First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Net Neutrality
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 11/23/17 , edited 11/23/17

MopZ wrote:


Sawilagar wrote:

It's just the internet going crazy over a few Net Neutrality rules that have only been in place since 2015, and they're all acting like the internet was horrible before then.


Net neutrality is one of the founding principles of the internet. It has been there since the start, and cable companies have been trying to get rid of it to make the internet into something similar to television with package deal which you can see in things like cellular plans. The internet wasn't horrible, but the rule of net neutrality had much less protection from outright removal. Pai and Verizon are lying scumbags.


https://wccftech.com/net-neutrality-abuses-timeline/

Here is a compressed timeline of ISPs blatantly abusing their powers before net neutrality. Denying services their customers payed for, censoring and corrupt, underhanded dealings that helped the already filthy rich at the expense of the middle class among other things. Anyone is free to tell me why anybody should want to go back to that besides greedy corporations trying to gain more and more power, but I somehow doubt they will make a convincing argument.
mxdan 
12366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 11/23/17 , edited 11/23/17

Hellhunter22 wrote:

Yeah it's gonna be repealed and there's pretty much nothing that can be done about it. Ajit Pai already basically said he doesn't really care about the public's general opinion on the matter.

So not only will it be more expensive for consumers who now need to buy the internet in packages of what they want (not including the fees internet providers will probably charge other companies to be included in those packages that will be handed down to consumers as well) but the internet will also become very limited in general so you're getting less.

This wouldn't actually be the worst thing ever but there just isn't enough competition in the US to justify this. Many areas still only have one or two internet providers which basically means they're gonna do whatever the hell they want to. This also makes it quite difficult for small business with websites as this could just be another fee for them to pay to have their websites included. Web development in general might take a hit from this.

Also this can massively restrict freedom on the internet even more so if the provider might have an affiliation with a company or political party that could restrict access to websites that don't benefit them. Do I think it's gonna get quite this bad? Not entirely. Overall I can say this isn't good for the general public though.


I'm gonna play devils advocate here and say you are undervaluing the socio economic impact the internet has on people. Buisness is largely conducted over the internet these days, hell discussion in general is. Imagine if public discussion and trading was mediated by a few powerful companies in a public forum. People would be up in arms. This has vast concesquences as the internet is arguably the most important tool humanity has ever developed and the FCC is trying to give the keys to a few wealthy companies. It's something the public can't ignore. But a lot of avenues have been utterly silent on the issue because they operate on the cable companies to begin with. Besides john Oliver where is the coverage on public television? We need to reach the everyday small town person but can't because these companies yield so much influence. It's terrible really.
118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/24/17 , edited 11/26/17
Fuck Ajit Pai

I'm hoping they really raise the prices and act like real SOB's so that people will finally get up out protest in masses. Shit ain't gonna get done until that happens.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 11/24/17 , edited 11/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:


MopZ wrote:


Sawilagar wrote:

It's just the internet going crazy over a few Net Neutrality rules that have only been in place since 2015, and they're all acting like the internet was horrible before then.


Net neutrality is one of the founding principles of the internet. It has been there since the start, and cable companies have been trying to get rid of it to make the internet into something similar to television with package deal which you can see in things like cellular plans. The internet wasn't horrible, but the rule of net neutrality had much less protection from outright removal. Pai and Verizon are lying scumbags.


https://wccftech.com/net-neutrality-abuses-timeline/

Here is a compressed timeline of ISPs blatantly abusing their powers before net neutrality. Denying services their customers payed for, censoring and corrupt, underhanded dealings that helped the already filthy rich at the expense of the middle class among other things. Anyone is free to tell me why anybody should want to go back to that besides greedy corporations trying to gain more and more power, but I somehow doubt they will make a convincing argument.


If I remember right this wasn't even net neutrality when it was passed. Now its being called net neutrality after the fact. People were complaining that it excepted comcast and other ISP's from lawsuits and opened up federal regulation when it was passed.

Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality. Your arguments are that repealing it will allow the ISP's to charge you more but right now the ISP's are against repealing it which is strange for a greedy as fuck company like comcast. Almost as if its better for comcast if the current rules stay in place. It just seems really suspicious right now because comcast is almost always against the consumer.

