Net Neutrality

Here's the first thing that popped up on google, there were a couple other similar stories around that time.

It isn't just the major players involved in this. Without Net Neutrality protections, eventually ISPs will be doing this to everybody. And even if I concede the argument that bandwidth is a cost, that cost should be charged to the user by the ISP, not extorted from a company that doesn't have a business relationship with the provider. Without Net Neutrality, we give ISPs the power to strangle anyone who can't afford to pay for priority, and since almost the entire country operates under local monopolies for internet service, if your ISP chooses to screw you there's nothing you can do. Virtually everything runs off the internet now, it isn't something that you can just choose to do without.

 

Are you joking? lol I hope so.

 

Att does this now with data plans.

 

Well that is an interesting article. And it sort of confirms what I suspected:

This corroborates with my own Internet usage, and I don't stream 4K. So basically we are talking about users who want to stream large amount of 4K video, right? The "elite" users?

So- how is this some sort of "public good" like water or electricity? Can you help me understand the analogy better? I just don't really get it. Suddenly in 2017 if everybody can't stream unlimited 4K video we are being deprived of our "basic rights"?

Slippery slope. Sorry, I don't buy it. And if it does happen, the rules can change again. They will probably change again soon, even if it doesn't happen.

Well I would tend to agree that the most transparent way would be the best. But unfortunately, that's not what consumers want. When their ISP wants to charge them more money for more bandwidth, they get upset. So Comcast tries to get creative with recovering costs, and Netflix pushes back.

By "strangle" you mean they won't be able to stream unlimited 4K video?

You could relocate to an area that offers you more choices, if that is something that is really important to you. But no place is perfect. Typically, you have to sacrifice choice in one area in order to gain choice in another area.

Virtually everything runs off the Internet now... on less than 300GB per month. I think people can do without 4K video.

 

How old are you? Do you understand that people can't just pack up and move at the drop of a hat? You appear to be totally fine with being exploited, and you have a hilariously naive view of how corporations will act(I'm completely sure given complete freedom they won't act like they did before the Open Internet order, sure. That seems logical), so I don't think there's any point in continuing this.

 

"64k is enough", bill gates

when it comes to technology, the wise always know that all limits are a farce. i won't bore everyone with historical realities regarding super computers and today's calculater's. true 4k is a luxury even i won't spend money on, but tomorrow it is betamax.

 

I am nearly 40 years old. I have lived in several different states- in both rural and urban areas- and am currently planning to spend 1/2 of the year with my family outside of North America entirely. As we will require reliable Internet access to run our business, this is of prime importance to us when choosing a place to live. There are many beautiful places that are off the table because they don't offer the QoS we require. Still, I won't be too sad if I can't stream 4K video.

I value the Internet, so I don't mind paying for it. In fact- I leverage the technology of the Internet to earn more than enough to pay for my Comcast, Verizon, and Netflix bills. It's actually fairly easy for anybody to do who sets their mind to it! Certainly, somebody who has many hours to dedicate to gaming could find the time to earn a few extra bucks to pay for their broadband service.

However, if it pleases you to characterize that as exploitation, that is fine with me also. You do have a right to your opinion.

 

here is a chill pill which nobody can deny. microsoft spent almost 20 years sueing and openly outright stealing technology from tech companies and driving them bankrupt in court. it is a recorded fact they stifled technology to maintain market dominance. if not for a well paid off president, there would be no microsoft today. the important fact is that technology today could have be achieved 10 years ago in a universe without bill gates. at the same time, bill made stockholders rich. the very thought of letting a handful of companies control the main information distribution channel of the world is nothing short of a 1984 nightmare. if that happened, the 5 companies will become one in a year or two. stupidity at its worst in my opinion.

 

I get the sense that Internet2- or something similar- could preclude the most Orwellian of scenarios. But I would say it is difficult to predict what will happen with technology. People like Gates have the means to stifle technology for sure. But the government can stifle technology as well. Actually, what I perceive to be the most stifling is the uncertainty due to the near constant flip-flopping of policy. Who wants to take the risks to innovate when the rules of the game are up for being changed at any moment?

I mean- really nobody thrives in an environment dominated by capriciousness. The People lose. Corporations lose. Democracy loses. It's all around "Bad For America" by pretty much every measure.

