Net Neutrality Discussion (Moved from Politics thread. Please minimize overtly political commentary).
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
32
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 57440

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:37 am    Post subject: Net Neutrality Discussion (Moved from Politics thread. Please minimize overtly political commentary).

Anybody following this?

Quote:
Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. In May, the FCC voted to let Pai’s internet-killing plan move forward. By the end of the summer, the agency was flooded with more than 20 million comments. The vast majority of people commenting urged the FCC to preserve the existing Net Neutrality rules.

Time is running out: The FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal on Dec. 14. Join the millions who have already spoken out against it.


Quote:
What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.

Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn’t block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn’t decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn’t interfere with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.


LINK
_________________
Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 16922

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject:

So what happens to the porn?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22297

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:58 am    Post subject:

Gawd, those kind of sites are the worst and contribute to the misinformation that is spread. They didn't even break down exactly all of the elements at stake!

There are components that need to be protected, such as content blocking/throttling.

But there are other components to this, including but not limited to the below, that need much further discussion.

- Zero rating
- Paid prioritization

The problem is they are bundled with content blocking. And so if you're in favor of zero rating, then, you are also effectively in favor of content blocking. That's why they need to be separate.

It's like if were to propose a "World Peace" bill that would ensure world peace but also inhumanely kill all dogs.

Oh, you don't want to kill all dogs? Then you don't want world peace!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:29 am    Post subject:

This is being discussed in the Politics thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
32
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 57440

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:25 am    Post subject:

^ Sorry CL. You can lock if you want.
_________________
Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 26884
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:47 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
This is being discussed in the Politics thread.


have not followed closely in recent months....but is there now a more partisan alignment to this issue?

Seemed like about a year ago when it was a hot topic, it really did not have partisan leaning support....created a lot of unusual allies and opponents.
_________________
"To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." Ayn Rand
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:30 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Once again, you fail at understanding how the internet works.
Your ISP doesn't control the data on the internet. It only has access to it on the last mile. Think of them as being in control of the on/off ramps on the freeway. There is no such thing as "toll roads" on the internet. All data is treated equally. This paid prioritization thing is BS and is just a way for them to jack up their rates not to mention doing their best to stifle their competitors.


I understand the ISP doesn't control the data. I think you're missing my point.

Who is responsible for ensuring that Netflix data flows through to Netflix customers at an acceptable rate of quality? And, who should determine what is acceptable?

Netflix? Or the ISP?

If you say Netflix, and I would, then the only way Netflix can ensure that is by paying for it themselves. That is, Netflix has to accept the financial burden of whatever investments are necessary to ensure their product is delivered to their standard. And that creates an uneven playing field because the smaller guys who might offer a similar video service can't afford to do that.


I hope you enjoy your future internet....
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg

Looks eerily like a cable package....hmm wonder why.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html


You do realize the first image is fake right? It was created by a reddit user. This doesn't exist. And it could have existed from any time since the inception of the internet until 2015 when the OIO was put in place. Any ISP could have done that from the birth of the internet until 2015 and didn't.

On the second image -- first, Portugal has net neutrality as they are part of the EU. Secondly, net neutrality doesn't abolish offerings like that.

What you're seeing is a different form of zero rating, completely allowable by 2015 Open Internet Order. Basically, everyone gets access to all internet services without those add-ons. However, if you want extra data JUST for those services, then you can add on extra data just for those services. T-Mobile offers something similar today here where you still get access to everything but they will give you Netflix access without hit to data cap as a value add for being a T-Mobile customer. That this screenshot is being passed as an example of no net neutrality world is fake news. Portugal has net neutrality.

This kind of internet misinformation is so dangerous.

I wish we could have a net neutrality thread separate because it's so hard to keep track of the conversation in here with the other stuff being discussed. I had a debate with someone else on this in here and I don't know what happened to it since I wasn't tracking every page.

I'm opposed to, and have been, ANY form of lawful content blocking. But I'm also opposed to regulating the internet as a public utility under Title II. You really want Trump to have control of the internet? Really?


