The MUD Connector

General Category => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Arond on December 15, 2017, 9:02 AM

Title: We lost the internet.
Post by: Arond on December 15, 2017, 9:02 AM
Ajit Pai, the corporate shill with a nice paycheck waiting for him after he is no longer the chairman of the FCC can still get his and their decisions overturned...  We just need to stand up against them...  If we can...  They had bot accounts stealing identities.  You can search for your own name https://ag.ny.gov/FakeComments

Easy to follow with a statement already written in jargon you might not care about but you can obviously throw in your own two cents or just rewrite it.  https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Just throwing it out there.

Also, Davion, fix Mudbytes, you can't post new forum posts, search for files or even download files.  They all throw error 500(Or give access to the files so people can mirror it).  :p
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Tijer on December 15, 2017, 11:23 AM
mudbytes isnt even working for me!
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Jodah on December 15, 2017, 6:53 PM
Ridiculous.  I see you bought in to the Internet hysteria.  Net neutrality was never actually neutral.  It stifled innovation and raised costs.  The Internet was saved.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 19, 2017, 3:19 AM
Ridiculous.  I see you bought in to the Internet hysteria.  Net neutrality was never actually neutral.  It stifled innovation and raised costs.  The Internet was saved.
Amen and hallelujah! Well said, Jodah.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 19, 2017, 1:27 PM
Lol, you guys are funny.

Hopefully Congress will step in and do the right thing.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: arholly on December 19, 2017, 5:31 PM
I mean because before "net neutrality" existed in 2015, clearly the internet was in complete shambles.   ;)
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: desharei on December 19, 2017, 10:39 PM
I mean because before "net neutrality" existed in 2015, clearly the internet was in complete shambles.   ;)

Before the net neutrality regulations, there existed the very real possibility - (not necessarily a likelihood) for internet providers to offer you only the content they wanted you to have. Or pay extra for content you actually wanted. For instance:

Xfinity could charge you $40/month for the standard internet package - but if you wanted access to Facebook and Twitter, you'd have to pay $5 extra each per month. If you want Netflix and YouTube, you'd have to pay an extra $20/month. If you also wanted Snapchat, it'd be an extra $10/month.  But no streaming during regular work hours or on weekends, that part of the day's area-wide bandwidth is reserved for businesses that pay extra for it. You can have the same bandwidth for an extra $200/month, just like the businesses pay. Tumblr and reddit? Forget it. Not available at all, they don't want you to have access to it. In an area where that's the only ISP available? You're outta luck.

They can do with the internet what they've done with Cable TV. Do you really want to have to pick and choose which websites you will visit in the next 2 year contract period, and pay extra for each additional item, and even then - if there are businesses in the area, they get first dibs at bandwidth and your speed will slow down accordingly depending on how much the store across the street is using that particular hour, because they pay more?

I'm not saying that's what "will" happen. I'm saying that the regulations existed to prevent it from happening. Without the regulations, it CAN happen. And that's why people are upset.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 20, 2017, 12:10 AM
Lol, you guys are funny.

Hopefully Congress will step in and do the right thing.
Oh good lord NO. Since when has Congress stepped in and done anything right. The only thing they step in is horse !#$!@$
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 20, 2017, 12:19 AM
Before the net neutrality regulations, there existed the very real possibility - (not necessarily a likelihood) for internet providers to offer you only the content they wanted you to have. Or pay extra for content you actually wanted.

Um so? This is called Free Market. In other words, the consumer drives the economics via supply and demand. So what if Xfinity charges whatever they want. If they don't have what you want or for the right price you have every opportunity to go elsewhere. Walmart is the King of this type of marketing. They made an empire out of giving the customer what they wanted.

This same concept works for every product, service, and company in existence. Cars, Movies, Soap, Cereal, everything. The only time things get messed up is when the Government steps in and screws it up. Good example: Post Office vs. Fed Ex. Another example: Airport Security vs. TSA (if you need me to detail the problems with TSA and why they suck vs. private industry I will).

I just hope no one is fooled by thinking somehow the government will fix the internet. If that's the case, run for the hills.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 20, 2017, 5:02 PM
When so few companies control internet access in the country, there is essentially no "free market" to regulate itself.

In my area, for example (and it's not a small market) I have two viable options for internet access (both of which are also cable companies; AT&T and Suddenlink), and its not unbelievable at all to think that both would decide to prioritize and/or slow their competitors services.  In many parts of the country, they would be envious of my two options.

Even if a company doesn't decide on a national level to say "we don't want our customers to cancel their cable subscription so we're going to throttle their speeds to <insert any live-tv streaming service>" because they can easily do it in smaller markets in which they hold a monopoly, or markets like mine with a duopoly where it would be mutually beneficial for both companies to decide (either independently, or in collusion) to work in their own interests.

Essentially what they already do with their cable packages (for reference, my cable bill has gone up $40 in 2017, and I'm currently at around $250 per month for my service).

Also, think how happy you are with the monopolies almost EVERY area in the US with regards to your utilities.  With the importance of the internet to our society, it SHOULD be classified as a utility.

As far as the "before 2015"...

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
Quote
MADISON RIVER:  In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 20, 2017, 5:04 PM
Also, the Government hasn't been micro managing the internet... if you buy into that line of reasoning, or that Net Neutrality stifles innovation, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale...

The Government has simply said "keep the internet fair and open", that isn't micro managing.  There is NO comparison between that and the TSA or anything of the sort.  And the ONLY innovation that is being stifled is "innovative" ways for these companies to bleed consumers and content producers out of more money than they already get.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 21, 2017, 2:38 AM
Also, the Government hasn't been micro managing the internet... if you buy into that line of reasoning, or that Net Neutrality stifles innovation, I have some swamp land in Florida for sale...
I never said they were, I said they will if you open the door. Have you ever heard of the Affordable Health Care Bill? Welfare? FCC? Social Security? Income Tax?

The Government has simply said "keep the internet fair and open", that isn't micro managing.
And exactly who is the Government? It is very clear to me that you do not understand the concept of the Federal Government or the Plethora of laws and regulations they happily employ when a bill passes.

