Net neutrality

[SMOGZINN]

The question is, did NN enhance or hamper expansion of choice. Ajit Pai believes it hampered it.

There is no possible way that NN hampered expansion of choice. The limiting factor to competition is not NN it is the last mile to the doorstep which companies don't have to share and can leverage a lot of bureaucratic pressure to make it hard for anyone else to add new lines. It would not have mattered what they could do with the lines once in, they can't get them in. Google tried and failed. If one of the largest companies in the world could not do it, nobody can. If Ajit wanted to increase completion he would have changed the rules to make the last mile work like last mile electric lines so that anyone could use them to provide internet by paying a controlled fee to the company that owns them, but he is against that idea. I wonder why? It is almost as though he is not really for increasing competition.

 

[wahdangun]

Imagine if your electric company charged you different rates for plugging in different devices. Or if your water company charged you a higher rate for taking a shower than for flushing the toilet. That's what the internet without net neutrality is going to be like.

They already considering that for mining use.

 

[zinfamous]

There was no net neutrality before Obama. So, we're going back to same ol same ol, and we're whining about it? Good grief!
This is truly a first world problem that I don't gig a shit about.

preaching from a platform of ignorance is always a winning strategy.

 

[Lanyap]

There was no net neutrality before Obama. So, we're going back to same ol same ol, and we're whining about it? Good grief!
This is truly a first world problem that I don't gig a shit about.

NN has been around in one form or another since at least 2005. Having worked most of my career for an RBOC I can tell you that the carrier execs are wringing their greedy little hands right now with plans ready to be implemented to take advantage of owning their part of the internet. They will wait a few months and start slipping in little fees and charges to start getting their NNN (No Net Neutrality) revenue. Everything to them is about corporate profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission adopted network neutrality principles "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age." Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Opponents claimed that these bills would have benefited industry lobbyists instead of consumers. Large broadband Internet access service providers (ISPs) challenged the FCC's network neutrality principles, and in 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the FCC classified broadband ISPs as "information services," governed by Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, rather than "common carrier services," governed by Title II, the FCC could not regulate the ISPs so closely. The FCC responded on February 26, 2015 by reclassifying broadband ISPs as common carriers under Title II. These rules went into effect on June 12, 2015. In June 2016, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's new net neutrality rules.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

preaching from a platform of ignorance is always a winning strategy.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time,
but you can fool a whole lot more people at one time on the internet."

• Abraham Lincoln

 

[ElFenix]

NN has been around in one form or another since at least 2005. Having worked most of my career for an RBOC I can tell you that the carrier execs are wringing their greedy little hands right now with plans ready to be implemented to take advantage of owning their part of the internet. They will wait a few months and start slipping in little fees and charges to start getting their NNN (No Net Neutrality) revenue. Everything to them is about corporate profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

dialup, because it was seen as a telephone service, was always subject to net neutrality. and, of course, there was actual legit competition among ISPs back then because anyone could access the sub-audible, analog part of the phone system due to ... net neutrality.

 

[boomerang]

No. Just fucking no. You've been informed with incontrovertible proof and still choose to remain ignorant and see only what you want to see. I already posted a list of things that were already happening before Net Neutrality was passed. It would have only gotten worse. Guess who wants the end of this? Cable providers. Guess why? So they can turn the internet into a pay to view system just like cable TV. Cable TV is dying and they want to turn the internet into that.

You're one of the biggest whackjobs here so your opinions backed up by your cherry picked "proof" mean absolutely nothing to me.

When every thread you create, every post you make is chock full of hate and anger I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Everything is a an affront to you, everything a reason for more outrage. Your team lost and if you can't get over it that's your problem not mine. The winners make the rules no matter how fervently progressives such as yourself feel they should still be making them.

You say I "see only what I want to see". No. Just fucking no. I see reality. NN has been partially rolled back. That's a fact jack. You're not going to change that here. If you were even close to being as bright as you feel you are, you'd understand that.

Progressives like yourself love to lecture everybody that will listen. It doesn't work on me. That totalitarian inside you screaming to get out I find very easy to dismiss.

 

[fskimospy]

You're one of the biggest whackjobs here so your opinions backed up by your cherry picked "proof" mean absolutely nothing to me.

When every thread you create, every post you make is chock full of hate and anger I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Everything is a an affront to you, everything a reason for more outrage. Your team lost and if you can't get over it that's your problem not mine. The winners make the rules no matter how fervently progressives such as yourself feel they should still be making them.

