Net Neutrality

alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior MemberPosts: 8,590 Senior Member
Is now dead. Yet again the "populist" president backs policies that are very good for the oligarchs and not so great for the general public. Telecoms have always been a oligopoly with very limited choice. If you're lucky your area may have 2 or 3 broadband providers. That's not much of a choice when they now will be able to start monkying with what you can see on the internet and how fast.

https://www.wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/
"Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
-DoctorWho
«134

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,056 Senior Member
    The conservative argument is that by allowing the FCC to regulate the internet and enforce net neutrality, the result is a suppression of innovation and adding yet another level of government regulation. Ted Cruz makes his case here...
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/internet-regulation-ted-cruz

    Personally, I see my internet services as more of a utility and do not like the idea of my provider having the ability to steer certain content toward or away from me. At the same time, I can see where providers would want to address data hogs and have the ability to manage their network better.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,545 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Personally, I see my internet services as more of a utility and do not like the idea of my provider having the ability to steer certain content toward or away from me. At the same time, I can see where providers would want to address data hogs and have the ability to manage their network better.

    This is how I feel. Although I pay bills online, and use the internet to buy stuff and research parts and equipment, I am not locked into the internet to where I can't function without it. This will follow the lines of the argument about driving a car on state owned roads being a right rather than a privilege in that the internet is not public property and the people that own the servers and provide access to it have some leeway as to how they want to run it.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    The conservative argument is that by allowing the FCC to regulate the internet and enforce net neutrality, the result is a suppression of innovation and adding yet another level of government regulation. Ted Cruz makes his case here...
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/internet-regulation-ted-cruz

    Personally, I see my internet services as more of a utility and do not like the idea of my provider having the ability to steer certain content toward or away from me. At the same time, I can see where providers would want to address data hogs and have the ability to manage their network better.

    Providers already can and do address data hogs. What I have a problem with is them picking and choosing what I can access and how fast. I don't want innovation from my ISP other than increasing the speed which they seem to already be doing a good job of. I want to pay for my 50 or 100 or 900 Mbps stream and for them to provide whatever I ask for at that speed no matter if it's Netflix, pornhub or Breitbart. I don't want to have to pay an extra $9 a month for a social media package to be able to access Facebook and guns and ammo forum and a other $7.99 for the sports package so I can steam ESPN.com. Many of these are the exact same companies as the dying cable TV racket. The internet is killing that business and this is just a way for them to try and steal it back. This isn't about Innovation, it's about protectionism.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Using the road metaphor I think is reasonable. Internet right now is like a toll road. Much of the infrastructure is privately owned and they can charge you to access it so they can recover their investment. Like a toll road they can charge you more based on the size of your vehicle. That is/was legal before. What this says is that they can now charge more for the color of your vehicle, or only let Toyotas drive on the road because Toyota payed them extra, or placing a 15 mph speed limit on Fords because Ford refused to pay extra for special access, or to ban all vehicles with Alabama license plates. That is what erasing net neutrality does and it's bad imho. No company should be allowed to have that kind of control over the internet.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,461 Senior Member
    Actually it is about infrastructure. The cost of a upgrade is worked into the plan a couple years ahead of time, once that unit is installed it most likely is close to obsolete. You cannot maintain a operation like that and the next wonder invention is just around the corner. Look at Elon Musk. He just invested into a battery plant that makes batterys that are obsolete as of a month or two ago. Innovation has brought the copper network back to viability as in 40M+ over twisted pair, but lack of regulated customers has killed the ability to maintain it in the questionable world of "what is the next XXX" Even fiber has changed and some old fiber just cant carry the BW. Other fiber they have multiplexed more signal than was ever imagined. Cell is the same, but you have to get the BW to the tower and there are plenty of limitations to it.

    Using the road metaphor, drivers have been using a 14 foot tar and chip and demanding to run at 2 lane speeds. By the time the two lane is started the cars have upgraded and the drivers want paved 4 lane and are willing to pay for a tar and chip 14'.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,545 Senior Member
    You gotta keep in mind that the internet and everything on it exists to generate revenue and not to provide some public service. Regardless of how annoying or inconvenient your service is, the providers get to say how it works. Kinda like the liberal news networks hand picking the "news" they choose to provide to the public.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,672 Senior Member
    It's a service I like/use/"need" therefore they have to let me have it at MY price and speed.