Thats some reverse psychology gibberish you are talking about there...Trump wants to abolish the current net neutrality rules. The only one waging a disinformation campaign is yourself, I wonder which ISP you are working for. I wouldn't be surprise if he is doing this because it would throw up some huge roadblocks for Bezos, whom he considers as the opposition.


The 2015 OIO "net neutrality rules" empowered the president to do so when they classified the internet under Title II. Title II is overseen by the FCC. Well, guess who appoints the head of the FCC? The president. Next time you put something you cherish in the hands of the government just remember you cannot always control who heads up the government.

That is why I'm in favor of abolishing it in its current form and think re-drafting it, or some other form of it, is a good idea. Keep some of what is in there, because there is some good in there. Remove what is bad.

Unfortunately, the concept of net neutrality has been dumbed down to "they could have to make me pay for access to [website]". Which of course, could have happened at any time from the birth of the internet until the execution of the 2015 OIO. But it did not. Even the Netflix example people like to use has been debunked when it was discovered their own transit provider throttled their traffic, not the ISP. (Transit providers not covered under 2015 OIO, btw).

The advancement of the internet in just 20 years was phenomenal and all occurred without any government regulation. We ought to keep it that way, rather than have it bound by Title II which originated in like the 1930s.

Not to mention, all of that fear about what about my favorite websites should still be in effect even with the OIO in place. The 2015 OIO only applies to ISP providers and not web companies since the FCC has no jurisdiction over web companies (that's the FTC's domain). So that means Google could block websites from being linked in emails on gmail accounts without you paying a fee, or block whatever websites they want from being linked in search, and it is all lawful under 2015 OIO because they only cover ISPs not even CDNs!

But go ahead and post more viral fake news away!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:31 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Actually, there would be no internet in its current form if it wasn't for the US government. You know DARPA project and all.
And the internet enjoyed tremendous growth not because of no regulations but because of the availability of access to the general public. All of which will be under threat if this current FCC commissioner has their way.

ringfinger wrote:


But go ahead and post more viral fake news away!


Other users have responded to your trolling posts. You are just trying to get a rise out of people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:32 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Actually, there would be no internet in its current form if it wasn't for the US government. You know DARPA project and all.
And the internet enjoyed tremendous growth not because of no regulations but because of the availability of access to the general public. All of which will be under threat if this current FCC commissioner has their way.


Huh? If they repeal the 2015 OIO, it takes us back to 2015. What was threatened in 2015? 2014? 2010? Answer? Nothing.

Ok, let's take your point about it growing due to availability of access. How d you think the accessibility to the general public occurred? Sheer force of will? Magic? It occurred as a result of basic market forces. Supply. Demand. Not because it was treated like a public utility. What is it about the the regulation of telephone systems you liked so much you want to transfer it to the internet? That technology saw almost zero innovation in its entire existence. In 25 years we go from no internet to full 4K video streaming for wireless networks with no signs of slowing down.

And all that occurred in a period WITHOUT net neutrality. How was that possible?

I hope you do realize that the repeal of 2015 OIO takes the control of the internet OUT of Trump's hands. You know you're opposing this, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:32 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:32 am    Post subject:

Gatekeeper wrote:
governator wrote:
Starving masses can and prob will accept change if suddenly they have food and ‘freedom’ (albeit Chinese definition) no matter how brainwashed they’ve been.
My whole point is simply that the reason N.Korea has been able to exist is because China and Russia don’t want a US ally unified Korea on their border. So unless China does something, Kim empire not going anywhere


China does (and will continue to do) nothing to change the situation. Political oppression and forced labor assignments to foreign countries (China, Russia, Middle East, Europe) continues to bring in hard currency to the Kim regime. Without enforcing the UN sanctions levied on NK by penalizing the cohorts, it's unlikely to have much of an impact on the status quo. The oppressed will continue to seek refuge in neighboring countries (China, Russia, Japan, SK, and SE Asia) while the elites will manage to keep the ideocracy afloat.

lakersken80 wrote:
Without the Kim's in charge, the entire thing would just collapse.I'm sure the military will probably try to hold onto their power but pretty much the rest of the civilian population will probably be glad to be rid of them.


