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
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:12 am    Post subject:

An 84 year old real life Patch Adams loses license because she doesn't like electronic medicine

Quote:

If you are not with system, the system considers you enemy of system’

https://www.pulseheadlines.com/doctor-loses-license-computers/68972/

Internet is now a necessary resource to be employed in most of America

Just like capping heating oil costs and such

Just like Pharmabro and other miscreant corporate pigs who raise the costs of LIFESAVING drugs

Why does any human alive think Corporations will use their power
Respectfully and somehow with benevolence

Here is a nice example of the non greedy respectable American corporation using their new powers of Monopolistic Capitalism to better the lives of their customer

https://www.google.com/search?q=bechtel+water+bolivia
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:49 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
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.


It also serves no citizen good, for anything tied to technological innovation, to be placed in the hands of an entity that is still using, for their nuclear program, computers running Windows 3.1 and floppy disks.

If what you wanted is for the government to make the decisions on what is best for the internet -- then what are you complaining about? The government is now doing what they think is in the best interests of the internet. So you should be happy, no? Or, is it one of these things where, hey you can do whatever you like, as long as you do exactly what I want sort of things?

Last note -- who is in favor of content blocking? Is there even one person that has come out and said they are in favor of blocking and throttling content to the masses? No one has said that. All of the surveying on this issues I have seen have shown similar percentages of dems and repubs on this issue.

Chairman Pai has vocally stated his opposition to that.

Even some of the ISPs have come out and said they are opposed to the blocking of lawful content.

You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:51 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:18 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations. And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5286

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:40 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations. And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


I'd normally agree with this but when it comes to ISPs market forces have already been impacted by private and government entities in that many regions and municipalities have made it nearly impossible for there to be a competitive/alternate ISP in market. Without changes there, we then need to treat the internet like other utilities and allow the government to regulate to the best of their abilities. That's the primary reason for my displeasure in the vote and decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:28 pm    Post subject:

lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations. And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


I'd normally agree with this but when it comes to ISPs market forces have already been impacted by private and government entities in that many regions and municipalities have made it nearly impossible for there to be a competitive/alternate ISP in market. Without changes there, we then need to treat the internet like other utilities and allow the government to regulate to the best of their abilities. That's the primary reason for my displeasure in the vote and decision.


I guess I’m just not seeing the need for strict regulation. I understand the monopoly argument, but don’t really see what large scale problems we had in 2015 or prior. And what about mobile ISPs then? There are dozens of alternatives there.

Do we want to hamstring them too?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5286

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:20 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations. And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


I'd normally agree with this but when it comes to ISPs market forces have already been impacted by private and government entities in that many regions and municipalities have made it nearly impossible for there to be a competitive/alternate ISP in market. Without changes there, we then need to treat the internet like other utilities and allow the government to regulate to the best of their abilities. That's the primary reason for my displeasure in the vote and decision.


I guess I’m just not seeing the need for strict regulation. I understand the monopoly argument, but don’t really see what large scale problems we had in 2015 or prior. And what about mobile ISPs then? There are dozens of alternatives there.

Do we want to hamstring them too?


A few points here:
1.Pre 2015, and even since, there have been a number of instances in which an ISP has performed or attempted to perform self serving prioritization and the detriment to the customer. In the case of wireless, the most blatant example was AT&T blocking FaceTime until it received significant backlash, and eventually a pro net neutrality FCC stopped it. Also helped that other cell carriers existed as options for customers to speak with their money and business. In the case of wired carriers a small ISP that offered VOIP services blocked access to alternatives such as Vonage. In that case the FCC post 2015 stepped in and shut that down. Otherwise, that'd likely still be the case today.

2. Regarding mobile carriers, they are not viable alternatives to the ISPs that have near monopolies in regions. For 1, most mobile carriers have significant limitations on tethering rules for access outside of a single device and many cannot provide the service at speeds makin g it worthwhile in parts of the nation anyway.

3. Not following the question of being hamstrung by regulation? To date the primary argument has been that these ISPsare either unable to or choosing not to invest in their infrastructure due to Regulation. Yet in that same time period the Title II rules have been applicable, their overall investment has actually increased.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/ for reference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:11 pm    Post subject:

This guy sounds 10000x more fit for the position though
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16781362/ajit-pai-dj-same-name-interview-net-neutrality
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 30373

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:50 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations.
And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.

