Net Neutrality Discussion (Moved from Politics thread. Please minimize overtly political commentary).
Goto page Previous  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
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6479

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:23 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Wait. On #1 are you talking about treating them equally from a data perspective? Or from any perspective? Because with zero rating, which I'm perfectly fine with, the packets themselves are treated differently from a technical perspective, but the cost hit to the user is treated differently. Many, many NN advocates are against zero rating because it creates an unfair competitive advantage for bigger companies who can afford to participate.

Thinking this over, zero rating from a monopoly is brutal. It's equivalent to bundling. As an example, for TMobile users who get free Netflix, who is actually spending money? It means that it's the price of plan has the cost of Netflix built in. And you have no choice in it. Netflix could be nice, but what if it was the History Channel, Celtics Sports Net, etc that you would never watch? We would be back in a al carte channels that were talked about ages ago, and were axed by the Cable companies.

Quote:

Fine on #2 of course.

#3 -- The reason edge providers should be included in the discussion is because of #2. Are people who are in favor of stopping content blocking only in favor of it so long as it doesn't occur at the ISP level? I don't think they are aware that under net neutrality, their content can still be blocked and lawfully so as long as it doesn't occur at one point within the network. I'm pretty sure most people opposed to content blocking are opposed to it on ANY level, not just at the ISP level.

Detecting what is content blocking on an edge provider is nearly impossible. The recommendation engine could down filter that to near zero. Is that considered blocking? I'd like to see them define what "blocking" is because it's utterly non-enforceable and nearly impossible to detect.

Quote:

I'm hugely opposed to classifying broadband service as a public utility under Title II and would prefer only to do that as a last resort. And IMO, we're not there yet given the very limited number of net neutrality violations all of which were resolved without the classification in place.

The internet shouldn't be defined as a public utility? I'd rather plan for something that would work than revert the ruling and hoping it doesn't get broken. Catching the breaks and then having a slap on the wrist while they attempt to take over the market while the rules are updated gives the big boys a big upper hand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 21144

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:09 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Here’s my two cents on net neutrality: It may be a big deal in the short run, but people always tend to underestimate the impact of technological change and market forces in a developing market. 10-15 years ago, people were obsessing about whether Microsoft was going to rule the world with freaking Internet Explorer. Technological change and market forces tend to grind down monopolies and bottlenecks. 5 years from now, people may be wondering why this was such a big deal.


Except Microsoft losing its monopoly over the computer industry was neither of those. They lost it because they were overly reliant on legacy products like Office and even though their R&D labs had the edge over Apple when it came to developing tablet computing prior to the introduction of the Iphone and Ipad. The problem was that they shelved those ideas and Steve Jobs heard of what they were doing and ending up developing a product without a stylus. There was a well documented article about this and the lost Microsoft decade.Theres a reason why Steve Ballmer is running the Clippers and not Microsoft anymore. The ISP's that are the gatekeepers to internet access do not have any foreseeable competition in the future. Even a giant like Google tried to challenge them with Fiber but decided they didn't want to bother and focus on their core products. This is why net neutrality is very important and worth saving.


That's beside the point. Technological change and market forces rendered the concerns about browsers moot. Maybe Microsoft could have beaten Apple to the phone and tablet markets, but on the other hand Microsoft was primarily a software company and not a hardware company. Either way, the paradigm for internet use was going to change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 5017

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Can any of you tell me if other countries do or do not have Net Neutrality?

What is Tokyo like
London?
etc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 2738

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:48 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Can any of you tell me if other countries do or do not have Net Neutrality?

What is Tokyo like
London?
etc


Good question I looked it up and it seems like most of the first world countries have NN with europe having it only recently for about a year now.

While Australia china and russia dont.

https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org
_________________
-------LUCKY-------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 26910
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:23 am    Post subject:

FCC votes to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, after 'security' threat

Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, a move that has triggered protests from consumer groups, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers.

The repeal passed on a 3-2, party-line vote.


LINK
_________________
"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
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 5017

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:27 am    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
Can any of you tell me if other countries do or do not have Net Neutrality?

What is Tokyo like
London?
etc


Good question I looked it up and it seems like most of the first world countries have NN with europe having it only recently for about a year now.

While Australia china and russia dont.

https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org


Welcome to NWO

America, created via Revolution against taxes and Monarchy and oppressive governmental power.. now another comfort maiden or slave of the government and its overlords
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Huskers
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 352

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
FCC votes to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, after 'security' threat

Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, a move that has triggered protests from consumer groups, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers.

The repeal passed on a 3-2, party-line vote.