I haven't really had time to go back and look though, black friday and whatnot.
3876 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/24/17 , edited 11/24/17

Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 11/24/17 , edited 11/24/17

Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


No, because it doesn't exist.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-asks-the-fcc-to-prohibit-states-from-enforcing-net-neutrality/%3famp=1

Rujikin caught lying. What a surprise. Comcast has been one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality. The closest thing I could find to them lobbying in favor of ot was a blurb on their website that said they are for it. Their actions are, of course, incongruent with that.
4516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/24/17 , edited 11/24/17
2TB data cap lowered to 1TB data cap--- next will be 500GB data cap

unless you are a loner or use the web just to browse for information no stream/download--- 1TB is not enough

What could happen if we lose net neutrality?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJxlJlObNg


"THROTTLE" -- soon a lot of people will understand this word and see more of this....

3873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17
I got this message after visiting a site yesterday
15404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17
Verizon, AT&T, CNN's parent company Time Warner and 10-time Worst Company of All Time® award winner comcast are all eager to have net neutrality repealed. WaPo's parent company Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc are all lobbying against repealing it.

democrat senators will for sure vote against repealing it, so it all comes down to republican senators. citizens from repulican states (Texas, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, etc) need to pressure their senators to vote against it.
17581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17

namealreadytaken wrote:

Verizon, AT&T, CNN's parent company Time Warner and 10-time Worst Company of All Time® award winner comcast are all eager to have net neutrality repealed. WaPo's parent company Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc are all lobbying against repealing it.

democrat senators will for sure vote against repealing it, so it all comes down to republican senators. citizens from repulican states (Texas, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, etc) need to pressure their senators to vote against it.


Actually congress has no say in this decision. It is being voted on by a fcc "commission " made up of unellected career beurocrats and political appointees. The original rules were never taken up by congress to become law so... what is created by commission or presidential decree can be undone by the same.

Congress should take the issue up but, as both parties collectively accept hundreds of millions in campaign donations from the ISPs....... well that ain't anny more likely now than it was 3 years ago lmao.
39173 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

dulun18 wrote:

I got this message after visiting a site yesterday


In addition to adding your name address and email to send a message, they want you to call them on your phone, so that the Congress can hear your voice asking them to protect Net Neutrality.


octorockandroll wrote:

If it has not been posted already, here is an easy way for US citizens to contact their congressmen and women to tell them about their thoughts on ending net neutrality.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/


Are you fighting for Net Neutrality?

If you are, it would be the first time you and I have EVER agreed on anything.


octorockandroll wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


No, because it doesn't exist.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-asks-the-fcc-to-prohibit-states-from-enforcing-net-neutrality/%3famp=1

Rujikin caught lying. What a surprise. Comcast has been one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality. The closest thing I could find to them lobbying in favor of ot was a blurb on their website that said they are for it. Their actions are, of course, incongruent with that.


Then that's the source! Rujikin wasn't lying. Maybe you just didn't want to give him credit for at least being confused about why they would be for it. It's probably double speak and misinformation on their part to confuse Americans about the issue.

For those confused about what this is about, here is a short video that will help clear it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=UsyzP5hejxI

If you want to tell Congress to protect Net Neutrality, use octorockandroll's link.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17

Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


I read a little early this week about some ISP's opposing moving the internet from FCC back to FTC control (Thats what this is really about). I should have saved the stuff...

ATT seems to oppose the FTC having control over the internet VS the FCC having control (what your referring to as net neutrality): https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/07/11/is-twitter-blocking-net-neutrality-opinions-it-doesnt-like/#14bcc12f3c2d

I really shouldn't need to link about ISP's being against net neutrality.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/26/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


No, because it doesn't exist.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-asks-the-fcc-to-prohibit-states-from-enforcing-net-neutrality/%3famp=1

Rujikin caught lying. What a surprise. Comcast has been one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality. The closest thing I could find to them lobbying in favor of ot was a blurb on their website that said they are for it. Their actions are, of course, incongruent with that.