Well they certainly empowered them now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:12 pm    Post subject:

lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


You're taking the issue to its lowest common denominator and ignoring everything else.

Why?



Since when do we trust Corporations to do good if there is nobody to police them.

why is industry cheering while people "Citizens" "customers" aren't?

**added when fixed typo

Who is this country here to make happy and give the highest quality of life to?
corporations
or
citizens


I don't trust corporations. And I certainly don't trust the government.

And when I say I don't trust them, it's not that I think they would do anything malicious intentionally, although they could. But we're talking about an entity, as I mentioned above, that is still running on 50+ year old technology that still uses floppy disks. That's who I want overseeing the internet? No thanks.

There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.

Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


I'd normally agree with this but when it comes to ISPs market forces have already been impacted by private and government entities in that many regions and municipalities have made it nearly impossible for there to be a competitive/alternate ISP in market. Without changes there, we then need to treat the internet like other utilities and allow the government to regulate to the best of their abilities. That's the primary reason for my displeasure in the vote and decision.


I guess I’m just not seeing the need for strict regulation. I understand the monopoly argument, but don’t really see what large scale problems we had in 2015 or prior. And what about mobile ISPs then? There are dozens of alternatives there.

Do we want to hamstring them too?


A few points here:
1.Pre 2015, and even since, there have been a number of instances in which an ISP has performed or attempted to perform self serving prioritization and the detriment to the customer. In the case of wireless, the most blatant example was AT&T blocking FaceTime until it received significant backlash, and eventually a pro net neutrality FCC stopped it. Also helped that other cell carriers existed as options for customers to speak with their money and business. In the case of wired carriers a small ISP that offered VOIP services blocked access to alternatives such as Vonage. In that case the FCC post 2015 stepped in and shut that down. Otherwise, that'd likely still be the case today.

2. Regarding mobile carriers, they are not viable alternatives to the ISPs that have near monopolies in regions. For 1, most mobile carriers have significant limitations on tethering rules for access outside of a single device and many cannot provide the service at speeds makin g it worthwhile in parts of the nation anyway.

3. Not following the question of being hamstrung by regulation? To date the primary argument has been that these ISPsare either unable to or choosing not to invest in their infrastructure due to Regulation. Yet in that same time period the Title II rules have been applicable, their overall investment has actually increased.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/ for reference.


Good points.

I don’t agree with what AT&T did, but what does that have to do with Title II?

The point of mobile carriers was regarding competition. Since there is competition there, why should they be hamstrung by regulation?

From what I have read, yes, capital expenditures are up. But not BROADBAND related capital expenditures. Those, are down.

Lastly, people like to make dramatic statements like “the internet as we know it is over” which is silly. Their content can be blocked with the OIO or not. All that order does is limit 1 party from doing so. Blocking of content should be prohinited and you don’t need strict regulation to do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:26 pm    Post subject:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject:

I think we should remove pipeline neutrality allowing oil water gas sewage et al to be unregulated

Here is the 1984 version of the removal of net neutrality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg

enjoy your Verizon overlords

can bet their stock goes up soon

http://fortune.com/2017/12/09/fcc-head-ajit-pai-verizons-puppet-net-neutrality/

If you want to actually protest this

Call verizon monday and mass cancel your accounts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 41229
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:35 pm    Post subject:

Here's the massive problem with the whole "I don't care about corporations, I just don't 'trust the government'".

The reality is, if it weren't for government regulation, 12 year olds would still be working in mines in this country. There's a place for government. And one of it's important functions is to protect citizens.

The asinine pretense that corporations would keep themselves honest and reasonable while treating workers and consumers without regulation doesn't fly and reveals a great deal about those who attempt to perpetuate that they would.
_________________
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: 82607
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:25 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Here's the massive problem with the whole "I don't care about corporations, I just don't 'trust the government'".

The reality is, if it weren't for government regulation, 12 year olds would still be working in mines in this country. There's a place for government. And one of it's important functions is to protect citizens.

