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 )
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.
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.
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"
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?!
"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!"
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.