Modern history has not seen a more ironclad rule by a single ruling family than the Kims. As foreigners, it can be easy to underestimate how pervasive the NK ideology is and the extent to which the socialist manifesto has taken a hold on everyday life. They can tolerate the deplorable living conditions because they are constantly bombarded with propaganda and assigned government labor. Ask defectors how they feel about NK leadership and generally they won't have a negative thing to say. The Kims have carried on by purging scapegoated officials who bear most of the blame for the economic crisis of the nineties up until today.

If there is a potential roadblock to the Kims' stronghold on political power, it lies in modern technology and the growing market economy. Maintaining the grip on power in the North now requires a balancing act between accepting the inevitable social changes while striking fear and respect in the eyes of its denizens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:33 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Actually, there would be no internet in its current form if it wasn't for the US government. You know DARPA project and all.
And the internet enjoyed tremendous growth not because of no regulations but because of the availability of access to the general public. All of which will be under threat if this current FCC commissioner has their way.


Huh? If they repeal the 2015 OIO, it takes us back to 2015. What was threatened in 2015? 2014? 2010? Answer? Nothing.

Ok, let's take your point about it growing due to availability of access. How d you think the accessibility to the general public occurred? Sheer force of will? Magic? It occurred as a result of basic market forces. Supply. Demand. Not because it was treated like a public utility. What is it about the the regulation of telephone systems you liked so much you want to transfer it to the internet? That technology saw almost zero innovation in its entire existence. In 25 years we go from no internet to full 4K video streaming for wireless networks with no signs of slowing down.

And all that occurred in a period WITHOUT net neutrality. How was that possible?

I hope you do realize that the repeal of 2015 OIO takes the control of the internet OUT of Trump's hands. You know you're opposing this, right?


The internet was around way before the 90's. What you are referring to the internet is called the world wide web. So you saying that there was no internet is patently false and understandable from somebody who has a very rudimentary understanding of internet technologies. I'm sure there are quite a few posters who were using the "internet" before that made up timeline you put out there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:33 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Did telecoms get tax incentives to build more pipe

Is any pipe laid strictly on some government utility right of way


I'm so sorry Comcast. I want you to earn your fair share
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Actually, there would be no internet in its current form if it wasn't for the US government. You know DARPA project and all.
And the internet enjoyed tremendous growth not because of no regulations but because of the availability of access to the general public. All of which will be under threat if this current FCC commissioner has their way.


Huh? If they repeal the 2015 OIO, it takes us back to 2015. What was threatened in 2015? 2014? 2010? Answer? Nothing.

Ok, let's take your point about it growing due to availability of access. How d you think the accessibility to the general public occurred? Sheer force of will? Magic? It occurred as a result of basic market forces. Supply. Demand. Not because it was treated like a public utility. What is it about the the regulation of telephone systems you liked so much you want to transfer it to the internet? That technology saw almost zero innovation in its entire existence. In 25 years we go from no internet to full 4K video streaming for wireless networks with no signs of slowing down.

And all that occurred in a period WITHOUT net neutrality. How was that possible?

I hope you do realize that the repeal of 2015 OIO takes the control of the internet OUT of Trump's hands. You know you're opposing this, right?


The internet was around way before the 90's. What you are referring to the internet is called the world wide web. So you saying that there was no internet is patently false and understandable from somebody who has a very rudimentary understanding of internet technologies. I'm sure there are quite a few posters who were using the "internet" before that made up timeline you put out there.


Oh jeez. I'm obviously talking about the expansion of the internet to become an everyday tool as it is today. Can't even believe you bring up ARPANET for crying out loud. The growth of the internet as we know it today has been over the last 20-30 years or so. How did we get to where we are without strict regulations? We've gone from little adoption to almost full adoption in about 20-ish years.

