F.C.C. on Net Neutrality: Giving Crown to Telecom
Forum Index > General Forum |
q2w3e4r5t6y
1 Post
| ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
| ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4253 Posts
2.Obama ceded control of ICANN from the US to the U.N., an organisation which had Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee last year.Where was the outrage then? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2016/09/24/7-days-before-obama-gives-away-internet-national-security/#621302db30d4 3.Why the fuck is reddit being flooded with exactly the same topic in dozens of subreddits with what is obviously upvote bots.Who is paying for this.Why is a one post junk name throwaway account posting this in this forum? | ||
Warfie
Norway2845 Posts
On November 23 2017 18:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 1.The internet was fine before 2015 when Obama brought in the the new regulations. 2.Obama ceded control of ICANN from the US to the U.N., an organisation which had Saudi Arabia as head of it's human rights committee last year.Where was the outrage then? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2016/09/24/7-days-before-obama-gives-away-internet-national-security/#621302db30d4 3.Why the fuck is reddit being flooded with exactly the same topic in dozens of subreddits with what is obviously upvote bots.Who is paying for this.Why is a one post junk name throwaway account posting this in this forum? I'm sorry, what? Didn't the FCC more or less introduce fast lanes before Obama's speech on net neutrality and the subsequent ruling that classified ISPs as a utility? Meaning ISPs were well on their way to being able to favor or discriminate against content? As for number 2, why is this relevant in this case? Finally, it is obviously in Reddit's interest to avoid net neutrality being overturned so it only makes sense they flood their website with it. In my opinion, if the US goes through with this it sets a dangerous precedent for net regulations worldwide. What exactly are you so critical of? | ||
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41088 Posts
| ||
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
furthermore, all of these "service package" mockups that i have seen are completely useless to me. i don't use any of the services that i would have to pay extra for like spotify, netlix, or reddit, so i care even less. they're certainly not going to cut deals with team liquid, or fish, to offer better bandwidth for gaming/browsing, so i can't really see it impacting my day to day. the potential for censorship of VPNs/torrents or "undesirable" sites like 4chan is there for sure, but that has always been looming and i'm sure they could have legally shut off access already if the isps really cared. as a result it might even cut my internet bill which would be great | ||
Zambrah
United States6831 Posts
On November 24 2017 02:53 Endymion wrote: i'm on comcast's side here. out of every utility and pseudo utility company that i have had to deal with, they have been the most gracious and helpful even when i was shutting down my account. i rarely received below my negotiated bandwidth either, and any service interruption was reimbursed on my next bill. they have a lot of good will from me. they're also not screaming into my ear about how evil the other side is, which also nets them more likability points from me. furthermore, all of these "service package" mockups that i have seen are completely useless to me. i don't use any of the services that i would have to pay extra for like spotify, netlix, or reddit, so i care even less. they're certainly not going to cut deals with team liquid, or fish, to offer better bandwidth for gaming/browsing, so i can't really see it impacting my day to day. the potential for censorship of VPNs/torrents or "undesirable" sites like 4chan is there for sure, but that has always been looming and i'm sure they could have legally shut off access already if the isps really cared. as a result it might even cut my internet bill which would be great I feel like you must be the only person who doesn't hate Comcast, let alone actually like them. Also, as someone who uses Spotify, Netflix, and various other internet services, I'd like to say that this mentality is asinine, and if I have to suffer paying additional money for these things, I hope to GOD that every other human being in this country to dares touch the internet suffers immense service fees for access to their preferred content of choice. Because if I have to pay more to enjoy the internet I'll be damned if I don't wish the world (U.S.) down the crapper with me! | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 24 2017 02:53 Endymion wrote: i'm on comcast's side here. out of every utility and pseudo utility company that i have had to deal with, they have been the most gracious and helpful even when i was shutting down my account. i rarely received below my negotiated bandwidth either, and any service interruption was reimbursed on my next bill. they have a lot of good will from me. they're also not screaming into my ear about how evil the other side is, which also nets them more likability points from me. furthermore, all of these "service package" mockups that i have seen are completely useless to me. i don't use any of the services that i would have to pay extra for like spotify, netlix, or reddit, so i care even less. they're certainly not going to cut deals with team liquid, or fish, to offer better bandwidth for gaming/browsing, so i can't really see it impacting my day to day. the potential for censorship of VPNs/torrents or "undesirable" sites like 4chan is there for sure, but that has always been looming and i'm sure they could have legally shut off access already if the isps really cared. as a result it might even cut my internet bill which would be great No idea what your browsing habits are, but... Sites like Facebook and Google (including Youtube) are on the top of ISP shit lists. Netflix is the service that put the terrible ISP practices in the limelight (because of the sudden spike in actual bandwidth usage), but ISPs have been looking to charge more for less forever. Services like Steam and Battle.net will be high on the list as well. Anything with high-bandwidth usage and high customer numbers. | ||