 

no argument at all. well put. i can only say the today internet providers compete by either blocking other providers from right of way, like att is doing to google in kansas, or by using hoa's to block fiber for fear of grass disturbance (true story), or by providing faster internet service at a lower cost like google does. the fcc in not in the way right now.

ironically, time warner saw google coming here in nc and tried to get a law passed to fix internet access prices. hence, in truth, regulation is welcome from all sides as long as they benefit from it.

 

Apologies for posting in a thread which doesn't affect me yet (Aussie) however I am not too sure if this has been covered yet in the net neutrality argument: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/28/congress_approves_sale_of_internet_histories/

If you ask my opinion this affects your neutrality online more than packet shaping and other issues.

 

Ah, got it. Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

Well the scenario where people have to cough up extra cash to visit certain sites is worrisome.

Though if changing the rules makes that possible, it doesn't mean carriers will do it.

I'm not sure what the business motive would be. But I am sure outrage would ensue.

An ISP who did that would be creating a huge incentive for a competitor to NOT do that. I mean- just look at what's already happened with carrier competition and unlimited plans.

I can understand why you might be concerned about this kind of scenario developing.

I just don't see it as that likely. You might think that is naive, but in this case you are talking to a person who spent 10 years of their life chasing down every doomsday scenario possible.

After a decade of preparing for the worst, I realized that I was missing out on the present and that things never get as bad as I thought they could get.

Martial law. Sharia law. Comets. Sustained global financial collapse. WWIII. Alien wars. CME knockouts, megaearthquakes, supervolcanoes... Food shortages, rolling blackouts, the Antichrist, oh ya the worst is coming at every moment.

So you could say I am naive for not worrying about this worst case scenario you propose.

But I would say I used to be naive for allowing myself to get caught up in every doomsday prediction, which robbed me of a decade of my life spent in near constant anxiety about situations which never come to pass.

You just sort of get numb to the constant fear after a point, ya know? Gotta make one wonder about those people who are constantly seeding fear in others under the guise of "raising awareness" and looking out for other's best interests. My philosophy is- if one's awareness is sufficiently raised they will find there are truly few things to fear, if any at all.

But anyway, not sure who elected me the scapegoat for net neutrality here. As I've said previously, I support the idea in general.

What I did here in this thread is express a split opinion. I understand that many who see the issue as "black or white" struggle with tolerating people who aren't willing to "pick a side".

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since being in a state of fear makes it difficult for a person to utilize the higher cognitive centers in their brain that would permit them to acknowledge nuance and "grey areas".

 

It is a real paradox here. We can't win either way. If we stick with net neutrality, the FCC is controlled by politicians who are already putting a gravestone on our fourth amendment right to privacy to such a degree that GPS location history is child's play. If we get rid of we are putting our fate and that of our children in the hands of just a few companies, most of which are notorious for putting the consumers lowest on priority list.

I used to curse ATT day and night because they charged me money to stay out the phone book. I threatened to sue them for violating my constitutional rights to privacy (not that I had the financial means) and they said the FCC is greater than the constitution.

 

Welp, that didn't take long.

https://arstechnica.com/information...parently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

But of course, don't worry. Nothing to see here.

 

Original intent of Net Neutrality: Service Provider sells connection > customer uses connection. The method of use (hardware/software) is up to the user. The only thing the service provider controls is through put and total usage.

The definition of net neutrality has been purposefully morphed and high jacked many many times over the years. Making "googling" a definition nearly impossible. At one time, the lobbying of net neutrality to the political wing literally meant the net should not be anonymous and everyone should be issued an IP address similar to social security numbers. (what a nightmare)

The only method of being sure what is going on is following legislation attempts.

<-- former phone company employee that actively followed internal propaganda they pushed.

 

Hello and thank you for joining the fight.

I've been campaigning for the preservation for Net Neutrality for about a decade and have worked in the telecom industry for almost two. I share this video a lot because it explains the core principals and provides a strong call to action in a pretty lit and entertaining way. Please share.

 

Government - a large, powerful and wealthy organization controlled by a powerful few. Liberals trust it, conservatives fear it.

Corporations - a large, powerful and wealthy organization controlled by a powerful few. Conservatives trust it, liberals fear it.

Am I the only one who finds this funny?

 

It is funny how people forget that health care cost was going up 30% per year before the affordable care act.

 

I don't forget. 30% is less than 200 to 400%.