There is NO comparison between that and the TSA or anything of the sort.  And the ONLY innovation that is being stifled is "innovative" ways for these companies to bleed consumers and content producers out of more money than they already get.
This is how the Government operates HK. They have a great solution that only the Gman can implement. Then after a year they decide to modify that solution. Then in 5 years they modify it further and further and further until yes, my friend, they are now in the business of controlling content and companies and who controls them? You might say you and I through votes. WRONG. They are controlled by alligator shoe wearing lobbyists and SIGs (special interest groups) and they will change things whether you like it or not.

I am generalizing here, not all programs end up like this but most do. To make a clear blanket statement: The government can NEVER do a better job in any field than the private industry (you and me) can. Ever. Period.

Why? Because the government doesn't hire top notch people, they hire mediocrity. Why? Because the government isn't in business to make money only to spend money. Every division of every agency in the Federal government would go out of business if they had to compete with private industry.

Technically, the quality and ability of government agencies can be reflected in two words: Government Sucks.

If you want suckage running the show then go for this Net Equality, but don't complain when it ends up screwing you so badly you wished it never began. ;)

On a side note: If your internet blows that hard core, buy a cheap phone plan and go with the Hot Spot and stick it to those ISP's. :P
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Molly on December 21, 2017, 8:54 AM
... they are now in the business of controlling content and companies and who controls them? You might say you and I through votes. WRONG. They are controlled by alligator shoe wearing lobbyists and SIGs (special interest groups) and they will change things whether you like it or not.
...

Well, I for one am worried. And with the present president of the United States; who wouldn't be?

Meanwhile, here is some Mud history for you all, to take the mind off the present unpleasantnesses, and bask in some nostalgia instead:

Almost every existing mudder has, at some time of their history, wandered through the streets of the Stock city Midgard. Around that city is a wall.  And on that wall is an inscription. And if you look at the inscription...

"It says 'Who watches the watchmen?'

It's been some twenty years since I first read that inscription, but for some reason it stuck in my mind.

Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Jodah on December 21, 2017, 11:31 AM

Well, I for one am worried. And with the present president of the United States; who wouldn't be?

I certainly am not.  In fact I have never felt so much trust and optimism in a President before.  As far as internet companies charging money to access certain sites is just ridiculous.  They didn't before 2015, and they won't after.  They won't have to because their costs just went way down.  For example, tax cuts and net neutrality repeal has allowed Comcast to announce they are investing 50 billion back to America and giving their employees bonuses. 

Quote
As far as the "before 2015"...

You just gave the argument AGAINST net neutrality.  None of those changes before 2015 lasted because the MARKET won, negating any need for more expensive regulation.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 21, 2017, 11:59 AM

Well, I for one am worried. And with the present president of the United States; who wouldn't be?

I certainly am not.  In fact I have never felt so much trust and optimism in a President before.  As far as internet companies charging money to access certain sites is just ridiculous.  They didn't before 2015, and they won't after.  They won't have to because their costs just went way down.  For example, tax cuts and net neutrality repeal has allowed Comcast to announce they are investing 50 billion back to America and giving their employees bonuses. 

Quote
As far as the "before 2015"...

You just gave the argument AGAINST net neutrality.  None of those changes before 2015 lasted because the MARKET won, negating any need for more expensive regulation.

(https://i.imgur.com/9ZOgqGO.png)
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: desharei on December 21, 2017, 7:45 PM

Well, I for one am worried. And with the present president of the United States; who wouldn't be?

I certainly am not.  In fact I have never felt so much trust and optimism in a President before.  As far as internet companies charging money to access certain sites is just ridiculous.  They didn't before 2015, and they won't after.  They won't have to because their costs just went way down.  For example, tax cuts and net neutrality repeal has allowed Comcast to announce they are investing 50 billion back to America and giving their employees bonuses. 

Quote
As far as the "before 2015"...

You just gave the argument AGAINST net neutrality.  None of those changes before 2015 lasted because the MARKET won, negating any need for more expensive regulation.

1. I haven't seen any announcement from Comcast to me - a triple-play subscriber, announcing a cut in monthly fees, addition of new free content, improvement in connection speed, or bonus months on my 2-year contract. So giving "50 billion back to America" must be going to some other America because I'm not seeing any indication that I, an American, will see a single cent of that 50 billion.

2. Several companies in Hades_Kane's posted list went out of business as a direct or indirect result of the items listed in that post. Thousands of jobs lost, companies out of business, millions in investments gone. Because of the net neutrality regulations, the nature of those losses no longer exist.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 22, 2017, 3:05 AM

Well, I for one am worried. And with the present president of the United States; who wouldn't be?

I certainly am not.  In fact I have never felt so much trust and optimism in a President before.  As far as internet companies charging money to access certain sites is just ridiculous.  They didn't before 2015, and they won't after.  They won't have to because their costs just went way down.  For example, tax cuts and net neutrality repeal has allowed Comcast to announce they are investing 50 billion back to America and giving their employees bonuses. 

Quote
As far as the "before 2015"...

You just gave the argument AGAINST net neutrality.  None of those changes before 2015 lasted because the MARKET won, negating any need for more expensive regulation.
Not sure if you are serious or trolling
He's serious and why shouldn't he be. I'm not a ultra Trump fan but come on, the economy has grown since he went into office even with every media outlet claiming the stock market would tank the moment he was sworn in...gee bias much? I'm kind of unsure what everyone is worried about? Oil prices rising? A bad twitter feed? Lower unemployment? Lower taxes? Smaller government?

What exactly has you worried about Trump other than he might spout off something stupid?

Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Gamblejay on December 22, 2017, 5:47 AM
So much I want to say in this thread but I would end up writing pages and it wouldn't matter anyways because most of you don't want the truth or your minds to change. You just want to be right. I could lay out fact after fact after fact with actual statistics and research (Not articles from the Washington Post that injects feelings and theories) and not a single bit of it would do anything.

NN was a horrible, god-awful thing that I am happy to see go.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Jodah on December 22, 2017, 6:38 AM
Quote
1. I haven't seen any announcement from Comcast to me - a triple-play subscriber, announcing a cut in monthly fees, addition of new free content, improvement in connection speed, or bonus months on my 2-year contract. So giving "50 billion back to America" must be going to some other America because I'm not seeing any indication that I, an American, will see a single cent of that 50 billion.