What regulated utility has ever seen the level of investment (over $1 trillion in 20 years) and growth like the internet? Don't answer. Rhetorical question where we all know the answer already.

I prefer to go back to the Bill Clinton Telecommunication Act 1996 rules which are far more light touch and by design, kept the internet OUT of the government's hands to avoid another Ma Bell. Clinton had it right.

I just can't believe I'm seeing people advocate for putting the internet under Trump for the sake of net neutrality. What the heck man. You have to look beyond the label.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:35 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.


Yes, let's have the uber innovative government make technology decisions. Maybe then they'll upgrade from the Windows 3.1 systems they are STILL using (or at least were as recently as last year).

What a great idea!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Actually, there would be no internet in its current form if it wasn't for the US government. You know DARPA project and all.
And the internet enjoyed tremendous growth not because of no regulations but because of the availability of access to the general public. All of which will be under threat if this current FCC commissioner has their way.


Huh? If they repeal the 2015 OIO, it takes us back to 2015. What was threatened in 2015? 2014? 2010? Answer? Nothing.

Ok, let's take your point about it growing due to availability of access. How d you think the accessibility to the general public occurred? Sheer force of will? Magic? It occurred as a result of basic market forces. Supply. Demand. Not because it was treated like a public utility. What is it about the the regulation of telephone systems you liked so much you want to transfer it to the internet? That technology saw almost zero innovation in its entire existence. In 25 years we go from no internet to full 4K video streaming for wireless networks with no signs of slowing down.

And all that occurred in a period WITHOUT net neutrality. How was that possible?

I hope you do realize that the repeal of 2015 OIO takes the control of the internet OUT of Trump's hands. You know you're opposing this, right?


The internet was around way before the 90's. What you are referring to the internet is called the world wide web. So you saying that there was no internet is patently false and understandable from somebody who has a very rudimentary understanding of internet technologies. I'm sure there are quite a few posters who were using the "internet" before that made up timeline you put out there.


Oh jeez. I'm obviously talking about the expansion of the internet to become an everyday tool as it is today. Can't even believe you bring up ARPANET for crying out loud. The growth of the internet as we know it today has been over the last 20-30 years or so. How did we get to where we are without strict regulations? We've gone from little adoption to almost full adoption in about 20-ish years.

What regulated utility has ever seen the level of investment (over $1 trillion in 20 years) and growth like the internet? Don't answer. Rhetorical question where we all know the answer already.

I prefer to go back to the Bill Clinton Telecommunication Act 1996 rules which are far more light touch and by design, kept the internet OUT of the government's hands to avoid another Ma Bell. Clinton had it right.

I just can't believe I'm seeing people advocate for putting the internet under Trump for the sake of net neutrality. What the heck man. You have to look beyond the label.


So you define ARPANET as something that is not made up of webpages...talk about completely clueless....now I understand why you are talking in circles about a subject you know nothing about.

BTW, Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality. Being pro net-neutrality isn't putting those powers in his hands at all. So you think he appointed that FCC commissioner to do his bidding to get rid of something which you claim will empower him even more....laughable at best.

Finally, the real reason why the internet is more accessible today than say 20-30 years ago is not because of regulations, but because we have way more internet enabled devices....there was no such thing as internet enabled phones, cars, TV's, internet enabled boxes etc back in the 90's. Computers are no longer a luxury but a commodity these days. As somebody who used the internet prior to the WWW days, first you had to find a computer that had a modem to get to an internet back in the early 90's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
So you define ARPANET as something that is not made up of webpages...talk about completely clueless....now I understand why you are talking in circles about a subject you know nothing about.

BTW, Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality. Being pro net-neutrality isn't putting those powers in his hands at all. So you think he appointed that FCC commissioner to do his bidding to get rid of something which you claim will empower him even more....laughable at best.


Can we just agree to eliminate ARPANET from the discussion? It has no bearing. I'm perfectly familiar with what it is no matter how hard you stomp your foot about it.

Being in favor of the 2015 OIO is PRECISELY putting the power of the internet in Trump's hands. That's what the order does. Explicitly.