LINK


Sounds like a long legal battle ahead. Lots of companies (Netflix, Reddit, Amazon) and at least one state (NY) will fight this in court. I'm assuming many other companies and states will join in. Also groups and organizations will help in the fight. I saw GLAAD has already thrown their name in to fight this as well.

Wonder if they can force this before all the legal battles are won or if we will have net neutrality until the legal issues are resolved?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 5017

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject:

Huskers wrote:
adkindo wrote:
FCC votes to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, after 'security' threat

Quote:
The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to repeal Obama-era net neutrality rules, a move that has triggered protests from consumer groups, Internet companies and Democratic lawmakers.

The repeal passed on a 3-2, party-line vote.


LINK


Sounds like a long legal battle ahead. Lots of companies (Netflix, Reddit, Amazon) and at least one state (NY) will fight this in court. I'm assuming many other companies and states will join in. Also groups and organizations will help in the fight. I saw GLAAD has already thrown their name in to fight this as well.

Wonder if they can force this before all the legal battles are won or if we will have net neutrality until the legal issues are resolved?


My uneducated guess is unless the Govt challenges it IT goes through and the court battles happen after the fact?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 30812

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:08 pm    Post subject:

https://gizmodo.com/verizon-says-execs-joke-about-installing-a-verizon-pupp-1821177013
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 5017

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:20 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
https://gizmodo.com/verizon-says-execs-joke-about-installing-a-verizon-pupp-1821177013


Shades of this crap
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/enron-schemes-caught-on-tape/

Whatever happened to Anonymous the hackers..get these (bleep)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22302

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject:

Nothing to fear ... yet. And this could even be a good thing folks.

All we've done is go back to 2015. What happened to any of you in 2015 that will happen again? Basically nothing.

I think it's a good time to go back to the drawing board on this, and keep Title II classification out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 10140

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:17 pm    Post subject:

There was a good discussion on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe pod this week about it. I recommend:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/648
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22302

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:01 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
There was a good discussion on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe pod this week about it. I recommend:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/648


Thanks for sharing that. Listened to it and i liked that they entertained both sides of the argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41375
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:22 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Nothing to fear ... yet. And this could even be a good thing folks.


Wrong.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82851
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:04 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
There was a good discussion on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe pod this week about it. I recommend:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/648


Thanks for sharing that. Listened to it and i liked that they entertained both sides of the argument.


Next up, entertaining both sides of the argument on the pol pot regime...
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82851
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject:

Simply put, there is no gain to consumers by removing restrictions on providers having the right to slow or block content based on any standard they choose. The best case scenario is they promise not to. That is now your entire protection from your content being blocked or restricted if your provider isn't monetizing it. Anything else anyone tells you about this is noise designed to distract you from this simple fact.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41375
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Simply put, there is no gain to consumers by removing restrictions on providers having the right to slow or block content based on any standard they choose. The best case scenario is they promise not to. That is now your entire protection from your content being blocked or restricted if your provider isn't monetizing it. Anything else anyone tells you about this is noise designed to distract you from this simple fact.


Some people are easily distracted by something as simple noise.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82851
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:47 pm    Post subject:

Fwiw, the major providers are making record profits currently, so there is no clear and present crisis motivating this. It is simply handing the internet over to the large companies who provide it, so they can now own it too.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 17717
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:27 am    Post subject:

https://twitter.com/derekdevries/status/941496518594514944
_________________
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 6513
Location: Lake Forest

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:33 am    Post subject:

Well, looks like big cable figured out how to recoup the profits from cord cutters. We'll soon see 5mbs special partner plans where the user and companies that kick in a little extra $ to stream @ 300.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22302

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Simply put, there is no gain to consumers by removing restrictions on providers having the right to slow or block content based on any standard they choose. The best case scenario is they promise not to. That is now your entire protection from your content being blocked or restricted if your provider isn't monetizing it. Anything else anyone tells you about this is noise designed to distract you from this simple fact.


This isn't true. The 2015 Open Internet Order did not prevent content blocking. It only prevented ISPs from content blocking. Anyone else along the network path can block your content access if they want to including edge providers, hardware manufacturers, CDNs, etc.

In short, even if there wasn't a move to repeal the 2015 OIO, your content could still be blocked, it would just occur by someone else. And from the beginning of time until 2015, the ISPs never really engaged in these practices outside of a couple of minor incidents which were resolved like any other business issue. All Pai did was put the internet back in the lighter touch framework that Bill Clinton advocated for.

BTW, this doesn't eliminate regulation of the internet. It just transfers the regulation of the internet from the FCC who wants to designate common carrier restrictions, to the FTC. Now, I'm not entirely clear on the jurisdiction of the FTC is, but they do oversee all companies to ensure they are delivering to consumers what was promised.