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On November 24 2017 04:53 Epishade wrote: Am I going to have to buy a package that includes browsing TeamLiquid now? TL, probably not. Twitch or other streaming platforms? Probably. | ||
Lazare1969
United States318 Posts
| ||
ninazerg
United States7290 Posts
On November 24 2017 09:27 Lazare1969 wrote: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Donald Trump said net neutrality is bad and is essentially Obama-era communist regulation. We all know communism is bad, just look at Stalin and North Korea. I trust these fine men far more over this issue than I trust Richard Stallman, Steve Wozniak, Julian Assange and the EFF. Name-dropping is not an argument. The thing that matters are the facts. This has nothing to do with Stalinism. This is about who is regulating the internet in the future. Will it be the state or corporations? | ||
Lazare1969
United States318 Posts
On November 24 2017 13:19 ninazerg wrote: Name-dropping is not an argument. The thing that matters are the facts. This has nothing to do with Stalinism. This is about who is regulating the internet in the future. Will it be the state or corporations? Ajit Pai says repealing net neutrality will bring innovation. Why are you against innovation? | ||
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On November 24 2017 14:12 Lazare1969 wrote: Ajit Pai says repealing net neutrality will bring innovation. Why are you against innovation? The fact that you trust a corporate shill to make your life better is beyond any logic. This man Ajit Pai speaks for the corporate money interests of the companies he once belonged to. Lazare 1969, it doesn't matter so much what you believe about "good or bad" ... your reality after this decision is made, will be that you pay more for less internet. Your bills will be more expensive for the same or less internet access and bandwidth than you currently have. And far worse than that will happen once corporations start censorship. | ||
Lazare1969
United States318 Posts
On November 24 2017 14:30 ShambhalaWar wrote: The fact that you trust a corporate shill to make your life better is beyond any logic. This man Ajit Pai speaks for the corporate money interests of the companies he once belonged to. Lazare 1969, it doesn't matter so much what you believe about "good or bad" ... your reality after this decision is made, will be that you pay more for less internet. Your bills will be more expensive for the same or less internet access and bandwidth than you currently have. And far worse than that will happen once corporations start censorship. Hey don't point the finger at me, I'm just using ninazerg's talking points to see how you would respond to them. | ||
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On November 24 2017 15:18 Lazare1969 wrote: Hey don't point the finger at me, I'm just using ninazerg's talking points to see how you would respond to them. Posting more BS doesn't change reality, you still have to deal with face the same thing. | ||
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
Conservatives are dead set on ruining the internet. Every Republican in congress seems to be in the pocket of corporate money. And before anyone says the "both sides are the same" thing: Voted FOR net neutrality: 177 Democrats (and 6 Republicans) Voted AGAINST net neutrality: 234 Republicans (and 2 Democrats) | ||
dicey
142 Posts
| ||
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
https://fee.org/articles/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-competition/ NN doesn't really address the big issue most people have with ISP's - the lack of competition. A problem I might add, that is notoriously a Government creation with zoning, easement restrictions, local and state monopolies, etc. The ISP industry basically mirrors, the sorry state of utilities and the lack of free-enterprise in this market. The regulatory costs and state-barriers to entry are so enormous even entities like Google have had a tremendous amount of trouble of even entering the market. If that screams to you - Oh No, the evil Free-enterprise system ! Market-failure!, there is not much common ground here. In order to improve this industry, we must restrict Government imposition. The Bernie Sanders example of Romania is a hilarious on-point refutation of what he thinks "great socialism" brings, when in fact, it's the opposite as Tucker points out. NN is a band-aid that makes the wound worse; it's never been a cure, as evidenced by the largest providers in this industry lobbying FOR it, not against. This is nothing new. Progressive Era turn of the 20th Century balogne cartelization through regulation masked as "anti-trust" and "fighting for the people". Gabriel Kolko wrote enough on the subject, that should be sufficient for progressively minded people, but alas....Anyways, this is going to have such a minor effect. For real improvements we need Carter-esque moves like with the airlines or when the craft beer industry was de-regulated, not more Mommy-state. "As I have argued elsewhere, American “progressivism” was a part of a big business effort to attain protection from the unpredictability of too much competition, [See my book The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916, New York, 1962] | ||
| ||