You just posted a link proving that Comcast (An ISP) is against Net Neutrality and proving one of my points while saying my proof doesn't exist and calling me a liar. You really have it out for me don't you but guess what, we both agree comcast is against net neutrality.



ruJIkIN CaUght lYING. WhAt a SURpRiSe. COMCaST hAS beeN ONE OF tHE BIGgEsT oppoNeNTs OF nET NEUtRAlitY. THE closeST thIng i coUlD fInD To THem LobBYING iN Favor of Ot waS a BLUrB On Their wEbsItE ThAT saID THEy Are fOR it. Their actioNS aRE, oF cOURse, InconGruEnT with thAT.
3876 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


dulun18 wrote:

I got this message after visiting a site yesterday


In addition to adding your name address and email to send a message, they want you to call them on your phone, so that the Congress can hear your voice asking them to protect Net Neutrality.


Just from eyeballing it, that looks suspiciously like a scam. You don't need to go through a third party to contact your representatives, unless you count said representatives' subordinates. My guess is, that's someone trying to take advantage of the fervor to collect people's personal information. I would advise against relying on a go-between like that.






Rujikin wrote:

I read a little early this week about some ISP's opposing moving the internet from FCC back to FTC control (Thats what this is really about). I should have saved the stuff...

ATT seems to oppose the FTC having control over the internet VS the FCC having control (what your referring to as net neutrality): https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/07/11/is-twitter-blocking-net-neutrality-opinions-it-doesnt-like/#14bcc12f3c2d

I really shouldn't need to link about ISP's being against net neutrality.


Well, it's certainly no surprise the companies don't like internet being classified as a common carrier service, but that's not all that's being rolled back.

Considering the FTC rules are, as far as I am aware, meant to prevent the large ISPs from working together to get an effective monopoly on the industry, I see no reason not to let them remain subject to those regulations, as that is something said ISPs have been trying to do. Of course, whether those regulations need work or not is another matter entirely.

Anyways, do you you have anything indicating they actually are lobbying against net neutrality being repealed, as opposed to just providing lip service? Because that's the impression I got from it.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Right now comcast and the ISP's are lobbying heavily against this being repealed which is strange because they have always been against net neutrality.


This is the first I've heard that. Care to share your source?


No, because it doesn't exist.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-asks-the-fcc-to-prohibit-states-from-enforcing-net-neutrality/%3famp=1

Rujikin caught lying. What a surprise. Comcast has been one of the biggest opponents of net neutrality. The closest thing I could find to them lobbying in favor of ot was a blurb on their website that said they are for it. Their actions are, of course, incongruent with that.


You just posted a link proving that Comcast (An ISP) is against Net Neutrality and proving one of my points while saying my proof doesn't exist and calling me a liar. You really have it out for me don't you but guess what, we both agree comcast is against net neutrality.



ruJIkIN CaUght lYING. WhAt a SURpRiSe. COMCaST hAS beeN ONE OF tHE BIGgEsT oppoNeNTs OF nET NEUtRAlitY. THE closeST thIng i coUlD fInD To THem LobBYING iN Favor of Ot waS a BLUrB On Their wEbsItE ThAT saID THEy Are fOR it. Their actioNS aRE, oF cOURse, InconGruEnT with thAT.


Your proof does indeed not exist since I already proved you were full of shit when saying comcast was lobbying against net neutrality being repealed.

Try again.
24648 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
777 / The White House
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

Mishio1 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

I read a little early this week about some ISP's opposing moving the internet from FCC back to FTC control (Thats what this is really about). I should have saved the stuff...

ATT seems to oppose the FTC having control over the internet VS the FCC having control (what your referring to as net neutrality): https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/07/11/is-twitter-blocking-net-neutrality-opinions-it-doesnt-like/#14bcc12f3c2d

I really shouldn't need to link about ISP's being against net neutrality.


Well, it's certainly no surprise the companies don't like internet being classified as a common carrier service, but that's not all that's being rolled back.

Considering the FTC rules are, as far as I am aware, meant to prevent the large ISPs from working together to get an effective monopoly on the industry, I see no reason not to let them remain subject to those regulations, as that is something said ISPs have been trying to do. Of course, whether those regulations need work or not is another matter entirely.

Anyways, do you you have anything indicating they actually are lobbying against net neutrality being repealed, as opposed to just providing lip service? Because that's the impression I got from it.