You say I "see only what I want to see". No. Just fucking no. I see reality. NN has been partially rolled back. That's a fact jack. You're not going to change that here. If you were even close to being as bright as you feel you are, you'd understand that.

Progressives like yourself love to lecture everybody that will listen. It doesn't work on me. That totalitarian inside you screaming to get out I find very easy to dismiss.

It’s always nice to see when fanatics like this clown give up the game. ‘I don’t care about your ‘proof’, I’m going to ignore it because I think I see reality.’

There you go - boomerang just admitted he’s immune to facts.

 

[Paratus]

It’s always nice to see when fanatics like this clown give up the game. ‘I don’t care about your ‘proof’, I’m going to ignore it because I think I see reality.’

There you go - boomerang just admitted he’s immune to facts.

If you read @boomerang posts and just realize he’s projecting a whole lot about himself, he suddenly makes a lot more sense.

 

[cliftonite]

You're one of the biggest whackjobs here so your opinions backed up by your cherry picked "proof" mean absolutely nothing to me.

When every thread you create, every post you make is chock full of hate and anger I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Everything is a an affront to you, everything a reason for more outrage. Your team lost and if you can't get over it that's your problem not mine. The winners make the rules no matter how fervently progressives such as yourself feel they should still be making them.

You say I "see only what I want to see". No. Just fucking no. I see reality. NN has been partially rolled back. That's a fact jack. You're not going to change that here. If you were even close to being as bright as you feel you are, you'd understand that.

Progressives like yourself love to lecture everybody that will listen. It doesn't work on me. That totalitarian inside you screaming to get out I find very easy to dismiss.

Whats funny is that Amused was/is one of the biggest conservatives on the forum. Before Trump I would never thought that he could ever criticize someone on the right.

 

[Thebobo]

Whats funny is that Amused was/is one of the biggest conservatives on the forum. Before Trump I would never thought that he could ever criticize someone on the right.

left -----middle----Right--------------------------------------------- Crazy Train Trump

 

[Amused]

You're one of the biggest whackjobs here so your opinions backed up by your cherry picked "proof" mean absolutely nothing to me.

When every thread you create, every post you make is chock full of hate and anger I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Everything is a an affront to you, everything a reason for more outrage. Your team lost and if you can't get over it that's your problem not mine. The winners make the rules no matter how fervently progressives such as yourself feel they should still be making them.

You say I "see only what I want to see". No. Just fucking no. I see reality. NN has been partially rolled back. That's a fact jack. You're not going to change that here. If you were even close to being as bright as you feel you are, you'd understand that.

Progressives like yourself love to lecture everybody that will listen. It doesn't work on me. That totalitarian inside you screaming to get out I find very easy to dismiss.

Cherry picked? Hardly. They are the very reason used for passing NN in the first place, alongside the vast amounts of international evidence of what providers will do. Translated this means "no matter how much factual proof you provide, I will refuse to believe any differently than my cult masters have told me to believe."

I'm not "progressive." I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal. You know you've gone off the batshit insane new authoritarian right-wing cliff when you think I'm "progressive."

You're not seeing reality. You were shown reality and have chosen to deny its validity.

Totalitarian? You alt-righters just LOVE projecting your authoritarian leanings onto others, don't you? I'm anti-authoritarian. That would be the opposite of totalitarian. It's really rather pathetic that had to be spelled out for you. But then you've been duped by a comically bad right-wing propaganda machine that literally has you believing the opposite of virtually every reality.

And finally, I have little doubt that this temporary power grab by the new alt-right authoritarian corporate co-op will crash and burn with Trump. You're not even bright enough to see how you've been duped into voting against your own self interest with ridiculously bad propaganda and you're questioning MY intelligence. That's a fucking hoot there, buddy. You're so far off course you think I'm left wing.

I'm not. Not even close. You should go back and see my posts during the Obama and Bush admins to find out for yourself. Being anti-trump, pro-fact, pro-science and anti-racism does not make me a leftist. It makes me an intelligent, decent human being.

 

[Amused]

Whats funny is that Amused was/is one of the biggest conservatives on the forum. Before Trump I would never thought that he could ever criticize someone on the right.

I still am. The problem is, the right-wing has mainstreamed batshit in order to dupe their followers into a whole host of authoritarian nonsense. I want no part of that.

