Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner
 

NFT: The Battle for Net Neutrality

JayBinQueens : 7/12/2017 12:57 pm
Has anyone else seen this browsing the web today?

There was a push to have people write their congressmen about preventing net neutrality from going away today.

I've included the link below to send automated messages for those who don't want to actually write one (like me).

If this gets political (it shouldn't, but it's BBI) I'll delete.

Do things like this ever actually work?
Link - ( New Window )
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
RE: Are you blind?  
giants#1 : 7/12/2017 1:25 pm : link
In comment 13526377 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Or did you not read the exact content of my post?

Do you not know what the word "throttling" means?

You called me a dumbass then repeated exactly what I said, lololol.

Yeah, EXACTLY. Creating slow lanes for content that ISN'T theres and they want to discourage use of on their ISP - E.G. NETFLIX, SPOTIFY, ETC.

They can then charge more for these services to be used at acceptable speeds.

As for the link not working -- whoops, misread your tonality on the internet. No need to get your sand in your vagina, just ask for another link: Link - ( New Window )


READ YOUR OWN DAMN POSTS:

Quote:
Of course AT&T supports it, they're an ISP.


Quote:
So yeah, AT&T supporting NN is unsurprising.


Supporting NN is a good thing. If you are against throttling, then you are in favor of NN.

And the irony of your link not working is that that very well could be the result of ending NN.
That was a typo  
Sonic Youth : 7/12/2017 1:42 pm : link
As you can see from my posts, I meant AT&T *not* supporting NN.

And pjacs, I realize that now -- although I didn't when I posted the initial link.

Either way, the point is this: NN needs to be protected and there is no good reason (from the perspective of a consumer) for it to go from being treated like a public utility to being in the hands of the ISPs.
And yeah I misread your post  
Sonic Youth : 7/12/2017 1:42 pm : link
Cannot understand why AT&T would support NN
AT&T is joining the protest  
giant24 : 7/12/2017 2:00 pm : link
Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation."
Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )
RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
Heisenberg : 7/12/2017 2:06 pm : link
In comment 13526437 giant24 said:
Quote:
Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )


If you read this closely, this is NOT support for NN. This is them playing with double speak. They are decrying the 2015 decision which was in favor of Net Neutrality.
AT&T Verizon and Comcast etc.  
pjcas18 : 7/12/2017 2:07 pm : link
being "for" net neutrality is kind of a joke.

They're for it only in the case the rules are rewritten, and they all contribute to the rewritten rules.

It's kind of like drug dealers being for the legalization of drugs and they have the politicians writing the rules about legalization in their pocket.

Yea, reading that statement from AT&T  
giants#1 : 7/12/2017 2:11 pm : link
they are clearly in favor of Congress taking action to "ensure openness". So basically they are trying to gain PR points by supporting this push to get Congress involved.

Meanwhile, they are likely lobbying Congress to allow some loopholes for throttling and/or charging premiums
Yeah, don't be fooled by AT&T.  
GiantFilthy : 7/12/2017 2:16 pm : link
.
AT&T is joining a pro net neutrality rally even as it fights to kill current net neutrality rules - ( New Window )
The ISPs  
Metnut : 7/12/2017 2:18 pm : link
are very profitable now even with net neutrality in place. If the law goes away and they start jacking up all of their prices like crazy, wouldn't there be a window for someone else to come in an undercut them and take their business?

I think the heaviest of users (the top 1-2% or so of data users) might get hit with extra fees or throttling, but that would make things better for the rest of us either through lower prices per months or more reliable/better service with the data hogs being forced to pay for their fair share.
==========  
GiantFilthy : 7/12/2017 2:21 pm : link
RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
giant24 : 7/12/2017 2:37 pm : link
In comment 13526440 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 13526437 giant24 said:


Quote:


Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )



If you read this closely, this is NOT support for NN. This is them playing with double speak. They are decrying the 2015 decision which was in favor of Net Neutrality.



They are for an open internet just not government overreach of changing the internet into a utility that the government has control over. Who wants that?
Thank you, Filth  
wigs in nyc : 7/12/2017 2:41 pm : link
That's beautifully illustrated.
RE: RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
Heisenberg : 7/12/2017 2:41 pm : link
In comment 13526484 giant24 said:
Quote:
In comment 13526440 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


In comment 13526437 giant24 said:


Quote:


Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )



If you read this closely, this is NOT support for NN. This is them playing with double speak. They are decrying the 2015 decision which was in favor of Net Neutrality.