Wow impatient much?  Net neutrality was just barely repealed and tax cuts aren't even law yet, yet you want instantaneous results.  It don't work like that.  Read an article if you want to see what the 50 billion will be for.

Quote
2. Several companies in Hades_Kane's posted list went out of business as a direct or indirect result of the items listed in that post. Thousands of jobs lost, companies out of business, millions in investments gone. Because of the net neutrality regulations, the nature of those losses no longer exist.

You know that makes no sense?  All those examples were before net neutrality.  So there was no net neutrality then, and according to you they practiced unfair business tactics to get ahead to make more money.  So the lack of net neutrality, an unlevel playing field, and even "unfair business tactics" couldn't keep them in business, what makes you think a "level playing field" would keep them in business at all?  If anything, Hades argument's was to list consumer protection violations, not to keep businesses in business, which was your argument.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 22, 2017, 11:20 AM
I'm not a ultra Trump fan but come on, the economy has grown since he went into office...

You do realize that the first year of a new administration is still basically operating under the policies and effects of those policies from the previous?  And considering that practically no meaningful bit of legislation has passed within that first year until just now with the tax bill, that other than the natural fluctuations of "oh sh**, we're scared" or "woohoo we're confident" that Trump has had zero direct influence on the economy.

It won't be "fair" to judge Trump's effect on the economy (good or bad) until no earlier than this time next year, when his and the current congress' policies have had time to take effect and actually affect something more than the jitters of the stock market.

Quote from: Jodah
You know that makes no sense?  All those examples were before net neutrality.  So there was no net neutrality then, and according to you they practiced unfair business tactics to get ahead to make more money.  So the lack of net neutrality, an unlevel playing field, and even "unfair business tactics" couldn't keep them in business, what makes you think a "level playing field" would keep them in business at all?  If anything, Hades argument's was to list consumer protection violations, not to keep businesses in business, which was your argument.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the point that is being made is that without net neutrality regulations, certain unfair and unscrupulous business practices that aren't clearly laid out as being illegal were being enacted, and in the instances in which these businesses were basing their success on these models were ultimately litigated and they found themselves on the losing end, it harmed their business which led to the things described, and so that net neutrality actually works in some of these businesses' favor by more clearly outlining what is and isn't okay, and essentially helping direct them to stay in their lane and out of potential trouble.

While one may suggest that the successful litigation against these practices are arguments that net neutrality is unnecessary, I counter with a few different points on that regard...

1) If IPSs "promise" not to create slow and fast lanes for internet traffic, then WHY are they working so hard and spending so much money to ensure they can legally do so?

2) Many arguments against Net Neutrality are predicated on the notion that the government can't handle regulation properly, citing examples such as TSA and so on.  However, regulations saying you can't do essentially this one thing is FAR simpler, far less micromanagement, far less government intrusion, and far less economic impact from the money spent on litigating these cases then having to rely on dozens of court cases every year that carries a MUCH greater risk of complicated, messy rulings that may even run counter to other court's rulings that will just muddy up the waters.

3) If it is unnecessary, then what's the harm in it being there?  The potential for harm is much greater in those protections NOT being there.

4) And probably the most important, over the last several years there has seemingly been an influx in special interests and lobbyists gaining an even greater foothold in our government.  ESPECIALLY over the last year, we've seen a "filling of the swamp" of corporate billionaires who, once their time in the administration is gone, have billion dollar companies they will be returning to and are CLEARLY making moves to adjust the government to be more favorable toward their business interests, including some outright laughable judicial appointments.  With big business having more money and influence in Washington more than ever, it isn't a stretch at all to think that once certain practices are back in play and the courts are left to decide the issue, that some newly appointed judge favorable to big business will reciprocate their appointment by making a ruling that favors these practices.  This threat is probably more real now than it has ever been, and the FCC making these changes in the face of an overwhelming majority of the US population against it proves just how much our government is moving further and further toward being FOR the 1% with a big middle finger left for the rest of us.

The thing that surprises me the most is generally the only ones I see against Net Neutrality have been conservatives, and there's a very solid line of reasoning for this, so hear me out...

It is generally believed by conservatives that the media (sans Fox News, I suppose) is Democrat and/or liberal controlled... always, ALWAYS hearing the term "the liberal media" as a general catch-all for all non Fox News (and related conservative talk radio) media.

Am I wrong about this?

Assuming not...

Then the lack of Net Neutrality should absolutely TERRIFY conservatives.  You know who these ISPs are?  Essentially, the liberal media.  Time Warner, one of the dominant ISPs in the country, is the parent company of CNN.  No Net Neutrality, right?  When CNN gets tired of Trump calling them Fake News and potentially harming Time Warner's profits, what happens when Time Warner decides to shut down access or greatly slow access to Trump friendly websites or media outlets?  What happens when Time Warner decides that you can no longer access Breitbart?  Or during the next election, it helps filter results and speed up access to pro-liberal candidates?

Or what happens when NBC, parent company of MSNBC and Comcast, decides that Time Warner has the right idea?  You now have the LARGEST ISP in the United States, parent company of the most prominent and most left leaning, liberal "news" outlet in the country, able to decide whether it wants its user base access to Trump friendly media.

Etc.

Do you really want to hand the liberal media control of the gateway of information like that?  The "liberal media" with likely the same "agenda" control enough of the market that the thought that "oh, the free market will take care of that" has a real possibility of not being the case.

And aside from the concerns of "oh, AT&T will block or slow access to every streaming service except for Directv Now" (which is a real possibility), there is real, legitimate concern about special interests and media companies using the ability to influence things to do so.  We're seeing in the government already, and little reason to think they won't reciprocate the favors (already seeing it with the smoke and mirror "we're giving all of our employees one time bonuses thanks to the tax code change!").  While I may have painted a doomsday scenario on a more national level with the liberal media controlling the internet on a nationwide scale, its much more likely (and potentially even more dangerous) when considering things on a local level, because in MANY markets, like the utility companies, ISPs largely have monopolies on their markets, and it isn't much of a stretch to think that a candidate with the right friends, influence, or money, could effectively shut down an opponent through the things repealing NN open up.  There is no "free market" to regulate this in many, many parts of the country.