I am still pro second amendment, with reasonable restrictions.

I am still pro-capitalist and free market, with reasonable regulation to stop abuses, fraud and monopolies.

But what used to be fringe among the right-wing, has taken over the party and been mainstreamed. That shit isn't conservative. It's authoritarian, nationalistic mindless conspiracy driven science denying irrational bashit insanity.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I still am. The problem is, the right-wing has mainstreamed batshit in order to dupe their followers into a whole host of authoritarian nonsense. I want no part of that.

I am still pro second amendment, with reasonable restrictions.

I am still pro-capitalist and free market, with reasonable regulation to stop abuses, fraud and monopolies.

But what used to be fringe among the right-wing, has taken over the party and been mainstreamed. That shit isn't conservative. It's authoritarian, nationalistic mindless conspiracy driven science denying irrational bashit insanity.

I hate to break it to you, but you haven't been conservative for a few decades now (and the gap is widening). Not Conservative with a big C and not conservative with a small c. You're a centrist and have been (even if you didn't think so) for quite a while now. Hell, you're probably more progressive than a sizeable amount of Democrats up til about 2010 when they started to see that Republicans were no longer even giving lip service to compromise and pretending to work together for the good of the People.

I could excuse the ignorance of modern conservativism some in the 80s, as we didn't have the data on a lot of the issues that have since very clearly become a problem. The thing is, we can see quite clearly how terrible so many of those policies were, and Republicans aren't just doubling down on the idiocy, and being total assholes while doing it. And they're crying that they're being bullied the entire time. Its insanity, and they'll openly admit it and say they don't give a shit and that its everyone else's fault.

That's what I've been trying to get people to see. Republicans didn't just suddenly go off the rails with Turmp, they've been doing it for a while now. I'm not trying to shame people - except those that decided to dig their heels in double down on being idiots - for being fairly ignorant, I was for a long time, having that general disdain for politics and believing that they're all the same. I think that used to be more true, but has not for awhile (yes, there's certainly a lot of things to take issue with the Democrats, including the Obamas, Clintons, and Kennedies among others, but it pales in comparison to how the Republicans have been). Turmp seems to be the wakeup for many, but there's a lot of people coming to the wrong conclusions. Like the people trying to claim its the Democrats faults (for everything). Especially baffling is when those people will go "yes the Republican is the one pushing it, but its the Democrats' faults for enabling or not resisting strong enough!" Its literally the same argument used against women making rape allegations (strangely, I've seen several of the people making that "the Democrats aren't fight enough!" that act like they're champions of rape victims). I don't get the insanity of the people that go "well sure they're right for taking issue with it now, but they were enabling it, so I hate them more than the perpetrators! So they're the real racists/sexists/etc!" argument that I see people using.

 

[blankslate]

A Corporate Bought Democratic party member in CA just introduced amendments to water down what until recently was a very strong Net Neutrality Bill.


California net neutrality bill gutted as lawmakers cave to AT&T lobbyists

The bill as amended still has bans on blocking or throttling lawful Internet traffic and a ban on paid prioritization. Those rules are similar to the nationwide ones recently repealed by the Federal Communications Commission.

But one amendment eliminated a ban on ISPs demanding payments from websites or online services "in exchange for access to the Internet service provider's end users." The ban on blocking or throttling would seem to prevent an ISP from demanding payments for mere access to its network. But eliminating the ban on access payments could make it easier for ISPs to find a way around the anti-blocking and anti-throttling rules.

Another amendment approved yesterday removed a provision that would prevent ISPs from charging online services for zero-rating, which exempts Internet content from data caps. Many net neutrality supporters say that ISPs impose data caps in order to create an artificial scarcity that is then "solved" by websites or online services paying the ISP to circumvent the caps.

Yet another amendment passed yesterday removed a requirement that ISPs maintain enough bandwidth at network interconnection points—that proposed rule was supposed to prevent re-occurrences of the Netflix problems of 2013 and 2014.

What we have here is more proof that our elected officials serve big donors instead of their constituency in what is increasingly becoming an Oligarchy instead of a representative republic.

As time goes on more and more evidence emerges that the few years old research paper concludes that we do in fact increasingly live in more and more in an oligarchical society is in fact correct. Get ready to watch the ISPs put more fees on internet access unless the "resistance" (what a laugh) to Trump can pull their effing heads out of their asses.