The asinine pretense that corporations would keep themselves honest and reasonable while treating workers and consumers without regulation doesn't fly and reveals a great deal about those who attempt to perpetuate that they would.


Even if you believe all the rhetoric about corrupt government, the fun part is who it is who corrupts government. And some folks figure the way to fix that is to cut out the middle man...
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5286

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:55 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:


A few points here:
1.Pre 2015, and even since, there have been a number of instances in which an ISP has performed or attempted to perform self serving prioritization and the detriment to the customer. In the case of wireless, the most blatant example was AT&T blocking FaceTime until it received significant backlash, and eventually a pro net neutrality FCC stopped it. Also helped that other cell carriers existed as options for customers to speak with their money and business. In the case of wired carriers a small ISP that offered VOIP services blocked access to alternatives such as Vonage. In that case the FCC post 2015 stepped in and shut that down. Otherwise, that'd likely still be the case today.

2. Regarding mobile carriers, they are not viable alternatives to the ISPs that have near monopolies in regions. For 1, most mobile carriers have significant limitations on tethering rules for access outside of a single device and many cannot provide the service at speeds makin g it worthwhile in parts of the nation anyway.

3. Not following the question of being hamstrung by regulation? To date the primary argument has been that these ISPsare either unable to or choosing not to invest in their infrastructure due to Regulation. Yet in that same time period the Title II rules have been applicable, their overall investment has actually increased.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-cripples-investment-thats-not-true/ for reference.


Good points.

I don’t agree with what AT&T did, but what does that have to do with Title II?

The point of mobile carriers was regarding competition. Since there is competition there, why should they be hamstrung by regulation?

From what I have read, yes, capital expenditures are up. But not BROADBAND related capital expenditures. Those, are down.

Lastly, people like to make dramatic statements like “the internet as we know it is over” which is silly. Their content can be blocked with the OIO or not. All that order does is limit 1 party from doing so. Blocking of content should be prohinited and you don’t need strict regulation to do that.


Reduced the quote length purely to prevent nesting on the page.

In response re AT&T, Title II helped make ATT and the other ISPs common carriers, or so I understand, that would be prevented from from blocking or throttling data, and from enacting “paid prioritization” offerings. Essentially by treating them like telco's under the provisions, they were able to regulate and prevent them from utilizing monopolistic practices, inclusive of the above ideas of blocking/throttling/paid prioritization. If I am mistaken about this, I really would like to know.

Regarding the mobile carriers, I can see and agree with your argument there, considering choice and options do exist. This is again why I think it makes sense for Congress to enact bills and legislation around net neutrality, and not leave it to an un-elected group of commissioners selected based on party lines.

In terms of capex spend, corporations have very clear ways of hiding specifics behind where their capex spend has gone, but there are a few CEOs on record stating that it was not an impediment to their spend plans.

Quote, and another article tied to capex spending here:
Quote:
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said in a January 2017 earnings call that Title II regulation is "suppressive to investment," but appeared to be talking about the industry in general rather than AT&T specifically. He did not attribute any investment decline at AT&T to Title II. In December 2015, Stephenson said the Title II rules were not an impediment to AT&T and that "Everything that we’re planning on doing fits within those rules."

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6474

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:57 am    Post subject:

Zero rating is just not a good thing with monopolies. A cable companies could say, "I'm zero rating all my tv channels" and then bring up the price of internet because there is literally nothing that stops them. So you are forced to pay for the channels, no matter what.

Even then, they don't care. How can cable internet cost $70/month at Spectrum? They are the monopoly and they asked for it. They forced the city's hand to give it to the or else that company won't show up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
Zero rating is just not a good thing with monopolies. A cable companies could say, "I'm zero rating all my tv channels" and then bring up the price of internet because there is literally nothing that stops them. So you are forced to pay for the channels, no matter what.

Even then, they don't care. How can cable internet cost $70/month at Spectrum? They are the monopoly and they asked for it. They forced the city's hand to give it to the or else that company won't show up.


That’s not zero rating. But you do bring up an interesting point about ISPs that offer more than internet service. We are already seeing ISP and Edge Provide combos and they could be really creative there. Content block as an edge provider but not as an ISP. And that would be considered fully neutral under existing NN rules.