And speaking of media companies reciprocating practices favorable to their profit margin?  Don't even get me started on the real threat of the next liberal president being helped being elected by the liberal media (afterall, isn't that the consensus on what they attempted to do with Hillary and it just backfired?) and the possibility of the media practically becoming state run as a bunch of mutual back scratching takes place...

Conservatives... this should f'n terrify you...

It should terrify ANYONE that values free, fair, open media.  We've already lost our "news media" to special interests, bias, and spin... Just as "Obama is coming for your guns"... they've come for our internet, and far too many of you are basically saying "here's all my firearms, I trust you to allow me to use it however you see fit".
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 22, 2017, 11:27 AM
And for the sake of argument, let's suggest that some are in favor of the repeal of NN for the sake of "Yeah!  **** Net Neutrality!  My party can now push MY agenda heavier!"

When has any President or Administration EVER given up power the previous administration has consolidated?

Isn't this what the Romans feared when they offed Caesar?

Even Obama with all of his "hope and change" BS came into office, the Patriot Act stayed, Guantanamo is STILL open...

Any gains and consolidation of power that the current administration is making will not be given up by the next President, who in all likelihood will be a Democrat... and so really consider if the power you want to give the current administration is something you'd want to see the likes of Clinton have, because with regards to giving the government more freedom, there are no "take backs".
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 22, 2017, 11:30 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/fe/fa/67fefa302df0232c136c8a57ef4b82de--receptions-crazy-cat-lady.jpg)
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 22, 2017, 12:15 PM
Hades,

Don't you think 3 responses back to back is a bit much especially followed by a HUGE image. At a minimum can you please shrink that image to about 1/3rd that size?

Like Gamblejay I'm not even going to respond with a huge post for the same reasons he gave. Besides no one wants a political thread.

Thank you.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Jodah on December 24, 2017, 11:23 AM
Well I'm not going to respond to Hades biggo wall of text, but I will say stock market gains can directly be contributed to Trump.  I play the market every day.  I can definitively say the stock market is forward thinking.  Everyone is trying to get in to the next best thing before the other person/fund.  The stock market could care less about the past or Obama policies.   It's purely forward thinking and how it perceives the future.  Quarterly company st earning reports are important, but guess what, people look for to determine buying or selling?  Forward guidance.  A company could crush earning expectations, but if it has bad forward guidance, that stock will tank.  Obama could have grown the GDP 10%, grew the economy 1000 fold, all that doesn't matter.  If the current future looks bleak due to the current sitting President, the market would slide down.  Stock market is optism and future, and Trump is part of that future.  Stock market gains are from Trump.  Don't believe me?  Look what happened to the market when Flynn got indicted and Trump's future was questioned.  The market absolutely tanked.  Still don't believe me?  With the next negative news questioning Trump's presidency (will probably be fake news), go ahead and buy 20 weekly or monthly calls of SPY and tell me how well you do.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 24, 2017, 12:44 PM
I agree with you 100% Jodah. Just look back to late December prior to Trump's election and  you will see every media outlet also agreed with you as well (or were fear mongering which is entirely likely) then they had nothing to say when Trump went in and all the stocks went up. Proverbial egg on face.

I think what Hades as saying though had more to do with presidential policy and rollover economy having to do with unemployment and broad policy. Some of this is always related to the prior president.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on December 24, 2017, 2:01 PM
tl;dr is the defeated's way to try to gracefully exit a lost debate.  I accept your concession.

As far as "no one wants a political thread", Arond clearly did by starting it, and so did the 8 people that responded to it (including you).

Have a merry Christmas.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: IFamiINIe on December 26, 2017, 10:33 AM
The thing is, internet should be looked at like a utility such as water, gas, and electric. Free market or not, no one company should control how much drinking water or quality of drink water your family should have based on how much you pay per month. This is what this law is supposed to prevent.

On top of that, many of us have very little options in terms of ISP to choose from. In my example, I had two, but AT&T is pulling out and I'm only left with Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). Google just moved in, but they are not in my town yet, but hopefully will be in the next year if I'm lucky. It really feels like a monopoly for Spectrum. They already have the best internet and lines around. I have no other option other than them.

To argue for the other side, I understand there is costs involved here. But, just because I'm taking water, making it into Kool aid and selling it, is not adding any additional costs to the water company outside of consumption. I pay for my consumption as a consumer. If the ISP wants to charge more, then they should just charge based on the same consumption (i.e.: bandwidth usage). If I watch Netflix 24/7 versus someone who watches it for only a hour should have different consumption bills. Not the same bill because now the ISP charges them an extra $5 a month for a fast lane.

The US still has some of the slowest internet speeds and penetration around. When I moved to Norway for a year, I had triple the speed I have in my current location and I was living out in the middle of nowhere on the side of a mountain.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 26, 2017, 3:26 PM
The thing is, internet should be looked at like a utility such as water, gas, and electric. Free market or not, no one company should control how much drinking water or quality of drink water your family should have based on how much you pay per month. This is what this law is supposed to prevent.
They do, it is called Anti-Trust.

On top of that, many of us have very little options in terms of ISP to choose from. In my example, I had two, but AT&T is pulling out and I'm only left with Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). Google just moved in, but they are not in my town yet, but hopefully will be in the next year if I'm lucky. It really feels like a monopoly for Spectrum. They already have the best internet and lines around. I have no other option other than them.
Sorry you have limited resources, but you can't argue for resources that are a privelege, not a right. Water, gas, electric are rights to stay alive. As much as many want to cry about it, Internet isn't invaluable to life. It is a privelege. Much like Mcdonalds. It would be like suing your city for not having burger king on a corner next to Mcdonalds ala Junk Food Neutrality.

