Net neutrality

[piezoe]

This is a totally bogus issue masked by an appealing name, "Net Neutrality." Now the democrats are claiming the internet was a "public utility" but now is controlled by monopolists, thanks to the evil Trump.

If the internet was a public utility, how were monopolists like Google, FB, Twitter etc able to block websites or posters whose politics they disagreed with? If that was an example of "neutrality," then I'm all for changing the rules. I actually think internet monopolists should be treated more or less as public utilities, eg required to offer their platforms to anyone not engaged in law breaking. Allowing a small group of billionaire progs in silicon valley to determine what is acceptable internet discourse is the antithesis of "neutrality" yet that is what we got under Obama.

The internet operators like VZ and T should be prohibited from viewpoint discrimination as well. Repealing net neutrality has nothing to do with that however. It is just a battle over who pays the cost for streaming services between two rival groups of mega-corps. IOW the spoils of politics.

I think you may be confusing content with the signal itself. This is about ISPs controlling content indirectly by throttling the signal via prioritizing content or altering transmission rate depending on content. When Facebook or Google block something they are controlling the content directly via their servers and not affecting the ISP transmission rate or priority.

This is about preserving equal access to all content providers to the internet. Some of us take the position, I am one of them, that the ISPs should be restricted to providing the signal and not be allowed, indirectly*, to charge differently depending on content. And the content providers themselves should determine content with all content providers being entitled to equal treatment by the respective ISPs.

______________________
* the ISPs will say that all content providers will still have access, but if they can transmit different content at different rates as they see fit, they will indirectly control content by making it impractical to view certain content because of a slow transmission rate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You should look up the definition of fascism up, you imbecile. You obviously don't know the meaning. Read, piezoe, read.

And, you did not mention corporatism in the post I commented on.

Sure thing Waylon Smithers.

 

[wildchild]

While America has been ranting and raving about groping titties, and the collusion delusion, we are about to get fucked royally. Prepare to pay and of course the boardroom boyz are thrilled to death. Mo money, mo money.http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

View attachment 180294

Gee thats funny. In 2014, before Obama's net neutrality went into effect, and in 2016 after Obama's went into effect, my internet bill didn't change one bit. In fact, it went up a little bit so net neutrality aint doing anything to price.

All you need to know about net neutrality is that Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer think its a good thing, which ought to tell you exactly how bad it is. We don't need the government to come in and fix an internet that isn't broken.

 

[Tom B]

Netflix and YouTube represent about 50% of US download traffic. The ISPs will likely ask those sites to pay some amount for that access. "Net Neutrality" could always be reinstated if there were abuses. The ISPs will continue to be heavily regulated.

 

[Tom B]

Sure thing Waylon Smithers.

Stop trolling, you fat bastard.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The process was monstrously corrupt from the deluge of bot comments to the hand picked stooges spouting garbage.

When some corporate wants something this bad, it is not good news for voters.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-biggest-whoppers-from-the-fccs-net-neutrality-meeting/

 

[wildchild]

I think you may be confusing content with the signal itself. This is about ISPs controlling content indirectly by throttling the signal via prioritizing content or altering transmission rate depending on content. When Facebook or Google block something they are controlling the content directly via their servers and not affecting the ISP transmission rate or priority.

This is about preserving equal access to all content providers to the internet. Some of us take the position, I am one of them, that the ISPs should be restricted to providing the signal and not be allowed, indirectly*, to charge differently depending on content. And the content providers themselves should determine content with all content providers being entitled to equal treatment by the respective ISPs.

______________________
* the ISPs will say that all content providers will still have access, but if they can transmit different content at different rates as they see fit, they will indirectly control content by making it impractical to view certain content because of a slow transmission rate.

If your ISP is throttling content you are interested in, then get a new ISP.

This is nothing more than a shakedown of ISPs. Over the last 8 years we have seen the government use the IRS to silence groups that were putting out messages they didnt like. We have seen them use the intelligence agencies to try to eliminate candidates that they dont like. You better bet your ass that they will end up using net neutrality to silence speech they don't like.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Mr. Pai, a career government bureaucrat and former lawyer for Verizon.

If this is not the most retarded shit you have ever seen.. follow the laser pointer.

 

[piezoe]

If your ISP is throttling content you are interested in, then get a new ISP.

Wouldn't it be nice if that were really possible. You can get a new ISP. It is like choosing between Comcast, Direct TV and Dish. They all quote different prices and different packages. After you read the fine print and do the math you discover that the difference comes down to pennies per month.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wouldn't it be nice if that were really possible. You can get a new ISP. It is like choosing between Comcast, Direct TV and Dish. They all quote different prices and different packages. After you read the fine print and do the math you discover that the difference comes down to pennies per month.

Every month that passes we slip further into a Paul Verhoven future.

https://boingboing.net/2017/01/09/paul-verhoeven-on-medias-nor.html

Oldie but goodie, Verhoven references it a lot.