Zero rating is when an edge provider (Netflix) pays an ISP (T-Mobile) to eliminate its product from data caps. There is no “fast lane” per se, and all bits are treated equally (depending on how you define treated). No one else is slowed down or blocked. Zero rating is considered neutral, under existing NN rules. Therefore being opposed to it is to be opposed to net neutrality.

The TV analog would be if HBO paid Cox to make HBO free for all Cox customers.

From a strict NN perspective, I can see how this could be problematic as it unlevels the playing field. But I have no issue with it whatsoever since no end customer is negatively impacted directly by zero rating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml


Do you even care that this is fake news? I’m guessing not.

This was shown to be fake news a long time ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4881

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml


Do you even care that this is fake news? I’m guessing not.

This was shown to be fake news a long time ago.


You are still of the opinion this development helps consumers?

Whether that one article is fake news doesn't matter as much to me as freedom.. an unrestricted internet

I wonder what else is in this bill that we are not hearing about yet.
Sell your data.. check

I remember a book about memory chips in the future being some sort of staple product that could only be found underground .. these chips were necessary for something iirc

Now we have our Internet being treated like it is a gallon of gasoline per kbs/mbs/gbs etc..

*FWIW, if I had Verizon wireless before that vote.. I would cancel it immediately.

Can you tell me .. without thinking of your stock portfolio.. what Good that outweighs the bad comes from this?

Why was this removal of NN necessary?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:18 pm    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml


Do you even care that this is fake news? I’m guessing not.

This was shown to be fake news a long time ago.


You are still of the opinion this development helps consumers?

Whether that one article is fake news doesn't matter as much to me as freedom.. an unrestricted internet

I wonder what else is in this bill that we are not hearing about yet.
Sell your data.. check

I remember a book about memory chips in the future being some sort of staple product that could only be found underground .. these chips were necessary for something iirc

Now we have our Internet being treated like it is a gallon of gasoline per kbs/mbs/gbs etc..

*FWIW, if I had Verizon wireless before that vote.. I would cancel it immediately.

Can you tell me .. without thinking of your stock portfolio.. what Good that outweighs the bad comes from this?

Why was this removal of NN necessary?


I have no ISPs in my stock portfolio. It is entirely comprised of index funds.

I think the removal of Title II can have benefits to consumers, yes. The removal of content blocking protections, potentially no. But why am I not concerned about it? Because ISPs had 20 yrs to block content to the masses and didn’t. Yes, we had a few cases but nothing anywhere near the apocalypse people are suggesting there will be. So my question to you is, why didn’t they? Why didn’t ISPs block content in 2015 pre OIO? Or 2014?

If we want to pass provisions blocking ISPs from content blocking, I’m in total favor of that and so is Chairman Pai for that matter.

But placing oversight of anything technology in to the hands of an entity that spends 75 percent of an $80 billion budget on maintaining archaic systems with floppy disks and running off COBOL code is a misstep.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/report-us-spending-75-billion-dollar-budget-aging/story?id=39382059

Quote:
Floppy disks are still used "because it accomplished the required tasks we used the system for, meaning it would have been fiscally unnecessary to make the change," said Capt. Christopher Mesnard, a spokesman for the Air Force Global Strike Command.


Like i said before, there is a reason the US Government looks to the private sector whenever they need to do anything involving consumer technology (like hack in to an iPhone).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 30373

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:33 pm    Post subject:

Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:56 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Here's the massive problem with the whole "I don't care about corporations, I just don't 'trust the government'".

The reality is, if it weren't for government regulation, 12 year olds would still be working in mines in this country. There's a place for government. And one of it's important functions is to protect citizens.

The asinine pretense that corporations would keep themselves honest and reasonable while treating workers and consumers without regulation doesn't fly and reveals a great deal about those who attempt to perpetuate that they would.


I think there’s a healthy balance somewhere between 12 yr olds working in mines and totalitarianism.

Removing Title II doesn’t eliminate regulation entirely. It just minimizes it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6474

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:22 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
tlim wrote:
Zero rating is just not a good thing with monopolies. A cable companies could say, "I'm zero rating all my tv channels" and then bring up the price of internet because there is literally nothing that stops them. So you are forced to pay for the channels, no matter what.