    It's my RIGHT as an American:blah:
    :fiddle:
    :hand:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    You gotta keep in mind that the internet and everything on it exists to generate revenue and not to provide some public service. Regardless of how annoying or inconvenient your service is, the providers get to say how it works. Kinda like the liberal news networks hand picking the "news" they choose to provide to the public.
    That's the typical conservative response, and I'd maybe be ok with it if there were any actual choice. But there's not for most people. You get to choose between a couple of broadband providers (if you're lucky enough to have a choice) who get to act as a gateway to the entire internet. This is putting a huge amount of power into what is essentially already for all intents and purposes an oligopoly.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,486 Senior Member
    That's the typical conservative response, and I'd maybe be ok with it if there were any actual choice. But there's not for most people. You get to choose between a couple of broadband providers (if you're lucky enough to have a choice) who get to act as a gateway to the entire internet. This is putting a huge amount of power into what is essentially already for all intents and purposes an oligopoly.

    Maybe if Al Gore had had a little more foresight when he invented the internet this would not be an issue.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

    A pretty basic overview. Net neutrality is about internet freedom, not government control. It doesn't say anything about what a company can charge, only that it can't hold content other people create for ransom. The only people it benefits are massive telecom conglomerates who have paid millions to politicians. And like many Republican policies it's going to hurt rural conservatives way more than urban liberals. Since we live in dense urban areas we will always have more choices and it will always be cheaper for upstart competitors to reach us.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    I think the example of how the airlines treat their customers is what we can expect from privatised infrastructure and utility's. Maybe we can have cake with our service.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,545 Senior Member
    Alpha, it's more than mildly amusing that you of all people would complain about a private industry being allowed to operate without so much government intervention. Where is all of your whining when software requires more memory and capacity every few years, forcing people to keep buying new computers because their old ones no longer have the speed or capacity to function even though they were fully operational. Or the old cell phones that can't be updated, forcing people to keep buying newer ones. I can smell the irony.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    Just for the sake of argument, without net neutrality there would be nothing stopping ISPs from banning gun related websites, especially ones like gunbroker that sell guns over the internet. Few people on the planet are more afraid of a well armed population than the oligarchs. Bloomberg, Soros and their buddies with a few well placed stock purchases and a bit of pressure on some boards of directors could easily erase much of the gun universe from the internet for large swaths of the country and it would be perfectly legal.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,545 Senior Member
    Many of us owned guns, reloaded, cast bullets, hunted, and shot our guns well before there was an internet even though the internet has some convenience and usefulness to it, life existed before the internet.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,672 Senior Member

    . Net neutrality is about internet freedom, not government control.
    Internet freedom of what, for the most part, is a PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

    Net neutrality sure sounds like big gov telling an industry how they have to run their business.
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 Senior Member
    I hate what's happening. But it does open a door for some enterprising entrepreneur to offer internet service as it used to be - no monkeying around with speeds or data limits or access. This is a golden opportunity for a consumer oriented provider to clean up.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,584 Senior Member
    Net neutrality from the eyes of a politician.

    xzZNUIA.jpg
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,062 Senior Member
    Based on that diagram neither is an attractive option, especially when the "no net neutrality" is charging for email and social media. Those services are provided with access to the internet.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,584 Senior Member
    Add the prices. No net neutrality option is cheaper. Democrat mathematics.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Net neutrality from the eyes of a politician.

    xzZNUIA.jpg
    This will absolutely stifle innovation and largely benefit existing companies. Rather than just being able to create something and everyone with internet access being able to get to it, now you'll have new any new major websites or services will have to negotiate with a whole bunch of different individual ISPs to make sure they are included in their packages, much like new TV channels had to do with cable companies. Once the internet came alive you could circumvent the cable companies and deliver your content directly on the internet. Now we're trying to go back to giving a handful of companies control over what we can see. No thanks!

    I have no idea how anyone can honestly call what they want to do an increase in freedom? I guess if you look at it in the right screwed up way it is an increase in the freedom of a very few companies to control what all the rest of us can see and access on the internet. Not exactly the kind of "freedom" I'm in favor of.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,652 Senior Member
    I don't think any good will come of this new ruling.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,062 Senior Member
    I have had a personal computer and access to the internet practically from when it was first introduced to the public at large using AOL online and a phone modem as the vehicle for access. It worked fine then and it works fine now...the only difference is technology and speed. I see no reason for government intervention.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • DanChamberlainDanChamberlain Senior Member Posts: 3,353 Senior Member
    Frankly, I'll pay more just to support something that pisses Alfasig off.
    It's a source of great pride for me, that when my name is googled, one finds book titles and not mug shots. Daniel C. Chamberlain
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,788 Senior Member
    My simple answer is it's a travesty and should not be allowed to happen. Net Neutrality is the heart of the Internet. Allowing companies to regulate what they deliver and at what price sucks, and should not be allowed.

    This is part of my business for he past 20 years. Ending neutrality only benefits providers, enables them to charge more and filter information. It is an end to information freedom. Today I can search for anything and get an answer. Tomorrow, the provider decides that "guns" are an offensive search and block it. ( This happens inside Government buildings today inside their firewalls. ) They can decide to allow or block ANY content. Essentially this is the network equivalent of the First Amendment. Today we have freedom to get any information.