That's my whole point. Everyone is focused on content blocking. But the 2015 OIO, the net neutrality rules, does a hell of a lot more than prevent content blocking. Among other things, it also places regulation of the internet in to the hands of the president via the FCC chairperson. By repealing it, it eliminates the regulation of the internet by Trump/government. You want it repealed and replaced with something different, trust me.

Do you not wonder why Google, among other edge providers, is a big advocate for the 2015 OIO?

Because it doesn't apply to them. It only applies to ISPs. So once the ISPs are handcuffed, then the edge providers like Google can content block or do whatever things you're currently afraid of and no one can stop them from doing it. But hey, you'll have your net neutrality yay!

So when people say "but, but, my favorite sites could be inaccessible" then I don't see why they would cheer the 2015 OIO. It doesn't prevent that at all. It only prevents one type of entity from doing it. Won't stop Apple from preventing you from seeing anti-Apple sites on an iPhone. Or Google from blocking certain political sites on Android devices. And so on. Once again, the current net neutrality rules do NOT apply to any entity that is not an ISP. Please go read that!

They need to remove classification of internet under Title II, and re-visit this discussion and factor in ALL ends of the network, and not just focus on ISPs but also CDNs and edge providers, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:37 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
So you define ARPANET as something that is not made up of webpages...talk about completely clueless....now I understand why you are talking in circles about a subject you know nothing about.

BTW, Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality. Being pro net-neutrality isn't putting those powers in his hands at all. So you think he appointed that FCC commissioner to do his bidding to get rid of something which you claim will empower him even more....laughable at best.


Can we just agree to eliminate ARPANET from the discussion? It has no bearing. I'm perfectly familiar with what it is no matter how hard you stomp your foot about it.

Being in favor of the 2015 OIO is PRECISELY putting the power of the internet in Trump's hands. That's what the order does. Explicitly.

That's my whole point. Everyone is focused on content blocking. But the 2015 OIO, the net neutrality rules, does a hell of a lot more than prevent content blocking. Among other things, it also places regulation of the internet in to the hands of the president via the FCC chairperson. By repealing it, it eliminates the regulation of the internet by Trump/government. You want it repealed and replaced with something different, trust me.

Do you not wonder why Google, among other edge providers, is a big advocate for the 2015 OIO?

Because it doesn't apply to them. It only applies to ISPs. So once the ISPs are handcuffed, then the edge providers like Google can content block or do whatever things you're currently afraid of and no one can stop them from doing it. But hey, you'll have your net neutrality yay!

They need to remove classification of internet under Title II, and re-visit this discussion and factor in ALL ends of the network, and not just focus on ISPs but also CDNs and edge providers, etc.


I won't let it go because you are clueless and cherry picking a subject you barely have a clue on...good luck trying to convince others to get rid of net neutrality.I just hope your access will be restricted in the future since you seem to advocate so strongly for this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:37 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.


Yes, let's have the uber innovative government make technology decisions. Maybe then they'll upgrade from the Windows 3.1 systems they are STILL using (or at least were as recently as last year).

What a great idea!


I'm sure the telecoms with their pseudo monopolies will all upgrade their networks if you ask them nicely....
As long as suckers like you entrust them with giving them gatekeeper access we will keep dropping further and further down the list of countries in terms of internet speeds. Now you are going to entrust them to determine the scope of the content that the user can access....good luck with that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:37 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
So you define ARPANET as something that is not made up of webpages...talk about completely clueless....now I understand why you are talking in circles about a subject you know nothing about.

BTW, Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality. Being pro net-neutrality isn't putting those powers in his hands at all. So you think he appointed that FCC commissioner to do his bidding to get rid of something which you claim will empower him even more....laughable at best.


Can we just agree to eliminate ARPANET from the discussion? It has no bearing. I'm perfectly familiar with what it is no matter how hard you stomp your foot about it.

Being in favor of the 2015 OIO is PRECISELY putting the power of the internet in Trump's hands. That's what the order does. Explicitly.

That's my whole point. Everyone is focused on content blocking. But the 2015 OIO, the net neutrality rules, does a hell of a lot more than prevent content blocking. Among other things, it also places regulation of the internet in to the hands of the president via the FCC chairperson. By repealing it, it eliminates the regulation of the internet by Trump/government. You want it repealed and replaced with something different, trust me.

Do you not wonder why Google, among other edge providers, is a big advocate for the 2015 OIO?

Because it doesn't apply to them. It only applies to ISPs. So once the ISPs are handcuffed, then the edge providers like Google can content block or do whatever things you're currently afraid of and no one can stop them from doing it. But hey, you'll have your net neutrality yay!

They need to remove classification of internet under Title II, and re-visit this discussion and factor in ALL ends of the network, and not just focus on ISPs but also CDNs and edge providers, etc.


I won't let it go because you are clueless and cherry picking a subject you barely have a clue on...good luck trying to convince others to get rid of net neutrality.I just hope your access will be restricted in the future since you seem to advocate so strongly for this.


The ironic thing is that I don't think you know what net neutrality really is. To be fair, no one really knows what it is. That's the hilarious thing about it. But it has the word "neutral" so it has to be good. It must be! It says neutral! If you don't like it you don't like neutral! Sigh. Sign of our times I suppose.

But we didn't have it in 2015 pre-OIO. We didn't have in 2014. Or 2013. Or 2012. And you know what, not 2011 either. Or 2010. Or 2009. Or 2008. Or 2007. Not in 2006 and definitely not in 2005, 2004, or 2003. Or 2002. 2001? Nope. Not 2000, 1998 or even 1997. Or in any year before that either.

So what are you fear mongering about?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:38 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.


Yes, let's have the uber innovative government make technology decisions. Maybe then they'll upgrade from the Windows 3.1 systems they are STILL using (or at least were as recently as last year).

What a great idea!


I'm sure the telecoms with their pseudo monopolies will all upgrade their networks if you ask them nicely....
As long as suckers like you entrust them with giving them gatekeeper access we will keep dropping further and further down the list of countries in terms of internet speeds. Now you are going to entrust them to determine the scope of the content that the user can access....good luck with that.


My choices are telcos or Trump?

I take telcos. Lesser of two evils IMO and the way it has always been. I trust market forces than I would ever trust Donald Trump. Neither solution is perfect, I will grant you that, but, Trump is far more imperfect.

Hasn't even been 2 years and it's already a mess. Title II, no Title II, FTC wants it, FCC gets it, dems want this, repubs want that. Government ping pong has already begun in roughly the same timeframe that YouTube launched its doors and got acquired for a cool billion+ by Google.

Away with Title II!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
So you define ARPANET as something that is not made up of webpages...talk about completely clueless....now I understand why you are talking in circles about a subject you know nothing about.

BTW, Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality. Being pro net-neutrality isn't putting those powers in his hands at all. So you think he appointed that FCC commissioner to do his bidding to get rid of something which you claim will empower him even more....laughable at best.


Can we just agree to eliminate ARPANET from the discussion? It has no bearing. I'm perfectly familiar with what it is no matter how hard you stomp your foot about it.

Being in favor of the 2015 OIO is PRECISELY putting the power of the internet in Trump's hands. That's what the order does. Explicitly.

That's my whole point. Everyone is focused on content blocking. But the 2015 OIO, the net neutrality rules, does a hell of a lot more than prevent content blocking. Among other things, it also places regulation of the internet in to the hands of the president via the FCC chairperson. By repealing it, it eliminates the regulation of the internet by Trump/government. You want it repealed and replaced with something different, trust me.

Do you not wonder why Google, among other edge providers, is a big advocate for the 2015 OIO?

Because it doesn't apply to them. It only applies to ISPs. So once the ISPs are handcuffed, then the edge providers like Google can content block or do whatever things you're currently afraid of and no one can stop them from doing it. But hey, you'll have your net neutrality yay!

They need to remove classification of internet under Title II, and re-visit this discussion and factor in ALL ends of the network, and not just focus on ISPs but also CDNs and edge providers, etc.


I won't let it go because you are clueless and cherry picking a subject you barely have a clue on...good luck trying to convince others to get rid of net neutrality.I just hope your access will be restricted in the future since you seem to advocate so strongly for this.


The ironic thing is that I don't think you know what net neutrality really is. To be fair, no one really knows what it is. That's the hilarious thing about it. But it has the word "neutral" so it has to be good. It must be! It says neutral! If you don't like it you don't like neutral! Sigh. Sign of our times I suppose.

But we didn't have it in 2015 pre-OIO. We didn't have in 2014. Or 2013. Or 2012. And you know what, not 2011 either. Or 2010. Or 2009. Or 2008. Or 2007. Not in 2006 and definitely not in 2005, 2004, or 2003. Or 2002. 2001? Nope. Not 2000, 1998 or even 1997. Or in any year before that either.

So what are you fear mongering about?


See the thing about that is false....we have done the research and read numerous articles about the subject.
Your statement is false but I don't think thats why you are here....you are trying to muddy up the waters and playing the resident contrarian....perhaps you work for one of those ISP's or have a financial motive to kill net neutrality.
Numerous posters called you out on this on your false arguments to discard net neutrality
Omar Little
tlim
Lakersanity.
trmiv
Myself.

Also the fact that numerous consumer groups and internet companies have come out in favor of net neutrality while ISP's have come out against it have shown what this is really about......................$$$$$$
Milking the consumer dry.
Destroying the competition.
Don't forget the same business model was working for cable TV until it wasn't.....So how is bringing it to the internet going to fix a problem that doesn't exist? Simply put its all about greed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Anyone who thinks removing Net Neutrality is good for the consumer is only (bleep) themselves


It is a way for companies to take control over a staple resource of our democracy.

Remember NetZero days and dialup.... only one number in your area versus others who had many

This feels to me like taking the public library and making only some books available to the average citizen but all the others are available if you pay some special fees and such..

no biggie


I still remember we were promised a fiber network back in 1996 if we removed those pesky regulations and give them tax incentives......most of America is still waiting. Heck, I'm living in an area where you only have 1 real option these days. The competition is 3 mbps DSL from another ISP....some competition huh. Now we want to get rid of those regulations which protect the consumer and give more power to the telcos/cable companies to screw us even further.


Yes, let's have the uber innovative government make technology decisions. Maybe then they'll upgrade from the Windows 3.1 systems they are STILL using (or at least were as recently as last year).

What a great idea!


I'm sure the telecoms with their pseudo monopolies will all upgrade their networks if you ask them nicely....
As long as suckers like you entrust them with giving them gatekeeper access we will keep dropping further and further down the list of countries in terms of internet speeds. Now you are going to entrust them to determine the scope of the content that the user can access....good luck with that.


My choices are telcos or Trump?

I take telcos. Lesser of two evils IMO and the way it has always been. I trust market forces than I would ever trust Donald Trump. Neither solution is perfect, I will grant you that, but, Trump is far more imperfect.

Hasn't even been 2 years and it's already a mess. Title II, no Title II, FTC wants it, FCC gets it, dems want this, repubs want that. Government ping pong has already begun in roughly the same timeframe that YouTube launched its doors and got acquired for a cool billion+ by Google.

Away with Title II!


And this is where you are clueless about this subject...Trump is on the side of the telcos on this case....He wants to get rid of net neutrality and so does the telcos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 15767
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:40 am    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
ringfinger, did you look at the obstructionist list that I posted a while back?
Also, Google is an ISP in certain cities. So they have to follow the same rules there.

I'm worried about things like when they tried to block things like VoIP so they could use their own. No real QoS is needed unless you run a really ***** ISP. Voice takes 3,000 bytes a second or less for usable audio. EVRC can run on less than 1K btw.

So things like that concern me. It's true blocking that they tried to pull. The network really should be just send the data as it's requested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB