for a little, and now it's coming back full circle.
I was kind of hoping this thread was started as a tongue-in-cheek spoof but then I saw who started it.
"Net neutrality" is social justice bull puckey to justify USG interference in the marketplace and also to subsidize millennials who somehow have to stream video everywhere they go. The whole concept started because service providers were throttling high bandwidth users -- primarily people who used video or audio streaming -- in order to preserve bandwidth at reasonable costs for everyone else. NO, you DON'T have a Constitutional right to high bandwidth at low cost everywhere you go.
Jeez Grandpa, hope you didn't mess up your carpal tunnel with all that virtue signaling. Nobody said anything about a constitutional right.
Don't make me pull this car over!
Don't make me pull this car over!
Given long enough, every thread on this website will try to blame something on Mexicans, Marijuana, and/or Hillary Clinton. Any disagreement in opinion will be shrugged off because one poster or another is "just a liberal," no actual thoughtful discussion will occur. The thread will swirl and burn for a few more posts, then BushMasterBoy will show up and blame it on aliens.
I just saved everyone hours and hours and hours of reading threads beyond the first three or four posts.
Given long enough, every thread on this website will try to blame something on Mexicans, Marijuana, and/or Hillary Clinton. Any disagreement in opinion will be shrugged off because one poster or another is "just a liberal," no actual thoughtful discussion will occur. The thread will swirl and burn for a few more posts, then BushMasterBoy will show up and blame it on aliens.
I just saved everyone hours and hours and hours of reading threads beyond the first three or four posts.
So on behalf of Mexicans, Marijuana, Hillary Clinton and aliens, Thank you?
Move along people. Nothing else to see here.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.