You should really look into this. It's being labeled as repealing net neutrality but its really just handing the internet back to the FTC who had control of it for the past 20+ years, has the internet really been that bad from 2000-2015. It's kind of like labeling something as the "save puppy and kitten lives act" when its really gun control or whatever else you don't like, they are lying to us on something we universally support which is strange.

There have been at least 3 different attempts at "net neutrality" that happened just like this. They said it was net neutrality legislation, huge amount of astroturfing and saying they are trying to save the internet and they need your help, but it was regulation over the internet that was targeted at piracy/offensivecontent, then after weeks of saving the internet people found out it was going to destroy the internet and they changed their opinions. So I am a bit cautious of anything that follows this same pattern.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

Paragraph 109


Utility-Style Regulation of Broadband Is a Solution in Search of a Problem

The Internet was open before Title II, and many economic factors support openness. The Internet thrived for decades under the light-touch regulatory regime in place before the Title II Order, as ISPs built networks and edge services were born. We find that the sparse evidence of harms discussed in the Title II Order—evidence repeated by commenters in this proceeding as the basis for adopting a Title II classification—demonstrates that the incremental benefits of Title II over light-touch regulation are inconsequential, and pale in comparison to the significant costs of public-utility regulation.408



https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf


On the face, the FCC critizes draconian ISP behavior, but there are many caveats within the regulation. For example, everybody keeps saying that ISPs and mobile providers are totally against being regulated under Title II, but Sprint, Verizon, and others seem to have no problem with it, as admitted in the regulation.

Page 5795-5796:


Tellingly, major infrastructure providers have indicated that they will in fact continue to invest under the framework we adopt, despite suggesting otherwise in their filed comments in this proceeding.1220 For example, Sprint asserts in a letter in this proceeding that “[s]o long as the FCC continues to allow wireless carriers to manage our networks and differentiate our products, Sprint will continue to invest in data networks regardless of whether they are regulated by Title II, Section 706, or some other light touch regulatory regime.”1221 It adds that “Sprint does not believe that a light touch application of Title II, including appropriate forbearance, would harm the continued investment in, and deployment of, mobile broadband services.”1222 Verizon’s chief financial officer, Francis Shammo, told investors in a conference call in response to a question about the effect of “this move to Title II,” that “I mean to be real clear, I mean this does not influence the way we invest. I mean we’re going to continue to invest in our networks and our platforms, both in Wireless and Wireline FiOS and where we need to. So nothing will influence that. I mean if you think about it, look, I mean we were born out of a highly regulated company, so we know how this operates.”1223


Notice the bolded part; the broadband providers do not oppose it and can easily deal with the extra regulation. There are plenty of reasons why. Obviously, they can afford the lawyers. But NN also has exceptions to the rules.

For example, it allows broadband providers to circumvent the "no throttling" regulation by using the "network management" loophole. Verizon has used this to throttle Netflix streaming.

The ramifications on smaller and up and coming broadband providers is unknown, but there are numerous sections that try to downplay and soften the blow that this would have on competition, which is already almost nonexistent.

There is also a misconception about data caps. The FCC NN regulation does not disallow home broadband providers from capping your data.

Page 5668-5669:


The record also reflects differing views over some broadband providers’ practices with respect to usage allowances (also called “data caps”). Usage allowances place limits on the volume of data downloaded by the end user during a fixed period. Once a cap has been reached, the speed at which the end user can access the Internet may be reduced to a slower speed, or the end user may be charged for excess data. Usage allowances may benefit consumers by offering them more choices over a greater range of service options, and, for mobile broadband networks, such plans are the industry norm today, in part reflecting the different capacity issues on mobile networks. Conversely, some commenters have expressed concern that such practices can potentially be used by broadband providers to disadvantage competing over-the-top providers. Given the unresolved debate concerning the benefits and drawbacks of data allowances and usage-based pricing plans, we decline to make blanket findings about thesepractices and will address concerns under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage on a case-by- case basis.


I find it suspicious when people hear about XXX doing YYY with the internet then they immediately cry "THE INTERNET IS BEING DESTROYED" without even having had time to look into what is happening. Most people are just parroting at this point so its wise to learn whats actually going on instead of being another parrot.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.