Seeing how the DCCC and the DNC are still playing shens to favor centrist candidates I have little faith.


________

 

[zinfamous]

You're one of the biggest whackjobs here so your opinions backed up by your cherry picked "proof" mean absolutely nothing to me.

When every thread you create, every post you make is chock full of hate and anger I'm not going to take anything you say seriously. Everything is a an affront to you, everything a reason for more outrage. Your team lost and if you can't get over it that's your problem not mine. The winners make the rules no matter how fervently progressives such as yourself feel they should still be making them.

You say I "see only what I want to see". No. Just fucking no. I see reality. NN has been partially rolled back. That's a fact jack. You're not going to change that here. If you were even close to being as bright as you feel you are, you'd understand that.

Progressives like yourself love to lecture everybody that will listen. It doesn't work on me. That totalitarian inside you screaming to get out I find very easy to dismiss.

The interesting thing is that you didn't even say anything here. preaching from ignorance. You still don't know what NN actually is. But you love paying higher fees, because that is what this means.

That's a fact, Jack.

 

[Engineer]

GOP CONgressman Mike Coffman introduces new net neutrality bill. Thoughts?

https://www.techspot.com/news/75540...coffman-introduces-21st-century-internet.html

Coffman on Tuesday published a press release outlining new pro-net neutrality legislation; a bill dubbed the "21st Century Internet Act." The bill seeks to "permanently codify" into law the four main tenants of net neutrality - no paid prioritization, no website blocking, no throttling, and federal oversight of "interconnection."

The bill would also seek to create a "new title" for broadband, to take advantage of additional consumer protections detailed in 1934's Communications Act.

In the release, Coffman elaborates on his reason for introducing the bill:

"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission,"

"The fight to keep the internet open belongs in Congress, not at the Federal Communications Commission," he said in a statement. "The American people deserve to know that their elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats, are fighting for their interest. That fight begins with my bill, which will create an ‘internet constitution’ with the foundational elements of net neutrality."

 

[ElFenix]

hey guess what the wireless companies are doing!

 

[Thebobo]

hey guess what the wireless companies are doing!

Making gazillions of dollars?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

hey guess what the wireless companies are doing!

Oh I know I know!!!

https://marketingland.com/study-tel...netflix-since-demise-of-net-neutrality-247346

 

[realibrad]

There is no possible way that NN hampered expansion of choice. The limiting factor to competition is not NN it is the last mile to the doorstep which companies don't have to share and can leverage a lot of bureaucratic pressure to make it hard for anyone else to add new lines. It would not have mattered what they could do with the lines once in, they can't get them in. Google tried and failed. If one of the largest companies in the world could not do it, nobody can. If Ajit wanted to increase completion he would have changed the rules to make the last mile work like last mile electric lines so that anyone could use them to provide internet by paying a controlled fee to the company that owns them, but he is against that idea. I wonder why? It is almost as though he is not really for increasing competition.

Google ran into problems with local municipalities. The issue is not that the ISP that installed the line does not want to give it up. The issue is that cities take away competition. The reason an ISP owns what they own, is because the local governments tell ISPs that if they want to do business, they have to provide coverage for areas that lose money. The incentive to do this is to give them rights to exclude competition.

Google got in because it offered something that no other ISP wanted to offer. Once Google got big enough, the local governments wanted to have Google act just like other ISPs. Google was not looking to become an ISP, but, to grow the market and increase competition. They realized they could not do that as effectively when compared to wireless. They dropped wired and are going wireless to cut out those local governments that were the problem.

 

[Lanyap]

This is no surprise.

Entire broadband industry sues California to stop net neutrality law
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...fornia-to-stop-net-neutrality-law/?comments=1

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This is no surprise.

Entire broadband industry sues California to stop net neutrality law
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...fornia-to-stop-net-neutrality-law/?comments=1

If only there was some sort of uniform law that covered all the states, maybe on a federal level, that would make things easier for the telcos to manage while protecting customers at the same time.....

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If only there was some sort of uniform law that covered all the states, maybe on a federal level, that would make things easier for the telcos to manage while protecting customers at the same time.....

But....but....GOBERMINT!

 

[darkswordsman17]

GOP CONgressman Mike Coffman introduces new net neutrality bill. Thoughts?

https://www.techspot.com/news/75540...coffman-introduces-21st-century-internet.html

I assume that went nowhere?