The US still has some of the slowest internet speeds and penetration around. When I moved to Norway for a year, I had triple the speed I have in my current location and I was living out in the middle of nowhere on the side of a mountain.
Just because your internet sucks where you live doesn't mean Norway is faster than where I live and I live on the side of a mountain in BFE.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: IFamiINIe on December 26, 2017, 5:14 PM
On top of that, many of us have very little options in terms of ISP to choose from. In my example, I had two, but AT&T is pulling out and I'm only left with Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable). Google just moved in, but they are not in my town yet, but hopefully will be in the next year if I'm lucky. It really feels like a monopoly for Spectrum. They already have the best internet and lines around. I have no other option other than them.
Sorry you have limited resources, but you can't argue for resources that are a privelege, not a right. Water, gas, electric are rights to stay alive. As much as many want to cry about it, Internet isn't invaluable to life. It is a privelege. Much like Mcdonalds. It would be like suing your city for not having burger king on a corner next to Mcdonalds ala Junk Food Neutrality.

This depends on you. Could I live without electric and gas? Sure. We have done so for hundreds of years. But this comes with great negatives and a harder life for most if not the end of life if they depend on these to survive like for example, a life support machine.

While the internet provides a form of communication, it also provides a form of entertainment. For me, it's my primary source of income. It's not junk food to me, it puts food on the table for my family. Without it, I have no income and thus no money for food. While I can do something else, like living without electricity, it becomes a much harder life. This is why I look at them as utilities. No one is saying they shouldn't be free or even taxed to ensure there is good clean internet (water) to help those ISP's pay for it. But it should be treated the same for all.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Mechaterror on December 26, 2017, 5:59 PM
When has any President or Administration EVER given up power the previous administration has consolidated?

You're posting in a thread about exactly this.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 27, 2017, 2:09 AM
This depends on you. Could I live without electric and gas? Sure. We have done so for hundreds of years. But this comes with great negatives and a harder life for most if not the end of life if they depend on these to survive like for example, a life support machine.
You may be able to live without gas or electricity, but that's not the point. The point is, those items are life supporting commodities under regulation for the sole reason of their need. The internet, as stated above, is not a need it is a want.

While the internet provides a form of communication, it also provides a form of entertainment.
Again, this is not a necessity for living. It is entertainment. I could have easily used Movie theaters or Amusement parks as an example instead of Mcdonald's. The point is, you can't complain because Disneyland doesn't want to build a park in your state. Nor can you sue them or plead to the Government to force them so that we have "Net Mickey" going on. Your living might be the internet and mine might be mouse ears, neither one of us has a case to build on a level playing field. Unless of course we are talking about Moscow or Shanghai. But then you have to accept all that comes along with being a Red State.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Tijer on December 27, 2017, 4:01 AM
i dont know about the usa.. but i do know the UK is quite a way behind in the internet speed stakes...
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Gamblejay on December 27, 2017, 9:34 AM
tl;dr is the defeated's way to try to gracefully exit a lost debate.  I accept your concession.

As far as "no one wants a political thread", Arond clearly did by starting it, and so did the 8 people that responded to it (including you).

Have a merry Christmas.

It's not gracefully exiting, there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall. You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise.

NN is garbage for growth, always was. This whole notion that everyone is going to block everything, sure it technically can be done and it has been in certain situations. But when you use that as an example you show your ignorance because Antitrust has NOTHING to do with keeping or removing NN. With or without NN the Antitrust law comes into play when a business practices foul play and does not promote fair competition.

It shouldn't even be called Net Neutrality what it should be called is Content Price Control but if you called it what it really is none of you would wave your American flag and shout for freedom and rise against oppression. They literally changed the narrative to have freedom in it and hype up the taking it away as if this is some civil rights issue while playing you all like little toy soldiers who don't have a clue. And of course go ahead and toss the evil corrupt corporations in there for good measure, because the Gov always has your best interests at heart.

NN at its core is a way to control the price of the internet regardless of how much you do or do not use it. Now you can argue that it is a utility, it's too important in this day and age. Well, there was a time and arguably to this day where the postal service is just as important. However let me paint a little picture for you. We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better. The customer shouldn't have to pay more! Yes! I mean it's perfectly fine to make the postal service pay the difference and hike up the charges for people who just want to send a birthday card because we have turned them into an "Evil" corporation remember?

Fun fact, there was a time where you couldn't Facebook, Instagram or Text. Everyone sent these things called letters, the importance of sending information between people was so important that is was near the top next to food and water. However, the US Postal Service held a monopoly on it, there wasn't anything else to compete with. First Class Mail was held in such high regard that the Gov banned anyone from even competing with them over first class mail. Naturally because they were the only ones and could care less about the consumer the service was horrible. But luckily we live in America where a free market thrives so UPS, FedEx and DHS along with a few others popped up and started offering the same service, they just didn't call it First Class Mail and got away with it. Now they all compete to see who can deliver faster, without destroying it, tracking packages... all things that the US Postal Service didn't give two shits about because they were all there was. But remember folks, we need an open and equal market so let's toss out the Delivery Neutrality law.

Let's talk about this whole utility thing too because that was the main driving point when this first came about. The internet is not fresh air, it is not clean water, it is not a means to keep your family warm and safe at night. It is an extremely valuable piece of "Private" infrastructure that costs a lot of money to maintain, improve and operate. It is "leased" to you to use. The internet is not a right, it is a privilege that you do not "Need" to live a normal life. No matter how much you think you need your Facebook or Cat Youtube videos you'd survive just like many others did before the internet blew up. As humans it is extremely easy to give in to jealousy and greed. You see the CEO of Comcast living the high life and instead of thinking "Just think, 40 years ago they started with 12,000 customers and now they are the biggest in the US. I'm going to go try and do the same!" you think "Screw that evil corporate sellout who makes millions! I don't care what he does, that man is the devil!" And with that thought in mind you attempt to rationalize anything that goes against them as long as you benefit. But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more. So they toss out this emotional, patriotic fight the good fight and most of you don't even know what it really is you're arguing against if some news blog or media outlet isn't telling you.

If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. You most likely are a normal person who uses it to find information, send emails, create something in excel. Quit buying into the hype that you suddenly will not be able to work.

Whats more amusing about all of this is Google Fiber flopped, it's still around but it flopped. Why did it flop? Well a mixture of Net Neutrality and competition. However, it did one very very important thing. When it began offering its high-speed package for around 70$ I want to say. The competitors got scared, Google was huge and had a real chance of stepping into the scene on a massive scale. So what did companies like Comcast and AT&T do? They all of a sudden came out with their own high-speed packages that were just "slightly" better than google fiber. This is called a free market and competition. This is what happens when you stop regulating and micro managing everything.