    On a side note, I can see companies that will specialize in freedom of information becoming a service. Google is free because information about you is their product, and they sell it businesses, or allow paid advertisers to present their information to you first. I would use a "portal" where the search is not filtered, perhaps by using a remote desktop connected to a neutral connection.

    D
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,553 Senior Member
    I have an unfailing prescription for making the right decision on complex issues that I don't completely understand:

    Use the Democrat plan as a reverse barometer, and you will seldom be wrong. If Obama says something is good, it's invariably bad for everyone except the socialist elite. This is one of those issues (for me) where a representative form of government forces the ignorant among us to trust the integrity of our representatives, and cross our fingers for good luck. Ted Cruz is one of my Senators and I have rarely disagreed with him on the issues that I understood completely, so given the choice between him and the most prolific liar that has ever been elected president (including Bill Clinton), I'll go with Cruz.

    All decisions are not perfect, but the ones that decrease government power are nearly always the ones that help preserve our remaining freedoms.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,062 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I have an unfailing prescription for making the right decision on complex issues that I don't completely understand:

    Use the Democrat plan as a reverse barometer, and you will seldom be wrong. If Obama says something is good, it's invariably bad for everyone except the socialist elite...........

    That is the essence of everything in a nutshell. The demonrats trust big government (Socialists & Communists), and the rest of us don't.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,570 Senior Member
    BigDanS wrote: »
    My simple answer is it's a travesty and should not be allowed to happen. Net Neutrality is the heart of the Internet. Allowing companies to regulate what they deliver and at what price sucks, and should not be allowed.

    This is part of my business for he past 20 years. Ending neutrality only benefits providers, enables them to charge more and filter information. It is an end to information freedom. Today I can search for anything and get an answer. Tomorrow, the provider decides that "guns" are an offensive search and block it. ( This happens inside Government buildings today inside their firewalls. ) They can decide to allow or block ANY content. Essentially this is the network equivalent of the First Amendment. Today we have freedom to get any information.

    On a side note, I can see companies that will specialize in freedom of information becoming a service. Google is free because information about you is their product, and they sell it businesses, or allow paid advertisers to present their information to you first. I would use a "portal" where the search is not filtered, perhaps by using a remote desktop connected to a neutral connection.

    D
    As a DoD civilian my work computer was on a secure network that used key words to deny access to certain websites. I was denied access to a site. The key words were 'information' and 'knowledge'!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,590 Senior Member
    I have had a personal computer and access to the internet practically from when it was first introduced to the public at large using AOL online and a phone modem as the vehicle for access. It worked fine then and it works fine now...the only difference is technology and speed. I see no reason for government intervention.
    Net neutrality has de-facto been the rule from the beginning. Net Neutrality isn't the change, reversing it is. If you like how the internet has worked from the beginning then NOT eliminating net neutrality is what you want.

    And btw when you were using dial-up like the rest of us it was in fact Illegal for companies to filter or control the data you transferred, just like it was illegal for them to control what you could say on your phone line or what message you could send on telegram. The concept litteraly goes back to the 1860's and the invention of the telegram. It's worked for over 150 years, but sure trust an handful of politicians who took millions from the handful of companies that will benefit from this change. I'm SURE they have YOUR best interest at heart.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,243 Senior Member
    In this thread: I love crony capitalism.

    Ajit Pai is a former lawyer for Verizon. Guess who is one of the Big Three that will benefit from this?

    Varmintmist is correct about infrastructure. Bandwidth use skyrocketed in a way no one could have predicted. So, just like the RIAA and Hollywood have tried to remain relevant by suing and legislature, now telecoms are doing the same thing.

    Also, there's a generational belief system in place here. Baby boomers are more likely to trust big corporations and despise the govt. They also grew up in a generation where a man could work at the same place for 40 years, support a family, and retire with a pension.

    Big Corp is the new govt.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,062 Senior Member
    Net neutrality has de-facto been the rule from the beginning. Net Neutrality isn't the change, reversing it is. If you like how the internet has worked from the beginning then NOT eliminating net neutrality is what you want.

    And btw when you were using dial-up like the rest of us it was in fact Illegal for companies to filter or control the data you transferred, just like it was illegal for them to control what you could say on your phone line or what message you could send on telegram. The concept litteraly goes back to the 1860's and the invention of the telegram. It's worked for over 150 years, but sure trust an handful of politicians who took millions from the handful of companies that will benefit from this change. I'm SURE they have YOUR best interest at heart.

    OK, now I AM confused. If I had "net neutrality" before the Obama administration implemented "net neutrality" through regulations by the FCC, then why do I now want to continue having "net neutrality" by not getting rid of the regulations? There must be something about this conversation or the Trump administrations intention that I am missing.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.