They are for an open internet just not government overreach of changing the internet into a utility that the government has control over. Who wants that?


Oh, they're for an open internet! Open, you say? That sounds amazing! What a great idea!

If you'd rather have Comcast, VZ or ATT charge you whatever they want to access whatever they see fit than have the government regulate it, just say so. But the "open internet" is totally meaningless horseshit. These companies have near monopolies, are also in many cases content providers and want to use their hold over subscribers accordingly. That's totally rational on their part, but let's not buy into their sales pitch that this is the government seizing control for control's sake.
GiantFilthy  
Go Terps : 7/12/2017 2:42 pm : link
Could you explain the picture you posted to me like I'm a five year old? I'm a cord cutter, unhappy with my current ISP, and looking for better alternatives (but I don't know shit about this topic).
RE: RE: RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
njm : 7/12/2017 2:49 pm : link
In comment 13526491 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
but let's not buy into their sales pitch that this is the government seizing control for control's sake.


But let's also not exclude that as at least a small part of the motivation. Show me a bureaucracy, even one that is doing some positive things, that does not want expand it's reach.
I just deleted a huge political post in this space.  
NoPeanutz : 7/12/2017 2:53 pm : link
Bottom line: Let James Dolan, an ISP owner, represent the archetypal antiNN supporter. If you think Fredo does a great job running the Knicks, and you would trust him to represent your best interests, not gouge you, and responsibly allow you access to the entire web at minimal cost, by all means, oppose NN and Title II regulation.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
Heisenberg : 7/12/2017 2:54 pm : link
In comment 13526501 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13526491 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


but let's not buy into their sales pitch that this is the government seizing control for control's sake.



But let's also not exclude that as at least a small part of the motivation. Show me a bureaucracy, even one that is doing some positive things, that does not want expand it's reach.


Of course that's fair. The government can always fuck things up. They have a reasonable point that the statutes in place didn't consider or encompass the internet as it stands today. It's just absurd that they're not acting strictly in their best interest and that their interests are also not the interests of the average consumer. Open internet, lol.
RE: GiantFilthy  
NoPeanutz : 7/12/2017 3:00 pm : link
In comment 13526493 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Could you explain the picture you posted to me like I'm a five year old? I'm a cord cutter, unhappy with my current ISP, and looking for better alternatives (but I don't know shit about this topic).

I think the pic is satirical. It represents what your ISP menu of services would look like in a world without NN.
You would pay for the hook-up, thats the 29.99 in the top left. Then, you would have to pay ala carte to have high-speed equal access to these other websites. Want fast NYTimes load times? Pay 5$ for the NEWS package. Want fast access to NETFLIX? Pay an extra 10$ for the streaming movies package.

Right now, you pay your ISP for a certain amount of speed. $40 for 50mbps per month. 50$ for 75mbps etc. And that speed goes for whatever website you want to visit, whatever you want to stream, whatever news you want to read.
Without NN, ISPs would be able to allow some websites through to you at different speeds, and slow down others. So they could prioritize what you read and see, and charge you (or the websites) fees to access those websites (or customers).
So AMAZON could in theory pay a higher fee to the ISP and crowd out other stores like eBay or Etsy or Craigslist from the market. Or they could launch their own ISP and block other retailers entirely.
Terps,  
GiantFilthy : 7/12/2017 3:04 pm : link
let's use the Hollywood package in that picture as the example.

Essentially without NN your ISP, if they wanted to, could throttle your service so much to the point where Netflix isn't watchable. However if you would pay extra for the Hollywood package they won't slow down your service.

Another thing to watch out for are the ISP's that are coming up with their own streaming service. They will have the option of charging say $24.99 for uninterrupted Netflix service. But why pay $24.99 when you can instead cancel your Netflix and pay them $11.99 for the new streaming service they supply?