As for this, the US sucks in internet speeds compared to other countries? Well, it is a matter of do you focus on large cities when spending or try and reach out to people on the outskirts? If you want companies to invest in infrastructure and make sh** faster, then don't implement laws that cause them to lose money because you want to watch Youtube, Netflix, Porn on HD and game for 18 hours a day at the same price as your grandmother who just checks her email.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Ateraan on December 27, 2017, 1:52 PM
Gamblejay,

That was well written very close to the same things I have said and/or would say.

Unfortunately, most people who have not been through training like 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Zig Zigler's Meet you at the Top, Tony Robbins, Greatest Salesman, One Minute Manager, or understand Success vs. Failure will not accept or agree or even comprehend what you are saying.

The love of mediocrity is a cancer in America and it started in 1970, but even those that lived then would be surprised at the level of "gimme gimme gimme I need I need I need" in America today. We live in a society of blame others for personal failure.

Just know that some of us do understand and agree with your premise and all we have to say is, "See you at the Top!" -ZZ  ;D
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Orpheus on December 29, 2017, 4:02 PM
First things first, I don't think the internet has been "lost". Honestly, I'm not sure why many people are freaking out.

I do sort of disagree with people who claim that the internet isn't a necessity at this point, though. I'm not saying it should be given away, of course; I pay for my internet, and everyone else should too. That said, I literally need the internet to work, and I personally know about a dozen people who also basically need it to do their jobs.

When I was a young kid, the internet barely existed, and if anyone had told me that it would become a necessity, I would have laughed. But let's be honest, here: it is necessary in this society in order to function properly.

I don't like that it is a necessity, mind; I literally didn't get invited to a wedding of a person I've known for over a decade and was - at one point - good friends with. Why not? Well, maybe he was messing with me, but the guy told me that if I couldn't be bothered being his Facebook friend, I wasn't worth inviting to his wedding. I just don't use Facebook, period. I have used it for business purposes, sure, but I don't have a personal account (or a Twitter account, or Instagram, or anything of the sort).

In this day and age, sad as it is to say, if you don't use social media - for which you require the internet - you're putting yourself at a real disadvantage socially and in terms of your employment prospects. No joke: I didn't get hired for a job a few months back because I don't have a social media presence.

Anyway, the internet isn't lost - BUT to claim the internet isn't a necessity at this point? It shouldn't be, but it totally is.

Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Jodah on December 30, 2017, 11:59 PM
In what industry was your social media presence necessary?
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Orpheus on December 31, 2017, 12:11 AM
To answer Jodah - marketing and public relations.It was assumed that because I don't use Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whatever, I don't know HOW to use it, which I obviously do. It ain't rocket science.

There really are jobs out there that insist you have a social media presence because the employers in question are essentially hiring you because you have a certain number of friends. And that sort of makes the internet more than a want, but less than a utility, in my mind. I don't even know how to classify it these days. To say it exists solely for entertainment purposes these days, though, is wrong. It is so much more. If you don't have access to the internet in 2017/2018, you're in trouble.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Gamblejay on December 31, 2017, 10:18 AM
To answer Jodah - marketing and public relations.It was assumed that because I don't use Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whatever, I don't know HOW to use it, which I obviously do. It ain't rocket science.

There really are jobs out there that insist you have a social media presence because the employers in question are essentially hiring you because you have a certain number of friends. And that sort of makes the internet more than a want, but less than a utility, in my mind. I don't even know how to classify it these days. To say it exists solely for entertainment purposes these days, though, is wrong. It is so much more. If you don't have access to the internet in 2017/2018, you're in trouble.

I will agree that it is used for many things, but I believe your situation is an isolated one and not the normal situation. Nearly everyone I know has quit using Facebook, shut down the accounts or not even bothered to log in for years now. None of them have any issues finding work in downtown.

The thing is everyone has access to the internet and will continue to have access nothing is being taken away.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether someone needs or just wants it in this day and age. When me and my crew are on a Pipeline in a remote area that doesn't have internet we all survive just fine with TV, Conversation and a Fax Machine. Or any of the other various jobs that require someone to go off the grid.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Hades_Kane on January 01, 2018, 11:45 PM
"there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall"

It's not stopping me, so...

"You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise."

Despite you being taught by your Republican Masters at Faux News, not everyone that disagrees with your corporate fed, master led slave opinions is a bleeding heart CNN viewer.

See how that works?

Do we want to discuss this with baseless insults and generalizations, or discuss the issues?

"NN is garbage for growth, always was."

How?  Explain it to me.

"We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better."

This is a gross mischaracterization of the arguments against NN.

Let me paint YOU a picture.

I am sending a birthday card to my favorite Republican politician, with a $10 donation enclosed, while you are sending the exact same thing to your favorite Democrat politican.  The Postal Service has been lobbied by the Democrats heavily over the last year and it is an election cycle.  They have decided to give priority to all mail directed toward the Democrats at the cost of slowing down delivery of mail addressed to the Republicans.  With 1 week out from the nail bitingly close election, every vote and every dollar counts, and the flood of small time donations coming to the Democrat is coming quickly, while the Postal Service has decided because of the destination, the Republican addressed mail can wait a week.  And oh look, some last minute mailers are being sent out, again, because of the corporate lobbying, priority is being made toward those who have paid to have things addressed to them arrive quicker, giving the Democrat in the race an unfair advantage.

Your example of the heavier load is ALREADY being addressed with current NN laws in place.  For example, my ISP has speed+data tiers.  If I want the base, low cost tier, my speed is a fraction of the top tier, and I have like 100gb data cap.  I exceed that limit, my speed slows further and I'm charged for overages.  Thats exactly analogous to your "I'm sending a heavier package".  I haven't seen ANYONE argue against this business model, because this is effectively a "pay for what you use (more or less)" model, and is the standard for mobile data, as well.  NN isn't overturning these business models, NN is about making sure that ISPs aren't blocking or slowing access to content providers that haven't been prioritized based on corporate self interests.