Even then, they don't care. How can cable internet cost $70/month at Spectrum? They are the monopoly and they asked for it. They forced the city's hand to give it to the or else that company won't show up.


That’s not zero rating. But you do bring up an interesting point about ISPs that offer more than internet service. We are already seeing ISP and Edge Provide combos and they could be really creative there. Content block as an edge provider but not as an ISP. And that would be considered fully neutral under existing NN rules.

Zero rating is when an edge provider (Netflix) pays an ISP (T-Mobile) to eliminate its product from data caps. There is no “fast lane” per se, and all bits are treated equally (depending on how you define treated). No one else is slowed down or blocked. Zero rating is considered neutral, under existing NN rules. Therefore being opposed to it is to be opposed to net neutrality.

The TV analog would be if HBO paid Cox to make HBO free for all Cox customers.

From a strict NN perspective, I can see how this could be problematic as it unlevels the playing field. But I have no issue with it whatsoever since no end customer is negatively impacted directly by zero rating.


It would say it's an aspect of zero rating. How do we know Netflix is paying T-mobile? Or perhaps it's the other way around, and that the cost is embedded into T-Mobile's bill? So now, you've been paying for T-Mobile's Netflix bill no matter what. It's equivalent to getting a Celtics streaming channel "for free". But realistically, you're paying out of pocket and if there's a different Celtics channel that wants to get into the biz, it can't due to the inherent disadvantage it gets into.

The end customer will get negatively impacted where it counts: the pocketbook. It's the same issue we have had with bundling. Can't have cable unless you get these other channels (for free). It's 100% analogous and it will continue to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:14 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
It would say it's an aspect of zero rating. How do we know Netflix is paying T-mobile? Or perhaps it's the other way around, and that the cost is embedded into T-Mobile's bill? So now, you've been paying for T-Mobile's Netflix bill no matter what. It's equivalent to getting a Celtics streaming channel "for free". But realistically, you're paying out of pocket and if there's a different Celtics channel that wants to get into the biz, it can't due to the inherent disadvantage it gets into.


Who pays who is really sort of irrelevant when it comes to zero rating. I guess I shouldn't have used it in my example. Zero rating is simply when a particular service is provided to consumers with no data cap for that specific service.

Doesn't matter if Netflix pays T-Mobile or if T-Mobile is donating it out of the goodness of their hearts. Or if they are doing it in a move to stay competitive. So whether Netflix is paying T-Mobile or not, is ultimately a moot point.

So now we get to whether the practice of lifting data caps for a service is inherently anti-NN. And I agree with you -- if you're a true NN advocate you should be opposed to zero rating as it does violate the strictest definiton of neutrality. It does, I agree, create an uneven playing field.

I'm just not opposed to an uneven playing field. I'm only opposed to an absurdly uneven playing field and I don't think this does that. I mean, not everyone can afford to run a TV ad. But that's business baby!

tlim wrote:
The end customer will get negatively impacted where it counts: the pocketbook. It's the same issue we have had with bundling. Can't have cable unless you get these other channels (for free). It's 100% analogous and it will continue to happen.


If your #1 concern is the pocketbook of the end customer, shouldn't you be against NN? I'm thinking my cable bill, which is still high in a non-neutral cable world, is not going down if I'm given access to EVERY single network. If anything it will go up.

At the end of the day, I'm not overly concerned with the pocketbook of the end customer. I'm not concerned with zero rating. I'm concerned only with content blocking of lawful content but then, I'm not even concerned about that since the apocalyptic Internet world people have been painting has never actually existed even pre 2015 OIO.

Pretty much everything else, for now, I'm prepared to leave to market forces. And if the market shows a consistent and collective inability to behave, then I'm definitely open to the next step being heavier regulation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21876

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:24 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.


No it's not. That may be why they use ancient technology in very specific applications, but that is not why they spend $60 BILLION per year on aging technology that largely doesn't even work.

Veterans Affairs payroll system, SSA, and DOJ run on COBOL.

What is the critical system there that requires .... COBOL?!

Anyway, there is quote in the article I pasted above about how the federal government is DECADES behind the private sector.

That's why I don't want grandpa overseeing the next smartphone build.
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 4 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