Lastly, no one wants content blocking. Not the republicans, and not the democrats. And not even Pai. The problem with this discussion is that content blocking has been paired with OTHER issues that people are opposed to. It's like if I said hey, are you in favor of a tax bill that puts more money in the hands of lower income people and kills all dogs? And then if you say, no, then, oh, you hate the poor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 41732

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:58 am    Post subject:

I am still trying to understand all the ins and outs of the issue, but my gut reaction tells me this is bad for the regular joe like me.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22302

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:21 am    Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:
I am still trying to understand all the ins and outs of the issue, but my gut reaction tells me this is bad for the regular joe like me.


It COULD be bad, but it COULD be better.

I think this is the simplest way to look at the issue. What the repeal does is take us back to how the internet was managed in the year 2015.

So what happened to you, as far as your internet connection was concerned, in 2015 (or at any time prior to that year) that you would consider to be bad?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 22302

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:30 am    Post subject:

As far as Title II designation goes, here is my primary concern and if someone has counterpoints, I'm all open even though according to some, there are no counterpoints. Hmph.

One of the most significant concerns I have around Title II, is that it enables the government to control what ISPs can charge. Now, that might sound good and in some ways, it could be. But, if you were a business, and you could not make the decision on how much to charge for your product or service, how much money would you be willing to invest in your product or services?

Probably not a whole lot without knowing what you would be allowed to charge for it. And that's sort of the ... flip side of the coin that comes with regulation is that there is not much incentive to take risks and gamble and innovate when you don't have control of your destiny.

So I have no issues if we want to all get together and pass some form of law that prevents any entity from blocking your access to lawful Internet content. But where I draw the line, is a law that says the U.S. government is the entity who decides what we all pay for internet access and on top of that, the inevitable taxes we will be forced to pay at their discretion. That part I do not want.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82851
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:10 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Simply put, there is no gain to consumers by removing restrictions on providers having the right to slow or block content based on any standard they choose. The best case scenario is they promise not to. That is now your entire protection from your content being blocked or restricted if your provider isn't monetizing it. Anything else anyone tells you about this is noise designed to distract you from this simple fact.


This isn't true. The 2015 Open Internet Order did not prevent content blocking. It only prevented ISPs from content blocking. Anyone else along the network path can block your content access if they want to including edge providers, hardware manufacturers, CDNs, etc.

In short, even if there wasn't a move to repeal the 2015 OIO, your content could still be blocked, it would just occur by someone else. And from the beginning of time until 2015, the ISPs never really engaged in these practices outside of a couple of minor incidents which were resolved like any other business issue. All Pai did was put the internet back in the lighter touch framework that Bill Clinton advocated for.

BTW, this doesn't eliminate regulation of the internet. It just transfers the regulation of the internet from the FCC who wants to designate common carrier restrictions, to the FTC. Now, I'm not entirely clear on the jurisdiction of the FTC is, but they do oversee all companies to ensure they are delivering to consumers what was promised.

Lastly, no one wants content blocking. Not the republicans, and not the democrats. And not even Pai. The problem with this discussion is that content blocking has been paired with OTHER issues that people are opposed to. It's like if I said hey, are you in favor of a tax bill that puts more money in the hands of lower income people and kills all dogs? And then if you say, no, then, oh, you hate the poor.


I don't know all of your first argument, but for the sake of this ruling, it doesn't even matter. The isp is the portal, and in many cases a monopoly portal for access to the internet itself. So if some roads are dead ends that won't take me to the store I want, giving someone who owns stores the power to block me from driving to another store, or making it really difficult, is not good for me. It serves no citizen good.

Second, the ttc will have jurisdiction to investigate and enforce, it has already been said that as long as the customer is informed of a block or slowdown, that will stand and the ftc will ostensibly be hands off. There is no provision that requires the ftc to do anything, and literally, there is just a promise thst nothing will happen from the big players, one of whom is Pai's former employer for whole he was a rampant anti net neutrality advocate.

These businesses are making record profits, and if there is any issue of bandwidth, they are already allowed to charge tiers of fees for bandwidth and total data usage. A simple rule that says the internet was provided as an essential public benefit utility, and that while they can benefit and profit from it, they cannot choose for their own interests to make some content faster or slower or available or not is in the public interest, and that is what is being shut down, no matter how you try to obfuscate that.

And in will avoid politics here except to say that the idea thst everyone is against blocking is known to you to be untruthful.
_________________
I guess I just miss my friend.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 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