"But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more"

Again, there are already systems in place that govern this.  The impetus isn't and shouldn't be on the content provider to pay more to the ISPs, it is and should be on the consumer to pay for what they are using, which is already happening.

"If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. "

This isn't about intense bandwidth.  This is about even being able to access in some cases.  And don't try to feed me "they won't do that" because they have, they got sued, and those kind of practices is exactly why NN was needed, and with the continued corporatization of our judges and entire political system, its growing increasingly more likely that we can't count on the courts to do the right thing here.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Gamblejay on January 03, 2018, 3:36 AM
"there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall"

It's not stopping me, so...

"You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise."

Despite you being taught by your Republican Masters at Faux News, not everyone that disagrees with your corporate fed, master led slave opinions is a bleeding heart CNN viewer.

See how that works?

Do we want to discuss this with baseless insults and generalizations, or discuss the issues?

"NN is garbage for growth, always was."

How?  Explain it to me.

"We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better."

This is a gross mischaracterization of the arguments against NN.

Let me paint YOU a picture.

I am sending a birthday card to my favorite Republican politician, with a $10 donation enclosed, while you are sending the exact same thing to your favorite Democrat politican.  The Postal Service has been lobbied by the Democrats heavily over the last year and it is an election cycle.  They have decided to give priority to all mail directed toward the Democrats at the cost of slowing down delivery of mail addressed to the Republicans.  With 1 week out from the nail bitingly close election, every vote and every dollar counts, and the flood of small time donations coming to the Democrat is coming quickly, while the Postal Service has decided because of the destination, the Republican addressed mail can wait a week.  And oh look, some last minute mailers are being sent out, again, because of the corporate lobbying, priority is being made toward those who have paid to have things addressed to them arrive quicker, giving the Democrat in the race an unfair advantage.

Your example of the heavier load is ALREADY being addressed with current NN laws in place.  For example, my ISP has speed+data tiers.  If I want the base, low cost tier, my speed is a fraction of the top tier, and I have like 100gb data cap.  I exceed that limit, my speed slows further and I'm charged for overages.  Thats exactly analogous to your "I'm sending a heavier package".  I haven't seen ANYONE argue against this business model, because this is effectively a "pay for what you use (more or less)" model, and is the standard for mobile data, as well.  NN isn't overturning these business models, NN is about making sure that ISPs aren't blocking or slowing access to content providers that haven't been prioritized based on corporate self interests.

"But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more"

Again, there are already systems in place that govern this.  The impetus isn't and shouldn't be on the content provider to pay more to the ISPs, it is and should be on the consumer to pay for what they are using, which is already happening.

"If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. "

This isn't about intense bandwidth.  This is about even being able to access in some cases.  And don't try to feed me "they won't do that" because they have, they got sued, and those kind of practices is exactly why NN was needed, and with the continued corporatization of our judges and entire political system, its growing increasingly more likely that we can't count on the courts to do the right thing here.

I just tossed CNN out there because you're basically spewing the same sh** they did day after day. I don't bother with Fox either, if I hear something like NN is getting repealed I actually look up the laws and see exactly what they did. You don't wan't to discuss the issue, you want to cherry pick and circle right back around to the theory crafting scare factor. And no my example is not being covered by NN already and yes your version is already illegal in the first place. The Tiers you talk about for the top companies like AT&T and Comcast have a 300GB package and a 1 TB Standard Package. With options to go higher or pay for unlimited. So no my example explains it perfectly. My grandmother who doesn't even use 5 GB compared to someone else who uses 300GB. My grandmother still has to pay a higher price in a tier she doesn't need of 300GB just because these companies have removed the extremes on the lower end of the pole to make up for lost revenue. Again, most of your post gets tossed right out the window at Antitrust but I have a good feeling that you don't have a clue what that law even is. Here:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ShermanClaytonFTC_Acts.pdf (http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ShermanClaytonFTC_Acts.pdf)


Sherman Act Section 2 : Monopolization
Clayton Act Section 13: Pricing Discrimination
FTC Act Section 45: Declaration of unlawfulness and power to prohibit unfair practices
FTC Act Section 46: A, C, D, E
(a) Investigation of persons, partnerships, or corporations
(c) Investigation of compliance with antitrust decrees
(d) Investigations of violations of antitrust statutes
(e) Readjustment of business of corporations violating antitrust statutes

And that was just Antitrust, we're not even talking about State Consumer Protection Laws. So again, what exactly did NN do that wasn't already being done? The difference between the FCC and the FTC was this, the FTC went after you when you committed a crime. The FCC with Title II doesn't let you even think of committing a crime whether you would or not while at the same time due to the additional regulations charges you more in legal fees and labor to abide by their standards. And the info they want? Names of Customers, Prices they Pay, The Speeds they get. Pay the legal fees and pay technicians to obtain pointless info that the FCC doesn't actually look at just files it away. Gov hand holding at its finest, we will tell you what you couldn't do in the first place and ask for a babysitting fee even if you don't need a sitter.

Don't misunderstand my stance, I don't agree with things such as throttling Netflix in the dark because an ISP is attempting to get more premiums. That's just bad business practice. However, I will never agree with more Gov hand holding where it isn't needed. If Tom is told not to commit a crime, never has committed a crime, doesn't plan on committing a crime then there is no reason to tell him further not to commit a crime... but then turn around and have him pay the Gov for telling him again. And this is all because Bob committed a crime in the past by the way, not him. That's whats happening right now and it's ridiculous.

This whole thing is most definitely about bandwidth for a company, to think otherwise is just... I have no idea how you could even come to that conclusion if you have an ounce of Networking knowledge. And I don't think I ever said they didn't or won't do it, yes the companies which broke the law got sued and they lost, multiple times over. Verizon won once, they at the time did nothing wrong and were completely in the right against the FCC. Thus bred the introduction of categorizing  ISPs under Title II because the FCC got shafted legally.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Teryel on January 25, 2018, 6:19 AM
http://time.com/5117628/burger-king-whopper-net-neutrality-ad/
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Drizzt1216 on January 26, 2018, 2:11 PM
Far too many people here are taking the stance that because something is expensive it must be eliminated.

Those are not the only options. It does not need to cost lots of money to maintain regulations.

It's akin to the justice system.

It costs $31,286 per inmate on average to have them imprisoned. This is ridiculous. It shouldn't cost this much, my mother and I have personally lived on as little as $10,000 between the two of us when I was a child. (And no, that was not the 1950's, I am 29, I was born in 1988.)

The solution to the cost of prisoners is not to release the prisoners. It is to revamp the entire system and make it more efficient and cost-effective.

The same goes for the death penalty. I've known numerous people who are fiscally against it, but morally aren't bothered by the idea. That's nonsense, it shouldn't cost 1.26 million dollars to put someone to death. That's ****ing ridiculous. I can take my dog to the vet and have him put down for $100. Murderers don't deserve better treatment than my dog does.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Teryel on January 26, 2018, 4:25 PM
Far too many people here are taking the stance that because something is expensive it must be eliminated.

Those are not the only options. It does not need to cost lots of money to maintain regulations.

It's akin to the justice system.

It costs $31,286 per inmate on average to have them imprisoned. This is ridiculous. It shouldn't cost this much, my mother and I have personally lived on as little as $10,000 between the two of us when I was a child. (And no, that was not the 1950's, I am 29, I was born in 1988.)

The solution to the cost of prisoners is not to release the prisoners. It is to revamp the entire system and make it more efficient and cost-effective.

The same goes for the death penalty. I've known numerous people who are fiscally against it, but morally aren't bothered by the idea. That's nonsense, it shouldn't cost 1.26 million dollars to put someone to death. That's ****ing ridiculous. I can take my dog to the vet and have him put down for $100. Murderers don't deserve better treatment than my dog does.

While I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out:

You and your mom don't require 24/7 supervision in a large facility which in turn has bills and various regulations that must be adhered to, for the sake of 'humane treatment'.

And also, politicians don't have a stake in the systems that keep you and your mom alive. THAT is the issue.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Drizzt1216 on January 26, 2018, 7:15 PM
They're in cells, it doesn't take that many guards to keep them in line.

Each prisoner adds virtually nothing to the electricity bill. Their two biggest expenses are food and utilities.

A prisoner can easy be fed for $1 per meal.

Not to mention that 31k amount isn't what it costs for dangerous murderers. That's what it costs for thieves and people that embezzle money, drive drunk etc. The cost per year for those in high security or on death row is closer to $100,000 a year.

Want to save the economy? Stop wasteful spending, especially in the prisons and on "defense".
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Teryel on January 26, 2018, 8:07 PM
They're in cells, it doesn't take that many guards to keep them in line.

Each prisoner adds virtually nothing to the electricity bill. Their two biggest expenses are food and utilities.

A prisoner can easy be fed for $1 per meal.

Not to mention that 31k amount isn't what it costs for dangerous murderers. That's what it costs for thieves and people that embezzle money, drive drunk etc. The cost per year for those in high security or on death row is closer to $100,000 a year.

Want to save the economy? Stop wasteful spending, especially in the prisons and on "defense".

No, I totally agree with your overall sentiment. And a big part of that is recidivism. In America, it's ridiculous:

Quote from: https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

What we have in America is not a rehabilitative, it's 100% punitive.

Now, let's look at Norway:
Quote from: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
Norway's incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US. On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.

As I understand it, Norway doesn't have mandatory minimum sentences. Or any 'sentences'. You don't go in with a release date. They keep you incarcerated until you're rehabilitated, and judging by the statistics, it works.

Now, I get what you're saying, that criminals shouldn't get royal treatment. But when you treat people like criminals, they'll behave like criminals. If you treat them like people, and try to rehabilitate them... well... different things happen.

Anyway, that's a digression.

I'm curious what your economic point is in regards to internet though. I mean, if it was a public utility, would it be different?

I think private corporations are concerned with profits, and will do whatever they can to increase those profits, and HAVE done things in the past that were purely shady. Yes, many of the ones that were reported got shut down, because they were so shady, but...

How long did apple throttle old phones, before they got caught?

Just an example from the most current events.
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: Cr316h70n on March 29, 2018, 8:48 PM
I'm glad to see not everyone is buying into the 'net neutrality' BS
Title: Re: We lost the internet.
Post by: nullscan on March 30, 2018, 3:10 PM
This is a valid topic that can still be updated and deserves to be on the front page. Nothing necro about this, people who cry about necro are only upset that some post is on the front page and that hurts their ego now. Crying about necros makes me want to necro every valid topic that needs to be on the front page.

I sent emails to all my senators and state reps, and even one to the White House protesting the repeal of Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality was a surprisingly anti-communist move (since it happened during Obama) designed to remove the confusing technobabble from arguments against ISP-related monopolies, price fixing, and a variety of other shady/illegal business practices.  The problem that it fixed is the problem that lawmakers/enforcers/judiciaries are technologically retarded and so cases against technology companies that should have gotten them fined and/or broken up (compare Disney/Time Warner and their TV/ISP/Hulu monopoly against AT&T being broken up into Ma Bells back in the 70s and 80s) were being thrown out on technobabble arguments.

The reason I say it's anti-communist is because what the pinkos actually want is for one company to run several industries to make it easier to nationalize the whole thing at once the way Obama nationalized Chrysler.

I explained this in simple English to my Congresspeople and the president (or the president's aide, or whoever reviews email sent from whitehouse.gov) and only 1 of them (a Republican) bothered to respond.  His response was standard boilerplate arguing that Net Neutrality had by some insanely dis-logical means (not actually detailed in his boilerplate) stifled the advance of internet technologies.

So Net Neutrality was repealed and then its Congressional Review date came and went and the repeal wasn't reversed by Congress.  So now Net Neutrality is gone and we're all just sitting around waiting to see what nuclear winter looks like.

Yes, the internet is a utility and is relied on just like electricity - in fact far more so.  So many ISPs are now pretending to be phone companies (with VOIP services instead of actual phone networks) that if telephone is considered/regulated as a utility then the internet must be as well.  Anyone who says differently is just plain stupid - not just uninformed but actively ignoring common sense.  You ever take a group of 20-30 year old adults camping in an area without cellular coverage, you'll see.

So yeah, bringing this back up is thread necromancy.  Continuing to discuss it serves no purpose.