Without NN they can do whatever the hell they want. Visit our partners sites? Sure, go forward with full speed. Visit our competitors? Throttle the fuck out of you.
==========  
GiantFilthy : 7/12/2017 3:07 pm : link
Quote:
A study by Maplight indicates that for every one comment submitted to the FCC on net neutrality (and there have been roughly 5 million so far), the telecom industry has spent $100 in lobbying to crush the open internet. The group found that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.
RE: ==========  
BrettNYG10 : 7/12/2017 3:10 pm : link
In comment 13526529 GiantFilthy said:
Quote:


Quote:


A study by Maplight indicates that for every one comment submitted to the FCC on net neutrality (and there have been roughly 5 million so far), the telecom industry has spent $100 in lobbying to crush the open internet. The group found that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent $572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008.



They have more money so they know what's best.
You guys keep saying this will keep provider costs down but from what  
giant24 : 7/12/2017 3:13 pm : link
I'm reading that prices broadbands charge are not in scope.

4. Will the FCC determine how much my broadband and wireless service costs?
No, the new rules don't regulate broadband rates or require providers to get the FCC's permission to offer new rate plans or new services. Broadband providers will still be able to offer new services and rates, which means they can add a faster tier of service, at a new price, without permission from the FCC.

That's different from the old-style telephone regulation. Under the full Title II regulation, phone companies were required to file tariffs with the FCC and wait for regulatory review before they could offer new products. The FCC said it is "forbearing" from using some of those requirements for broadband services.
RE: The ISPs  
giants#1 : 7/12/2017 3:16 pm : link
In comment 13526458 Metnut said:
Quote:
are very profitable now even with net neutrality in place. If the law goes away and they start jacking up all of their prices like crazy, wouldn't there be a window for someone else to come in an undercut them and take their business?

I think the heaviest of users (the top 1-2% or so of data users) might get hit with extra fees or throttling, but that would make things better for the rest of us either through lower prices per months or more reliable/better service with the data hogs being forced to pay for their fair share.


The problem is that right now most ISPs have monopolies or near monopolies, especially outside cities. I live in a suburb and last time I checked I basically had 3 options for access:
1. Frontier ~10 Mbps top speeds (last I checked)
2. Charter ~50 Mbps top speeds
3. Hughes (satellite internet)

So for someone in my shoes, if they killed NN and Charter decided to up their prices, my only real option is to switch to a company with much lower data rates. And streaming at those data rates would be difficult since you rarely get the advertised speeds anyway.

That said, as 5G starts rolling out (as soon as early 2018), there will likely be more options as it'll be a lot cheaper to do the "last mile" connectivity without requiring cable/fiber connection to each home.
It's not price for their service  
pjcas18 : 7/12/2017 3:23 pm : link
that is regulated by net neutrality it's price for and treatment of content/data.

In other words all content must be treated equally.

this would discourage alliances and increased costs for ISP's to provide content without extorting fees from content providers (like Amazon, netflix, hulu, etc.) which would then be passed along to consumers as well as apps too.

regardless of the source net neutrality principle is all data should be treated the same regardless of who is accessing it (within their tiered access plan structure), what type of content it is, the origin, platform, etc.
My  
AcidTest : 7/12/2017 4:04 pm : link
guess is that if Net Neutrality goes away, it won't be gone for long. Corporate America was fantastically successful at jamming arbitration clauses into just about every contract to preclude class action lawsuits. A pair of Supreme Court decisions pretty much cemented their position into law.

Not so with NN. Most people aren't going to sue their ISP, credit card company, etc. But tens or even hundreds of millions of people are accustomed to using the Internet in a certain fashion. Start charging people for what they previously got for free, and there will be an avalanche of protest that might well be strong enough to force Congress to bring NN back. That is especially true given that many people have so little money they effectively use the Internet as a substitute for going out.

It's really hard to make people pay for something they've always gotten for free.
RE: RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
Sonic Youth : 7/12/2017 4:07 pm : link
In comment 13526484 giant24 said:
Quote:
In comment 13526440 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


In comment 13526437 giant24 said:


Quote:


Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )



If you read this closely, this is NOT support for NN. This is them playing with double speak. They are decrying the 2015 decision which was in favor of Net Neutrality.




They are for an open internet just not government overreach of changing the internet into a utility that the government has control over. Who wants that?


??? Why shouldn't the internet be treated as a public utility?
==========  
GiantFilthy : 7/12/2017 4:10 pm : link
Does anybody have a link to a well-researched article on this  
Moondawg : 7/12/2017 4:26 pm : link
that isn't obviously advocacy?
or pandering (looking at you, AT&T)  
Moondawg : 7/12/2017 4:27 pm : link
.
RE: RE: RE: AT&T is joining the protest  
BMac : 7/12/2017 4:37 pm : link
In comment 13526484 giant24 said:
Quote:
In comment 13526440 Heisenberg said:


Quote:


In comment 13526437 giant24 said:


Quote:


Read their blog post:

They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )



If you read this closely, this is NOT support for NN. This is them playing with double speak. They are decrying the 2015 decision which was in favor of Net Neutrality.




They are for an open internet just not government overreach of changing the internet into a utility that the government has control over. Who wants that?


Stop already with the "government overreach" meme and talking point. You have a very bad habit of politicizing everything.
RE: My  
BMac : 7/12/2017 4:48 pm : link
In comment 13526579 AcidTest said:
Quote:
guess is that if Net Neutrality goes away, it won't be gone for long. Corporate America was fantastically successful at jamming arbitration clauses into just about every contract to preclude class action lawsuits. A pair of Supreme Court decisions pretty much cemented their position into law.

Not so with NN. Most people aren't going to sue their ISP, credit card company, etc. But tens or even hundreds of millions of people are accustomed to using the Internet in a certain fashion. Start charging people for what they previously got for free, and there will be an avalanche of protest that might well be strong enough to force Congress to bring NN back. That is especially true given that many people have so little money they effectively use the Internet as a substitute for going out.

It's really hard to make people pay for something they've always gotten for free.


I'd also throw in all the companies who sell or do other business over the Net. Start hurting businesses and you awaken a constituency with considerable power and organizing strengths.

Storm the Bastille!
AT&T is full of crap  
JohnF : 7/12/2017 5:09 pm : link
Quote:
They were against the Obama appointed FCC chairman overreach by the government:

"Unfortunately, in 2015, then-FCC Chairman Wheeler abandoned this carefully crafted framework and instead decided to subject broadband service to an 80-year-old law designed to set rates in the rotary-dial-telephone era. Saddling modern broadband infrastructure and investment decisions with heavy-handed, outdated telephone regulations creates an environment of market uncertainty that does little to advance internet openness. Instead, it jeopardizes the prospects for continued innovation and robust growth we have witnessed since the internet’s creation." Why We’re Joining the ‘Day of Action’ in Support of an Open Internet - ( New Window )


Wheeler had to go to Title II because of Verizon winning it's lawsuit. And Wheeler lights into Pai, who is just a lapdog for the ISP's, in this article.

This is a money grab, pure and simple. The ISP's have paid Congress to get this done.
Someone else gave me this  
Moondawg : 7/12/2017 6:17 pm : link
from when the discussion first arose.
Link - ( New Window )
I can't conceive of the person that's willing to stand on the side  
Ten Ton Hammer : 7/13/2017 9:13 am : link
of big telecom.
RE: I can't conceive of the person that's willing to stand on the side  
Sonic Youth : 7/13/2017 9:41 am : link
In comment 13526972 Ten Ton Hammer said:
Quote:
of big telecom.

giants24, apparently.

Bc something something big government
the real fear  
giantfan2000 : 7/13/2017 10:19 am : link
isn't that an ISP will charge more for some content than other content

but that an ISP will censor some content
ISP could have the power to make certain websites and content completely inaccessible to the user and refuse to make it accessible at any price.





RE: the real fear  
pjcas18 : 7/13/2017 10:56 am : link
In comment 13527029 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
isn't that an ISP will charge more for some content than other content

but that an ISP will censor some content
ISP could have the power to make certain websites and content completely inaccessible to the user and refuse to make it accessible at any price.






As opposed to facebook, google, twitter, or other apps/sites censoring content?

net neutrality won't solve that completely and in fact the companies I mentioned are trending the opposite way - censoring, removing, and suspending content and the people who post it.
nope  
giantfan2000 : 7/13/2017 11:10 am : link
Quote:
As opposed to facebook, google, twitter, or other apps/sites censoring content?


do you understand the difference between a website and an ISP?

think of it this way
a website like google Facebook is a destination
you can choose to go to these destinations or not
if you choose to go there are rules that these destination have .. you can agree to them or go somewhere else

an ISP is the ROAD .. if a company controls the road and can put any rules in place
they can charge you a TOLL( extra money on top of your monthly bill ) just to access the destination
or as I pointed out . .as owner of the road they can prevent you from even getting to the destination at all.

I'd be curious what BBI managements' view  
Rover : 7/13/2017 1:59 pm : link
is of net neutrality is.
RE: nope  
pjcas18 : 7/13/2017 2:10 pm : link
In comment 13527081 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:


Quote:


As opposed to facebook, google, twitter, or other apps/sites censoring content?



do you understand the difference between a website and an ISP?

think of it this way
a website like google Facebook is a destination
you can choose to go to these destinations or not
if you choose to go there are rules that these destination have .. you can agree to them or go somewhere else

an ISP is the ROAD .. if a company controls the road and can put any rules in place
they can charge you a TOLL( extra money on top of your monthly bill ) just to access the destination
or as I pointed out . .as owner of the road they can prevent you from even getting to the destination at all.

Don't be an asshole. Of course I understand the difference.

You are the one who said you are scared of censorship and that's "the real fear" for supporting net neutrality, but the true threat of site blocking by an ISP is remote and low on the list of reasons to support net neutrality. Throttling, alliances, etc. all legit.

the sites I mentioned are far more likely (and have in fact begun efforts to) censor content. And are not being discussed as part of net neutrality and perhaps should be - and you should be "scared" if censorship is "the real fear"

Here is the entire list of those that oppose NN:  
Knineteen : 7/13/2017 2:32 pm : link
1. Big telecom.
2. People who know nothing about NN and listen to politicians.

Bottom line, if NN goes away, EVERYONE will pay more across all factions of life.

I hate the naivety that is going on here.

Half-joking...but does THIS guy look like he's got YOUR best interests in mind?!

Pai thinks just because he carries around that stupid cup  
NoPeanutz : 7/13/2017 4:58 pm : link
and admittedly has an million-watt smile, the public is dumb enough to follow him.
"Look everybody! I have a sense of humor! I'm not an old white grumblepuss like those other antiNN Republicans and Telecom moguls... you can trust me!"
RE: nope  
eclipz928 : 7/13/2017 5:13 pm : link
In comment 13527081 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:


Quote:


As opposed to facebook, google, twitter, or other apps/sites censoring content?



do you understand the difference between a website and an ISP?

think of it this way
a website like google Facebook is a destination
you can choose to go to these destinations or not
if you choose to go there are rules that these destination have .. you can agree to them or go somewhere else

an ISP is the ROAD .. if a company controls the road and can put any rules in place
they can charge you a TOLL( extra money on top of your monthly bill ) just to access the destination
or as I pointed out . .as owner of the road they can prevent you from even getting to the destination at all.

Very good analogy.
ummmmm  
giantfan2000 : 7/13/2017 5:54 pm : link
Quote:
You are the one who said you are scared of censorship and that's "the real fear" for supporting net neutrality, but the true threat of site blocking by an ISP is remote and low on the list of reasons to support net neutrality. Throttling, alliances, etc. all legit.

the sites I mentioned are far more likely (and have in fact begun efforts to) censor content. And are not being discussed as part of net neutrality and perhaps should be - and you should be "scared" if censorship is "the real fear"


I really don't know what censorship you are talking about with google and Facebook ?
if you go into any destination there are terms of service .. Facebook and google have pretty clear standards -- each different .btw.

you can agree to abide by them or you can go somewhere else .. it is your choice
there are plenty of alternatives to Facebook and google ..

but you can not compare google and facebook's terms of service with ISP controlling which sites a user can access



RE: ummmmm  
pjcas18 : 7/13/2017 6:17 pm : link
In comment 13527637 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:


Quote:


You are the one who said you are scared of censorship and that's "the real fear" for supporting net neutrality, but the true threat of site blocking by an ISP is remote and low on the list of reasons to support net neutrality. Throttling, alliances, etc. all legit.

the sites I mentioned are far more likely (and have in fact begun efforts to) censor content. And are not being discussed as part of net neutrality and perhaps should be - and you should be "scared" if censorship is "the real fear"




I really don't know what censorship you are talking about with google and Facebook ?
if you go into any destination there are terms of service .. Facebook and google have pretty clear standards -- each different .btw.

you can agree to abide by them or you can go somewhere else .. it is your choice
there are plenty of alternatives to Facebook and google ..

but you can not compare google and facebook's terms of service with ISP controlling which sites a user can access




First of all I am in the pro NN camp, like most people who don't work for an ISP.

that said, an ISP is a for profit business, so why should they, like facebook or twitter or google or amazon not be allowed to also have terms of service and why can they not decide to limit offensive sites or content the way facebook or twitter or amazon, etc. can.

I have multiple options for internet access in my neighborhood as do most people, and regardless internet service is not a right and if I don't like my ISP's terms of service I can pick a different one.

But...regardless an ISP simply blocking content is an argument for China or Egypt not USA, I don't believe ISP's here actually block sites from access and the main reasons for supporting net neutrality are about throttling, alliances/pushing certain content over others, premium fees to access certain content, etc. not blocking sites.

So when you say the "real fear is that an ISP will censor some content" I think you are putting ISP's into the public utility category and mis-prioritizing and overestimating what ISP's would do.

the only sites I've ever heard of an ISP blocking are those sites deemed illegal, like peer to peer sites or some torrent sites and that's another gray area.

Otherwise you are being intentionally
What's  
Knineteen : 7/13/2017 6:20 pm : link
exactly "broken" with the internet that we're having this discussion in the first place?

It's like arguing about who gets to physically walk through the grand canyon first.

Even with ISPs throttling end-users, most have more than enough for their own needs. And ISPs still make BILLIONS in profits.

This is CLEARLY a money-grab by big business.
RE: RE: ummmmm  
Knineteen : 7/13/2017 6:26 pm : link
In comment 13527662 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I have multiple options for internet access in my neighborhood as do most people,

Wrong. Almost anyone outside of a major city will not have a second option for wired internet access.

Have you ever seen cable companies intrude on each other's territories? I sure as hell haven't. Kind of sounds like collusion to me.
RE: RE: RE: ummmmm  
pjcas18 : 7/13/2017 6:35 pm : link
In comment 13527673 Knineteen said:
Quote:
In comment 13527662 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


I have multiple options for internet access in my neighborhood as do most people,


Wrong. Almost anyone outside of a major city will not have a second option for wired internet access.

Have you ever seen cable companies intrude on each other's territories? I sure as hell haven't. Kind of sounds like collusion to me.


net neutrality in the most recent approved bill includes mobile and I know every few people in cities or rural areas that cannot pick a carrier. Of course mobile carriers exploit loopholes, but so do broadband providers.

RE: RE: RE: RE: ummmmm  
Knineteen : 7/13/2017 9:01 pm : link
In comment 13527683 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
net neutrality in the most recent approved bill includes mobile and I know every few people in cities or rural areas that cannot pick a carrier. Of course mobile carriers exploit loopholes, but so do broadband providers.

I don't really know how to respond to whatever this is.

If we all had a choice between 15 ISPs, then yes, I would fully support NN.
But we don't have a competitive choice, so NN is the only thing that protects us from getting even more screwed by our ISPs.
It is a myth that ISPs are just bootstrapping American businesses  
NoPeanutz : 7/14/2017 9:08 am : link
who became monopolistic giants through hard work, piss and vinegar.
They were deliberately supported by public regulation and assistance in order to increase widespread access to high-speed Internet and information. So government cleared the way to raise barriers of entry for competition, assist with zoning, eminent domain, subsidies, etc. (And, often times, ISPs don't come through on their end of the bargain. Why doesn't private industry police itself? Because again, it's not a free market, it's monopolistic.)

If it isn't right when the public finances a new private stadium for the owners, and then the owners screw the public, the same should be said for ISPs. The price to be paid for a government supported monopoly, especially in something as important as high-speed Internet access, should be utility regulation by he government. Comcast, AT&T and Verizon sound like Latrell Sprewell complaining about feeding his family.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner